Jimquisition: Cutscenes Aren't A Failure State

[acosn]

Used properly, they're good. Even great.

Used improperly, they're one of the worst things you can subject the user to. It pulls them out of the experience and throws a wrench into the finer parts of pacing.

I think most of the knee jerk reaction to cut scenes comes from the ones that are poorly implemented, and / or are the product of shoddy production values. It's one thing to simply not know when to use them, its something else entirely when the voice acting, translating, and dialogue are simply off-center.

 

[Therumancer]

I would say they could not have, especially going by the Half Life series. Lets take, or example, the cutscenes of half life 2 (which is what they are, don't pretend they are not). They are exposition dumps where we are told what is going on and never allowed to participate with in any meaningful or entertaining way. Just like all cut scenes. The Half Life 2 cutscene is, by comparison to a normal cutscene, total crap. They are boring. Sure, we can dick around and throw a box while the NPC's speak in our direction or we are occasionally asked to flip a switch, but they does not change the fact that they are very boring and really are not justifiable in how much they derail the flow of the game. Your own example proves you wrong.

You are putting an arbitrary rule on what can and cannot be considered a game. A game is interactive, but why does it have to be 100% interactive? After all, the medium is video game. All that is required is that there be some video element and some game element in there. Your artificial restriction of video games to 100% interactive story telling is insulting to anyone who takes video games seriously as a medium. You say including cutscenes changes it from a game to an interactive movie. Does including text change it too a electronic, interactive book?

It all depends on how the exposition is delivered, the thing with "Half-Life" is that the gameplay did not stop, leading to an entirely differant form of storytelling, nor did the crucial plot points happen when you were not in control like "OMG, Leng just kicked my butt and there was nothing I could do about it". Boring it might be, but it didn't interrupt the general flow of the game, it was like how a person might explain something to you, and to be fair you have to make allowances for the differances in technology.

What I'm saying is more "insulting" (if you view it as insulting to anyone in paticular) to those who don't take gaming serious as a medium, by using cut scenes as a way of doing things for the storyline that they cannot find a way to acheive in the actual gameplay. Which to be fair is a criticism that can be leveled at a huge amount of the gaming industry right now, as cut scenes have become an increasing crutch, relied on more and more by developers as an easy way to handle parts of a game that would otherwise take a lot of work and creativity.

Ignoring the absurdity of your claims, you ARE correct that making too much of the game dependant on text could put it into the visual novel catagory (which also exists, largely in Japan). Those distinctions do exist for a reason.

 

[Lunar Templar]

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.

awww.... i was gonna say that *grumbles about ninjas*

 

[wintercoat]

Getting Xenoblade Chronicles today and the delivery guys late. Come to watch the Jimquisition and GOD DAMN YOU JIM!!!

OT: Cutscenes are like any other game element, it's all in how you use it.

 

[Erttheking]

FINALLY! Jim points out something that I have agreed with for years, it isn't what game mechanics are used, it's the context in which that are used.

 

[Madkipz]

This weeks jimquisition would be valid if most cut-scenes were brilliant works. In the majority of times these non interactive parts of video games only serve to spite the gamer with giving bosses a plot-shield or wresting control away so that you as a gamer feel cheated or your efforts get invalidated, and that's why we cry foul.

In an age where Kai Lengs exist, and developers like Bioware would rather turn their games into movies that keep story and gameplay seperate I cannot see why the majority of gamer's should rush forward to defend cutscenes nor do I see why Jim Sterling should make an episode praising them either.

 

[MB202]

"art" really does have a pretty murky definition depending on who you ask...

 

[Freechoice]

I found Half-Life 2's way of telling story was just as bad as cutscenes, stand here for a minute while I talk, it worked just the same as a cutscene but without the camera control and other dynamic elements of a video it just felt like it dragged on, most of the time I ended up throwing randow thing around the room and missed what was getting said.

Immersion? NOT IF I CAN JUMP AROUND LIKE A MADMAN.

First time I've said it. Thank God for Jim.

 

[Simonoly]

I had no idea it was popular to disparage cutscenes. It's a bit thoughtless to discount them when they can become such useful story-telling tools. If done correctly, they can become the best part of a game. For example, I've recently started playing Odyssey: Journey to West which has really dull gameplay that really drags but luckily has fantastic cutscenes with great character interactions. Without the great cutscenes I would have stopped playing this game within the first hour.

 

[pspman45]

He sounded kinda stuffy this week
is it a new mic, or were you sick?

 

[Sotanaht]

Tropes are not good, tropes are not bad, tropes are tools. Their effectiveness and validity depends entirely on how they are used. Of course, some tools are useful more often then others. That doesn't mean you should eliminate the less useful tool, just that you should take care to only use it when appropriate.

 

[Fearzone]

As much as I prefer gameplay over narrative, I've never been offended by cutscenes in an otherwise good game. They do nothing to ruin good gameplay. If a cutscene is good, it enhances the game. Never thought of that as being controversial, but ok.

People who say cutscenes are a "failure state" should be asked if Relic should have removed the cutscenes from Homeworld? Or if the finale of FF9 was really all that necessary? I'm sure dozens of other games can be listed like that, these are just the first two that come to my mind. Maybe it was the Jester theme.

 

[DrOswald]

It all depends on how the exposition is delivered, the thing with "Half-Life" is that the gameplay did not stop, leading to an entirely differant form of storytelling, nor did the crucial plot points happen when you were not in control like "OMG, Leng just kicked my butt and there was nothing I could do about it". Boring it might be, but it didn't interrupt the general flow of the game, it was like how a person might explain something to you, and to be fair you have to make allowances for the differances in technology.

Your claim: "For example, could Valve have done the entire "Xenoblades" thing within the gameplay engine and achieved the same effect if it wanted to? Going by say the "Half Life" series, they probably could have." I said they could not have. I said nothing about plot points or anything like that. I said that the half-interactive cutscene style of Half Life 2 could not achieve the same effect. I also claimed that half life 2's cutscenes are boring, and that they were a significantly worse than normal non interactive cutscenes in terms of game flow and exposition strength. I stand by those claims, though I admit I cannot prove it because it is a subjective matter. I can only point toward the thousands of excellent cutscenes I have seen over the years that, in my opinion, are far better and preserve game flow much more effectively than Half Life 2's semi interactive cutscenes.

Differences in technology are minor. I have been experiencing excellent cutscenes since the SNES.

As for those "OMG, Leng" moments, do you mean like that part in Half Life 2 where you are railroaded by the game into getting into the pod, then you are immediately captured and your gun is taken away so you can be forced to stare at people talking while the most important parts of the plot are decided without any input from you at all?

What I'm saying is more "insulting" (if you view it as insulting to anyone in paticular) to those who don't take gaming serious as a medium, by using cut scenes as a way of doing things for the storyline that they cannot find a way to acheive in the actual gameplay. Which to be fair is a criticism that can be leveled at a huge amount of the gaming industry right now, as cut scenes have become an increasing crutch, relied on more and more by developers as an easy way to handle parts of a game that would otherwise take a lot of work and creativity.

I view it as insulting as one who creates video games, albeit currently only in an amateur capacity. You are telling me that I don't take video games seriously, that I am lazy and uncreative, or that what I make are not games because I chose to use non interactive cutscenes as an artistic choice. I find that extremely insulting.

The whole point of this video was that cutscenes are an artistic choice that the developer can use to create a certain effect that cannot be achieved any other way. You cannot achieve the same effect of a non interactive cutscene with an interactive cutscene. The opposite is also true. They are both valid methods of exposition in a video game. Just because some people are using the non interactive cutscene as a crutch does not mean they are bad or invalid. Many games use them to excellent effect.

Ignoring the absurdity of your claims, you ARE correct that making too much of the game dependant on text could put it into the visual novel catagory (which also exists, largely in Japan). Those distinctions do exist for a reason.

Visual novels are a genre that are created with the medium of video game. Visual novels are video games.

 

[ex275w]

Cut-scenes are great to introduce chapters and end climatic battles. Each stage has a introducing scene, usually something to get you pumped up. When you finish a hard boss then you get another awesome cut-scene of your victory.

The problem with cut-scenes is in for example Final Fantasy X when I feel the cut-scenes interfere with my enjoyment of the game, since cut-scenes occur every 5 minutes, they aren't "rewarding" me for anything and they aren't setting a tone for the game-play, they are just exposition dumps. Metal Gear usually structures its cut-scenes well enough, having long exposition dumps instead of constantly interrupting me to have some exposition is much better.

 

[Something Amyss]

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.

Cut scenes are merely a period instrument developers are stuck with until technology makes in game video quality meet the needs of the immersion to the story. The only exception is when a cut scene is used in some artistic purpose. In other words the developer wants to take you out of gameplay for a moment.

So they're period instruments except when they're not.

I've got to point out that "cutscenes" haven't really been used in an analogous way to dialogue cuts in silent pictures.

 

[Therumancer]

[q

What I'm saying is more "insulting" (if you view it as insulting to anyone in paticular) to those who don't take gaming serious as a medium, by using cut scenes as a way of doing things for the storyline that they cannot find a way to acheive in the actual gameplay. Which to be fair is a criticism that can be leveled at a huge amount of the gaming industry right now, as cut scenes have become an increasing crutch, relied on more and more by developers as an easy way to handle parts of a game that would otherwise take a lot of work and creativity.

I view it as insulting as one who creates video games, albeit currently only in an amateur capacity. You are telling me that I don't take video games seriously, that I am lazy and uncreative, or that what I make are not games because I chose to use non interactive cutscenes as an artistic choice. I find that extremely insulting.

The whole point of this video was that cutscenes are an artistic choice that the developer can use to create a certain effect that cannot be achieved any other way. You cannot achieve the same effect of a non interactive cutscene with an interactive cutscene. The opposite is also true. They are both valid methods of exposition in a video game. Just because some people are using the non interactive cutscene as a crutch does not mean they are bad or invalid. Many games use them to excellent effect.

Ignoring the absurdity of your claims, you ARE correct that making too much of the game dependant on text could put it into the visual novel catagory (which also exists, largely in Japan). Those distinctions do exist for a reason.

Visual novels are a genre that are created with the medium of video game. Visual novels are video games.

I'll concede the point on Valve being a bad example, at least with that game.

Visual Novels are NOT a sub-genere of video games, they are a sub-genere of books (novels) that are simply working in an electronic format. "Choose Your Own Adventure" books gone electronic.

Otherwise you choosing to get insulted by something is your own business, the message you should take away from this is that to be a good game designer you should find other ways to do things. Granted, you might not want to, because cut scenes are an easy way of doing things, but that doesn't change the fact. It's sort of like how you can't draw a picture on a piece of paper and say it's a sculpture, it might be a form of art, but it's not the kind of art your dealing with. Hence the point about games with cut scenes actually being "interactive movies". What's not defensible as a game, can be defended as something else entirely, but insisting something is one kind of creation when it's not is just foolish. People who use cut scenes in games as is being discussed here, are no longer making video games. People can yell, scream, stamp their feet, and get all offended about it, but it's just the way it happens to be, and why this entire situation exists. A lot of people using cut scenes now, want the prestige of being game designers, but want to be able to do something a lot easier. It's sort of like figure skating and ice dancing (which figure skaters who are too old frequently get into as it's comparitively easier. While there are similarities there is a distinction for a reason).

I mean really, it's not a huge thing to just acknowlege what "Interactive Movies" are and label them accordingly. It doesn't mean people are going to like them any less, but it will prevent confusion as to what the creation actually is.

 

[Fappy]

Did Jim get a haircut?
Looks spiffy

I agree. He looks better with shorter hair. ;D

 

[GothmogII]

[q

What I'm saying is more "insulting" (if you view it as insulting to anyone in paticular) to those who don't take gaming serious as a medium, by using cut scenes as a way of doing things for the storyline that they cannot find a way to acheive in the actual gameplay. Which to be fair is a criticism that can be leveled at a huge amount of the gaming industry right now, as cut scenes have become an increasing crutch, relied on more and more by developers as an easy way to handle parts of a game that would otherwise take a lot of work and creativity.

I view it as insulting as one who creates video games, albeit currently only in an amateur capacity. You are telling me that I don't take video games seriously, that I am lazy and uncreative, or that what I make are not games because I chose to use non interactive cutscenes as an artistic choice. I find that extremely insulting.

The whole point of this video was that cutscenes are an artistic choice that the developer can use to create a certain effect that cannot be achieved any other way. You cannot achieve the same effect of a non interactive cutscene with an interactive cutscene. The opposite is also true. They are both valid methods of exposition in a video game. Just because some people are using the non interactive cutscene as a crutch does not mean they are bad or invalid. Many games use them to excellent effect.

Ignoring the absurdity of your claims, you ARE correct that making too much of the game dependant on text could put it into the visual novel catagory (which also exists, largely in Japan). Those distinctions do exist for a reason.

Visual novels are a genre that are created with the medium of video game. Visual novels are video games.

I'll concede the point on Valve being a bad example, at least with that game.

Visual Novels are NOT a sub-genere of video games, they are a sub-genere of books (novels) that are simply working in an electronic format. "Choose Your Own Adventure" books gone electronic.

Otherwise you choosing to get insulted by something is your own business, the message you should take away from this is that to be a good game designer you should find other ways to do things. Granted, you might not want to, because cut scenes are an easy way of doing things, but that doesn't change the fact. It's sort of like how you can't draw a picture on a piece of paper and say it's a sculpture, it might be a form of art, but it's not the kind of art your dealing with. Hence the point about games with cut scenes actually being "interactive movies". What's not defensible as a game, can be defended as something else entirely, but insisting something is one kind of creation when it's not is just foolish. People who use cut scenes in games as is being discussed here, are no longer making video games. People can yell, scream, stamp their feet, and get all offended about it, but it's just the way it happens to be, and why this entire situation exists. A lot of people using cut scenes now, want the prestige of being game designers, but want to be able to do something a lot easier. It's sort of like figure skating and ice dancing (which figure skaters who are too old frequently get into as it's comparatively easier. While there are similarities there is a distinction for a reason).

I mean really, it's not a huge thing to just acknowledge what "Interactive Movies" are and label them accordingly. It doesn't mean people are going to like them any less, but it will prevent confusion as to what the creation actually is.

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.

 

[Ariseishirou]

So long as they're skippable, put in any cutscenes you want. There's nothing so mood-killing as being forced to watch a cutscene over and over again when you've long since grown tired of it.

 

[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.

It's sort of like seperating figure skating and ice dancers, sure they overlap, but ice dancers are generally figure skaters who either fail or get old enough where they can't perform at that level anymore (it's comparitively easier). Interactive movies might be fun, just like Ice Dancing is fun to watch, but it is a much easier thing to develop and requires less in the way of personal performance abillity on the part of the people making them. Game developers actually being very special and talented, and perhaps only being able to hold onto that title for a while before needing to move on to something easier.

I understand why a lot of people don't want that distinction to be made, but I do think it's a good idea for the medium.

As far as Gordan Freeman goes, I'll say that in games I associate more with a silent protaganist than one that speaks, because a lot of times when they open their mouth and it's clearly not what I envision the character would say or sound like, it can wreck part of the experience for me.

In absolute terms though, I'd imagine Gordan didn't have a voice simply because it would have meant hiring another voice actor, and re-doing a lot of the exposition to be two sided. What's more there is also the issue that Gordan is supposed to be a genius "Chuck Norris in Nerd Form" as Gavin's song goes... the way the game is designed allows them to kind of hide the exposition, where if Gordan spoke and more clearly needed information he likely would have already possesed in many cases it would have been fairly painful, you can overlook it the way it was done.

Your also dealing with games that are years old, things like "Mass Effect" stood out because of the way they did their voice work, and how tricky it was to make work. Whether that's a gimmick or an actual evolution is something the jury is still out on, because the reactions are fairly mixed, it remains to be seen if the industry is able to fully drive it home.