Again, absurdist arguements. I'm going to stop responding to posts that try and use this tactic probably. Indeed I almost hope The Escapist would make it an enforcable offense similar to trolling since it derails conversations.GothmogII said: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.Therumancer said: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.GothmogII said: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?Therumancer said:Absurdist arguements contribute nothing to a discussion.Zachary Amaranth said:I just assume that he's an asshole.DrOswald said: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.Zachary Amaranth said:But...But First Person perspective an silent protagonists are immersive!
By that logic, films shouldn't be art, because we already have the independent media that comprise them.Therumancer said: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.
.
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.
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.
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?
The cut scenes by being non-interactive change the nature of the game by not being gamable.BreakfastMan said: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.Therumancer said: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.
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? :/
So... No game that has ever tried to tell a story, barring one or two rare exceptions like Dear Esther, are actually games. They are something completely different. If a game is ever non-interactive at any time, it is no longer a game. Sorry, I just cannot get behind that idea. You seem to be creating a rule that cannot be broken, and if it does, it is no longer that form of art, which does not sit well with me. I really don't think that art should have hard and fast rules applied to what it is. They should have guidlines that can be broken if one knows what they are doing.Therumancer said:snip...
You've just described life there.Spot1990 said:I hated the Half Life 2 way of doing things. "Just stand there and listen to my exposition dump" I usually just ended up dicking around and listening because nothing interesting was happening on screen. It was just a first person view of a guy talking at me.
^^^^This. You hit it right on the head here.Callate said:I agree with the basic premise that cut-scenes aren't in and of themselves a bad thing, and that it's perfectly reasonable to use them for many of the purposes Jim describes (downtime, pacing, reward, story exposition, etc.)
However, the matter of taking control away from the player leads to one of my pet peeves.
It's okay, in my mind, if the cut scene takes away the player's control to do what they would have done anyway, to do things that are in character for the player's character, to advance plot through characters who aren't under the player's control, and so on.
But please, for the love of all that's good and holy, don't take away my control to have my character do something stupid, and then bring me back to deal with the resulting clusterf@#$%. Don't have me "ambushed" and "captured" by three of the mooks I've been turning into fine mince by the hundreds for the last hour. Don't set me up as a nigh-invincible amoral killing machine in-game, and then have me fail to kill someone I actually have reason to kill because it might interrupt their monologue (while they, incidentally, prepare their escape pod for launch.) Don't have me clearly and handily winning a fight, and then have the bad guy win anyway in the cinematic.
There are ways to get the plot where the designers need it to go without abruptly turning the player into a marionette. I recognize that there are games that force players into these kinds of situations even without using cut scenes, but they are the area where, to my mind, cut scenes are used most often not as a tool or a device, but as a crutch. And that, I wish would stop.
Actually...I wasn't trying for absurdity that time. Only pointing out that those aspects too are extraneous and do not, even taken as part of a whole define a game, again, it's the rules that do that.Therumancer said:Again, absurdist arguements. I'm going to stop responding to posts that try and use this tactic probably. Indeed I almost hope The Escapist would make it an enforcable offense similar to trolling since it derails conversations.GothmogII said: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.Therumancer said: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.GothmogII said: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?Therumancer said:Absurdist arguements contribute nothing to a discussion.Zachary Amaranth said:I just assume that he's an asshole.DrOswald said: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.Zachary Amaranth said:But...But First Person perspective an silent protagonists are immersive!
By that logic, films shouldn't be art, because we already have the independent media that comprise them.Therumancer said: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.
.
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.
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.
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?
All of the things that you mention seperatly, are simply the tools the game is built from, the key is interactivity. The cut scenes which influance the game, cannot be interacted with, that is the issue entirely. Trying to make arguements about how "well, why can't you say that about there being art or music" is simply absurd, and does you or your case no credit.
I'll ignore the bit about Half-Life since I already conceded that in another message.
When it comes to cut scenes, it's not a matter of percentage, it's a situation where if at any time the game basically uses cinematics to do things that could, or should have been done in gameplay, it ceases to be a game, and becomes an interactive movie. Now an interactive movie can be a fine product, but it's not a game.
For example, if your going to have a scene with a robot talking trash while you fight it, actually let the player fight the robot while it's talking trash. If you decide to say halt all gameplay and then show the player character fighting the robot while talking trash before it goes into the fight, you just totally nixed your product as being a game. It might still have gameplay elements, but it's now an interactive movie rather than a game, since you are not in control of the game at key moments.
Granted, very few games, especially from the modern era, can truely be considered games, and that's exactly the point of these kinds of debates. It hasn't become a small problem with an occasional interactive movie being billed at a game, it's a situation where pretty much every game is an interactive movie.
Yes. Yes they do. So does the skip button.Jimothy Sterling said:Fucking no need because fucking cutscenes fucking exist.the antithesis said:then make a fucking movie instead.Jimothy Sterling said: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,...