Steven Spielberg Doesn't Like Cutscenes
- Thread starter Keane Ng
- Start date
The guy is working with Doug Church, one of the heroes of American game development. I'd be dissapointed if he came out with some nonsense about how he wanted to bring the cinema experience to consoles. That sort of talk is for sucka "wannabe in the movies" game developers.
http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20041123/hall_01.shtmlDoug Church said:
This is the Internet; of course we don't assume that you know what you're talking about.OuroborosChoked said:
Especially given that you've made a controversial statement and not provided any factual basis for it. Others have pointed out Spielberg films with significant impact... and brushing off Jaws without addressing how it changed the film industry definitely calls the validity of your position into question.
-- Steve
I'm not exactly fond of cutscenes either. That's one of the mainreasons why I love Valve.
Videogames don't need them in my opinion and in some cases (like the dreadful comic sequences in Mirror's Edge) they really hurt the gameplay and the immersion.
By the way: Spielberg didn't ruin Indy IV. That film would've been great if it wasn't for George Fucking Lucas. He was the one who choose the script. If they'd used the one Frank Darabont wrote like Spielberg intended to, this would've been awesome.
Instead they nuked the fridge.
Videogames don't need them in my opinion and in some cases (like the dreadful comic sequences in Mirror's Edge) they really hurt the gameplay and the immersion.
By the way: Spielberg didn't ruin Indy IV. That film would've been great if it wasn't for George Fucking Lucas. He was the one who choose the script. If they'd used the one Frank Darabont wrote like Spielberg intended to, this would've been awesome.
Instead they nuked the fridge.
Yes, but you have to be some kind of uncultured Philistine NOT to appreciate how brilliant JAWS is as a work of cinematic art.OuroborosChoked said:
"Anyway, we delivered the bomb."
Steven Spielberg doesn't like cutscenes.....he likes quicktime events and scenes where it's from your characters point of view and you still have limited controls and can look around a little bit!
I'll just clear this one thing up: significant impact =/= good.Anton P. Nym said:
Titanic made a significant impact. Was it as good as a Tarkovsy film? Clerks made a significant impact. Is it as good as a David Lynch film? Being popular or influential doesn't make something good.
Jaws was a slasher flick with a shark. Sharks are not scary. Therefore, movie not scary. Therefore, movie fails. End of discussion.
And before you say that this is only my opinion... yes, it is. That's the whole point. Show me a way to qualify art and you'll be the first to provide the world with an accurate rating system for visual media.
Yeah. Shark movies are high art. How could I have ever thought otherwise?
Sure, we're so detached from the story in games, so let's give you the option to run around like a moron during important story parts!
Cutscenes aren't bad at all if they're well done, and you can skip them if you don't want to watch them. Scripted events are both unskippable and boring if they going on for too long.
Cutscenes aren't bad at all if they're well done, and you can skip them if you don't want to watch them. Scripted events are both unskippable and boring if they going on for too long.
You are confusing "personal taste" with "artistic merit", and no preemptive comment from you will stop me from pointing that out clearly. Personally I can't stand anything by Lynch or Fellini, or any of the "weird for the sake of weird" guys that receive so much idolotry from the "high aht" crowd... but I'm not nihilistic enough to declare their movies failures as a result, I just go on hatin' them and leave them to those who enjoy that stuff.OuroborosChoked said:
Jaws is an archetypical story, along the lines of Moby Dick albeit with less character development; if there isn't enough existential angst or interpersonal wank in it for you, that just means it's not a movie for you and you should go back to Wuthering Heights on Acid or whatever floats your boat.
Technically Jaws is an excellent film, highly regarded for its direction and cinematography; it gets taught in film criticism classes. So I'd have to say that your low opinion of the film is more idiosyncratic than diagnostic.
-- Steve
The movie is about a shark, yes, that much is true. But its all about the build up to actually seeing the shark. That is one of the main reasons it had such an impact on people and cinematography in general. You didn't even see the shark for half the movie...just the music building up and up and upppp and then nothing. AND THEN IT GETS YA!OuroborosChoked said:
Jaws is a great movie.
Indy I was a good movie.
Jurassic Park was a good movie.
Catch me if you can is an ok movie.
Nothing since then really.
The problem with cutscences is they often effect flow, pacing. But cutscences have their uses in a well designed game.
1. An opening cutscene in a game helps set the tone. ( a FinalFantasy opening )
2. After an epic fight, or an otherwise abnormal high in a game, it can literally give players fingers a break. ( a devil may cry cutscene after a boss fight )
3. They can be unobtrusive entertainment in a non-story driven game. (the very skippable very short cutscenes in raving rabbits that bookend mini-games)
Alot of game designers fall into the trap of trying to make their cutscences entertaining in their own right. They fill them with action or intrigue or high drama, or otherwise highs, then place them after highs in the gameplay, a bossfight, when basic storytelling formulas require a low; exposition, characterization. Well written lows are much better for a game then even spectacularly executed highs. It's also a lot easier to integrate the lows into the gameplay ala half life because there is much less action.
Indy I was a good movie.
Jurassic Park was a good movie.
Catch me if you can is an ok movie.
Nothing since then really.
The problem with cutscences is they often effect flow, pacing. But cutscences have their uses in a well designed game.
1. An opening cutscene in a game helps set the tone. ( a FinalFantasy opening )
2. After an epic fight, or an otherwise abnormal high in a game, it can literally give players fingers a break. ( a devil may cry cutscene after a boss fight )
3. They can be unobtrusive entertainment in a non-story driven game. (the very skippable very short cutscenes in raving rabbits that bookend mini-games)
Alot of game designers fall into the trap of trying to make their cutscences entertaining in their own right. They fill them with action or intrigue or high drama, or otherwise highs, then place them after highs in the gameplay, a bossfight, when basic storytelling formulas require a low; exposition, characterization. Well written lows are much better for a game then even spectacularly executed highs. It's also a lot easier to integrate the lows into the gameplay ala half life because there is much less action.
I think he is right..cutscenes suck. Not only do they drag you out of the experience but they also often show your character doing really cool things that he/she can't do whilst under your control...that is frustrating to me.
One game that did well with limited cutscenes was Harry Potter: Order of the Phoenix. Besides an introductory and a conluding cutscene, that was pretty much it. Plus, there were no level loading times. Ever.
Of course, the game itself wasn't actually that good...
But still, I enjoyed how you figured out what to do next just by good ol- fashioned running up to people and hitting talk, and the sprawling feel of Hogwarts, and the lack of waiting for stuff to load at anytime. Of course, the statue-esque combat and random inexplicable permanently locked doors dampened that a bit much.
Anywho, before I get too off-topic, HP:OotP was, if not an example of a good game with no cutscenes, was at least a game that was made better by keeping the experience in the player's hands.
Of course, the game itself wasn't actually that good...
But still, I enjoyed how you figured out what to do next just by good ol- fashioned running up to people and hitting talk, and the sprawling feel of Hogwarts, and the lack of waiting for stuff to load at anytime. Of course, the statue-esque combat and random inexplicable permanently locked doors dampened that a bit much.
Anywho, before I get too off-topic, HP:OotP was, if not an example of a good game with no cutscenes, was at least a game that was made better by keeping the experience in the player's hands.