Unskippable Cut-scenes

Again on the topic of cut-scenes. As Joystiq has reported, Steven Spielberg doesn't like cut-scenes. Especially when there's no option to skip past them.

Since I feel a lot less mean beating up on unskippable cut-scenes, let's start with that.

Unskippable cut-scenes are bad (because they're unskippable)

Other commentators on Joystiq have defended the wide-spread use of (unskippable?) cut-scenes on the basis of "good story." However, buying and playing a game does not signify an agreement to sit through unskippable cut-scenes. When we buy a DVD we expect to be able to easily navigate the content. Not necessarily for the sake of skipping content that we don't like, but for convenience.

Skipping cut-scenes is an obvious matter of convenience. Maybe you're at an extremely difficult section that you have to repeatedly attempt a dozen times in a row, and you don't want to also repeatedly watch the 2 minutes of cinematics that precede it. Maybe you got interrupted the last time you played, and you want to quickly resume at where you left off without wading through cut scenes. Maybe you restarted your game progress, because you wanted to fix your initial character or something, and you've already seen the intro cut scenes 20 times before. Maybe you have to stop playing, but the next save/checkpoint only comes after the end of the cinematic that you're in the middle of.

Unskippable cut-scenes are indulgent at worst, and lazy programming at best. I don't see how any gamer could disagree with that, since the frustrating consequences of unskippable cut-scenes are so obvious and I would assume universally understood.

The "but it's artistic vision! next thing you know, gamers are going to demand that there's a menu option to instantly max out their level, start anywhere, and do anything!" argument is a lousy straw-man.

Those of us who appreciate the ability to freely turn the pages of our books, and to move between scenes on our DVD's, have never demanded that authors or producers also give us the ability to strengthen the protagonists or change the content of the story. That would be a matter of whimsy, not convenience, which some gamers apparently cannot distinguish.

The notion that cut-scenes should be mandatory because "the story is so good!" is self-absorbed. It's akin to a book author who releases some kind of digital book that is a forced scroll from beginning to end because he doesn't want the reader to accidentally or deliberately mess up or ruin the brilliant pacing of the plot by freely turning the pages.

Even during the specially-implemented SPEED RUN mode of Mirror's Edge, you are forced to watch the ending cinematics every time you finish your run of the last level. That's ridiculous. (The ending cinematic itself is nonsensically rushed and poorly conceived-- but my point is that even if it was the greatest piece of cinema ever devised, I might have an ever-so-slight desire to skip it after my fifteenth attempt at a record-setting run.)

Unskippable cut-scenes are indulgent at worst, and lazy programming at best. I don't see how any gamer could disagree with that, since the frustrating consequences of unskippable cut-scenes are so obvious and I would assume universally understood.

The only time we as consumers can't skip things is when we go to the theatre or a concert, or arguably on television. WHEN WE OWN A PRODUCT, we expect some minimum of convenience.


...But skippable cut-scenes are pretty bad too

Ouch. Sad but true. They're bad because they're poorly made, way more often than not. And they're poorly made because the people making them do not have cinematic talent or skill.

A commentator on Joystiq has pointed out to those who emphatically agree with Spielberg has said something along the lines of this: modern videogames have the capability for marvelous cinematic sequences--deal with it!.

But on the contrary, it's the game industry itself that has refused to deal with the consequences, and refused to take up the responsibility for actually crafting quality cinema--which would require actual dedicated staff for things like "writing" and "acting" and "direction", not stand-ins from the sound, design, and programming teams.)

I don't personally like Spielberg's style, but he certainly knows something about direction and production. I'm not necessarily embarrassed to watch his work when there's somebody intelligent in the room with me. I don't think he should find a new job, or sub-contract out his work. But let's face it: most video-game cut-scenes are poorly written, poorly acted, and the camera-work is amateurish. And the fact that gamers don't even seem to notice might even mean that sloppy cinematics aren't worth criticizing. But allow me. (And before you think "Ha! But Spielberg's movies ARE embarrassing, you fool!" let me say this: what commonly distinguishes movie campiness from videogame campiness is that the game developers do not realize how campy and corny their masterpiece scene is.)

Good cinematographers, editors, camera-operators, and dialog writers do what they do because they are good at it. They better be, if the studio is risking a budget in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Game developers, on the other hand, go to work and toss on their filmmaker wannabe shoes not because they are good at it but simply because they can, and because they think it's cool. The industry should not have 3D animators acting as the de facto directors and cinematographers and camera operators, or have designers functioning as dialog/text writers. Designers should not be the directors of voicing. It's not their job, and way more often than not, they do it poorly.

An analogous example would be if the author of a best-selling book was also the book binder, the covert-art designer, the marketing copywriter, and directed the production of the audio book. No book publisher would ever, ever allow that, unless the author was obviously an untiring and multi-talented genius, yet video game publishers allow it all the time. In fact they possibly even generally enforce it, through managerial decisions that don't bring cinematically-talented people onto the staff, for budgetary or other reasons.

At best, unskippable cut-scenes are a sloppy programming oversight. Maybe the programmers didn't have the time, will, knowledge, or direct orders to implement "skipping" functionality. Who knows. But at worst, unskippable cut-scenes are the work of over-zealous cinema posers who want to force and preach their half-baked "art" directly down our threats.

The industry should grow up. It's a sobering fact that terrible cinematics (acting, direction, writing) do not affect, or are not perceived to affect, game sales. Gamers like games, and will forgive them for their disgraces or maybe not even notice them. But there are a few other apparent facts to consider:

1) There are more consumers who "routinely/occasionally watch movies" than there are people who play games.

2) The cinematic standard, even for crappy movies, is much higher than the cinematic standard for games.

3) If a game comes along that ever rivals the cultural or popular sensation of a blockbuster movie (like The Dark Knight, or something), it will probably have similar formal quality. And all of us-- gamers, non-gamers, and the game industry-- will be better off.


Anyway, I was glad to point out a few outstanding game productions in my last post about cut-scenes.