I agree that more games should have narrative and interactivity interwoven, especially when a cutscene depicts something that should have been playable (like an action scene), but when saying to completely get rid of the notions of cutscenes and the like, I highly disagree.

If we were to completely eliminate cutscenes, we wouldn't have games like Metal Gear Solid 2, a game I consider to be an utter masterpiece. Some exposition would not be helped in any way by player input. The interactivity, in some cases, would ruin things. Would being interactive during Emma's death sequence really be constructive? Would hearing the chillingly brilliant final Codec call with the Colonel be improved if the player could take action? The game had great gameplay, and the bosses were fantastic, but it knew when to expose and when to give control. I know I'm in the minority of praising MGS2 in this way, but I think we shouldn't forget that a game that uses cutscenes (entirely skippable, mind you) is not necesarily inferior to a game that doesn't use them.

In that same vein, I think that Ico and Shadow of the Colossus are also masterpieces, and they take the complete opposite narrative approach than MGS2 did. They did it well, but I don't think they are meant to usurp all other types of games. You can have games light on story, games that present story and cutscenes, and games that weave gameplay with story, but to suggest that one way is better than the other would be a disservice to the medium. Games should be as diverse as those who play them, and this should not be forgotten when approaching the narrative in games. There's room enough for all approaches, and fans enough for them all.

Was there a sudden surge of games with great stories and bad gameplay that I'm unaware of? Because I'm really not seeing what games this editorial is speaking to. The new sonic games are awful example - they're not bad because they're to complex or because they introduce more story elements, they're bad because none of the new gameplay elements are fun and because the story is awful.

And no, video games are -not- meant to be entertainment above all. Is that the role of movies? The role of literature or painting or any number of forms of media. Of course it isn't, and video games are no different. Arguably, there are already many games that are not "pure" entertainment - take 4X games, for example, where the goal is not so much to sit there with a big grin on your face as it is think about your strategy and how the game might unfold in the next few turns.

Your essential point is correct, of course - but it is a point that does not seem to speak to any particular game, because making games with bad gameplay and AWESOME narratives/art/etc is -not- a problem in the game industry right now.

It seems people are forgetting, or have never considered in the first instance, that great gameplay *is* the art of the videogame medium.

Great visuals, great music, great storytelling - leave those to be called 'art' in other mediums. The art of the game is gameplay.

In the right hands, Chess is an art form, and it's not because of the marble chessboard.

@ Steven

We are discussing VIDEO games, not just games. Video games often require artistry in the areas of visuals, audio, and narrative. The whole produces something different than a game like chess or baseball. Every part needs to be considered equally, or you might as well just design new art/story-free board games.

@ Steven, Derek

The gameplay is the most important part of what makes a game art. Without gameplay, you might as well have just made a movie. But that is not really the issue.

A truly artistic game will combine the multiple aspects of what makes games art into one. They will combine all or some of the following: gameplay, animation, graphics, music, sound effects, narrative. Those are the essential aspects of any game. Some are more important than others, but together they make what we call a game.

The successful combination of these is what truly makes gaming an art form. By cleverly combining gameplay with the narrative with the sound, music and graphics/anmations setting the mood and theme, you can make truly engaging experiences.

I think what Brandon is getting at is to not get so caught up in making great artistic games that we lose sight of what makes them fun to begin with. His use of Sonic works for me. Sonic was a blast to play when the game was about using Sonics speed to navigate through a world built for him. By expanding it to include aspects of narrative and 3D worlds, they gutted what made the game fun to begin with.

I myself love the idea of games becoming a legitimate art form and support anyone's efforts to do so. But let's not get so caught up in the arts race and forget to make good games.

I agree half! This is certainly -a- way to do it.

Quoted: "I like games that are fun to play above all else, and I don't think I'm alone in that."

You're certainly not alone. But there's also a segment that -does- play for the experience. They rather play a game with a nice experience but lesser gameplay, than a game with awesome gameplay but a bland experience.

It all boils down again to the "who are you making it for?"

"I myself love the idea of games becoming a legitimate art form and support anyone's efforts to do so. But let's not get so caught up in the arts race and forget to make good games. "

Could this point be less relevant? Where oh where is the glut of overly-artistic games we're supposed to be concerned about?

Sonic is a horrible example. It isn't art that ruined Sonic.

@Toby
I think it all boils down to "why are you making the game?"

If you only try to "appeal to certain audiences," creators limit themselves to something before they even start. In doing so they worry more about the business side of worrying if a game will sell than worrying about what could be a new, different and above all lasting experience. Because if you leave a lasting experience in either a good(Sonic2) or a bad(Daikatana) way it will be remembered and and set itself apart from the myriad of other mediocre tittles.


I liked this article a lot. I agree it is arguing about games becoming 'art' or games giving what players want. It is about not trying to make games things they're not. Alan Moore spent his career as a comic book writer trying to do things in comics that could not be done in movies. I believe, for games to emerge as an art source and produce titles that aren't part of the quagmire of shovel titles, people need to focus on crafting and combining the elements of games(gameplay, graphics, music, cutscenes) to create something that can only be experienced as a game.

So yes, let games be games. If all people focus on is a playable movie, then all that games can be is a movie with some gameplay thrown in. They have a long way to develop, but trying to match them up to other mediums is selling the power and potential of games short.

Also you're sonic example is pretty good. But you should also look at the two DS games that have been released because they back-up you're point a lot.

Sonic DS Rush was the first time that sonic ditched the "emersive experience" hoopla and went back to its solid gameplay focus.

On the other hand, Sonic DS Rush Adventure took an almost exact copy of the Sonic & Rush 2d fast gameplay that made it great, and through up a terrible and boring RPG element, shat out a slow boring on-rails ship mini-game and rubbed your nose in it as you had to do all of those terrible things over in over again to get enough gems to get to the next level, all in the sake of ADVENTURE! So all-in-all Sonic Rush Adventure, had the potential to be another gem of a tittle, but instead they added all the frivolous stuff you mentioned and created a terrible experience.

@ Cameron
I think, like the producer of a movie, it's important for a game developer to recognise thier target audience at least. Whenever you produce *any* game, you are producing it for a subset of people that solid market research shows will like it, and a subset that will hate it (brand new risky experimental games aside). Making the game great therefore entails building it even more specifically for those people whom you know will like the genre, pacing, game play and storyline of that game. This doesn't stop you breaking new ground (although that tends to be the reality of it) it just means that when trying to break said ground a developer has to stop and wonder if the player demographic that is going to be playing his game, will enjoy the new features.

Otherwise I pretty much agree with the article apart from the deal about cut scenes, on this I'll have to agree with Joseph. Some gamers (myself included) love a well timed and effective cinematic. Sometimes they even aid the pacing of the game, but there are many games out there that neither time their cut scenes well, or have them as anything more than bland filler material. And while game play is limited to that which you can bind to a keypad of some description, unfortunately a cut scene can be necessary to convey something a player character does or feels, that they couldn't necessarily show if it was the player at the helm.

Christopher and Joseph - I do agree that well-placed cutscenes can be interesting, useful, and add to the experience - but a lot of the time they don't. I do agree that there are times when the game needs to force the player's perspective, but if you consider the CoD4 intro scenario where you're stuck in the car - that's an interactive cutscene, basically - there's a lot going on, but you have limited movement. To me, that's a good example of where to go. Not that everyone should do that exact thing, but thinking of other ways to do things like that is a good idea. Using short punctuated scenes to cover up loading is another good idea that people employ.

I think a lot of people, developers especially, do like cutscenes, I just think they *can* also become a crutch, which allows folks to ignore the other possibilities.

I wholeheartedly agree with your opinion on this matter, Mr. Sheffield. This is the very belief on which my fledgling studio is based.

I find that equating games to cars works particularly well for this discussion. The graphics, sound, and plot are the chassis, trim, and interior of the car. It would take quite an ascetic aesthetic to deny the value of these elements, but once you start the car, the engine takes over. That engine is gameplay. A game lacking in this department is still able to excite, but unlikely to have much longevity.

After all, a successful movie can be watched once, but you'd be hard pressed to label a game you only play once as a success.

good stories are just used by developers who can't make good gameplay.
good gameplay is used by developers who can't make good stories.
blah blah blah!
when you get down to it; the best decision isn't to focus on one or the other but to try and get them to balance. games need a harmony of story and gameplay. the problem is figuring out how to achieve that harmony.

sometimes harmony is found in blending the two together and other times its by keeping them apart. if it was easy to do we wouldn't be having so many different opinions.

"I find that equating games to cars works particularly well for this discussion. The graphics, sound, and plot are the chassis, trim, and interior of the car. It would take quite an ascetic aesthetic to deny the value of these elements, but once you start the car, the engine takes over. That engine is gameplay. A game lacking in this department is still able to excite, but unlikely to have much longevity."

It's a car analogy!

And a bad one at that. You do realize that the vast majority of car buyers purchase cars not because of the engine, but because of interior quality and reliability, right?

And yes, a game you play once can be a success. Particularly if it is as long as something like Baldur's Gate 2, by god.

@Steven Conway
'It seems people are forgetting, or have never considered in the first instance, that great gameplay *is* the art of the videogame medium.'

Gameplay is the form of art that is unique to us, yes. But that doesn't mean that it's the only avenue for artistic expression within games, and it doesn't mean that we should restrict ourselves from utilizing everything that we've got in order to engineer the best experience possible.

The games that I've most enjoyed weave together awesome gameplay and a poignant story - the narrative in these cases, to me at least, is not "icing on the cake" (to quote the article) but an integral, essential part of the experience.

What if the bad gameplay is implemented for thematic reasons? For example, the clunky combat controls in Mirror's Edge or the grindy progression in No More Heroes.

Those games weren't very "fun" in a traditional sense, but they still used gameplay in an interesting (and therefore entertaining) way.

I like the fact that video games can be any number of things, still be successful and still be games. I like Grand Theft Auto IV. I like God of War. I like Final Fantasy XII. I like Guild Wars. I like Rock Band. I like Desktop Tower Defense. I like Valkyria Chronicles. I like Armored Core. I like Tetris. I like Mass Effect. I like Diablo.

I like any number of games, from the non-story style to the immersed in story style. And I am glad that I have both options to choose from at any given time. If either were gotten rid of...if developers decided to only make one style, then games would be a lot poorer for it.

For that alone, I completely and utterly disagree with the above article. The idea is noble, but it would ruin everything we know about gaming.

For ever Sonic 2, there was a Dragon Warrior. Story can be omitted, merged, told above all else, and all options would be valid games.

Fallout 3 was good at telling stories in quite a passive non-intrusive way. For example when you leave the vault at the beginning there are skeletons on the floor and placards with slogans along the lines of 'let us in, we're dying out here'. It doesn't require the player to take notice - indeed it's easy to miss - but it tells part of the backstory to game without having to resort to cut scenes.

It's a method of telling stories within games that taps into player's imaginations and doesn't get in the way of the main point of games: playing and enjoying them. I think its an underused way of storytelling in games that could and should be explored more.