1st February 2005, 1:07 AM
(This post was last modified: 1st February 2005, 1:34 AM by A Black Falcon.)
Cutscenes in their traditional sense aren't necessary. There have been many, many story-heavy games with 'cutscenes' that are nothing more than glorified conversations between characters or even less... yes, in recent years it is normal to have them, but not always there... PC RPGs, for instance, often have good stories but cutscenes? Good, story-telling cutscenes, beyond an intro video and perhaps an ending, in PC RPGs are relatively rare. They still tell good stories. How? Conversations between characters, mostly. Same way adventure games do it. Console games don't usually have the same deep conversation systems as PC games do, though, so they can't use that method to nearly the same effectiveness... so when a console RPG or adventure has your character having an important conversation it'll be a cutscene or series of dialog boxes while PC games usually give you a list of possible conversation topics. If you click all the options the result is the same, but it uses some degree of interactivity and choice, which should be a goal of anything made in an interactive medium, so I'd call it definitely a good thing. Of course, it also increases the sense that you are the character, as opposed to you watching the character do things -- two very different approaches, and two paths that are both used in games. Both can definitely be effective, and both can get boring when the conversations get really long. But if the goal of a game is to be a GAME, and not an interactive film, then more interactivity in all respects of the game that you can manage cannot be a bad thing.
Both text-heavy PC games and text-heavy console games exist, of course, and in both cases the written aspect of the story and the storytelling can, I'd certainly say, matter at least as much or more than the visual aspect. In my opinion, that is a good technique that leads to better and deeper stories in games and the games with the best stories are not just the ones with the best written stories but also the deepest ones... yes, you can do a great story with brevity. But if you can also do a great story with length, shouldn't that count highly too? I say so. One major problem of course is getting the length of the conversation right... whether it's just clicking through dialog boxes or if it's choosing every option on a long list of conversation choices, even the most interesting story gets somewhat dull if it comes in massive quantities unless the game is truly special (and by this I mean Torment. A unique game that has no real equal in its field, a true masterwork, and a game told more by words than by images. Oh, it has images for sure, but the game does not reach greatness by them... it does through unique setting, and conversation, and more conversation, and a very interesting story, and by little text descriptions of things in the world... and sometimes also by the graphics. Oh, by 'somewhat dull sometimes' I mean TLJ. As great as it is... but more on that later.). Some games, just like some books and some films, do go overboard where length where less would work well... but such criticisms are possible in every medium, so that doesn't change my point.
Story is good. Story at the expense of gameplay? If the story is really worth it, I can accept that sometimes... gameplay at the expense of story? Works fine for many games, but I wouldn't want it all the time. A game with a too large non-interactive side, but with a great story? Okay... though some games these days are challenging the idea that has taken hold for some years now that to make a game with a great story you need lots of non-interactive or barely interactive (see: choosing each option in succession on a list and then listening to a long conversation ensue at each choice) cutscenes or conversations.
Here's a game I've mentioned here on this subject multiple times before. Not out yet, but a sequel to a great adventure game...
http://rpgvault.ign.com/articles/512/512726p1.html
But why bring it up here? Because, whether or not the game succeeds in the goals that that interview lays out, the theory is quite good: that interactivity is good so non-interactive cutscenes should be minimized. So the game has more interactive cutscenes -- where a 'cutscene'-style scene is underway but you have control of the character in some way -- controlling them in an escape from the enemy (and not just controlling them, but making choices that affect the game at least in some small way -- running or killing people chasing your for instance) is one example I think they use. Conversation length? They talk about acknowledging that the issue is a problem and something they need to watch, but anyone who has played The Longest Journey should know that I expect them to not fully succeed at their goal of not overdoing it all the time. Which is mostly fine, but sometimes in TLJ it did get a bit overly lengthy... though almost always important at the same time. That game just has so much story to tell...
Other games have this philosophy too -- everything I've heard about Half-Life 2 says that it uses the technique of not having cutscenes. The whole game plays out from the first-person viewpoint of the main character and never leaves it... the story goes on around you but without traditional cutscenes (though there are obviously times when if you want to see the story you have to look at some event unfolding or listen to a conversation, I'm sure!). And given that by all accounts it's a fantastic game with a very good story, it obviously can work very well.
(DJ, you can probably see how the ideas I present here -- interactive conversation trees, interactive "cutscenes", and giving the player choice even if it is superficial to the overall progress of the game (though MGS does do this one to a degree, with being able to kill people or, if you try, not) could result with a story just as good and as deep as the story in MGS2 but with much less tedium and much more ... well, GAME, as opposed to film-in-game... MGS2 is a very fun game for sure, but the interactivity aspect has a ways to go... some game designers know that which is why other games try to have great stories while conciously NOT falling into the 'to have a great story (and hopefully a well-presented story as well) we must have a great degree of non-interactivity' pit...)
Oh, and I'd never noticed that about Zelda... that the games have everything from Link's perspective. You're right, though, they do that... and it defintely helps with cohesion and the sense that you are Link. If you want the person to truly BECOME the character you have to have the game follow just that character... as I said of course Half-Life 2 does this, to good effect. I'd never really thought about this, just taking cut-aways to be what they are, story exposition... but yeah, when I think about it it would reduce your connection to the character, wouldn't it? Now instead of being them you are someone outside who knows more than they do. Of course, that tactic can certainly work for some games and films and not all should be 'just following the character'. More epic works with many characters and lots of events happening in different places that need to be told (like novels with multiple characters that the book switches viewpoints between) probably shouldn't (though within each character there should be such cohesion, the fact that the consumer is seeing multiple viewpoints reduces the sense of 'I am the character' that a game which tries to truly be immersive should aim for), but for games of the kind we are discussing here... yes, it does seem like it would often work. Though a lot of it depends on what kind of story you are trying to tell. While sticking with one viewpoint like most Zelda games works great for that approach, there are lots of books, games, etc. that I've thought had great, engrossing stories that take the approach of multiple characters and switching or a higher viewpoint... so it really depends on the case. But for something like Zelda, yes, focus on one character's viewpoint only does seem like the best way to reinforce the idea that you are Link, even if many players wouldn't notice the difference between a Zelda game with such consistency and one where there are some cutaways.
Both text-heavy PC games and text-heavy console games exist, of course, and in both cases the written aspect of the story and the storytelling can, I'd certainly say, matter at least as much or more than the visual aspect. In my opinion, that is a good technique that leads to better and deeper stories in games and the games with the best stories are not just the ones with the best written stories but also the deepest ones... yes, you can do a great story with brevity. But if you can also do a great story with length, shouldn't that count highly too? I say so. One major problem of course is getting the length of the conversation right... whether it's just clicking through dialog boxes or if it's choosing every option on a long list of conversation choices, even the most interesting story gets somewhat dull if it comes in massive quantities unless the game is truly special (and by this I mean Torment. A unique game that has no real equal in its field, a true masterwork, and a game told more by words than by images. Oh, it has images for sure, but the game does not reach greatness by them... it does through unique setting, and conversation, and more conversation, and a very interesting story, and by little text descriptions of things in the world... and sometimes also by the graphics. Oh, by 'somewhat dull sometimes' I mean TLJ. As great as it is... but more on that later.). Some games, just like some books and some films, do go overboard where length where less would work well... but such criticisms are possible in every medium, so that doesn't change my point.
Story is good. Story at the expense of gameplay? If the story is really worth it, I can accept that sometimes... gameplay at the expense of story? Works fine for many games, but I wouldn't want it all the time. A game with a too large non-interactive side, but with a great story? Okay... though some games these days are challenging the idea that has taken hold for some years now that to make a game with a great story you need lots of non-interactive or barely interactive (see: choosing each option in succession on a list and then listening to a long conversation ensue at each choice) cutscenes or conversations.
Here's a game I've mentioned here on this subject multiple times before. Not out yet, but a sequel to a great adventure game...
http://rpgvault.ign.com/articles/512/512726p1.html
But why bring it up here? Because, whether or not the game succeeds in the goals that that interview lays out, the theory is quite good: that interactivity is good so non-interactive cutscenes should be minimized. So the game has more interactive cutscenes -- where a 'cutscene'-style scene is underway but you have control of the character in some way -- controlling them in an escape from the enemy (and not just controlling them, but making choices that affect the game at least in some small way -- running or killing people chasing your for instance) is one example I think they use. Conversation length? They talk about acknowledging that the issue is a problem and something they need to watch, but anyone who has played The Longest Journey should know that I expect them to not fully succeed at their goal of not overdoing it all the time. Which is mostly fine, but sometimes in TLJ it did get a bit overly lengthy... though almost always important at the same time. That game just has so much story to tell...
Other games have this philosophy too -- everything I've heard about Half-Life 2 says that it uses the technique of not having cutscenes. The whole game plays out from the first-person viewpoint of the main character and never leaves it... the story goes on around you but without traditional cutscenes (though there are obviously times when if you want to see the story you have to look at some event unfolding or listen to a conversation, I'm sure!). And given that by all accounts it's a fantastic game with a very good story, it obviously can work very well.
(DJ, you can probably see how the ideas I present here -- interactive conversation trees, interactive "cutscenes", and giving the player choice even if it is superficial to the overall progress of the game (though MGS does do this one to a degree, with being able to kill people or, if you try, not) could result with a story just as good and as deep as the story in MGS2 but with much less tedium and much more ... well, GAME, as opposed to film-in-game... MGS2 is a very fun game for sure, but the interactivity aspect has a ways to go... some game designers know that which is why other games try to have great stories while conciously NOT falling into the 'to have a great story (and hopefully a well-presented story as well) we must have a great degree of non-interactivity' pit...)
Oh, and I'd never noticed that about Zelda... that the games have everything from Link's perspective. You're right, though, they do that... and it defintely helps with cohesion and the sense that you are Link. If you want the person to truly BECOME the character you have to have the game follow just that character... as I said of course Half-Life 2 does this, to good effect. I'd never really thought about this, just taking cut-aways to be what they are, story exposition... but yeah, when I think about it it would reduce your connection to the character, wouldn't it? Now instead of being them you are someone outside who knows more than they do. Of course, that tactic can certainly work for some games and films and not all should be 'just following the character'. More epic works with many characters and lots of events happening in different places that need to be told (like novels with multiple characters that the book switches viewpoints between) probably shouldn't (though within each character there should be such cohesion, the fact that the consumer is seeing multiple viewpoints reduces the sense of 'I am the character' that a game which tries to truly be immersive should aim for), but for games of the kind we are discussing here... yes, it does seem like it would often work. Though a lot of it depends on what kind of story you are trying to tell. While sticking with one viewpoint like most Zelda games works great for that approach, there are lots of books, games, etc. that I've thought had great, engrossing stories that take the approach of multiple characters and switching or a higher viewpoint... so it really depends on the case. But for something like Zelda, yes, focus on one character's viewpoint only does seem like the best way to reinforce the idea that you are Link, even if many players wouldn't notice the difference between a Zelda game with such consistency and one where there are some cutaways.