Location: [Start of line][dramatic pause][puts on sunglasses][end line] YEAHHHH!
Tuesday, February 1st, 2005 - 3:23pm
So... story isn''t good? What?
I''m seized by the desire to call this guy a moron, but I''ll try not to. He''s got a good point, in the cases of obvious examples like MGS2 where all you wanted was for the cutscenes to end. But most of them that i''ve seen generally advance the plot of the game, and a game without plot is... usually retarded. He may only want to chuck grenades underneath Warthogs and go ""WHEEE! BOOMY!"" but I sure as hell would like a little nuance with my storytelling. It''s part of the immersion factor.
Aw hell, he''s a moron.
Quote:
Some might choose to pray, some might choose to snooze
But the style that I use is the style that's mine
I have no problems with cut scenes, in fact for the most part I really like them. As long as I can fast forward through them if I have seen them before.
Few things annoy me as much as having to watch the same cut-scene over and over and over again because I am reloading a level. Yeah I understand that often there is initilization going on behind the cut scene, but man it can get annoying.
"My motto is, if it's not strong enough to release bowel control, it's not strong enough!"
Morrolan
I think his point is that cutscenes are often used as a cop out to support non-original gameplay, and that they''re not what''s important.
I don''t really think he''s wrong, as he''s not saying do away with all cutscenes. He''s just saying that''s not what counts, and so few people actually do what counts that it just smacks of Hollywood style polish, trying to cover up inadequacies in most games. That it''s a crutch, and could be done better.
For instance, isn''t one of the things people praise Half-Life and Half-Life 2 for the fact that they never shoot to a cutscene? You never leave the immersive first person mode, yet they manage to tell a somewhat interesting story. It''s not that story is bad, it''s that cutscenes are a crutch.
"Poor Eli Nooo... *child starts crying*"
"Come on now, there's no need to make that kind of noise. It sounds awful and you'll upset other people." - Ionae from Spirit Engine 2
Seconded. This guy is a moron.
He makes a couple points which COULD be valid, but he ruins them by being a moron. Without a story, what''s the point? Without a story GTA would quickly be called a crime simulator and banned by congress. And face it, most people are morons! Take HL2 for instance... very few cutscenes, but it was quite possible to miss parts of the dialogue and action because you were too busy playing with the miniature teleporter in the lab... or busy smearing the walls with paint with the gravgun to be bothered to watch where Alyx was running off to. If all we had were open-ended games how the heck could you ever ''win?'' Where do you draw the line where the player stops evolving?
I''m wasting too much of my life on this. He''s full of crap.
He''s got a good point in that cutscenes that interrupt what would otherwise be a straight-forward gameplay experience are kind of ball-busting. But it''s hard take a game journalist seriously when his prose is as lame and uninspiring as a movie reviewer''s.
I pretty much agree with the guy...and I think it''s a pretty good article. Cut-scenes were cool when CD-ROMS were the new big thing, but now they just seem bloated and indulgent. For all the time and money they spent doing the CG for that 30 second cutscene, I''d rather have another level to play or another weapons or gameplay mode.
As with so many hotly debated topics, the best answer to give is simply, ""Sometimes so.""
I just finished playing NOLF2. While not as good as its predecessor in this regard, the cut scenes in NOLF2 were important to the game''s success. They helped contribute to the 60''s ambience, advanced the story, and served as a medium for some very impressive jokes.
Frankly, I consider it a false dichotomy to say that movies are wholly passive experiences and games are wholly active experiences, and ne''er should the two meet. Not only is it a false dichotomy, it is an easily detected and avoided false dichotomy. Has the dipsh*t who wrote the Slate article ever played a game like Full Throttle or The Dig -- both stellar games that rely very heavily on cut scenes? Or do they and the many games like them not count, for some reason? He mentions Katamari Damacy as an ideal ""active"" game. I adore Katamari Damacy, so I have to wonder: did this guy just pretend not to notice the multitude of hilarious and trippy cut scenes and dialogue in that game?
Forgive me my hostility, here. I''m not trying to criticize the author (Clive Thompson) for having a misguided opinion. I''m criticizing him for not caring enough to examine the issue honestly and in detail before trolling for attention.
The market has much to answer for as to why gaming is NOT an art. -- illum
""The more video games become like movies, the worse they are as games.""
This would be true if the game involved sitting there... for ninety minutes... without doing anything, ever.
""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. ""
Super Mario Bros was open ended?!?! He actually put an italian plumber onto the same level as chess? Moron. SMB had ''cutscenes'' non-interactive sequences. Moron. ANY kind of game? Like... oh... clue? Or Monopoly? Or hell, Solitaire!
""When you''re watching a story, you surrender masochistically to the storyteller."" I wanna know who''s telling the story and where I can sign up!
""There are no nuanced characters, no reams of dialogue, no bloated plotline"”just one simple premise and an insane amount of fun."" He writes this regarding Katamari Damacy! Uhm... I remember a story. I had fun discovering the character of the father. I remember being stopped at various ''stages'' to be shown where I could explore next. Moron.
Damn. More minutes of my life wasted on this. He''s almost managed to piss me off!
Yeah, It actually takes a lot to truly piss me off. I work in tech support. I am paid to tolerate fools. Doesn''t mean I have to type nicely about them!
Maybe I was just suprised that a magazine as popular as Slate actually had a valid point. I didn''t expect the article to be any good.
"Poor Eli Nooo... *child starts crying*"
"Come on now, there's no need to make that kind of noise. It sounds awful and you'll upset other people." - Ionae from Spirit Engine 2
Eh. He''s got a point, but runs off into the asylum with it and proceds to try and make get in the straightjacket with him.
Yes, doing stuff in cutscenes that could better be done in-game is either poor design or criminally lazy, or both. And interactivity is the point of games. Well spotted, sir.
Trying to twist this into story being bad is just daft however. Story is an exellent way of giving a game structure. So Halo''s story was simple. So what? How many would''ve kept playing the singleplayer if it was stripped of all narrative? If it was just reduced to coloured blobs in a wireframe world? Context matters. To pretend it doesn''t is just rubbish. The claim about story being a conceit by the game industry to sell more games is plainly ridiculous. If it''s so bloody pointless, you can just replay the levels. People get new games in different settings because they want to experience new things.
Someone needs to explain the concept of escapism to the man.
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."
Gotta agree with the guy on cutscenes. Not a big fan of them. They should try and tell the story in game and it should be short. If I want a well written long story I''ll go read a book. If I want a movie I''ll go see a movie.
For me, developers might as well put commercials in the game instead of cutscenes. At least commercials might help reduce the cost of the game and thus do something useful for me.
It''s just an issue of good/bad cutscenes. It''s just like games. Their quality is either good or bad. Most games that aren''t that good have cutscenes that are usually the same or worse than the game.
Best cutscenes I''ve seen in a long time are Resident Evil 4. Usually you can sit back and relax during a cutscene but this game likes to drop ''events'' similar to what Shenmue did. Really adds to the tension and frantic pace of the game.
It''s just an issue of good/bad cutscenes. It''s just like games. Their quality is either good or bad. Most games that aren''t that good have cutscenes that are usually the same or worse than the game.
I agree with you. If this guy had ceased writing after making the point that good cut scenes are important and desirable whereas bad cut scenes are detrimental and undesirable, then I would have had no reason to rant. Of course, in that case, he would have had to stretch to extend the article beyond a single paragraph.
"trip1eX wrote:
Gotta agree with the guy on cutscenes. Not a big fan of them. They should try and tell the story in game and it should be short. If I want a well written long story I''ll go read a book. If I want a movie I''ll go see a movie.
That''s all fine and good; different strokes for different folks and all that. The problem arises when one proceeds from a simple statement of personal preference to making the claim that good games are intrinsically antithetical to things like plot, dialogue, character development, or interesting ideas in general. That''s where a statement of opinion turns into unsubstantiated venom, and that''s where Clive Thompson crossed the line.
The market has much to answer for as to why gaming is NOT an art. -- illum
What is it about this article that gets everyone so rankled?
Quote:
That''s where a statement of opinion turns into unsubstantiated venom, and that''s where Clive Thompson crossed the line
Unsustantiated venom? What venom? He was critiqueing the way games are made these days. And crossed the line? What line? And what did he say that crossed it?
I''m happy to have somebody point out that rote, formulaic games are bad for gamers. What''s wrong with that?
If the article is clearly written as, and understood to be an opinion piece (""It seems to me that ...""), I don''t think the folks here would be as negative.
I think there''s also a game genre that comes into play here. (No pun intended.)
For pure FPS-ish games, I can see that one might well be annoyed at the interruption, particularly when it''s unnecessary and done poorly. Even worse if you end up having to sit through it multiple times as it''s between the previous save point (ugh: console-itus -- now that is something to write a complaint to the gaming industry about!) and the next, and it takes you a few--well, more than a few for some of us--tries to get all the way to the end of that segment.
But often in the action games I''ve played, I''m grateful for the break I get at the cut scene; it gives my mouse a chance to dry off.
For adventure games, the cut scene is generally the reward one gets by solving all the puzzles needed to advance the story, and the cut scene is where we see how this part ends and the next part is set up. Although there have been some games where the transition from the cut scene back to where you''ve got control again hasn''t been clear. You eventually notice that nothing else seems to be happening and your mouse does stuff again. I suppose this has also happened with some action games, too.
For strategy games, there really aren''t cut scenes as much as there''s a scenario setup, and possibly some sort of wrap up at the end. Maybe this is what the author should be playing instead. How about suggesting he play the latest Railroad Tycoon instead of going overboard and kicking him entirely off of the computer, folks?
"Gamers With Jobs will take over the world someday. I hope they're benevolent overlords." -- Bill Harris
Okay, let me be clear here... I am NOT angry. Does this mean that I am not allowed to be firm in my opinion on this particular piece of ''journalism?''
Clive Thompson, the author, had a decent premise, but failed to write a good piece about it. In fact, if you look at the statements I quoted in my post above, he decided to steer his idea off the deep end and make wild assertions and generalizations.
Have you read the article?
He arrived at this conclusion while doing burglaries in GTA! He was annoyed that the game didn''t just throw him into the level without ''casing the joint.'' He felt belittled at this friendly gesture by the developers. This is his main point: ""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.""
He doesn''t add exceptions. He doesn''t qualify his idea. That right there is it. If a game attempts to tell a story like a movie, then it is a bad game. He doesn''t break the games into genres, he doesn''t say ""Unless the game is already a new unique idea."" He gives a brief nod to some games that had sufficient violence or action in their sequences to hold his dulled attention. That''s it.
Today''s games are strongest not when they''re slavishly emulating cinema, but when they borrow from disciplines like urban design and architecture.
This is the positive form of his opinion. Make it look pretty, let me enter all the buildings, and if possible make it hip.
If this man had influenced game development then we would all be playing the same game. We would be able to do just about anything, it would look awesome and well designed, but after a day a playing you would have accomplished nothing meaningful because there is no point.
""just one simple premise and an insane amount of fun.""
Yeah, insane.
Oddly enough, I''m having fun. It feels good to cut the claws on something every now and then. In fact, I feel indebted to Mr. Thompson.
Look at the avatar when you read my posts... could that face be mad? I mean angry! Hmm... maybe I should look for an ice cube...
What is it about this article that gets everyone so rankled?
To clarify my earlier remark, I do not think that Mr. Thompson is talent-less. He clearly knows how to write. He can write well enough to take a half-baked story idea and make it readable and somewhat entertaining without doing very much work. That takes skill. It is also Hackery. Or as a friend of mine would call it ""using his powers for evil.""
The issue of cutscenes in games (even of cutscenes in the few games he mentions) deserves more than a 600-word rent piece. It doesn''t bother me that he doesn''t like them (or professes not to), but rather that his thesis (video games are too much like movies) is supported by practically no hard facts, and very little historical context.
There is so much material out there for a gang-buster article about the melding of these two industries, and the effect that it has had on both movies and video games, yet Thompson chose to write about how Go is an open-ended game, how much fun it is to blow s**t up in Halo, and how he gets annoyed when his trigger-happy rampages get interrupted by the narrative. Way to hit ''em, Tiger.
In short, he phoned it in.
Slate gets a lot of viewers. I'm willing to bet that the only article on the subject of cutscenes that most people will read all year will be Thompson's, and that just makes me sad. For an industry that is rapidly surpassing Hollywood in sales, video gaming is chronically ill-served by the mainstream press. It has come a long way, but as long as buffoons like Clive are writing for the mainstream, game journalism will not get the respect that it deserves. As a writer and a gamer I am annoyed by that.
It could be that he didn''t seek to write a polemic, earthshattering, gang-buster article about the historical context of movies and games and the development of gaming as a medium vis a vis Hollywood. Maybe he just wanted to put down some thoughts about cutscenes in games. It sounds like it wasn''t the article you wanted to read, but that doesn''t mean it is decidedly a bad article.
I, for one, think his point is pretty apt -- cutscenes and a closed storyline do point to games trying to emulate movies. So short of writing a dissertation nobody should raise this point in an article, ever?
It is obviously absurd to insist, as he does, that a ""good game"" would always be open-ended and plotless, but it seems equally absurd to insist that the current formula, and yes it is a formula, of Intro movie-training level-cutscene-game-cutscene-game (repeat)-Outro movie, is somehow beyond reproach.
What I don''t understand is why I''ve seen this very same editorial almost verbatim on Slate now, in addition to IGN, Game Informer, and multiple other places... this a freelance piece?
Unsustantiated venom? What venom? He was critiqueing the way games are made these days. And crossed the line? What line? And what did he say that crossed it?
Rezzy and Fletcher both said a bunch of stuff that I could reiterate here in response to your interrogatives. I''ll try not to do that... too much. Instead, I''ll try to reiterate and expound upon some of the things that I myself said earlier.
In short, my panties are all in a wad because Thompson employed ""an easily detected and avoided false dichotomy."" When he claimed that ""the more video games become like movies, the worse they are as games,"" he wasn''t suffering from any simple misconception or momentary confusion; these I could always forgive. No; in this case, he is guilty of deliberately pigeonholing the available data in order to fit his own pet theory. As I said earlier, ""I''m criticizing him for not caring enough to examine the issue honestly and in detail before trolling for attention."" In other words, I''m not perturbed by what he thinks, but rather, why he claims to think it, and moreover, why he decided to deploy so blatant an instance of confirmation bias in his effort to sway the reader. As Fletcher said, he''s ""using his powers for evil."" Rather than seeking to further rational discourse on a very interesting subject, he has instead chosen to subvert any such discourse with an outrageous a priori dogmatism. The venom I bespake of flows not from offensive words or ad hominem attacks, but rather from an insidious and pernicious case of intellectual dishonesty.
Either he committed these errors on purpose, or he did not. In the former case, he is a manipulative fiend at best and a liar at worst. In the latter case, he is a lazy author who took it upon himself to make an argument without examining it for even the most brazenfaced of fallacies. In neither case should his article be applauded; nor should it be defended simply because it''s indicative of what the author happens personally to think.
(Edited for a typo)
The market has much to answer for as to why gaming is NOT an art. -- illum
It is obviously absurd to insist, as he does, that a ""good game"" would always be open-ended and plotless, but it seems equally absurd to insist that the current formula, and yes it is a formula, of Intro movie-training level-cutscene-game-cutscene-game (repeat)-Outro movie, is somehow beyond reproach.
You''re right to say that a lot of good discussion could follow from a long, hard look at the way games tend to be made. If Thompson''s fallacious sidestepping hadn''t precluded using his article as a basis for an honest investigation into the matter, then I wouldn''t have had any reason to shout.
The market has much to answer for as to why gaming is NOT an art. -- illum
I think you''re treating the article like a research paper from an expert in the field. It''s just written by a gamer that doesn''t like cutscenes for the most part and thinks some games play too much like movies and he doesn''t like that. I tend to agree with him on those parts.
I''ve never liked cutscenes. Hell I don''t even like intros. I guess I look at it like this. Would you rather them put another 3 or 4 levels in a game or some cutscenes? I''d like the resources to go towards more levels or other features in the game.
FWIW, I mostly agree with the author''s point. It might be better restated like this: The more games become like movies (non-interactive, star-studded extravaganzas whose releases are Major Events), the worse games become in general for those who don''t care for such things.
The level of funding and effort they pour into making games like movies not only directly impacts the funding and effort they put into the parts of the game that that we (speaking as a cutscene hater) enjoy, it often makes the gameplay itself worse by forcing us to plod through (to us) uninteresting crap to get to those now-dimished fun parts.
Thus, to us, it is NOT a false dichotomy - as X increases, Y decreases to some degree. If you enjoy X, fantastic - the industry agrees with you and you''ll probably be really happy with what they''re doing. If you don''t, then you may have to grind your teeth for the next couple of years until Y is on the ascendancy again.
(edited for spelling)
Everything can be debated, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's debatable.
--Chuck Klosterman, Fargo Rock City
So... story isn''t good? What?
I''m seized by the desire to call this guy a moron, but I''ll try not to. He''s got a good point, in the cases of obvious examples like MGS2 where all you wanted was for the cutscenes to end. But most of them that i''ve seen generally advance the plot of the game, and a game without plot is... usually retarded. He may only want to chuck grenades underneath Warthogs and go ""WHEEE! BOOMY!"" but I sure as hell would like a little nuance with my storytelling. It''s part of the immersion factor.
Aw hell, he''s a moron.
Quote:
XBL Tag: Prederick
I have no problems with cut scenes, in fact for the most part I really like them. As long as I can fast forward through them if I have seen them before.
Few things annoy me as much as having to watch the same cut-scene over and over and over again because I am reloading a level. Yeah I understand that often there is initilization going on behind the cut scene, but man it can get annoying.
"My motto is, if it's not strong enough to release bowel control, it's not strong enough!"
Morrolan
I think his point is that cutscenes are often used as a cop out to support non-original gameplay, and that they''re not what''s important.
I don''t really think he''s wrong, as he''s not saying do away with all cutscenes. He''s just saying that''s not what counts, and so few people actually do what counts that it just smacks of Hollywood style polish, trying to cover up inadequacies in most games. That it''s a crutch, and could be done better.
For instance, isn''t one of the things people praise Half-Life and Half-Life 2 for the fact that they never shoot to a cutscene? You never leave the immersive first person mode, yet they manage to tell a somewhat interesting story. It''s not that story is bad, it''s that cutscenes are a crutch.
"Poor Eli Nooo... *child starts crying*"
"Come on now, there's no need to make that kind of noise. It sounds awful and you'll upset other people." - Ionae from Spirit Engine 2
Seconded. This guy is a moron.
He makes a couple points which COULD be valid, but he ruins them by being a moron. Without a story, what''s the point? Without a story GTA would quickly be called a crime simulator and banned by congress. And face it, most people are morons! Take HL2 for instance... very few cutscenes, but it was quite possible to miss parts of the dialogue and action because you were too busy playing with the miniature teleporter in the lab... or busy smearing the walls with paint with the gravgun to be bothered to watch where Alyx was running off to. If all we had were open-ended games how the heck could you ever ''win?'' Where do you draw the line where the player stops evolving?
I''m wasting too much of my life on this. He''s full of crap.
Politely rude. Briskly vague. Firmly uninformative.
He''s got a good point in that cutscenes that interrupt what would otherwise be a straight-forward gameplay experience are kind of ball-busting. But it''s hard take a game journalist seriously when his prose is as lame and uninspiring as a movie reviewer''s.
Don't be saucy with me, Bernaise. - Count DeMonet
FalseGravity - My first blog.
I pretty much agree with the guy...and I think it''s a pretty good article. Cut-scenes were cool when CD-ROMS were the new big thing, but now they just seem bloated and indulgent. For all the time and money they spent doing the CG for that 30 second cutscene, I''d rather have another level to play or another weapons or gameplay mode.
Xbox Live: hubbinsd
As with so many hotly debated topics, the best answer to give is simply, ""Sometimes so.""
I just finished playing NOLF2. While not as good as its predecessor in this regard, the cut scenes in NOLF2 were important to the game''s success. They helped contribute to the 60''s ambience, advanced the story, and served as a medium for some very impressive jokes.
Frankly, I consider it a false dichotomy to say that movies are wholly passive experiences and games are wholly active experiences, and ne''er should the two meet. Not only is it a false dichotomy, it is an easily detected and avoided false dichotomy. Has the dipsh*t who wrote the Slate article ever played a game like Full Throttle or The Dig -- both stellar games that rely very heavily on cut scenes? Or do they and the many games like them not count, for some reason? He mentions Katamari Damacy as an ideal ""active"" game. I adore Katamari Damacy, so I have to wonder: did this guy just pretend not to notice the multitude of hilarious and trippy cut scenes and dialogue in that game?
Forgive me my hostility, here. I''m not trying to criticize the author (Clive Thompson) for having a misguided opinion. I''m criticizing him for not caring enough to examine the issue honestly and in detail before trolling for attention.
The market has much to answer for as to why gaming is NOT an art. -- illum
""The more video games become like movies, the worse they are as games.""
This would be true if the game involved sitting there... for ninety minutes... without doing anything, ever.
""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. ""
Super Mario Bros was open ended?!?! He actually put an italian plumber onto the same level as chess? Moron. SMB had ''cutscenes'' non-interactive sequences. Moron. ANY kind of game? Like... oh... clue? Or Monopoly? Or hell, Solitaire!
""When you''re watching a story, you surrender masochistically to the storyteller."" I wanna know who''s telling the story and where I can sign up!
""There are no nuanced characters, no reams of dialogue, no bloated plotline"”just one simple premise and an insane amount of fun."" He writes this regarding Katamari Damacy! Uhm... I remember a story. I had fun discovering the character of the father. I remember being stopped at various ''stages'' to be shown where I could explore next. Moron.
Damn. More minutes of my life wasted on this. He''s almost managed to piss me off!
Politely rude. Briskly vague. Firmly uninformative.
I had to struggle.
The market has much to answer for as to why gaming is NOT an art. -- illum
Almost?
Certis beat me to it. - Elysium
I must be the rare exception then. I want the cutscenes in MGS2/3 to continue longer.
XBox Live|Tshirts|xfire | Last.fm
Yeah, It actually takes a lot to truly piss me off. I work in tech support. I am paid to tolerate fools. Doesn''t mean I have to type nicely about them!
Politely rude. Briskly vague. Firmly uninformative.
Maybe I was just suprised that a magazine as popular as Slate actually had a valid point. I didn''t expect the article to be any good.
"Poor Eli Nooo... *child starts crying*"
"Come on now, there's no need to make that kind of noise. It sounds awful and you'll upset other people." - Ionae from Spirit Engine 2
Stopped reading around 3rd paragraph.
It is quite apparent that this foo'' needs to start playing solitare.
(@)
Eh. He''s got a point, but runs off into the asylum with it and proceds to try and make get in the straightjacket with him.
Yes, doing stuff in cutscenes that could better be done in-game is either poor design or criminally lazy, or both. And interactivity is the point of games. Well spotted, sir.
Trying to twist this into story being bad is just daft however. Story is an exellent way of giving a game structure. So Halo''s story was simple. So what? How many would''ve kept playing the singleplayer if it was stripped of all narrative? If it was just reduced to coloured blobs in a wireframe world? Context matters. To pretend it doesn''t is just rubbish. The claim about story being a conceit by the game industry to sell more games is plainly ridiculous. If it''s so bloody pointless, you can just replay the levels. People get new games in different settings because they want to experience new things.
Someone needs to explain the concept of escapism to the man.
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."
Gotta agree with the guy on cutscenes. Not a big fan of them. They should try and tell the story in game and it should be short. If I want a well written long story I''ll go read a book. If I want a movie I''ll go see a movie.
For me, developers might as well put commercials in the game instead of cutscenes. At least commercials might help reduce the cost of the game and thus do something useful for me.
It''s just an issue of good/bad cutscenes. It''s just like games. Their quality is either good or bad. Most games that aren''t that good have cutscenes that are usually the same or worse than the game.
Best cutscenes I''ve seen in a long time are Resident Evil 4. Usually you can sit back and relax during a cutscene but this game likes to drop ''events'' similar to what Shenmue did. Really adds to the tension and frantic pace of the game.
I agree with you. If this guy had ceased writing after making the point that good cut scenes are important and desirable whereas bad cut scenes are detrimental and undesirable, then I would have had no reason to rant. Of course, in that case, he would have had to stretch to extend the article beyond a single paragraph.
That''s all fine and good; different strokes for different folks and all that. The problem arises when one proceeds from a simple statement of personal preference to making the claim that good games are intrinsically antithetical to things like plot, dialogue, character development, or interesting ideas in general. That''s where a statement of opinion turns into unsubstantiated venom, and that''s where Clive Thompson crossed the line.
The market has much to answer for as to why gaming is NOT an art. -- illum
IMHO the problem arises when a hack writer has to pay rent and doesn''t bother actually playing games, just watches the commercials.
Don't be saucy with me, Bernaise. - Count DeMonet
FalseGravity - My first blog.
What is it about this article that gets everyone so rankled?
Unsustantiated venom? What venom? He was critiqueing the way games are made these days. And crossed the line? What line? And what did he say that crossed it?
I''m happy to have somebody point out that rote, formulaic games are bad for gamers. What''s wrong with that?
Xbox Live: hubbinsd
Obviously, it doesn''t.
A contrary opinion.
Xbox Live: MrGreen
PSN: MrGreenPSN
Wii: 4859 2... oh f*ck it.
If the article is clearly written as, and understood to be an opinion piece (""It seems to me that ...""), I don''t think the folks here would be as negative.
I think there''s also a game genre that comes into play here. (No pun intended.)
For pure FPS-ish games, I can see that one might well be annoyed at the interruption, particularly when it''s unnecessary and done poorly. Even worse if you end up having to sit through it multiple times as it''s between the previous save point (ugh: console-itus -- now that is something to write a complaint to the gaming industry about!) and the next, and it takes you a few--well, more than a few for some of us--tries to get all the way to the end of that segment.
But often in the action games I''ve played, I''m grateful for the break I get at the cut scene; it gives my mouse a chance to dry off.
For adventure games, the cut scene is generally the reward one gets by solving all the puzzles needed to advance the story, and the cut scene is where we see how this part ends and the next part is set up. Although there have been some games where the transition from the cut scene back to where you''ve got control again hasn''t been clear. You eventually notice that nothing else seems to be happening and your mouse does stuff again. I suppose this has also happened with some action games, too.
For strategy games, there really aren''t cut scenes as much as there''s a scenario setup, and possibly some sort of wrap up at the end. Maybe this is what the author should be playing instead. How about suggesting he play the latest Railroad Tycoon instead of going overboard and kicking him entirely off of the computer, folks?
"Gamers With Jobs will take over the world someday. I hope they're benevolent overlords." -- Bill Harris
Okay, let me be clear here... I am NOT angry. Does this mean that I am not allowed to be firm in my opinion on this particular piece of ''journalism?''
Clive Thompson, the author, had a decent premise, but failed to write a good piece about it. In fact, if you look at the statements I quoted in my post above, he decided to steer his idea off the deep end and make wild assertions and generalizations.
Have you read the article?
He arrived at this conclusion while doing burglaries in GTA! He was annoyed that the game didn''t just throw him into the level without ''casing the joint.'' He felt belittled at this friendly gesture by the developers. This is his main point:
""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.""
He doesn''t add exceptions. He doesn''t qualify his idea. That right there is it. If a game attempts to tell a story like a movie, then it is a bad game. He doesn''t break the games into genres, he doesn''t say ""Unless the game is already a new unique idea."" He gives a brief nod to some games that had sufficient violence or action in their sequences to hold his dulled attention. That''s it.
Today''s games are strongest not when they''re slavishly emulating cinema, but when they borrow from disciplines like urban design and architecture.
This is the positive form of his opinion. Make it look pretty, let me enter all the buildings, and if possible make it hip.
If this man had influenced game development then we would all be playing the same game. We would be able to do just about anything, it would look awesome and well designed, but after a day a playing you would have accomplished nothing meaningful because there is no point.
""just one simple premise and an insane amount of fun.""
Yeah, insane.
Oddly enough, I''m having fun. It feels good to cut the claws on something every now and then. In fact, I feel indebted to Mr. Thompson.
Look at the avatar when you read my posts... could that face be mad? I mean angry! Hmm... maybe I should look for an ice cube...
Politely rude. Briskly vague. Firmly uninformative.
To clarify my earlier remark, I do not think that Mr. Thompson is talent-less. He clearly knows how to write. He can write well enough to take a half-baked story idea and make it readable and somewhat entertaining without doing very much work. That takes skill. It is also Hackery. Or as a friend of mine would call it ""using his powers for evil.""
The issue of cutscenes in games (even of cutscenes in the few games he mentions) deserves more than a 600-word rent piece. It doesn''t bother me that he doesn''t like them (or professes not to), but rather that his thesis (video games are too much like movies) is supported by practically no hard facts, and very little historical context.
There is so much material out there for a gang-buster article about the melding of these two industries, and the effect that it has had on both movies and video games, yet Thompson chose to write about how Go is an open-ended game, how much fun it is to blow s**t up in Halo, and how he gets annoyed when his trigger-happy rampages get interrupted by the narrative. Way to hit ''em, Tiger.
In short, he phoned it in.
Slate gets a lot of viewers. I'm willing to bet that the only article on the subject of cutscenes that most people will read all year will be Thompson's, and that just makes me sad. For an industry that is rapidly surpassing Hollywood in sales, video gaming is chronically ill-served by the mainstream press. It has come a long way, but as long as buffoons like Clive are writing for the mainstream, game journalism will not get the respect that it deserves. As a writer and a gamer I am annoyed by that.
Don't be saucy with me, Bernaise. - Count DeMonet
FalseGravity - My first blog.
It could be that he didn''t seek to write a polemic, earthshattering, gang-buster article about the historical context of movies and games and the development of gaming as a medium vis a vis Hollywood. Maybe he just wanted to put down some thoughts about cutscenes in games. It sounds like it wasn''t the article you wanted to read, but that doesn''t mean it is decidedly a bad article.
I, for one, think his point is pretty apt -- cutscenes and a closed storyline do point to games trying to emulate movies. So short of writing a dissertation nobody should raise this point in an article, ever?
It is obviously absurd to insist, as he does, that a ""good game"" would always be open-ended and plotless, but it seems equally absurd to insist that the current formula, and yes it is a formula, of Intro movie-training level-cutscene-game-cutscene-game (repeat)-Outro movie, is somehow beyond reproach.
Xbox Live: hubbinsd
What I don''t understand is why I''ve seen this very same editorial almost verbatim on Slate now, in addition to IGN, Game Informer, and multiple other places... this a freelance piece?
Rezzy and Fletcher both said a bunch of stuff that I could reiterate here in response to your interrogatives. I''ll try not to do that... too much. Instead, I''ll try to reiterate and expound upon some of the things that I myself said earlier.
In short, my panties are all in a wad because Thompson employed ""an easily detected and avoided false dichotomy."" When he claimed that ""the more video games become like movies, the worse they are as games,"" he wasn''t suffering from any simple misconception or momentary confusion; these I could always forgive. No; in this case, he is guilty of deliberately pigeonholing the available data in order to fit his own pet theory. As I said earlier, ""I''m criticizing him for not caring enough to examine the issue honestly and in detail before trolling for attention."" In other words, I''m not perturbed by what he thinks, but rather, why he claims to think it, and moreover, why he decided to deploy so blatant an instance of confirmation bias in his effort to sway the reader. As Fletcher said, he''s ""using his powers for evil."" Rather than seeking to further rational discourse on a very interesting subject, he has instead chosen to subvert any such discourse with an outrageous a priori dogmatism. The venom I bespake of flows not from offensive words or ad hominem attacks, but rather from an insidious and pernicious case of intellectual dishonesty.
Either he committed these errors on purpose, or he did not. In the former case, he is a manipulative fiend at best and a liar at worst. In the latter case, he is a lazy author who took it upon himself to make an argument without examining it for even the most brazenfaced of fallacies. In neither case should his article be applauded; nor should it be defended simply because it''s indicative of what the author happens personally to think.
(Edited for a typo)
The market has much to answer for as to why gaming is NOT an art. -- illum
You''re right to say that a lot of good discussion could follow from a long, hard look at the way games tend to be made. If Thompson''s fallacious sidestepping hadn''t precluded using his article as a basis for an honest investigation into the matter, then I wouldn''t have had any reason to shout.
The market has much to answer for as to why gaming is NOT an art. -- illum
I think you''re treating the article like a research paper from an expert in the field. It''s just written by a gamer that doesn''t like cutscenes for the most part and thinks some games play too much like movies and he doesn''t like that. I tend to agree with him on those parts.
I''ve never liked cutscenes. Hell I don''t even like intros. I guess I look at it like this. Would you rather them put another 3 or 4 levels in a game or some cutscenes? I''d like the resources to go towards more levels or other features in the game.
Can''t... can''t we all just get along?
FWIW, I mostly agree with the author''s point. It might be better restated like this: The more games become like movies (non-interactive, star-studded extravaganzas whose releases are Major Events), the worse games become in general for those who don''t care for such things.
The level of funding and effort they pour into making games like movies not only directly impacts the funding and effort they put into the parts of the game that that we (speaking as a cutscene hater) enjoy, it often makes the gameplay itself worse by forcing us to plod through (to us) uninteresting crap to get to those now-dimished fun parts.
Thus, to us, it is NOT a false dichotomy - as X increases, Y decreases to some degree. If you enjoy X, fantastic - the industry agrees with you and you''ll probably be really happy with what they''re doing. If you don''t, then you may have to grind your teeth for the next couple of years until Y is on the ascendancy again.
(edited for spelling)
Everything can be debated, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's debatable.
--Chuck Klosterman, Fargo Rock City