Cutscenes Are Gaming's "Failure State," Says THQ Exec

[Hitman Dread]

But if your goal is to tell a compelling story in a game

exactly, "in a game" not in a movie. If the story is told through cut scenes then the game doesn't hold the story, the movie part of the disc does.

 

[rsvp42]

But if your goal is to tell a compelling story in a game

exactly, "in a game" not in a movie. If the story is told through cut scenes then the game doesn't hold the story, the movie part of the disc does.

I choose not to draw such hard lines between the mediums. The final product is what matters, not adhering to some dogmatic idea that games must be purely "games" (whatever that even means). If film techniques help tell the story and the player finds them enjoyable and compelling, then who cares? It's about the totality of the experience.

I agree that too many cutscenes can drag down a game, but that's no reason to exclude them entirely.

 

[Evil Tim]

That never bothered me in the least. I've never had any problem immersing myself in the role of Gordon Freeman and yet still feeling that that was my arm attached to the gun. I'm able to forget that in all actuality it's a disembodied arm only visible from certain angles floating around in space.

Well yes, but it's kind of hard to believe that Alyx could feel genuine affection for a strange, silent, angry creature that roams around smashing stuff with a crowbar just because it can.

As children, we didn't pretend to be nobody; we pretended to be Batman, Spiderman, Optimus Prime, whoever. Not because we thought we were them, but because we wanted to be them. Granted, not everyone wanted to be the same person, but imagine a Transformers game where you just played as a random, silent robot with no backstory: the first thing you'd say is "why can't I be Optimus Prime?"

Making a character I care about and want to see succeed is a much more satisfying path to immersing me than simply not creating a character at all: do you really care if Gordon fails at something? If he died and you got a new player character, would you really even notice without them telling you?

I actually like Alyx, so I see no problem there. Also, you managed to get the gnome to the rocket facility? It always falls out of the Charger when I try...maybe I do too many handbrake turns?

I must say Episode 2 exceeded my tolerance for Antlions to the point I've never yet bothered to finish it (certain people might be able to tell you some of the games I have bothered to finish). I never liked them to begin with and yaaaaay a whole multi-level segment full of the bastarding things.

I've asked myself that several times. In the end, though, it's Valve's canon, and that's what Valve wants with the canon. They must be doing something right, too, because Freeman is one of the most popular protagonists in PC gaming full stop.

Popularity isn't really a good measure of success; if it was, we'd all be happily awaiting Michael Bay fucking up Transformers 3 like he did the last two, because they made loads of money.

I've often questioned why I had to push forward when there's five or six other people there. Doesn't matter what game. But then I see them try it and get pulverized. It's just something unique to gaming I guess. Wouldn't be much of a game if we didn't have to do anything and could rely on the AI to handle things for us, after all. It'd just be an overly expensive ten hour movie where we had to walk through the set.

Actually, that's another thing I've never been fond of; I don't like feeling like the only useful person in the world. Sure, the AI can't do everything, but the game ought to be trying to convince me they're doing something, even if I'm the one needed to make the difference between victory and defeat. I've never liked those plotlines where everything is screwed because humanity is stupid and only you can perform even the simplest tasks without sawing off your own head.

So sure, you're the one who has to push forward, but they could at least follow you or cover you rather than hiding behind a bus having a cigarette and giggling that Ramirez has to do everything for the eighty-fifth time, or give me the feeling that they're doing something over there while I do my thing over here.

HL2 has a particular problem with this since half the time you're asked to believe that the Combine are a genuine menance and the other half that they're ridiculous pratfalling clowns who like standing on rickety wooden structures, humping explosive barrels or fastroping right in front of moving vehicles. There's often the disagreeable sensation that the only reason they haven't been defeated already is that Gordon is the first person who could be bothered.

That's the thing...he is applying that. Or, should I say, the player is.

Yeah, the player does things, but we never really learn why people expect these things of Gordon in the first place; he doesn't exactly raise his hand, he just walks into the scene and suddenly everyone's like "hey, it's Gordon, he'll fix our shit." Why do people think of him that way? We don't really know; certainly, he doesn't volunteer in any way but by existing. It's weird to have characters react to a nerdy-looking man with a PhD by handing him a rocket launcher and telling him to shoot down that Combine gunship that's been bothering everyone.

 

[Samurai Goomba]

When I play a game that forces me onto another character I never can quite get fully immersed. There's always that little light in the back of my mind going "Why did <insert space marine #58 billion's name here> do that?". Sometimes I'll scream out "Dammit do what I tell you to do!". That's a classic sign I'm not immersed in a game when I'm yelling at someone because they didn't do what I told them to do. I shouldn't be telling them to do anything, I should be them. When Dr Freeman misjumps it's never "Dammit, Gordon, I didn't tell you to brain yourself on that rocket", it's always "Dammit I didn't want to do that..."

I wanted to pick out this piece of your position because I kind of understand what you're saying but disagree with it vehemently. While, IN GAMEPLAY, your character should of course often do what you tell him to and never kill you because of poor controls or mechanics, I believe a big part of immersion in games is player/player character conflict.

Two examples: Chrono Trigger and The Darkness

I'm going to be a jerk and outright spoil the big twist of Chrono Trigger, but if you haven't played this game by now you have no excuse. It's still great, but let's talk about the twist.

See, Crono dies. Now, this is something the player would NEVER order him to do. EVER. Because he dies FOR GOOD. You can actually finish the game with him dead. Name any other game ever made in the history of ever where the player would freely choose to kill the main character when there is even the slightest chance he can't be saved (and as far as you know at that point, he CANNOT be saved.

Chrono Trigger (the game) outright forces you to kill Crono. It is the only meaningful thing you can do in the room where you are given control. Crono is making a decision you would probably not make in the context of a GAME, but which you might in the context of a NARRATIVE. He is sacrificing himself for his friends. He is a silent protagonist, but he is acting upon his world and leaving an impact in a way Freeman never would. Nobody told him to do this, nobody expects it from him and he has no reason to expect this process to be reversible. How many players at this point in the game on 2nd or 3rd playthroughs just sat there for a while, knowing death was inevitable but unwilling to even temporarily give up the best character in the game? That is immersive.

My next example is The Darkness. If you didn't know, Jackie Estacado shares his body with a malevolent force known as the *title of game.* Jackie isn't a blank slate-he has things he wants. But the player realizes very early on that there's a conflict between what Jackie wants and what Mike Patton (voice of title character) wants. The conflict between The Darkness and Jackie is also a conflict between the player and The Darkness. The most painful and dramatic parts of the narrative are where The Darkness literally holds you in place and makes you watch something horrible (made more horrific because of some truly excellent character acting). The game often forces your character to do or not do certain things to demonstrate your limited control over your fate, and perhaps inspire you to, like Jackie, wish to be rid of pesky old Mike Patton.

One of the interesting things about a game is the viewer has control, and one of the most interesting things games can do in the context of narrative is screw with that control. Shadow of the Colossus gives you the ability to destroy Colossi and traverse terrain, but you never get to make the one choice that drives the narrative. Why? Because your character is not you. No matter how much it hurts him, he will not make the correct decision about his loss, and neither can you.

 

[Evil Tim]

Shadow of the Colossus gives you the ability to destroy Colossi and traverse terrain, but you never get to make the one choice that drives the narrative. Why? Because your character is not you. No matter how much it hurts him, he will not make the correct decision about his loss, and neither can you.

I always thought the point was a little different to that; he knows why he's doing what he's doing, but you don't; like him, you don't care about the consequences at first because you accept that it's a standard narrative; kill the monsters, save the princess. It's only as you see what it's doing to Wander that you get the disconnect the game is built around; not that Wander made the wrong choice, but that you, the player, don't know what that choice was or whether he was right to make it.

In the beginning we walk in calm to a beautiful temple and speak with a wise, ancient creature who gives us a task. In the climax, we find Wander standing in front of an insane, burning mountain of hatred, haggard and worn and sorrowful, and we realise we have absolutely no idea what's going to happen if we succeed. We never asked, because we never imagined there was a question. He knew all along what he had to do, and now, against all odds, he's going to do it.

 

[Wade Knapik]

I am on Bilson's side when it comes to cutscenes. It is a position I have slowly moved into. In the PS1 days, cutscenes were often of much better quality than the ingame graphics, and were a nice reward after a challenging gameplay section. Graphics have improved since then though. It seems to me that the CGI in the cutscenes isn't much better than the standard graphics or they just use the same graphic engine.

I also don't like having control being taken away from me. Even just being able to move the camera(Half Life 2) helps and makes it more immersive. When you talk to someone in real life, you don't just stand there and stare straight ahead, unmoving. Sometimes you glance around. Maybe you fidget a little or shift your weight around. For this fact, static cut scenes pull me out of a game every time now. Also, for example, when fighting a boss and the game breaks to a cutscene to show your character delivering the final blow, I get irritated. Maybe I wanted to do that and not just watch it. Don't let me do all the work and rob me of the satisfaction of finishing the boss off.

I saw someone mention Red Dead redemption. RDR is a great game, but I liked getting the story while riding my horse/carriage to the next checkpoint better than getting it from the cutscenes. Once more, it was more immersive to me.

Just opinions here. I have no issues with those who enjoy them. The point about having control taken away is the main sticking point for me.

 

[Samurai Goomba]

Shadow of the Colossus gives you the ability to destroy Colossi and traverse terrain, but you never get to make the one choice that drives the narrative. Why? Because your character is not you. No matter how much it hurts him, he will not make the correct decision about his loss, and neither can you.

I always thought the point was a little different to that; he knows why he's doing what he's doing, but you don't; like him, you don't care about the consequences at first because you accept that it's a standard narrative; kill the monsters, save the princess. It's only as you see what it's doing to Wander that you get the disconnect the game is built around; not that Wander made the wrong choice, but that you, the player, don't know what that choice was or whether he was right to make it.

In the beginning we walk in calm to a beautiful temple and speak with a wise, ancient creature who gives us a task. In the climax, we find Wander standing in front of an insane, burning mountain of hatred, haggard and worn and sorrowful, and we realise we have absolutely no idea what's going to happen if we succeed. We never asked, because we never imagined there was a question. He knew all along what he had to do, and now, against all odds, he's going to do it.

Well, I always interpreted his decision as the "wrong" one, even though I suppose things worked out for him the way he wanted, even though he couldn't possibly have planned the entire sequence of events. The fact he kept getting stabbed in the heart by tentacles of what can only be described as either squid ink or pure elemental evil and becoming corrupted by it suggested to me that he might be on the wrong path. The traditional Faustian deal doesn't usually end well for the guy making it.

I mean, yeah, he always knew what he wanted to do, but I feel like he wasn't sure what would actually be the result. And like I said, he may have gotten what he wanted, but I don't see how he was proven justified in his quest, even by his standards, since he couldn't possibly have foreseen that outcome. My interpretation is he got lucky in the end.

Spoiler

I mean, I see no reason why Dormin couldn't have just killed the girl. And she doesn't even revive until after Dormin is sealed away, so who's to say he even was the one to resurrect her and not, say, the act of him being purified? Maybe he indirectly caused her death somehow (although that seems unlikely.)

 

[Atmos Duality]

What MR. THQ fails to mention:
Cutscenes can be used to give the player a breather, in terms of game flow.
They can put the controller down and take in the situation, then possibly feel motivated when gameplay resumes.

It isn't a death-knell to immersion or gameplay, and I disagree that every game should be emulating Half Life 2's "low/no-cutscene" style. There are places where cutscenes can better tell the story than a first-person camera.

The problem isn't with cutscenes themselves, but the fact that most cutscenes are poorly developed, or involve the player's character doing things he/she normally cannot do at all in gameplay (Again, I can call upon Dirge of Cerberus here; Vincent can leap over 200 feet into the air to snipe an attack helicopter, but can't leap over a 4 foot fence in game), which in turn makes the player possibly feel cheated.

 

[Hitman Dread]

Now, this is something the player would NEVER order him to do. EVER. Because he dies FOR GOOD. You can actually finish the game with him dead. Name any other game ever made in the history of ever where the player would freely choose to kill the main character when there is even the slightest chance he can't be saved (and as far as you know at that point, he CANNOT be saved.

A game is as much as the decisions you CAN make as the decisions you CAN'T make. This has been true since the age of board games. If you are put into a desperate situation where he must die, and you have no other choice, that's a moment of gameplay where he must die. RPGs do this a lot actually, put you in a battle that you HAVE to lose and nothing you can do will prevent it.

 

[Evil Tim]

Spoiler

I mean, I see no reason why Dormin couldn't have just killed the girl. And she doesn't even revive until after Dormin is sealed away, so who's to say he even was the one to resurrect her and not, say, the act of him being purified? Maybe he indirectly caused her death somehow (although that seems unlikely.)

I think the thing is, you're taking your assumptions about what Dormin is based purely on what he looks like, which is kinda what the game is about not doing.

Spoiler

After all, Dormin never lies to Wander, never tries to decieve him, and only doesn't elaborate because Wander clearly doesn't care what the consequences of his quest are. Dormin's a big black scary thingy, but he's never a bad big black scary thingy, and the only person he seems to have it in for is Eamon, which probably has something to do with the whole part where he was left to watch his body wandering mindlessly around in pieces for thousands of years; that'd make anyone cranky.

Like assuming the game wanted you to slay monsters and rescue the princess, I think assuming Dormin is some sort of devil is over-simplifying a complex situation; he has every right to be angry for what was done to him, and we don't know what he would have done after he'd killed Eamon; take revenge on the world, or just try to re-make the civilisation that obviously once existed in the forbidden valley; he can bring the dead back to life, after all. And even in death he kept his word to Wander. Sure, his essence alters Wander's body, but I didn't see it as corruption, more the inevitable result of trying to put 50 gallons of God into a 5 fluid ounce mortal.

 

[Woodsey]

Considering RPS said they barely felt in control playing Homefront (during their 3-level long preview) I don't think this guy should be choosing this specific moment to come and teach everyone else how to do things.

Anyway, some games work best with cutscenes, others don't.

 

[Doc Cannon]

I agree with this guy. I got infuriated by having control taken from me while playing Bulletstorm two days ago. If advancing the story requires the guy talking into his headset every 3 seconds and the camera zooming in to show you Michael Bay stuff between each shootout, I'd rather have no story at all. Just drop some guys in front of me and let me shoot them.

Prologue and epilogue cutscenes on the other hand are a very nice bonus.

 

[A Curious Fellow]

Keep your opinion out of the news report please. I don't care what you have to say. Give me the facts, that's your job. Don't finish up a good news report with

Perhaps the best compromise is a mixture of both, a game that does have cutscenes, but keeps them short and few in number, keeping most of the story in-game.

because when you do that, you cheapen the whole post. Your personal opinion has no place in a news story.

Different sites handle news in different ways. Here at the Escapist, you'll find that we often add our own points of view to a story, as well as supplying the facts. I'm genuinely sorry if it's not to your taste, but we're unlikely to stop in the foreseeable future.

I like how you made an article to present his opinion and then just pissed all over it with the last paragraph.

Err, not really. The last paragraph really just provides some context for what he was saying, and then presents one possible solution to the problem he describes.

Look, there's a reason why I've been around this site for months ans didn't say this on any article but this. I know other articles do that. I know most, maybe all of them, do that. But in this case you didn't take a side or make a quip or finish with style, you just packaged the main post with a piece of insubstantiality. Pure speculation with no grounding in any kind of fact, no reference to the main points of the above story, nothing. I expect a line like that to come out of a commenter who's just kinda thinking out loud. Even stylistically speaking, it wasn't anything interesting to end on, did nothing to create a desire to learn more, and didn't really do anything to encourage reader thought beyond what your prior material had.

It's nothing personal. I want to stress that fact. I'm talking about the story and presentation, not your skill as a reporter.

In this case you took away from yourself and your story with your parting comment.

 

[Evil Tim]

In this case you took away from yourself and your story with your parting comment.

Oh my god, his parting comment was a cutscene D:

 

[Verrenxnon]

HOWEVER All of the Half-Life 2 games have moments where you're expected to look at a screen or listen to a person without any relevant gameplay while other characters deliver expository information. This is nothing more than a crudely concealed cutscene and it has the potential of damaging the tone of the game. Do I listen to this person without fidgiting, or do I crowbar everything in the room and wonder why nobody ever calls me a vandal?

In many instances, cut-scenes are viable tools of storytelling for a game. Many narrative games can be presented without them, yes, but to discount them entirely is a gross misunderstanding of their potential and an apparent overtheorization that every single moment in a game must be interactive.

Some moments, like the intro to Batman: Arkham Asylum, can be made better through interactivity, but the other cutscenes in that game didn't suffer by being cutscenes.

I understand that to a developer a cutscene represents a failure to successfully convey an idea through interactivity. Sure. But it seems ignorant to say that they have no worth otherwise. It's downright hypocritical to say that a game is devoid of cutscenes when they have Half-Life 2 "Get stuck in a room and stare at a screen and NPCs" moments.

 

[loc978]

This is one of the reasons that, in the EA vs. Activision name brand loyalty debate, I vote for THQ. I like their design philosophy better. Excessive cutscenes will always ruin a game for me.

 

[Evil Tim]

Take turn-based JRPGs, for example - how do you implement story into those through gameplay?

Kill 350 enemies to get to the next sentence.

 

[Falseprophet]

Cutscenes are a tool, and like any tool they can be abused (examples from other media include shaky-cam and auto-tune). A lot depends on the game and genre. Action games where the "story" is just an excuse to string extended gameplay sequences together, cutscenes are fine as bookends between stages (and a rest for your hands). When the story is more central to a game, there are other ways of storytelling. The first time you see a Big Daddy in BioShock, it's behind a glass wall, tearing a splicer apart. There's no threat to you, but the danger a Big Daddy represents is quickly and effectively communicated. BioShock is full of great moments like that.

EDIT: BioWare games are also an odd blend. Plenty of cutscenes, sure, but you can control a lot of what's happening in them that they defy the traditional definition of a videogame cutscene...not sure how to classify them.

I'd argue conversations in BioWare games are gameplay, not cinematic. The games are heavily story and character-based, so conversations are an essential part of the game, not just something to move the story alone between long bouts of killing things (though they often function that way as well). Also, conversations have a consistent mechanic (especially Mass Effect and DA2) throughout the game, unlike most QTEs where normal gameplay is interrupted so you can play a short game of Simon Says.

I feel like Bioware has pulled off cutscenes pretty well, Mass Effect sort of gave you a way to control the cutscene and develop your character further...

Mostly they've pulled it off. There are still horrendous examples of cutscene incompetence. I remember one encounter in Dragon Age:Origins where I encountered a party of NPCs I was supposed to kill. I knew who they were; they had no idea who I was or what I wanted before the conversation. So I arranged my party members in ambush positions all around the battlefield before triggering the conversation. As soon as the conversation was done, all my party members were clustered together in the middle of the enemies, easy target for their mage's area-effect attacks. Gah!