Cutscenes,when used right can add a lot,but i also think it can be detrimental if abused as well.(FFXIII,Metal gear solid 4 and re5 are good examples)

Do you guys remember resident evil 1? Remember going into a bedroom with a book,and a zombie comes out? Remember reading the diary?
Reading texts,can immerse you a lot as well,and sometimes it is irreplaceable.

I personally feel,that a good game combines both things,and i feel that sometimes they try to make a game more like a movie,missing out that its a game and not a movie.

I do like cinematic cutscenes when done right,but i also feel that sometimes they can get abused.

Mgs 4 has some cinematic cutscenes that are good.The game has a very complex story that is about the whole metal gear solid saga.
I do feel though,that some characters get too much screen time:

Naomi:I feel that she was traitorous,and not all that likeable.
The codec moments of the beauty and beast:Because they were all the same,they became predictable.

I could really do without that hour long (hour long!) cutscene in Prague. Some of the cutscenes are just way *way* too long. Don't really have a problem with what's in them, as (silly dialogue aside) Kojima has a good eye for action. He makes a lot of very smart visual choices (I particularly like the 'Old Snake' idea, which shows visually the toll that all the trauma of the series has had on Snake). Snake is probably the best example of a character who reacts believeably to stress, but keeps going regardless. It feels right.

Back to the topic though, the thing that really bugs me is when a cutscene shows your character walking about with a weapon you either don't have or would never be using at that point. If we believe the RE5 cutscenes, Chris beats all the bosses with his 9mm pistol! And in ME2, my Vanguard Shepard who uses Shotguns and pistols, magically produces an Assault Rifle he doesn't even have on him, for the duration of the cutscenes, after which it magically disappears again. Crazy decision, as only Soliders have Assault Rifles. All the character classes have pistols, so that would have been a more logical choice (and the pistol is a viable weapon against everyone in that game).

I have no problems with cut-scenes whatsoever. If I died so many times and I can't skip them, that'll be my only complaint, I guess.

Tell me about it - I still get chills remembering the end of Arc the Lad. Endless cutscenes, 2 easy boss battles, more cutscenes and then a final boss who is so much harder than anyone else in the game, that its hard to even stay alive, let alone kill him. I got to *really* despise those cutscenes!

you have to be careful that the gameplay doesn-t suffer due to the cutscenes.
A games story also suffers from the cutscenes,because its not the only element that helps immerse a player.there is also gameplay,music story and also talking to people.

You also can read to find out about what is going on.

A game's presentation will often dictate whether you are likely to read much of the lore. For example, I've read all the lore in Dragon Age: Origins, because its nicely presented and easy to read. But in DA2, the writing is tiny, and the colour of the text is very dark against the also dark backgroundm making it more trouble than its worth.

If I like a game, I'll read everything though. Star Ocean Til the End of Time had a massive codex of lore, but every time I play that game, I read it all again!

Funny, I sometimes don't read any of the lore in games like Dragon Age and Mass Effect, for example. :p

I guess if I don't have much to do, I could probably do that.

It depends - a good game shouldn't require you to read the lore, but if writers are going to put lore in a game, it should really be easy to read and actually informative. Otherwise, why bother?

It depends - a good game shouldn't require you to read the lore, but if writers are going to put lore in a game, it should really be easy to read and actually informative. Otherwise, why bother?

I liked the dream sequences in lost odyssey.

i know some people don-t like it here,but i did.I do like reading,as i believe that combining both makes a game stronger rather than concentrate on cutscenes.
Voice acting for an example,or text,was done also in FFX.

Another thing i think,is that voice acting while moving can help.What i am trying to do,is compromise for people who don-t like to read a lot of stuff,and that is where voice acting comes in.

The problem with voice acting,is that it has to be really really good,with a very well scripted dialogue.Dragon age origins has amazing dialogue script,and hideo kojima gets some really good people to do dialogues.

Example:The whole thing of major zero being a fan of 007 and snake not like it makes for a really funny dialogue,and that is just one of the stuff.

Metal gear solid 1 has really good codec moments

Bad examples of voice acting:

Barry in resident evil 1
Chris in resident evil 1
Wesker in re1 and re5

Bad examples of script:

Re5 end.The way wesker talks,he seems like your stereotypical villain

Well, I would not include Metal Gear Solid in any discussion of good dialogue - Metal Gear Solid 1 was okay, but the others are tortuous. I mean, the dlalogue is really *really* bad. As for voice acting... well, again its good in MGS 1, but gets worse (far, far worse) in the sequels IMO. And I wouldn't classify RE1's voice acting as bad either (the remake, not the original obviously - but that's 'so bad its good'). I'm not saying the VA is wonderful by any stretch, but I certainly don't think of it when I'm thinking of bad VA.

Most of the prominent games these days have at least passable VA, because everyone draws from the same well. Nolan North, Liam O Brien, Cam Clarke, Jennifer Hale, John Di Maggio, Laura Bailey, Fred Tatsciore, Michelle Ruff etc etc etc. Everyone knows they are good, so they get used again and again and again in major roles.

Well, I would not include Metal Gear Solid in any discussion of good dialogue - Metal Gear Solid 1 was okay, but the others are tortuous. I mean, the dlalogue is really *really* bad. As for voice acting... well, again its good in MGS 1, but gets worse (far, far worse) in the sequels IMO. And I wouldn't classify RE1's voice acting as bad either (the remake, not the original obviously - but that's 'so bad its good'). I'm not saying the VA is wonderful by any stretch, but I certainly don't think of it when I'm thinking of bad VA.

Most of the prominent games these days have at least passable VA, because everyone draws from the same well. Nolan North, Liam O Brien, Cam Clarke, Jennifer Hale, John Di Maggio, Laura Bailey, Fred Tatsciore, Michelle Ruff etc etc etc. Everyone knows they are good, so they get used again and again and again in major roles.

You say mgs has bad voice acting,and yet:david hayter is known.

What about revolver ocelot? He is quite well renowned.

I sure hope your not one of those types who believes that only ff can have good voice acting.
I personally really really like metal gear solid dialogue.First one was good.Very political,and has some interesting codec moment.
Mgs 3 was the best one.The cutscenes were long,but they were so well done that you forgave the game.I don-t believe that final fantasy isn-t without its good parts.Sure i like some dialogue,just not FFXIII dialogue.

Come on, where the hell did you get that argument from?! Am I known for going about extolling the virtues of FF dialogue? Have I ever said anything like that?! FF dialogue is functional, rarely awful, rarely amazing. The translations have gotten a lot better in recent years, but its still written by japanese writers. The cultural divide between West and East, over what makes good dialogue, how much emotion is too much, how much camp should be in a game etc mean that Jap games are always going to sound a bit alien to western audiences.

The dialogue just doesn't even factor into the equation for me with FF. Because again, its never been that great, but its never been that bad either. The experience, the exploration, the events etc are what make FF. I doubt anyone ever played the series because they thought it had great dialogue.

And David Hayter has become famous, but also infamous for his portrayal of Solid Snake. You may like it, but take a quick spin around the internet and you'll find plenty of people who consider his acting to have gone downhill after MGS1 (but plenty of people who like him too, I concede). Particularly in MGS4, I feel he's really, really bad - like a parody of his earlier work. Not that dialogue like 'Big Momma!' helps. Again, I don't include MGS in this, because that was before the series got bloated and self indulgent. The cutscenes were pushing it even in 1, but they get ridiculously long in later games, and again the dialogue...

The series is the definition of overrated to me. Its not just the cutscenes and dialogue, but they certainly don't help (looking at your first post, we both agree the cutscenes are a problem). MGS 1 is a legitimately classic game, but the others are not IMO. I'm not trying to be immflamtory - I'm in no hurry to get into another drag out brawl with MGS fans anytime soon. That's just how I feel about it.

As for Lost Odyssey, I like some of the dream sequences. But they get very samey after a while, and only a few of them are all that good IMO.

It's not so much the cutscenes than it is the makers.
All games should be able to have the cutscenes skipped.

I don't remember a lot of games not having the option to skip cutscenes(only seen a few from the Angry Video Game Nerd, and The Spoony Experiment, I think) but I've played a couple that had the option to skip them.

I don't remember a lot of games not having the option to skip cutscenes(only seen a few from the Angry Video Game Nerd, and The Spoony Experiment, I think) but I've played a couple that had the option to skip them.

The first Kingdom Hearts.

Only when they're pointless and/or unskipable...or are like MGS4.

or are like MGS4.

I loved every second of the cutscenes when I played it for the first time. Sometimes, I'll skip them since I've finished the game, but whenever I feel like it, I'll watch them again.

Deleted/edited this post, as it just restated my points needlessly.

Vrykolas,mgs3 had a very epic feel in story.The whole big boss thing,and story of the 60s event works really well.
I even liked mgs2 ending story about a machine that can tap into any person-s internet connection and phone line,to monitor and edit them.

The whole idea of editing the thoughts you don-t like in people-s heads,is kinda scary.

Vrykolas,mgs3 had a very epic feel in story.The whole big boss thing,and story of the 60s event works really well.
I even liked mgs2 ending story about a machine that can tap into any person-s internet connection and phone line,to monitor and edit them.

The whole idea of editing the thoughts you don-t like in people-s heads,is kinda scary.

Also:i sure hope square enix and other companies can learn from the past:

Its very hard to immerse yourself,when you cannot speak to your character.
I feel that trying to squeeze out the story from cut scenes,takes away from the experience.

In suikoden 1,2 and 5,you could speak to people to your hearts content.
In ff6 ff7 ff8 ff9 and FFX,you could speak to many people.

Also:I felt that in some games,the cutscenes don-t do justice to the characters,especially games like FFXIII.

FF13 had a specific reason why you couldn't do the things that most RPGs allow you to do - most people accept (even if they didn't like it) that speaking to people at your leisure, shopping, exploring etc would be highly out of character for people who are on the run and trying to keep a low profile. (And it did include plenty of stuff to read, as you requested). It was an experimental thing to do, just as Dragon Age 2's lack of a world menacing baddie was - i.e both games were examples of RPGs trying to do something different from the established formula. Which people claim to want, but then decry and ridicule, when a developer actually tries it.

Being able to speak to everyone just isn't practical these days. Unless you have money on tap like Bethesda, you can't have every single person in the world ready for conversation, with voice acting and everything. Even Bioware with EA financial juggernaut behind them, have to restrict the number of people you can speak to. Plus, such things slow games down, and no company is ever going to go down that route, in an age when games have to play faster and faster. You may not like it (I certainly don't), but there it is. Games are necessarily faster, less substantial affairs these days.

Let's not forget that in most RPGs now, 'your' character is a completely personality free avatar. Skyrim has shown that people respond best to a system that does not punish them for any action, and still lets them have access to all content. So no morality, no factions, no reputation. Your character in that game has no identifiable personality traits *at all* no matter what you do. And people love it. On the other side of the coin, you have games like Dragon Age and Mass Effect, which try to monitor and adapt to present the kind of character (and voice acting) that you want the main character to be, based on your actions. But that is expensive and hard to do. They suceeded with Commander Shepard, but failed utterly with Hawke.

And I have nothing further to say about MGS. Unless you have changed your stance from your original post, we both agree that whatever the merits of the story may or may not be in MGS for example, cutscenes of that length serve no good purpose.

[QUOTE=Vrykolas;1904374]FF13 had a specific reason why you couldn't do the things that most RPGs allow you to do - most people accept (even if they didn't like it) that speaking to people at your leisure, shopping, exploring etc would be highly out of character for people who are on the run and trying to keep a low profile. (And it did include plenty of stuff to read, as you requested). It was an experimental thing to do, just as Dragon Age 2's lack of a world menacing baddie was - i.e both games were examples of RPGs trying to do something different from the established formula. Which people claim to want, but then decry and ridicule, when a developer actually tries it.

Being able to speak to everyone just isn't practical these days. Unless you have money on tap like Bethesda, you can't have every single person in the world ready for conversation, with voice acting and everything. Even Bioware with EA financial juggernaut behind them, have to restrict the number of people you can speak to. Plus, such things slow games down, and no company is ever going to go down that route, in an age when games have to play faster and faster. You may not like it (I certainly don't), but there it is. Games are necessarily faster, less substantial affairs these days.

Let's not forget that in most RPGs now, 'your' character is a completely personality free avatar. Skyrim has shown that people respond best to a system that does not punish them for any action, and still lets them have access to all content. So no morality, no factions, no reputation. Your character in that game has no identifiable personality traits *at all* no matter what you do. And people love it. On the other side of the coin, you have games like Dragon Age and Mass Effect, which try to monitor and adapt to present the kind of character (and voice acting) that you want the main character to be, based on your actions. But that is expensive and hard to do. They suceeded with Commander Shepard, but failed utterly with Hawke.

But mgs3 was interesting,and also less long cutscenes than mgs4.

Besides:FFXIII failed to immerse me.I didn-t care about hope,and i didn-t care about the rest of the characters either.
Most of the characters,left me either:not caring,or simply disgusted.That is not a good thing either,that more and more of the FF games characters leave much to be desired.

I also think you should seriously consider metal gear solid.I think you are far too harsh and put too much hatred on metal gear solid itself.
mgs3 is the best one for me in the series.

Going back to my point:Games can have too many cutscenes.
Too many cutscenes make it an interactive movie rather than an actual game,and paying 60 bucks for an interactive movie is a rip off.
It costs way less to go to the movies and see the newest blockbuster,and in fact:I could watch 4 movies for that price,so it better be damm good.

I can't believe you're defending MGS3 on a thread which is complaining about too many cutscenes in games. And for the reason that it has less than MGS4?! 'Has less cutscenes than MGS4' describes every game in the world, not just MGS3! And if you think I 'put too much hatred' on the MGS series, then you haven't listened to a word I've said. I've praised the series (even 4) many times in this thread, along with Kojima's strong sense of visual style. But I don't 2, 3 and 4 are anywhere near as good as MGS1. I've spoken about the games for years - I have hardly just dismissed them without a second thought. You accuse me of only liking FF out of the blue earlier, now claim I'm a MGS hater...

And what you felt about FF13's characters is largely irrelevent to the conversation we are having, which is the value of cutscenes in telling the story. What you have in fact stated, is that there is no reason Square should care about what you say about the length or frequency of cutscenes as regards FF13, because you didn't like the game or its characters anyway.

I agree with what you say about cutscenes and you make many fair points, but to then hold up MGS as an example of a series that is right, when its the worst offender in gaming history on this issue, is utterly bizarre. Particularly as you actually acknowledged this fact in your original post, but now seem to have gone back on that.

Metal gear solid 3 had a very good story,and extremely good characters.In the end:Snake,became big boss,and continued to be a pawn.

Metal gear solid 4,had many scenes that were unecessary.

Frying eggs.
Naomis melodramatic scene.
the same story done from the beauty and beast.

And yet:You defend FFXIII to the death when people criticize it for being slow and not going anywhere for some time.You seem rather biased towards Final fantasy series.

I loved every second of the cutscenes when I played it for the first time. Sometimes, I'll skip them since I've finished the game, but whenever I feel like it, I'll watch them again.
Have the time they dragged on WAY too long or were 'pointless'...and this is coming from someone who ENJOYS the series as a whole.

The third one was still the best,or at least that is my opinion.

I can't believe you're defending MGS3 on a thread which is complaining about too many cutscenes in games. And for the reason that it has less than MGS4?! 'Has cutscenes than MGS4' describes every game in the world, not just MGS3! And if you think I 'put too much hatred' on the MGS series, then you haven't listened to a word I've said. I've praised the series (even 4) many times in this thread, along with Kojima's strong sense of visual style. But I don't 2, 3 and 4 are anywhere near as good as MGS1. I've spoken about the games for years - I have hardly just dismissed them without a second thought. You accuse me of only liking FF out of the blue earlier, now claim I'm a MGS hater...

And what you felt about FF13's characters is largely irrelevent to the conversation we are having, which is the value of cutscenes in telling the story. What you have in fact stated, is that there is no reason Square should care about what you say about the length or frequency of cutscenes as regards FF13, because you didn't like the game or its characters anyway.

I agree with what you say about cutscenes and you make many fair points, but to then hold up MGS as an example of a series that is right, when its the worst offender in gaming history on this issue, is utterly bizarre. Particularly as you actually acknowledged this fact in your original post, but now seem to have gone back on that.

This is why I don't debate with Nostalgia gamer. He throws his opinions in arguments too much and no matter what anyone says (even if it's fact), he disregards almost all of them if it goes against his opinion. Sometimes he brings up good points but then it gets lost.

As for cutscenes, I like them. I like a good story and because I'm a patient person, I don't mind sitting back and watching things unfold. Only time I'll want to skip through one depends really and it's very rare, but if there's a cutscene before a boss battle and I have to retry a few times is when I'll skip it.

IMO, cutscenes(depending on the game in question) can be integral to the story. Dragon Age: Origins and Mass Effect (1 and 2) for example, same with Jade Empire, KotOR, Alpha Protocol... even the Dynasty Warriors series. But they go hand in hand with the voice talent as well. Speaking for myself, hearing Cam Clarke voice Zhou Yu and Niu Jin in Kessen II almost made me want to snap the disc... yet hearing Ryudo in Grandia II, Cam was decent in that (His work as Leonardo in the early TMNT series and as Kaneda in the original dub of Akira are proof he does have talent).

Lost Odyssey for example, did work out okay I guess... the Dream Sequences while nice, did leave me feeling a bit detached. Going from playing the game and listening to the characters to reading walls of text does offer a discontinuity to the feel of the game. Cutscenes in the early DW games (DW2, 3 and 3XL) as well, combined with atrocious voice acting made me wish I could skip it... they only improved slightly in the next installment and became better from the fifth installment onwards.

Like IDX, if there's a unskippable cutscene before a boss fight, that'd piss me off as well as it would everyone else. However, long cutscenes, like the final cs for MGS4 (I don't have a PS3, but I did watch it on Youtube), while they may be annoying... as it's at the end of the game, I don't mind. It'd be different if it was in the middle of the game.

but if there's a cutscene before a boss battle and I have to retry a few times is when I'll skip it.

Me too. Although, if it isn't skippable after dying/losing so many times, it would be aggravating. Almost as aggravating when you lose a certain amount of times on Halo Wars during the campaign, you can skip the CG scenes, but you can't skip the in-game cutscenes. >_<

This is why I don't debate with Nostalgia gamer. He throws his opinions in arguments too much and no matter what anyone says (even if it's fact), he disregards almost all of them if it goes against his opinion. Sometimes he brings up good points but then it gets lost.


QFT SIR!...

Now entering to only rant about MGS3.

Vrykolas,mgs3 had a very epic feel in story.The whole big boss thing,and story of the 60s event works really well.
You have a straight face when THE PAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!! appeared right? 60's events and shit.
Flying chairs? 'rly?
BULLET BEEES

TOMMY GUN!

THE FURY!

Yeah yeah, the story unfolds ACCEPTABLY. But most of the game's scenes are complete bullshit from cheezy to downright ridiculous, bad-forced VA from David Hayter(I respect the man though, I think the director wasn't tight enough this time). And the game expects to suspend my disbelief with the Cobra Unit. FUCK FUCKING OFF!!!! I would've expected a tiny little bit of development or more creativity on placing them in the PSEUDO-REALISTIC Universe that MGS was famous for before this piece of shit kicked in. Like you know FUCKING PSYCHO-MANTIS?! A GOOD FUCKING CHARACTER/ADVERSARY!

Don't get me started on telling you on how many ways they've bastardize poor Ocelot.


Now back on topic misters... Cutscenes. As long as they entertain me. They're just fine.


O hai pipl. Vrykolas, Mr. Revan! It's been quite a long time since I haven't posted anything on these side of the road.

cutscenes are okay as long as they areskippable.
why? because im fucking tired of failing a part right after a somewhat long cutscene and having to see it over and over again.

QFT SIR!...

Now entering to only rant about MGS3.

You have a straight face when THE PAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!! appeared right? 60's events and shit.
Flying chairs? 'rly?
BULLET BEEES

TOMMY GUN!

THE FURY!

Mgs3 is entertaining as hell,while mgs 4 puts me to sleep out of boredom.
The villains are way more entertaining,and far less bitches who are drama queens.

The whole scene of the bees,was kinda cool,even if it was exaggerated.
I mean:You can-t really do what snake does in mgs 4,and by that,i mean carry tons and tons of heavy weapons.
Another thing you cant do,is jump like the way raiden jumps.

Bringing up realism at times with mgs series is moot,as it is less realistic than other games.I think also,that its that other stuff that makes it ever so much more entertaining.

Yes i have opinions,but that doesnt mean that i cant enjoy a game,there is a difference.

Those guys arent really supposed to be taken seriously,except maybe the end,big boss and revolver ocelot.

Yeah yeah, the story unfolds ACCEPTABLY. But most of the game's scenes are complete bullshit from cheezy to downright ridiculous, bad-forced VA from David Hayter(I respect the man though, I think the director wasn't tight enough this time). And the game expects to suspend my disbelief with the Cobra Unit. FUCK FUCKING OFF!!!! I would've expected a tiny little bit of development or more creativity on placing them in the PSEUDO-REALISTIC Universe that MGS was famous for before this piece of shit kicked in. Like you know FUCKING PSYCHO-MANTIS?! A GOOD FUCKING CHARACTER/ADVERSARY!

Psycho mantis wasn-t realistic either,i mean:The paintings were talking,and by your definition,wouldn-t being able to survive several bullets to the chest be unrealistic? If that is so,then maybe your type of game is modern warfare.

Realism only goes so far for me.Sometimes i like a little realism,but it also depends on the game and what it is supposed to be.I think i have more fun with less realism in rpgs,because they are considered fantasy.fps games make sense to be realistic,because they are fps games.i also understand some degree of realism in games like tomb raider.I think this is one of the reasons i like rpgs,because i sometimes find some stuff of real life boring.

Don't get me started on telling you on how many ways they've bastardize poor Ocelot.

Revolver ocelot was cool in mgs 3.If you don-t believe me,look at some of the cutscenes of young revolver ocelot with his pistol.

Now back on topic misters... Cutscenes. As long as they entertain me. They're just fine.

Good cutscenes make the game more fun.Bad cutscenes drag on the game too long and make it boring.

O hai pipl. Vrykolas, Mr. Revan! It's been quite a long time since I haven't posted anything on these side of the road.

Quote IDx Quote:This is why I don't debate with Nostalgia gamer. He throws his opinions in arguments too much and no matter what anyone says (even if it's fact), he disregards almost all of them if it goes against his opinion. Sometimes he brings up good points but then it gets lost.

Calling mgs good or bad is also dependent to some degree of several things:

1:Are you a metal gear solid fan?
2:Do you enjoy espionage games?
3:Do you prefer realism? Would you sacrifice and entertaining game for pure realism?

I love mgs 1 ok? I am not denying that mgs 3 doesnt have its faults,but calling it a bad game is also very unfair.
Each game adds new fun things to do for gameplay.

Mgs1 introduces the newest stuff of mgs series on the playstation.Sneaking,holding up enemies with your fire arm,putting themt o sleep,banging on a wall to make them walk away.
Mgs2 introduces throwing people off ledges,and also hiding people in lockers.
Mgs3 wants to be more of an espionage game,so it makes players use some special camo stuff to use around.So its unrealistic in some ways,but its extremely original.You also throw snakes at people and use ointments,which i also really like.In fact:I love the forest setting,because it makes for a hideout.My favorite parts of mgs4,are the streets part and the actual forest area in south america.

Mgs4:For me,this game villains were all exactly the same,so it was hard to distinguish one from the other.
Each of the beauty/Beast characters had a ridiculously melodramatic story that was over the top.I definitely think mgs4 is the worse game in the series.

Overall:I love metal gear solid.It stood out in an age where games were getting worse and worse.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rlp6DfbZiKM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsPPf0AWNw0&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txNZJDL4ZPw&feature=related

NO mention of Ac!d or other PSP games?

I havent played the psp games,so i wont comment on them.

I did try the nes game,and thought it was alright at some points,but the gameplay was a pain in the ass.

Those pitfalls that you cannot avoid are so annoying.Also:There are bits that look like you can walk through,but the game won-t let you walk in between those jeep things.

There is also some dialogue errors,like:I feel asleep.