Jimquisition: Cutscenes Aren't A Failure State

[Therumancer]

[

I like your sculpture analogy...but wait, if I decide to paint my sculpture doesn't that mean it isn't a sculpture any more? At least, in keeping with your own logic, that adding something to another thing changes what the thing is entirely.

I like the analogy, only because it makes your argument look totally ridiculous, as if videogames should exist in a magical void where they can't adapt elements of other mediums even almost wholesale without forfeiting the right to be called games. If I put pictures in my book is it now a comic? If I freeze a bag of oranges and start chucking them at pigeons are they no longer oranges?

And I can very well draw on a piece of paper and call it a sculpture if I damn well please. You're entitled to disagree with me on the nature of the piece, of course.

I think you'd be surprised at which one of us looks ridiculous, especially seeing as your again jumping into absurdist arguements to try and make a point when you have nothing else to work with.

The sculpture is a sculpture because it's a free standing object. The coat of paint doesn't change that because it's nature is still intact.

With games, the medium is defined by interactivity, being a game, when you add cut scenes to the game you are effectively removing what defines the medium entirely, as opposed to just adding something to it. The very fact that you can do some amazing things by adding interactive segments and movies together is why we have the whole "interactive movie" label.

... and your right about being able to call a drawn picture a sculpture, but that doesn't make you right. Which is what this all comes down to, you can call an interactive movie a game, but that doesn't make it a game.

 

[GothmogII]

But...But First Person perspective an silent protagonists are immersive!

By Odin's beard I hate silent protagonist. It has it's place and can be done very well, but 90% of the time silent protagonists actively detract from the game. No thing pulls me out of a game more than when a situation demands speech but no one talks. I am only able to get through Half Life 2 without raging by assuming Freeman is an actual mute. Because otherwise he is an asshole.

I just assume that he's an asshole.

When it comes to a game, I tend to agree that cutscenes detract from it being considered a game or it's "art". Largely because we already HAVE a catagory for cut scenes in the form of animated movies. When you start telling your story through non-interactive scenes and movies, your effectively leaving one medium and entering another.

By that logic, films shouldn't be art, because we already have the independent media that comprise them.
.

Absurdist arguements contribute nothing to a discussion.

The point is that games as a form of "art" exist as something specific and distinct from other existing forms of media. When you remove the interactivity and "gaming" from a product then it ceases to fall under that catagory.

We have sub-catagories like "interactive movies" which pretty much cover what games with cut scenes are. Nobody is saying that we can't have these, or that they are inherantly bad, just that they should not be being called games, and inserted into the proper catagory.

Who's talking about removing the interactivity?! For that matter...is the assumption here that if a cutscene is there, then it -must- be replacing something that could have been rendered within the context of the gameplay?

 

[SoopaSte123]

Thank you, Jim. Someone needs to stand up for cutscenes.

Personally, I love me a good cutscene. The best part? You can skip them. When replaying games, I love being able to skip the story sequences and get straight to the action. I've found most games without cutscenes almost impossible to replay.

 

[Deacon Cole]

When you nee4d the protagonist to do certain things, when you want the camera to focus on something in particular, when just you want to present an awesome action sequence that the limitations of the game engine can't perform,...

then make a fucking movie instead.

 

[Therumancer]

But...But First Person perspective an silent protagonists are immersive!

By Odin's beard I hate silent protagonist. It has it's place and can be done very well, but 90% of the time silent protagonists actively detract from the game. No thing pulls me out of a game more than when a situation demands speech but no one talks. I am only able to get through Half Life 2 without raging by assuming Freeman is an actual mute. Because otherwise he is an asshole.

I just assume that he's an asshole.

When it comes to a game, I tend to agree that cutscenes detract from it being considered a game or it's "art". Largely because we already HAVE a catagory for cut scenes in the form of animated movies. When you start telling your story through non-interactive scenes and movies, your effectively leaving one medium and entering another.

By that logic, films shouldn't be art, because we already have the independent media that comprise them.
.

Absurdist arguements contribute nothing to a discussion.

The point is that games as a form of "art" exist as something specific and distinct from other existing forms of media. When you remove the interactivity and "gaming" from a product then it ceases to fall under that catagory.

We have sub-catagories like "interactive movies" which pretty much cover what games with cut scenes are. Nobody is saying that we can't have these, or that they are inherantly bad, just that they should not be being called games, and inserted into the proper catagory.

Who's talking about removing the interactivity?! For that matter...is the assumption here that if a cutscene is there, then it -must- be replacing something that could have been rendered within the context of the gameplay?

Yes, I am a firm believer that anything that is done in a cutscene could be rendered in game play, and if it can't then they should replace it with something that winds up in the same basic place but can be done with game play.

For example, if you want to have a scene of me fighting a giant robot that is talking smack, have it talk smack while I'm actually fighting it, don't make a cut scene of my character fighting the robot while it talks smack. If I wanted to watch that I could put on a movie.

Now to be fair, sometimes cut scenes can be used well, and cover up flaws in the abillities of the designers to actually make something they feel needs to happen gamable, when they can't think of any other ways. Sometimes the cut scenes are quite good in of themselves even. This is why you have the catagory of "Interactive Movie" the "Ice Dancers" to the "Figure Skaters" of actual game designers so to speak.

I mean sure, an "Interactive Movie" can still be a good product, just don't call it a game.

 

[Jimothy Sterling]

When you nee4d the protagonist to do certain things, when you want the camera to focus on something in particular, when just you want to present an awesome action sequence that the limitations of the game engine can't perform,...

then make a fucking movie instead.

Fucking no need because fucking cutscenes fucking exist.

 

[Lugbzurg]

Cutscenes... Cutscenes... Cutscenes... I wonder what would happen if Hideo Kojima tried to make a Valve game and vice-versa. I also found it ironic when I heard Stephen Spielberg doesn't like cutscenes, either.

I mentioned this before, and I'll say it again. I think the only problem I've really had with Epic Mickey so far was it's overabundance of cutscenes. It used a cutscene every time something seemed to move, when a door opened, a gear turned, an item appeared, a new enemy came into the game... It was really annoying. You don't need to take away control from the player to give them information. Just look at Metroid Prime.

However, I think that cutscenes do have a place. Going the Half-Life route could never open up opportunities for "Meanwhile, in the evil lair..." scenes like in Ratchet & Clank Future: A Crack in Time and Sonic World Adventure. They didn't move the story along, but they were rather amusing to watch. I also like how Banjo-Kazooie only truly had cutscenes at the beginning and end of the game. Unless your game starts like Half-Life or Portal with the character going to work or waking up, you're going to need a non-interactive scene to start you off. Likewise, an end cutscene is even better. It doesn't cut the player away from the game, because there is no game left! Plus, not doing such a thing can really put a damper on any sort of closure or resolution.

It does annoy me when I see cutscenes that show something that should have been played. Take the opening of Sonic World Adventure. Now, why couldn't we play that? That would have been so much fun! It even had a "boss" and everything! Then, there's inconsistencies. Take Sonic Adventure 2 for example. You ever notice how Tails and Eggman's machines make one particular sound when they walk in cutscenes, but a completely different sound in the gameplay? I also hate it when characters do something in the cutscenes that they have been completely unable to do in the gameplay. (Silver's opening cutscene, anyone?) Then, there's always the visual inconsistencies. Often times, the characters will be in one spot and then jump somewhere entirely different in the gameplay. In Sonic Heroes, Team Rose start at the end of Casino Park in the cutscene they have for it (you can even hear the goal ring!), only to suddenly be at the beginning, once the actual gameplay starts. (Man, so many Sonic examples. Um... Let's see...)

Oh! One thing (among many) I really like about 007: NightFire is how consistent the cutscenes are with the gameplay. All of the cutscenes are in high-resolution graphics, as in, more detailed than the gameplay models. However, the areas in the cutscenes match the areas in the gameplay exactly, just in better detail. It's especially impressive in the opening cutscene for "Airfield Ambush" (PC-exclusive mission) when the cutscene shows off nearly the entire level! Just everything but the indoor areas!

 

[ryo02]

Cutscenes are like QTEs. They're great when done with a purpose and some prior thought to the matter. When just thrown in willy nilly and distract from other features is when they become a problem.

I hate QTE's what I think when they happen is wouldnt this cut scene be great to watch if I could actually watch it without being distracted by these random button presses that dont really do anything.

 

[Jubbert]

What's that game where the dude in the gasmask runs in and starts spraying people with a showerhead?

 

[BreakfastMan]

What's that game where the dude in the gasmask runs in and starts spraying people with a showerhead?

Clock Tower 3, a survival horror game. The dude in the gas mask is a serial killer, and the shower head is full of acid. He sprays people with acid and then throws them into a boiling tub of acid. The scene that Jim played a clip from was pretty damn gruesome, all things told. :/

 

[viranimus]

Spoiler: generalizations

The resistance is mostly generational.The generation that grew up with 8 bit cut scenes created the problem really. As they grew older and had their own financial clout to freely purchase whatever, you saw the rise of the cut scene to over saturation proportions. Right about in the PSX/early PS2 era. So what was viewed as highly entertaining for the more GenX group, the MEs played the same game rolling their eyes and saying "Oh Em Gee! Can I effin do something already" as they kept spamming the buttons hoping to skip to actually regain control.

What this is, is the divide of the generations and it stems from how they were raised. Generation X is noted for being a more insular generation. They were educated (at least in the US) in a manner where they were responsible for learning a wide array of things and knowing a little of everything with the expectation that if you give them the fundamentals they will be able to fill in the blanks. With such thats why GenX gamers tend to identify more with individual game experiences and are more concerned with the plot and char development as if the game was a novel.

The ME generation was raised in the instant gratification era and likely started their first gaming experiences around the late snes- PSX/PS2 area. They were educated more in group context with the concept of the group is greater than the whole, and to work together in groups. Acting as a chain whereby no one individual would be able to hold all information, so you allow others to fill in your blanks for you. This is a part of why you see such a widespread popularity of online multi player games even though they offer next to nothing new with each installment. They serve the end of making an open platform for individuals to work together and fill roles so everyone can gain strength from others. Single player games obviously do not lend themselves to that format.

With such being raised in an online multiplayer environment players are immersed in a stage where cutscenes and online play only now are begining to show signs of integration. So to someone who has logged well over 10k hours in Halo or CoD interrupting the action of a game is a detriment. Long expeditionary narrative development is nothing more than a time sink stopping you from playing your game.

Now for me, I admit Im more concerned with the reason WHY I am slaying 10 million zombies rather than the simple mechanics of slaying zombies. (thats why L4D is so disappointing to me personally. I know its supposed to be a B movie vibe, but SOME plot other than "Were trying to escape" would have been nice.

Now, as for interactive delivery vs cut scenes. I see interactive delivery being more of a fail state. Look at Left 4 dead for example. As many times as youve heard one of the chars give you an info dump did you once ever actually look at them? Or were you walking around the area looking for ammo or the next path way, the writings on the wall, hell, the ceiling. Without the focus on the speaker there is a lacking emotional context. Its hard to get emotionally invested in Francis' story on why he hates trains when your jumping up and down waiting for the next trigger to unlock so you can progress. Its development that fails to take into account how people will actually use the game.

Neither is right, but a good cut scene can easily do more than all the interactive delivery in the world. Hell, need proof? Look at either demon or dark souls. In both games you bsically get 80% of the story, in the opening cut scene and it basically gives you everything you need to know in order to move forward.

 

[GothmogII]

But...But First Person perspective an silent protagonists are immersive!

By Odin's beard I hate silent protagonist. It has it's place and can be done very well, but 90% of the time silent protagonists actively detract from the game. No thing pulls me out of a game more than when a situation demands speech but no one talks. I am only able to get through Half Life 2 without raging by assuming Freeman is an actual mute. Because otherwise he is an asshole.

I just assume that he's an asshole.

When it comes to a game, I tend to agree that cutscenes detract from it being considered a game or it's "art". Largely because we already HAVE a catagory for cut scenes in the form of animated movies. When you start telling your story through non-interactive scenes and movies, your effectively leaving one medium and entering another.

By that logic, films shouldn't be art, because we already have the independent media that comprise them.
.

Absurdist arguements contribute nothing to a discussion.

The point is that games as a form of "art" exist as something specific and distinct from other existing forms of media. When you remove the interactivity and "gaming" from a product then it ceases to fall under that catagory.

We have sub-catagories like "interactive movies" which pretty much cover what games with cut scenes are. Nobody is saying that we can't have these, or that they are inherantly bad, just that they should not be being called games, and inserted into the proper catagory.

Who's talking about removing the interactivity?! For that matter...is the assumption here that if a cutscene is there, then it -must- be replacing something that could have been rendered within the context of the gameplay?

Yes, I am a firm believer that anything that is done in a cutscene could be rendered in game play, and if it can't then they should replace it with something that winds up in the same basic place but can be done with game play.

For example, if you want to have a scene of me fighting a giant robot that is talking smack, have it talk smack while I'm actually fighting it, don't make a cut scene of my character fighting the robot while it talks smack. If I wanted to watch that I could put on a movie.

Now to be fair, sometimes cut scenes can be used well, and cover up flaws in the abillities of the designers to actually make something they feel needs to happen gamable, when they can't think of any other ways. Sometimes the cut scenes are quite good in of themselves even. This is why you have the catagory of "Interactive Movie" the "Ice Dancers" to the "Figure Skaters" of actual game designers so to speak.

I mean sure, an "Interactive Movie" can still be a good product, just don't call it a game.

But why single out cutscenes then? (Besides being what the topic under discussion is about.) I mean, there was a point in gaming where narrative, music or artwork more complicated than a handful of pixels didn't exist. And all of those things have been successfully incorporated into videogames despite having no bearing on the concept of the existence of a game at all.

We don't say:
WoW is not a game because it has music.
Halo is not a game because it has a story.
Team Fortress 2 is not a game because it has artwork.

Again, none of which touch directly with the framework or 'rules' of the literal definition of a game.

I guess...is a cutscene in this instance is being viewed as extraneous? But if it's extraneous, how exactly does that -change- a game to such an extent that it is no longer a game? If that is the case then we are been given an example of something for which the presence of a cutscene/s is something that informs the totality of that thing, such that if it is taken away the thing becomes meaningless, or less meaningful. But then, we are indeed talking about a piece of interactive fiction and not a game.

But taking it in percentages, does a game of which 1% or .1% is comprised of un-interactive cutscenes cease to be a game?

Also, just going back a bit, in relation to Halflife 2: What exactly is different(from a cutscene) about say the cage ride you take up to Breen's office? Or the bit at the start of EP1 I think where Gordon is piled under rubble and has to watch Dog dig him out? I mean really...that I can twist my head around? -That's- the great revolution in gaming technology that allows Halflife 2 to be a game whereas Deus Ex: HR is not? :/

 

[Taunta]

As i see it YES YES YES! Cutsceens can be a great tool indeed. But there are situations where it is used WAY to much.. I bring as a point World of Warcraft Cataclysmen. In one of the level 80 "start" zones an under water naga infested area there are roughly 40minutes of cutsceens in a area that takes about three hours to run through. Some of them you can't skip by as your just for ten minutes walking around listning to npcs going on about the same thing for about 10minutes before your let of a boat...
In other cases Cut sceens are great... And here i bring Star Wars the old Republic as an exsample.
Its damn awsome when you walk up to a boss see alittle cutsceen before your allowed to fight him and then ending the fight with another 1minute cut sceen. As i see the major difference betwhen how WoW and SWTOR do is. The SWTOR cutsceens are used to tell the story where the WoW cata ones just feel like they are there but hold no deeper meaning.

I think it definitely depends. I agree with you on the Vashj'ir one, I think you're talking about Defending the Rift specifically? I just did that one recently and I was literally just sitting there for most of it.

I'd say for the most part they're done well though. Especially for the cutscenes after the story bosses. They're used to wind the player down after the boss, like Jim said, and they show some awesome things that if they had just done in real time wouldn't have been possible, or no one would pay attention. Also, let me just mention that the Wrath gate cutscene is my favorite moment in WoW.

 

[Squidbulb]

The only cutscenes I don't like are one's that are too long or ones that show action scenes that would be possible in the game engine. Cutscenes are overall good though, because it's much nicer to see an important scene if it uses good camera angles and such instead of a first-person perspective.

 

[BreakfastMan]

Yes, I am a firm believer that anything that is done in a cutscene could be rendered in game play, and if it can't then they should replace it with something that winds up in the same basic place but can be done with game play.

For example, if you want to have a scene of me fighting a giant robot that is talking smack, have it talk smack while I'm actually fighting it, don't make a cut scene of my character fighting the robot while it talks smack. If I wanted to watch that I could put on a movie.

Now to be fair, sometimes cut scenes can be used well, and cover up flaws in the abillities of the designers to actually make something they feel needs to happen gamable, when they can't think of any other ways. Sometimes the cut scenes are quite good in of themselves even. This is why you have the catagory of "Interactive Movie" the "Ice Dancers" to the "Figure Skaters" of actual game designers so to speak.

I mean sure, an "Interactive Movie" can still be a good product, just don't call it a game.

Sorry, I just cannot get behind this line of reasoning. You are basically saying that stuff like Facade are games, because they do not have cutscenes, but stuff like Half Life 2, Bioshock, or Deus Ex, are not games, but are instead interactive movies because they have maybe 1-2 cutscenes. Basically, every game ever (baring early ones who could not convey story and more recent experimental ones) is an interactive movie. To me, that just sounds absurd.

And how do cutscenes fundamentally change the nature of a game? The game is still interactive. It seems, to me, like saying that because film is a visual medium, the film cannot use sound or music to help convey the story, otherwise it ceases to be a film. Adding sound to a film does not stop a film from being a film. So why should adding non-interactive elements to a game stop it from being classified as a game, when it is still interactive? :/

 

[Blasphemous Rex]

Can anyone honestly say that this could have been done any better through gameplay? It sets the tone and defines the setting for the game in a way you couldn't do it that engine. Cinematic intros are like the text crawls at the beginning of Star Wars: not what the media is founded on, but just as important to the film as anything else.

 

[theSteamSupported]

Just like everything else, cutscenes are good if they're used in moderation and put in the right context.

Take the confrontation with Andrew Ryan in Bioshock, for example.

Spoiler: Spoiler Alert!

By removing the interactivity during this scene, shows how Jack (the main protagonist) has been doing nothing but following orders during the entire course of the game. Ryan repeatedly says "A man chooses, a slave obeys" during this scene, and those words gains meaning since Jack isn't given the choice to let Ryan live.


That cutscene is the most crucial element to clarify the main theme of this game. Namely, how extremely rare free will is. Think about how, even in a sandbox game like GTA and Minecraft, the plot, characters, environment, physics, tools etcetera are gravely reducing the amount of thing s one can do within the game's boundaries. Think about how often the human subconscious commands the writer to make another Hero's Journey. Think about all the laws, ethics, morals, restrictions, policies and rules that has to be present to prevent society from collapsing.

Think about all the choices you've made during your lifetime. Think about what made you to not choose differently. Think about how external forces has influenced you decision making. Think about what caused all those said forces to end up on those exact locations and at those exact moments. Think about what external forces your choices has caused. Think about how all your decision are destined, or at least pre-determined.

Everything happens for a reason. Nothing that influences our world pops out of thin air, not even our choices. That's the main strength with cutscenes, they put a restraint on the player's interaction, just to show how little free will we have. That's what their role in an interactive medium should be.

 

[Aureliano]

All sorts of thumbs up, Jim. I'm pleased, though unsurprised, that the best criticism of the aesthetics of video gaming comes from people wise enough to be critical of the institution of art itself. Keep up the great work!

 

[Phlakes]

Exactly, visuals are as much a part of gaming as a medium as the gameplay. Sacrificing the benefits of scripted, cinematic scenes just because games are mostly interactive is a terrible idea.

 

[Taerdin]

There ain't no party like a Jim Sterling party! [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-X0EjwF8o0g]

You were right on the money as almost always Jim.