I worked on an AAA game and the cinematic group had a team that worked in a different location from the main development team, we met a few times very early during preproduction, cue about three years of work, we got the completed videos pretty deep into development (nothing major was going to change in either the cinematics or the gameplay) and after viewing them were wondering what the cinematics had to do with the game with we made, to be fair the cinematics looked very good for the time, but I just plugged them into the game's framework to play at the appropriate point as one of my milestones, but all these videos were skippable after one viewing and I only viewed them completely just to QA the rest of the game when I was ahead of schedule.

I don't think it's a modern thing, I tried playing the original Kingdom Hearts on my PS/2 but gave up because there are so many mandatory videos that are unskippable during combat. Not going back as far, Bayonetta series has a ton of quicktime sequences, that I hate, have to beat an enemy, die to due slow reflexes and unexpected quicktime event, repeat and hopefully get the timing right on button press which is sharp contrast to the otherwise fluid combat in Bayonetta.

There was also at one point in ancient history a very big deal to have cinematics integrate seamlessly into gameplay, using the same engine for both, instead of prerecorded video sequences. So then games did that just as a point of pride, and having the cinematics in game engine it possible for non specialists to add (or storyboard and leaving final result to specialists) cinematics into a game's flow.

I think different people value different things in entertainment. For you, the "cinematic" aspects of the media are worthless - but for others, the whole "interactive cinematic spectacle" is worth it even if it comes at the expense of intractability or the ability to execute skills. Take the COD campaigns for example - notoriously, some of the turret-vehicle-chase-sequences don't actually require any user input to succeed at, but a certain class of player still enjoys them because they're in it for different things than you.

Sounds like you're still bitter over Dragon's Lair and other LaserDisc games.

But like AAA has never been an adjective that meant good or fun. Just that the budget is big.

Cut scenese are an opportunity for a change of pace and to tell the story in a different way. Or as a way to emphasize a game action. When you get a touchdown in Tecmo Bowl, you have a little cut scene which is nice (but gets repetitive). The cut scenes in a Katamari game give you some sort of connection to the world, but you can always skip them.

I think I've managed to skip most big budget games for most of my gaming life. That's fine, lots of other customers for those, I'll stick to the games I like.

Cut scenes can also be a valuable tool for giving information to the player:

- a camera flight go give an overview of the map

- show the location of the final boss

- hint at future missions

- provide a clue for solving the puzzle

- etc.

> is there a concise theory of game design that properly explains why cutscenes are fucking stupid?

Yes. In general it's because they're made by a different team, with different incentives, working to a different schedule.

They're often made using an earlier version of the game lore and story. Due to the massive effort required to make changes and render frames, they often don't match up with late-breaking changes made by the game team.

But sometimes you get lucky and the cinematics team excels. I worked with Blizzard's cinematics team in the '90s, and those spectacular folks produced an amazing body of work.

Half-Life got it right. The cutscene plays but you can still run around and do whatever you want (including not listening).

This isn't the first time I've seen this opinion, and while I share the disdain for quicktime events, and I agree many cutscenes in the most popular games don't work, I don't understand being against the whole concept of cutscenes.

What exactly is the right way to tell a good story though a game? The only other ways I've seen are:

1) Text boxes or Bethesda-style dialogue trees

2) Dark-souls style slow-drip storytelling.

Although they can both work, I don't think I prefer either one over cutscenes. (1) especially is more like something I'll forgive rather than like because I know cutscenes are difficult for smaller teams and limiting for games that emphasize player choice.

It's one of the reasons I liked Baldurs Gate 3 so much -- suddenly the cinematic cutscenes don't feel like a tradeoff for sacrificing choice.

You should play more indie games. Not only are they more gameplay focused, there is an over abundance of great games at bargain prices.

I just picked up Prodeus, if you like games like old Doom and Quake you’ll probably love it.

Also, From Software games (Dark Souls, Elden Ring, Sekiro, Armored Core) are basically all gameplay. Cutscenes are kept to a minimum and gameplay is is tight AF

> But I digress… I essentially hate games nowadays

This is not exactly a new phenomenon. The final cutscene in Metal Gear Solid 4 (2008) is 71 minutes long (Guinness world record). The total cutscenes add up to around 9 hours according to a Reddit user. Maybe more games are doing this now compared to 15 years ago, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Bad take IMO. Cutscenes are fine. Many are beloved, even.

Taking agency away from the player is usually a bad thing, so its not something you want to do when the player has other goals to work on. They are a fine tool to break up the action and games are also about the story and world building so expositional sections are a natural thing.

Its important to not mess with the game pacing, though.

After a heavy boss fight where the player doesn't even know what their next goal is anyway? Perfectly fine time for some exposition.

Running past an NPC on the way to do something? That's a horrible time to whip around the camera and tell the player something.

AAAs have huge momentum so you'll often see plot points and exposition that needs to be shoehorned in to fix some writing issue or what have you. Of course, you also just have game directors making bad decisions.

Agreed. Cutscenes are perfectly fine things to have in a game. Ninkendo is writing like a personal preference (not liking cutscenes) is a universal law of game design, but that is not at all the case.

As a game designer I’ve struggled with the topic of cutscenes and have landed on the side that they are not inherently bad design. Advancement of a story is a form of progression (THE form of progression in a narrative game) and the release of new story beats, or any new content in general, can be used to reward the player. That’s not to say that they can’t be done badly - many are.

The thing about cutscenes, as with most aspects of AAA games, is that they test well in their target market. Cutscenes aren’t exactly cheap to make, especially if acted. They wouldn’t do them if they weren’t popular.

But it’s perfectly fine that you, like many (and me), don’t like cutscenes. Embrace that and accept that perhaps those games aren’t for you, because there is so much choice out there that that you will certainly be able to find things more to your tastes.

Back in the day, I loved the cutscenes Privateer II (starring a very young Clive Owen from Children of Men (I believe) as aforementioned privateer, bless) included, not the ones with any people acting very badly in them, but the rendered cutscenes that played the first time you arrived at a new planet or spaceport, that showed you, hey, this place is a different place.

I played that in my teens, and 30 years later, I can still remember the name of the peaceful agricultural planet that had blimps as their main form of transportation - Bex.

Why? Because the cutscene played and I was like "Wow, look at this place, this is nothing like New Detroit".

And it didn't make you (IIRC) watch the cutscenes. Every. Damn. Time you landed thereafter.

> My question: is there a concise theory of game design that properly explains why cutscenes are fucking stupid?

Two things to consider regarding cut scenes. First, sometimes they are mandated by the game story writers and backed up by artists wanting to show off. Second, and more importantly from a game developer's perspective, they are a useful tool for hiding scene loading I/O such that the customer experience does not notice a nontrivial delay.

> First, sometimes they are mandated by the game story writers and backed up by artists wanting to show off

How is that possibly an excuse? It reads like you’re agreeing with me. I could give a shit less about the feelings of some artist that wants to “show off” to me when they’re getting in the way of me enjoying the maybe 20 minutes of time I have to try and play a game between other obligations.

Games like those seem to be designed for teenagers who have hours or even days on end to sink into a game. I’m a 40+ year old dad with negative time on my hands. The gaming industry has basically left me behind.

I know exactly what you mean. Lots of video games really do feel more like movies these days. Cyberpunk drove me absolutely crazy with all the cut scenes

I think you summed it up yourself, because cutscenes are trying to turn this medium into that of movies.

They're not stupid -- they're feedback. You get them as a reward for having done something, usually.

But they are also not gameplay, obviously.

https://www.raphkoster.com/2012/01/20/narrative-is-not-a-gam... https://www.raphkoster.com/2012/01/26/narrative-isnt-usually...

...and maybe https://www.raphkoster.com/2013/03/13/why-are-qtes-so-popula... since you dislike QTE's. :)

I would be fine if cutscenes were feedback, or reward for gameplay.

But that doesn’t explain games where as soon as you start it up for the first time, there’s a minimum of 20 minutes of (often unskippable) cutscenes before you can even control a character. Or cutscenes at the beginning of a level/mission where you kinda have to watch it to know what’s going on at all, but they’re like 10 minutes long, so you’re gonna be there a while. Sometimes even those ones are unskippable. I remember playing Jedi Fallen Order and I just left the couch and cleaned the kitchen for a while because I could not have given a shit less about the story they were pushing on me, and I came down and it was still going.

Games need to respect my time. You turn the NES on, press start, and there’s Mario on the left side of the screen. You’re playing now. You turn on Forza Horizon 6 or whatever and it’s 20 minutes before you can control a car, at minimum. And that’s a fucking racing game, with no story I would ever possibly give a shit about.

This goes back to the motivations thing. For those who are motivated by narrative stuff, that opening works well. It sets up uncertainties and ambiguities that engage curiosity and prediction.

But you don't like those sorts of problems as much (or don't want them in that moment). Which is fine. No game works for everyone the same way.

(There is also an offhand remark in the article about gamemakers being failed moviemakers... ;) )

> But that doesn’t explain games where as soon as you start it up for the first time, there’s a minimum of 20 minutes of (often unskippable) cutscenes before you can even control a character

I honestly wonder if this is done to reduce returns. Steam, for example has a <2hrs policy.

Put 30+ minutes of cut scene in, 60 minutes of intro/tutorial, and you’re past 2 hours of game launched time before discovering the game itself just isn’t fun for you (too predictable? Grindy? Too easy? Too hard?)

Cutscenes add to the sense of immersion playing the game. I like them, but I also like to skip them if I've already played the game before.

my theory is a there are two camps of "games" (really more of a spectrum from the projection of 2 axes "play" and "art"):

- proper games ("play"): if you remove all the lore, cinematics, dialogs, etc the gameplay can stand on its own and the user find it fun. (ex: Elden ring, Pokemon. you can play a cut-scenes ripped version in a language you don't understand and still enjoy both, chess and other abstract games are the extreme end of this category)

- interactive DVD menus ("media arts"): it's a movie but sometimes you get to interact with it. in this category you have also have visual novels with branching trees/DAGs. they are more than a movie but still ultimately the most important test: they can't stand alone without the story/lore.

I enjoy both, but I wish games and steam pages were more front and center about which camp they are in the beginning before I even buy them.

my ultimate sin is games that think they are in category 1 who give you unskippable cut scenes.

All the AAA games will be inherently fucking stupid almost by design. And this is unavoidable - massive hundreds of millions if not billions in budget -> even if you alientate the bottom 10%, you lose 10% of sales. Bottom 20%, 20% of sales. Not gonna happen.

So you have Legend of Zelda games where pretty much all puzzles are so simple you can instantly tell what the solution is the very moment you see them, ie. downright retarded with few rare exceptions. This also applies to difficulty, etc.

As a result, AAA games can only be appretiated or enjoyed for not much else but production values. The soundtrack, the setpieces, the massive worlds and how much money must have gone into it, etc.

Or God of War. The puzzles almost solve themselves.

Interestingly, Elden Ring (2022) is AAA but very difficult, though not because of the puzzles. Perhaps puzzles test more for IQ (which can't be changed) than for gaming skill.

Don't be like Kid Rock.

I have never disagreed more with a comment on this site.