it all depends on the game, a moment in the game, and the character the player plays as. RPG's are were they can be strongly used.
Cutscenes Are Gaming's "Failure State," Says THQ Exec
- Thread starter Logan Westbrook
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Samurai Goomba said:
I always thought that perhaps each one was some aspect of Dormin's whole; perhaps the original ritual was designed to divide his mind and gradually tear him apart until all that was left were wandering beasts with only single instincts to drive them. The small Colossi are his passions, which he has little use for, the vast, passive Phalanx his intellect. He guides you through them in the order he thinks you can defeat them, but also because he wants you to see there is good and peaceful intent in him before showing you the towering form of hate that stands at the edge of the world.
By then, I think, Wander understands, perhaps even regards Dormin as a kindred soul; both are subject to a cruel loss at the hands of Emon's people for reasons they see as unjust. He looks up at Malus, immense in stature and yet bound in boots of iron, unable to use any of his great power to take revenge, and sees justified anger rather than the form of an evil god. That's why, in the end, he gladly offers his body to Dormin to exact revenge on Emon. With Agro seemingly gone, Dormin is the closest thing to a friend he has left in the world.
By then, I think, Wander understands, perhaps even regards Dormin as a kindred soul; both are subject to a cruel loss at the hands of Emon's people for reasons they see as unjust. He looks up at Malus, immense in stature and yet bound in boots of iron, unable to use any of his great power to take revenge, and sees justified anger rather than the form of an evil god. That's why, in the end, he gladly offers his body to Dormin to exact revenge on Emon. With Agro seemingly gone, Dormin is the closest thing to a friend he has left in the world.
It requires a thinking mind to be evil, and there's little evidence of that. The lion doesn't chase a child because it's evil, it chases the child because it's a lion. Perhaps it's all they know how to do. Or perhaps they, as aspects of Dormin, share some of his knowledge and know what Wander has come to do.Samurai Goomba said:
Samurai Goomba said:
I don't think it's supposed to be a simple matter of good and evil; Dormin doesn't seem to embody either.
Emon is shown as a fanatic, always talking about things in terms of curses and evil; he sees it as simply good versus evil, but a fanatic seldom has a balanced view of the world. Clearly, his people believed Dormin deserved a hideous fate, but whether he did is left up in the air; certainly, Dormin does nothing that suggests he intends to bring destruction to anyone but Emon, and Emon at that point was trying to kill someone who had served Dormin faithfully. After everything Wander did, it's hardly a sign of evil that Dormin acts to protect him.
Also, look at those ruins; a great society once lived in the valley. Is Emon's version of history perhaps that of the victors in a war against Dormin's people? Was he simply an enemy god rather than an evil one?
Emon is shown as a fanatic, always talking about things in terms of curses and evil; he sees it as simply good versus evil, but a fanatic seldom has a balanced view of the world. Clearly, his people believed Dormin deserved a hideous fate, but whether he did is left up in the air; certainly, Dormin does nothing that suggests he intends to bring destruction to anyone but Emon, and Emon at that point was trying to kill someone who had served Dormin faithfully. After everything Wander did, it's hardly a sign of evil that Dormin acts to protect him.
Also, look at those ruins; a great society once lived in the valley. Is Emon's version of history perhaps that of the victors in a war against Dormin's people? Was he simply an enemy god rather than an evil one?
But he does tell Wander.Samurai Goomba said:
"But heed this, the price you pay may be heavy indeed."
"It doesn't matter."
It's not that Dormin didn't want to tell him; Wander cuts him off and says he'll do it no matter the cost.
Wow, you remembered a lot of things about SotC I had forgotten. The symbolism of the Colossi in particular is really interesting, like the point you made about the shackles. With today's modern games, I rarely see that kind of attention to detail used to directly enhance the storyline. I guess maybe Bioshock does a similar thing with the Splicer costuming.Evil Tim said:
Another interesting thing you mentioned about the landscape is the almost total lack of animals. At first I had thought it was because "oh, it's the forbidden land," but yeah, obviously some kind of society used to live there, what with all the ruins. So what killed the animals? I don't think it was the Colossi, as they seem to be magical in nature, not to require any food (they have Dormin Energizer batteries) and ignore what little wildlife there is in the game.
Oh, there are some animals, but it doesn't make sense for there not to be any larger predators or prey in the areas of lush vegetation. Now, one could chalk it up to PS2 system limitations, but I wonder if there's some story explanation for this? Did a Dormin Hiroshima bomb go off when he got sealed away? I dunno.
I can't really tell myself whether Dormin helps Wander because of virtuous qualities or self-interest. Maybe the game was designed so his motivations would be vague. Most (or all) of the situations where Dormin actively gets involved, there is some benefit to him. Like with protecting Wander. Did he do that because Wander was loyal and freed him, or because Wander had absorbed so much residual Dormin energy himself that he was the perfect vessel? He does absorb a little piece of Dormin from every Colossus, if we follow your logic that every piece represents a different aspect of Dormin, then we see a possible reason for Dormin to take possession of Wander's body, perhaps to ease his transition into a corporeal form.
Oh, there are some animals, but it doesn't make sense for there not to be any larger predators or prey in the areas of lush vegetation. Now, one could chalk it up to PS2 system limitations, but I wonder if there's some story explanation for this? Did a Dormin Hiroshima bomb go off when he got sealed away? I dunno.
I can't really tell myself whether Dormin helps Wander because of virtuous qualities or self-interest. Maybe the game was designed so his motivations would be vague. Most (or all) of the situations where Dormin actively gets involved, there is some benefit to him. Like with protecting Wander. Did he do that because Wander was loyal and freed him, or because Wander had absorbed so much residual Dormin energy himself that he was the perfect vessel? He does absorb a little piece of Dormin from every Colossus, if we follow your logic that every piece represents a different aspect of Dormin, then we see a possible reason for Dormin to take possession of Wander's body, perhaps to ease his transition into a corporeal form.
Samurai Goomba said:
Well, I believe the game explanation is to increase the feeling of emptiness and strangeness to the land, but as for the story, perhaps it's more evidence of the massacre of Dormin's people; an invading army that killed anything it could find, believing all of it to be tainted with unholy power. The only remaining things are those too small to find like the lizards or too hard to kill like the birds.
Samurai Goomba said:
Well, there's no reason it has to be one or the other; helping Wander helps him. However, he does seem in no hurry to recruit Wander to his cause at the start of the game; he tests him, asking him if the dead staying dead is not "the law of mortals" and telling him without prompting that it will be a heavy burden for him to carry; he seems almost surprised that Wander wants to help him, not eager to use him.
Dormin says at the end that he's "borrowed" Wander's body, which rather implies permission and that he fully intends to give it back (which he does). Perhaps he has his own reasons for requesting to do so, but I think at that point he genuinely respects Wander; after all, even though he's sealed away he returns Wander's body to him (albeit not exactly as he might have done otherwise) and brings Mono back to life as he'd promised to. He's a god of his word, it seems.
Dormin says at the end that he's "borrowed" Wander's body, which rather implies permission and that he fully intends to give it back (which he does). Perhaps he has his own reasons for requesting to do so, but I think at that point he genuinely respects Wander; after all, even though he's sealed away he returns Wander's body to him (albeit not exactly as he might have done otherwise) and brings Mono back to life as he'd promised to. He's a god of his word, it seems.
Ya know what.... I like cut scenes what I can not stand is bad or luke warm mechanics that are boged down with some kind of pseudo realism and poor balacneing.
I wonder about his opinion on the Mass Effect style dialogue wheel. I always felt that it was a cool mechanic that allows the player to take an active role in the conversation without overloading the screen with the entire written script. Honestly, that's my favorite thing in the Mass Effect games. Also, judging by the demo, looks like DA2 is going to improve on it.
The big problem is, it's not really a storytelling element of gaming.ZeroMachine said:
When you rely on cutscenes, you move away from the gaming elements. As you yourself say, you're watching a "little movie."
...Which is kind of what he's saying, rather than "bashing" cut scenes. You're relying on a narrative style from another medium. The fact that you like them is largely irrelevant, as the failure of the medium exists even if you enjoy it.
Yeah, it's been done, too. It's more than possible, it happens.Ca3zar416 said:
And I agree. People talk about immersion, and usually use it to justify "realism," but the fact is, little is more immersion-breaking than a cut scene. Having control wrested away from me to show a cut scene is a huge "let's pull you out of this world...Here, watch a pretty movie because we can't keep you interested within our own medium."
Stop saying Bioshock didn't have cutscenes. It had like seven. The intro, the first time you inject a plasmid, when you first meet a little sister, Andrew Ryan, after you get knocked out, the ending scene, and than the final Good/Bad movie.ultratog1028 said:
Also, about the exec, let me just say,
Red dead redemption
Saints Row 2
Legend of Zelda OOT
Deus Ex
Grand Theft Auto 4.
All games made better by cutscenes. You don't always need to have a scripted in-game sequence for the game to be good.
But those cutscenes did something that other games normally don't do in cutscenes: It never takes you out of First person view. Also it explains the loss of control in the story.CowsMoo said:
I'm not saying cutscenes are bad. Sometimes a game is better with cutscenes as opposed to the First-person cutscenes. And notice, the games you named are mainly Third person games. First person cutscenes make no sense in third person games as your view is already "outside" the character.
I want to just put it out here, that whilst I agree that cutscenes whilst brilliant aren't the ultimate true method of game storytelling and that Half Life tells a good story through new techniques,
one method they use is TERRIBLE and that's the one people mistake for the good one.
I'm talking about the "having a cutscene happen near your player" that Half Life does, and is then copied by games like Assassins Creed. Closely related by people just talking over a radio whilst you play.
It does nothing, it breaks immersion because you're character is no longer reacting to the world realistically, instead of participating, like they do in a cutscene, you're character becomes a moron, wandering round the lab instead of facing the scientist talking to them. The player has no control, he has to listen to the cutscene, yet making him think he does. Either this leads to distracted wandering around whilst the talking happens, which detracts from the story, or the player stands still and watches. IE it's a cutscene but a really bad one from an awful angle.
What half life did right is environmental story-telling. Copied by Bioshock. Bioshock's story is infinitely better than Assassins Creed in presentation.
Another thing, I don't always want to be my own player, stories are about interesting characters and making the protagonist a blank slate can work some stories but not character stories. It shouldn't always be done. Uncharted is probably one of the most far ahead on that front, by designing the sequences so that the player can be involved but will be doing the right thing, like when you're running away from the bad guy and all the cinema that happens in-game instead of in-cutscene.
Finally shout out to the bit in Uncharted 2 where if you try to take a punch at a guy you hate, he decks you and will eventually kill you. It explains the story (why isn't he trying to escape?) and it correctly predicts how the player will feel and stops the story and cutscene being disconnected like would have happened if the guy was just invincible to being punched.
one method they use is TERRIBLE and that's the one people mistake for the good one.
I'm talking about the "having a cutscene happen near your player" that Half Life does, and is then copied by games like Assassins Creed. Closely related by people just talking over a radio whilst you play.
It does nothing, it breaks immersion because you're character is no longer reacting to the world realistically, instead of participating, like they do in a cutscene, you're character becomes a moron, wandering round the lab instead of facing the scientist talking to them. The player has no control, he has to listen to the cutscene, yet making him think he does. Either this leads to distracted wandering around whilst the talking happens, which detracts from the story, or the player stands still and watches. IE it's a cutscene but a really bad one from an awful angle.
What half life did right is environmental story-telling. Copied by Bioshock. Bioshock's story is infinitely better than Assassins Creed in presentation.
Another thing, I don't always want to be my own player, stories are about interesting characters and making the protagonist a blank slate can work some stories but not character stories. It shouldn't always be done. Uncharted is probably one of the most far ahead on that front, by designing the sequences so that the player can be involved but will be doing the right thing, like when you're running away from the bad guy and all the cinema that happens in-game instead of in-cutscene.
Finally shout out to the bit in Uncharted 2 where if you try to take a punch at a guy you hate, he decks you and will eventually kill you. It explains the story (why isn't he trying to escape?) and it correctly predicts how the player will feel and stops the story and cutscene being disconnected like would have happened if the guy was just invincible to being punched.
There was one disconnect I did get, but it was just story-related.BrotherRool said:
Did Lazarevic just figure Flynn was so dedicated to being a dick that he could give him a live grenade and Flynn would wait for Drake to turn up instead of throwing it at Lazarevic as he walked off?