156 réponses à ce sujet

[RedArmyShogun]

It really depends on the game. And yes it can and has to limited extents such as in earlier RPGs, or when cutscenes were more primitive or smaller. The whole PSX gerneration showed that time and again. The problem with modern Cutscenes is it in some cases turns the game from, a game with some kick ass cutscenes, to a movie with small interactive parts (a-la MGS4) .

They arn't bad but overall its like slow mo mechanics right after the Matrix came out. A huge crutch that everyone wants to copy, misses the core point and makes grander and grander at expense of gameplay, lore, and in game character talk. The Cutscene should be the sugar of the cake, along with the Eggs, Flour,Milk and butter. Not the cake its self.

Modifié par Confess-A-Bear, 19 mai 2012 - 02:50 .

[The Jackal]

I for one, play a video game for the cut secnes. It's so easy to make a video game without it and focus solely on RPG. I like the Bioware games make you interact in the game, and cut secnes are like watching a movie. Great voice acting, great graphics.

The entire motivation behind why you are doing something is the "Story". I feel good cut secnes can impact a game in a positive way and it's a bit lazy not to include that. I'm sure it costs more but it helps tell the story so much better.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Cutscenes as a concept is a rudimentary and basic form of storytelling. It's merely the easiest way to present a story that correlates with the current level of technological advancement and audience tolerance.

Look at the progression from static screens, to externally rendered cinematics, to in-engine cinematics.

That's not to say cinematics can't be done well, or that games with cinematics can't have good storytelling.

But the existence of cinematics in of itself is not good storytelling. Get a game to tell me it's story through the game mechanics, or the aesthetic design, or the music, or level design. Then I'll be impressed.

In other words, when will someone make Looking Glass esque games again?

Or for people who aren't familiar with Looking Glass, Valve takes a decent crack at non-cinematic storytelling with it's games (Half Life, Portal, etc). Or Irrational Games for Bioshock fans.

Camera angles, lighting and the like can be nice. Sometimes it's necessary due to technical limitations (PC/NPC conversational interaction). But if it's divorced from what the player actually does in the game, then it's not good storytelling. It's actually bad storytelling where the cinematic contradicts or isn't reinforced by the gameplay.

i.e Why bother creating big, expansive locales when we can pretend they are big, expansive locales through cinematics when the actual locales are just linear corridors? Or info-dumping crap on players rather than through more interactive means.

So yeah, there are many occasions when cutscenes are necessary and they can be done in a way that's really engaging. But as a rule, if you use a cutscene in a game, you are essentially saying that you can find no better way to tell your story or create an atmosphere.

It's training wheels for video game writers. Very expensive training wheels.

Cinematic games also tend to mesh badly with abstracted gameplay concepts unless given in small dozes. There's dissonance between the "realistic" cinematic sequences and the decidedly "unrealistic" nature of abstract gameplay. We don't have to go far for this kind of example - BioWare's silent protagonist in heavily cinematic games.

Modifié par CrustyBot, 19 mai 2012 - 03:06 .

[RedArmyShogun]

Luc0s wrote...

Confess-A-Bear wrote...

Cutscene should be the sugar of the cake, along with the Eggs, Flour,Milk and butter. Not the cake its self.

Well, said. This I agree with.

But in the end, do you think cutscenes add more positive things to a video-game or more negative things to a video-game?

Do you, for instance, think that cutscenes break your connection with the player character in such a way that you rather do not want them in your video-games? Or do you welcome cutscenes in your video-games, as long as they're not overused? 

It depends, say like here are good examples that could not have been pulled off with text or in game sceans

Death of *insert so and so* Aierth, Lavtiz, etc etc. Those are much more powerful than a text document or some "in game falls over dead fallowed by a NOOOOO!!!"

Or like on games such as MGS2 where as snake you sneak onto the Frieghter, and then *BAM* Russian Attack! That was one of the coolest CGI's I've seen till this day. Or like when you first spot a camera in the same game it stops and zooms in that one time like "Oh better watch yourself."

See those are powerful and add to the story, same with romances, character progression, etc.

On the other hand, games that pretty much did like MGS four and added stupid crap like cooking eggs and the like...no.

Or like in some recent FPS games, where pratically every five minutes your in an in game cutscene thats just ships blowing up or you running through a glass window etc. Those take away and are far too repititive.

Over all I think they DO greatly enrich a story, unless over used. I mean Take FF7 as an example, though primitve, seeing Sephy come down just like a bad ass and sticking that blade right into her, that made some fans cry, some fans pissed. But it struck a cord. Comperatively most Text Deaths with some little in game shots, it did nothing. Like how many people remember the Death of Hojo? Not many. Mind you I like book lore along side my CGI.

But CGI is now, part of the magic, and part of the theater. It makes the store more in your face, adds a face of emotion and progession. Is it truley a play without the man in solid black behind the actors moving the props? No. The problem is though keeping the prop movers out of the spot  light. Which some are failing at.

But over all, I'ld say the growth of gaming and made for many things that one can remember. The other I'ld say is level design, and characters.  We all no matter what you think about the fallowing, know who the Master Chief is. We all remember various levels from old school multiplayer levels, or new age ones. And we all Remember Sephy coming down with that sword, Snake Facing Metal Gear, or the Death of a dear Comrade.

But as I said the problem is it turning from a nice addition to the cake to the cake its self. And thats the problem that can make one tired  of them.

So I'ld say for me its like a 70 30 deal. They add to the story, or in game things can be better. But at times they just hurt.

Modifié par Confess-A-Bear, 19 mai 2012 - 03:03 .

[RedArmyShogun]

See thats a neat question can you really say the things in Halflife arn't cutscenes? I mean yeah its no uncontrolled CGI. BUT nearlly all of them were scripted to stop player movements, or when the player had no choice but to do such and such. The only major change was that it still takes place in game minus in a movie reel. But fundamentally with improvements in game quality game play and the cutscenes now can blend flawlessly. So is it really not cheap story telling as well, as it were?

I don't see a big diff there. I mean both your PC is stoped, both have scripted sceans. Its just in one case the camera angle is still in your head.

On that note though, I think the GTA games get a nice mix of the two in and is a good bet to go on story telling in a manner.

Modifié par Confess-A-Bear, 19 mai 2012 - 03:13 .

[android654]

I suppose I'm in the minority that prefers cinematic style games to traditional RPGs. IF it were up to me, more games would be done in the style of Uncharted, Max Payne, Heavy Rain, Binary Domain, Half Life 2 and Metal Gear Solid 4.This gives the developers of the game more room to write a better story which gives the player more reason to care about the game. In games like Fallout and Skyrim if you don't really dig deep to find the story, you wont find it. It also allows the writers to write something that has more depth, to the story, it's characters and the situations they try to write. Without cutscenes it has less of an impact and by the same token doesn't deliver the story the writers intended.

Modifié par android654, 19 mai 2012 - 03:15 .

[BatmanPWNS]

Well not all games are about "connection with the player characters" and some have characters that are alreay developed and full of emotions (Solid Snake, Master Chief, Nathan Drake etc) that you need a cutscene to show their emotions.

[Elhanan]

I am with the part of a cake crowd, too.

Cut-scenes can aid the final product much like FX for the original Star Wars, but the story, character development, and writing outside of such scenes need to be a higher priority. Where I enjoy cut-scenes are in panoramic landscapes or specific moments when the other parts of the game cannot normally be seen. What I dislike of them is the long lasting scene of several minutes, forced combat following that eliminates buffing, or scenes that could be easily made in the usual fashion.

The DA series is indicative of both with Companion interaction. The banter between Companions in DAO and DA2 was wonderful; full of witty and well told moments, and ones worth replaying. But as I recall, DAA used cutscenes marked by special objects like trees and statues that were sometimes entertaining, but could also distract from the on-going storyline due to misclicks, or simply bad timing on the part of the unknowing Player.

Rather than sugar, I think of cut-scenes as decorations; not essential to having dessert, but can make the cake more recognizable to the event in which it is served.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Confess-A-Bear wrote...

See thats a neat question can you really say the things in Halflife arn't cutscenes? I mean yeah its no uncontrolled CGI. BUT nearlly all of them were scripted to stop player movements, or when the player had no choice but to do such and such. The only major change was that it still takes place in game minus in a movie reel. But fundamentally with improvements in game quality game play and the cutscenes now can blend flawlessly. So is it really not cheap story telling as well, as it were?

I don't see a big diff there. I mean both your PC is stoped, both have scripted sceans. Its just in one case the camera angle is still in your head.

On that note though, I think the GTA games get a nice mix of the two in and is a good bet to go on story telling in a manner.

That actually makes all the difference, scripted events =/= cutscenes. What cutscenes do is intentionally take the player away from the default perspective or "ASSUME DIRECT CONTROL" in order to present a movie-like sequence.

But I should've known not to argue the merits of non-cinematic storytelling in the BioWare forums... I'll just bow out.

Modifié par CrustyBot, 19 mai 2012 - 03:30 .

[slimgrin]

TW2 pwns Skyrim.

Lol, kidding, just wanted to lighten things up.

When I first played ME1, it was my return to gaming after many years. I'd seen games like Gears, and other action titles and found it odd they had so many cut scenes. I asked my buddy who had an xbox why modern games were trying to be like movies and he just shrugged, being used it. I had missed the evolution. Then I played ME1 and the combination of action alternating with story telling via interactive cut scenes drew me in big time.

So as long as I can interact with npc's, as long as I can skip em, and as long as there aren't too many, I'm ok with it. There's some memorable cut scenes I can think of that really help set the tone for a game, the beginning of ME2 being a great example.

That said, the concept should continue to evolve. I'm ok with interacting in the conventional camera as well as party banter and such. CDPR claimed long before the release of TW2, that the cut scenes would be dynamic, meaning as you were talking to one npc, another could literally walk right up and join the conversation. Must have been something that got cut, but it sounds like a great idea.

Modifié par slimgrin, 19 mai 2012 - 03:26 .

[RedArmyShogun]

CrustyBot wrote...

That actually makes all the difference, scripted events =/= cutscenes. What cutscenes do is intentionally take the player away from the default perspective or "ASSUME DIRECT CONTROL" in order to present a movie-like sequence.

But I should've known not to argue the merits of storytelling in games like System Shock and the Thief series over cinematics in the BioWare forum...

Ah see, thats what I'm saying for some that works well, but like, think of games with top down views *though rare now* like FF7 was, cutscenes did a better justice than the in game events. Like the In game coding in MGS2 would not have allowed for that Frieghter attack. Some times one can be better than the other, it just depends. As I said I see both as props for the stage. And I can like both, just for some things a cutscene works far better.

Like Take Half-Life 2, lets say rather than the stall squad on squad combat we got, the game makers wanted to show the city litterally under siege. The whole rebelion attacking in force, with whatever technicals and rocket launchers they had, and dozens of pod walkers going to meet them. At the time if that were in game, not many computers could have taken 100's of soldiers on the screen at once, and would have fried. So the Answer here is the Cutscene.

And Meh I think on that score your taking me for someone else. I happend to enjoy the book lore in Skyrim and talking to the people. And the Heilgan (sp) prison ride. Pretty much this holds true for all the TES games. I just know there is a right tool for the job and there is no such thing as "best". Cutscenes for Example, work praticularly well in RTS for inbetween mission briefs. While Text scrolling feels souless. At the same time given the limitations on the game from the just huge numbers of infrantry and tanks the graphics suffer, and in game scenes often just look "meh" Though the combination of the last with the first works really well, and was a joy to see in Tiberian Dawn.

On the other hand RPG's depending on the game can use any of them or any number of them. There is no best tool for story telling. If MGS had stuck to text no one would have bought it. If Skyrim had huge cutscenes and removed all books the TES fans would riot in the streets.

Modifié par Confess-A-Bear, 19 mai 2012 - 03:37 .

[android654]

Luc0s wrote...

android654 wrote...

I suppose I'm in the minority that prefers cinematic style games to traditional RPGs. IF it were up to me, more games would be done in the style of Uncharted, Max Payne, Heavy Rain, Binary Domain, Half Life 2 and Metal Gear Solid 4.This gives the developers of the game more room to write a better story which gives the player more reason to care about the game. In games like Fallout and Skyrim if you don't really dig deep to find the story, you wont find it. It also allows the writers to write something that has more depth, to the story, it's characters and the situations they try to write. Without cutscenes it has less of an impact and by the same token doesn't deliver the story the writers intended.

You're not in the minority bro, far from it. Lots of people share that opinion, me included.

I think the anti-cutscene folks are in the minority here.

Well, I meant on this board since most people here seem to prefer traditional RPGs like Fallout and Skyrim. DOn't get me wrong, I own the entire Fallout series and Skyrim and they're all great games, if you have the time and patience that is. In order to get everything there is to get out of a game like Fallout 3 or Fallout New Vegas you literally have to devote somewhere between six months to a year of daily play time. If you've got the patience and the devotion to gaming, then I can see the appeal of a game like that. But even with all that time, the biggest impact is from the environment and gameplay, while games like Max Payne or Uncharted leave you with a sense of loving the entire experience since it emulates a good cinematic experience so well.

As for Half Life 2, the use of scripted material and in game mechanics is nice, but think about how long ago this game was made. Now I think that concept is best illustrated using an engine that is powerful enough to have beautiful in-game graphics that it can be used for cinematics. This allows you to transition seamlessly between gameplay and cutscenes. There were times in Max Payne 3 and Uncharted 3 where the action in the cutscene made me want to react with the controller because, by without the HUD, you couldn't tell whether or not you were supposed to be playing. I think that's a good example of how cut-scenes should be utilized and how powerful they can be to the experience.

[slimgrin]

Confess-A-Bear wrote...


On the other hand RPG's depending on the game can use any of them or any number of them. There is no best tool for story telling. If MGS had stuck to text no one would have bought it. If Skyrim had huge cutscenes and removed all books the TES fans would riot in the streets.

But what if it had two cut scenes, one for the beginning of the game and one for the end? Seems apporpriate to me since everything else inbetween would be just as the players like it, and some like myself wouldn't be yawning when a bunch of Nords - with bad voice acting - are running away from the first dragon seen in ages. That moment completely lacked any sort of impact precisely because it wasn't done in a cut scene.

Modifié par slimgrin, 19 mai 2012 - 05:12 .

[RedArmyShogun]

I'm sure you'ld have some moaning, though Skyrim wasn't really...that actiony to need cutscenes MINUS, like I would have loved if the first time you went into a city the camera zoomed out and showed a much bigger looking city with more NPC's as frankly the number of folks in Skyrim I don't see how they keep a stable population, never mind "legions" of soldiers. Or at the battles, which were so lack luster and sad. I mean LOOK AT the size of the camps in either ending on the final attack, yet what, 12 Troops? Well obviously the thousand or so troops we had all died or vanished into the woods @_@.

Skyrim failed in that reguard. heck MY home town which is small and only 70 people, had more folks than ALL of some major cities in skyrim.

I like skyrim, I like to play it, about to play it right now. But it like so many RPGs before, it failed to make a life like world. Unless you think a capital city only has 60 people in it. And 17 buildings. I know there was game space limitations, but they could have added a short one time CGI, heck even Zelda does this. And Frankly the Hyrule Castle Market in Twilight princes was more lively than the whole of Skyrim's towns. Only in the wilderness is that game alive.

I expcted life like towns, and Epic battles. In place we get peastent fortresses, and squads in place of Armies.

And don't mention mods I'm honestly sick of people letting Bethseda slide as "mods will fix that" No, they should fix it, and shouldn't be given 10's on a silver platter and all its mistakes overlooked. Its just as bad as with Valve.

Modifié par Confess-A-Bear, 19 mai 2012 - 03:52 .

[android654]

Say what you will about the merits of all of the books in Fallout and Skyrim, and there are A LOT, but the use of text does not invoke or attempt to invoke things like

This,[/quote] this,[/quote] or this.[/quote]

Games are an interactive medium, and that being the case, it's always welcomed when the developers give the player more control over situations. I'll probably get a lot of flack for this, but Modern Warfare 3, like Half life 2 and Uncharted is able to use scripted scenarios and cutscenes to tell their stories and it works beautifully. There's one scene where you're partnered with one other soldier sneaking through the streets among hundreds of soldiers, and it seems impossible to overcome the several dozen between you and your objective. All through the introduction of this mission you're in contact with a unit and you have no idea they're protecting your every move until they appear from the shadows and eliminate your opposition. All of that is done in game while you're playing and feels cinematic and at the same time realistic. Say what you will about the game series, but they've done a good job of creating a cinematic experience in their games.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Confess-A-Bear wrote...

CrustyBot wrote...

That actually makes all the difference, scripted events =/= cutscenes. What cutscenes do is intentionally take the player away from the default perspective or "ASSUME DIRECT CONTROL" in order to present a movie-like sequence.

But I should've known not to argue the merits of storytelling in games like System Shock and the Thief series over cinematics in the BioWare forum...

Ah see, thats what I'm saying for some that works well, but like, think of games with top down views *though rare now* like FF7 was, cutscenes did a better justice than the in game events. Like the In game coding in MGS2 would not have allowed for that Frieghter attack. Some times one can be better than the other, it just depends. As I said I see both as props for the stage. And I can like both, just for some things a cutscene works far better.

Like Take Half-Life 2, lets say rather than the stall squad on squad combat we got, the game makers wanted to show the city litterally under siege. The whole rebelion attacking in force, with whatever technicals and rocket launchers they had, and dozens of pod walkers going to meet them. At the time if that were in game, not many computers could have taken 100's of soldiers on the screen at once, and would have fried. So the Answer here is the Cutscene.

And Meh I think on that score your taking me for someone else. I happend to enjoy the book lore in Skyrim and talking to the people. And the Heilgan (sp) prison ride. Pretty much this holds true for all the TES games. I just know there is a right tool for the job and there is no such thing as "best". Cutscenes for Example, work praticularly well in RTS for inbetween mission briefs. While Text scrolling feels souless. At the same time given the limitations on the game from the just huge numbers of infrantry and tanks the graphics suffer, and in game scenes often just look "meh" Though the combination of the last with the first works really well, and was a joy to see in Tiberian Dawn.

On the other hand RPG's depending on the game can use any of them or any number of them. There is no best tool for story telling. If MGS had stuck to text no one would have bought it. If Skyrim had huge cutscenes and removed all books the TES fans would riot in the streets.

(Will decide to post because instead of bowing out, I like to have the last word).

We're not really disagreeing, I didn't say no cutscenes period. Just that there are better ways to show, not tell a story or atmosphere. If that's impossible by other means, then a cutscene is fine and can work well depending on how well the cutscene is made.

I'm just disputing the premise of the cutscene itself being special or integral to storytelling.

It's just natural evolution of technology. First, it was static screens with walls of text, then it was externally rendered animations, now it's mocap sequences. There'll be something in the future that will make the current level of cinematics unacceptable for gamers in the future. Possibly something to do with it's pre-scripted nature.

We're already seeing some progress with things like kill-cams or takedowns and the like.

Also, why does everyone keep mentioning Skyrim? I mean, I get that not everyone has played Thief, but surely Skyrim isn't the only game with non-cinematic storytelling that people play.

Shouldn't the BioShock games warrant a mention? Or even the Portal games.

Modifié par CrustyBot, 19 mai 2012 - 03:57 .