A THEATER GAME IDEA

My Panto is based on FFVI; a very well known JRPG. Now, despite the game being heavy as hell on random combat, there's absolutely none of it in my project.
Why? Because the Panto is focussing 100% on the (primary) story and passing aside all random combat; the only fight scenes in it are the story-related and relevant ones from the game.

What separates it (and any other visual novel type game) from just making a movie/book is the fact that the way you interact with it is different altogether.
A movie you watch and listen to; but you do it at the pace of the movie. You can't take your time and listen to the BGM, you can't stop and watch the cool effects, or listen to the dialogue at a relaxing pace; its' set.

A book is at your own pace, but generally removes the visual and audio elements. You can read however you liek, and imagine it however you like, but that's simply all there is to it.

Visual Novels, and my Panto are different from all of them because it is a mix.
You can stop reading and listen to the music at will (saying that, part of the point of the Panto is that it uses ripped music from the SNES), the dialogue is in game form, so you can read at your own pace. You can watch the characters run around, fight, talk, animate and do all their emotions again, at your own pace, while still managing to take it everything.
And on top of that, you can put in interactive elements which I have done in the Panto: I fully agree that you should make the most of your medium.
If it's a movie, work the special effects. If it's a book, get the thesaurus out and be descriptive, and if it's a game, put in something interactive.

The point is that it can access more senses at once, at a different pace. If it was just a movie, it'd be completely different, the whole tone would change.

If you don't follow me, go try it: it only takes 25 mins to go through and is designed specifically to not just be a text dump or a book with pictures.

"Less interactivity" isn't "the way" to go for games, but the point is that you can make a game with less interactivity without harming the game.

--
Also, when I say about piling in gimmicks, I know full well that gimmicks can be a great thing, and they're what keeps things fresh. But the problem is when a gimmick is there for no other reason than for the sake of being there. A gimmick should contribute something or feel like it improves the game.

A pointless gimmick that's just there because the developer was worried there wasn't enough content is no different than adding cheese to a bowl of ice cream because you're worried that no one will like vanilla without strawberry sauce.

You're throwing definitions around there, alterego.

Yes, you may feel like there is something horribly wrong with a videogame with no gameplay. But...

Let's examine three pizzas.

The first is a white (no tomato) pizza. The second is a normal pizza with sauce and cheese. And the third is a vegan pizza with no cheese. Are all of these pizzas?

Compare this to games. We have the text-only rpg, with choices and monster battles (by description). We have the normal rpg with choices, graphics, and battles. And then we have a pure plot rpg which basically builds a world and tells a story with graphics and text (and possibly scripted battles). Are all of these games?

There is a wide range for creativity to come about, if you want to make something different. I've seen a few anime that tried experimental techniques (His And Her Circumstances), but I'd still call them anime.

Is it always better? Well, no, that largely depends on your ability to storytell. If you writing and action cannot capture the interest of the audience, it is that much more noticeable since there is no padding to protect the game. We're just giving up senseless wandering, grind, and fluff to make a 2D game much more like a novel or film.

author=bulmabriefs144
You're throwing definitions around there, alterego.

What you mention would be more in tune with me denying Text Adventures the status of games for making me read too much, or RPGs for making me watch long cut-scenes. But no matter how much I may dislike that, those are still games as long as they contain some form of gameplay in them. Gameplay is not just some arbitrary characteristic; It's the one thing that makes games, games! Just like whatever undeniable factor makes a Scotsman, a Scotsman. xP

The reason why someone would like to do something like a "movie" in game format is perhaps because they lack the skills or are too lazy to pick up Flash, or can't come up with decent game mechanics (senseless wandering, grind, and fluff? xD). In the most benign of cases, maybe they want to practice making cut-scenes, or share something with the community. But even then, there's little excuse not to try and do a tiny bit more. This is a game-making community, after all!
_
@Brady: I'll try your game today. That's odd, though, shouldn't the version that includes the RTP be the main download? ;P

Oh well. You can't convince everyone.

The reason I'm pushing this idea is because I've looked at my own game. It has okay mechanics (I figured out turn-based, and a few other things), but I realized in 10+ hours of play, less than 5% are actually cutscenes. The rest is grind, and maybe sidequest. And traveling the world map. Now, I worked fairly hard in developing the characters, but this means a ton of maps where nothing is said (so some of that goes out the window). Then there's the fact that in my effort to make the battles interesting and challenging, they will likely be so challenging for some that people likely will not finish the game so all the endgame story is lost. Ditto for puzzles, for anything but optional items. Will everyone be able to make their way through it? Or will they spend so long trying that they forget the plot?

(For this reason, my next game will likely be something experimental like this, since I'm outright tired of the battle balance consuming time I could be spending with building a good long yarn. So yea, maybe not choices to be sacrificed, but rather non-boss battles or maybe battles in general)

Snow Owl, it was such an epic conversation that it appeared in your dreams two years ago. Which is why you'll decide immediately to make some massive game to prove us all wrong. :)

@bulmabriefs144
Actually I made one of these "types" of games recently and it had a very similar conversation going on the gamepage to this one. Some of the people from this thread were the same ones too. I guess it's a hot topic.

I've heard some people say that they only played FFVII for the story, and thought of the battles as nuisances, something that hindered the story from progressing.
If you could make something that draw people in like FFVII did, I'm sure people would enjoy it, even without battles.
Either way, I think any of those 2 options could be good, depending on execution.

Also, my game is called Skinwalker.

Speaking of battles, I wonder if you could do a story based on the results of ONE battle. The hero gets involved in war (and have a rather large background leadup concerning the war in question), and either loses the battle (but survives), runs away, or kills someone. And the effects on his psyche from each decision comes out of this one battle.

Just finished all endings of Skinwalker. It's pretty good, though I'm only marginally interested in horror genre.

I'm currently experimenting with planned battles, having auto-events interrupted by battles but no experience (basically, emphasizing battle balance and puzzle bosses by keeping stats essentially the same except for armor/weapons).