Cut scenes and their role in CP 2077

[Garrison72]

Cut scenes and their role in CP 2077

We seem to be broaching this topic in other threads, so I thought I'd start this one. And by all means, use other games or the industry in general for examples, because I think this is an increasingly important topic, and more complex than it's often given credit for. My own take:



-they are not inherently bad, but can easily be abused, disrupting gameplay at the wrong moment.

-as condensed story telling tools, they are invaluable. You can say much more in an effective cutscene than you can with dialog or gameplay alone.

-I don't buy the 'they look awkward and clunky, so don't use them' argument. Tech is quickly closing this gap.

-I think fewer with more quality is preferable.

-just to clarify, cutscenes where we engage in dynamic conversation with an NPC are considered gameplay.

-I'm a proponent of utilizing the above mechanic with an in-game camera, but have never seen it done in an RPG.

 

[LexiiO]

I love good cutscenes and I think they should definately be a part of the final game, not just an opening cinematic or something like that, but many of them. What we don't need are cutscenes that appear out of nowhere just to introduce a new group of enemies or sth like that.

But, of course, in the wrong situation they can not only be distracting, but feel awkward or worse. In-game graphics, definately, since it will be a game of the next gen of consoles and PCs there will be no problem with that. Consoles will be able to handle that. I'm curious how developers will handle that, speaking of all games, not just CP. Only problem is, there's nothing worse than graphics poppin up in the midst of the cutscene.

I hope they will handle it like GTA does it, telling their story through mission cutscenes. If not, I am curious how they will implement story telling. conversation semi-cutscenes won't be enough. Not for me, at least.

I just don't want a silent protagonist. And no cutscenes in FPP. I want to see my character, see him handle situation while looking cool. TPP, definately.

So yeah, I am really pumped.

 

[Sydanyo]

Engine cutscenes have, for the most part, been crap compared to rendered cinematics. Yeah, engines and thus engine cutscenes get better, but as they do, so do rendered animations. I'm a huge proponent of rendered animations, as they've been the staple of great games for decades now. I mean, here's some awesome shit from way back in 1997:

Somewhat recently, Blizzard has had at least a couple engine cutscenes that were somehow edited or rendered, but they used the engine for sure. For example, this brand new video:

That clearly uses the game engine, but the models clearly have been animated in some way other than how they appear in game. If the cutscenes go in that direction, then I'm all for it. However, I wouldn't want to lose the intro/ending cinematics of games.

 

[dragonbird]

I didn't expect to agree with slim on this, but I do.

And definitely engine cut-scenes, not pre-rendered.

If the game developer goes into it EXPECTING to use engine cut-scenes all of the time, it means that they'll never have to limit their plans "because it would change the CGI", even for the little things like minor differences in dialogue to reflect past decisions, clothing, whether or not weapons/inventory can be seen while being carried, even things like whether or not your character can have a personalised name.

 

[Sydanyo]

It's the cheapest possible argument to use, to say that "X takes resources away from Y." It was used with the view point argument, and I see it's being used with the cutscene/cinematic argument as well.

I'd love that argument to be backed up by some factual data. Some actual, factual knowledge about how having a cinematic team eats up resources more than having a team making cutscenes, other than the "well the hair on my balls / where my balls would be if I was a man says it's so" -argument. Something else than the "well I've worked in the industry for 67 years so there."

Also, Google was down for like two minutes. Unheard of.

 

[Garrison72]

It's the cheapest possible argument to use, to say that "X takes resources away from Y." It was used with the view point argument, and I see it's being used with the cutscene/cinematic argument as well.

I'd love that argument to be backed up by some factual data. Some actual, factual knowledge about how having a cinematic team eats up resources more than having a team making cutscenes, other than the "well the hair on my balls / where my balls would be if I was a man says it's so" -argument. Something else than the "well I've worked in the industry for 67 years so there."

Also, Google was down for like two minutes. Unheard of.

You can't accommodate player customization in a pre-rendered CGI, not good for a game like CP 2077 where customization is supposedly very flexible. If high quality CGI was financially viable, you'd see more of it. But you don't. Maybe an intro and outro for a game, that's it. Most of the time these are outsourced to specialized studios, and I'm certain that's not cheap. So in this case money is indeed a realistic concern. It took Platige Image the better part of a year to create the linked CGI below. That's almost one third of the total dev time for TW2.

 

[dragonbird]

It's the cheapest possible argument to use, to say that "X takes resources away from Y." It was used with the view point argument, and I see it's being used with the cutscene/cinematic argument as well.

I'd love that argument to be backed up by some factual data. Some actual, factual knowledge about how having a cinematic team eats up resources more than having a team making cutscenes, other than the "well the hair on my balls / where my balls would be if I was a man says it's so" -argument. Something else than the "well I've worked in the industry for 67 years so there."

Also, Google was down for like two minutes. Unheard of.

This was immediately after my post, and I can see that my post MIGHT have looked like I was using the "resources" argument, so I'm going to respond, just in case

There are things that are discussed in these forums where I consider the "poor use of resources" argument to be valid. This isn't one of them.

Slim's already mentioned the Platige videos and how much resource they need, but I don't honestly think that's relevant - it wasn't made for in-game footage, it was made for marketing and then used in-game. So it's a different budget, and I'd prefer to see marketing budget used for awesome videos that can be repurposed into the game, than being used to bribe reviewers into saying a crap game is awesome (to use a random alternative way of spending money )

But I also don't buy the argument that getting "better quality than real-time" renders adds much value to the game. People might have become aware of the game, maybe even bought it, because they saw the video on Youtube, but I'd be doubtful if they bought it because that video would appear again at the start of the game.

Ten years ago then yes, seeing those superior graphics in a cutscene DID make a difference. But now? For story-telling cutscenes during the game? The engine should be able to handle it adequately, and the benefits of having story/appearance-related variations are a lot more important than the graphics quality.

 

[wisdom000]

Cut scenes should use the in game engine, like in GTA,

Back in the days of the original Playstation, we used to play games just to get the cut-scenes, and that was cool, it was new, and it felt like a reward.

Now the gimmick is old,, and too many games rely on cutscenes to tell their story., with the gameplay being a huge disconnect in terms of graphics, and an afterthought in terms of story. The Last Of Us is a prime example of this, where the gameplay was secondary and often felt compeltely disconnected from the cutscenes. It was a great story, but the gameplay was just meh...

If you have to have scripted cut scenes, just use the game engine. If you need elaborate cgi like the teaser trailer, fine, but just use that at the start and end of the game... so as not to disconnect you from the game play.

 

[Sydanyo]

Ten years ago then yes, seeing those superior graphics in a cutscene DID make a difference. But now? For story-telling cutscenes during the game? The engine should be able to handle it adequately, and the benefits of having story/appearance-related variations are a lot more important than the graphics quality.

There aren't many rendered cinematics in games in the middle of the game. Whenever there is one, it is called for, and it surely can not be replaced with cheap engine cutscenes. Neither can the intro nor ending cinematics. I'm not proposing that any more cinematics should be used than have been so far, but there absolutely has to be an intro and an ending that has the "times ten" value cinematics have compared to engine cutscenes - as they always will, since as engines get better, so does rendering.

Ten years ago, now, 50 years from now. Uncanny valley, who cares. Rendered video will always be, because of mathematical logic, better than engine cutscenes, and that's something that can't be argued. Thus, I will always fall on the side of having those awe-inducing cinematics rather than the same old same old engine shit you're going to stare every hour while playing the game, at least as the intro, and the ending cinematic.

 

[wisdom000]

It's the cheapest possible argument to use, to say that "X takes resources away from Y." It was used with the view point argument, and I see it's being used with the cutscene/cinematic argument as well.

I'd love that argument to be backed up by some factual data. Some actual, factual knowledge about how having a cinematic team eats up resources more than having a team making cutscenes, other than the "well the hair on my balls / where my balls would be if I was a man says it's so" -argument. Something else than the "well I've worked in the industry for 67 years so there."

Also, Google was down for like two minutes. Unheard of.

Or maybe, instead of putting the burden of proof on us over a widely held concept, you could disprove it yourself with some data.

 

[Sydanyo]

Or maybe, instead of putting the burden of proof on us over a widely held concept, you could disprove it yourself with some data.

So, you just throw the words "widely held", and leave it at that? Well, it's widely held that making cinematics takes no more resources than making engine cutscenes.

See, it works both ways. Amazing?

 

[dragonbird]

I think that BOTH of you need to talk about all of the other arguments instead of focusing on just one little point in slim's opening post.

 

[Garrison72]

I shouldn't have included the CGI bit, as that is never a significant part of any game. As DB said, they are primarily for advertising. I'll delete it.

 

[Sydanyo]

I think that BOTH of you need to talk about all of the other arguments instead of focusing on just one little point in slim's opening post.

Is it wrong if I feel like saying "yes mommy?" Well, no offense, and you're right though, and I don't think Wisdom is focusing on slim's post, as much as he's targeting mine.

 

[dragonbird]

Is it wrong if I feel like saying "yes mommy?" Well, no offense, and you're right though, and I don't think Wisdom is focusing on slim's post, as much as he's targeting mine.

Yup, that was to both of you (and not a moderator comment, but probably a mommy comment)

 

[227]

I don't mind cutscenes so long as they're not overused. *Cough* Metal Gear Solid 4 *cough* (which I'm pretty sure has a Guinness world record for longest cutscene). Man, that game was miserable to sit through. When you're using the gameplay sections to make popcorn and stuff in anticipation for the next overlong cutscene, you done screwed up.

My favorite cutscenes tend to be from the PS1 days. Part of that is how Squaresoft used to mix pre-rendered cutscenes and in-engine graphics so that you still had control of your character in parts of the cutscene, like in FF8. It's obviously possible, and cutscenes would probably feel less disruptive to gameplay if it was possible to run around in circles (or whatever you would do) while stuff unfolds.

 

[Mebrilia]

As a long they are here just to be a part of the story and the game will be not dumbed down to become a sort of interactive movie (bioware actual style) stripping the game from roleplay elements i am fine with it....

When a rpg become ripped of rpg elements to become most cinematic possible is no more an RPG but an interactive movie... Honestly i disliked mass effect for this reason yes ok amazing story and extremely cool and nice moment but if in mass effect you will cut cutscenes from the game in the end is just a oversimplied and also dumbed down action game...

In the end cutscene must be not the first concerning when you make an rpg instead should be a fine feature that make the rpg become more immersive.. But always rpg elements first then cutscene because if you do that in inverse order you kill an rpg..

 

[A T Ś]

I like Deus Ex HR cutscenes. pre rendered and still quite immersive and awesome!

 

[cmdr_silverbolt]

I realize that cutscenes are important for some bits of storytelling, but I hate losing control of the character while they're going on. Wouldn't it make sense to make them interactive somehow? I like how this was done in TW2- for example, you can give Iorveth his sword or not, and what happens next was entirely dependent on your decision.

 

[A T Ś]

Not really, either way you fight with the assassin ...