|
The modern game is a schizophrenic beast concerned at one moment with storytelling and the next with gameplay. Much (far too) has been written about the tension between storytelling and gameplay, but I feel I have an interesting take on the issue.
The modern gaming industry produces, by and large, not games but multimedia products with large amounts of gameplay. The cut-scene is the secondary media. I don't mean to blow a semantic issue out of proportion, and since gameplay is by and large what makes products successful it is right to focus on it, but we should keep in mind certain differences to the current "video game" form.
Play is a discontinuous process cut up by cutscenes, loading screens (though these are slowly being shifted around and shortened), and non-interactive in-game events. This is in contrast to board-games, physical games, and some sports (commercial breaks, anyone) which take the form of a single continuous play session.
Cutscenes are used because they work when used well, because they entertain the consumer, and because we don't have advanced enough technology to tell the story through AI characters alone (this is probably achievable on a limited scale), because Hollywood is the model for success, and because they give authorial control without the "boring" nature of text.
But as an aesthetic choice institutionalized only recently (I'm thinking of arcade or NES games as well that have no real story to speak of other than setting) it must not be thought of as a permanent or indispensable feature of game-making. The fact that I can look slightly to the left on this blog-writing screen and see Cinematic Artist advertised as a job position; how long before the dream of media integration comes true and we get Hollywood directors slumming it by directing cut-scenes?
Let it be noted that some solutions like Valve's use of in-game dialogue and scripted action sequences, while more pleasing in my view, still don't count as gameplay as it is defined.
While it may seem like a gimmicky idea, my dream game is one designed to be played in one sitting without saving-reloading (another pet peeve of mine) or stopping for a dose of story. Rewinding time (a gimmick in itself) was the first way that occurred to me to achieve this, but lack of player death could also solve this problem. Failure occuring in other ways than death is another thing that isn't popular, but I see possibilities there.
This whole argument sort of hinges on my belief that games are essentially not narrative during play, but rather after it. Being the type of media most linked to experience, one can ask the question who self-conciously thinks about their life as narrative in any way other than through memory?
Cut-scenes, then, create an after-gameplay space which is linked to the remembered events and modifies them with its narrative to create a story. It is this distance between content of cutscene and narrative (remembered) content of the game experience that makes cutscenes jarring for me and others.
True integration of gameplay and story may be impossible in the sense that instrumentalizing dialogue (for example) choices would make them ring false and narrativising gameplay could be seen as absurd (the "you need one hundred koopa shells to unlock the gate to Bowser's castle" line is tired).
Taking a look at real life experience, however, may give us a model (examples of this are Miyamoto's oft-quoted gardening comments, but there are a million pleasing everyday interactions from which to take inspiration).
My mechanics-focused bias is sort of obvious here, and I'm not arguing that people should really change what they are doing (or that it's bad, audience preference is always a better judge) , just that they should be less single-minded in their use of conventions of the form.
|
I think the thing that annoys me with these kinds of things are that we're all saying "games", "cut-scenes", "narrative", "gameplay", "content of cutscene", etc. and this stuff can't be defined definitely because it means different things to different people. Like when you say that cut-scenes create an after-gameplay space that is linked to remembered events and distances itself from gameplay, I don't think that's true. Not in the sense that you don't have a valid point, but in the sense that I have seen cut-scenes full of content that I took with me into the gameplay that really affected my experience whether it be from info or emotions or something else. So I guess I just hate the "lets fix ______" argument because you can't generalize something that's abstract and hope to fix it.
I'm speaking as a consumer so I'm sorry if this presses anyones buttons but I'm tired of all the usual video game arguments. Cutting the cutscene is ridiculous. You also have to notice the efforts putting forth by developers like the FPS's that integrate story into gameplay (Portal being an excellent example), the setting as a story, the partnerships in games where dialogue is progressed while you play (Prince of Perisa is a good example). So I definitly, as a consumer, don't see the single-minded use of conventions of the form. Sorry.
@ Josh Portal is a good example of what I prefer and I should have thought of it when writing my post. I still think that 95% of games today use cutscenes in one form or another, making this a valid issue. You point out two games that don't, but I could name hundreds that do.
I'm basically making a semantics argument and then noting that my aesthetic preference lies on one side of it, a side which is not currently popular.
But I DO like to see some awesome cutscenes around, some "OOOOOOH!!!" moments, when you take a breath of all the action, gaze in the screen and say: COOOOOL!!! or... HOLY SHIT!!!!!
Your mention of lack of death to prevent loading is horrifing... Seriously, someone told me that the objective of impossibility to die on Prince of Persia was that, man, I found this awfull, a game where is impossible to lose is not a game! A game is defined by how you can win, how you can lose and the rules... (before someone say: and the sims? and sim city? in words of Will Wright himself: "those are toys")
Of course, it might be that the real game looks so bad... no one wants to put pictures of it on the back of the box.
Mac
My blog has more on game development...
http://aboutmakinggames.blogspot.com/
While in a general sense I share your preference for constant interactivity over the interruption of cutscenes, I submit that real life in fact does have cutscene-like moments: reading text (a website, a newspaper, a book) purely to obtain information, watching a film or television for any number of reasons, even being on the silent end of a one-way conversation or being chastised by someone, when your interaction tends to be more passive and acknowledging rather than active.
I don't really know how one would best design a game that could effectively convey moments such as those. After all, completing any complex endeavor in real life, even one primarily based around action (as in most video games) does require some element of simply gathering information to determine the context and goals, and most of the time, when we are obtaining information, we aren't simultaneously running around and jumping or fighting or tossing objects.
Some games (for example the -Shocks) use audio logs to allow you to have a completely passive role with the information itself, while not restricting your in-world actions. That works well from a gameplay perspective and I enjoy it, but it isn't really reflective of how anything is actually likely to work even in the settings depicted in those games. Portal does essentially the same thing but ties it directly into the fiction in a more believable way. I don't think I've seen a game that solves the problem without just inventing a reason for your character to simply receive an information dump while running around.
It's a tough problem to solve! And since a lot of people don't consider it a problem (for understandable reasons), it just makes it all the tougher.
Chris Remo: Audio logs/voice-overs seem to be the new "scripted sequence" when it comes to developing the story without interrupting game play, but there are more subtle methods as well. Not many people realize how much information the environment itself can communicate to the player. In HL2, for example, there were newspaper clippings, graffiti, and even dead bodies that suggested to the player what happened in the area before Gordon arrived.
I think you best describe John's "reason" for hating cutscenes. Games seem to be stuck in the WoW or D&D hierarchy of start and stop gaming.
The only time I ever liked cutscenes was in Diablo II where a story unfolded and was a true reflection on what was actually unfolding to you without knowing till the end.
Now does one also need to have a no die situation? Maybe in a single player game, yet if you want to move into the MMO world, then death should be apart of the game, it just depends on how it's done. Taking most MMO's atm, warhammer online is a reloaded version of most games of the past. You run in do what you can, die, startover. BORING!
I for one cannot wait for more open thinking in game design without the limitations. One player games will 99% of the time need some structure and storyline. Yet most of the choices given don't suit the games and hence my decline of playing them unless it's a nice strategy game where I can play through or even some like Knights of Honour that I can play over and over endlessly.
Darkfall had potential, but I say the best option atm is Mortal Online. Open ended and with death. Yet I feel that even here that the Devs need to add more, and players need to get over their God status.
By that I mean, give us options within the game to DO, achievements need to be more than collect X amount of THAT and move to literal AI where we can find ever changing features.
ie. You start in a small town, manage to earn enough money to buy a horse so you can leave this (now boring) town. You head north for two days exploring as you go and stumble upon a castle.
Cool, let's have a look. ~ You explore and find a hedge wizard experimenting his craft. You kill him and loot his sorry arse.
Next ex-villager: Starts walking and takes a week to reach the castle, what seems to be an abandoned one. Hmmm, wonder who used to live here. After looking around you find a decomposing body of an man covered in tattered clothes resembling that of an arcane magician. Looking around you find nothing of value. You consider doing the place up, but you need money for that. Leaves in search of more money and goal to come back.
Third person purchases a horse, heads north (month after 1st person) and stumbles upon an erie castle. Strange sounds emit from inside. You proceed closer with caution. From the shadows you can see a band of what seems to be men living in the very run down castle. They seem to be camped here and with all the provisions around, look as though they live here.
Fast forward 6 months: 1st person is in charge of a small band of men-at-arms heading southwest from his lord's home. As he comes over the crest of a small hill, stops suddenly and remembers. "I know this place." From the hill he sees a castle being renovated in much haste. "This is definately a good spot to dig in men!"
Games need to reuse their props without being the same old boring stuff, especially in MMO's. As the game ages, so too should the world. To me a fitting cutscene here would be after talking to the new castle owner and getting local news. The scene would show an encroaching army and a new warfront. Now that can be done with ingame characters and the current props.
So I think what John is trying to say is think outside of the normal, boring tried and true methods. They're overused without making anything better. How many people out there are sick of the "Matrix" style shots?
I'm glad in some ways to see no one else "trying", I'm off to Uni in a month to study animation. I just hope I can find a company and group of people that think differently!
Thanks for a good article John, makes one think of new ways.
I think cinematics also play a decent role for those realistic stopping moments, for instance when you agree to listen to the old man's tale, I mean if you wanted to be really fussy you could be forced to sit there blandly listening, or you could have a fantastical cinematic that evokes your imagination. Things like riding a cable car, sure if you want let the player move about the car do so, but it's not like there is, or should be, anything to do up there. In that instance a cinematic could spice up the scene and hasten it along.
As for the entire DnD concept of being told you travelled and other small things like that, well there are again things like load screens, that could have a piece of art that depicts travel. Hell just make every single loading screen pertinent to the situation.
My opinion is really thus, use cinematics where it makes sense, try and blend them seamlessly into gameplay, perhaps even do them in game, mirror's edge style, like when faith is talking to the bodyguard hanging of the roof. Sure information can be given in other ways, and I think it should always be delivered in small doses rather than a massive hit (that said I think intro movies are a great way to set context). Most situations that the player shouldn't be able to avoid (and this is more physically rather than story related), or wouldn't avoid (aka looking down the hill to the fight below, the old mans story etc), could probably be done with a cutscene to spice things up a bit. In truth if that's done well, and neatly, the player won't be distracted by it at all.
On the flip side I have played plenty of games that can tell a good story without cut scenes. Bioshock, Prince of Persia: Sands of Time, and Dead Space are three that come to mind. The pacing of these games would have been horribly disrupted with cut scenes.
I think in the end video games will simply create a variety of story telling mechanics that are all equally effective. Trying to create a dominate or perfect mechanic is not a good route to take. Think about how boring movies would be if they all utilized one plot devices over and over again.
Cutscenes can be an effective way of transmitting vital information about the game to the player, or briefly highlighting a character's emotional reaction, without having to worry about the player looking the other way. We get into trouble when they're used as little more than a tool for stroking designer egos. The classic "Sit back and watch while your character does tons of cool stuff that you can't do in-game, because I imagined him doing it and it looked awesome in my head!".