Slashdot Mirror
Cinematics Do Matter?
In direct contradiction to a discussion we had about David Jaffe's opinion on the subject earlier today, GameDaily Biz has an editorial up arguing that cinematics and story are very important game elements. From the article: "There have been times in our industry where sub-par product has been sold through its cinematics, but there have also been times when products have failed to live up to the promise of its creators. The merits of if a cinematic and/or story detract from a game experience is rather mute, as story is one of the oldest and fundamental forms of entertainment, expression and communication"
Who didn't want to cry like a baby when Aeris died in FF7?
Cinematics are very effective in the right situations. Would a cinematic be a selling point for me if I wanted a new hack n slash? Probably not. Would I be disappointed if the next installment of FF had no cinematics? Deffinitely.
I agree. The StarCraft cinematics remain to this very date some of the very best ever done for a video game - they were graphically realistic, aurally well done, and conveyed a genuine feel of the StarCraft universe, as well as being damn funny. And as the parent notes, they didn't focus entirely on protraying major events; this mostly happened through the game engine. What they did do was add a solid base for the rest of game, sparking further insight into the story and graphically relaying memorable moments for the video game. Take, for example, the cinematic in which Terran soldiers go aboard the compromised Terran Science Vessel - it is both supportive of the overall story (as the mission preceding it dealth with Kerrigan's compromise of the vessel), it was graphically and aurally well done (it conveyed a definite experience, rather than just a fragmented collection of images and sounds), and had a touch of all-important humor (the marines use the nuclear device they intend to blow up the vessel with, which utilizes cold fusion, to smuggle aboard alcohol, which stays nice and frosty next to the nuke). As good as this cinematic was, it still was not critical to the storyline, rather, it was an excellent bonus for those skilled enough to reach it and patient enough to watch it.
games journalism blog
Cinematics can, and often do, enhance and improve a game. But I do not think it is a good idea to have the cinematics eclipse the gameplay as a selling point.
The primary reason I stopped playing the final fantasy titles was because the cinematics became much more important then the gameplay.
The primary problem is that non interactive elements in games are not very replayable. Once the novelty of watching a long animation sequence wears off, I want to be able to skip it. And if I am forced to sit through a 30 second clip for the 19th time or so, I get very annoyed.
END COMMUNICATION
Story makes a big part of many of the games I like (since I'm big into RPGs), but it shouldn't be forefront.
The order of game creation should go:
Gameplay
Story
Graphics
Cinematics
I'm paying $30-$50 to play a game, not watch a movie. Well done cinematics, when they add to the story and aren't in the way (and can be skipped if I want to), are great, but should only be implemented after good gameplay and story are pretty much wrapped up.