lots of discussions going on, wow.

I try to respond to some parts that where, partially (unintended pun is still fun ), directed at me:

No, I don't expect every game dev to put tousands of labels on their games. And I am aware that I might be asking too much. Would I still welcome more explicit information on the exact nature of gameplay? Yes, of course! Having a reviewer call something good without mentioning his very own bias ("I think its brilliant, but then I am a big fan of Quicktime events!"), writing a review that is clearly only telling half of the story, having game descriptions from game devs that border on false adtvertisement because they are so vague could clearly be vastly improved without asking too much.

I have played Castlevania on the 16-bit consoles, I played it on the original playstation, and I even played one of the not-so-good versions on PS2. With that backstory, I was expecting an action Jump'n'run, with some RPG or Adventure elements. True, castlevanias were always different between the different versions, some where closer to RPGs or Action Brawlers than the original Jump'n'Run... still, I came to the franchise with something of an expectation based on the older titles.

Then I DID do my research on the games I bought. I always read reviews before buying anything. All of them failed to mention the staggering amount of QTE present in Lord of Shadows, most probably because it is expected in a story-driven game today (I object to that, though I don't play as many new games as I did 10-20 years ago).

So when I bought it, I expected it to be different to the versions I played before (Super Castlevania IV, SotN, Lament of sorrows), as there are hardly two Castlevanias which have identical gameplay (which is kind off why the franchise lived on for almost 30 years).

I expected more cutscenes and shiny-graphics-over-gameplay BS you get often with modern games. I hoped the reviews were right and that it would be less bland and boring as lament of sorrow was.

I was prepared that the Jump'n'Run of yore had grown up into a Brawler (to be fair, I haven't played a 3D jump'n'run yet that wasn't hugely annoying).

What I didn't expect was that the game would only let me play the Brawler I payed for for half the time. The other half was filled with cutscenes, stupid timing puzzles (the things in the swamp are completly nonsensical because of that... because of that swampy waters below him, the nimble and swift hero suddenly forgot to jump? Right...), and QTE only Boss battles.

Exactly when the hero has the chance to show off his ridicolous skills he normally has (an extending whip of stupid length, jumping and free running skills rivalling the Assasins in AC, insane combos and finishing moves), he gets glued to the ground and a simple timing puzzle appears before your eyes... from adrenaline inducing fighting action to anger inducing phone game puzzles in a split second.

So my disappointment comes from the combination of myself hating QTE, especially when they are mandatory, and fatal on a miss, forcing you to replay the section again, my expectations not being met both by the reviewers failing to mention the true nature of this game, and the gameplay split into two different games depending on which part of a level you play, the brawler part or the phone game part....

And of course my utter disappointment finding out that the exceptional jump'n'run of days past, that evolved into an exceptional sidescroller RPG (not mentioning the failed first few attempts at transferring this to the 3rd dimension) has become an utterly unexceptional story driven 3D fighting game, in its own way just as bland as the PS2 title that bored me so much 10 years ago. Shiny graphics and not much behind it. Sad that this is what reviewers call "a very good game" today....

Ok I had to revise this whole post (sorry if that's a problem). It's kind of hard to get to the point.

I don't know why the necessity to single out movie games was confusing. So if this really doesn't clear things up, let me know.

There are actually two major competing reasons.

1. Low interactivity (filler content)
2. Knowledge / accessibility gateways

I am focused on #1, movies are low interactivity.

The rules are pretty loose, legally we don't need to satisfy players. Morally, we do.

When it comes to the rule about satisfaction. Remember, respect the player.

Low-interactivity environment. Horseback rides for hours in sparse games is easy to cover in seconds with fast travel. Incredibly long cutscenes are also low-interactivity. Quicktime events are also low interactivity (when it's button mashing, it's a movie).

A counter example to respecting the player is a shmup brawler, to start the game you need to play an 8-hole course of golf under par.

The problem is not accessibility difficulty. But they aren't playing what they expected, they might even be bored.

Now based on #2

If you had to get a hole-in-one on the 8th hole, you've gone so far, I think it'd be impossible not to notice. Ridiculous feats are for achievement addicts.

Force players to play a hole of golf for every boss fight. Actually I recommend not doing that, unless the boss fights are trivial . If you want you could check what I said in the history when I was focused on golf. :P

Would it help if I gave an economically sound reason?

I think I'll give a marketing reason.

If you sell your game to the wrong audience, you get fewer sales and fewer repeat buyers. The idea of putting a final product on the market and hoping everyone values it for the hard work put in is unrealistic. Only the people who want a product will value it.

Usually customers buy things without knowing anything about it. They don't even know their own preferences. It's impossible to survey people and find out what the majority really want. Etc.

The reasons I give so far in the topic make it obvious that movie-like games need to be properly distributed so that movie lovers purchase them. Through proper consideration of what amount of interactivity enriches the content, and the type of media encompassing the game's lifespan, you can determine if you're playing a game or a movie.

Of course, this also proves ratings are useless. Two thirds of any game's audience will believe it's over-hyped. Here's some more food for thought.

Do you like chunky?

http://www.ted.com/talks/malcolm_gladwell_on_spaghetti_sauce

If enough effort went into accessibility, graphics, interactivity, and the story. Then, there wouldn't be an issue. Would there?

Accessibility. Option "hold button, never mash."

For the story, well. I think a book sold once or twice, that says it all. Books are ideas in words that have been strung together in an attractive way. So if you're not good at writing down ideas, you won't write a good one, you might think you do. But of course I watch extra credits, and you can't make a game based on a book, that's crazy, and a book based on a game would be crazy(?).

Pictures, are the visual version of ideas strung together. Need I say more? Yes. Respect ideas.

Here's the tricky one.

Think of interactivity as an extra dimension. Yet even outside of games and reality, we find interactivity. It's our imagination.

Novels aren't necessarily good, or share new ideas. They give the reader an idea of their surroundings, and the authors who do this at the right moment enable you to picture yourself there, in that dimension of interactivity. 3d games eliminate the necessity for imagination, but we can still have opportunities when interactivity is presented. 3D objects also add extra opportunities for programming interactivity, meaning you can enter that extra dimension.

A 3D movie lowers the interactivity back to 2D, funny enough.

A 2D movie is still 2D.

If you're reacting to a quicktime event, you aren't even paying attention, because you want to win, so that's like 1D gameplay. The player is going to suffer as their existence is narrowed down to one dimension.

Horror games are really enjoying voyeurism to great success thanks.

I'm exaggerating a little, maybe.

Of course, you can keep movies incredibly short and skip this entirely. Or put interactive elements on the screen while a movie plays, and reveal many great ideas that appeal to your audience. You're not cutting corners when you eliminate the need to. I think it'll be noticeable.