Cutscenes/Cinematics - Bad Storytelling?

[Thaius]

Due to the length of this post (yeah, it's pretty much an article), I'll put the main points in bold as a tl;dr, but I highly recommend reading the post. This is a pretty deep and involved topic on which I would love to see some genuine discussion.

This is a topic that quite often interests and irritates me, and is the one real area of interactive art on which I consistently disagree with Yahtzee (who actually does have good stuff to say regarding video games as a medium).

In his recent Extra Punctuation [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/extra-punctuation/8243-Extra-Punctuation-A-Handy-Glossary-of-Yahtzee-Terms], he describes cinematics as, "Generally to be interpreted as damning with fine praise when found in a review, since the interactive nature of gaming is kind of the whole point." This is a common theme in his writings, and is in line with many other things he has said on the subject. According to Yahtzee (and many others on this site that I have seen), to tell a story in a video game primarily through cinematic cutscenes is in fact bad storytelling.

My question is, why?

Obviously, the thing that makes video games such a unique storytelling medium is interactivity, so it would make sense to say that a game that tells the story primarily through interactivity, making good use of it and maintaining player control rather than taking it away with a cutscene, could be said to be taking full advantage of gaming's unique qualities as a medium. Indeed, constant control of the player character was used to great extent when it was suddenly snatched away in the pivotal scene of Bioshock, and similar interactive techniques have been used to powerful effect in games like Half-Life, Shadow of the Colossus, and many of the Final Fantasy games. There is no question that interactivity can be used in groundbreaking and impacting ways in a story, a concept that is still being explored as the medium develops as an art form.

However, I would argue that it's ridiculous to claim that the quality of any work's storytelling is based on the extent to which it utilizes the unique properties of its medium. This applies to games no less than other, more established mediums.

I've only ever met one person who asserted that quality was based on strict, unwavering adherence to a medium's unique properties (maybe he'll reply somewhere). This person claimed that movies should never feature characters simply standing and talking, because as a visual medium, film should do only the things that non-visual mediums cannot do (action, special effects, etc.). Similarly, he said that any animated feature that featured realistic style, discussion, or static scenes was by its nature bad, because animation is capable of strange and exaggerated visuals, and thus should utilize them in order to actually be good. He also claimed that video games should not feature stories or art at all, because their main feature is the game, and the inclusion of anything else is a perversion of the core of the medium.

However, this is not at all widely believed, especially in communities such as The Escapist. After all, under this definition, Spongebob is an inherently better show than Death Note. Hairspray is a better stageplay than Shakespeare's Hamlet. Space Invaders is a better video game than Mass Effect 2. Transformers 2 is a better film than Casablanca. For that matter, the Star Wars prequel trilogy is better than the original trilogy. I'm confident that very few of you will agree with these statements (outside of personal opinion of the works mentioned, perhaps). The fact is, this is not a stance that is generally held in the world of the arts.

But is this not the very same concept (if an extreme application of it) as saying that the quality of a game's storytelling is dependent on its use of the medium's unique properties? It is the same judgement process; rather than basing something on the quality of what it presents, it is based on the extent to which it adheres to the medium's strengths. It's a very decorum-based, formulaic view of artistic presentation; a work is not based on the quality of its content, but rather on its definition. Quality is determined by adherence to the rules rather than by innovation or simply good presentation.

Rather, I propose that good storytelling in video games is not based on the game's use of interactivity and lack of passive cutscenes, but rather based on the quality of whatever method the game chooses to tell its story.

This is not to devalue interactivity in storytelling. When used well, it can create some truly unforgettable and memorable moments of which no other storytelling medium is even capable. In addition, it is vital to the growth of the medium that we explore and innovate in this area, further developing the possible applications of this new way to tell a story. However, this is not to say that constant and extensive player control is necessary in order for a game to tell its story well. In fact, many of the best video game stories would only suffer from constant player control or extensive player choice. That does not mean the story is bad, or that it is not told well, it simply means it is not the most unique example of video games as a medium. And you know what? That's okay. Uniqueness and quality are often connected, but are not synonymous.

So what say you, Escapists? What do you think about all this?

NOTE: If you talk about specific examples from video games, use spoiler tags.

 

[repeating integers]

I agree that cinematics are not bad storytelling. They are a method of storytelling, nothing more - one which not all games use (Half-Life 2 comes to mind), perhaps, but it's silly to dismiss a game's storytelling just because it's not all interactive.

Hell, cutscenes can be very good methods of storytelling. Halo: Reach had some very impressive and spectacular cutscenes, most notably the one partway through the mission Long Night of Solace (the docking cutscene); Mass Effect used them very extensively and let you define your character with them, something that turned many off but I personally loved.

I'm going to come out and say I prefer cutscenes to interactive storytelling, based off my experiences with Half-Life 2. Standing around and listening to NPCs talk can be made more interesting by effective camera angles and music - and occasionally, the ability to respond.

 

[ShenCS]

Your proposal is essentially what most people would agree with anyway. The quality of the cutscenes is most important because a game is primarily there to entertain. If they're good, they become a reward for succeeding at the game, adding a layer of progress and accomplishment that is what makes good games so good.
In my opinion, first person games with cutscenes in the first person are the closest to what Yahtzee and the like are after so to speak (Yahtzee himself has commented that he knows cutscenes are entirely necessary if someone wants to tell a story). Well, not just the first person perspective, but the ability to move where you look at during it (although not necessarily being able to actually move yourself). The problem really is the player - if they can, they WILL teabag their character's closest friend during their dramatic death. They could create a game without any cutscenes that take away control, but it's hardly a good way to tell a story, and if you don't care about the story then there would be no question on the matter anyway.

 

[boholikeu]

I disagree, though I don't think the simple use of cutscenes damns a game.

To put it simply, telling the majority of a video game's story through cutscenes is like a movie telling the majority of it's story through inter-titles. At some point you simply have to wonder why the creator didn't just make a movie/write a book instead.

 

[BreakfastMan]

I have to say, I agree with you. I found both cutscene light games, like HL2, to be as equally as emotionally effecting as cutscene heavy games, like MGS3. A well told story can be made using both, it just has to use them well. So many people complain about cinematics, to which I ask them: Can you come up with anything better? Because something like MGS 3 would probably not have worked like it did if it had been done in a cinematic-less style, like HL2.

Note: I only read the tl;dr version. I am rather pressed for time at the moment (I really should be getting back to school work), but feel free to correct me on your points if I am wrong.

 

[Anah'ya]

As with everything else in life, it's all a matter of how you use it. They are a tool of the trade. Like a nail and the hammer. Just don't put that thing through your foot or smash your finger while you're at it.

Added to that you have personal opinion. Mine would be: I'd rather see a well done cut-scene than being forced to miss the actual action by button mashing my way through a quick time event. Or stand by silently while a potentially epic scene is played out in a game's restrictive engine from my character's point of view.

 

[Ironic Pirate]

Cinematics aren't bad storytelling, but they still aren't always good. Because a game, is, well, a game, if your character is depicted as doing things in cut-scenes that you can't do in-game, then you feel robbed.

I do like me a good battle cutscene though...

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

Cinematics are a fine method of storytelling, when done properly.

In fact, for some genres, it's preferred.

Like the God of War cinematics.

 

[Wolfenbarg]

I agree, but I think the point on cinematics being bad storytelling is when they overtake the interactivity. Getting to the pivotal scene of Mass Effect or a Final Fantasy game and having a busy cutscene is good and fine. On the other hand, having a 20 minute cutscene before a game even starts is not a good example of storytelling in a video game. How involved am I, the player, in the story if I spent nearly half an hour before I even need to pick up the controller? That almost seems like a plot that should be put in a movie instead. Overall cutscenes that stop the action are a great way to tell a story, but if they keep you removed for too long or if they would be better placed as gameplay segments, then they are horribly ineffective.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I don't understand this trend in gaming where passive cut-scenes are bad. When there is important dialogue or story exposition going on, I want to have my full attention on that. Even in Bioshock during the audio diaries and radio communications, I just stopped moving and listened to what was being said. It did work in Bioshock because of the nature of the communication. I hate when games allow you to just walk about or whatever during dialogue (not that all dialogue should be a cut-scene) and story exposition because a well directed cut-scene with good cinematography would be a better experience. The Metal Gear Solid storyline could NOT be told 100% interactively.

Cinematics aren't bad storytelling, but they still aren't always good. Because a game, is, well, a game, if your character is depicted as doing things in cut-scenes that you can't do in-game, then you feel robbed.

I gotta disagree here. Even in a game like Bayonetta where the character really can do so much cool stuff in gameplay, there is a lot of cool stuff that a character can do that just can't be worked into gameplay outside of QTEs. And, not showing that other cool stuff just because it can't be done in gameplay is robbing the audience out of seeing that other cool stuff.

 

[Korten12]

I agree that cinematics are not bad storytelling. They are a method of storytelling, nothing more - one which not all games use (Half-Life 2 comes to mind), perhaps, but it's silly to dismiss a game's storytelling just because it's not all interactive.

Hell, cutscenes can be very good methods of storytelling. Halo: Reach had some very impressive and spectacular cutscenes, most notably the one partway through the mission Long Night of Solace (the docking cutscene); Mass Effect used them very extensively and let you define your character with them, something that turned many off but I personally loved.

I'm going to come out and say I prefer cutscenes to interactive storytelling, based off my experiences with Half-Life 2. Standing around and listening to NPCs talk can be made more interesting by effective camera angles and music - and occasionally, the ability to respond.

Agreed, I honestly think they mayed HL2 kind of boring for me, and I will also admit, I loved, really loved the MGS4 cutscenes.

 

[Heart of Darkness]

I think you answered yourself before you even asked your question:

According to Yahtzee...to tell a story in a video game primarily through cinematic cutscenes is in fact bad storytelling.

While I don't always agree with Yahtzee, this is where the use of cutscenes are bad. Remember that videogames are an active medium (require some form of user input), and that movies are passive (do not require user input). Taking away that level of action from the player in order to advance the story immediately changes the nature of the medium.

...Dammit, lost my train of thought. Boarding a second one...

If a game has an hour's worth of story, and thirty-one minutes of that story are non-interactive cutscenes, then what you essentially have is a movie interspersed with interactive parts instead of a game with cinematic parts. This doesn't mean that the story is bad, it just means that that story would have probably worked better as a movie rather than as a game. When applied to the wrong medium, stories can lose a lot of their intended impact, and that loss of impact can be tied to bad storytelling.

Bleh. That was just a jumble of thoughts. If I didn't feel so tired, I might be able to salvage this argument up...

 

[dslm]

Cutscenes can be an effective way of progressing a storyline's narrative within a game. The main problem I have - and at least partly the same Yahtzee has with them, too - is that a cutscene inserted in the wrong place, or used in the wrong way can jarringly remove a player from the immersion of the game. After all, the purpose of any storytelling, whether it be through video games, movies, plays or novels is that the audience becomes engrossed in the progress of the narrative and can lose themselves in it. A badly placed cutscene, or even something like a breach of the forth-wall when mishandled, can ruin one's immersion in the medium in question. If this happens it can be difficult if not impossible to recapture the audience's sense of involvement. These are the kinds of cutscenes and cinematics that should be avoided. Although finding a good balance between gameplay and narrative pacing can be difficult, I'll admit.
The Half-Life series has maintained its storytelling balance by keeping the player in character the whole time, allowing events to play out before them and never straying from the first-person perspective. While Gordon never speaking can prove to be distracting at times, especially when mention of it is made by other characters, it never completely detracts from the experience. Mass Effect (and for example other games like the early Silent Hills), with its mostly third-person views and overall cinematic style is generally not too jarring when moving into a cutscene. A simple fade to black before and after major A-story plot expositions and cutting to close-ups of the characters when entering one-on-one dialogue scenes fit in with the movie atmosphere of the game. Compare these examples with some less well produced/directed games where you may be in a first-person shoot out, only for you to fulfil an arbitrary objective and be thrust without warning into an irrelevant third-person cutscene about what you just did. Worse still is when these cutscenes throw you just as suddenly back into where you just left and you're expected to carry on regardless, with no time to digest what you've just seen, or even remember it once you've finished shooting up the bad guys.
So to sum up this lengthy reply: cutscenes in themselves may not make for bad storytelling. How they are handled and how severely they pull you out of your involvement with the game is what can make them fail as narrative aids.