[Bastich]

I have noticed on these forums and in many a review over the years about how cutscenes are bad and detract from games. Frankly, I have never understood this. I have even seen reviews that lauded developers for using the game engine instead of pre-rendered cutscenes. WHY??? I would much rather see a semi-photorealistic movie than a bunch of blocky, somewhat featureless and poorly textured 3D models act it out. For me a cutscene is a good time to stretch out, take a drink, maybe shovel some food down my throat since I probably haven't eaten in hours at that point, and enjoying an animated short film. In fact, to me, cutscenes are a sign of progress and are thus a reward for my hard work up to that point. They are a great way to break up a game into segments. Now I understand if the cutscenes just aren't any good or the entire game is practically one big cutscene, but why the negativity about them from so many people?

[Garyos]

I agree with you, as long as the cutscenes are good and well-implemented, of course. I really wasn't aware that cutscenes were regarded as a no-no, though.

[Starflux]

I have always been a fond admirer of cutscenes, simply because they can be extremely beautiful, usually bundle a bit of important (and thus emotionally challenging) storyline, make more and better use of cinematic qualities than (previously) most game engines ever could, feature synch, fitting music, etc. I understand 3D-engines nowadays indeed ARE able to take on a more cinematic approach, but I still prefer the much higher production values of gorgeously rendered or animated cutscenes.
To me, they feel indeed as wonderful rewards for solving a nasty puzzle or getting through a level, or campaign, or whatever. They are the scenes that I will remember, the scenes I will watch over and over again. Usually when a cutscene is done ingame, I find it cheap, easy, not surpassing the overall quality of the game itself, while cutscenes are usually implemented as little jewels, telling the story, making use of all the splendour of modern day technology.

Just LOOK at a Warcraft III cutscene and tell me this could have been done with the same aesthetic and narrative quality using ingame technology.

(edit: in Warcraft III, there are of course ingame cutscenes at the beginning and the end of every level. I enjoyed them, but they REALLY couldn't quench my desire and craving for the REAL cutscenes (or in Blizzard's case, as I hallowingly like to call them: the Cinematics))

[Phil25]

I'm all for cinimatics. The only benefit to game engine cutscenes is the fact that you're not breaking style and increasing the immersion in the game.

[Erwin_Br]

Cut-scenes should be a reward for the player. They can act as a way to show the player's progressing.

--Erwin

[RemiO]

The problem is that a lot of cut-scenes are five minutes plus in length, and is really just a cop out for the developer to continue the story. Doing it in-engine at least makes adding interactivity a fairly seamless integration. Another advantage is that you can more easily base the content on the scene on actions done earlier in the game. With pre-rendered cut-scenes that would require bundling two or more movies with the game.

[Erkki]

I like in-engine cutscenes, because that way they are integrated with the rest of the game and not a separate thing.

[Huz]

Originally Posted by Erkki

I like in-engine cutscenes, because that way they are integrated with the rest of the game and not a separate thing.

I'm all for in-engine cutscenes if the engine is up to the task, but quite often it's not - you end up with a few long-shots of characters talking, or some very "scripted" camera and character movement (no fluidity, and nothing 'out of the ordinary' for a game). I'm with Erwin - cutscenes, when used, should be all about rewarding the player, so they should be as cinematic and as 'special' as possible.

I wasn't really aware that they're considered a Bad Thing either - if they're used to excess to pour out a character's overcomplicated backstory in one go for no good reason, certainly, but if they simply move the plot along, certainly not. See Grim Fandango or the likes of Wing Commander 4 for my idea of 'perfect' cutscenes...

[Bastich]

Well I guess I am not alone then...

I think Huz got it right IMO. The reason I prefer cinematics over in-engine cutscenes is because of the quality. All the in-engine ones are so awful that they make Ed Wood look like Akira Kurosawa. While the cinematics are done "out of house" and hence can lose a lot of the style, they at least are far more professional and enjoyable. Although in the next few years game graphics may progress to a point where cinematics may no longer be necessary because the engines have advanced enough to do them in-game, the problem then is, will game developers hire people with extensive film backgrounds to direct these cutscenes, or will we be stuck with the horribly unprofessional ones we have now...

[remixor]

Originally Posted by Bastich

will game developers hire people with extensive film backgrounds to direct these cutscenes, or will we be stuck with the horribly unprofessional ones we have now...

I can't imagine they would. Why would they need to? I mean, we're already getting to the point in games where the gameplay can be treated with the type of techniques that are used in cinema. I think it would be best for cutscenes to retain the style used in the game itself, for consistency sake. On the other hand, I wouldn't have a problem if people with film experience were brought in to help supervise the direction of the game as a whole.

[Erwin_Br]

It's all about timing. Cut-scenes can hurt a game too, when they're slapped into the game with no real purpose or too many cutscenes in a short period of time. As I said, they have to come at the right moment when the player has done something that caused an event that advances the story.

--Erwin

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Bastich, have you played Syberia? IMO, it's among the most superlative examples of seamless and effortless transitions between cutscene and in-engine. I think it's because of the Bink format they used for the video, the graphics is as crisp and clear as a Lalique crystal; it's even possible, if you didn't know, to mistake the cutscenes for actual in-engine using a powerful engine and the latest graphic card.

In the past I actually slightly dreaded having to watch the cutscenes because they were usually shown as Windows Media or something, and the quality was crap - soft focus, visually removed, and jarringly too stylistically different from the actual in-game graphics (The Longest Journey was torture!). I hated playing a game for a half-hour or so, then getting jerked out of it with a gorgeous but otherwise stylistically incongruous cutscene and then being dumped back into the 'primitive' looking in-game graphics again. I'm glad we're now seeing more and more in-game cutscenes with better cinematics and animations. No One Lives Forever 2 and Max Payne 2 do an excellent job of this.

[Bastich]

Originally Posted by remixor

I can't imagine they would. Why would they need to? I mean, we're already getting to the point in games where the game-play can be treated with the type of techniques that are used in cinema.

I guess what I am saying is that the developers for the most part have gotten to the point where their technology is beginning to advance beyond their abilities. Just because they CAN implement them doesn't mean they have the skill to. I don't think they realize how important the role of the camera itself is for instance. The camera is as important, and sometimes more important, than the actors in evoking pathos. The wrong angle, improper framing, shoddy panning, and other glaring errors can make or break a scene. And the role of music and editing is often overlooked too. It is the fact that they can implement those things that will require some film experience to pull them off well. Otherwise we wind up with the equivalent of a high school film class short...

I think it would be best for cut-scenes to retain the style used in the game itself, for consistency sake. On the other hand, I wouldn't have a problem if people with film experience were brought in to help supervise the direction of the game as a whole.

I don't think anyone would argue that ideally everything shouldn't be done in-game. It is simply that the lack of consistency might be a worthy sacrifice for the shortcomings of the game engine and the lack of film skill the game developers have. It seems like this is the crux of the original point of this thread. The discrepancy of technology between cut-scenes and in-game graphics and the cinematic skill displayed in each. I seem to be in the group with a film-oriented bias, while others have a game-oriented bias. I guess the ultimate question is to what degree these will converge and who will they hire to make it happen the right way.

I know some game companies have hired professional script writers and id hired an animator with a film background if I recall correctly, so the right moves are being taken, albeit slowly.

[Bastich]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

Bastich, have you played Syberia? IMO, it's among the most superlative examples of seamless and effortless transitions between cutscene and in-engine. I think it's because of the Bink format they used for the video, the graphics is as crisp and clear as a Lalique crystal; it's even possible, if you didn't know, to mistake the cutscenes for actual in-engine using a powerful engine and the latest graphic card.

This was the first adventure game I have played where the graphics stole the show. It is too bad the script wasn't better.

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

In the past I actually slightly dreaded having to watch the cutscenes because they were usually shown as Windows Media or something, and the quality was crap - soft focus, visually removed, and jarringly too stylistically different from the actual in-game graphics (The Longest Journey was torture!). I hated playing a game for a half-hour or so, then getting jerked out of it with a gorgeous but otherwise stylistically incongruous cutscene and then being dumped back into the 'primitive' looking in-game graphics again. I'm glad we're now seeing more and more in-game cutscenes with better cinematics and animations. No One Lives Forever 2 and Max Payne 2 do an excellent job of this.

I agree on the video quality. I have lamented this problem for some time. Why is it that DVDs have been able to be played on PCs in pristine quality for years, yet only a handful of developers (Blizzard for one) can make a video that doesn't look like ultra-compressed crap? It is almost embarrassingly bad.

I have both NOLF2 and MP2, but I am a bit burnt out on action lately so haven't really played them yet...

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by Bastich

This was the first adventure game I have played where the graphics stole the show. It is too bad the script wasn't better.

Too bad so much of it wasn't better. Not that I'm bashing Syberia. The game was quite impressive on many levels. However, you might want to read some of our thoughts and critiques on it (beyond the graphics) in this thread, and contribute you own.

[Zack]

I think Cutscenes are one of the best parts of computer games. The reason is because they progress the story forward, and they reward you after playing the game for, say maybe half-an-hour, or less. In almost every computer game I've played, I've found Cutscenes amazing, and fun to watch. I agree with everyone that said Syberia's Cutscenes were a joy to watch, and I do plan to play that game again someday to get ready for Syberia II.

Both No One Lives Forever 1 and 2, The Longest Journey, Syberia, The Curse of Monkey Island, and Grim Fandango are a few examples that have top-notch cutscenes in them. That's all I can think of to say about Cutscenes, but I definitely enjoyed talking about them.

[twifkak]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

I think it's because of the Bink format

You and your Bink-pushing. You're not a geek; what would you know? *harumph*

[twifkak]

Originally Posted by Bastich

I guess what I am saying is that the developers for the most part have gotten to the point where their technology is beginning to advance beyond their abilities. Just because they CAN implement them doesn't mean they have the skill to.

Bingo. Rod, tell 'im what he's won!

(BTW, my own opinion is that cutscenes aren't *inherently* bad, but after playing ICO, it's become pretty obvious to me (yeah, you're going to have to live with that dangling modifier, Tam-diddy-da-da) that giving even the slightest illusion of control heightens the experience of the player immensely.)

[AGA]

Obviously a lot of you won't have played it, but BS3's cutscenes are frequent and hugely cinematic. Look forward to them.

[Ninja Dodo]

My number one favourite use of cutscenes is in Half Life... because basically, they're not really cutscenes... things are actually happening in the game and you can affect them.

Second best I would say is Grim Fandango for having excellent cinematic cutscenes but above all for keeping the same style as the game. If it weren't for the slight bit of compression, you wouldn't be able to tell which was cutscene and which was game.

Third is Blizzard... Starcraft and Warcraft 3 anyway (not played the Diablo games). If this were a film poll I would rate them the highest by far because as films their quality is unsurpassed. However, they completely break with the style of the games. It even gets to the point where a lot of the characters in the cinematics aren't recognizable from the game. This was mostly a problem in Starcraft, but WC3 also had a good bit of that - anyone recognize Thrall in the cinematics?

In my view, games should take after Half Life and do away with cutscenes entirely. Rewarding, fun-to-watch events could still happen but they would not be static things the player has no influence upon... and they would be a part of the game. This is far more immersive and interesting than being thrown out of the game and back into it. And not all in-game cutscenes would need to be participated in. They can be interactive without requiring interaction. Anyone remember the intro to Half Life?

Anyway, if I want to see a film I'll go to the cinema.