Warning - Vast stupidity

[Double-S-]

Read <A HREF="http://slate.msn.com/id/2112744/" target="_blank">this</A> article. Be prepared to cringe.

[Esrever]

I'm going to go out on a limb and cautiously agree with him. I can count the number of games with really extensive, yet completely non-irritating cutscenes on one hand. I can think of a number of games with interesting stories and terrible gameplay, games that would have been better off as movies, games that just use the narrative format to pad out age-old, boring gameplay.

There are exceptions, of course, but this guy is exaggerating to make a point. The most engaging game narratives are the ones where the story is presented in an immersive way, rather than strictly observational one. Half Life 2 is the most obvious example of this, but there are others. Metroid Prime presents its admittedly basic story in a very interesting and interactive do-it-yourself detective kind of way. The Splinter Cell series is also pretty good about propelling the story along during the actual gameplay, too.

Sit-and-watch cut scenes can add some additional value and depth in small enough instances. I loved the addition at first, it was part of why I enjoyed Sonic Adventure. But the more elaborate and long-winded the storytelling gets the less this method is going to work in a supposedly interactive medium.

[Popcorn]

I totally and utterly agree with that article and am prepared to fight about it.

[Double-S-]

So you've played less than 5 good RPGs?

Maybe it's just me. Seeing as Shenmue is my favorite game "series" of all time, the #1 appeal being its story and cut-scenes.

[Popcorn]

So you've played less than 5 good RPGs?

Maybe it's just me. Seeing as Shenmue is my favorite game "series" of all time, the #1 appeal being its story and cut-scenes.

That's precisely why games, in a very ideal world, shouldn't have cut scenes in them: if your favourite bits are the bits you don't play, it means that, as a game, it's failed. It may have exceeded as an entertaining piece of media, but that's not the same thing.

[Double-S-]

What's the difference between a non-playable cutscene which deals out your story and objectives in any game, and a part in Half-Life where you're confined to a room with nothing to do but walk around while a guy talks to you, dealing out your story and objectives?

[Popcorn]

What's the difference between a non-playable cutscene which deals out your story and objectives in any game, and a part in Half-Life where you're confined to a room with nothing to do but walk around while a guy talks to you, dealing out your story and objectives?

They're talking to me instead of Gordon Freeman. What's the difference between a book and a game of chess?

[Double-S-]

I guess the fact that they call you "Gordon Freeman" doesn't break the illusion.

And chess doesn't have a story.

[Esrever]

What's the difference between a non-playable cutscene which deals out your story and objectives in any game, and a part in Half-Life where you're confined to a room with nothing to do but walk around while a guy talks to you, dealing out your story and objectives?

About 15 to 20 hours.

[Locit]

But the more elaborate and long-winded the storytelling gets the less this method is going to work in a supposedly interactive medium.

coughcoughXenogearscoughcough...


What? I have a cold... that types...

[Popcorn]

I guess the fact that they call you "Gordon Freeman" doesn't break the illusion.

I'm Gordon Freeman in HL2. You adopt the role of him in the game and your adoption of his role is never interrupted.

And chess doesn't have a story.

Sure it does. You could write a short story about every move you made.

[Adam Adamant]

I think there's a place for both types of game. Cut scenes have a place in more story driven games, they can be entertaining and further the plot more easily than in-game sequences. But more 'gamey' games could often do without them.

I think it's like all these things, if they're done well then they can be good, but just because they're often poor dosen't mean they're are bad as an element of games.

[Popcorn]

I think there's a place for both types of game. Cut scenes have a place in more story driven games, they can be entertaining and further the plot more easily than in-game sequences. But more 'gamey' games could often do without them.

I think it's like all these things, if they're done well then they can be good, but just because they're often poor dosen't mean they're are bad as an element of games.

I think that they're an element that holds games back from their 'true form', as t'were. I far and away believe that games can and should be used as a means of storytelling, but-- and this is the important bit-- the medium has a highly unique and precious means of doing it that no other format can offer. If you design a game around the use of cut scenes, you end up with a game that's 50% uninteractive, and that's poor use of the medium.

[Double-S-]

Half-Life never felt any more "player immersive" to me than any other game where I controlled a human. Maybe that's just me.

Wow, using mod powers to screw my posts with gayness is an excellent method of argumentation. Possibly the best I've ever seen. No really, it really emphasizes how right your opinion is. Seriously.

[Esrever]

I don't care if they are the best cut scenes in the world. If you are making a game and you want to include cut scenes that are so long and elaborate that they dominate the entire game, quit and make a movie instead. Because it would work better as a movie. I could replicate the effect of your game by watching the Matrix, pausing the film and every fight scene, playing solitaire over and over until I win, and then starting the movie again.

There is a place for elaborate storytelling in games... a huge place. And cut scenes can work in small enough doses. But the longer they get, the more intrusive and distracting they are. If you want to tell a story that ellaborate, you need to present it in a more creative way.

Half Life 2 does make you to observe certain "cutscenes," in that it locks you in a room while someone talks to you. But it never feels unnatural or forced, because you never lose control of your character. You are just put in a situation where your character's freedom of movement is being restricted in an organic way by the will of the other character. You can't progress without their help. But you still have as much freedom and control as Gordon himself would in that situation. He never says or does anything FOR you. Becuase of this, the transitions between these conversations and the actual "gameplay" are relatively seemless... in fact, one often interupts or accompanies the other directly.

It's still limited, but it's a huge step in the right direction... or at least, in one possible working direction.

[Adam Adamant]

Well I haven't played HL2, but I have experienced games when characters talk to you not in a cut scene (Half Life, Metal Gear Solid). And I find it worse, because you can't be part of the story, you can't be in the conversation or action properly. In a cutscene your character can gesture and move about, do dramatic things that aren't possible in the in-game world. It would be good if you could do them properly in-game, but you can't really in most games.

Just because games hold the unique position of being interactive dosen't mean they shouldn't mix that with passive elements. That's like saying films should be silent because they should take advantage of having pictures.

[Double-S-]

So, apparently it's "illegal" for a game to have a story with such depth and vastness that it needs cutscenes to convey it all. Cookie cutter plots are just as good as anything for games.

[Popcorn]

So, apparently it's "illegal" for a game to have a story with such depth and vastness that it needs cutscenes to convey it all. Cookie cutter plots are just as good as anything for games.

'Depth and vastness' do not require extended use of cut scenes to convey properly.

Just because games hold the unique position of being interactive dosen't mean they shouldn't mix that with passive elements. That's like saying films should be silent because they should take advantage of having pictures.

Well, no, it's not quite the same thing. It's just that designing an interactive game with heavy non-interactive elements defeats the purpose and main strength of the medium.

ANOTHER EDIT: It's more akin to saying that films shouldn't use images, only sounds.

[Baba O'Reily]

I like KOTOR for its gameplay, but the story is also quite good.

[Adam Adamant]

Yeah I s'pose.

EDIT: I don't think it's really like saying films should be silent or picture-less. I was stretching an analogy to make a point. I do agree that some games are uber-gay with their cut-scenes, especially MGS. And from what I've seen, HL2 does very well without them. But you can't say that no-games should have cut-scenes, especially lovely rpgs with lovely movie bits.

[chriscaffee]

Wow, using mod powers to screw my posts with gayness is an excellent method of argumentation. Possibly the best I've ever seen. No really, it really emphasizes how right your opinion is. Seriously.

I'M A PURPLE DUCK

I wondered what the fuck was going on there.

Anyway, I think cutscenes are fine in a game. The focus should be on the gameplay and if the story can be told within the part where you play and still be good, so much the better. If it can't, I don't mind putting the controller down every once in a while to take in some new information. Just so long as you can skip them the next time through.

There are problems with the story being told in the game that aren't being addressed. In XIII there is a particular sequence where you are escaping from a mental institute. The escape is entirely your doing, but the game forces you to do some innane and quite boring stuff before the dramatic escape. Point is, whether it's cutscenes or in the game itself, it it's done well it doesn't matter.

[Popcorn]

But you can't say that no-games should have cut-scenes, especially lovely rpgs with lovely movie bits.

Surely I can say that, especially since you just agreed with me?

[Double-S-]

Being in control of Gordon through a proverbial cutscene just made me MORE impatient to get on with playing the game, because there I was standing around, still holding my gun up, as rigid as ever, just waiting for the guy to finish telling me I need to kill the Combine, or flip that switch, so I could walk out the magically locked door. And I couldn't let go of my mouse or keyboard, either, because they guy might move around and I'd have to follow him in a barely interactive way.

Speaking of flipping stupid switches, being in control of every action didn't make the game more immersive. Some character saying Gordon hit that button. Fix that plug. Turn the wheel. All of which equated to walking over to a location that character was usually closer to to start with and pressing E. It's like how the bell-ringing in the Kowloon herb shop was really stupid in Shenmue II... except that was somewhat amusing for the way that Ren's hand was right next to the bell (explainable by that Ren's a conceited lazy bastard) and if you didn't, he would eventually get pissed off and do it himself.

[Popcorn]

And I couldn't let go of my mouse or keyboard, either, because they guy might move around and I'd have to follow him in a barely interactive way.

Speaking of flipping stupid switches, being in control of every action didn't make the game more immersive. Some character saying Gordon hit that button. Fix that plug. Turn the wheel. All of which equated to walking over to a location that character was usually closer to to start with and pressing E.

'Barely interactive'? How is hitting buttons and fixing plugs any less 'interactive' than the rest of the game?

[Baba O'Reily]

Now now. Let's not get riled up. Here, have some pornography:
http://www.lightspeedgalleries.com/fg/lss/002/013.jpg