GameBanshee Forums

What type of cutscene do you prefer in a game? Any thoughts? As for me, I mostly prefer real-time cutscenes (provided that the graphics are decent) and CG (Computer Graphics) cutscene in a video game. I'm okay with other types of cutscenes but not still pictures cutscenes.

P.S. I hope I provided enough options in my poll. If there are others which I didn't include, can someone edit the poll, please? Thank you.

After Twinsen's Odyssey they havent made any decend cutscenes, so I vote none.

Real-time for me, I hate the way some games have cinematics that have no relation to what is in the game (visually).
And I'm no fan of pictures comic style

Although they usually are needed to further the storyline, I get annoyed if they happen too often. Most games seem to not overuse them and often offer the ability to skip the cut scene/movie/etc. which I am glad of.

Given the limited number of resources (time, money, personnel) available to a developer, would I rather see them put the money into adding and polishing new features (not *more* new features, since so few have new features these days) that intrigue me during gameplay, or into providing non-interactive video? Do you really need to ask?

I am one of those weird people that like still pictures
I'll be specific though, I thought that the black and white/muted images between IWD/IWD2 chapter transitions were very well done and lent quite a lot to the atmosphere, and then my imagination filled in any with moving pictures

Like Philos, I also prefer it if cutscenes have a skip option, because when I've played a game more than a couple of times, I often just want to get on with it.

I like games with computer graphics cutscenes, but like Dragon Wench I also quite like the still picture ones like they use in Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale etc.

dragon wench wrote:I am one of those weird people that like still pictures

Still pictures are fine. They usually require one artist, and only for a few weeks. They don't absorb an enormous amount of space in a game or RAM while running. They add to the atmosphere behind the text or voiceover. I just don't think they should be considered in a poll alongside cutscenes, since they frequently serve a different function altogether.

Mr_Snow wrote: Real-time for me, I hate the way some games have cinematics that have no relation to what is in the game (visually).

Agreed, but I don't mind CG cutscenes as well, provided that the in-game graphics look almost the same as the CG cutscene (and not too many and long as well). But overall, I still prefer real-time cutscene also, seeing how it doesn't take up much space and it saves costs as well.

Mr_Snow wrote: And I'm no fan of pictures comic style

Same here. The Max Payne series and the Freedom Force series may have pulled this off well and I commend them for that but it's not to my taste, to be honest.

Philos wrote:Although they usually are needed to further the storyline, I get annoyed if they happen too often. Most games seem to not overuse them and often offer the ability to skip the cut scene/movie/etc. which I am glad of.

I agree with this too. Also, if the cutscene is too long, it'll get annoying after a while. Take for example the Xenosaga series (PS2). That game have the longest cutscene in videogame history (long enough to make a sandwich) coupled with the fact that there are a lot of them and unskippable. Will eventually get on my nerves if I ever touched a game like that.

Luckily, no other game developer followed this style. It will be a torture if I had to endure long cutscenes/movies that are unskippable.

I prefer to watch story related still images while installing the game.
Now, how weird is that?
I don't really care what kind of introduction I am getting as long as it is short and to the point.
And I absolutely hate endless cinematics during the game (the latest Dreamfall made me grind my teeth to dust).

Edit: I voted for the real-time though.

Depends on the game.

Action game - CG
RPG - depending on the tone, either picture, or film.

None. As mentioned above, it's a drain on resources in game development. The game should speak for itself, in and of itself. If you need pretty movies and cover art to sell your game, you failed as a game designer. Period.

Magrus wrote:None. As mentioned above, it's a drain on resources in game development. The game should speak for itself, in and of itself. If you need pretty movies and cover art to sell your game, you failed as a game designer. Period.

I disagree, Mag. Novels have introduction; it is a tradition of classic literature.
The game manuals used to contain lenghtly introductions so you were supposed to familiarize yourself with the game world and all those dire circumstances...
I always find it tiresome to read these texts. I think the same information given at least as a voice-over at the beginning of the game is much preferable. At least something like: ...in a kingdom far, far away...
I am not sure that an introduction is just a waste and a drain on the resources.
A good introduction put you in the mood of the game you are about to play for the first time. The good music is important too.
"Pretty movies and cover art" might obscure a mediocre game (and most of the games are mediocre, let's face it), but these movies can be a part of a good game as well.
Don't like an intro? Just skip it.

*shrugs* I ignore them outright. They irritate me. If I want to watch a video, I'll buy a video. I purchased a game though, so I expect to get a game which the designers focused on just that, the game. Yes, you need marketing to sell your games, but that is irrevalent here. I would much rather have them simply type up a 1 page briefing on your mission and situation for the start of the game, which may cost them $50-$300 in costs to pay someone to quickly jot it down, edit it, and make it look nice before priniting. Rather than, have them spend thousands and thousands of dollars on a cut scene I will ignore outright.

These games now are filled with bugs and flaws in the engines, or control interface. I would much rather know that the game I pick up and spend hard earned money on was done properly and all of the money going into the project was made to have a good game, and was playtested and perfected before being tossed out onto the market. The $5,000 or so on a cheesy cutscene could have been used to do another round of playtesting with a few programmers to see if the game was truly ready to go on the shelves instead. Every time a game locks up on me due to some programming error, I curse the idiot who decided to spend more money on shading grass or making some little movie I skip through every time I want to play my game.

I am not so sure that "saving money" the way you suggested would solve all problems with interface or reduce the amount of bugs.
I don't know how much money companies commonly invest in introes, but I suppose it is just a small fraction of all money invested.
Anyway, "Escape" is my favorite key...

Can anybody explain a difference between a "real-time" and a "computer graphic" cutscene?

Lady Dragonfly wrote: Can anybody explain a difference between a "real-time" and a "computer graphic" cutscene?

Real-time cutscene are cutscenes that uses the in-game engine. Quite a huge number of games use this method such as First Person Shooter games and a lot of action titles. Cheaper to the developer as it doesn't require much resources since it uses the game engine.

As for Computer Graphics (CG) cutscene, it is a computer generated movie in a game. It is totally different from real-time cutscenes because it doesn't use the game engine at all. A more expensive alternative as you have to design the whole movie from the ground up as opposed to real-time cutscenes. A lot of Japanese game developers use CG cutscenes in their games compared to Western game developers.

Thank you. Will you please give me a few examples?
Preferably from the Western games.

Lady Dragonfly wrote:Thank you. Will you please give me a few examples?
Preferably from the Western games.

I think he means nearly all video cutscenes--those in the KotoR series, for instance. They have no relation to anything else in the game, and exist as separate movies.

What about cutscenes with real actors? I loved the cutscenes from the Command & Conquer series. Perhaps the acting wasn't that great, but they made you feel like what you were doing was happening to and with real people, not animated pixels.

Lady Dragonfly wrote:I am not so sure that "saving money" the way you suggested would solve all problems with interface or reduce the amount of bugs.
I don't know how much money companies commonly invest in introes, but I suppose it is just a small fraction of all money invested.
Anyway, "Escape" is my favorite key...

Not all, but it would fix a lot of the problems that are in the newer games. All of those little problems and glitches that are fixed in patches 1, 2 and 3? Not only the money involved, but time as well. Granted, different projects are done simultaneously, but they still need to be tested together at the end result. However, those all could be easily fixed by the people working on the team if they so chose to fix them. Cutting out frivolous things and putting a priority on making the game work properly first, with the frivolous things second would be a better way to do things, IMO. Then again, I am decidedly odd, so that could be why I rarely get my way as a consumer.