Network now...BLOG
Denis Dyack Writes for Edge
There are some people out there that have a complete and utter disdain for the cut scene. Many developers knock the cut scene because it takes away interactivity, the key component of interactive entertainment.
We've seen games like Half-Life never enter a cut scene. Meanwhile we have Metal Gear Solid, which uses lengthy cut scenes to convey a story.
So who's right and who's wrong? First of all I think any extreme is generally flawed. When people say they want to banish all cut scenes, they don’t seem to understand that such a move does make it more difficult to tell your story. Story is very important for videogames, and as graphics become a commodity, storytelling becomes evermore important.
Before you accuse me of saying that you can't tell a good story without cut scenes, hear me out. If you're trying to put interactivity into the content, into the storytelling, then I’m all for it. That’s the power of the medium and something we should explore. Same goes for non-interactive parts of the game. Metal Gear Solid 4 is a highly-polished example of a game with lots of cut scenes, but meaningful cut scenes.
Although there are some parties that are strictly anti-cut scene, and others that are pro cut-scene, when you think about it, it’s not a matter of whether there should be cut scenes or not. Really it comes down to the basics of content and Aristotle’s Poetics. In movies or any kind of literature, the basic rule is, if something doesn’t mean anything, don’t put it in. Adding content for no good reason is only going to hurt what you’re trying to do.
Really, it's not the cut scenes that have been the problem, but the manner in which many developers have been implementing them. Over the last five to ten years, so many games have been released where cut scenes are absolutely meaningless. They don’t contribute to the content and don’t contribute to the characters. They’re almost like some kind of reward for completing the level, and that makes absolutely no sense.
As game designers we have to go beyond that. Cut scenes have to contribute to the game. That’s a really good rule for people to follow. And it shows you that the classics, well, we still have a lot to learn from the classics.
Too Human will have cut scenes, but I think that we've managed to blur the line between what people would consider a cut scene and what people consider in-game. See, part of the reason we as designers want to use cut scenes is because it allows us to be cinematographers, and that's fine. But in-game, Too Human will use a dynamic, intelligent camera system that presents the in-game in a more cinematic light, at the same time being conducive to good gameplay.
I'd still say that we're taking baby steps in the area of bringing cinematics in games, but we're moving in the right direction. The industry is pushing the medium, elevating it so people really get more unique experiences out of videogames than they would from any other entertainment medium
Edge's Keynotes section is an open forum for game industry professionals to express opinions. To have your say, create an Edge blog, or contact the editor.
I was about to post about HL2's cutscenes, but SwiftRanger beat me to it. The cutscenes are really the same as the MGS4 or DMC4 cutscenes where you can wiggle the camera around or wheel around with the Mark 2. Some people may argue that HL2 allows for more immersion, but ultimately its the same thing as a cutscene.
I can't think of a lot of games that effectively blend storytelling and gameplaying without stopping for cutscenes. MGS4 is interesting in that it goes to both extremes; it has excessively long "traditional" cutscenes, and also has brilliant moments where it combines a cutscene with gameplay. The old Descent: Freespace games combined gameplay and story really well. The first game especially, as the arrival of the Lucifer was always a scripted event, but you had to keep fighting as the Lucifer destroyed everything.
Euhm, what Valve does isn't that different from 'standard' cutscenes; you can't interrupt Alyx or any other NPC while they're doing their monologues, the only 'interaction' is that you can run around, shoot at anything but the NPC's and that the NPC's keep looking at you while they're talking but the most important story animations and definitely the dialogues are always still the same. You can say that in this manner it doesn't break the game flow but it sure as hell breaks the game itself and the belief you can actually have an impact on the game world, it's so artificial. The designer hand becomes blatantly obvious that way.
Just doing cutscenes for the heck of it isn't my cup of tea as well but if they do contribute to the general mood and story then devs shouldn't keep them out (can anyone imagine the Blizzard singleplayer games without their glorious CGI moments? They were a lot more than just a reward after certain missions or acts).
I wouldn't make a distinction between a cut-scene and any other component part of a game - if that component serves no real purpose it will probably worsen the experience of playing the game and should be cut. The trouble particularly with cut-scenes in games is that more often than not they have been time-consuming to prepare, and also they often look more technologically advanced than the actual game engine, so they are retained almost regardless of their actual function to the story or gameplay, or more often lack of it. The reason there is disdain for cut-scenes is that there have been so many thousands of almost unspeakably bad ones in gaming history.
My favourite cut-scene of all time is about 3 seconds long - it's where the protagonist in Another World (aka Out of this World) spots something on the ground in the 2D gameplay environment, and in a swift 3D cut-scene is shown stooping down and picking up a gun, signifying a whole change of emphasis in the game.
Actually a couple of my other favourites don't rely on spoken dialogue either. The opening to Fallout absolutely sets up that game - a black and white programme on a television screen spouting inanities, while the camera pulls out to reveal a post-apocalyptic wasteland. Also the menu screens on Valve games are a master-stroke in my opinion - essentially they are cut-scenes of the empty scenery in the game, almost inviting the player to breathe life into these immersive environments.
These examples bely the commonly held belief that cut-scenes = dialogue, which I think is one of the biggest misconceptions in the industry - the idea that stories happen when someone starts speaking and that we ought to stop and listen to it, which is utter nonsense. Look at the more mature visual media - paintings or film. The masters of those arts realised that you don't 'tell' stories, you 'show' them. Hitchcock told his stories through expressive visuals, montage, or simply the subtext provided by the character's eyes or expressions while the largely mundane dialogue is spoken. He'd be turning in his grave at what passes for a dramatic scene in nearly all videogames.
This all goes along with the idea that games designers only bring in the scriptwriters when there is dialogue to add, which is an utter misconception of the role of writers in any other art-form. It's little wonder that 95% of cut-scenes are rather stilted dialogues - any proper film writer would flag up these scenes at the concept stage, and try and find visual ways of achieving the same functions.
I was always one of those people who complained about MGS's long cut scenes. However, with MGS4 they are so unbelievably beautiful and polished that I sit there in awe and soak in every second of them. They just launch immediately and you go from cutscene to gameplay and back to cutscene without any load screen, making them feel more natural. So yes, it sort of does depend on how they are used, when done well they add to the experience.
What makes MGS4's cut scenes "meaningful"?
Why does it make "absolutely no sense" to use cut scenes as a reward for finishing a level? Why is that not meaningful?
You seem to be saying that cut scenes aren't inherently good or bad; it's how they're used. But you don't advance any criteria for making a distinction. Well, except for bringing in Aristotle to say "don't put in stuff that's not meaningful."
So, again, how can you tell if a cut scene is meaningful in the context of a video game?
I was wondering if the header was really supposed to be "Denis Dyack Writes for Edge," rather than something pertaining to the content of your article. But having read it, I've changed my mind: the header does underscore the main point.
Well the meaning of the cut scene is ultimately determined from the one making the game, Obviously. Usually one that is meaningful can show you anything from in depth character personalities to Plot twists.
Back in the day, there were many games that you played either had no cut scenes or completely CG that looked nothing like the game, so that the graphics would "wow" you and nothing more. No solid information on the story or characters. This is how cut scenes really got their bad wrap.
As for the player. You decide what's meaning full in the long run. You decide whether you want to view the content or not.
So it's up to the individual (designer or player) to determine. Fair enough. I just thought it might also be up to the editorial columnist. Saying "it's not good or bad, but how you use it" is a fairly anodyne point, not enhanced much by chittering about remembering the classics and how the industry is gradually moving forward.
I have to say, there's something to say about the way Valve and similar others tell their stories. It's far more challenging to build a world like Half Life's, place the character in that world and guide them through multiple games, achieve the goal of keeping people absolutely immersed in a dark world full of curiosity, sell millions and millions of copies, and be regarded as the king of SP FPS in many gamer's eyes, all the while not having cutscenes. I would much rather play a HL game than the polar opposite of MGS, where I've actually dosed off or have been taken completely out of the interactive experience for long periods of time. Granted, it's amazing anime or whatver you want to classify MGS's cutscenes as, but that's not the experience I look for in a game.
As for storytelling, give me portal with a crazy AI voice torturing me throughout, or a Deco styled underwater disaster of left behind audio tapes, those games really propelled the story and feel of the environment, feeling much more authentic as well.
Anyone who dislikes Metal Gear Solid's style of game and storytelling always complains about being taken out of the interactive experience. I've always felt that watching these expertly crafted cutscenes were actually part of the entire experience. I'm a fan of both videogames and cinema and I don't see how watching a scene of dialogue between two characters is a distraction. MGS is very clear about what it wants to be and has been that way since 1998. I could see how this kind of game would be a problem if every company was putting it out, but this is an entirely unique experience in my view.
It would help if MGS had a coherent plotline, but it just doesn't. I find it quite ridiculous, and in MGS4, most of the cutscenes were FAR too long and absolutely took me out of the experience. I'm not saying there isn't a place for MGS style games, but rabid fans of the series have to realize where others are coming from. To a lot of gamers, it's about interactivity, the more, the merrier, not 20 min custscenes.