I've always liked cut scenes in games. Not only is it usually some awesome eye-candy, but it also gives you a chance to relax for a minute. So you get to recharge your batteries so to speak and not worry about getting burnt out.
That and its of course a good story telling tool. And a chance for developers to shine if they really dazzle you with scenes.
What I HATE that some developers do nowadays is throw in some Quick Time Events. I hate QTE's as is (I feel they take the control away from the gamer), but to throw them in the middle of a "safe haven" cut scene is just annoying. That bothered me in RE: 4. Because I didn't get to enjoy what was going on. I had to keep my eyes peeled to see what random buttons I was supposed to press.
When I play a game that wants me to invest in its story, I experience them the same way I experience 3rd person dreams. When a cut-scene pulls the camera away from my character, it doesn't feel like a loss of control, but a way for the game to make sure I get the most out of the "story moment." As long as the player's character acts in a way that's consistent with the rest of the gameplay, cut-scenes can often strengthen my investment in the character and the game world. It's me, but it's me AS the character.
It's like being a kid so long ago, watching Power Rangers with your friends. You and your buddies would pick your favorite characters and say "THAT'S ME!" Then throughout the episode, whenever your character did something cool, you would feel just as awesome because it was "YOUR" character.
There are different ways to approach the cut-scene "story moments" and they both have their advantages depending on how they are presented. The "classic" pull-away camera that briefly turns the game into a movie ensures you don't miss what the game wants you to see/know at the cost of freedom to explore--but I don't see why this is necessarily always a bad thing.
The other types of cut-scenes such as QTEs and the "interactive" HL2-style story moments likewise all have their place and again, it's up to the developer to decide when to use them appropriately. One of my favorite examples of a linear, yet interactive story moments is from the last scene in the first F.E.A.R. game when the bomb goes off. While the player can attempt to run or find shelter from the blast wave, in the end you still lose all control as you are blown away. It's a really successful example of a game providing the illusion of control, while still forcing you to an inevitable end.
It all really comes down to how these story moments are presented to the player. Cut-scenes are an important part of story-driven games and as the industry expands, I think we'll find new, effective ways of delivering story to the player that will remove all need to debate the ones we have now.
I love them unless the voice actors suck, but mainly I enjoy them cus it lifts the limitations of the gameplay allowing the player experience the characters in a way they would be unable to while in control of them. Plus they are usually prettier and more in depth than the actual game graphics so it's fun to oooo and aaah at how good it looks.
As long as the cut scene is helpful to the story, and is not long winded and boring....some games execute them very well, using them as a loading screen!
I also like to be able to skip cutscenes, especially if they are not used for loading, if they are long, and have a rather difficult part of the game right after, when you are bound to die a few times! There is nothing worse than having to keep watching the same thing over and over and over!
are you kidding me? cutcenes are like the frosting of the cake here! If executed correctly they are a great reward for the player (depends on the player of course) Take halo and mgs for an example. MGS has always been heavy in its use of cutcenes and story telling resources. And it's been great to see how that decade of work played out. Now halo had cool cutcenes, but lacked the attention to them that other games have, since its more action oriented, cutcenes are often more a pain than reward.
NOW if you take a look at uncharted, there is no deniying cutcenes have improved and are here to stay.
I love 'em. I used to hate it when the cutscenes used ingame graphics, but now with the graphics we have it doesn't matter much... Look at FF XIII... The ingame cutscenes are as good as pre-rendered cinematics we had a few years ago...
Text wall coming but before I begin about the use of cutscenes I want to talk about immersion. The concept of immersion has been so loosely thrown around yet so vigorously enforced about what makes or breaks a game, it has become pretentious.
When we were kids, we didn't think of things like immersion and rightfully so. When you strip a game of all its graphics and story to its pure essence, you end up with abstract games like chess. It's nothing more than an objective with a set of rules. No motivation or reason to play except for the enjoyment alone. Then all of a sudden, an hour passed playing a single game of chess and you didn't realize it. This is immersion. When you are set on completing an objective. Whether or not you want to complete this objective is dependent on the quality of gameplay. You're not immersed if you're bored and want to do something else. The same goes for narrative immersion in movies. Whether or not you want to see what happens next ultimately comes down to good storytelling. Immersion is in other words, the result of good gameplay and/or storytelling, which games are unique in that they can have both. Immersion is not feeling like you hit something when you swing the wii remote and you hit an enemy on screen, to those people contriving reasons to dismiss motion controls. I don't need to feel the recoil of firing the light gun in the arcade to be immersed. If that is all it takes to ruin the immersion then why are you even playing games. If I'm having fun wii boxing, then I'm immersed. I'm not immersed if I'm in this interactive and player choice-driven environment but is boring as hell to play in.
Now on to the point of the use of cutscenes. The reason for the lecture on immersion is because immersion is what most of the cutscene's critics use as an argument against it which as we see is bullshit. Before, the only reason to completing the objective of chess was out of fun but story can give more motivation because narrative immersion gives us the reason to keep watching because we want to know what happens next. It gives us a reason to play and the reward of what happened next. This immersion of both completing an objective and narrative immersion is unique to games and is why cutscenes are good in games but only if the storytelling is good, otherwise narrative immersion isn't there.The traditional and interactive methods of storytelling both work and have their advantages (considering storytelling is good) but right now I'm a little tired of writing so I won't go too into detail of the pros and cons of interactive storytelling just a few examples of the use of cutscene over interactive story. Being dumped exposition while in the middle of gameplay can be annoying which is where the cutscene is useful to focus your attention on the exposition. The cutscene is also useful in using cinematography to appropriately view the expressions and gestures of the characters where interactive may have you wondering where the hell do you look and be more work just to watch.
Star Ocean: The Last Hope would have been an excellent game, if they removed every single god damn voice acted line and cutscene in the entire game. Because they're horrible.
Batman: Arkham Asylum is an excellent game, partly because of the great voice acting and cutscenes.
Sta.sh
Devious Comments
Then I vote yay because non-stop gameplay is tiring.
Not only is it usually some awesome eye-candy, but it also gives you a chance to relax for a minute. So you get to recharge your batteries so to speak and not worry about getting burnt out.
That and its of course a good story telling tool. And a chance for developers to shine if they really dazzle you with scenes.
What I HATE that some developers do nowadays is throw in some Quick Time Events. I hate QTE's as is (I feel they take the control away from the gamer), but to throw them in the middle of a "safe haven" cut scene is just annoying. That bothered me in RE: 4. Because I didn't get to enjoy what was going on. I had to keep my eyes peeled to see what random buttons I was supposed to press.
It's like being a kid so long ago, watching Power Rangers with your friends. You and your buddies would pick your favorite characters and say "THAT'S ME!" Then throughout the episode, whenever your character did something cool, you would feel just as awesome because it was "YOUR" character.
There are different ways to approach the cut-scene "story moments" and they both have their advantages depending on how they are presented. The "classic" pull-away camera that briefly turns the game into a movie ensures you don't miss what the game wants you to see/know at the cost of freedom to explore--but I don't see why this is necessarily always a bad thing.
The other types of cut-scenes such as QTEs and the "interactive" HL2-style story moments likewise all have their place and again, it's up to the developer to decide when to use them appropriately. One of my favorite examples of a linear, yet interactive story moments is from the last scene in the first F.E.A.R. game when the bomb goes off. While the player can attempt to run or find shelter from the blast wave, in the end you still lose all control as you are blown away. It's a really successful example of a game providing the illusion of control, while still forcing you to an inevitable end.
It all really comes down to how these story moments are presented to the player. Cut-scenes are an important part of story-driven games and as the industry expands, I think we'll find new, effective ways of delivering story to the player that will remove all need to debate the ones we have now.
I also like to be able to skip cutscenes, especially if they are not used for loading, if they are long, and have a rather difficult part of the game right after, when you are bound to die a few times! There is nothing worse than having to keep watching the same thing over and over and over!
If executed correctly they are a great reward for the player (depends on the player of course)
Take halo and mgs for an example.
MGS has always been heavy in its use of cutcenes and story telling resources. And it's been great to see how that decade of work played out.
Now halo had cool cutcenes, but lacked the attention to them that other games have, since its more action oriented, cutcenes are often more a pain than reward.
NOW if you take a look at uncharted, there is no deniying cutcenes have improved and are here to stay.
When we were kids, we didn't think of things like immersion and rightfully so. When you strip a game of all its graphics and story to its pure essence, you end up with abstract games like chess. It's nothing more than an objective with a set of rules. No motivation or reason to play except for the enjoyment alone. Then all of a sudden, an hour passed playing a single game of chess and you didn't realize it. This is immersion. When you are set on completing an objective. Whether or not you want to complete this objective is dependent on the quality of gameplay. You're not immersed if you're bored and want to do something else. The same goes for narrative immersion in movies. Whether or not you want to see what happens next ultimately comes down to good storytelling. Immersion is in other words, the result of good gameplay and/or storytelling, which games are unique in that they can have both. Immersion is not feeling like you hit something when you swing the wii remote and you hit an enemy on screen, to those people contriving reasons to dismiss motion controls. I don't need to feel the recoil of firing the light gun in the arcade to be immersed. If that is all it takes to ruin the immersion then why are you even playing games. If I'm having fun wii boxing, then I'm immersed. I'm not immersed if I'm in this interactive and player choice-driven environment but is boring as hell to play in.
Now on to the point of the use of cutscenes. The reason for the lecture on immersion is because immersion is what most of the cutscene's critics use as an argument against it which as we see is bullshit. Before, the only reason to completing the objective of chess was out of fun but story can give more motivation because narrative immersion gives us the reason to keep watching because we want to know what happens next. It gives us a reason to play and the reward of what happened next. This immersion of both completing an objective and narrative immersion is unique to games and is why cutscenes are good in games but only if the storytelling is good, otherwise narrative immersion isn't there.The traditional and interactive methods of storytelling both work and have their advantages (considering storytelling is good) but right now I'm a little tired of writing so I won't go too into detail of the pros and cons of interactive storytelling just a few examples of the use of cutscene over interactive story. Being dumped exposition while in the middle of gameplay can be annoying which is where the cutscene is useful to focus your attention on the exposition. The cutscene is also useful in using cinematography to appropriately view the expressions and gestures of the characters where interactive may have you wondering where the hell do you look and be more work just to watch.
Batman: Arkham Asylum is an excellent game, partly because of the great voice acting and cutscenes.