Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Games Entertainment

Cinematics Do Matter? 71

Posted by Zonk from the fighting-slashdot-articles dept.
In direct contradiction to a discussion we had about David Jaffe's opinion on the subject earlier today, GameDaily Biz has an editorial up arguing that cinematics and story are very important game elements. From the article: "There have been times in our industry where sub-par product has been sold through its cinematics, but there have also been times when products have failed to live up to the promise of its creators. The merits of if a cinematic and/or story detract from a game experience is rather mute, as story is one of the oldest and fundamental forms of entertainment, expression and communication"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Cinematics Do Matter? More

Cinematics Do Matter?

Comments Filter:

  • omg spoiler! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by AdamThirteenth ( 857966 ) on Thursday February 02, 2006 @10:11PM (#14631846)
    Who didn't want to cry like a baby when Aeris died in FF7?

    Cinematics are very effective in the right situations. Would a cinematic be a selling point for me if I wanted a new hack n slash? Probably not. Would I be disappointed if the next installment of FF had no cinematics? Deffinitely.
    • Cinematics are very effective in the right situations. Would a cinematic be a selling point for me if I wanted a new hack n slash? Probably not. Would I be disappointed if the next installment of FF had no cinematics? Deffinitely.

      Your argument obviously boiling down to the fact that it's genre that matters - you can't make a blanket statement that cinematics do/don't matter. And I agree. (For the record, I'm not ashamed to admit that I did cry like a baby when Aeris died in FF7 - and I knew it was coming!

      • Re:omg spoiler! (Score:3, Informative)

        by owlman17 ( 871857 )
        I'd have to agree. They're very, very effective in certain situations. Although this may be a simplistic view, it helps immerse me even more in the storyline. For instance, I was really able to "get into" StarCraft years ago. If you think about it, the carefully woven single-player missions with the cinematics in between, effectively changed it from being a "yet-another-RTS-clone" into a space-opera.

        Far older games, which had even simpler graphics, benefited more. Yes, I do agree that plot is more important
        • WarCraft II had cinematics in single-player also, as did all of the Civilization games. So explain how StarCraft was not just another RTS?

          • WarCraft II had cinematics in single-player also, as did all of the Civilization games. So explain how StarCraft was not just another RTS?

            Are Civilizations RTS games ? Do they have missions ?

      • Your argument obviously boiling down to the fact that it's genre that matters - you can't make a blanket statement that cinematics do/don't matter. And I agree. (For the record, I'm not ashamed to admit that I did cry like a baby when Aeris died in FF7 - and I knew it was coming!)

        There's also the obvious point that the cinematics have to be good to have the intended effect, and given that the skills required to make good cinema are rather different than those required to make a good game in general, many de
    • Ditto. For me, it's all about the reward system. Games like FF reward you for completing sections of gameplay by showing you some beautifully rendered story development. Transformers on PS2 and Warcraft III are other good examples. These games have always compelled me to play cause I wanna see the next cutscene!!
      • On the other side of the coin are games that put long drawn out cutscenes BEFORE major boss battles, without an option to skip them. You know, the kind of battle you know you're going to have to try over and over again to 1)figure out the weaknesses and general techniques for fighting and then 2)get the timings right. In particular I'm thinking Prince of Persia Two Thrones, the fight against the big twins, one with a hammer and one with a sword. Took four or five tries to figure out exactly what to do, a
    • Who didn't want to cry like a baby when Aeris died in FF7?

      Those of us who didn't see it.

      LK
    • Who didn't want to cry like a baby when Aeris died in FF7?

      Well as true as that might be, part of me was yelling:

      Cast Life2 on her, you dumb ass!

  • Story, not cinematics (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jclast ( 888957 ) on Thursday February 02, 2006 @10:17PM (#14631884) Homepage
    It's the story that matters in a plot-driven game. Who can honestly say that the Final Fantasy IV or VI's stories would have been more epid with FMV? Does Chrono Trigger _need_ FMV to be great? I think not.

    Finat Fantasy Tactics, which has one of the most complex stories I've ever followed in an RPG, had no FMV. It is lauded by many as one of the greatest games of all time even though it came out after the FMV-heave Final Fantasy VII. People loved that game, too. Would it have meant less if Sephiroth killed Aeris using the in-game engine? No. The event is what moves us, not the pretty graphics.

    Give me story-telling the way Half-Life 2 does it (interactive). Or the way Sly Cooper does it (slide show / comic book). It should be non-intrusive, and it should feel appropriate in the game's world. If that means we use the in-game engine, great. If it means we use FMV, that's okay, too. All I want is to make sure there's a good story to tell before you dump all your money into shiny FMV.
    • I absolutely agree, but I would like to add that there are games where I would really rather not know the story. If I were playing some ATV offroad game or Extreeeeme Deer Huntin' I could really give a care about the saga of Billy Ray Dirtbag or whatever character that I'm supposed to be playing. Not that I play deer huntin' or anything...
    • Would it have meant less if Sephiroth killed Aeris using the in-game engine? No. The event is what moves us, not the pretty graphics.

      It would have to me. FF7's non-combat graphics engine really sucked. There are naunces that you could not get with FF7s engine - The look of shock on Aeris' face, the way Cloud moved when he released her body at the funeral scene, Sephiroth's insanity in some of his scenes. You simply can't show those things without either an FMV, or a better graphics engine.

      FF6's graphi
      • You think FF7's combat system sucked, you should have seen FFIII. Character leaps across screen and stomps their opponent, ala mario bros, and then hops back. The "cinematics" in that game were handled using the game engine. Still had an impact.
        • I was talking about FF7's non-combat graphics engine, not the combat one, which was fairly decent. I've played every FF in the direct line up to 9, so I've seen the FF3 engine, but I think you missed my point.

          It is possible to communicate plot and emotional characters without using FMVs or high-quality in-game engines. But FMVs (properly used) make your set pieces even better than they would be without them.

          Yes, the old FF engines work. But if you added FMVs to them (in the right places, at the right ti

          • Yes, the old FF engines work. But if you added FMVs to them (in the right places, at the right times, for the right duration, with the right quality) they would work better.

            Actually, no, they wouldn't. 2D sprite graphics are far enough from reality that my brains interpret them in purely symbolic mode, adding all the missing details in as long as there's enough cues. Pre-rendered 3D graphics are close enough to reality that my brains try to interpret them as reality, which means that missing details don

      • But it's simply not as true anymore. Yes, render-farms can still churn out some stunning cinematics, but I've seen some pretty impressive examples of realtime-rendered graphics as well.

        Some of the better ones use combinations, e.g. some really impressive texturing or animated textures for background, etc, combined with realtime rendered character graphics etc.

        Game engines and graphics cards have come a long way since FF7. Render farms can do a better job as well, of course, but at some point there will
        • But what is the trade-off? What is the downside of using an FMV as opposed to a set piece using the games built-in engine? As far as I can tell, the only downsides are production time (which users don't really give a stuff about) and continuity (jumping to an FMV can sometimes break the illusion of the game). The upside for an FMV is, as you say, a much higher quality of animation. And also as you say, as technology progresses, the gap between FMV and in-game engine will decrease. But in the mean time, if y
    • Please, you're confusing FMB with cinematics. Cinematics are what happen when you, the player, stop worrying about the controls and sit back and watch. It doesn't matter if this is an FMV or a scripted scene animated via the game engine. That is a cinematic. Do they count? Yes, of course. In almost any game where a story is told it will be necessary to use some type of cinematic. How important those are depend entirely on how integral story is to the game. Serious Sam does just fine without cinemati
    • Amen, my favorite console game series is soul reaver/LOK, not so much because of the gameplay (though that is good) but because it's got a great plot that's fully intermeshed into the game. I wish we'd get more games like that as opposed to the crap that the game companies usually churn out with the selling point of better graphics/cooler cinematics.
    • This issue isn't whether a scene is pre-rendered or not. Non-interactive scenes are just as non-interactive if they are rendered realtime. They may be more easily integrated with dynamic content, but they are still cinematic. The issue is whether to take away the users control and force feed them the story, or to attempt to tell the story around them, while they are in control.

  • in other news... (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by ShinGouki ( 12500 )
    trees are wood
    rich people have lots of money
    water is wet
  • Am I supposed to like cinematics and cut scenes or not?

    • Re:I'm so confused (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Uhm...Well, I guess i'll force my opinion on you and fill your empty soul with convictions, albeit someone else's.

      You are supposed to like cut scenes in FFVII. You are also supposed to like cutscenes in Ninja Gaiden, and some of the shorter, funnier ones in Halo.

      You are NOT supposed to like cutscenes in FFX. You are supposed to think that that game was basically a movie where you got to move the guy on screen once like every hour and a PS2 controller instead of a remote.

      There. Now you have opinions. Be

  • Starcraft (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Nicolay77 ( 258497 ) <nicolay.g@gMENCKENmail.com minus author> on Thursday February 02, 2006 @10:34PM (#14631967)
    Just see the way starcraft cinematics were done.

    They are superb, funny, and even today they look nice.

    However, if you skip them, you don't lose much from the history, and the game is just as good.

    • Re:Starcraft (Score:3, Interesting)

      by SilentOneNCW ( 943611 )
      I agree. The StarCraft cinematics remain to this very date some of the very best ever done for a video game - they were graphically realistic, aurally well done, and conveyed a genuine feel of the StarCraft universe, as well as being damn funny. And as the parent notes, they didn't focus entirely on protraying major events; this mostly happened through the game engine. What they did do was add a solid base for the rest of game, sparking further insight into the story and graphically relaying memorable momen
      • You might just call the cinematics eye-candy, or you might call it a reward. Some missions were a real pain in the butt, but it was worth it to see the cool FMV's after various points.

        Fast-forward to Warcraft III and realtime-rendering cutscenes. While this could have been done with a better engine to be more impressive, it simply was not Starcraft. It was less rewarding, and even a bit sappy. One could argue that the overall plot was sappy at points, but I think a more little rewarding FMV (there were so
    • Speaking of Starcraft, I'll just cut and paste a post I made in another thread earlier today

      I remember watching (a long time ago) a dvdrip with all the cutscenes from HiRes cutscenes from StarCraft®, Diablo® II, and Warcraft® III

      http://www.blizzard.com/market/blizzard-dvd.shtml [blizzard.com]

      I've never played any of those games, but damn those cutscenes were pretty in HiRes.

      The StarCraft cutscenes weren't my favorites, but they were still worth watching, independant of the game.

    • I love you, Sarge!
  • The merits of if a cinematic and/or story detract from a game experience is rather mute..."

    Merits sure is quiet!
  • I for one welcome our new cinematic overlords.
  • Cinematics can, and often do, enhance and improve a game. But I do not think it is a good idea to have the cinematics eclipse the gameplay as a selling point.

    The primary reason I stopped playing the final fantasy titles was because the cinematics became much more important then the gameplay.

    The primary problem is that non interactive elements in games are not very replayable. Once the novelty of watching a long animation sequence wears off, I want to be able to skip it. And if I am forced to sit through

  • MUTE???? (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by drewmca ( 611245 )
    If those merits is (sic) _mute_, then how will they ever be able to communicate with us? I'd hate to be in a room with a bunch of mute merits struggling mightly to get their point across. Someone could get hurt.

    This is one of my HUGEST pet peeves in the grammatical world. Let's go through this again:

    A point in argument can be MOOT. It can then be considered either up for debate, or unworthy of debate, having been previously settled. Depends on the definition you want to use.
    A point in argument cannot be MUT
  • The merits of if a cinematic and/or story detract from a game experience is rather mute

    Really? Yeah, try explaining that one to the maker or consumer of an interactive porn game. Much like the movies their based upon, there is no story or plot, regardless of how hard they try to make one.
  • A story is important, it doesnt matter if it delivered in cinematics or not. look at half-life, awesome story, not a single cut-scene

  • Cinematics are No. 4 (Score:3, Interesting)

    by RyoShin ( 610051 ) <<tukaro> <at> <gmail.com>> on Friday February 03, 2006 @12:24AM (#14632557) Homepage Journal
    Story makes a big part of many of the games I like (since I'm big into RPGs), but it shouldn't be forefront.

    The order of game creation should go:
    Gameplay
    Story
    Graphics
    Cinematics

    I'm paying $30-$50 to play a game, not watch a movie. Well done cinematics, when they add to the story and aren't in the way (and can be skipped if I want to), are great, but should only be implemented after good gameplay and story are pretty much wrapped up.

  • When developers decide that story matters, (Score:4, Insightful)

    by SetupWeasel ( 54062 ) on Friday February 03, 2006 @12:29AM (#14632581) Homepage
    Cinematics may matter. I'm not going to hold my breath. The grand majority of games that people consider to have "epic narritives" can't live up to dime-a-dozen pulp fiction. I'm sure I wasn't the only one who didn't care when Aeris died. I'm even more certain that I don't want to read what passes for a story in Ridge Racer 4.

    On the rare occasion a game actually have a well written story, then, by all means, tell it however you want to. If not, don't force me to watch it.

  • Did none of you play Dark Forces II: Jedi Knight when it came out? I hold that up as the best FPS/nonRPG use of quality cinematics ever. The game was fun, and at the time pretty amazing, the cinematics made you feel like you were watching Star wars 7 back before there was news of any prequels, and the story worked on such a great level. That was a game that game publishers should aspire to put out over and over again. The total commitment to quality in that made the franchise for me. I've bought every
    • Yep, Jedi Knight was one of the best in using cinematics...

      Knights of the old republic 2 though...I am playing through it again so that I can be a different type of Jedi, but I can't skip through the cutscenes that I have already seen...just another bug from Obsidian rushing it out the door.
    • When you talk about classic melding of story and cinematography in games, Jedi Knight has to come up somewhere.

      *AHEM* you're forgetting it's LucasArts you're talking about. These guys are movie makers (Indiana Jones, anyone?), they obviously got experience on these things. I think there's simply no comparison between them and other game companies. I'd put them in a separate category.
  • This article seems to assume that cinematics are synonymous to storytelling, which is a mistake made by many. You do not need to force the player to watch non-interactive sequences to convey narrative. The interactive medium by nature is a platform for the player to tell their own story. Many designers confuse games as a medium for a story they themselves want to tell, as opposed to providing the player with a blank canvas that allows them to form their own.

    Interesting stories are made with interesting c
  • Why the hell do they always have to have some sort of epic action 0.23 seconds after a cut scene? Let the game play out, if you want to have some shitty little "you win" cut scene at the end fine, aside from that let ME play the game, not watch it like some second rate film.
  • They're definitely not important game elements, but they can certainly help you tell a story. The mechanics of Final Fantasy games haven't changed since the series' NES debut, even though they are now basically CGI films with nice little "gaming breaks" to draw out the experience.
    I would like to say that, unless they're taking the place of a loading screen, cinematics need to be skippable. As much as I love Nintendo, this is something that they're very bad about. The last boss of Paper Mario: The Thousand Y
    • "cinematics need to be skippable."

      Too true! I was willing to give Unreal 2 a go (at a bargain bin price) but the cutscenes on the ship made me tear my hair out.

      I'd be interested to know what percentage of the budget the cinematics take up in eg a Warcraft III that used the game engine VS the pre-rendered epics you get in a typical modern Final Fantasy.

  • But let's not forget Blizzard. They spend ages on beautiful cinematics. These are totally skippable, and IMHO, add very little to the games. Now, Blizzard have created some of the most popular games today. Everybody who plays Starcraft, or WoW, only watches the cinematics once. They surely aren't a reason for success, are they? But DAMN, success is there. Perhaps seeing what the characters you manipulate should really look like before you play the game really sucks you in. -- (sorry about the configuration
  • There are games where the cinematic has immersed the player and made playing the game essential, there are games where everything has suffered just to get you a 30 second poorly animated piece of crap.

    Cinematics are just like every other part of a game. If its in and it improves gameplay its good, if it doesnt its bad. Really it is no different to graphics, sound or any other tool in games.

    That said I have to support this article more than the previous one. This article recognises they are not always a good

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close