Cutscenes- Are They Necessary? - TV Tropes Forum (2024)

I had this discussion on the Penny Arcade forum and just wanted to know what your opinions were.

We all know video game cutscenes are used extensively for plot, story, and character development in games where these elements might be difficult to pull off in game. But are they necessary? A few players argued that cutscenes tend to delay game play and take away from the immersion of the experience. We've also seen in games like Portal and Half Life where plot elements can be told just as clearly in real time gaming as any cutaway cinematic.

So I guess what I'm wondering is are game cutscenes by today's standards really necessary for story and plot development or should we just find other alternatives?

You are displaying abnormally high compulsions to over-analyze works of fiction and media. Diagnosis: TV Tropes Addiction.

Yes. they are necesssary, when the engine cannot just do it for itself

http://steamcommunity.com/id/Xan-Xan/

In game engine cutscenes are still, in my opinion, necessary. Especially ones that don't ignore the events of the game you are involved in. If you have an AK 47 and the cutscene shows you as having a minigun, for example, that can break immersion.

However, it is a video game, not a video movie. You should always have far more playing and interactivity than sat on your butt gawping at the scenery.

I don't know. I think there's a lot to be said for making the in-game resources dramatic themselves. One moment I remember from Space Marine is getting to a facility where some Imperial Guardsmen are holed up with improvised fortification. As you pass, they begin to stand up. Some salute. Some don't. But they all stand up, most of them silent.

Gaming is unique in that it delivers narrative as a collaboration between the game designers and the end user — you. The only medium that can boast that capacity is tabletop roleplaying, and that doesn't get animated graphics or music.

One thing about cutscenes is that they give players license to relax, unless they have QTEs thrown in — and those are annoying because they violate the promise of a cutscene being an opportunity to stop and breathe. If you want to deliver tension, then doing it in a context where the player feels threatened is much more effective.

Swordsman Troper — Reclaiming The Blade — Watch

Some games reward the players with the story, a thing they are interested in. The game can be the key to unlocking said story, and keeping the gameplay rewards and the story rewards separate is a nice touch.

Every game is different, and depending on the execution, the story can get in the way of the gameplay, and vice versa.

It would be like if Super Smash Bros had a storyline equivalent to that of Dissidia, when the main idea behind SSB is to not have a dramatic tension/build up with twists and reelings (?), and just deliver the gameplay.

Troper Page

It really depends on the genre and series.

"Seriously, don't eat the mermaid. And not just because it's half cannibalism." ~Otherarrow

Well, Videogames are much better value for money then DV Ds here....

Dumbo

Word. There are some games they work in, and some games they don't. And it's dependent on a lot of factors, too. In-engine, "live" cutscenes still have drawbacks, after all. If you don't confine a character to an area when you're spouting your exposition or character development, they could cut you off and never hear a lick of it. If you do lock them in, the fact that you've taken away their freedom of movement still pretty much means the cutscene is non-interactive if you can't influence it; you can just fiddle with the control stick while you do so. IMO, "cutscenes" like this work best in setpieces, where there's things for you to do while you're listening to someone expound. But otherwise, I think it's all a matter of how your story works.

Metroid Prime's Scrapbook Story worked perfectly for that game because Samus is perpetually alone, with no one to bounce off of, but would've felt silly and non-intuitive in a game with more people in it. (And indeed, in Prime 3, the scan data is limited to the deserted planets and Pirates, with whom she can't talk. The Federation part of the story is talked.) Games like Unchanted and Beyond Good And Evil, that build characterization and provide exposition through In Game Dialogue and partner chatter, obviously don't work so well with a hero who's alone, or silent. Et cetra.

"Proto-Indo-European makes the damnedest words related. It's great. It's the Kevin Bacon of etymology." ~Madrugada

I like cutscenes. Yes, some games intertwine the gameplay and storytelling into one... But not all games can do that. Plus cutscenes allow stuff gameplay just can't, like your character actually doing things. Additionally, cutscenes are skippable or at least should be. Meanwhile in-game-engine plotline moments usually just have you standing around like a moron while NPC A and NPC B flab their gums before expecting you to follow them into the next room (Looking at you, Half Life). That's just not much fun.

So yeah, long live the cutscene.

I feel it's slightly ruined when the game takes away control from you so that your character can do an impossibly cool thing that you just literally cannot do in engine. I want to do impossibly cool things. Why should I let the game have all the fun?

So. Let's all pause for a moment to smell what the Rock was, is, and forever will be... cooking.—Cave Johnson

Are cutscenes necessary. Hmm, interesting question. I think it depends largely on how you want to handle what's going on. Cutscenes are used to expo dump on the player while removing distractions. So in order to do that without a cutscene, to have it organic with the game, you've got to do things in such a way as to limit the players options, grab their attention, and hold it while you get out what you need to.

Having just played Battlefield 3 I can say that they did their story progression in game very well. Mission briefings, set pieces, pretty much anything that happened in game went over pretty well. I'm not as ADD ass some people so it worked well. They occasinally did things like trap you in a car with guys expo dumping so you didn't have an option.

The one downside was the quick time events which... I hate quick time events. And their actual game engine cutscenes did alright, but they were pretty bland. I wouldn't mind more of the in game "cutscenes" and fewer pre-done, non-interactive ones.

So I guess in a round about way I'm going to say that no, cutscenes probably aren't necessary unless you are using the to frame the story in a specific way. Otherwise, you can live without them now given modern graphical abilities.

"Tyyr's a necessary evil. " Spirit

It's situational.

Umbran Climax◊

While I do think cutscenes are easily overdone, even then they are a lot better than being locked in and talked at like in Half-life 2 because if you don't like them cutscenes is generally skippable, "gameplay" isn't. Cutscenes are used when you need to lead the plot in one specific direction or have actions that aren't in the games repertoire like driving a vehicle in rail shooter.

In the quiet of the night, the Neocount of Merentha mused: How long does evolution take, among the damned?

Are cutscenes necessary? Not at all. Should you use them? In my opinion, absolutely.

You see, as others have already pointed out, a cutscene helps to eliminate distractions while giving out important details, normally regarding the story, but sometimes delving into mechanics, such as a tutorial. Of course, you don't need cutscenes to do this, especially if you are going for a rather sparse story in your game, which is perfectly alright, regardless of what others say. It isn't like the old Mario games had extensive plots behind them yet they still hold up as amazing games today thanks to their simplicity. This simplicity includes a lack of cutscenes.

However, when used properly, cutscenes add so much to the experience that there is really no reason to not use them if you can hit that sweet spot. The best cutscenes are short and to the point, allowing a brief respite from the gameplay and a chance to build the world of the game around you.

"Evii is right though" -Saturn"I didn't know you were a bitch Evii." -Lior Val

Cutscenes are a tool. Sometimes, they're the right tool for the job (even if they're not the only right tool for the job). Sometimes, they're not.

Are they necessary?

Well, define "necessary." I mean, videogames aren't really "necessary," are they?

edited 29th Dec '11 11:44:23 AM by INUH

Infinite Tree: an experimental story

Cutscenes are used when you need to lead the plot in one specific direction or have actions that aren't in the games repertoire like driving a vehicle in rail shooter.

I can see the point of the second, sometimes you want to do something the game can't. Top of my head I don't recall many instances like that but I'll give you the point. However, why can't you lead the story in a specific direction with the player still in the game?

The best cutscenes are short and to the point, allowing a brief respite from the gameplay and a chance to build the world of the game around you.

Why use a cutscene though if you can do it in game? If you can build the world and tell the story without removing the player from the game, why wouldn't you? Why break them out of the game to get artsy on them when you could do it and arguably keep them more immersed in what's going on?

edited 29th Dec '11 12:16:12 PM by Tyyrlym

"Tyyr's a necessary evil. " Spirit

Because its also a matter of pacing. A cutscene, by definition, means gameplay is paused, allowing the player respite after a tough segment potentially. At the same time, because the player isn't having to engage in, well, gameplay, his attention is undivided and can be focused entirely on whatever scene the cutscene contains. Both are very useful tools for setting the pace of the game.

This, btw, is also why I dislike QT Es, or rather, the use of QT Es in cutscenes. If a cutscene has QT Es in it, its not a cutscene anymore, its gameplay.

As for the larger question, its really missing the point. The better question is "in this particular game, do cutscenes contribute to the game, or do they hurt the quality of the game?"

Home of CBR Rumbles-in-Exile: rumbles.fr.yuku.com

As for the larger question, its really missing the point. The better question is "in this particular game, do cutscenes contribute to the game, or do they hurt the quality of the game?"

And even then, it's often not the same answer for every cutscene in a given game.

edited 29th Dec '11 12:58:12 PM by INUH

Infinite Tree: an experimental story

Kill 'em with fire. Save them for actual cool attacks or for ending/beginning videos.

Actual dialogue should be done with text, and maybe voice acting. Likewise, you should always be able to press a button to continue it. They cost too much money to do, cannot be changed around easily, which means you're stuck with that story. With text, it's easy to fix if you need to change the story. They never brought anything good to the game beyond "looks cool". I'm interested in the story itself, not watching a movie. I can watch a movie. I want interaction. Long cutscenes where you do nothing but watch are not interesting when it comes to an interactive video game. I mean, what's the point if you don't do a single thing while the giant long cutscenes keeps going.

It's cool near the start of the game, giving you a story. It's great to end the game on. If they're very short, like 2-3 minutes that happen once in a while(Sonic games generally do this), they're fine. But when almost half of the game is a long cutscene, I lose interest fast. I want to play the game, not freakin' watch it. I'll just watch somebody else play instead if I wanted that.

Quest 64 thread

Save them for actual cool attacks

This is the only use of cutscenes I consistently dislike. It just makes me not want to use the cool attack, because it takes five or ten times longer than using my other attacks. Infinite Tree: an experimental story