Slashdot Mirror
Cinematics Are Killing Gameplay?
Howard Brown writes "David Rodriguez is a Lead Game Designer at High Voltage Software. His latest article on Buzzscope discusses videogaming's overabundance of cinematics, and how their misuse is taking us further and further away from what videogaming is all about." From the article: "I made it perhaps three virtual feet before managing to trigger another cinematic. Silently biting back a curse I again attempted to button through it, but those rat-bastard developers were bound and determined to have me watch their cinematic magic. Idly tapping the button, as if hoping that somehow the rules would change, I sat and listened as some NPC taught me all about targeting."
I can't stand these things. I bought a GAME to PLAY. Not a POORLY ANIMATED MOVIE to WATCH. Whenever I get a title that I think might be "rich" with cinematics, I look at the preferences to see if there's a way to speed them up. I turn off the sound in them if possible, I make text scroll as fast as possible, etc. I know they want to "advance the story"; but if a game wants to have any CHANCE at replay value, it'd better allow me to skip the damn cinematics. That's why I can still play Prince of Persia:Sands of Time.
blarg.
I could write pages, on this but I'll try to keep it brief...
Cinematics are killing gameplay in many games... not all, something like an RPG, or a graphic adventure should have gobs of them, but I shouldn't have to sit through 5 minutes of cinematics before I start running and jumping in a Sonic or Mario type game... Cinematics and story in general are great, but they should be used in moderation when the story is not the main focus of the game.
Another issue is that cinematics can take gamers out of the game, and kill that adrenaline rush they had going. Making them short and sweet, and always using in-game graphics whenever possible is the best way to remedy this. Sure, those hyper-realistic pre-rendered cinematics are pretty and all, but it reminds you subconciously that this is seperate from the rest of the game.
Another big gripe I have for cinematics is that developers want you to watch these movies, but they don't give you a decent control mechanism like you have for DVDs and such. Whenever you're watching a cinematic you should always be able to hit start/pause and be able to replay or skip them.
"A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
Hey some games have lots of cutscenes, some have few. RPGs require more cutscenes than other genres, but having too many/too few is bad for any genre. But, there is a huge difference between a CGI cutscene and a real-time cutscene. Always keep that in mind when talking about cutscenes.
Some people encrypt by using rot-13 twice. I prefer the more secure method of using rot-1 a total of twenty six times.
This article nails the issue on the head and voices a common complaint of mine regardling cinematics in games. The single greatest source of irritation for me is watching a 3 - 5 minute FMV (full motion video) segment and then once its over and the mission/chapter/whatever starts, realizing that whatever was in that video has no effect at all what so ever on the gameplay or how I will continue playing the game. Funnily enough, as a kid, FMV was all the rage (remember the Multimedia/CDROM explosion) and I ate it up without hesitation. Video games with real life video in them, awesome, thats like something out of the movies! But now, about 90% of the time, if possible, I will just skip the FMV (assuming like the author noted, that its possible, damn thats annoying) since its usually not too great and also completely irrelevant to the gameplay that follows. Note that this is also due to the fact that very often, game stories are nothing more than half-hazardly used glue to keep levels/missions together; if you remove the story, the game loses some context but the mission objectives remain nonetheless.
Its kind of how a soldier IRL is given a set of orders but is rarely given a great deal of context regarding their orders outside of the immediate need of whats required to complete their mission. Johnny Soldier just needs to know that he needs to storm that building and secure 3 known surviving civilians and eliminate any hostiles. Whether that building was is additionally the center of a complex political plot involving several governments and trans-national companies is largely irrelevant to his mission.
Games with FMV will give you a nice 5 minute cinematic on that whole political plot and then will put you, virtual Johnny Solder into the mission with the actual objectives (secure building, rescue civs, eliminate hostiles), and in the end, that whole cinematic doesnt matter one bit when completing your mission so long as you just follow your objectives. Maybe a scripted event happens relating back, but more often than not, theres only the mission. This is also partially to blame on the saturation of purely linear stories and largely non-open games. The future is surely in games like Elder Scrolls Oblivion rather than Final Fantasy since while Final Fantasy may tell some nice stories, the games are little more than interactive showcases for stories. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed FF as a kid but these days I prefer the gameplay itself to be the sole means of telling the story as well as the ability for emergent gameplay as the article said, and non-linearity. Heres a salute to all those that are forging that road into the emergent future.
"What can a thoughtful man hope for mankind on Earth, given the experience of the past million years? Nothing." -Bokonon
Someone's got it! I've been hating these for years. All cinemas get immediately skipped as soon as I start a game. In addition, more proof you don't need Blue-frigging RAY for games. I bet PS3 BR discs will have half the media filled up with cinematics.
Way to support a bad product by paying $50 for it. The author "gave these asses FIFTY dollars" and THEN "went to look at the reviews for the game and saw that it was averaging a 4/10". I almost never buy a game without checking out at least one or two online reviews to see if it's worth my money or not. Had he done the same, I'm guessing he wouldn't have bought it. Even if the game got good reviews, he would have found out that it relies heavily on cinematics, and would've at least second guessed the purchase. If he bought it anyway.. well, he was warned.
Fox Hunt(My personal favorite), Dragon's Lair, Psychic Detective, Nightrap...sure these games are kind of campy, but I think they're fun as hell. I want to see some more "interactive movies". As far as cinematics killing gameplay, if it's a game that doesn't need it (sonic, mario, a racing game) then as long as I can hit the start button and skip the video I don't really care. I guess I only care if they're wasting significant resources on making these things. Cinematics actually _add_ to gameplay in those interactive adventure games and RPGs, games with a heavy story. But I still wish they made some FMV games...
Was gonna write something painful, but I'll keep it short.
1. Cutscenes are a favorite critic whipping-boy. Nobody likes them in theory. Well, except for the ones we like.
2. Big problem with video games is the underlying amateur attitude. You give developers huge teams and big budgets, and they get to the cutscene or the fancy camera angles and they ignore the fact that cinema is its own art, with its own rules. Frankly, I don't have a problem with a cutscene, or a part of a game with cinematic elements, if it's done right. An example of this would be the distinction between description and narration. Consider a Covert Ops mission or a social dinner party. Both of these involve a bit of "setting the stage": The FRAGO, The invitation, the layout of the swank uptown digs, the brothel where General Manfredsohn's mistress works. A cutscene is a fine way to show these elements (provided you can skip through it if you've seen it already). Or anything that involves boring, repetitive action. After I've made the drug score, I'm not going to mind a montage of driving around town, delivering it to my boys with Curtis Mayfield in the background.
But as it stands, it seems that many of these games get it backwards, and use cinematics for the narrative, and leave to the player the boring stuff better spent in montages. When they do get the purpose right, there's no guarantee they'll follow the basic conventions of direction, which are necessary for describing space in a coherent fashion. Instead we get gee-whiz camera angles, flyin gcameras and superzooms.
Grow Up.
You brought up my favorite example for this argument. Sands of Time stands is not just an example that gameplay does not need cinematics, but that you can have a rewarding and thorough narrative accompanying your game without resulting in endless cutscenes.
Sands of Time still manages to tell a great story through character monologue and vocal narrative, and that game literally had more depth of character than most games with hours of cinematics.
I always tell everyone to play it just to see for themselves. It's a great excercise in design by Ubisoft on that one.
I have to disagree with the RPG comment. Cutscenes in RPGs are a somewhat new thing. RPGs are all about player-driver stories; that's what Role-Playing is.
Only in the later console generation have we had oodles of over-produced, pretty animated sequences to look at. If you look at PC RPGs they continue in the more traditional direction: YOU are the player, and YOU tell your own story. If I want to play the role of another character in another world, watching someone's camera work and seeing the character I'm supposed to identify with speak his own mind without my input, I immediately detach from the experience.
Say no to Cinematics. Save Lives.
I guess this must be talking about Japanese console games, since as a mainly PC gamer I haven't been annoyed by cutscenes/cinematics. On Japanese consoles, however, I feel that there is WAY WAY WAY too much handholding and inane dialogue (cinematic or otherwise). I think I just have a different idea of what makes a good game (e.g. pacing, timing, quality minimal dialogue, character driven story over combat sysem gimmicks, etc.) than do the Japanese and their fans.
Handholding is a different issue:
I often rant to my console gaming friends about how games USED to just make early levels more forgiving and let you learn how to play by PLAYING, but for some reason game designers feel like they need to subject you to a two-hour tutorial level at the beginning to teach you how every little thing in the game works. Next to the issues in the above paragraph, I think excessive handholding has contributed the most to making me stop playing a lot of games over the past few years.
Arguing about vi versus Emacs is like arguing whether it's better to make fire by rubbing sticks or banging rocks.
That's a game that now sits at the bottom of my stack unfinished because of damned unskippable cinematics.
I loved that whole game and never really minded the cinematics until I got to the boss, had my ass handed to me, and tried it again.
So I load up my save, walk through the portal, and sit through probably three weeks of badly compressed video. I mean, that first time I wouldn't have thought to skip it- it was helping develop the story. Check out those elder gods! Second time? Don't need it. Just let me get in there and try to finish the game. Then I died again.
Third time, I stepped through the portal, went outside and had a smoke, and came back to find that the damned scene still wasn't done. There's no reason for that. If your cinematic is that damned important, at least let me save after it so I don't have to watch it every single time.
"We shall grapple with the ineffable, and see if we may not eff it after all." - Douglas Adams
I've worked in the industry a good 10 years now... and i've got to say that cinematics are the worst excess of the industry, maybe second to crap marketing (read G4).
Let me tell you, a serious game Dev project involves about 60 people and 12-18 months. A whole lot of that time/effort is spent building the graphics. This involves artists working long hard hours pushing pixels and vertexes around, just to get models, textures and UI ready.
So why do game projects often take a good half the artists and devote them to these big, expensively rendered, extravagant FMVs? It is especially maddening when you consider that they are almost always skipped by people eager to get to the game play!
It's all just a matter of self-serving ego or laziness. The artists want 'hot' stuff on their reels, especially since the vast majority of them are sad-sack losers wishing they worked at ILM or Pixar. The Art Directors need to show their state-of-the-art grasp of tools like Maya and 3D Studio (watch for how often 'realistic' looking smoke, fire and water are used in these FMVs) and their ability to wring the fanciest looking stuff out of their artists... The producers go along with it so they are able to show non-gaming bean counters and check writers something flashy in a dark conference room, and the marketers are all behind it so they can show the flash at g3 and the other garish, cheesy game conferences. Last, we have the designers, who leverage these FMVs to give a false sense of 'depth' by establishing some silly context for their weak or uninspired game design.
In short, these FMVs represent and tie together all that is disgusting and pathetic about the game industry, with a very short list of exceptions. They are both the cause and the effect of and endless cycle of crap games, cheesy spectacle, increasingly more expensive and less entertaining choices we have today.
Some people hate cutscenes, but when they are done right they can be awesome. Warcraft III comes to mind. Another game that blew me away was FFX when I first got my PS2 (at least the opening scene -- some of the dialogue scenes were interminable).
To me, a video game is best when it is a movie that I can play. I enjoy the cinematics when they add to the plot and draw me into the game. But obviously, they should be skippable. I doubt that the testers and developers manage to complete the product without a skip option. And playing the same cinematic more than once during a gaming session doesn't make sense either. This is just plain common sense.
The problem is not the cinematics, it's the crappy implementation of them.
I don't mind the FBI warning on the front of a DVD - I just mind that I can't skip it.
...in Tetris. Before you could play, you had to watch this little movie sequence on how the square-shaped Tetris pieces were taking over the land of Tetrisania and were oppressing the T-shaped pieces. Then you ran into the L-shaped pieces and their back story.
It's only going to get worse when the Tetris MMORPG is released. You have to talk to the RED L-shaped piece to go on a quest to defeat the evil 4-blocks-in-a-line monster, but get a magic item from the zig-zag piece first.
The shortest in-game movie sequences? pac man.
Does anyone remember that cutscene with the guys building the ark, where they'd sing that annoying song that was about five minutes long and UNSKIPPABLE? I think they must have thrown that in there just to poke fun at ridiculous cutscenes.