Support NeoGAF

[capslock]

.

Oughtta Stay Out of Pictures
Why video games shouldn't be like the movies.
By Clive Thompson
Posted Thursday, Jan. 27, 2005, at 3:13 PM PT

... but first, a message from our plotline


Critics have called Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas a blood-soaked crime simulator that valorizes the worst gangsta stereotypes. What they haven't noticed, though, is that everyone's favorite shoot-'em-up is also a family drama. Early on in the game, my character discovers his brother and sister fighting over her decision to date a South Side Hispanic man. I don't need this racism, she says, from "a no-good, narrow-minded, hypocrite gangbanger."

These minimovies, called "cut-scenes," are part of a longtime trend in gaming to create more nuanced characters and more story-based play. Whether a cut scene explains your next mission or just sets a mood, the basic idea is to make a game seem cinematic—more like Citizen Kane than Pac-Man. For many designers, crafting bravura cut scenes has become the best way to transform a mere game into a genre-smashing event. When Halo 2 shipped, for example, the game's creators bragged that they had created nearly a feature film's worth of scripted scenes.

These Hollywood flourishes are good for dazzling mainstream journalists and pundits. That's because there's still a weird anxiety about adults playing games. Most people still think that video games are sophomoric kid stuff; the ones that have a narrative and emulate the movies seem more serious and, well, mature. In fact, I think the truth is almost the opposite. The more video games become like movies, the worse they are as games.



Playing a game, any kind of game, is inherently open-ended and interactive. Whether you're playing chess, Go, or Super Mario Bros., you don't really know how things will wind up or what will happen along the way. Narrative, on the other hand, is neither open-ended nor interactive. When you're watching a story, you surrender masochistically to the storyteller. The fun is in not having control, in sitting still and going "Yeah? And then what happened? And then?"

That's why cut scenes are such a massive pain in the neck—they enforce passivity. There's nothing more annoying than going on a shooting spree, then having to break the rhythm of play by putting your game pad down for minutes at a time. Before my character embarks on a home invasion in GTA: San Andreas, a quick cut scene shows the layout of the house. As I'm sitting there, waiting to start mashing buttons again, I can't help but think that this is kind of lazy design. Isn't there a better way to do this inside the game itself? Why ask the player to stop playing?

There are rare instances where cut scenes are truly wonderful: Final Fantasy X and last year's Ninja Gaiden include several tiny masterpieces of kung-fu melodrama (you can see them online here). And for all my bitching, I'll admit that some cut-scenes in GTA: San Andreas have dialogue funnier than Tarantino. But the fact remains that storytelling halts game play, and thus removes the central thing that makes games gamelike.

Today's games are strongest not when they're slavishly emulating cinema, but when they borrow from disciplines like urban design and architecture. Few of my friends got particularly jazzed about the story in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. But everyone raves about the open-ended environment—the hundreds of buildings you can enter, the dozens of souped-up cars you can jack, the fact that you can ignore the missions and just perform sick BMX stunts for a few hours. As a story, GTA is no Boyz n the Hood. But as a theme park? It's better than Disneyland.

Halo and Halo 2 succeeded for the same reason. Both games had forgettable storylines—pure alien-invasion boilerplate—that were redeemed by the game's superrealistic physics. Long after I finished the game, I used Halo 2 as a playpen for physics experiments, tossing grenades beneath vehicles or bodies to see how high I could blow them in the air. (Some players took that to an amusing extreme.) That same mojo has fueled the enduring appeal of The Sims. No purple-prose narrative there—just an open-ended game so terrific that 25 million people wanted to explore it.

In my more cynical moments, I think this whole pursuit of narrative is the industry's sneaky way of forcing gamers to buy more products. When a game has a story that "ends" after 40 hours of play, you have to throw it away—and go spend another $50 on the next title. That's movie-industry logic, not game logic. Chess doesn't "end." Neither do hockey, bridge, football, Go, playing with dolls, or even Tetris. Worse, by selling "narratives," game publishers can cover up the fact that they rarely create truly new forms of play. In any given year, I'll play a dozen first-person shooters with different stories—Save the world from Martian devils! Penetrate an island full of genetic freaks!— that are all, at heart, exactly the same game.

Only a few designers are talented enough to create new, durable forms of game play. But every once in a while, someone proves that it's possible. One recent example is Katamari Damacy, a daffy little Japanese import in which you roll a sticky ball around and "pick up" objects that you encounter. Like a snowball, it gets bigger and bigger—while you start off picking up tiny objects on a desk, pretty soon you're rolling across cities and picking up street signs and people. The first time I started up Katamari Damacy, I played for hours, racing against the clock and making sure my ball didn't get too uneven when it rolled over cars. There are no nuanced characters, no reams of dialogue, no bloated plotline—just one simple premise and an insane amount of fun.

Clive Thompson writes about gaming and technology for Slate.
Image from Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas courtesy of Rock Star Games.

What do you think? Does this article vindicate the Nintendo stance that games should not become overcomplex, and their resistance to adding sufficient plot development or cutscenes? Ironically enough, this is a site sponsored by Microsoft.

 

[Ryudo]

Its like guys who use vacuum cleaners as mouths for their second head, clearly its not what the developer had in mind...... or did they ?

 

[D-X]

If he doesn't want a plotline he should skip the cutscenes. An RPG without a storyline wouldn't be too interesting.

 

[Jonnyram]

I cry at the misuse of the genre "shoot-'em-up".

 

[MightyHedgehog]

I agree with his ideas about the tradeoffs that scripted storylines and their resulting cut-scenes bring to a game, and if virtually every game was doing the whole cinema-slideshow bit, then I could agree in full. However, the great thing about today's gaming scene, and what it has to offer, is that there's plenty of room for all-types of different experiences...whether they are more traditional non-cinematic-infested fare and all game, or the modern hybrid of movie-games. There's plenty of choice to be had.

If GTA: SA and Halo 2 were completely devoid of cinematics, I think the experience with them would be less. The game-side of things in both of these examples are pushed and polished well beyond the norm, so it's really impossible to argue that they would have been absolutely better without the cinematic frills that the developers chose to make certain were integrated.

I personally prefer the game-time scripted/dynamic storytelling done in titles like Breakdown and the Half-Life titles, as it's more natural and keeps the suspension of disbelief flowing. However, it's not the best way to tell every kind of story.

 

[Kung Fu Jedi]

I enjoy the fact that games have evolved into a higher art form that is now compared to movies and books. I think it's great that plots/stories have gotten more complex, and if the cut scenes help to create a more indepth plot then I'm all for 'em. On the other hand, there can be games that are too cinematic. I don't want to watch my game, I want to play it. There needs to be a balance. Use the cut scenes to move the plot along, create depth, and make us care about the characters and why we want to beat the game, but don't bore us to death with over exposition, poor dialog, and need I say it, poor acting.

I know Nintendo has subscribed to the plot-lite approach, and I liken a lot of their games to comic books as far as depth. Comic books are fun, enjoyable, and light, but every once in awhile you want something with more weight. Sometimes you want War and Peace. The great thing is that the industry has grown enough where both schools of thought can thrive. We can have great games with thin plots and great games with massive, complex, multileveled stories. Just like movies and books!

 

[Pimpwerx]

The author of that article is stuck in the past. Games have developed more complex stories b/c gamers have demanded that. Just like how games have become deeper, longer and more feature-rich. It's the progression of the market. If cutscenes were so bad, the top selling games wouldn't have them. But as it stands, outside of sports, the best-selling games pack in great stories, action and controls into one big package. That's the way it should be, more bang for the buck. Games without stories generally lack longevity and lack immersion as well, IMO. PEACE.

 

[Doc Holliday]

I completely agree. Games have become so god damn hollywood its sickening. There is too much emphasis on story, and cutscenes. Game Designers and producers think they are hollywood directors now. We have idiots now writing a plot before the gameplay mechanics are worked out, makes no sense. Why do you think games are so damn expensive to make these days? Devs are hiring well known voice actors, out sourcing cg cutscenes,and hiring big time writers. Games dont need this. I just hate the fact that story has become the backbone of most games instead of gameplay.

Goes back to playing re4, mgs3 and halo2

 

[AssMan]

Let's just face it. The mainstream media hates GCN.

 

[Wario64]

I agree with the guy. I never gave a shit about Halo 2's story, most cutscenes in games are worthless. I don't really care if they have 20 hours worth of cutscene and script material. Unless they're MGS3 quality cutscenes, I can care less


GTA San Andreas a shoot em up...lol.

 

[Ferny84]

Capslock from GameFAQs?

 

[DarienA]

There is room in the industry for both... the trick will be developers finding a balance and appealing to both groups of gamers.

The end.

 

[ge-man]

I think he has the right idea, personally. A game's story is becoming more and more irrelevant to me. I want to play the game above all.

I think Capcom got the cutscene issue right in RE4. There are QTE moments constantly popping up that allow you to affect the action. It's not like other games where your character does insane shit in cutscenes for what seems like an enternity only for you to take up the controls later and play a short and uninteresting section of the game. Leon does a lot cool stuff based on YOUR actions.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

What do you think? Does this article vindicate the Nintendo stance that games should not become overcomplex, and their resistance to adding sufficient plot development or cutscenes?

Nah. It's his opinion that non-interactive scenes are a pain, but that's far from a new or unique thought.

However, the great thing about today's gaming scene, and what it has to offer, is that there's plenty of room for all-types of different experiences...whether they are more traditional non-cinematic-infested fare and all game, or the modern hybrid of movie-games. There's plenty of choice to be had.

Right on. It's impossible for a movie to become game-like to the end user. It is possible for a game to become movie-like to the user, so it's the only choice for any sort of hybrid.

 

[Drinky Crow]

He's largely right. Fuck cutscenes.

 

[Dan]

Delivering a narrative in a game is not predicated on the existence of cut-scenes.

So, I agree and disagree with the author. I have no problem with narratives being integrated into some games, but cut-scenes don't integrate shit. They're just the cop-out and result in a medium that alternates between gaming and cinema.

Hopefully cut-scenes prove to be the stop-gap I think they are, and developers will continue to strive to push the narrative into the actual gameplay.

 

[ToxicAdam]

I thought this was common knowledge after we all realised how bad FMV games sucked back in the early 90's.

 

[SonicMegaDrive]

Not sure what this has to do with Nintendo really(I know Super Mario Sunshine, Luigi's Mansion, Metroid Prime, and The Wind Waker all had annoying cutscenes), but I completely agree with what this guy says. I've said it countless times before, if I wanna play a game, I'll play a game. If I want a movie, I'll stick in a DVD. Plain and simple. Look, I enjoy playing video games, but I'm not so into the game that I want to know every little thing. I just don't have time for all that anymore. If I cared about the backstory, I'd read the instruction manual. Just slap a controller in my hand and let me create my OWN goddamn story.

 

[capslock]

Capslock from GameFAQs?

No, never been on Gamefaqs, always hung around GAF.

 

[drohne]

nintendo doesn't make the cinematic games he questions, or the open-ended, dynamic games he offers as an alternative. they make rigidly designed games in the classic japanese style. so i don't think this article has anything to do with them. good read, though.

edit: come to think of it, it does brush against nintendo -- their super mario brothers deposed the open-ended, score-based arcade game and inaugurated the reign of games that "end." though of course it's not as simple as that.

 

[Foobar]

I think the pacing of stori in a game is really what is frustrating about gaming these days. There are games like Xenosaga or Metal Gear Solid 2 where the story overwhelms the entire gameplay experience and it simply feels more like a placeholder for where a lot of gameplay could have been happening.

I think games like Metal Gear Solid 3, Half-Life 2, Metroid Prime 2, FFX Baten Kaitos and Resident Evil 4 strike a good balance. HL2, RE4 and MP2 aren't very story-driven, but they give you just enough to go on to make the world make sense and the story understandable, the rest of the story is that of your own experience. MGS3, FFX and BK are heavy on the story, but come with equally heavy gameplay portions that aren't pure button mashing, but very nuanced and immersive.

The well-paced games are the games I actually want to play through again upon finishing them. A game that aims to tell a story an little else has practically no replay value to me and is a waste of space on my shelf. When the story derails the gameplay completely, that's just plain bad.

 

[Warm Machine]

I think he has the right idea, personally. A game's story is becoming more and more irrelevant to me. I want to play the game above all.

I think Capcom got the cutscene issue right in RE4. There are QTE moments constantly popping up that allow you to affect the action. It's not like other games where your character does insane shit in cutscenes for what seems like an enternity only for you to take up the controls later and play a short and uninteresting section of the game. Leon does a lot cool stuff based on YOUR actions.

There are non interactive cutscenes all over the place in RE4 and the QTE sequences suck as they only serve to try to kill the player. Die Hard arcade is one of the few games to ever get the QTE thing pretty well right.