GEARS OF WAR ISN'T A FIRST PERSON SHOOTER!!!

IT'S A THIRD PERSON SHOOTER!!!

Blah blah blah, I don't want my spoiler to appear in the bottom of the main page article. Filler text. Cocks.

[Also spoiler]

I was also really creeped out by the cutscene in COD4 where you're the dignitary being driven through the streets, about to be executed. Pangloss' comment about cutscenes using first-person perspective reminded me of this.

Seeing all the cheering dudes shooting off their AK-47s as I was being led to my death was kinda frightening. That entire scene was handled brilliantly, down to the last moments.

Although I hated dying every 5 seconds in the multiplayer, hell of a game.

Mirror's Edge did it great.

I've read the article, and it makes salient points, but there's also the question of how much we can trust biometric data. Does engaging = fun? What should developers be willing to give up for the sake of physiological "engagement"? Should we start to sacrifice forms of storytelling because they're less "engaging" than in-your-face action sequences? Let's take Resistance against Resistance 2 for example. Going by the critical reception, Resistance 2 got a pretty hard panning for abandoning its previous method of narration, from the voice of that lieutenant to more cinematic cutscenes of Hale himself. The latter should have been more "engaging" shouldn't it?

CoD4 does an excellent job of containing all of the potential "highs" and "lows" of what the researchers seemed to be looking for, but some of its most "engaging" scenes for me were ones that, according to the study, would not have worked. The oft-mentioned gunship sequence, some of the sniper stages, etc.

Char keeps talking about the "cutscenes" in CoD4, but they weren't really cutscenes. You could move or at least look around, keeping the player in the mindset that "I am in control" and keeping them in the game. The fact that you're completely helpless adds to the immersion and engagement.

But when all else fails, developers, just copy Valve.

Watching a game isn't as involving as playing a game. Plain and simple.

@Slick Icarus II: Exactly if only everyone else had the sense to figure that out this wouldn't even be a story.

Serious half of what it says can be (should be) common sense. I can tell you that if someone got in my face with a knife its going to be a lot more intense then some dude I can't see shooting and missing me.

Dddduuuurrrrr....

Sure, much of this is common sense for you and me, but why then do game developers continue to make the same mistakes time and time again?

is this as retarded as i think?

yes, your brain is not as active while watching a cutscene b/c they are not interactive. i mean... someone got paid to study this? jeesus.

I mean if you're not interested int he story then you're not intersted in the cutscenes. Reading over the study it seems done well but I still don't think it's the lack of quality cutscnese fault.

I think they left CoD4 out on purpose because it would invalidate their point. More games should try to be as good as CoD4 and Infinity Ward should make more games.

I'm not surprised it wasn't mentioned, but the [ spoiler] scene in Quake 4 where you're eviscerated while you hear yourself scream in agony, and then turn into a Strogg, was pretty fucking engaging.[ /spoiler]

I think more attention needs to be placed on keeping the camera AS YOUR FUCKING CHARACTER SEES THINGS. I'm tired of 3rd person shooters where I can see the back of my own head, and my body blocks part of the screen.

Well, I'll reiterate what Orionsaint said: Gears ain't an FPS, it's a TPS - hardly surprising gamers engaged with it more, because cutscenes in a TPS are more in line with other entertainment media, namely movies. For the same reason, I found MGS4 to be the most "engaging" title I've played this year, alongside GTA4 - but on which title have I clocked up the most hours this year? Without a doubt, COD4.

What's the Magic behind Half Life, then? I loved the story at HL (non-emo).