That's fair.
Cinematics remove ambiguity. They do so by taking content that was previously implicit, like the tone of delivered lines, or to facial expressions of the actors involved, and making that explicit.
Cinematics are just the way to focus on these moments, like having a camera move around a character who's confused. The state of the camera's movement implying more to the sense of the character's confusion. The game's going to be voiced and there's going to be virtual acting. So designing the cinematics around these things only helps convey meaning. It doesn't strip away the implications of the acting and voice, it adds texture.
And this is just in cinematics, of course. I don't want interactive movies, I want to play a video game. But if the video game has cinematics then they should use those to their full affect. If it's a game that does not do cinematics then emotion, meaning, and plot must be gained through other means (more traditional RPG fair).
That has to do with the meaning of the content on the screen. What the content actually isn't a matter of debate at all. Students of cinematography will write papers on the construction of single frames. The debate lies in what those frames mean, not in what they display. What they display is there for all to see, particularly in a frame-by-frame examination.
They can also talk about what it displays and it what it means for the film. They can talk about the irony of having a character talk about something falling part (figuratively) while the frames are on something falling apart (literally). A class can talk about anything including the frames, dude.
And that was besides the point. There is ambiguity in film.
I don't think it's the job of the game to craft the mood. The mood should be an emergent characteristic that is created through the player's interaction with the game.
Completely disagree to the point of fuming anger.
Games constantly supply mood through use of lighting, level design, characters, dialogue, music, and yes cinematics. When you start Half-Life 2 you step off of a train and into a run down depressed muted world where the Combine Overwatch have been systematically killing off the human race. It is instantly oppressive and depressing. As the first level continues you find yourself on the run with no weapons as many Overwatch troopers fire on you. This is deliberately done to thrill and give the player a sense of danger.
Games set mood all the time. It's one of the things they do to allow role-playing. Playing in an empty sandbox means nothing to your character. Playing in a sandbox where there's this creepy old house, faint almost inaudible echoes in the distance, and fog obscuring possible threats...now that's interesting to roleplay living in.
But it still depends on the game. BioWare's never created a place and just let the player run free. They've always had linear games with no sandbox elements. They're all about the story and characters, which frankly is why I play their games so I'm not going to pretend that I want them to change. They do good stories and characters and I want them to continue doing that. So cinematics setting mood and informing roleplaying is completely legit.
I don't want to do either. I want to be Hawke mourning - or not - as I choose.
But how do you do that in game-play? Have a +10% chance to melee enemies in hitting Hawke because Hawke's mind is focused on mourning? You cannot mourn as gameplay. It's impossible. The closest thing you could do is wander the mansion thinking what your Hawke's thinking and eventually leaving the house to continue the story.
You can still do that here. But what does it hurt to see Hawke mourning? What does it hurt to have the love interests appear and try to comfort Hawke? It's as far as the game can go to help you set the mood of your Hawke in mourning.
The player needs to decide these things, not the designers.
I agree. I am all for players actions being the driving force in a video game. It IS the only interactive media and if you're not using that then you ought to just write a book, movie, TV show, or any other passive media for your story.
And you know what? Looking at a fire can be anything. Hawke can be staring at it because they feel empty. They could stare at it because they're bored. They could just be sitting there waiting for Gamlen to enter. They could be watching the fire and thinking how much they wish the whole city would burn.
They're staring at a fire. The emotion is up for the player to decide. It's ambiguous that way.
And with the love interest and later Aveline Hawke can be fine with what happened, can blame themselves, can be in mourning. There's options for how your Hawke feels about what happened. And the game moves on immediately after the Love Interest scene (Which vary in quality. I think I liked Merrill most and Fenris least.)
I'm all for more options for that moment. I'd like a disgusted 'kill the victim character' Mass Effect 2 like interrupt. Say that person's a disgusting abomination and it's out of its misery. Completely skip the whole sadness thing. I have some hard-ass characters like that, because I enjoy playing those types from time to time. But there are options in the game and you can add any meaning you want into staring at a fire.
Retour en haut
