Warning - Vast stupidity

[Double-S-]

You center your view on the character and press W. And it's not to do anything useful. Only so you are able to listen to what the rambling guy has to say.

I can appreciate what Half-Life was trying to do in leaving the player in control at all times. Good, great. But it's not "righter" or even necessarily better.

[Adam Adamant]

@ Baba: That's barely interactive at all! You're ruining the true potential of the internet forum! You willy head!

[Popcorn]

@ Baba: That's barely interactive at all! You're ruining the true potential of the internet forum! You willy head!

... Haha...?!

You center your view on the character and press W. And it's not to do anything useful. Only so you are able to listen to what the rambling guy has to say.

Elsewhere, you center your view on the enemy and click fire. It doesn't do anything, it just kills them. What are you trying to argue here?

[Double-S-]

Only the game would work just as well if I didn't have to do anything to listen to the guy talk, and my character just automatically followed him around.

[Adam Adamant]

Elsewhere, you center your view on the enemy and click fire. It doesn't do anything, it just kills them. What are you trying to argue here?

Come on. There's a large difference between pressing the button once for a long dialogue and shooting things in a battle.

[Protodude]

Well, I think Pop is right saying that cut-scenes hold games back from their "True Form", although I dont think all cut scenes are bad. Take Ico for instance, the game begins with a fairly short cut-scene, and ends the same way. I don't think this ruined the game at all; on the contrary, the opening cut-scene helped set the stage for the game.

[Esrever]

Only the game would work just as well if I didn't have to do anything to listen to the guy talk, and my character just automatically followed him around.

And it would work even better if it shot the enemies for you, too!

Look, I get what you're saying here. But even if not every single instance of direct control is totally riveting, the fact that you constantly have it is what the immersive overall feel of the game. One or two extra button presses is not going to rile up most people, especially when the strictly narrative sequences are as tightly paced and spaced out as they are in HL2.

Besides, the constant control of HL2 isn't the ONLY answer to storytelling in games. It's just one way that works. Cutscenes can work; even the guy who wrote the article agreed to that. But they don't work when they dominate the game. And there's no excuse for them to do so, because gigantic cutscenes are not the only way to present a complex story. There are so many other avenues that are barely explored, because developers seem to be more interested in making a film and a game than they are in finding a way to unite the two more closely.

Remember? Shenmue was an early attempt to rectify this, even though it was far from perfect. That was innovation. Longer and longer cutscenes is not, but that's what we're getting anyway.

[Double-S-]

Only the game would work just as well if I didn't have to do anything to listen to the guy talk, and my character just automatically followed him around.

And it would work even better if it shot the enemies for you, too!

Notice the "only". That means it would NOT work well if the game shot the enemies for me.

Look, I get what you're saying here. But even if not every single instance of direct control isn't totally riveting, the fact that you constantly have it is what the immersive overall feel of the game. One or two extra button presses is not going to rile up most people, especially when the strictly narrative sequences are as tightly paced and spaced out as they are in HL2.

Besides, the constant control of HL2 isn't the ONLY answer to storytelling in games. It's just one way that works. Cutscenes can work; even the guy who wrote the article agreed to that. But they don't work when they dominate the game. And there's no excuse for them to do so, because gigantic cutscenese are not the only way to present a complex story. It's just lazy, uncreative storytelling.

So something that's not creative is wrong? It has to be something new, otherwise it's automatically crappy?

[Esrever]

Whoop, I edited my post while you were responding. Sorry about that!

But in short... it's not "automatically" crappy, it's already crappy. Hours and hours on cutscenes were never a good thing, and it's just gotten worse as time has passed and they have grown longer and longer. The fact that developers are being uncreative is only bad because it means that their games continue to suck instead of improving.

[Double-S-]

True, cutscenes are just one way of conveying story, and yes there are plenty of other ways that have yet to be explored that most developers apparently have little to no interest in. Innovation is awesome and can lead to incredibly great things. But it doesn't mean that a game which uses older methods has to suck.

And I still hold that the guy who wrote the article is retarded. He complains about the cutscenes in GTA. They were, what, 30 seconds long each? And skippable? And he says nobody cares about the story because it's in cutscenes and the gameplay is so much better. He might seem right about the gameplay to some people (GTA bores me after 30 minutes), but the main reason nobody really cares about the story is that it's simply not that good. And nobody but black people could understand half of what anyone was saying. There's a difference between bad presentation, and plain bad-ness. And the cutscenes he credits as good are simply action segments, which are 100% identical to action scenes in films. At least in story/objective cut scenes, they're telling you stuff about what you are going to do.

[Green Gibbon!]

I didn't read the article (I've grown largely disinterested in what other people have to say about game theory unless they say it to my face), but I will say that an utter lack of cutscenes is not necessarily the ideal solution to every situation.

There are certain events and bits of information that simply cannot be conveyed any other way. These small chunks of non-interactive cutscene aren't a problem, particularly if you're utilizing them to convey something that you can't otherwise. This is especially important if narrative is a major element.

Personally, I also enjoy an occasional cutscene as just a "buffer". A moment to put down the controller and catch my breath, and perhaps learn interesting new things about the characters I am playing or the world I'm playing in.

The only instances I've found myself genuinely disinterested or annoyed by cutscenes is when I absolutely don't care about the story, which is, I think, a bigger problem than the cutscenes used to convey it.

[Green Gibbon!]

Oh yeah, one other instance they piss me off is when they drop you into a combat situation immediately afterward, then if you die, you have to sit through the cutscene every time until you successfully pass the challenge. But if I can hit "X" and skip it, I have no complaints.

[Zeta]

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

It's not interactive at all. The game isn't responding to your choices. It's no more interactive than saying "Hitting play on your DVD player makes this an interactive movie!" You're simply jiggling Freeman around while doing pre-scripted things.

Oh yeah, one other instance they piss me off is when they drop you into a combat situation immediately afterward, then if you die, you have to sit through the cutscene every time until you successfully pass the challenge. But if I can hit "X" and skip it, I have no complaints.

Yeah that pisses me off to.

Personally, I LIKE cutscenes. If it has a really good story, cutscenes help. If it has really good gameplay - cutscenes aren't going to hurt unless the story is rock-stupid.

[G.Silver]

You guys are missing the surprise conclusion of the article! The guy is not meaning to dismiss cut scenes, he's (initially) making the same argument I heard on TechTV of all places that people need to think about what they are doing with cut scenes and integrate them in properly gamey ways. If they're saying it on TechTV, then obviously we've ALL heard it before.

The good stuff is at the end--games with no story like Chess, Football, and Tetris go on forever and (barring additional play modes and roster updates) have no real need for sequels, and people can and do play them over and over, whereas cut scene-heavy, story-driven games have a tendency to be thought of as "over" as soon as they are beaten. He is suggesting that people consider the games "disposable" once beaten and it's on to the next game. He says cut scenes are encouraging our throw-away society to not only buy disposable razors and buy the latest car model every year, but rather than savoring games and learning their nuances through multiple playthroughs, we should be chuckin' 'em back to EB and getting on with the next one! One could even go so far as to say that cut scenes have killed the action and arcade genres, games that focus all their design into short but dense gameplay cannot be seen as a good value when you believe that a game is over when it's beaten and never needs to be played again!

The conclusion is not "cut scenes are a bad idea" (and I couldn't disagree more with that statement), it's that cut scenes have needlessly changed the perspective from which consumers view video games as products! Is it true? Is it for better or worse? What can be done about it? That's what this article is about.

[Green Gibbon!]

Now that's a far more interesting point, I think, but he's arguing not against the idea of cutscenes, but against the very idea of narrative. A narrative has a beginning and an end, and while a game can have nuances that draw the player back independent of story, if story is indeed an element, the game will have an end. Personally, I don't consider this as any inferior than an ongoing, storyless diversion such as Tetris. If it's a good story, as with a good book or movie, it's something you can still return to again and again -- if you've got the attention span to do so.

The problem of people viewing games as disposable has nothing to do with improper use of narrative or much less cutscenes. It's just a byproduct of the general public and its insatiable thirst for an ongoing stream of mediocrity. Seriously, how many versions of Tetris are they still releasing, even though the game itself by nature cannot evolve?

Once again, the problem is people. They don't care and when confronted with the fact that they don't care, they... don't care. The mainstream has soiled games, not vice versa.

[G.Silver]

We could blame Sony for luring the mainstream in. They soiled themselves! (that was supposed to be a urine joke)

[Popcorn]

Only the game would work just as well if I didn't have to do anything to listen to the guy talk, and my character just automatically followed him around.

First of all, the game wouldn't work as well at all-- considering the rest of the game lets you walk around freely, to have a moment where Gordon spontaneously gets a mind of his own would be horribly inappropriate. Secondly, what you're suggesting there isn't a game at all: it's a movie. When I buy a game, I'm not so much interested in watching a movie as I am in playing a game.

Come on. There's a large difference between pressing the button once for a long dialogue and shooting things in a battle.

In terms of control, there isn't. Half-Life 2 presents a simple overarching control scheme-- a means to interract with the game's universe-- that is persistent through every moment of the experience. Pressing buttons and listening to people talk is as much a part of the game as throwing boxes in peoples' faces: it's all integrated under the same uninterrupted system. If Double S finds the non-combat parts of the game boring, or whatever, then perhaps he should suggest that they are cut out rather than presented to him through a movie.

There are certain events and bits of information that simply cannot be conveyed any other way. These small chunks of non-interactive cutscene aren't a problem, particularly if you're utilizing them to convey something that you can't otherwise. This is especially important if narrative is a major element.

I think games ultimately have the ability to tell linear stories in a way that doesn't compromise the medium's strengths. Although I'll enjoy a cut scene-driven game, I really think that video games, as an inherently interactive medium, hold the potential for some stunningly unique storytelling that doesn't rely on frigid cut scenes to convey. If games require extended use of non-interactive sequences to tell their stories, then they're telling the wrong stories.

Personally, I also enjoy an occasional cutscene as just a "buffer". A moment to put down the controller and catch my breath, and perhaps learn interesting new things about the characters I am playing or the world I'm playing in.

I'm not sure about that. Although I think games have the capacity to legitimately use a degree of non-interactive elements, I can't help but feel cheated every time control is plucked out of my hands. One minute I'm Snake, the next I'm not-- isn't that inconsistent, if anything? It's certainly jarring, counter-intuitive... if I've meant to be Snake, why the hell does he keep doing all that stuff I'm pretty sure I didn't make him do? It's almost patronising.

A narrative has a beginning and an end, and while a game can have nuances that draw the player back independent of story, if story is indeed an element, the game will have an end. Personally, I don't consider this as any inferior than an ongoing, storyless diversion such as Tetris. If it's a good story, as with a good book or movie, it's something you can still return to again and again -- if you've got the attention span to do so.

Now that I will agree to. All of my favourite games are what this author would describe as 'disposable'-- but I don't think that's a problem at all, any moreso than books or movies are 'disposable'.

Pretty much all of my favourite games contain extended use of cut scenes, incidentally. I don't automatically dislike games that contain them-- but I'm definitely interested in seeing the medium develop into a state where it no longer needs them.

[Double-S-]

First of all, the game wouldn't work as well at all-- considering the rest of the game lets you walk around freely, to have a moment where Gordon spontaneously gets a mind of his own would be horribly inappropriate. Secondly, what you're suggesting there isn't a game at all: it's a movie. When I buy a game, I'm not so much interested in watching a movie as I am in playing a game.

Half-Life 2 presents a simple overarching control scheme-- a means to interract with the game's universe-- that is persistent through every moment of the experience. Pressing buttons and listening to people talk is as much a part of the game as throwing boxes in peoples' faces: it's all integrated under the same uninterrupted system. If Double S finds the non-combat parts of the game boring, or whatever, then perhaps he should suggest that they are cut out rather than presented to him through a movie.

If you find being in control at every single moment in every single event is necessary for your gaming experience, then fine... you'll have a blast with Half-Life. I, however, find little to no point in still being in control when all I'm doing is standing around, oftentimes with absolutely nothing at all to do which requires manual control... and yet I'm still required to have my hands ready in case the guy decides to move 10 feet or (slightly more interesting) tells me to do one of those "push that button" events.

And in ANY game which has a detailed story, there ARE going to be times when all you have to do is sit around and listen to it. No matter how contrived an activity the developer has for you to do, it's no better than being able to let go of the controller and listen.

I think games ultimately have the ability to tell linear stories in a way that doesn't compromise the medium's strengths. Although I'll enjoy a cut scene-driven game, I really think that video games, as an inherently interactive medium, hold the potential for some stunningly unique storytelling that doesn't rely on frigid cut scenes to convey. If games require extended use of non-interactive sequences to tell their stories, then they're telling the wrong stories.

Although I think games have the capacity to legitimately use a degree of non-interactive elements, I can't help but feel cheated every time control is plucked out of my hands. One minute I'm Snake, the next I'm not-- isn't that inconsistent, if anything? It's certainly jarring, counter-intuitive... if I've meant to be Snake, why the hell does he keep doing all that stuff I'm pretty sure I didn't make him do? It's almost patronising.

I think you might be missing one of the fundamentals for a lot of games - they ARE more like 3rd person stories. The majority of all stories are from a 3rd person viewpoint. I mean, what about games where you switch between characters and see different parts of the story. Are you a magical ghost who switches between them? Okay, that's a bad example. Maybe it's just me. I rarely ever see games as "I'm [main character]!!! Jawsome!", but rather as I'm just experiencing his story. I think it's mostly affected by games that have dialogue and the main character talks, but Half-Life still didn't get me to feel like I'm Gordon. I mean, when someone asks him a question, I can scream out all the weirdest answers ever, wave my mouse in circles and fire, but Freeman's still mute. Maybe when all games support voice recognition I'll find that style of game more entertaining.

Now that I will agree to. All of my favourite games are what this author would describe as 'disposable'-- but I don't think that's a problem at all, any moreso than books or movies are 'disposable'.

Pretty much all of my favourite games contain extended use of cut scenes, incidentally. I don't automatically dislike games that contain them-- but I'm definitely interested in seeing the medium develop into a state where it no longer needs them.

One of the coolest things about cutscenes is that they allow the characters to do stuff that they can't normally do in their preset animations. I don't see how you can eliminate them without getting rid of that facet. The QTEs in Shenmue I think are as close as you can get to an interactive "cutscene" which still lets the character do crazy stuff (like riding a motorcycle and drop-kicking thugs off theirs while balancing on the handlbars).

[Neo Yi]

Playing one too many RPGs, I've gotten used to long cutscenes. The thing is that unlike games of yesteryear, just about any game that has a story has cutscenes, especially the platform genre which was mainly run and jump with a short scene in the beginning and end. I welcome it because it adds a lot more. I guess I agree with GG and only dislike it if I don't generally give a crap.

Although I do get pissed if scenes are unskippable. I don't need to see the same thing for the 5th time everytime I die or turn on the game from the last save point and have no way of skipping it.
~Neo

[chriscaffee]

When being told a story you generally only want to hear the interesting parts because the boring parts are, well, boring. That's why we all skip to "Lobby Shooting Spree" whenever we throw The Matrix into our DVD players.

When interacting in a story you only want to interact with the interesting parts for the same reason. I don't think dialouge would be something interesting to interact with unless it was less passive.

From what I gather, in Half-Life, since Freeman never talks the dialouge is just as static as it would be in a cutscene. Actually come to think of it, the same thing occurs in XIII with all your flashbacks, but it would make sense that those are presented from the main character's veiwpoint. The boring parts where info is passed on is done through a "comic book" and it is much more interesting, IMO, then having to listen to a lecture.

Perhaps HL2 was moving in the right direction in terms of taking advantage of the medium, but I think that it took the wrong direction in terms of telling a story. There is a reason everyone got bored at the end of The Matrix Reloaded, and there was a hell of a lot of action.

I think that if dialouge or story info is going to be divulged by other characters to yours, it should be done in a similar style to KOTOR/2. The story is pretty dynamic depending on the choices you make, including the choices in dialouge. The dialouge even effects your character's abilities so it actually has an effect on gameplay.

[Frieza2000]

G.Silver and GG! point out something that's been bugging me for a long time. The last game I REALLY played, to the point of knowing it inside and out, was Perfect Dark. About then, it became exactly as you described. I play games to beat them now, not to enjoy them. I finish one game and move on to the next, partially because there's so many I want to play and I have little free time. I blame myself for this, not cut scenes or weak gameplay. I've just grown up and I can't spend forever on one game out of a million.

[Green Gibbon!]

Frieza just raised a good point here, too -- alot of the "disposable" thought stems from nostalgia of a time where you could only afford one or two games per year, so you played the living hell out of what you did have.

It's certainly jarring, counter-intuitive... if I've meant to be Snake, why the hell does he keep doing all that stuff I'm pretty sure I didn't make him do? It's almost patronising.

That comes back to the "freedom within confines" argument. Utter and total freedom to do whatever you want all the time is not only unfeasible, it just wouldn't be a whole lot of fun, at least not for any length of time. In order to maintain a structure, there have to be restrictions, and this is especially true when there's a story transpiring.

I understand what you're saying with the whole "other forms of progression" argument, but it's not the ideal solution for every situation. There is no such end-all solution. There are instances where, in order to maintain structure in story and sometimes even in gameplay (especially if they directly complement each other as they should), there have to be moments where the game says: "Okay, this character is doing this right now." Sometimes it's just the most effective and functional way to move things along. Freedom should not be at the sacrifice of structure, otherwise you don't have a game.

Obviously when such instances get to the point that you utterly feel like you're doing nothing but watching, it's a problem, but again, that's such an obvious complaint it's like saying "all games should have good control."

[Popcorn]

That comes back to the "freedom within confines" argument. Utter and total freedom to do whatever you want all the time is not only unfeasible, it just wouldn't be a whole lot of fun, at least not for any length of time. In order to maintain a structure, there have to be restrictions, and this is especially true when there's a story transpiring.

Wait: I didn't ask for 'utter and total freedom'. If I'm playing a game within a certain environment with certain controls, of course there are limitations and rules. Being allowed to control Snake all the time doesn't automatically remove all elements and structure.

Obviously when such instances get to the point that you utterly feel like you're doing nothing but watching, it's a problem, but again, that's such an obvious complaint it's like saying "all games should have good control."

With some games-- RPGs are the obvious example-- it gets to the point where the primary joy of playing the game is simply to see how the plot develops, as opposed to playing simply because playing itself is fun. The bit from FF7 that everyone remembers doesn't have anything to do with anything the player did at all. This sort of design strikes me as an odd application of the medium: the game itself becomes a hindrance to the telling of the story.

I spend a lot of my free time devising stories, and although I originally envisioned one of these stories to ideally manifest itself as an RPG, I've since gone off the idea because a character-driven narrative seems to me to be increasingly incompatible with an interactive medium. Giving the player control of the main character-- a character with goals, beliefs, personality traits and so on-- automatically renders some of the character's personality compromised, because, for example, it's not exactly in character for Snake to pretend to hump a corpse by tapping the X button a lot. The emotional impact of the narrative has a lot to lose through player intervention. So, yeah, one way of getting around this is to take control away from the player through non-interactive cut scenes and get them to sit through Otacon's tears without ruining it all by tranquilising him. If you ask me, that's mainly a cheap cheat that contradicts the very nature of the medium.

[Double-S-]

So how would you get the player to sit through and listen to Otacon's tears if they had complete control during the sequence? I think 9 out of 10 players probably WOULD either tranquilize him or just try to move to the next area.

Would you make Otacon invincible to tranquilizers and bullets and lock the player in the room? Or end the game if the player does either? Or maybe you could make a minigame for the player of Snake twiddling his thumbs?

Whatever happens, it's just as boring and "useless", if not moreso, than sitting through a cutscene. At least in a cutscene, you get dynamic camera views, flashbacks, or whatever.

[Popcorn]

So how would you get the player to sit through and listen to Otacon's tears if they had complete control during the sequence? I think 9 out of 10 players probably WOULD either tranquilize him or just try to move to the next area.

I'd write a different story.