Cinematics or no cinematics?

[greeks]

Games that follow "always-on" approach find it very difficult to pass the time in a natural way. They teach you that "you are the character" and everything that happens in the game happens to you-- the gamer. And when the game has to pass some time for story reasons, it has only two available options:

1. Someone hits you in the head and you wake up at the game's convenience.
2. The game simply fades to black with "some time later" on-screen message.


Not very immersive now, is it? Games that utilise cutscenes and cinematics have no such problems. The story progresses like a movie, and time can be cut, reversed or fast-forwarded whenever the story requires it. No immersion is broken as the game already taught you that you are playing an interactive movie. Easy.


That train of thougth brought me to an interesting... well, interesting thought. People who are complaining about not being able to interact with the surrounding world properly. You can't call a cab, you can't catch a train, you can't sit at the bar and have a drink in a game that almost throughout the entire journey is telling you "you are the character, you are in control"...


I think that cinematics would ease things up a lot. The arguments for the game being an interactive story rather than life simulator would have just a bit more merit.

 

[LeKill3rFou]

Maybe
It's quite Interesting, if you would have asked me the same question in November, I would have answered differently that's for sure.
I certainly would have said I didn't mind, I didn't really care about that.

Now, after Cyberpunk, whatever if the "classic" cinematics are goods, beautiful,... That's don't work with first person view (not as well as Cyberpunk for to said the truth...) That's my new standard for "cinematics" now. And that makes me a little sad, because I'm pretty sure it will never be "the norm" in games in first person view

 

[Wenceslaus]

I do not think that all games has to be the same. That there is supperior or more "AAA" option. All approaches has it's pros and cons.
In the CP2077 case they choose to stick with the 1sp person with "playable cinematics" like the Nomad start in the garage shown and I wish more games would do it that way.

Personaly I dislike when 1st person game switching to 3rd if the player doesn't want to (dialogues usually). And cinematics are that moment.
Though they are usually cool so I do not mind that much but if the studio could do it in gameplay perspective, I do prefer that. Even if htere is fader there and there, that is non-issue.

Not sure why the one cinematic in the game is not consistent with this, wish it would. And it is pity 1st person driving in many cars sucks. But other than that, they design is working great.

 

[Bartinga2077]

One of the things that really broke my heart in Cyberpunk was the decision to not implement any cinematics to the game. By "cinematics" I mean in-game moments when you can see your character interacting with NPCs and/or enviroment in third person with movie-like camera action and montage. Technical and artistic reasons aside, I believe that a tripple-A game should have that movie-like feel to it. Not in a sense of linearity, but in a sense of scope and production value.


So here's how it is in my case. I love cutscenes. I love cinematics. I love when the game is taking its time for proper exposition. Nothing screams "high budget" and "production value" louder than a high quality cinematics. In-game cutscenes take money, time and effort for next to no gameplay value. But they show that the team responsible for the game was able to-- and could-- afford it.


Games where there is either a vew cinematics or no cinematics at all usually use either a mute character, or follow a "you are the character" philosophy. And that is OK, but it has it's own hazards.

First of all, the "cinematic" moments in such games have to be really well orchestrated and timed. The designer have to take into consideration that the player might be looking for loot or looking at something completely unrelated, while a really cool thing that the devs worked hard for a very long time is happening right behind them. The easy way out is to take a wheel and force the camera to point at the thing in question. But that takes away player's freedom which breakes the immersion of "you are the character". Cinematics also take control, but they offer a huge value in return: perfect framing and montage.


Movies made us used to, well, movie-like visuals. The sheer fact of cinematic happening makes the scene so much more impactful. Sometimes I play a game and something happens and I'm like "whas... that supposed to be an important moment in the game?".


So what are your thoughts about the subject? Cinematics or no cinematics? What is your pick?

Yeah, I feel ya. Brings back great memories thinking back on those awesome Final Fantasy cutscenes on the PS1, 2 and 3. You would go every time like, "Huuuhhhhh?!?" Today it can be rather difficult to differentiate actual gameplay from cutscenes, but yeah, back then, they were meant to impress, and they did. With a bang.

Seems this once amazing game asset is on its way to extinction, as actual gameplay has fully caught up.

 

[greeks]

Yes, in a sense. But there are games out there that would never work with "you are the character" approach. Let me present you... Senua's Sacrifice.

That game would never work if you couldn't see Senua and follow ***her*** story as yet another voice in her head. Third person games have it easier as the characters are already fully fleshed out and with all facial and body animations in place. All you have to do is to make them act and take the control over the camera.


By the way, I never finished Senua's Sacrifice. I got caught in the never-fixed and very well documented bug that soft-locked me from progress. I would have to go through the game once again which completely ruined my experience. I am strongly against game breaking bugs in videogames.

 

[LeKill3rFou]

Little detail who could be important

I talk only for first person view games... or where this is the "main" game view.
For 3rd person view, no need to debat about that. The question does not even place itself for me.
How weird it could be insert cinematics in first person for a 3rd person game... no one want that, impossible

 

[tru3story]

Yes, in a sense. But there are games out there that would never work with "you are the character" approach. Let me present you... Senua's Sacrifice.

That game would never work if you couldn't see Senua and follow ***her*** story as yet another voice in her head. Third person games have it easier as the characters are already fully fleshed out and with all facial and body animations in place. All you have to do is to make them act and take the control over the camera.


By the way, I never finished Senua's Sacrifice. I got caught in the never-fixed and very well documented bug that soft-locked me from progress. I would have to go through the game once again which completely ruined my experience. I am strongly against game breaking bugs in videogames.

Ohh, very nice example! A Bafta award went to this one. A movie award. Loved this game and, yes, you must complete it . And it is frustrating that you cannot really save, once you die - you start over

BUT back on topic. I think there is a similar one about the 3rd person thing not being a thing in Cyberpunk, but yeah - popular topic. Understandable. Maybe.
But Cyberpunk sort of was a combined reminder to me of how I started actually enjoying playing (Half-Life) and loving games on another level of story telling with rpg elements (Mass Effect). To me Cyberpunk is a beautiful mutant of First Person rpg action shooter thing.
So the question probably is: would you prefer watching a movie, or be in it? Maaybe far fetched one, but. Imagine it was on the VR, would you still want to look over your character's shoulder, or be your character?
I guess, in the end it depends on how you enjoy playing your games.