Cutscenes/Cinematics - Bad Storytelling?

[Delock]

Too long; didn't read. Ok, so I skimmed it.

It seems to me that you associate between two different types of games. Story games and shooting games. I fully believe that a shooting game can have a decent story; clichéd and predictable maybe, but decent nonetheless. And it doesn't need to use disruptive, moment-killing, un-interactive cut scenes to do that.

I'm aware that sometimes time has to be taken out to explain what's going on and expand the plot, but I'd much rather do that in a COD-style 'I can sit here and more my head around but I can't move' in-game scripted event, rather than taking me completely out of the game to show me a short clip of rendered footage that I'll no doubt just skip.

I fully understand why we need cutscenes, and what they can bring to a game in terms of story development, I just think that with the technology now available we can be so much more creative when it comes to story telling.

Sorry for the length, as well as the fact that it hid the fact that I do believe in FPSs that can tell a great story through their gameplay conversations and events often without taking control away from the player (Republic Commando, Bioshock, The Darkness were all examples here).

There was my problem with COD.

The old ones didn't really have to big a story where I felt I hadn't heard it before, and the new ones didn't have much to do but lead me around until it felt it was time to have me frantically trying to take control away from my character who had turned into a silent camera for the other characters to have a noncutscene talk that could have been a cutscene for all the good it did (note: the first MW did allow you to move around during a few of these, which I respect to a degree). However, it didn't tell an interesting story, it didn't tell one during it's gameplay (as all the dialogue was "go here, do that" when you boiled it down, none of which resulted in much after the first bits where there would be stuff like the radio station being empty or such), and most of the times it entered its little scene made me want to skip because it never really did much other than trap me as a camera again.

There was no subtle backstory being told along the way, be it through audiologs, a notable object hidden in he debris that shed light on what happened (take Fallout 3 for example here. Even if the recognizable landmarks tell you nothing, they seem to try to be telling a story, while the white house in MW2 was just a place you went through on an object, with too much action preventing you from think about it too much, and no real feeling of mystery because it wasn't a ruin of an old conflict but rather the remains of the current one), or writing on the wall by those who came before. It barely seemed to use dead bodies right at points.

All it did for it's plot was give me dialogue while I wait for the level to load, give me the role as camera for the cutscenes, and send me through levels by the nose rather than give me a reason for doing so other than military obligations.

As I've said, there is a way to make this sort of thing work, but COD is far from a good example of being a way to tell the story without cutscenes, as it just uses crappy ones via loading screens when it needs to and just drops them all together and leads you around when it doesn't. Partly this is due to the fact that the game treats you as a grunt, one of many soldiers, where your actions don't really have a whole lot of bearing on the true plot (ie. the war).

Like I said, a good example would be Republic Commando here. You're given information as to why you're doing what you are, your actions, while not noticable to the tide of the war, are made out to be more important than just reaching the next checkpoint, and the story is told through interactions with your squad rather than watching them or listening to them while you wait.

 

[Grygor]

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 ...
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.

I would very much disagree - violating the characteristics of the medium you choose to work in is generally bad storytelling. It's a tool that should be used judiciously and with a light touch.

A cinematic in a video game is like a panel full of text in a comic, an information dump in a movie, or a chunk of poetry amidst prose - they have their place, and in the right hands they can be used to devastating effect, but when overused or used poorly they seriously mar the work as a whole.

Like when there are very long, unskippable cinematics, or a new cinematic every time you turn the corner, or there's more cinematic than game play, or cinematics show the characters doing things far more interesting or fun that what they do in normal game play, or as is shamefully often the case, cinematics being used to tell a story that frankly isn't very good.

Never mind that oftentimes, simply being interactive can actually make a plot point have even more impact:

Spoiler

For example, in the end of Lufia 2:Rise of the Sinstrals, the protagonist sacrifices himself to save the life of his infant son. And while this could have easily been done in a non-interactive cutscene, instead they opted to make it a playable sequence, and it's all the more powerful for it.

Or, to use a more widely-played example, the sequence in Final Fantasy VII immediately after the Temple of the Ancients, when Cloud first gives Sephiroth the black materia. Again, this could have just been another cinematic - but instead, the developers chose to have the player control the spectral form of Cloud's inner child. And the fact that absolutely nothing you can do will stop Cloud's slow walk towards Sephiroth conveys the character's experience far better than any cinematic could possibly hope to.

(And here I thought I'd never have to say anything that glowingly positive about that overrated game...)

 

[Sacman]

Not bad story telling just lazy...<.<

 

[Treeinthewoods]

Back in my day the cut scene was the prize you got to watch after playing the hell out of a game. Of course back then the cut scene was how you figured out what your character actually looked like.

"Oh, so his head's not a circle with triangles on it, he has spiky hair."

I still like them, it's because I'm old and I still loved how I felt when I made it to a new cut scene in Xenogears, etc.

 

[Akalistos]

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.

Even if the story is well told through cutscene or or gameplay and that fit the overall story... it doesn't matter as if the story is boring. Here's a example: HALO
Nice gameplay, well told but lame Story about Space Marine vs Aliens.

The way I see it, you can all ***** and moan about how you best see a story unfold but the main focus of attention should always be about how good the story is.

 

[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.

No, it's more like a majority of a movie's story being narrated.

300/Sin City anyone?

No, the examples you give are more like Bioshock or Doom 3, where you play through a game while audio journals narrate past events to you.

Using cutscenes in a game is just like using intertitles in a movie. They each take away the unique elements of their respective mediums (interactivity and visuals, respectively).

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.

Most art/film/book critics would disagree with you. If a work fails to exploit the properties of the medium it's working in it's usually considered a failure.

Case in point: even films that are heavily dialogue-based use cinematography techniques to help enrich their story. When was the last time you saw a movie that didn't use any close-ups, pan shots, cuts, etc? That's essentially what games are doing when they tell their stories primarily through cinematics.

 

[Blobpie]

It's a tool, and with any tool it has to be used properly and appropriately.

 

[Scobie]

DELETED

 

[Halo Fanboy]

Cutscenes are bad. Losing control is bad. But one thing that I would like to point out is that any sequence without meaningful interaction (challenge) is just as bad.

Half-life 2 and Assasin's Creed's wandering around while being talked to is just as bad.
Nuke in CoD4 is just as bad.
Getting dragged into the well in SoTC is just as bad.

Just because interaction is there doesn't make the scene any better. Games aren't a text document or a microwave oven. Without tangible in-game output (as opposed to real life output) everything is worthless.

 

[Halo Fanboy]

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.

It's not soley use of the "medium" that determines quality. You can have a poorly made cartoon with good writting. You can have a game filled with cutscenes that still ends up better than some amatuer game. A misguidded "story focused" game can still be decent (never good though.)

In what way is Hairspray better than Hamlet? I've never seen or read Hairspray.

EDIT: I want to add that I wouldn't compare Mass Effect 2 to Space Invader beside noting that they are both pretty decent games as far as I can tell. They aren't even similar in genre. ME2 is also slightly excused for a big amount of conversations because it pretends to be an RPG. Navigating the text and saying the right thing is part of the challenge even if it isn't very sophisticated.

 

[Crimson_Dragoon]

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.

Here, here! I don't think I've seen this argument better worded.

Really, I don't think the method of storytelling should be derided as long as it fits the game. I wouldn't want cutscenes in a game like Braid, but they work wonderfully in Final Fantasy games.

 

[boholikeu]

Cutscenes are bad. Losing control is bad. But one thing that I would like to point out is that any sequence without meaningful interaction (challenge) is just as bad.

Half-life 2 and Assasin's Creed's wandering around while being talked to is just as bad.
Nuke in CoD4 is just as bad.
Getting dragged into the well in SoTC is just as bad.

Just because interaction is there doesn't make the scene any better. Games aren't a text document or a microwave oven. Without tangible in-game output (as opposed to real life output) everything is worthless.

Challenge isn't the only form of meaningful interaction out there.

Also, you were the guy that was trying to argue in an earlier thread that dialogue-based movies were bad because they "didn't take advantage of the medium", so I don't know how seriously people will take your opinion on this subject.

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.

Here, here! I don't think I've seen this argument better worded.

Really, I don't think the method of storytelling should be derided as long as it fits the game. I wouldn't want cutscenes in a game like Braid, but they work wonderfully in Final Fantasy games.

Well, I dunno about FF games. Whenever people complain about cutscenes the Final Fantasy series is usually one of the examples they bring up.

I'd say a game like Uncharted probably does it better because even though it's pretty cutscene heavy you rarely hear people complaining about it.

 

[Halo Fanboy]

Challenge isn't the only form of meaningful interaction out there.

What are the other meaningfull interactions in games besides the ones that face a challenge?

Specific examples would be nice.

 

[boholikeu]

Challenge isn't the only form of meaningful interaction out there.

What are the other meaningfull interactions in games besides the ones that face a challenge?

Specific examples would be nice.

Exploration, customization, socialization, any mechanic that adds the overall meaning of the game.

These types of interaction may not interest you in particular, but that doesn't mean they aren't meaningful to others.

Edit: here are some examples from specific games:

exploration: HL2, Fallout series, exploration can teach you more information about the game's story, as well as provide you with powerups/items.

customization: most rpgs/open world games, customization helps the player become invested in the character. Also, it's fun.

socialization: most online games, esp mmos like WoW, socialization gives many players a sense of community, or encourages them to become more competitive. See also: trash talking over xbox live.

"learn by doing" tutorials. Rarely challenging, and often with no failure state. Teach players mechanics needed later in the game. See the sequence in HL2 where you are given the gravity gun for an example.

"art game" mechanics. Mechanics in games like Passage which are completely devoid of any challenge, yet add to the overall meaning of the game.

"morality" choices. Fable series, Mass Effect, typically have no "right answer" and thus no challenge. Meant simply to get the player more involved in the story/characters.

Heck even cinematics are often used as a reward mechanism, IE not simply to tell a story.

 

[Halo Fanboy]

Challenge isn't the only form of meaningful interaction out there.

What are the other meaningfull interactions in games besides the ones that face a challenge?

Specific examples would be nice.

Exploration, customization, socialization, any mechanic that adds the overall meaning of the game.

These types of interaction may not interest you in particular, but that doesn't mean they aren't meaningful to others.

Edit: here are some examples from specific games:

exploration: HL2, Fallout series, exploration can teach you more information about the game's story, as well as provide you with powerups/items.

customization: most rpgs/open world games, customization helps the player become invested in the character. Also, it's fun.

socialization: most online games, esp mmos like WoW, socialization gives many players a sense of community, or encourages them to become more competitive. See also: trash talking over xbox live.

"learn by doing" tutorials. Rarely challenging, and often with no failure state. Teach players mechanics needed later in the game. See the sequence in HL2 where you are given the gravity gun for an example.

"art game" mechanics. Mechanics in games like Passage which are completely devoid of any challenge, yet add to the overall meaning of the game.

"morality" choices. Fable series, Mass Effect, typically have no "right answer" and thus no challenge. Meant simply to get the player more involved in the story/characters.

Heck even cinematics are often used as a reward mechanism, IE not simply to tell a story.

Most of those correspond to challenge actually. They help you in your goals from gaining more skills to getting into a guild. In RPGs having conversations and making choices are also challenges depending on what you want to accomplish. As long as you're doing something usefull then you are overcoming a challenge. All these things are part of the challenge in completing a game so they don't refute my point that scenes without challenges are not meaningful.

You'll have to specify on how "art" mechanics add overall meaning to the game because I don't really understand your example.

 

[boholikeu]

Challenge isn't the only form of meaningful interaction out there.

What are the other meaningfull interactions in games besides the ones that face a challenge?

Specific examples would be nice.

Exploration, customization, socialization, any mechanic that adds the overall meaning of the game.

These types of interaction may not interest you in particular, but that doesn't mean they aren't meaningful to others.

Edit: here are some examples from specific games:

exploration: HL2, Fallout series, exploration can teach you more information about the game's story, as well as provide you with powerups/items.

customization: most rpgs/open world games, customization helps the player become invested in the character. Also, it's fun.

socialization: most online games, esp mmos like WoW, socialization gives many players a sense of community, or encourages them to become more competitive. See also: trash talking over xbox live.

"learn by doing" tutorials. Rarely challenging, and often with no failure state. Teach players mechanics needed later in the game. See the sequence in HL2 where you are given the gravity gun for an example.

"art game" mechanics. Mechanics in games like Passage which are completely devoid of any challenge, yet add to the overall meaning of the game.

"morality" choices. Fable series, Mass Effect, typically have no "right answer" and thus no challenge. Meant simply to get the player more involved in the story/characters.

Heck even cinematics are often used as a reward mechanism, IE not simply to tell a story.

Most of those correspond to challenge actually. They help you in your goals from gaining more skills to getting into a guild. In RPGs having conversations and making choices are also challenges depending on what you want to accomplish. As long as you're doing something usefull then you are overcoming a challenge. All these things are part of the challenge in completing a game so they don't refute my point that scenes without challenges are not meaningful.

You'll have to specify on how "art" mechanics add overall meaning to the game because I don't really understand your example.

A quick example is the art game the Marriage, where there really is no challenge/goal to the game. It's simply a game where the mechanics are meant to evoke how the author feels about marriage, and by playing the game you learn more about the author's view. For example if you interact with the "wife" she will get slightly larger and you will become slightly smaller. There's also the option to interact with "outside influences" that will make you bigger but shrink the wife. I'm oversimplifying it a bit, but essentially after playing the game a bit you can see that the author is basically expressing himself primarily through mechanics, not story or art.

 

[Halo Fanboy]

That's still challenge because the things you do actually effect your environment and you can accomplish goals ect. It sounds like a ludicrously boring game though.

 

[Silver Patriot]

It's the reverse of Cutscene Incompetence [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CutsceneIncompetence]

Better known as Cutscene Power To The Max [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CutscenePowerToTheMax]

My goto example. MGS: The Twin Snakes.

Skip to 1:10 for the worse part.

More outrages because the original didn't have any of that.

Spoiler: The only thing I think the remake did right was Gray Fox.