Metal Gear Solid 4, Gears Of War 2, Mass Effect, Halo 3 and Call of Duty 4; all of these titles have been praised for their cinematic experiences. We have reached a time where the graphical fidelity is there to allow us to experience convincing game worlds, further pulling us in to characters, story and interaction. Yet all of the above mentioned games are at their cinematic best when the player isn’t in control and becomes a spectator to the action. So is the game itself cinematic or is it simply the cinematics themselves that provide the experience ?
What even qualifies as a cinematic experience? Is it the action in the scene, is it the camera position or the characters interactions? It’s mostly a mashing together of all three but there is one thing that ties them together. Each of the examples are all very directed and planned, they each play their own part in the overall picture but it is together when they produce the best results. Take the Bourne films, great action, interesting characters but appalling editing and camera work (for the action scenes at least). Good films but let down overall by 1 piece of the puzzle. Compare that to something like Casino Royale and the difference is clear. For it to work perfect each part must play into the other and that can be done successfully when you have a whole team communicating and discussing. They may be different pieces but they are all part of the same puzzle. So hopefully you can see where the problem is when it comes to games.
Developers can give you the scene, the character and the camera angle but they can’t make the player play the role. Take Halo 3 and the section after killing the Prophet of Truth which is the escape from the Flood. The scene is set for you fight your way through the enemy waves to the other side in a very Rambo like style, shooting and meleeing your way through your enemy or you could just jump you way through using the walls and barriers. I’m sure the second option isn’t quite how the team at Bungie would have envisioned you playing it, but in this interactive medium the player decides. So what is the best way to push players into a cinematic experience? Well the answer is in the question, you have to push them. The sniper mission in Call of Duty 4, a shining example of how it can be done. An A.I. Partner leads you through the level whilst enemies appear at possible intersections to help push you in certain directions. What your left with is an intense action sequence that wouldn’t feel out of place in a Hollywood blockbuster. The only problem? It’s so scripted that like a film once you’ve seen it once you’ve seen all there is to see.
So how can game play be merged with cinema? A current trend is the quick time event or QTE, which is essentially a directed cinema that involves players pressing the right buttons at the right time to initiate the next part of the scene. This applies to games like God of War but also to something like Mass Effect. The conversation wheel gives you choices in each scene but is basically just a QTE with more than one outcome. You hit an even bigger problem when you have an open world to deal with. Assassins Creed and GTA IV are great examples for this. In Assassins you can kill your target with stealth, sneaking your way like an assassin would or you can jump in and chase the target round a city in an endless loop as the A.I falls apart. GTA IV, I could go on a epic rampage through Liberty City fighting off cop cars and helicopters or I could just sit on the other side of a door with a shotgun .
I think you get the point, when the player element and choice is added into a game then it’s ability to deliver cinematic content is greatly reduced. So what is the answer, well I am afraid there is really own one answer: become the actor in the scene. To be cinematic will require a certain amount of role-playing, no different to how an actor would be directed by script and choreography. As far as games go there is only a certain amount that the developer can give you. They will set the scene, give you the characters personality and motivation but it's up to you to live the experience.
|
Lazlow's blog
follow this blog
subscribe via RSS
send message
invite to meetup+play
i still don't understand what you mean by a cinematic experience, but games like bioshock prove that story can be woven into the gameplay seamlessly. no qte. you are never taken out of the first person view and you never lose control of the camera, so the story can unfold at any given location.
i guess if the director has a vision, they can take control of the camera and still prompt human interaction... but imo, that makes the experience less immersive.
This is why games like half life and Bioshock are so revered in this respect because you are always in control of your character even through the cinemas.
I read an article recently (can't remember where) which argued that games so far haven't had a real emotional impact on players using game mechanics. Every time you felt an emotional response was because of the cut scene cinema or dialog that you were hearing/reading which is a book or cinema mechanic and not a game mechanic, if that makes sense.
For example, in FF7 when Aeris dies, it was the story and characters that made you cry (if you did) and not any game play element.
For games to develop further you need to, as you put it "become the actor in the scene"
well, i'm replaying mgs4 and the game is the epitomy of a cinematic experience. the gameplay is really good too. i kind of agree with anus though that most emotional responses are usually felt through the cutscenes. a few are differed in that tradition like portal and some other game. i do believe heavy rain will constantly rely on the choices in gameplay to alter the story. that game should be incredible.
I would submit that some games can be made or-unmade cinematic by the way you play.
Way of the Samurai, if you choose to just walk (not run!) around and play the part of a samurai, the angles and settings are especialyl dramatic.
Seperately, there are games that maintain a visual excitement while providing gameplay. Fable II with it sminimal HUD and exxaggerated setttings can feel cinematic at times.
Indigo Prophecy, at the expense of directness of control, is a fascinating case in providing the user with a visually cinematic situation while making user input extremely relevant and important to maintaining that experience.
I would submit also, Lost Odyssey, for its aesthetic and use of multiple angles in cutscenes, as well as its overall presentation, which infuses alot of dramatic and active angles where other RPGS have been content to display with a rote static camera. Every battle is a little more exciting because of the cinematic quality of the camera angles and tricks used.
I think you are on to something with this topic, but I feel like you've framed this in a way that makes it sort of meaningless/self-fulfilling.
You're basically defining a cinematic experience in gaming as one in which the player has less than complete control (be it in the form of an in-game cutscene, QTE, or just some form of goading by an NPC). Then you state that,"...when the player element and choice is added into a game then it’s ability to deliver cinematic content is greatly reduced." Well that's true, insofar as that's how you've defined 'cinematic,' but, as a result, it's also begging the question.
Where I get outright confused is where you say, "So what is the answer, well I am afraid there is really only one answer: become the actor in the scene." So the answer to making a game more cinematic, which you've basically argued means not engaging the gamer in direct decision making, is to become more personally engaged, but as an actor in some sort of disengaged way, "no different to how an actor would be directed by script and choreography"? This seems fairly confusing, if not outright inconsistent, to me. Feel free to elaborate.
@Rational Animal
My point about a cinematic experience is that in it's current form it is very much confined within the context of film. So the 'cinematic' experiences that exist in games are linear and directed where any sort of player interaction would detract from that. I wouldn't say that my definition of cinematic is solely my own, it is held up as the definition for many of the examples that you will find in reviews. A games cinematic quality is for the most part judged on cut scenes and other events that are outside of the players control.
As far as me suggesting that the player becomes involved in their experience. It wasn't intended as a contradiction but should have been worded better. I was suggesting that if a player is given the ability to have an impact on a cinematic then in my opinion the best way to keep that experience cinematic would be for the player to take on the role of the character. By taking their ability to interact the player can act within the confines of the predetermined situation.
My overall point and conclusion being that a cinematic experience is dependent on many predetermined things coming together at the correct time. Thus a linear but cinematic event will occur but games are meant to be interactive. So is it possible for someone to have a cinematic experience if how the game unrolls is dependent on their actions? I would say that you cant, which is why I closed with the suggestion that a player becomes part of the directed experience already in front of them.
Props for actually taking the time to think about the article though, much appreciated.
Thanks for responding and not assuming I was trying to be a dick (which was never my intention, although the internet is serious business and you never know how people will react). I think I understand you a good bit better now that you've restated a couple of things, especially with regards to how you're treating the notion of a game's cinematic quality.
All in all, I would just say that I feel the sentiment that the 'cinematic' in gaming precludes or at least resists interactivity is a bit narrow-minded (not on your part, but in general). I thoroughly agree with your concluding point that a player should try to "become [a] part of the directed experience already in front of them." But to the extent that doing so retains/recaptures the cinematic quality that would otherwise be lost by the sense of self-control the player feels in an interactive game or game sequence, then I feel it could easily be the case that a game that goads the player into full-scale immersion in a character(s) role(s) will have a very cinematic feel, even if it is completely open-ended and has no linear, directed content whatsoever.
I suppose what I'm ultimately trying to say is that the cinematic quality or lack thereof in a game is largely a function of the player's mindset and empathic disposition towards the game and its characters. Now that I say that way, I'm not sure we're really disagreeing at all.
I think we are definitely thinking along the same lines, more than some of the other opinions people have posted. It was good to get some discussion out of it though :D