It's like a group of D&D high school virgins got together and made a video game

[fable]

My problem with cutscenes is this - game developers often use cutscenes to relay the game's story or specific details about a character or other event. If I wanted to watch a movie, I'd watch a movie. If I wanted to interact with the environment, I'll play a game. Sitting idly by while a game relays it's story, no matter how good it looks, is akin to watching a movie. Games are supposed to be interactive. In the few hours that I played The Witcher, the majority of time was spent watching cutscenes. If you choose to skip them, you miss out on story elements or perhaps plot points of even what you're supposed to do next.

I cannot speak to The Witcher, but this neatly summarizes why I dislike cutscenes so much, and especially long cutscenes in games: they are a cheap way (creatively speaking) around the problem of building a coherent, detailed gaming RPG environment. They are not cheap when it comes to financial cost, however, and the money spent on them could in my opinion better be spent on game development, itself.

[BuckGB]

Originally Posted by fable

I cannot speak to The Witcher, but this neatly summarizes why I dislike cutscenes so much, and especially long cutscenes in games: they are a cheap way (creatively speaking) around the problem of building a coherent, detailed gaming RPG environment. They are not cheap when it comes to financial cost, however, and the money spent on them could in my opinion better be spent on game development, itself.

I think what you're referring to are pre-rendered cinematic sequences. Aside from two cinematics created by Platige Image (the introduction and conclusion), all of The Witcher's cutscenes are rendered within the game. I don't see how these are cheap from a creativity point of view or expensive from a financial point of view. Most modern games have cutscenes, as they tend to be an effective way of telling a great story.

[Xandax]

Originally Posted by dcb

<snip>
Racial tensions are not usually depicted in an RPG? I always thought dwarves vs elves and half-orcs versus everyone else was pretty standard. Games like WoW where you have the Horde vs the Alliance are racially motivated. Most D&D settings have very high racial tensions. I can imagine there a plenty more examples, but racial tensions in fantasy RPGs is probably pretty common.
<snip>

Common perhaps, but not consequential as it is in The Witcher.
Dwarves and elves in this game are not versus each other, and the D&D setting allows for racial tension, but I do not recall a computer game implementation of D&D which have dwarves and elves rising up and killing civilian human, taking children hostages etc.
As for the Warcraft setting, that is hardly comparison either. That would be like saying that Space Marines and the Aliens in Quake demonstrate racial tension.

Originally Posted by dcb

<snip>
I didn't say it's automatically bad. It is, however, less than ground-breaking and not anything I consider a "masterpiece" as so many fanbois are quick to vote.<snip>

When you include a combat system as a negative, you do it because it is "bad".
And "fanbois" will always vote masterpiece, however "haters" will always vote against it, so *shrug*, hardly a choice of word I'd use.

Originally Posted by dcb

<snip>
My problem with cutscenes is this - game developers often use cutscenes to relay the game's story or specific details about a character or other event. If I wanted to watch a movie, I'd watch a movie. If I wanted to interact with the environment, I'll play a game. Sitting idly by while a game relays it's story through a non-interactive cutscene, no matter how good it looks, is akin to watching a movie. Games are supposed to be interactive. In the few hours that I played The Witcher, the majority of time was spent watching cutscenes. If you choose to skip them, you miss out on story elements or perhaps plot points or even what you're supposed to do next.
<snip>

I have no problem with cut-scenes if they convey story, are well done and especially if they are "skip-able". Cut-scenes in this game does indeed tell the story yes, but it does so because the player himself isn't able to do so.
I've yet to see a game which would be able to allow the player to make choices unguided. The player simply is never knowledgeable enough to advance through a story. Many of the elements of The Witcher requires knowledge of being a Witcher, and there is no way the game would be able to allow the player to "advance the story" on his own.
And if we then compare to practically any CRPG out there, then dialogue options and story advancement is always guided by the game. I've seen many times where you only have one dialogue option you need to press to advance a story - and that is not interactivity, that is stupidity.

Games interactive scope is choosing dialogue option 1, 2 or 3. And when only one option actually exists then the game could just as well flow through it.

Of course if one dislikes them, then it will cause issues with the gameplay - but again, that is a purely subjective and individual decision. I found the cut-scenes well done and good for advancing the story.

Originally Posted by dcb

<snip>
I was pretty annoyed by The Witcher after reading such glowing reviews. I guess I expected more/different than what I actually got.

Well, now that is hardly the game or the developers fault.

I expected little outside some hack n' slash RPGish game, and what I got tuned out to be so much better then the majority of the RPG field out there.

[dcb]

Originally Posted by BuckGB

I think what you're referring to are pre-rendered cinematic sequences. Aside from two cinematics created by Platige Image (the introduction and conclusion), all of The Witcher's cutscenes are rendered within the game. I don't see how these are cheap from a creativity point of view or expensive from a financial point of view. Most modern games have cutscenes, as they tend to be an effective way of telling a great story.

Do you play a game to interact with an environment or to non-interactively watch a story unfold which you have no control over? Do you understand that one is a game and the other is essentially not? Interactivity is what differentiates a game from a movie. If you do not have control over your character in a cutscene, you aren't playing the game. Your characters acts as the game designers want him to act, in pre-defined, static movements and dialogue. In a sense, you are no longer playing the game, but watching a movie.

Like I said, they may be great to look at, but you are still just watching a movie. Great games, ones that I consider masterpieces, involve interactivity to tell the story to the player. Yeah, I'd love to watch a 2 hour movie of the Witcher, but I paid for a game (read: interactivity), so I don't expect the majority of my play-time to consist of watching movies. I want to play a game.

[Xandax]

Originally Posted by fable

I cannot speak to The Witcher, but this neatly summarizes why I dislike cutscenes so much, and especially long cutscenes in games: they are a cheap way (creatively speaking) around the problem of building a coherent, detailed gaming RPG environment. They are not cheap when it comes to financial cost, however, and the money spent on them could in my opinion better be spent on game development, itself.

To have another mechanism to convey story advancement like this is impossible given current technology and knowledge of the player.
Cut-scenes are a mechanic just akin to limiting dialogue options. So I do not see the issue with them, when they are used properly - as I feel they are in this game.

We must remember that CRPGs are not PnP, and are limited by the scope of artificial control, or rather control via proxy, via scripts and coding based on the developers idea of how the game will flow. I've yet seen a game interactive enough with a story compelling enough to allow the player free reins and not restrict him, lest there was a real life GM in control.

Interactivity in games will for many years be limited to what the developers what the player to achieve, meaning which direction they take through the "main" story of a game. You do not have the option to ask every person about everything you want.

Also The Witcher is more an interactive story, so cut-scenes actually do work quite well. You are The Witcher, and you play his story. You do not create your own character, name him what you want and "role play" that character, you roleplay The Witcher.

[fable]

Originally Posted by BuckGB

I think what you're referring to are pre-rendered cinematic sequences. Aside from two cinematics created by Platige Image (the introduction and conclusion), all of The Witcher's cutscenes are rendered within the game. I don't see how these are cheap from a creativity point of view or expensive from a financial point of view. Most modern games have cutscenes, as they tend to be an effective way of telling a great story.

I would, with respect, disagree. When I play a game, I don't want to see a movie, and when I worked on a game (an MMORPG), we took pains to incorporate our plots and themes into the environment. You might get a bit of it from a tale told by an innkeeper, or a statement by a royal spokesperson might include something. Another bit could show up in a cleared away cave-in. The point was, the story was told from within, not shown to you from without. It's harder to fit it into the game world, and it takes a lot more creativity (in that sense of the word) than it does just to write a script and make a cutscene of any type. But I think the ultimate sense of involvement and the pleasure felt by the players who pieced the plot together was worth all the effort.

[Xandax]

Originally Posted by dcb

Do you play a game to interact with an environment or to non-interactively watch a story unfold which you have no control over? Do you understand that one is a game and the other is essentially not? Interactivity is what differentiates a game from a movie. If you do not have control over your character in a cutscene, you aren't playing the game. Your characters acts as the game designers want him to act, in pre-defined, static movements and dialogue. In a sense, you are no longer playing the game, but watching a movie.

The character will always act within the framework of the developers choosing, either by limiting dialogue options - even down to one or two options, closing off paths to areas you can't visit, or simply not placing plot-critical advancements until you reach a specific stage in the game.
Do you "play the game" then? Or do you not just follow pre-defined dialogue/path?
Remember, all dialogue is, is scripting. It is pre-determined paths down a tree.
It is all limited in scope.

There is conceptual no difference between selecting one option and reading a wall of text, then there is to watch a (long) cut-scene depicting the same story advancement. Save personal dislike towards one over the other.

[fable]

Originally Posted by BuckGB

I think what you're referring to are pre-rendered cinematic sequences. Aside from two cinematics created by Platige Image (the introduction and conclusion), all of The Witcher's cutscenes are rendered within the game. I don't see how these are cheap from a creativity point of view or expensive from a financial point of view. Most modern games have cutscenes, as they tend to be an effective way of telling a great story.

When I play a game, I don't want to see a movie, and when I worked on a game (an MMORPG), we took pains to incorporate our plots and themes into the environment. You might get a bit of it from a tale told by an innkeeper, or a statement by a royal spokesperson might include something. Another bit could show up in a cleared away cave-in. The point was, the story was told from within, not shown to you from without. It's harder to fit it into the game world, and it takes a lot more creativity (in that sense of the word) than it does just to write a script and make a cutscene of any type. But I think the ultimate sense of involvement and the pleasure felt by the players who pieced the plot together was worth all the effort.

[dcb]

Originally Posted by Xandax

To have another mechanism to convey story advancement like this is impossible given current technology and knowledge of the player.

A GM-controlled NWN 1&2 games do this quite well. For this reason, I LOVE the idea of what NWN offers. Yes, the game itself has several limitations, but the idea of a real-life dynamic storyteller is definitely a huge step in the right direction of CRPGs, IMO.

Originally Posted by Xandax

Cut-scenes are a mechanic just akin to limiting dialogue options. So I do not see the issue with them, when they are used properly - as I feel they are in this game.

They are too long, which I agree is arguable depending on your taste, but another gripe of mine is that every conversation with an NPC sucks you into a cutscene type dialogue interface, completely removing you from the game world. Why does it have to do that? Sure, the blur effect looks amazing on the background, but is it worth the sacrifice of immersion, interactivity, and freedom in order to have pretty graphics? I don't think so.

Originally Posted by Xandax

Also The Witcher is more an interactive story, so cut-scenes actually do work quite well. You are The Witcher, and you play his story. You do not create your own character, name him what you want and "role play" that character, you roleplay The Witcher.

This is true, and I have no problem with it. In fact, I don't have a problem with the linear storyline in The Witcher at all, I just feel that there are many unnecessary, overly-long cutscenes with broken dialogue. That really ruins a lot of the enjoyment for me.

[Xandax]

Originally Posted by fable

<snip> we took pains to incorporate our plots and themes into the environment. You might get a bit of it from a tale told by an innkeeper, or a statement by a royal spokesperson might include something. Another bit could show up in a cleared away cave-in. The point was, the story was told from within, not shown to you from without.
<snip>

If the innkeeper tells you a bit of a tale, then what is the difference if he does so either via text or a cut-scene?
Same same in my opinion.

Originally Posted by fable

<snip>
It's harder to fit it into the game world, and it takes a lot more creativity (in that sense of the word) than it does just to write a script and make a cutscene of any type. <snip>

Sorry, but that is not correct.
There is no more creativity involved in writing up some story elements and getting the innkeeper to tell it via text, then there is getting it shown as a cut-scene of the innkeeper telling it to you.

Originally Posted by fable

<snip>
But I think the ultimate sense of involvement and the pleasure felt by the players who pieced the plot together was worth all the effort.

And you can't piece together plots from a cut-scene?

[dcb]

Originally Posted by Xandax

The character will always act within the framework of the developers choosing, either by limiting dialogue options - even down to one or two options, closing off paths to areas you can't visit, or simply not placing plot-critical advancements until you reach a specific stage in the game.
Do you "play the game" then? Or do you not just follow pre-defined dialogue/path?
Remember, all dialogue is, is scripting. It is pre-determined paths down a tree.
It is all limited in scope.

There is conceptual no difference between selecting one option and reading a wall of text, then there is to watch a (long) cut-scene depicting the same story advancement. Save personal dislike towards one over the other.

Absolutely. But however limited they may be, dialogue trees are, at the very least, interactive. Cutscenes are wholly non-interactive. They are a non-game. It's a movie. A two-option dialogue tree is a game. I'll take that any day.

[Xandax]

Originally Posted by dcb

A GM-controlled NWN 1&2 games do this quite well. For this reason, I LOVE the idea of what NWN offers. Yes, the game itself has several limitations, but the idea of a real-life dynamic storyteller is definitely a huge step in the right direction of CRPGs, IMO.
<snip>

Yes, GM controlled being the keyword here, that not only requires more then one person, but a person who're "in charge". Try to script that behaviour for automatic execution and you run into the problems.
Thus, it can't really be used in comparison in my view, as it is multiplayer game vs. single player game.

Use the computer controlled NwN1+2 if you want to compare that aspect with The Witcher, and the interactivity in NwN1+2 is not at all higher then The Witcher, because dialogue and choices are very limited, and then again - compare it with almost any other single player CRPG out there, and you are very very locked in how to interact.

[Xandax]

Originally Posted by dcb

Absolutely. But however limited they may be, dialogue trees are, at the very least, interactive. Cutscenes are wholly non-interactive. They are a non-game. It's a movie. A two-option dialogue tree is a game. I'll take that any day.

But you also dislike the two-option dialogue trees in this game because it changes interface, supposedly "removing you completely from the game world".
Yet, I've still not been explained why it is removing you from the game-world, neither one or the other.

You play a game in third person perspective, so you're never "in" the game world. Thus when it changes interface, it is still similar perspective, thus nothing changes. Just akin to many other CRPGs out there.

What is the conceptual difference between having a cut-scene telling you the story over many lines of text? Wherein is the "removal from the game world" over a cut-scene type dialog interface, over a text-based dialogue interface?
And so on....

You can say you dislike them from a subjective preference, but they aren't more removed from the game world in any way, then it would be if it were text and not graphics. It is only preferences.

[dcb]

Originally Posted by Xandax

But you also dislike the two-option dialogue trees in this game because it changes interface, supposedly "removing you completely from the game world".
Yet, I've still not been explained why it is removing you from the game-world, neither one or the other.

Can you see what is happening around you while you are in a dialogue with an NPC in The Witcher? Or does the game world "pause" while you are in dialogue mode? This is removing the character from the game world, or vice versa.

Originally Posted by Xandax

What is the conceptual difference between having a cut-scene telling you the story over many lines of text?

One is interactive, one is not. It's the difference between a game and a movie.

Originally Posted by Xandax

You can say you dislike them from a subjective preference, but they aren't more removed from the game world in any way, then it would be if it were text and not graphics. It is only preferences.

This is not a preference, it is the core difference in what makes a game a game - interactivity.

[fable]

Originally Posted by Xandax

If the innkeeper tells you a bit of a tale, then what is the difference if he does so either via text or a cut-scene?
Same same in my opinion.

Very different, in mine. It's the difference between finding out a story by being a person within the environment, who has to actually look around for pieces of it and fit it together--as opposed to suddenly finding yourself wrenched out of the gameworld to watch a movie giving you everything on a plate. The first stays within the game, the second doesn't. The first requires creativity to make the plot bits fit naturally into the environment, and to make the player feel they're really getting somewhere. The latter is a free handout, and also breaks the carefully constructed illusion of the game.

Sorry, but that is not correct. There is no more creativity involved in writing up some story elements and getting the innkeeper to tell it via text, then there is getting it shown as a cut-scene of the innkeeper telling it to you.

Well, I guess you're right, because you were there when we strategized for weeks criticizing where we'd place each piece we wanted revealed, how we wanted it revealed, and discussed the writing of it. Oh, wait a minute. You weren't there. I guess you're wrong. Telling the story straight out by having a few people show it is much easier than trying to fit it into the gameworld where the player wanders around, and making it not too hard or too easy to piece together, with different types of plaxement, different kinds of puzzles, and a real sense of progress that is gradual but builds.

And if puzzles weren't involved? I'd still rather find out via gameplay, than a cutscene that jars and takes me out of the gameworld to view it without interaction.

And you can't piece together plots from a cut-scene?

Semantics, and you know it. Games use cutscenes to tell the story, or to wow young players with fancy graphics. Not to create plot puzzles for the players to solve in order to figure out the story. And certainly not to make the players feel immersed in the gameworld. Because cutscenes do the opposite of that.