The Gamer's Quarter

[Ketch]

[Shapermc]

Morrowind/Oblivion (though more morrowind) is all about making the game more yours through exploration and finding whatever path you want, and less about showing you things.

It's a shame Fable didn't end up how it was supposed to, that would have been another good example as well.
_________________
“The average man has a secret desire to be a swaggering, drunken, fighting, raping swashbuckler.”
-Robert E. Howard in a letter to a friend circa Decmber 1932

"There is no place in this enterprise for a rogue physicist!"

[Nana Komatsu]

I would rather have cutscenes than the half-interactive cutscenes in Half Life 2.

Then again I really couldn't play Morrowind and have shitty taste in games!

[Shapermc]

[internisus]

I agree with the sentiment that cutscenes need to go away, but the difference between movies and games is far more fundamental the the opening post addresses. It's simple interactivity, and that interactivity can be an extraordinarily nuanced thing. I think often videogames forget how many different forms interactivity can take because they are stuck in the genre templates established by financially successful tradition. It may be that the input innovation of the DS and the Wii, as well as the online communal experience of contemporary consoles, will lead to a surge of creativity in this regard.

[Winged Assassins (1984)]

[grumbel]

[Ketch]

Sorry! oops I meant SOTC / Ico rather than HL2.

[david]

Thank you for picking up on my wisdom...

There are times when cut scenes are all right. For example, when something specific needs to be shown clearly, and it's not something which the player should logically be able to influence. Or, when the player is somehow disempowered (Solid Snake strapped to the torture slab, or Wander helplessly watching a giant rise up before him).

I can entertain an absolute philosophical objection to cut scenes, but in all honesty, there's nothing fundamentally wrong with them. Most of the time it's just how they're used.

Cut scenes often get used when a director is at a loss to express the scene in the language of gameplay. Maybe the game is full of gun fights, but this scene is supposed to be a tender moment between the hero and his girlfriend before she's once again carried off by the rival. The game doesn't appear to have the vocabulary for that kind of emotion, so it's swapped out for a cinematic vocabulary.

The player is rightfully conceited. He knows he's the center of the world. Designers could try harder to get ideas across in a way that involves the player, since by definition that's the most powerful way to express something in a video game. Maybe there's an opportunity for the player to defend the girl, or help her -- or better yet, she helps him in some way. Ico is the shining example of this kind of relationship expressed through gameplay (although Yorda's obtuse AI hampered the experience for some). In a game, this is how the player comes by a feeling honestly. Of course the scenario and all the parameters of the player's empowerment are defined by the game, but the player buys into those constraints as his part of the bargain of engaging the interactive story. What does the game owe the player for his investment of imagination? To make those parameters count – specifically, to let the player discover their dramatic, emotional, and philosophical implications, which in sum becomes the "narrative." When the big powerful moments come from cut scenes, and not the player's autonomous negotiation with the rules of the game – that's cinematic grandstanding, and a betrayal of the player.

The worst is when the player's character is actually active in a cut scene, and performs some plot-changing action. I know I've seen this, but I can't think of an example at the moment. But you know, the villain shows up, he's pontificating malevolently, and the hero tries to get a sneaky shot at him while he's not looking. The villain is quicker than expected, and knocks out the hero with one blow. Blackness... the hero wakes up somewhere else... In general, this kind of scene is a huge slap in the face for the player. It means he's not really in charge of his character... not for high drama moments, anyway. For the routine hacking and slashing, sure. What could be worse? The player should be invited to make the most meaningful decisions.

If a scene can't be expressed interactively, maybe it doesn't belong in the game. Or maybe its message can be compressed... Pauline's "HELP!" as she's carried off by Donkey Kong was all the exposition that game needed.

(That moment from DK is on my mind because of Chris Kohler's remarks in an interview with Henry Jenkins.)

EDIT: I just remembered an example... I'm sure there are a million, but here's one from Resident Evil 4, which is an awesome game. I think it's the end of the first level or so. You finally make it to the room which is marked "destination" on your map. A cut scene takes over. Leon wanders in, looking around. Something hits him on the back of the head! Blackness... He wakes up bound by rope. (So that's where the knocking-out thing came from in my other example.) See, I don't really buy this scene because... who's to say I wouldn't have reacted in time? See if that guy can get the drop on me, I mean really put me up to him, and then we'll find out the real story! I wouldn't even mind if the level were set up so I couldn't possibly see the attack coming – sort of like the trap door before the first Bowser level in Mario 64. Yeah, that would be kind of cheap, but still I'd be able to experience how and why that attack was unavoidable. That would make it believeable. If I fail, and I know it's my own fault, then I can accept it.

That particular example wasn't infuriating because I knew it was just the inevitable progression of the story, that I wasn't really hurt or in trouble, I was simply getting a transition to the next level. But that just speaks to how loosely the game's vocabulary of actions is associated with the story. "Getting hit on the head" has no particular global meaning. It's bad when you're playing, but in a cut scene it doesn't matter. In other words, weaksauce.
_________________

[extralife]

Oh god the Half Life 2 hate in this thread is killing me.

[internisus]

That was a very IC post.

[extralife]

I know. I can't help it. IT HAS INFECTED ME!!

[dessgeega]

well, don't try to articulate why or attempt to have a conversation or anything.

i generally consider every cutscene to be a missed opportunity to take advantage of the unique strengths of the videogame medium. shadow of the colossus (which seems to be a popular topic at the moment) has scenes where you are given control of your character to struggle against an inevitable outcome. these scenes always end the same way, but because you play through them, you are left with a more tangible sense of the futility of these situtations.

the worst thing cutscenes do is steal the autonomy of the player. having the player's character perform an important action in a cutscene is a violation of the game-player relationship as far as i'm concerned.
_________________

[vision]

--

[extralife]

I was playing Strider the other day, and it hit me that there's no way that game could be made, today, like it was made in 1989. It has so many awesome parts akin to what we might today call "set peices," only what makes them so awesome is that you are doing them; they become less awesome when you suck. Today, many, many of those scenes would take something away from the player in order to make them look cool.

But, uhhh, I guess games like Half Life 2 and Call of Duty 2 do such awesome things with set peices that it doesn't matter in the end. I mainly just wanted an excuse to mention how fucking awesome Strider is.

[dessgeega]

[B coma]

to me half life 2 was mostly about having an array of ways to achieve a single goal within a 3D space, or at least one of the best illusions of choice I've seen within a physical game world. which is a little ironic if you think about how on rails the game really is. but I think it's really pretty easy to argue that this quality is present, even if it has a lot of videogame baggage along with it (City 17's economy - predicated on the exportation of explosive barrels?)

I think the theatric quality came mostly from the fact that the game was one giant chase scene. Though I didn't care much about the story, the "cutscenes" didn't bother me. I think that they're pretty tasteful in length compared to, say, your average MGS game (or heck, any other game with cutscenes). I usually regarded them as a showcase for the facial animations anyway.

[extralife]

[Harveyjames]

[david]

[extralife]

If you want to be, I guess.

[david]

How do you fuck something dry?

What does that mean.
_________________

[dessgeega]

give cunnilingus to a mound of sand?
_________________

[Nana Komatsu]

[dessgeega]

what about lube?
_________________

[Winged Assassins (1984)]

Depends on how rough you like it.
_________________

[Harveyjames]

In Irvine Welsh books a 'dry shag' is when you simulate sex with all your clothes on, just rubbing up against each other vigorously. Hope this helps!

[dessgeega]

so, frotteurism.
_________________

[Harveyjames]

To study the work of Jacques Frottuer, semiologist. Underrated next to the works of Lacan, etc.

[Nana Komatsu]

Well if one has anal sex long enough, the lube eventually dries up and you have to apply more. I always figured this was what "fuck it dry" meant, as it fuck(ing) (until ) it (is) dry!

And yes, to save time:

The Gamer's Quarter
if one has anal sex long enough

[extralife]

Yeah, uhh, it's just an expression, guys. Losely translated to mean "fuck it really hard for a long, long time" I guess. If the anal visual helps, then by all means!

[Scratchmonkey]

I once interviewed a game designer who felt that cutscenes should be largely excised from videogames simply because 95% of game designers make really crappy cutscenes, in that they're almost always horribly awkward. Which I can see. I do spend most of my time watching cutscenes rolling my eyes, rather than being interested in whatever's taking place.

Related to the violation of the player-game agreement is the player's avatar engaging in actions in cutscenes that can't be triggered during normal gameplay. This drives me absolutely nuts. In one of the early cutscenes in Fable, the main character jumps over a fence, even though in regular gameplay the fence acts as an impassable barrier. This is made worse by the fact that there's a gate two feet from where the character jumps over the fence, meaning that they didn't even need to make the character jump the fence.

[david]

That's funny, about the gate. Yeah, pretty amazing how the rules of the game -- meaning the 'game' part of the game -- don't apply to the movies. The drama and meaning of a game is supposed to come from its rules, and how things behave accordingly.

I thought Peter Molyneaux was a smart guy.
_________________

[Nana Komatsu]

[Scratchmonkey]

[Cycle]

It's funny how people cite SotC as a great example of not using cutscenes, because I hated how it used cutscenes when you found the Colossi. As I mentioned in another thread, it would be so much exciting if you ran out into the desert on your horse, and the sand worm just shot up from the sand in front of you and started flying through the sky. I think the last Colossi was the only one without a cutscene? Of course, a couple of worked better WITH cutscenes, but that doesn't mean all of them needed one.

Something that bugged me about some of the Sonic games was how it took away control at the end of the level. If I let go of the controller, then sure, he could give the player some in-your-face attitude, but if not, I want to keep jumping around like a mad man while my performance stats are displayed! Sonic is all about speed and momentum!

[TOLLMASTER]

Cutscenes can occasionally be a strength. For whatever reason, I always think of Matsuno's Final Fantasy Tactics and Vagrant Story as having good cutscenes. Not because of their unique art style, but because both of those games are being "told" to you by a character after the fact. One of the battles in FFT has you walking into a trap. You have the "freedom" to walk across the map and go everywhere but where the trap is located, but you can't progress the game. You can spend 99 years game time without getting another cutscene, if you wanted to.

Both games are told less like stories, but more like dramatic plays, and the way the cutscenes doom you onto a single path is used to an actual effect. It's not lazyness or not using the medium in this case (though for most games, dessgeega's point stands); it's a very interesting way for the developer to get across a fatalistic view. The characters and player have "choices" but with the player, who wants to see the conclusion, in charge, they really have none at all.

I haven't played FFXII, but now I think I want to.

[Hot Stott Bot]

Disregarding the entire conversation up to this point:

I've always liked to differentiate mediums like this:

Gameplay communicates experience.

Sound communicates emotion.

Video communicates narrative.

Text communicates idea.

These aren't inseperable of course. Gameplay requires either sound, video, or text, and video often uses sound, and text has a visual element to it. And I think video can be broken down into much more depth, but that's the general idea as far as videogames are concerned.

Or the bigger idea that each medium is ideal for communicating a certain category of somethings, I think at least, is definitely important.

Now a videogame can use all of these elements in a certain combination with each other!

I find this distinction very useful. Whenever I'm analyzing or creating something, I try to break it down and see what each component part is communicating in the field it's best at.

If the video isn't effectively communicating some sort of narrative, then I'm not really using the video well am I? If I can't put a name on the experience of the gameplay, then I'm not really using it very well am i?

Now getting back to what's been discussed so far...

I think the flaw with "cutscenes", is that due to the inseperable nature of each of these elements, sometimes you end up sacrificing the capabilities of one so that another one can realize it's own capabilities. For example, you might sacrifice the real narrative power of video because the gameplay needs it to communicate a good experience.

I think people have an intuitive sense of this, feel frustrated at the problem, and so "fix it" by devoting the video either to pure gameplay or pure narrative and switching between the two.

I think maybe this can work well if that burst of pure narrative continues to spill over and have an effect through the burst of gameplay (and the other way around), but usually I don't think it works out that well.

So, I dunno...

That's all I have to say about that.

[dessgeega]

[beige]

[Hot Stott Bot]

[dessgeega]

sorry, when i saw "video" i read "movie", which clearly isn't how you intended it. but yeah, story can be communicated in many different ways. cutscenes are one of those ways (a poor way, i feel) and add nothing to the game except story.

at the same time, i think narrative is communicated by more things than just video. i would say that narrative is communicated by gameplay more than anything - by the circle of feedback between player and game.
_________________

[oligophagy]

[Slonie]

I really want to read the strider article now. Or at least the thread.
_________________
-Slonie

[dessgeega]

the thread's here. there were some time paradoxes that day, so some posts are out of order. in fact, the first post is like three posts in.

consider it a sneak preview of the article?
_________________

[Kipple]