|
Every day more games seem to be be implementing a game play mechanic which consists in displaying a button for the player to press in order to succeed in doing something. Although this mechanic is very popular in Guitar Hero and Rock Band games it seems to be extending to almost every game genre.
From action/adventure games like Prince of Persia to wrestling games like TNA Impact!... and every time I see it I try to figure out the reasons why the decision of using such a game mechanic was made.
It seems to me that the idea behind the whole mechanic is to insert some "fast thinking" philosophy into their games by telling the players to react as fast as they can to the action of displaying a button (or a sequence) which they are supposed to press in a given amount of time.
I think rhythm games have good use of this because the whole purpose of this type of game is having the player press buttons all the time. They implement it in different ways that make it more fun for the player like setting the lapse of time when each button must be pressed to the rhythm of a song... and with the use of a instrument shaped controller the player can actually fantasize they are really playing in a rock band. I really enjoy these music games but somehow I don't see the use of this game mechanic to fit well into other type of games.
I have a friend who loves the Resident Evil series. A long time ago when Resident Evil 4 for Gamecube was released he showed me a little bit of the game. At some point of the game he pointed out a part where a cinematic was taking place and suddenly you had to press a button in order for the cinematic to end with a happy ending.
He claimed that it was cool to have a game where it involved the player at all times. At that time I thought that indeed it was cool a game such as that, but I didn't took much thought in the mechanic used in order to do this.
When implementing a mechanic like this into a game, coherence with the general game mechanics should be taken into account. An example of how coherence can be added into the gameplay is by looking at the Prince of Persia series. The combat system used in this games use a intuitive controller setup which is consistent though all the game (this is true for the first 3 Prince of Persia).
However in the last one they ended implementing a new mechanic which consisted in pressing a random button in certain circumstances. Although this helps the player to be constantly paying attention to the combat, this mechanic involves breaking up with the whole controller setup consistency.
There's also the fact that being ready to press a random button isn't necessary to call the player's attention if the game mechanics are already designed to do so. So the most consistent combat system that could be implemented for Prince of Persia already existed in previous versions but somehow there was a turn back in this (just as with other game concepts) to try to make it more casual.
For the Resident Evil 4 example there's a very clear gamplay and the use of "the random button" mechanic disrupts the whole concept of it. There are a lot of mechanics which could be used in consistency with the general gameplay scheme to involve the player into the game in cinematics. One for example could be simply returning the the general gameplay and expect a quick reaction to something and then return to the cinematic (or continue with the gameplay).
|
Being forced to rewatch a cinematic over and over again until you got the sequence correct is not the best way to immerse your player into your game world, or keep the tension high. If anything it drags the player kicking and screaming from being immersed into the real world, forcing them to realize that perhaps killing zombies is actually no different than a game of Guitar Hero.
I am distraught in the amount of games coming out that seem to rely on button smacking to help tell the story (Ninja Blade, RE5). Though don't get me wrong, fighting off dogs in CoD4 or smacking chainsaws in Gears of War 2 is fun and intense, but flow seamlessly with the game play. So I beg developers so stop using this gimmick so abundantly. Too much of an ok thing is bad.
I believe the reload mechanic in Gears of War also falls under the "well implemented quick time event" category.
As for using them in combat, often a QTE becomes frustrating because they don't feel natural and in fact break the game's fourth wall. It directly points out the fact that the player is pressing a button to defeat the enemy, which is an immersion no-no. Games like Assassin's Creed and Devil May Cry are clever and make much better use of the QTE. Assassin's Creed can let you counter an opponents move with the correct press of a button, but rather than telling you to press the button at a certain moment, it makes use of visual queues and in game training to teach the player when to strike. Thus apart from the training itself, there is no break in immersion. Devil May Cry does something similar with Nero's Devil Arm, it can be used to deflect many powerful attacks, but the list of attacks it can be used against is never given to the player and it's timing is hard to get right. It's still a single timed button press, but it requires the players experimentation and doesn't break immersion and feels quite natural.
Also note another affect of turning QTEs into what is almost a context sensitive action, the positive feeling that is a result of performing them is much greater, as it doesn't feel like it has been handed to you on a silver platter. That said, some QTEs are well done in that they are avoidable. A QTE you don't have to engage in isn't frustrating, as if your unable to time the QTE there is a way around the fact. CoD4's Attack dogs are an example of this.
A bad example of a QTE is the newest instalment of Prince of Persia, the actual combat itself isn't too bad, with the player able to make interesting combinations out of various attacks, but when it comes to a final boss, the player is forced to use a certain button to win, and when they fail this they don't loose but the fight continues and they are merely stuck trying to do it over and over again until they succeed. For a game that's about the experience they would have been better served by fighting the boss as normal, and then using a cinematic to detail his actual defeat, this would be more rewarding and wouldn't cheapen the experience of the game (to the same degree).
Still, when implemented well (e.g. Fahrenheit did a good job for the most part) can do a good job of providing immersion in a sequence which couldn't be implemented in via traditional methods - i.e. allowing fine manipulation of the environment or directing attention to specific in-game elements.
For the most part they seem to be way overused though.
Anyway, the worst I can find is in RE4 (maybe RE5 not sure if it loads up the same way) where you fail then it immediately loads up the part that you just failed at to try again. What's the point of a QTE to survive if right after you die there is no penalty and you start right where you left off to retry the QTE? You would have been better served to just do a passive cutscene. There's no challenge in the QTE and there's no penalty so why not just play out the cutscene normally? The prince of persia example above kinda does the same thing, but during actual gameplay, not just in a cutscene.
I've never owned a xbox or developed for it, only ps2/ps3/gc. So when I'm playing a xbox game at a friends place or the office I may know pretty well where to put my thumb to jump or pick up items or whatever, but when a QTE comes up I have no idea which of those buttons is the yellow one.
It also translates pretty poorly in PC ports like recently prototype when a text comes up that says "right shift" or "num_ins" etc.
All in all QTEs is a cheap way to build very dramatic events without having to deal with making a proper interface for the game (which as BN mentioned is how heavy rain looks like it will play out, the dragons lair of our times)
When a QTE takes place during a scene where the user is supposed to retain information, that's bad usage. For example, in Dragon's Lair (and every other LD game following), the QTE were so distracting that the only people who benefited from the sequences were the observers.
In Indigo Prophecy (sorry, juice uk), the QTE were used so out of context that they ruined the experience for me. When you're watching an action/conversation scene, why would you want to play Simon? While I was able to progress through the game with ease, I did not immerse myself into the story as much as I should have. It seems Heavy Rain has tried to make the QTE more inconspicuous visually, but they haven't improved its usage.
Sometimes you just want to WATCH something, you know?
My point is, the QTE button mash mechanic is a trend, and one that won't last forever - not even in Rock Band format! Although it is good and productive for developers to point out what's weak about current trends, it's really not going to affect anything. The sad fact is, gamers will get tired of these trends and they won't know that they're tired of it until the next trend gets shoved in their face to replace it.
Tetris was never a lame gimmick, and although Tetris isn't altogether dead, its glory days are over with, why? It simply got old and fresher mechanics seemed more relevant and interesting to gamers.
So the real question is...what will replace QTE? Not what will make it less lame...but what will completely replace it? That's the multi-billion dollar question.
- Time Crisis series
- Silent Scope
- Star Wars Trilogy Arcade
- Jurassic Park: The Lost World Arcade
Of all of these games I would say Star Wars Trilogy Arcade and Time Crisis used the mechanic well.
@Patrick Doran
About what would replace QTE, well my only suggestion is to look at action-based arcade games as they had and continue to come up with some new kind of interest gameplay mechanic. I mean alot of the gameplay mechanics you see being used these days are actually being lifted from arcade games
As for replacements for QTEs I think there's no need to actually "replace" it as long as the QTE is well implemented. An example of this is Ian's example about Zelda: Wind Waker.
Also I'm off the camp that a QTE is always a bad option, I'm certain that if your using a QTE there is a much better way of accomplishing what your after. Are you using a QTE because the mechanic was to hard without it, then you need to remove or dumb down the mechanic, are you using a QTE because you want to spice up your cut scene, don't, as I mentioned before it's distracting, and failing a cut scene is lame. Not to mention that building a cut scene, simply to have no one watch it because they're waiting for a button to pop up is a waste of time and money.
Now the QTEs close relative, the context sensitive action, is a far better solution. If you use decent audio queues and leave a small amount of room for error, the context sensitive action feels far smoother and is more immersive than a QTE can ever be. Clever use of context sensitive actions also leads to quite slick control designs. While many complaints are held against mirrors edge, the one you never seem to hear is, it's controls are stupid. Using a combination of 4 buttons for all your (quite complex) movement in a very natural and easy way is a great accomplishment and gives you access to a greater number of abilities while still using the same controls.
But they fail to reflect anything unique about the game situation. A QTE about driving a car one-wheeled around the steep mountainside road is played in exactly the same way as a QTE about two characters establishing a telepathic link. The controls are the same, and the presentation is nearly the same: arbitrary button prompts float over the camera view, and the player only looks at the button prompts.
The music game addresses both of the weaknesses of QTEs by linking input data to song data, and by making the controller resemble the instrument. This makes the mechanic considerably less abstract, and even introduces a physical component that helps distinguish the game.
Non-QTE action mechanics get their depth from their relationship to the whole game's state. Actions are not just checkbox success-or-failure items, but part of a plan, and the lengthier the plan gets, the more the player invests themselves in it. It is for this reason that Mega Man can hold more interest than most QTE-centric games, even though Mega Man is ostensibly still based around memorizing routes and patterns: because there is some kind of simulation going on in Mega Man's world, broad similarities can be drawn between different patterns, and the possible actions the player might take are complex enough that pure trial and error doesn't suffice.