Bodycount Dev: Bulletstorm Proves There Is a Market Outside of Call of Duty

[Mr Somewhere]

Bulletstorm was a success? I mean I quite liked it, but it didn't seem like it succeeded....at anything, really?

Except maybe at how to do Shooter Protagonists right? As much hate as Steven Blum gets, he voiced the protagonist well. Wasn't too obnoxiously talkative during battles; Was pretty funny; and succeeded in not making Bulletstorm too cutscene-infested like other games with voiced protagonists.

Blum gets hate? He's a dude.

And Bulletstorm was a lot of fun to play. What more did it need to do to succeed? It also managed an engaging plot. It was humerous and the writing and character development worked quite well. It didn't take itself too seriously and it was colourful.

Honestly, it's everything people have been asking for, yet they still moaned about it.

You seriously cannot please gamers. We just like to moan.

Personally I think it was one of the best lighthearted shooters I've ever played. It was certainly better than DNF and I don't see Serious Sam being that good.

Also, MOAR CUTSCENES No game suffers from too many cutscenes syndrome, not if the story is interesting.

Not even MGS4.

Really? But there are much more effective means of storytelling in games rather than relying on impersonal cut scenes. It's very much old hat at this stage.

Bullhockey.

A cutscene shouldn't be the only way a story is told, but when they're done right they can advance a certain plotpoint very quickely and effectively that would otherwise have taken a while to drop hints at during gameplay or simply wouldn't have been as effective in doing so.

A story should be told through a multitude of ways. Be it through backstory, ausiotapes, in game interactions and cutscenes.

They're terribly outdated. I don't play videogames to have the control taken off every so often. It simply kills pacing. I don't mind quick cuts, such as the kind used in the original Dead Space or such. I just think cut scenes are rather played out, there are much more effective ways of gleaning information. It's just weak, and not very involving, which is the very point of videogames. It's counter intuitive.
I play games to play games.
I watch movies to watch movies.

They are separate and should remain as such. None of this Heavy Rain nonsense.

At the risk of repeating myself.

Bullhockey.

If you don't want story driven games, don't play them.

A combination of good ingame story telling and cutscenes is the best way to tell a story in a game.

When did I say I didn't want to play story driven games? When I play a game it's (usually) for the story, if I'm interested, which, mind are few and far between.
There are much, much, much more effective means of telling a story.

Isn't it wiser to involve the player rather than just rely on a cutscene? I have no impact during a cutscene, it's a weak outdated method. Even giving the illusion of control during a scripted event can garner a more meaningful impact. Again, I think cutscenes are old hat.

You're neglecting the fact that giving the audience/player control diminuishes the directors/creators control.

How are you supposed to rely on the audience/player to know how and when to react with the same effect as a carefully planned and choreographed cutscene.

It's never going to have the same effect.

I have already mentioned scripted events, akin to Half Life 2. Or even moments in game as emphasis for the plot. Or the kinds of conversations you see in most modern western rpgs. There are much more meaningful ways to get the plot across. Look at the original Metroid Prime, sure it's peppered with short cut scenes, but they're minimal. The majority of the story was told through the environment. Cut scenes are used as an unimaginative crutch.
Too often you have to sit around and watch a cutscene.
Would you rather watch a cutscene in which you're shown a building crumble to pieces, or have it occur in game through a scripted event. There's much more meaning if you see it happen.

Compare Metroid Prime to Metroid Other M.

the original metroid had crap pacing and story telling.

I'm sorry, but nostalgia much? And other M is just a horrible game and story. You can't compare an absolutely shit example of cut scene story telling and proclaim all to be inferior.

And a building crummble doesn't have to be scripted if it doesn't advance the story. You're really picking at silly things here. A heavy story section, in which a large chunk of plot is explained or revealed simply doesn't work aswell without scripting. And quick time events or the ability to move your perspective doesn't change the fact that it's a cut scene.

All of what you say still isn't as effective as a good cinematic.

Try and convince me MGS4 could have worked any other way. It made an shite game epic.

I never said the original Metroid, I said Metroid Prime, totally different games. And nostalgia? Are you kidding me, the Prime is considered a damned modern classic.
Metal Gear Solid 4 was a fantastic game marred by a convoluted plot and abysmal stretches of ham-fisted cutscenes. You are not helping your case referring to that game.

So, you're telling me that pivotal plot points couldn't be orchestrated through naturalistic dialogue played out through gameplay? it's a much better method of exposition as opposed to the game halting info-dumps that were presented in Metal Gear Solid 4. In contrast you had a wealth of information presented by choice and at your leisure in Metroid Prime, the scanning mechanics of the game offered a naturalistic means of divulging the story and it's all totally optional.

You're still ignoring the fact that you give much more to the story through the game world. You don't need to awkwardly shove in information during cutscenes. I'm not saying that cutscenes should be totally abandoned, I'm saying that they need to be trimmed, I certainly don't want another bloated experience like Metal Gear.

 

[oldtaku]

I know some of you are being purposely po-faced stupid, but Bulletstorm is a very different game from Call of Duty even if they're both FPSes. You may as well say Half Minute Hero is the same game as Final Fantasy VIII since they're both RPGs.

Bulletstorm was all about the skill combos - replaying the same levels to get higher and higher scores with more and more outrageous kill multipliers. Like The Outfit wanted to do, but that blew it. There's nothing of Call of Duty in it except that you're shooting a gun.

That said, I'd agree with those of you who said it had too many cutscenes. For a game that didn't take itself seriously, sometimes it took itself way too seriously. And those cutscenes just got in the way of the action.

 

[oldtaku]

I know some of you are being purposely po-faced stupid, but Bulletstorm is a very different game from Call of Duty even if they're both FPSes.

Actually, on rereading these messages, let me be more (or is that less?) charitable here.

If you really did play try to Bulletstorm like Call of Duty it's no wonder you were disappointed.

 

[Mr Somewhere]

Bulletstorm was a success? I mean I quite liked it, but it didn't seem like it succeeded....at anything, really?

Except maybe at how to do Shooter Protagonists right? As much hate as Steven Blum gets, he voiced the protagonist well. Wasn't too obnoxiously talkative during battles; Was pretty funny; and succeeded in not making Bulletstorm too cutscene-infested like other games with voiced protagonists.

Blum gets hate? He's a dude.

And Bulletstorm was a lot of fun to play. What more did it need to do to succeed? It also managed an engaging plot. It was humerous and the writing and character development worked quite well. It didn't take itself too seriously and it was colourful.

Honestly, it's everything people have been asking for, yet they still moaned about it.

You seriously cannot please gamers. We just like to moan.

Personally I think it was one of the best lighthearted shooters I've ever played. It was certainly better than DNF and I don't see Serious Sam being that good.

Also, MOAR CUTSCENES No game suffers from too many cutscenes syndrome, not if the story is interesting.

Not even MGS4.

Really? But there are much more effective means of storytelling in games rather than relying on impersonal cut scenes. It's very much old hat at this stage.

Bullhockey.

A cutscene shouldn't be the only way a story is told, but when they're done right they can advance a certain plotpoint very quickely and effectively that would otherwise have taken a while to drop hints at during gameplay or simply wouldn't have been as effective in doing so.

A story should be told through a multitude of ways. Be it through backstory, ausiotapes, in game interactions and cutscenes.

They're terribly outdated. I don't play videogames to have the control taken off every so often. It simply kills pacing. I don't mind quick cuts, such as the kind used in the original Dead Space or such. I just think cut scenes are rather played out, there are much more effective ways of gleaning information. It's just weak, and not very involving, which is the very point of videogames. It's counter intuitive.
I play games to play games.
I watch movies to watch movies.

They are separate and should remain as such. None of this Heavy Rain nonsense.

At the risk of repeating myself.

Bullhockey.

If you don't want story driven games, don't play them.

A combination of good ingame story telling and cutscenes is the best way to tell a story in a game.

When did I say I didn't want to play story driven games? When I play a game it's (usually) for the story, if I'm interested, which, mind are few and far between.
There are much, much, much more effective means of telling a story.

Isn't it wiser to involve the player rather than just rely on a cutscene? I have no impact during a cutscene, it's a weak outdated method. Even giving the illusion of control during a scripted event can garner a more meaningful impact. Again, I think cutscenes are old hat.

You're neglecting the fact that giving the audience/player control diminuishes the directors/creators control.

How are you supposed to rely on the audience/player to know how and when to react with the same effect as a carefully planned and choreographed cutscene.

It's never going to have the same effect.

I have already mentioned scripted events, akin to Half Life 2. Or even moments in game as emphasis for the plot. Or the kinds of conversations you see in most modern western rpgs. There are much more meaningful ways to get the plot across. Look at the original Metroid Prime, sure it's peppered with short cut scenes, but they're minimal. The majority of the story was told through the environment. Cut scenes are used as an unimaginative crutch.
Too often you have to sit around and watch a cutscene.
Would you rather watch a cutscene in which you're shown a building crumble to pieces, or have it occur in game through a scripted event. There's much more meaning if you see it happen.

Compare Metroid Prime to Metroid Other M.

the original metroid had crap pacing and story telling.

I'm sorry, but nostalgia much? And other M is just a horrible game and story. You can't compare an absolutely shit example of cut scene story telling and proclaim all to be inferior.

And a building crummble doesn't have to be scripted if it doesn't advance the story. You're really picking at silly things here. A heavy story section, in which a large chunk of plot is explained or revealed simply doesn't work aswell without scripting. And quick time events or the ability to move your perspective doesn't change the fact that it's a cut scene.

All of what you say still isn't as effective as a good cinematic.

Try and convince me MGS4 could have worked any other way. It made an shite game epic.

I never said the original Metroid, I said Metroid Prime, totally different games. And nostalgia? Are you kidding me, the Prime is considered a damned modern classic.
Metal Gear Solid 4 was a fantastic game marred by a convoluted plot and abysmal stretches of ham-fisted cutscenes. You are not helping your case referring to that game.

So, you're telling me that pivotal plot points couldn't be orchestrated through naturalistic dialogue played out through gameplay? it's a much better method of exposition as opposed to the game halting info-dumps that were presented in Metal Gear Solid 4. In contrast you had a wealth of information presented by choice and at your leisure in Metroid Prime, the scanning mechanics of the game offered a naturalistic means of divulging the story and it's all totally optional.

You're still ignoring the fact that you give much more to the story through the game world. You don't need to awkwardly shove in information during cutscenes. I'm not saying that cutscenes should be totally abandoned, I'm saying that they need to be trimmed, I certainly don't want another bloated experience like Metal Gear.

Oh the gamecube one, I'd lost interest in the franchise by then to tell you the truth/

....... You joke? MGS4 is (as with all the others) an example of shite gameplay given a plot so good that it more than makes up for it.

I really can't say more.

No, you clearly don't read. I said that good story telling through gameplay is not enough. Neither did I say that pure cutscene was enough. You have to find a sweet mix. Story telling during the gameplay is what gives you the depth of a story. Stuff that can be done with audio logs. journal entries and in game character interactions. But when you need a specific scene to play out a certain way, or you want to emphasise a certain plot point or character development. You'd be completely retarded to dismiss pre-orchestrated artistic direction. You simply cannot capture the same cinematic impact that a cutscene can have in game yet. To argue otherwise is to misunderstand how a game is made.

Pre-rendering animation not only gives more depth to movement and expression, it allows for much more to go on as you're not requiring the engine to render large events on the fly. As good as games engines are getting. They're still nowhere near pre-rendered quality. Not even the frostbite 2 engine.

Metal Gear Solid 4 has an absoluetly ridiculous plot with fantastically engineered, layered gameplay, which, you never get to experience fully, because some many damned cutscenes are hammered into the game completely interrupting the flow of gameplay.

Audio logs and the rest aren't too great an example either, they never really fit the setting nor make any logical sense. If you had read carefully I had stated a disdain for the over reliance on cutscenes. Especially the bloated kind which have haunted the Metal Gear series. As for the pre-rendered animation, the difference is usually jarring. At this stage there's no real reason not to use in engine scenes, again I'm talking about a naturalistic style of story-telling as asides from a "cinematic" artificial kinds. The very words "cinematic" should be alien to videogames.
Again, I'm not talking about wholly replacing cutscenes, I'm saying again that it's old hat. Developers should really, really think about when they employ cutscenes. We should really look at logical methods more becoming of the medium.

Also, how are the methods I have mentioned not "pre-orchestrated artistic direction"? You're underestimating ability of videogames to push one on a deliberate path.

 

[Mr Somewhere]

Bulletstorm was a success? I mean I quite liked it, but it didn't seem like it succeeded....at anything, really?

Except maybe at how to do Shooter Protagonists right? As much hate as Steven Blum gets, he voiced the protagonist well. Wasn't too obnoxiously talkative during battles; Was pretty funny; and succeeded in not making Bulletstorm too cutscene-infested like other games with voiced protagonists.

Blum gets hate? He's a dude.

And Bulletstorm was a lot of fun to play. What more did it need to do to succeed? It also managed an engaging plot. It was humerous and the writing and character development worked quite well. It didn't take itself too seriously and it was colourful.

Honestly, it's everything people have been asking for, yet they still moaned about it.

You seriously cannot please gamers. We just like to moan.

Personally I think it was one of the best lighthearted shooters I've ever played. It was certainly better than DNF and I don't see Serious Sam being that good.

Also, MOAR CUTSCENES No game suffers from too many cutscenes syndrome, not if the story is interesting.

Not even MGS4.

Really? But there are much more effective means of storytelling in games rather than relying on impersonal cut scenes. It's very much old hat at this stage.

Bullhockey.

A cutscene shouldn't be the only way a story is told, but when they're done right they can advance a certain plotpoint very quickely and effectively that would otherwise have taken a while to drop hints at during gameplay or simply wouldn't have been as effective in doing so.

A story should be told through a multitude of ways. Be it through backstory, ausiotapes, in game interactions and cutscenes.

They're terribly outdated. I don't play videogames to have the control taken off every so often. It simply kills pacing. I don't mind quick cuts, such as the kind used in the original Dead Space or such. I just think cut scenes are rather played out, there are much more effective ways of gleaning information. It's just weak, and not very involving, which is the very point of videogames. It's counter intuitive.
I play games to play games.
I watch movies to watch movies.

They are separate and should remain as such. None of this Heavy Rain nonsense.

At the risk of repeating myself.

Bullhockey.

If you don't want story driven games, don't play them.

A combination of good ingame story telling and cutscenes is the best way to tell a story in a game.

When did I say I didn't want to play story driven games? When I play a game it's (usually) for the story, if I'm interested, which, mind are few and far between.
There are much, much, much more effective means of telling a story.

Isn't it wiser to involve the player rather than just rely on a cutscene? I have no impact during a cutscene, it's a weak outdated method. Even giving the illusion of control during a scripted event can garner a more meaningful impact. Again, I think cutscenes are old hat.

You're neglecting the fact that giving the audience/player control diminuishes the directors/creators control.

How are you supposed to rely on the audience/player to know how and when to react with the same effect as a carefully planned and choreographed cutscene.

It's never going to have the same effect.

I have already mentioned scripted events, akin to Half Life 2. Or even moments in game as emphasis for the plot. Or the kinds of conversations you see in most modern western rpgs. There are much more meaningful ways to get the plot across. Look at the original Metroid Prime, sure it's peppered with short cut scenes, but they're minimal. The majority of the story was told through the environment. Cut scenes are used as an unimaginative crutch.
Too often you have to sit around and watch a cutscene.
Would you rather watch a cutscene in which you're shown a building crumble to pieces, or have it occur in game through a scripted event. There's much more meaning if you see it happen.

Compare Metroid Prime to Metroid Other M.

the original metroid had crap pacing and story telling.

I'm sorry, but nostalgia much? And other M is just a horrible game and story. You can't compare an absolutely shit example of cut scene story telling and proclaim all to be inferior.

And a building crummble doesn't have to be scripted if it doesn't advance the story. You're really picking at silly things here. A heavy story section, in which a large chunk of plot is explained or revealed simply doesn't work aswell without scripting. And quick time events or the ability to move your perspective doesn't change the fact that it's a cut scene.

All of what you say still isn't as effective as a good cinematic.

Try and convince me MGS4 could have worked any other way. It made an shite game epic.

I never said the original Metroid, I said Metroid Prime, totally different games. And nostalgia? Are you kidding me, the Prime is considered a damned modern classic.
Metal Gear Solid 4 was a fantastic game marred by a convoluted plot and abysmal stretches of ham-fisted cutscenes. You are not helping your case referring to that game.

So, you're telling me that pivotal plot points couldn't be orchestrated through naturalistic dialogue played out through gameplay? it's a much better method of exposition as opposed to the game halting info-dumps that were presented in Metal Gear Solid 4. In contrast you had a wealth of information presented by choice and at your leisure in Metroid Prime, the scanning mechanics of the game offered a naturalistic means of divulging the story and it's all totally optional.

You're still ignoring the fact that you give much more to the story through the game world. You don't need to awkwardly shove in information during cutscenes. I'm not saying that cutscenes should be totally abandoned, I'm saying that they need to be trimmed, I certainly don't want another bloated experience like Metal Gear.

Oh the gamecube one, I'd lost interest in the franchise by then to tell you the truth/

....... You joke? MGS4 is (as with all the others) an example of shite gameplay given a plot so good that it more than makes up for it.

I really can't say more.

No, you clearly don't read. I said that good story telling through gameplay is not enough. Neither did I say that pure cutscene was enough. You have to find a sweet mix. Story telling during the gameplay is what gives you the depth of a story. Stuff that can be done with audio logs. journal entries and in game character interactions. But when you need a specific scene to play out a certain way, or you want to emphasise a certain plot point or character development. You'd be completely retarded to dismiss pre-orchestrated artistic direction. You simply cannot capture the same cinematic impact that a cutscene can have in game yet. To argue otherwise is to misunderstand how a game is made.

Pre-rendering animation not only gives more depth to movement and expression, it allows for much more to go on as you're not requiring the engine to render large events on the fly. As good as games engines are getting. They're still nowhere near pre-rendered quality. Not even the frostbite 2 engine.

Metal Gear Solid 4 has an absoluetly ridiculous plot with fantastically engineered, layered gameplay, which, you never get to experience fully, because some many damned cutscenes are hammered into the game completely interrupting the flow of gameplay.

Audio logs and the rest aren't too great an example either, they never really fit the setting nor make any logical sense. If you had read carefully I had stated a disdain for the over reliance on cutscenes. Especially the bloated kind which have haunted the Metal Gear series. As for the pre-rendered animation, the difference is usually jarring. At this stage there's no real reason not to use in engine scenes, again I'm talking about a naturalistic style of story-telling as asides from a "cinematic" artificial kinds. The very words "cinematic" should be alien to videogames.
Again, I'm not talking about wholly replacing cutscenes, I'm saying again that it's old hat. Developers should really, really think about when they employ cutscenes. We should really look at logical methods more becoming of the medium.

Also, how are the methods I have mentioned not "pre-orchestrated artistic direction"? You're underestimating ability of videogames to push one on a deliberate path.

MGS4 as with all other MGS games has ridiculously poor gameplay. It's childish and boring and really does not fit the games theme. The one saving grace MGS4 had was it's well told story.

You're being extremely pedantic.

Audio logs work great. They give large amounts of detail without interrupting gameflow.

You don't understand what I mean by pre-rendered and engine rendered. A games graphics don't have to shift in a cut scene. Games are at a point that a cutscene can use in game engine lighting and character models very well. What pre rendering means is that the game doesn't render the scene as you're playing. It can still be rendered using the engine and the models so there's no actual shift in graphical aesthetic. But larger events can happen and characters can be animated in a way that game mechanics wouldn't allow for... Because it's not being rendered by the games engine on your machine. It's been rendered before and being played back to you. Big difference.

Cinematic is the best way for visual story telling to go. It's by nature higher quality than something that is rendered on the fly because of the control over lighting, animation and camera angle.

There's no problem with cutscenes requiring limited player involvement. Such as QTE's or view shifting. But they are still pre rendered for the most part.

I'm not underestimating anything. You need to read up a little more on how games are made.

Pedantic? I'm sorry, if it doesn't fit the setting it just doesn't work. I'd question anything out of place, regardless of medium. The actually gameplay has been the only reason I've ever played a Metal Gear game. And how are the game mechanics childish?

I need to read up on how games are made? Again, I'm arguing that the over reliance of cutscenes (not the removal) are not fully suited to the medium. Just because it's tradition does not mean there isn't a better alternative. For example: QTE's are the bane of my existence, useless arbitrary sequences of random button presses which add nothing to the game itself. QTE's are perhaps the best illustration of a games reliance on cutscenes, why must I watch when I could be actually playing? When a cutscene has to employ methods to draw the attention of the player, that's a failure on part of the developer, QTE's are illustrative of a lazy developer.

 

[neonsword13-ops]

...I liked Bulletstorm.... A lot.

 

[Phantom Echo]

Bulletstorm was a success? I mean I quite liked it, but it didn't seem like it succeeded....at anything, really?

Except maybe at how to do Shooter Protagonists right? As much hate as Steven Blum gets, he voiced the protagonist well. Wasn't too obnoxiously talkative during battles; Was pretty funny; and succeeded in not making Bulletstorm too cutscene-infested like other games with voiced protagonists.

Blum gets hate? He's a dude.

And Bulletstorm was a lot of fun to play. What more did it need to do to succeed? It also managed an engaging plot. It was humerous and the writing and character development worked quite well. It didn't take itself too seriously and it was colourful.

Honestly, it's everything people have been asking for, yet they still moaned about it.

You seriously cannot please gamers. We just like to moan.

Personally I think it was one of the best lighthearted shooters I've ever played. It was certainly better than DNF and I don't see Serious Sam being that good.

Also, MOAR CUTSCENES No game suffers from too many cutscenes syndrome, not if the story is interesting.

Not even MGS4.

Really? But there are much more effective means of storytelling in games rather than relying on impersonal cut scenes. It's very much old hat at this stage.

Bullhockey.

A cutscene shouldn't be the only way a story is told, but when they're done right they can advance a certain plotpoint very quickely and effectively that would otherwise have taken a while to drop hints at during gameplay or simply wouldn't have been as effective in doing so.

A story should be told through a multitude of ways. Be it through backstory, ausiotapes, in game interactions and cutscenes.

They're terribly outdated. I don't play videogames to have the control taken off every so often. It simply kills pacing. I don't mind quick cuts, such as the kind used in the original Dead Space or such. I just think cut scenes are rather played out, there are much more effective ways of gleaning information. It's just weak, and not very involving, which is the very point of videogames. It's counter intuitive.
I play games to play games.
I watch movies to watch movies.

They are separate and should remain as such. None of this Heavy Rain nonsense.

I have to agree with what that other fellow said to you, on this.

You don't belong playing story-driven games if you're going to complain about the story DRIVING the gameplay at some point. It couldn't be much more plain if someone etched it into your forehead. If you're all about controlling every aspect of the game, play an RTS without any backstory... or go play something multi-player... because a good game with a good story can't AFFORD to just keep talking backstory into your ears through a conveniently acquired headset.

Cutscenes are but one of many methods of conveying the plot, and they have every bit as much place in the game as anything else. I wouldn't mind more 'interactive cutscenes' personally, but I see no reason nor validity to the claim that cutscenes are somehow 'outdated'.

I find more and more that the people who have an issue with cutscenes don't actually seem to have some kind of better solution. Then what? Would the entire plot of Halo be best conveyed by Cortana yapping in your ear the entire game through? Should RPG's just forgo the entire art of storytelling in favor of handing the player a big empty place to kill randomly spawning monsters?

If you've got a better solution, that doesn't actually -kill- the story of the game... let's have it. But I don't think you WANT story. You seem to want some kind of blank-slate game where the only thing that has any real control is you.

Actually, I don't think Fallout 3 or New Vegas have any real 'Cutscenes'...

... granted, Fallout 3 isn't what I would consider a 'marvel of Video-Game Storytelling' or anything... and New Vegas isn't even remotely what I would call a 'stable game'... but hell... since we were on the topic.

I guess I come across as being very pro-cutscene... but really... I like them. I always have. One just has to use them responsibly... like all other methods of storytelling device.


[edit:] I was typing this at apparently the same time as you... missing your clarification on the point. I have to agree that many games have become OVERLY reliant upon cutscenes... and this leads to the game feeling less like a game, and more like a long... slightly-interactive movie.

I can wholeheartedly say that games need to DIVERSIFY their means of telling a story... but by now means is the cut-scene obsolete. It has a very relevant part to play in the telling of a story, when used properly. When abused, it can very easily overpower the gameplay itself.

 

[Mr Somewhere]

Bulletstorm was a success? I mean I quite liked it, but it didn't seem like it succeeded....at anything, really?

Except maybe at how to do Shooter Protagonists right? As much hate as Steven Blum gets, he voiced the protagonist well. Wasn't too obnoxiously talkative during battles; Was pretty funny; and succeeded in not making Bulletstorm too cutscene-infested like other games with voiced protagonists.

Blum gets hate? He's a dude.

And Bulletstorm was a lot of fun to play. What more did it need to do to succeed? It also managed an engaging plot. It was humerous and the writing and character development worked quite well. It didn't take itself too seriously and it was colourful.

Honestly, it's everything people have been asking for, yet they still moaned about it.

You seriously cannot please gamers. We just like to moan.

Personally I think it was one of the best lighthearted shooters I've ever played. It was certainly better than DNF and I don't see Serious Sam being that good.

Also, MOAR CUTSCENES No game suffers from too many cutscenes syndrome, not if the story is interesting.

Not even MGS4.

Really? But there are much more effective means of storytelling in games rather than relying on impersonal cut scenes. It's very much old hat at this stage.

Bullhockey.

A cutscene shouldn't be the only way a story is told, but when they're done right they can advance a certain plotpoint very quickely and effectively that would otherwise have taken a while to drop hints at during gameplay or simply wouldn't have been as effective in doing so.

A story should be told through a multitude of ways. Be it through backstory, ausiotapes, in game interactions and cutscenes.

They're terribly outdated. I don't play videogames to have the control taken off every so often. It simply kills pacing. I don't mind quick cuts, such as the kind used in the original Dead Space or such. I just think cut scenes are rather played out, there are much more effective ways of gleaning information. It's just weak, and not very involving, which is the very point of videogames. It's counter intuitive.
I play games to play games.
I watch movies to watch movies.

They are separate and should remain as such. None of this Heavy Rain nonsense.

At the risk of repeating myself.

Bullhockey.

If you don't want story driven games, don't play them.

A combination of good ingame story telling and cutscenes is the best way to tell a story in a game.

When did I say I didn't want to play story driven games? When I play a game it's (usually) for the story, if I'm interested, which, mind are few and far between.
There are much, much, much more effective means of telling a story.

Isn't it wiser to involve the player rather than just rely on a cutscene? I have no impact during a cutscene, it's a weak outdated method. Even giving the illusion of control during a scripted event can garner a more meaningful impact. Again, I think cutscenes are old hat.

You're neglecting the fact that giving the audience/player control diminuishes the directors/creators control.

How are you supposed to rely on the audience/player to know how and when to react with the same effect as a carefully planned and choreographed cutscene.

It's never going to have the same effect.

I have already mentioned scripted events, akin to Half Life 2. Or even moments in game as emphasis for the plot. Or the kinds of conversations you see in most modern western rpgs. There are much more meaningful ways to get the plot across. Look at the original Metroid Prime, sure it's peppered with short cut scenes, but they're minimal. The majority of the story was told through the environment. Cut scenes are used as an unimaginative crutch.
Too often you have to sit around and watch a cutscene.
Would you rather watch a cutscene in which you're shown a building crumble to pieces, or have it occur in game through a scripted event. There's much more meaning if you see it happen.

Compare Metroid Prime to Metroid Other M.

the original metroid had crap pacing and story telling.

I'm sorry, but nostalgia much? And other M is just a horrible game and story. You can't compare an absolutely shit example of cut scene story telling and proclaim all to be inferior.

And a building crummble doesn't have to be scripted if it doesn't advance the story. You're really picking at silly things here. A heavy story section, in which a large chunk of plot is explained or revealed simply doesn't work aswell without scripting. And quick time events or the ability to move your perspective doesn't change the fact that it's a cut scene.

All of what you say still isn't as effective as a good cinematic.

Try and convince me MGS4 could have worked any other way. It made an shite game epic.

I never said the original Metroid, I said Metroid Prime, totally different games. And nostalgia? Are you kidding me, the Prime is considered a damned modern classic.
Metal Gear Solid 4 was a fantastic game marred by a convoluted plot and abysmal stretches of ham-fisted cutscenes. You are not helping your case referring to that game.

So, you're telling me that pivotal plot points couldn't be orchestrated through naturalistic dialogue played out through gameplay? it's a much better method of exposition as opposed to the game halting info-dumps that were presented in Metal Gear Solid 4. In contrast you had a wealth of information presented by choice and at your leisure in Metroid Prime, the scanning mechanics of the game offered a naturalistic means of divulging the story and it's all totally optional.

You're still ignoring the fact that you give much more to the story through the game world. You don't need to awkwardly shove in information during cutscenes. I'm not saying that cutscenes should be totally abandoned, I'm saying that they need to be trimmed, I certainly don't want another bloated experience like Metal Gear.

Oh the gamecube one, I'd lost interest in the franchise by then to tell you the truth/

....... You joke? MGS4 is (as with all the others) an example of shite gameplay given a plot so good that it more than makes up for it.

I really can't say more.

No, you clearly don't read. I said that good story telling through gameplay is not enough. Neither did I say that pure cutscene was enough. You have to find a sweet mix. Story telling during the gameplay is what gives you the depth of a story. Stuff that can be done with audio logs. journal entries and in game character interactions. But when you need a specific scene to play out a certain way, or you want to emphasise a certain plot point or character development. You'd be completely retarded to dismiss pre-orchestrated artistic direction. You simply cannot capture the same cinematic impact that a cutscene can have in game yet. To argue otherwise is to misunderstand how a game is made.

Pre-rendering animation not only gives more depth to movement and expression, it allows for much more to go on as you're not requiring the engine to render large events on the fly. As good as games engines are getting. They're still nowhere near pre-rendered quality. Not even the frostbite 2 engine.

Metal Gear Solid 4 has an absoluetly ridiculous plot with fantastically engineered, layered gameplay, which, you never get to experience fully, because some many damned cutscenes are hammered into the game completely interrupting the flow of gameplay.

Audio logs and the rest aren't too great an example either, they never really fit the setting nor make any logical sense. If you had read carefully I had stated a disdain for the over reliance on cutscenes. Especially the bloated kind which have haunted the Metal Gear series. As for the pre-rendered animation, the difference is usually jarring. At this stage there's no real reason not to use in engine scenes, again I'm talking about a naturalistic style of story-telling as asides from a "cinematic" artificial kinds. The very words "cinematic" should be alien to videogames.
Again, I'm not talking about wholly replacing cutscenes, I'm saying again that it's old hat. Developers should really, really think about when they employ cutscenes. We should really look at logical methods more becoming of the medium.

Also, how are the methods I have mentioned not "pre-orchestrated artistic direction"? You're underestimating ability of videogames to push one on a deliberate path.

MGS4 as with all other MGS games has ridiculously poor gameplay. It's childish and boring and really does not fit the games theme. The one saving grace MGS4 had was it's well told story.

You're being extremely pedantic.

Audio logs work great. They give large amounts of detail without interrupting gameflow.

You don't understand what I mean by pre-rendered and engine rendered. A games graphics don't have to shift in a cut scene. Games are at a point that a cutscene can use in game engine lighting and character models very well. What pre rendering means is that the game doesn't render the scene as you're playing. It can still be rendered using the engine and the models so there's no actual shift in graphical aesthetic. But larger events can happen and characters can be animated in a way that game mechanics wouldn't allow for... Because it's not being rendered by the games engine on your machine. It's been rendered before and being played back to you. Big difference.

Cinematic is the best way for visual story telling to go. It's by nature higher quality than something that is rendered on the fly because of the control over lighting, animation and camera angle.

There's no problem with cutscenes requiring limited player involvement. Such as QTE's or view shifting. But they are still pre rendered for the most part.

I'm not underestimating anything. You need to read up a little more on how games are made.

Pedantic? I'm sorry, if it doesn't fit the setting it just doesn't work. I'd question anything out of place, regardless of medium. The actually gameplay has been the only reason I've ever played a Metal Gear game. And how are the game mechanics childish?

I need to read up on how games are made? Again, I'm arguing that the over reliance of cutscenes (not the removal) are not fully suited to the medium. Just because it's tradition does not mean there isn't a better alternative. For example: QTE's are the bane of my existence, useless arbitrary sequences of random button presses which add nothing to the game itself. QTE's are perhaps the best illustration of a games reliance on cutscenes, why must I watch when I could be actually playing? When a cutscene has to employ methods to draw the attention of the player, that's a failure on part of the developer, QTE's are illustrative of a lazy developer.

It does fit the setting, you're simply wrong.


GIANT EXCLAMATION MARK Hmmm, supposes I'm now spotted?

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ huh, guess that must mean they're asleep. Thanks for the visual aid.

*crawl crawl crawl,* Quick, pull a box out. That'll foil them.

The first 2 splinter cell games were far superior stealth games, even if you have to have a bit of suspension of disbelief that enemies didn't just look for 3 glowing eyes.

Rite, I don't think I'm going to reply again, you're just ignoring what I'm saying and repeating the same thing even after I give you credible reasons for why you're wrong.

A bit of understanding about how pre-rendering and in game rendering would probably help you a little here. But I gather you're not interested.

QTE are fantastic. I really shouldn't have to explain this again, but it looks like I'm going to have to.

Pre-rendering a scene and asking the player for automated repsonses allows you to enter a whole different level of character animation. You simply can not achieve anything close to the level of detail and choreography in on the fly player controlled rendering as you can with previously rendered scenes.

I'm going to post a scene from GoWIII to prove my point.


Skip to 1:50.

That level of visceral action, character movement and camera work could not be achieved if the player was in full control. GoW is actually a fantastic game to illustrate my point. It blends cutscens almost seamlessly into the action and even allows the player to be feel as though they're a part of it.

It isn't lazy game design. You are just another Yhatzee parrot (which I'm sure you'll contest). It's good game design. And story telling benefits from it.

By the by, the box hardly ever works on anything above easy. And what of the expressive exclamation marks? It's direct and to the point.

Splinter Cell and Metal Gear are so wildly different in tone and style there's no point in comparing them.

A Yahtzee parrot, what a cheap way to dismiss everything I've said, and make baseless assumptions. God of War does not forgive the countless games that through cutscenes at you and pepper them with arbitrary button presses.

I'm aware of pre-rendered cutscenes, but none of this makes up for the fact that cut scenes are a crutch. There are far more creative means of involving the player. I've said this over and over. I honestly don't see what the problem is. I'm merely expressing a desire to see developers work around and deliver narrative in a more imaginative manner, not with more cutscenes.

I honestly don't want you to reply, not if you're going to throw a tantrum and start calling names, notice, how I did not resort to that. I was having a fun little argument, which, is the whole point of a forum.

Edit: As regards the voice logs. Yes, going around recording everything you utter, even your secrets into bite-sized logs that could be stolen at the drop of a hat, makes total sense. Arkham Asylum is the only game I can think of where the logs made any sense.

 

[Retardinator]

I find it funny how Bulletstorm, a supposedly fresh and innovative old-school FPS came out as second rate puss because it just decided to sit in the middle of the fun vs. modern shooter spectrum, while Black, a completely generic military FPS that decided to play it straight, came out as a solid console shooter.

 

[Mr Somewhere]

Bulletstorm was a success? I mean I quite liked it, but it didn't seem like it succeeded....at anything, really?

Except maybe at how to do Shooter Protagonists right? As much hate as Steven Blum gets, he voiced the protagonist well. Wasn't too obnoxiously talkative during battles; Was pretty funny; and succeeded in not making Bulletstorm too cutscene-infested like other games with voiced protagonists.

Blum gets hate? He's a dude.

And Bulletstorm was a lot of fun to play. What more did it need to do to succeed? It also managed an engaging plot. It was humerous and the writing and character development worked quite well. It didn't take itself too seriously and it was colourful.

Honestly, it's everything people have been asking for, yet they still moaned about it.

You seriously cannot please gamers. We just like to moan.

Personally I think it was one of the best lighthearted shooters I've ever played. It was certainly better than DNF and I don't see Serious Sam being that good.

Also, MOAR CUTSCENES No game suffers from too many cutscenes syndrome, not if the story is interesting.

Not even MGS4.

Really? But there are much more effective means of storytelling in games rather than relying on impersonal cut scenes. It's very much old hat at this stage.

Bullhockey.

A cutscene shouldn't be the only way a story is told, but when they're done right they can advance a certain plotpoint very quickely and effectively that would otherwise have taken a while to drop hints at during gameplay or simply wouldn't have been as effective in doing so.

A story should be told through a multitude of ways. Be it through backstory, ausiotapes, in game interactions and cutscenes.

They're terribly outdated. I don't play videogames to have the control taken off every so often. It simply kills pacing. I don't mind quick cuts, such as the kind used in the original Dead Space or such. I just think cut scenes are rather played out, there are much more effective ways of gleaning information. It's just weak, and not very involving, which is the very point of videogames. It's counter intuitive.
I play games to play games.
I watch movies to watch movies.

They are separate and should remain as such. None of this Heavy Rain nonsense.

I have to agree with what that other fellow said to you, on this.

You don't belong playing story-driven games if you're going to complain about the story DRIVING the gameplay at some point. It couldn't be much more plain if someone etched it into your forehead. If you're all about controlling every aspect of the game, play an RTS without any backstory... or go play something multi-player... because a good game with a good story can't AFFORD to just keep talking backstory into your ears through a conveniently acquired headset.

Cutscenes are but one of many methods of conveying the plot, and they have every bit as much place in the game as anything else. I wouldn't mind more 'interactive cutscenes' personally, but I see no reason nor validity to the claim that cutscenes are somehow 'outdated'.

I find more and more that the people who have an issue with cutscenes don't actually seem to have some kind of better solution. Then what? Would the entire plot of Halo be best conveyed by Cortana yapping in your ear the entire game through? Should RPG's just forgo the entire art of storytelling in favor of handing the player a big empty place to kill randomly spawning monsters?

If you've got a better solution, that doesn't actually -kill- the story of the game... let's have it. But I don't think you WANT story. You seem to want some kind of blank-slate game where the only thing that has any real control is you.

Actually, I don't think Fallout 3 or New Vegas have any real 'Cutscenes'...

... granted, Fallout 3 isn't what I would consider a 'marvel of Video-Game Storytelling' or anything... and New Vegas isn't even remotely what I would call a 'stable game'... but hell... since we were on the topic.

I guess I come across as being very pro-cutscene... but really... I like them. I always have. One just has to use them responsibly... like all other methods of storytelling device.


[edit:] I was typing this at apparently the same time as you... missing your clarification on the point. I have to agree that many games have become OVERLY reliant upon cutscenes... and this leads to the game feeling less like a game, and more like a long... slightly-interactive movie.

I can wholeheartedly say that games need to DIVERSIFY their means of telling a story... but by now means is the cut-scene obsolete. It has a very relevant part to play in the telling of a story, when used properly. When abused, it can very easily overpower the gameplay itself.

I've already stated that I'm fine with the use of cutscenes. I just don't think the industry needs to rely on MORE of them. I am talking about diversifying the method of telling a story. I just don't think we need to be so rigid and liberal with the use of cutscenes.
I'd like to see developers attempt more interesting methods of story-telling. I'll say it again, I am not proposing a total abolishment of cutscenes, I just think they've gotten out of hand, especially with a medium that can do so much more.

 

[Phantom Echo]

Edit: As regards the voice logs. Yes, going around recording everything you utter, even your secrets into bite-sized logs that could be stolen at the drop of a hat, makes total sense. Arkham Asylum is the only game I can think of where the logs made any sense.

This particularly annoys me.

It's one thing in a game like Fallout, previously mentioned, to have Voice and Data Logs which were abandoned or left sitting discarded after the world came to a crashing end.

But in the vast majority of games which have them... they make very little sense at all. They're always convenient... in -just- the right place when you need them... as if someone just accidentally left behind their diary for you to find and read EVERY time you needed to get the passcode to some locked door.

It's another story-telling method that needs to be used responsibly... and sadly... many games don't.

 

[Mr Somewhere]

Edit: As regards the voice logs. Yes, going around recording everything you utter, even your secrets into bite-sized logs that could be stolen at the drop of a hat, makes total sense. Arkham Asylum is the only game I can think of where the logs made any sense.

This particularly annoys me.

It's one thing in a game like Fallout, previously mentioned, to have Voice and Data Logs which were abandoned or left sitting discarded after the world came to a crashing end.

But in the vast majority of games which have them... they make very little sense at all. They're always convenient... in -just- the right place when you need them... as if someone just accidentally left behind their diary for you to find and read EVERY time you needed to get the passcode to some locked door.

It's another story-telling method that needs to be used responsibly... and sadly... many games don't.

Thank you, that's my point exactly.

 

[Phantom Echo]

So I think you and I actually agree a lot more than I did initially... you seem to be of the mind that game companies have all become utterly RELIANT upon cut-scenes to convey their stories, rather than expanding outward and finding new and unique methods to do so. In the post to which I responded, it came across more like you were against cut-scenes in general... but now I find myself inclined to think you are actually more in the 'burned-out-by-games-which-use-cut-scenes-as-an-excuse-to-make-up-for-less-than-engaging-story' and 'tired-of-every-game-with-a-plot-flooding-you-with-hours-of-unskippable-cut-scenes-every-ten-minutes' crowd.

And that's a very valid place to be, if I am drawing the right conclusion from your statements.

 

[Mr Somewhere]

Bulletstorm was a success? I mean I quite liked it, but it didn't seem like it succeeded....at anything, really?

Except maybe at how to do Shooter Protagonists right? As much hate as Steven Blum gets, he voiced the protagonist well. Wasn't too obnoxiously talkative during battles; Was pretty funny; and succeeded in not making Bulletstorm too cutscene-infested like other games with voiced protagonists.

Blum gets hate? He's a dude.

And Bulletstorm was a lot of fun to play. What more did it need to do to succeed? It also managed an engaging plot. It was humerous and the writing and character development worked quite well. It didn't take itself too seriously and it was colourful.

Honestly, it's everything people have been asking for, yet they still moaned about it.

You seriously cannot please gamers. We just like to moan.

Personally I think it was one of the best lighthearted shooters I've ever played. It was certainly better than DNF and I don't see Serious Sam being that good.

Also, MOAR CUTSCENES No game suffers from too many cutscenes syndrome, not if the story is interesting.

Not even MGS4.

Really? But there are much more effective means of storytelling in games rather than relying on impersonal cut scenes. It's very much old hat at this stage.

Bullhockey.

A cutscene shouldn't be the only way a story is told, but when they're done right they can advance a certain plotpoint very quickely and effectively that would otherwise have taken a while to drop hints at during gameplay or simply wouldn't have been as effective in doing so.

A story should be told through a multitude of ways. Be it through backstory, ausiotapes, in game interactions and cutscenes.

They're terribly outdated. I don't play videogames to have the control taken off every so often. It simply kills pacing. I don't mind quick cuts, such as the kind used in the original Dead Space or such. I just think cut scenes are rather played out, there are much more effective ways of gleaning information. It's just weak, and not very involving, which is the very point of videogames. It's counter intuitive.
I play games to play games.
I watch movies to watch movies.

They are separate and should remain as such. None of this Heavy Rain nonsense.

At the risk of repeating myself.

Bullhockey.

If you don't want story driven games, don't play them.

A combination of good ingame story telling and cutscenes is the best way to tell a story in a game.

When did I say I didn't want to play story driven games? When I play a game it's (usually) for the story, if I'm interested, which, mind are few and far between.
There are much, much, much more effective means of telling a story.

Isn't it wiser to involve the player rather than just rely on a cutscene? I have no impact during a cutscene, it's a weak outdated method. Even giving the illusion of control during a scripted event can garner a more meaningful impact. Again, I think cutscenes are old hat.

You're neglecting the fact that giving the audience/player control diminuishes the directors/creators control.

How are you supposed to rely on the audience/player to know how and when to react with the same effect as a carefully planned and choreographed cutscene.

It's never going to have the same effect.

I have already mentioned scripted events, akin to Half Life 2. Or even moments in game as emphasis for the plot. Or the kinds of conversations you see in most modern western rpgs. There are much more meaningful ways to get the plot across. Look at the original Metroid Prime, sure it's peppered with short cut scenes, but they're minimal. The majority of the story was told through the environment. Cut scenes are used as an unimaginative crutch.
Too often you have to sit around and watch a cutscene.
Would you rather watch a cutscene in which you're shown a building crumble to pieces, or have it occur in game through a scripted event. There's much more meaning if you see it happen.

Compare Metroid Prime to Metroid Other M.

the original metroid had crap pacing and story telling.

I'm sorry, but nostalgia much? And other M is just a horrible game and story. You can't compare an absolutely shit example of cut scene story telling and proclaim all to be inferior.

And a building crummble doesn't have to be scripted if it doesn't advance the story. You're really picking at silly things here. A heavy story section, in which a large chunk of plot is explained or revealed simply doesn't work aswell without scripting. And quick time events or the ability to move your perspective doesn't change the fact that it's a cut scene.

All of what you say still isn't as effective as a good cinematic.

Try and convince me MGS4 could have worked any other way. It made an shite game epic.

I never said the original Metroid, I said Metroid Prime, totally different games. And nostalgia? Are you kidding me, the Prime is considered a damned modern classic.
Metal Gear Solid 4 was a fantastic game marred by a convoluted plot and abysmal stretches of ham-fisted cutscenes. You are not helping your case referring to that game.

So, you're telling me that pivotal plot points couldn't be orchestrated through naturalistic dialogue played out through gameplay? it's a much better method of exposition as opposed to the game halting info-dumps that were presented in Metal Gear Solid 4. In contrast you had a wealth of information presented by choice and at your leisure in Metroid Prime, the scanning mechanics of the game offered a naturalistic means of divulging the story and it's all totally optional.

You're still ignoring the fact that you give much more to the story through the game world. You don't need to awkwardly shove in information during cutscenes. I'm not saying that cutscenes should be totally abandoned, I'm saying that they need to be trimmed, I certainly don't want another bloated experience like Metal Gear.

Oh the gamecube one, I'd lost interest in the franchise by then to tell you the truth/

....... You joke? MGS4 is (as with all the others) an example of shite gameplay given a plot so good that it more than makes up for it.

I really can't say more.

No, you clearly don't read. I said that good story telling through gameplay is not enough. Neither did I say that pure cutscene was enough. You have to find a sweet mix. Story telling during the gameplay is what gives you the depth of a story. Stuff that can be done with audio logs. journal entries and in game character interactions. But when you need a specific scene to play out a certain way, or you want to emphasise a certain plot point or character development. You'd be completely retarded to dismiss pre-orchestrated artistic direction. You simply cannot capture the same cinematic impact that a cutscene can have in game yet. To argue otherwise is to misunderstand how a game is made.

Pre-rendering animation not only gives more depth to movement and expression, it allows for much more to go on as you're not requiring the engine to render large events on the fly. As good as games engines are getting. They're still nowhere near pre-rendered quality. Not even the frostbite 2 engine.

Metal Gear Solid 4 has an absoluetly ridiculous plot with fantastically engineered, layered gameplay, which, you never get to experience fully, because some many damned cutscenes are hammered into the game completely interrupting the flow of gameplay.

Audio logs and the rest aren't too great an example either, they never really fit the setting nor make any logical sense. If you had read carefully I had stated a disdain for the over reliance on cutscenes. Especially the bloated kind which have haunted the Metal Gear series. As for the pre-rendered animation, the difference is usually jarring. At this stage there's no real reason not to use in engine scenes, again I'm talking about a naturalistic style of story-telling as asides from a "cinematic" artificial kinds. The very words "cinematic" should be alien to videogames.
Again, I'm not talking about wholly replacing cutscenes, I'm saying again that it's old hat. Developers should really, really think about when they employ cutscenes. We should really look at logical methods more becoming of the medium.

Also, how are the methods I have mentioned not "pre-orchestrated artistic direction"? You're underestimating ability of videogames to push one on a deliberate path.

MGS4 as with all other MGS games has ridiculously poor gameplay. It's childish and boring and really does not fit the games theme. The one saving grace MGS4 had was it's well told story.

You're being extremely pedantic.

Audio logs work great. They give large amounts of detail without interrupting gameflow.

You don't understand what I mean by pre-rendered and engine rendered. A games graphics don't have to shift in a cut scene. Games are at a point that a cutscene can use in game engine lighting and character models very well. What pre rendering means is that the game doesn't render the scene as you're playing. It can still be rendered using the engine and the models so there's no actual shift in graphical aesthetic. But larger events can happen and characters can be animated in a way that game mechanics wouldn't allow for... Because it's not being rendered by the games engine on your machine. It's been rendered before and being played back to you. Big difference.

Cinematic is the best way for visual story telling to go. It's by nature higher quality than something that is rendered on the fly because of the control over lighting, animation and camera angle.

There's no problem with cutscenes requiring limited player involvement. Such as QTE's or view shifting. But they are still pre rendered for the most part.

I'm not underestimating anything. You need to read up a little more on how games are made.

Pedantic? I'm sorry, if it doesn't fit the setting it just doesn't work. I'd question anything out of place, regardless of medium. The actually gameplay has been the only reason I've ever played a Metal Gear game. And how are the game mechanics childish?

I need to read up on how games are made? Again, I'm arguing that the over reliance of cutscenes (not the removal) are not fully suited to the medium. Just because it's tradition does not mean there isn't a better alternative. For example: QTE's are the bane of my existence, useless arbitrary sequences of random button presses which add nothing to the game itself. QTE's are perhaps the best illustration of a games reliance on cutscenes, why must I watch when I could be actually playing? When a cutscene has to employ methods to draw the attention of the player, that's a failure on part of the developer, QTE's are illustrative of a lazy developer.

It does fit the setting, you're simply wrong.


GIANT EXCLAMATION MARK Hmmm, supposes I'm now spotted?

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ huh, guess that must mean they're asleep. Thanks for the visual aid.

*crawl crawl crawl,* Quick, pull a box out. That'll foil them.

The first 2 splinter cell games were far superior stealth games, even if you have to have a bit of suspension of disbelief that enemies didn't just look for 3 glowing eyes.

Rite, I don't think I'm going to reply again, you're just ignoring what I'm saying and repeating the same thing even after I give you credible reasons for why you're wrong.

A bit of understanding about how pre-rendering and in game rendering would probably help you a little here. But I gather you're not interested.

QTE are fantastic. I really shouldn't have to explain this again, but it looks like I'm going to have to.

Pre-rendering a scene and asking the player for automated repsonses allows you to enter a whole different level of character animation. You simply can not achieve anything close to the level of detail and choreography in on the fly player controlled rendering as you can with previously rendered scenes.

I'm going to post a scene from GoWIII to prove my point.


Skip to 1:50.

That level of visceral action, character movement and camera work could not be achieved if the player was in full control. GoW is actually a fantastic game to illustrate my point. It blends cutscens almost seamlessly into the action and even allows the player to be feel as though they're a part of it.

It isn't lazy game design. You are just another Yhatzee parrot (which I'm sure you'll contest). It's good game design. And story telling benefits from it.

By the by, the box hardly ever works on anything above easy. And what of the expressive exclamation marks? It's direct and to the point.

Splinter Cell and Metal Gear are so wildly different in tone and style there's no point in comparing them.

A Yahtzee parrot, what a cheap way to dismiss everything I've said, and make baseless assumptions. God of War does not forgive the countless games that through cutscenes at you and pepper them with arbitrary button presses.

I'm aware of pre-rendered cutscenes, but none of this makes up for the fact that cut scenes are a crutch. There are far more creative means of involving the player. I've said this over and over. I honestly don't see what the problem is. I'm merely expressing a desire to see developers work around and deliver narrative in a more imaginative manner, not with more cutscenes.

I honestly don't want you to reply, not if you're going to throw a tantrum and start calling names, notice, how I did not resort to that. I was having a fun little argument, which, is the whole point of a forum.

No, you just ignore everything I say and make you're own strawman version of me up.

I never said all games that use cutscenes are great did I? Did I say that GoW excuses other lesser games? I said it's a fantastic illustration of my point... point being that you're wrong. Cutscenes are the most engaging and realistic way to illustrate certain aspects of a games story.

Whatever. This is pointless. You're not going to concede. This isn't a matter of opinion. You're wrong. You cannot achieve the same level of depth without cutscenes. You're just plain wrong.

Oh great, so we're throwing around the "strawman" eh?

Yes, yes you can. In film, we can have an unspoken worlds of thought by simply what is or is not on camera. In videogames we can do much more than cutscenes. We can see the world function around us, we can know the plight of a character without cutscenes. My point is simply this. There are more options, I'm merely arguing against the manner in which many games rely on cutscenes. That is it. I am not, not! Saying we need to rid ourselves of them. I'm saying that we do not, DO NOT, need more of them. It's that simple.
Half Life 2 during the opening Dr. Breen's messages to the people tell you everything you need to know, much more effectively than a cutscene. Simple touchs like that provide more of an experience to the player countless cutscenes.

Again, I am not talking about the removal of cutscenes, just a more creative manner of moving around them, we can still use them, but experimenting and creating a richer experience, making use of the interactive nature of games is a better idea. It's that simple.

This is the last time I will say it.
Cutscenes have their place. We do not need more. It would be of great benefit to work around them so that we needn't rely on them quite as much. A little innovation, that's all.

So one more time, I did not say I would eliminate cutscenes...

Good Bye

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

A combination of good ingame story telling and cutscenes is the best way to tell a story in a game.

No it certainly is not. It's a method for driving the story forward certainly, but interactive storytelling is far and away the best method, after all games are an interactive medium. Endless, unskippable cutscenes with or without QTEs are the lazy way of telling game stories Hollywood style. Telling the story without taking control away from the player is more immersive and more effective and makes the player part of the action, not a bystander to it.

*MAJOR SPOILERS - MAJOR SPOILERS*
Dialogue over FMV any day of the week. The last battle in Oblivion was masterful in this regard, allowing the player to roam freely while the commander gave his rallying speech with the great gate behind him. In Fallout 3 when the Wanderer's father/Liam Neeson dies while I'm running, screaming and hitting every button to open the damned door and powerless to do so, was a thousand times more effective than any cutscene could've been. Mass Effect when facing Saren, meeting the Prothean hologram or the Reaper vanguard hologram, controlling the coversation made ME a part of it.

As Somewhere said, if I want to watch a movie, I'll go and watch a movie.