156 réponses à ce sujet

[AmstradHero]

Luc0s wrote...

Sajji wrote...

The Witcher 2 is a brilliant game, but the cutscenes are far from the best part. The twitch combat is.

No, the story is. The story is handsdown the best and most impressive part of The Witcher 2. And the story is mostly told through cutscenes. That doesn't mean the story is great because of the cutscenes. No, the story was just very well written, but the cutscenes certainly did help to bring that amazing story to the player!

Take a look at this for example, this is just pure gold: http://www.youtube.c...l4Iozcw#t=3m33s

I think that's a good example of the power of cutscenes. Cutscenes can truly be something amazing if they are done well.

To me, that cutscene is overblown and trying too hard. You think it's fantastic, but I just find it tedious. Cutscenes, like movies, are subjective. Also people said that the story was the amazing thing about The Witcher as well. I found it poorly developed, largely predictable and utterly dull. Moreover, the cutscenes did nothing for me. I don't wish to waste my money on The Witcher 2, because all the evidence I have says I won't enjoy it. What does this say about cutscenes in general? NOTHING.

Pulling specific examples only proves "storytelling device X in this specific context is well/poorly done", and even then, it's often highly subjective. It's also extremely easy to pull exactly the same device in a different context and show how it's done badly.

Cutscenes, in and of themselves, are not an inherently good or bad thing.  Unfortunately, as DahliaLynn says, you're seemingly more content to argue over petty matters rather than actually engage the topic in an interesting and meaningful fashion.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 20 mai 2012 - 07:44 .

[Firky]

I'm no expert on cutscenes. (They really have a very small impact on me, maybe because I'm still stuck in the 80s, or I'm not really a very visual person. I can certainly see how, well paced, they could make for more evocativeness. Someone on BSN somewhere - I can't remember - was saying how great the battle of Ostagar cinematic was, one time, and I had to go look it up because I couldn't remember it. Also, all I can really recall about DA2 is a dragon and lots of pacing, but that's just me.)

But, with regards The Witcher 2, cutscenes in the middle of combat drive me nuts. That - without spoilers - first major boss battle with the tentacles. I kept getting cutscenes which would then turn you around, disorientation, whack, death. Same with finishing moves in DA.

I'd argue that cutscenes need to be entirely divorced from gameplay, but that's probably my only point.

[fchopin]

Cutscenes are fine in a game if done correctly without taking character decisions away. In DA2 most cutscenes were done so Hawke would have no choice.

[AmstradHero]

Luc0s wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...

Luc0s wrote...
The story is handsdown the best and most impressive part of The Witcher 2. And the story is mostly told through cutscenes. That doesn't mean the story is great because of the cutscenes. No, the story was just very well written, but the cutscenes certainly did help to bring that amazing story to the player!

Take a look at this for example, this is just pure gold: http://www.youtube.c...l4Iozcw#t=3m33s

I think that's a good example of the power of cutscenes. Cutscenes can truly be something amazing if they are done well.

To me, that cutscene is overblown and trying too hard. You think it's fantastic, but I just find it tedious. Cutscenes, like movies, are subjective. Also people said that the story was the amazing thing about The Witcher as well. I found it poorly developed, largely predictable and utterly dull. Moreover, the cutscenes did nothing for me. I don't wish to waste my money on The Witcher 2, because all the evidence I have says I won't enjoy it. What does this say about cutscenes in general? NOTHING.

Wait... so your judging The Witcher 2 while you haven't even played it? LOL! Puh-leaaaaaaaaase. If you haven't played The Witcher 2 then you don't know what you're talking about and thus have no right to judge it's story or execution.

Everyone who actually has played The Witcher 2, agrees with me that the cutscene I have as an example was a really powerful moment in the game. You might not like it, you might not be into those kind of dramatic cutscenes, but you can't deny that it's a very well executed scene that is properly done according to all the film-making rules and guidelines.

No, I'm saying I have no interest in playing The Witcher 2 because of (a) Playing The Witcher, and ( Other people's opinion's of The Witcher 2. If you re-read my post, I said that The Witcher (NOT TW2) was lauded for its story, but I found it awful.

To elaborate on what I meant about that specific cutscene - regardless of what it may mean to you, in terms of the way it's done technically, I don't find it appealing. The excessive usage of slow-motion (which I've seen in a few TW2 cinematics) and the camera angles randomly flicking back and forth means that to me, it's not well shot. It's deliberately trying to be "impressive" and failing - in that way it's like the shaky-cam action-sequences fad that was popular in the movies a few years ago.

So, in fact I agree with you that in the context of the game, it could definitely have some impact. However, in terms of the way it's shot - heck, no, I don't agree it's well crafted.

Luc0s wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...

Unfortunately, as DahliaLynn says, you're seemingly more content to argue over petty matters rather than actually engage the topic in an interesting and meaningful fashion.

Then please tell me, how I should engage the topic according to you. I'm really open for anything. I'm just not open for BS. When I see someone posting BS, they need to be called out on their BS. It might come of as if I'm rather arguing petty matters than the actual topic, but I just cant stand and watch by when people post the biggest BS (such as the "sales = quality" argument).

But by all means, tell me how I should engage the topic and I will try to do so.

The simple solution? Ignore the BS. Seriously. If someone posts something that is stupid and doesn't justify a response (i.e. this game is obviously better because it sold more, therefore cinematic = good/bad), then don't dignify it with one.

If people can't back up their arguments with something relevant, ignore them.

[Blacklash93]

I can enjoy any method of storytelling in videogames. Be it your typical JRPG with storytelling completely invested in cutscenes or your Valve game that rolls all storytelling elements into the gameplay or anything in between. You can use dialogue, the environment, lore text, or really anything you can think of (or any mix of them) to convey a plot. I can appretiate it all for what it is.

... As long as the game is well paced accoring to the style it has employed and actually has an interesting story to tell, of course.

[bEVEsthda]

Cut scenes can certainly work.

But I think there are fundamental reasons to resist them in RPGs (at least some kind of "RPG"s).

They take the perspective and control away fromn the player.

This is also true when they are depicting events which the protagonist is not a personal witness to. While this may seem an efficient storytelling device, wouldn't it be more interesting to puzzle together what has happened, from the protagonists perspective?

The Battle of Ostagar though, is a case when the movie really works. The scenes depict what the protagonist was part of. As such it was an effective way of conveying that experience. So cutscenes aren't useless.



But cutscenes also present a very explicit and defined way of how  to experience something. Which can lead to an effect that is similar to how "the movie ruined it, the book was much better!" works. It doesn't allow room for the player's imagination.

It's also a static and resource consuming story-telling device. Which I fear developers are going to depend way too much upon, thus causing at least the RPG-genre to stagnate.
The resources could be used on something that would add more value to the game. Abstaining from using a movie would also motivate to work out other technologies and actually evolve the genre. Something I feel cutscenes absolutely don't. On the contrary, I think they are dead-weight strangling the evolution of cRPGs. 

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 20 mai 2012 - 12:40 .

[Andarthiel_Demigod]

 I think they work. But as long as it fits the style and genre of the game. Also each one has to have a point to them such as an importan plot point or development. That's why I love Metal Gear Solid. Without cutscenes it would feel rather hollow.

[Halberd96]

I have no issue with cutscenes...I was just playing The Witcher today and the cutscenes are really enjoyable.

Games like Half-Life don't need cutscenes and do a really good job though. I appreciate games that don't rely on cutscenes.

But yeah I don't want to be all pretentious and shun cutscenes or anything

[DahliaLynn]

DahliaLynn wrote...

Luc0s wrote...

I see, thanks for enlightening me Il Divo.

I also see that there is a general consensus among us gamers. All of us who are in favor of cutscenes seem to acknowledge the same thing: cutscenes can provide information that cannot be provide in any other way without cutting away from the gameplay. Because of this, cutscenes are a great tool and can, when properly done, be a real positive addition to the video-game.

I think the key issue here is "when properly done". So, what's "properly done"?
I would say,

1. When the player becomes accustomed to the feature

2. When length doesn't become overbearing:

2a The occasion when the length of the cutscene is equivelent to how hard the player worked for it in the "story reward" sense.

2b. When cutscene length is just long enough to convery the message according to how important it is for the player to see it, be it badass rare move, to important story moments

3. When the player expects it to come, be it by clicking on something (like a conversation) or entering a new area or perhaps completing some story strong mission. 

Feel free to add more, as these are off the top of my head.  

I'm going to try this again.

The OP is continuously mentioning "When properly done" all over this thread.
Aside from providing specific examples of cutscene quality as far as how well it is done as far as filmmaking artistry is concerned, how a cutscene is actually implemented in a game is really the question being asked here. Can you describe what you mean by "When properly done"? I have attempted this in my above quote.

The main issue that is constantly argued is how it takes away from the first person experience of the player, i.e. control.
When one loses control unexpectedly I would agree that the nay argument is most valid.

I hadn't played Uncharted 3, but chatted with a friend who had a really hard time dealing with the loss of control he had while going through an entire street level via a cutscene. I can only assume that when a cutscene attempts to emulate what the player is normally used to controlling, that's when it just doesn't work. This would be an addition to the list above. Reposting for neatness 

1. When the player becomes accustomed to the feature

2. When length doesn't become overbearing:

2a The occasion when the length of the cutscene is equivelent to how hard the player worked for it in the "story reward" sense.

2b. When cutscene length is just long enough to convery the message according to how important it is for the player to see it, be it badass rare move, to important story moments

3. When the player expects it to come, be it by clicking on something (like a conversation) or entering a new area or perhaps completing some story strong mission. 

4. Cutscenes should not force the player to do what he would normally do on his own.

 
I would also add

5. When a moment outside of the player's own point of view is occuring, and is important fo the player to know, such as Loghain summoning Zevran for the first time upond entering Denerim, which gives the player an element of suspense for what is to come. But this one is more a developers artistic choice of presentation and a film technique which could be argued in and of itself regarding its usage in games. 

Since you are pro cutscenes, how would you describe "Properly done"?

I'll repost this in case you missed it, since these "violations" can add to the reasons why people would say "Nay" An  article for Cutscene designers

Modifié par DahliaLynn, 20 mai 2012 - 02:52 .

[AmstradHero]

Luc0s wrote...
I think the slow-motion in this scene is really powerful, because otherwise this scene wouldn't have lasted longer than 4 seconds. 4 seconds really isn't enough to build up suspense. The slowmotion adds to the suspense, in my opinion in a positive way. The continious back-and-forth panning of the camera from Geralt to Foltest and the murderer also adds to that suspense.

I see where you're coming from, but at the same time, I don't feel there's any suspense. As soon as he says "They have your eyes, sire" and the mask drops, you know what's going to happen (or at least I did).

The best shot is the one of him looking at Geralt before he has his throat cut. That is the money shot. For me, that wasn't a look of him being oblivious, but more a look of "please help me". I liked that.

The rest of the slow motion is just delaying the inevitable. I understand why it's done this way, to make Geralt seem powerless and though he's seeing it in slow-motion and unable to stop it, but for me personally, it just doesn't work. I also understand the purpose of the cuts back and forth, but again, it just feels needlessly overdone. I guess what I'm saying is that it feels "over-produced", which is what I meant by "trying too hard". It's very deliberately manufactured in a certain way, but it doesn't quite "work" for me.

This occurs with scripted events too. Taking Homefront as an example, the part where you find the mass graves was meant to be a fairly emotional moment and incite strong emotions in the player. Yet the presentation of it and the voice acting just made it come across as cheap and tacky. It was trying so hard to elicit a specific reaction from the player that for me personally, it just came across as ludicruous. I just started laughing at how badly it was delivered.

So there's a fine balance to be had between crafting a scene very deliberately to force a particular reaction, and crafting a scene to allow viewers to have their own reaction, but influenced by the medium. I'd argue that the latter is better in the majority of cases, because it provides the viewer/player with the ability to made up their own mind about the content rather than being told how they should feel.

[DahliaLynn]

AmstradHero wrote...

So there's a fine balance to be had between crafting a scene very deliberately to force a particular reaction, and crafting a scene to allow viewers to have their own reaction, but influenced by the medium. I'd argue that the latter is better in the majority of cases, because it provides the viewer/player with the ability to made up their own mind about the content rather than being told how they should feel.

I actually really loved that sequence. Found it powerful and well done. How it was implemented in the game is another matter. I hadn't played TW2, but it seems like this was a strong moment in the plot, which could validate the cutscene length. All film/cutscenes are designed to be manipulative and evoke an emotion from the viewer. Even if you *think* you are coming to your own conclusion, you were likely manuipulated into thinking that as well. 

In my opinion, the Warden's Fall series tries too hard with extreme close ups and needless camera shake. but..drifting off topic

I think it would be really cool to have a cutscene design criticism thread! 

Modifié par DahliaLynn, 20 mai 2012 - 03:07 .

[Dominus]

Depends on the game, on the story, on the specific scene, etc. Some story elements can't be told without cinematics. And some over-rely on cinematics as a lazy answer to a complex problem. I'm essentially holding a less extreme stance that CrustyBot holds. Cases like MGS4 go to absurd lengths with cinematics, but I rarely if ever felt that "Hey, this should be an in-game section".

Having said that, games were meant to be played. The longer you keep a player from the controller, the less a player will feel connected to the story, and the game itself. Having a player literally participate in a storyline to fully express the game is something exclusive to the video game medium, and should be explored to its fullest extent.

[DahliaLynn]

Luc0s wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...

So there's a fine balance to be had between crafting a scene very deliberately to force a particular reaction, and crafting a scene to allow viewers to have their own reaction, but influenced by the medium. I'd argue that the latter is better in the majority of cases, because it provides the viewer/player with the ability to made up their own mind about the content rather than being told how they should feel.

No sorry. That's not true.

As a game-design student I've learned that every single nook and cranny of a video-game is designed and crafted in a very specific way with the sole purpose to invoke a specific reaction from you, the player. Cutscenes, level-design, character design, they're all carefully crafted with one specific goal: To force a particular reaction from the player.

When you design a game, you want to deliberately force a particular reaction from the player. Think of the horror-genre. Horror-games try to scare you. So the entire game, including the level-design and the cutscenes, are crafted deliberatly to force a particular reaction from you. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. But when it works, it's friggin' awesome!

"Force" isn't really the right word for it. You might want to replace that with "evoke".

Modifié par DahliaLynn, 20 mai 2012 - 03:54 .

[DahliaLynn]

It seems you don't have an answer to what you mean by "Properly done" ...any reason?

Edit: In fact, but not answering I'm assuming you hadn't explored the pro/con elements for cutscenes in games during your studies. I would expect these issues be a primary focus in your game design course.

Modifié par DahliaLynn, 20 mai 2012 - 04:00 .