Cutscenes - No Longer Necessary?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Since I returned to less casual gaming last year with a PS3, I think I've changed how I feel about games and the ones I enjoy. Part of it also may be due to listening to Yahtzee and his opinions on games, as well. The one thing that I've realized is just how bored I am with cutscenes.

You look at games like Half-Life 2, its episodes, Portal and other Valve games (Left 4 Dead, I assume, but haven't played it) and they incorporate its game mechanics right into the story. There's no cutscenes. There are points where they essentially lock you in a room until the characters stop talking, but you still have full control. There's even a few console games like Dead Space, where you're in control the entire time.

But I think about how there are games like, say, Dragon Age II, which hypes 30+ hours of gameplay; or the debacle known as Final Fantasy XIII; or most especially Metal Gear Solid 4. I used to be floored by cutscenes in Metal Gear Solid or Final Fantasy. But now? I'm bored.

Basically, a game to me is something that you play. If there's a long period where the controller is laying at my side and I'm resting my chin in my fist? That's not playing. That's watching. A game is meant to be played. There have been multiple times (especially in Metal Gear) where I'll be sitting there, watching it and thinking "Boy, this would be a fun scene to play" while the main character does all sorts of cool stuff. Devil May Cry is another example of something like that.

Uncharted and Uncharted 2, while having some cutscenes, incorporates most of the story with gameplay (especially 2). They reward your hard work through a level with a cutscene or space out the action with a puzzle or exploration.

I guess my point is: why are cutscenes even necessary anymore? Are games not detailed enough now that they can just incorporate the story into the gameplay? Character's mouths can now move while you're still in control. Speech can be placed in games at certain key points. Part of what makes Valve's game so great is that they incorporate the story and even background information into the game. They show rather than tell.

What do you guys think? Am I just becoming picky about my games or is there something to this argument?
 
This is a pretty simple division actually.

Japanese games revel in their cutscenes.
Western games do not, at least not as much.
 
It's a stylistic choice. Some game producers feel that playing a game is ok, playing playing a game within a movie is better

Valve is pretty straightforward with the idea that you are the character you are playing, whereas many games allow you to control the character, but the cutscenes and so forth make it plainly obvious that you are not that character. I think this is one of the reasons Valve shies away from cutscenes - it removes you from the character you are playing.
 
I love cutscenes and would cut off your balls if they would read what you typed and incorporated this stupid opinion. Quite frankly, if you're bored due to whatever ADD you have during the cutscenes then perhaps it's just you. I pay games to be rewarded by great cutscenes and to be able to move my character around is not a feature, it takes AWAY from the storyline. In Dead Space, it was their choice and fit into the genre of its gaming type. I definitely don't want to see this in games like Mass Effect 3 or Dragon Age 2.

"This game sucks because I can't make Shepard crouch spam behind Miranda while Councilor Anderson is telling me the fate of my species, GOOD GOD I'M SO BORED... DAMN... DEAD SPACE WAS BETTAH"

Lastly, console gamers shouldn't be entitled to an opinion. That's my take. Cause threads like these get made and make me facepalm hard.
 
Bayonetta is terrible for this. The first fucking half of the game seemed to be me staring at the screen wishing that a non-sensical cutscene would end so I could go back to playing the game.
 
They're telling a story. Sometimes exposition is necessary. Gameplay can cause distractions, so it's disadvantageous to put important exposition in the middle of gameplay.

Also, cut scenes serve as a little break. In a game like Devil May Cry, you probably just fought through quite a few rooms and then had an encounter with a fairly difficult boss. It's time for you to collect yourself and relax for a bit. Let any accumulated gameplay fatigue eke out. Cutscenes are as much a matter of flow as they are story.
 
I like any cutscene that doesn't include a "Press X to not die" sequence.
This goes hand in hand with what I mean by using cutscenes as a break. The quicktime events tend to assume that you are remaining in an active state, rather than calming yourself down and getting re-energized for the next gameplay segment.

One big problem with these is that the player is looking for the button to press rather than paying attention to story, so any important exposition may get lost (see: the knife fight in RE4). There is a time and a place for quick time events, and it isn't in something that appears to be a cutscene.
 
I love cutscenes and would cut off your balls if they would read what you typed and incorporated this stupid opinion. Quite frankly, if you're bored due to whatever ADD you have during the cutscenes then perhaps it's just you. I pay games to be rewarded by great cutscenes and to be able to move my character around is not a feature, it takes AWAY from the storyline. In Dead Space, it was their choice and fit into the genre of its gaming type. I definitely don't want to see this in games like Mass Effect 3 or Dragon Age 2.

"This game sucks because I can't make Shepard crouch spam behind Miranda while Councilor Anderson is telling me the fate of my species, GOOD GOD I'M SO BORED... DAMN... DEAD SPACE WAS BETTAH"

Lastly, console gamers shouldn't be entitled to an opinion. That's my take. Cause threads like these get made and make me facepalm hard.
Sooooo...what're ya tryin' to say there, man? :p

But yeah, I'm not 100% against cutscenes. I didn't mind them in Dragon Age, to be honest, since there was more gameplay than cutscenes. But it's games most especially like MGS4 or Final Fantasy XIII that make me facepalm.
 
They're telling a story. Sometimes exposition is necessary.
Not if it is a well-told story! And in general, I think cut scenes are poorly produced, and THAT is why they should be dropped. If the cut scene is paced well, adds to the story, grabs your attention, and isn't so long that you miss playing the game, then it is fine. There are FAR too many games that fail to produce good cut-scenes, though.
 
The cut scenes in the Cataclysm Xpac work really well. They either need to expound on the story or do something cool that can not normally be done in game.
 
Not if it is a well-told story! And in general, I think cut scenes are poorly produced, and THAT is why they should be dropped. If the cut scene is paced well, adds to the story, grabs your attention, and isn't so long that you miss playing the game, then it is fine. There are FAR too many games that fail to produce good cut-scenes, though.
I said "sometimes". Not "all the time". No exposition is preferable to exposition, but if exposition has to happen, put it in a cutscene.
 

figmentPez

Staff member
Not all cut-scenes are exposition, though. At least not in the literary sense. Consider the cut-scenes that open campaigns in Left 4 Dead, or in the Zelda games when entering dungeons. They're short, quick and set the scene before the players take control of their characters. I guess they could be considered non-verbal exposition, of a sort.
 
J

Jiarn

Simple fix. Give all cut-scenes a skip button. Tada, everyone's happy.
 
It's. A. Game. It requires neither story nor plot, and if there is one it had better well not get in the way of me playing my game.

Portal and WoW are two great examples. You can play the game without caring about the stories created for the world and the stories don't stop you and say, "Hold still while we convey some information which we feel will make your gaming experience at least 1000x better which really has no bearing on the actions you are taking or going to take." Alternately, particularly in WoW, you can immerse yourself in the stories and choose to take that route.

Would you go to a movie where it was paused for 5 minutes every 20 minutes so the writers and directors can "Move the plot forward"? No - you expect them to integrate it into the movie.

Cutscenes are used when the writers are too inept to integrate the plot into the game.
 
Just because you don't want an engaging story doesn't mean others don't want one either. Mass effect 2 and Dragon Age Origins would have been pretty shit-tastic without their cutscenes.
You say that as though you cannot have an engaging story without cutscenes.
 
How is a story told well in a first person shooter?

Find the enemy's orders wrapped around a clip of ammunition? also to you have to read the letter while in combat?
 
Have you even played those two games FLP? How would you have represented all the cut scenes in game?

I LIKE seeing the story develop with small cutscenes (I'm not talking the epic stupid ones from games like Metal Gear).
 
How is a story told well in a first person shooter?
Portal and WoW are two great examples.
You wouldn't dream of reading a book, and having to stop reading so you can play a video game just to "move the plot forward", nor watching a movie, and having to pause it so you can read a booklet that came with it so you can "move the plot forward".

Video games are a canvas just as much as movies, books, etc are, and a good designer can put the story into the game without having to switch mediums.
 

figmentPez

Staff member
Video games are a canvas just as much as movies, books, etc are, and a good designer can put the story into the game without having to switch mediums.
Video games are a mixed medium. You may not like games that mix gameplay with video or text, but many of us do. Planescape: Torment is still one of my favorite games of all time, and it involves a boat-load of reading. Far more reading than combat, though the conversations in the game are part of the gameplay.
 
Video games can be a mixed medium. But when the story becomes more important than the gameplay, I'd rather read a book.

In other words, I find that either the plot is the point, and the gameplay is terrible, or the game is the point, and someone slapped on a plot because, hey, that's what you do.

I have yet to find a game where the plot is good enough that it would make an outstanding book, and the gameplay is good enough that it would make and outstanding game sans plot, and the two together are significantly better integrated than they would be separate.

It seems like a lot of good "plot oriented" games are really just using video games as a medium to tell a story, and even if the story is meh to good, the gameplay is an afterthough.

So I'm trying to figure out why people so vociferously defend cutscenes.
 
So I'm trying to figure out why people so vociferously defend cutscenes.
Cutscenes offer the same tools as movies. Sweeping camera angles, dramatic zooms, camera effects, knowledge of what's happening in places other than where the character is... some people like their game to unfold via such devices. It's personal preference. Not everyone wants to play a game like portal or WoW (I personally find them both dull).

You also never answered my question as to whether you've played Dragon Age or Mass Effect 2 as I feel both games have excellent gameplay as well as an excellent story.
 

figmentPez

Staff member
I have yet to find a game where the plot is good enough that it would make an outstanding book, and the gameplay is good enough that it would make and outstanding game sans plot, and the two together are significantly better integrated than they would be separate.
You've got some pretty high expectations for such a young medium. Seriously, games haven't been around that long. I think video games have been around about as long as film had when the Marx Brothers were making classics like "Duck Soup" and "The Cocoanuts". As good as those movies are, they're not well integrated. Musical numbers were often shoe-horned in, romantic plots were kind of parallel to the Marx brother's comedic plot (often with very little intersect), the pacing was awkward at times and overall they show just how much still had to be learned about film-making. They were brilliant works of art, but they show the youth of the medium in which they were made.

Consider that many of the games coming out today won't be remembered at all in 70-80 years. Only the best of the best will have a lasting impression, and will likely be viewed as many as unplayable "classics" (even as many don't care for the Marx Brothers). Video game designers are still learning how to use the medium to tell a story through gameplay, rather than just putting story and gameplay alongside each other, as the Marx Brothers put plot, comedy, romance and music together, sometimes melding, sometimes just existing in the same movie.
 
B

Biannoshufu

Dude, TNG, why on earth would you play FFXIII if you hated cutscenes? I had to lol. It's not like the Final Fantasy series format (interactive movie) is a sudden surprise or anything. It's pretty much been the standard story telling element for 14 games now. That's like walking into a waterbed store expecting to buy hammocks. You call that a debacle, I call that a bad purchasing decision.

Read reviews before you commit, maybe?
 
If you wanna play great western games without cutscenes, go Valve.
If you wanna play great western games with cutscenes, go Bioware.
If you wanna play great western games with minimal cutscenes, go Blizzard.

If you play Japanese games, you're gonna get a frustrating amount of cutscenes.
 
B

Biannoshufu

If you wanna play great western games without cutscenes, go Valve.
If you wanna play great western games with cutscenes, go Bioware.
If you wanna play great western games with minimal cutscenes, go Blizzard.

If you play Japanese games, you're gonna get a AWESOME amount of cutscenes.
FTFY
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top