just a bit of market reasurch. Which do you perfer? well made cinematics/cut scenes like in games such as metal gear solid and doom3 or in game events that tell the story like the ones in half-life?

I prefer short well made in-game cutscenes like in Doom3 and KingPin.

In-game events usually have some flaws which can be avioded by making a cutscene. The character can walk through you if you stand on the way, or you shoot at somebody, but the bullets don't harm him...

I like them both. Both approaches fit well into the style of their games and both approaches have the ability to make a good game great.

It depends

Cinematics are very well to give some crucials info about the storyline, to put the player in a certain situation, and make it react like the player couldn't ingame (rolling back, climb something, etc), and are often more emotionnally powerfulls.

In game events just don't break the rythm of the action, but often remember to player that the game is sooooo scripted.

The better will always be a well balanced mix, cause you can't stop the game (cut-scenes) every 2 minutes...

mavrik65 wrote:

just a bit of market reasurch. Which do you perfer? well made cinematics/cut scenes like in games such as metal gear solid and doom3 or in game events that tell the story like the ones in half-life?

Both.

Definitely not like in Half Life 2.

Your freedom of movement was just illusionary, you couldn't really do anything anyway. Only good part was that you could check out the pixilated news paper cutouts in Dr Kleiners office. You had you gun and could fire it, but for some reason your friends were magically immune to your bullets. You couldn't even skip the endless jabber, like you usually can a cut-scene.

Neither - I like to enter a game world and shape the story myself, rather than play the character or act a certain way and have the game tell me that my character will act and speak in a totally different way through cut-scenes and in-game interactions. There's where roleplaying games come in, such as Mass Effect and Deus Ex.

Half-life 2, while keeping the main character silent to let you choose how you think he would respond (or because they want him to be some mysterious man in glasses), was flawed because regardless of whether the character spoke or not, the responses were always the same. Your imagination was limited to what was good and right, meaning your character, despite all the experiences he had been through, is immune to change in human emotions and difference in opinions and simply becomes a puppet for everyone else to play with. Which is where the supposed depth in the characters and interactions, which everyone praises Half-life 2 for, is quite hollow and boring.

Plus, it leaves moments like these:
Gordon Freeman! Boy, is it good to see you. Combine soldiers are everywhere - We need to take them on!
"Yes! Jolly good day. Oh! Combine, you say? Why, that's merely a typical ruck. Oi, why don't you just stay here while I go around from behind and give them a good sock in the jaw?"
Good idea, Freeman! Let's fire wildly at them until I eventually die.
"Wait, I did--"
*Jumps out into the open, gunshots fired.* Agh! Agh! Oh! Agh! *Dies.*

Or moments like these:
Gordon, keep the flashlight shining and I'll keep shooting at them.
"Ridi, Pagliaccio! Sul tuo amore infranto!"
Good thinking, Gordon! Let's go.

I'm going a bit off-topic and into entirely different gaming aspects, though Doom 3, for example, did perfectly with the characters what they were supposed to. Doom 3 has the silent protagonist that allows you to shape your own emotions and actions in the story, and the cut-scenes played along well enough (though they gave the player unnecessary insight which took some possible surprises away). Here's an example of something I found in Doom 3: Did that scientist pop out of nowhere and grab my rear end and chant, "Hey, you're going after that scientist, right? I don't know if you want to find him, you see... Heh-heh-heh... Nevermind."? Yes, he did. Did I fire my gun at him? Yes, I did. Did he explode violently into a bloody skeleton with chunks of meat and blood spraying everywhere? Yes... He did. That's freedom.

Then again, I don't know if I'm even on the topic of cut-scenes or in-game events. Maybe, I'm in the wrong forum. I just feel that they're unnecessary altogether. They're meant to give you insight on events in the game or help play out the story and give someone a pay check for all the hard work, but wouldn't it be better to sneak up to a door and eavesdrop on a certain story element rather than suddenly jump to the room to have the typical two-characters-standing-up-straight-two-feet-apart conversations we see too much of? When I talk to people, I'm hanging off of the ceiling while playing Twister and using complete body movements to describe things, rather than lift my arms randomly and mutter more foreshadowing information for the player to soak up and destroy plot twists/surprises with. If they give us a cutscene or in-game conversation, at least make it feel real. Enough duct tape can keep you suspended from a ceiling.

So, anyway... And airplane food, what's up with that?

KoRnScythe wrote:

Did that scientist pop out of nowhere and grab my rear end and chant, "Hey, you're going after that scientist, right? I don't know if you want to find him, you see... Heh-heh-heh... Nevermind."? Yes, he did. Did I fire my gun at him? Yes, I did. Did he explode violently into a bloody skeleton with chunks of meat and blood spraying everywhere? Yes... He did. That's freedom.

That's not freedom, that's a Give All cheat!!!
...cause you're not suppose to have the gun at this moment right? So you got at least freedom to cheat...

Actually, you do have the pistol at that point.

That being said, "Rainbow six; Vegas" did let you eaves drop on conversations and whatnot. But I never paid attention, because I lost interest in the story after 2 seconds. All I remember was that my name was Logan, and the bad guy was this woman.

Oh yeah, there was this point in either Vegas or Vegas 2 where there's a bunch of people locked into a room with gas, and since kicking the locked door open didn't work. It was a lost cause and they all died, even if we had firearms and explosives strong enough to take down at least a dozen doors.

I like both if they're well done.

In-game events are great for making the game world come alive. Good examples are in Half Life (1) where scientists get sucked into air ducts to get spit out as fleshy chunks, hang from wires inside an elevator shaft to lose their grip and plummet to their deaths.
Bad examples include events in Half Life 2 and Quake 4 where people are just talking to you, while impeding your progress until they finally shut up after an eternity (and the sadistically inclined can't blast them either).

Cutscenes, I just like because they're rewarding if done well - specifically, I dig cutscenes that show animations/things you don't normally see ingame (such as your own character, if you're playing an FPS, especially if he/she/it looks alive and not like just a puppet). I love to just lean back and watch the graphics and the animations without having to stay on my toes at the same time.

I like how Crysis handled the cutscenes. Never leaving the player's eyes, but still skip-able.

Kristus wrote:

Actually, you do have the pistol at that point.

So i apologies to KoRnScythe...
Damn memory!

Edit:

I didn't really liked Crysis cutscenes because of boring player_character's answers ala "Don't worry, i'm an über american soldier... i'll kick all these aliens with only one arm..."
That's why sometimes i prefer silent player_characters...

I guess in some ways, if a game needs a muted hero to be used as an "alterego" it is because the devs want the player become closer to the gameplay - inTouch, so to speak.
All the other stuff (like i can oversee atm:) is more part of the story-telling process.

Just like the "quick-action" moments (if something grabs your gun, jumps in your face) it can be made pretty good but sometimes it feels out of place.
Would be great if devs become more of a wizard type - showing you one hand and preparing something great with the other but thats just only easy to say.

So "real-life" will be blended more and more, all these nice details and beautiful things like a mounzing cat passing by on the roof top, little stupid birds fighting with a worm -
beside the actual story-telling, so maybe even quick-decission making will be used like in that comic game with the stupid knight or the "Fahrenheit" thing (didnt played it though just heard about it).

However there is so much to consider that this really belongs to the whole gamedesign process imho - a good reason for a storyboard etc.

so what people are saying is that you like to be the character that you want to be not the character the developer wants you to be. Forcing a character on you would be a bad thing because it restricts your freedom.

There's also the other view that cut scenes show you things that the player wasn't able to do in the game e.g. do a super cool kick, so it makes the game play look bad in comparison to the cut scene ( the player would be like "hey, why can't I do that?!" ).

mavrik65 wrote:

just a bit of market reasurch. Which do you perfer? well made cinematics/cut scenes like in games such as metal gear solid and doom3 or in game events that tell the story like the ones in half-life?

Given the choice of cut scenes or Half-Life-esque free movement conversation points, it depends (sic). The latter naturally lends itself better to RPG or RPG-style FPSs, but either has the potential to work well. It's what's added to the story via the dialog between the characters or events which take place within that time frame that makes the difference.

But I don't see the need for (pre-rendered) cinematics these days. It's amazing how some games still use them (albeit restricted to an opening title sequence or something).

just a bit of market reasurch. Which do you perfer? well made cinematics/cut scenes like in games such as metal gear solid and doom3 or in game events that tell the story like the ones in half-life?

I prefer short well made in-game cutscenes like in Doom3 and KingPin.

In-game events usually have some flaws which can be avioded by making a cutscene. The character can walk through you if you stand on the way, or you shoot at somebody, but the bullets don't harm him...

I like them both. Both approaches fit well into the style of their games and both approaches have the ability to make a good game great.

It depends

Cinematics are very well to give some crucials info about the storyline, to put the player in a certain situation, and make it react like the player couldn't ingame (rolling back, climb something, etc), and are often more emotionnally powerfulls.

In game events just don't break the rythm of the action, but often remember to player that the game is sooooo scripted.

The better will always be a well balanced mix, cause you can't stop the game (cut-scenes) every 2 minutes...

mavrik65 wrote:

just a bit of market reasurch. Which do you perfer? well made cinematics/cut scenes like in games such as metal gear solid and doom3 or in game events that tell the story like the ones in half-life?

Both.

Definitely not like in Half Life 2.

Your freedom of movement was just illusionary, you couldn't really do anything anyway. Only good part was that you could check out the pixilated news paper cutouts in Dr Kleiners office. You had you gun and could fire it, but for some reason your friends were magically immune to your bullets. You couldn't even skip the endless jabber, like you usually can a cut-scene.

Neither - I like to enter a game world and shape the story myself, rather than play the character or act a certain way and have the game tell me that my character will act and speak in a totally different way through cut-scenes and in-game interactions. There's where roleplaying games come in, such as Mass Effect and Deus Ex.

Half-life 2, while keeping the main character silent to let you choose how you think he would respond (or because they want him to be some mysterious man in glasses), was flawed because regardless of whether the character spoke or not, the responses were always the same. Your imagination was limited to what was good and right, meaning your character, despite all the experiences he had been through, is immune to change in human emotions and difference in opinions and simply becomes a puppet for everyone else to play with. Which is where the supposed depth in the characters and interactions, which everyone praises Half-life 2 for, is quite hollow and boring.

Plus, it leaves moments like these:
Gordon Freeman! Boy, is it good to see you. Combine soldiers are everywhere - We need to take them on!
"Yes! Jolly good day. Oh! Combine, you say? Why, that's merely a typical ruck. Oi, why don't you just stay here while I go around from behind and give them a good sock in the jaw?"
Good idea, Freeman! Let's fire wildly at them until I eventually die.
"Wait, I did--"
*Jumps out into the open, gunshots fired.* Agh! Agh! Oh! Agh! *Dies.*

Or moments like these:
Gordon, keep the flashlight shining and I'll keep shooting at them.
"Ridi, Pagliaccio! Sul tuo amore infranto!"
Good thinking, Gordon! Let's go.

I'm going a bit off-topic and into entirely different gaming aspects, though Doom 3, for example, did perfectly with the characters what they were supposed to. Doom 3 has the silent protagonist that allows you to shape your own emotions and actions in the story, and the cut-scenes played along well enough (though they gave the player unnecessary insight which took some possible surprises away). Here's an example of something I found in Doom 3: Did that scientist pop out of nowhere and grab my rear end and chant, "Hey, you're going after that scientist, right? I don't know if you want to find him, you see... Heh-heh-heh... Nevermind."? Yes, he did. Did I fire my gun at him? Yes, I did. Did he explode violently into a bloody skeleton with chunks of meat and blood spraying everywhere? Yes... He did. That's freedom.

Then again, I don't know if I'm even on the topic of cut-scenes or in-game events. Maybe, I'm in the wrong forum. I just feel that they're unnecessary altogether. They're meant to give you insight on events in the game or help play out the story and give someone a pay check for all the hard work, but wouldn't it be better to sneak up to a door and eavesdrop on a certain story element rather than suddenly jump to the room to have the typical two-characters-standing-up-straight-two-feet-apart conversations we see too much of? When I talk to people, I'm hanging off of the ceiling while playing Twister and using complete body movements to describe things, rather than lift my arms randomly and mutter more foreshadowing information for the player to soak up and destroy plot twists/surprises with. If they give us a cutscene or in-game conversation, at least make it feel real. Enough duct tape can keep you suspended from a ceiling.

So, anyway... And airplane food, what's up with that?

KoRnScythe wrote:

Did that scientist pop out of nowhere and grab my rear end and chant, "Hey, you're going after that scientist, right? I don't know if you want to find him, you see... Heh-heh-heh... Nevermind."? Yes, he did. Did I fire my gun at him? Yes, I did. Did he explode violently into a bloody skeleton with chunks of meat and blood spraying everywhere? Yes... He did. That's freedom.

That's not freedom, that's a Give All cheat!!!
...cause you're not suppose to have the gun at this moment right? So you got at least freedom to cheat...

Actually, you do have the pistol at that point.

That being said, "Rainbow six; Vegas" did let you eaves drop on conversations and whatnot. But I never paid attention, because I lost interest in the story after 2 seconds. All I remember was that my name was Logan, and the bad guy was this woman.

Oh yeah, there was this point in either Vegas or Vegas 2 where there's a bunch of people locked into a room with gas, and since kicking the locked door open didn't work. It was a lost cause and they all died, even if we had firearms and explosives strong enough to take down at least a dozen doors.

I like both if they're well done.

In-game events are great for making the game world come alive. Good examples are in Half Life (1) where scientists get sucked into air ducts to get spit out as fleshy chunks, hang from wires inside an elevator shaft to lose their grip and plummet to their deaths.
Bad examples include events in Half Life 2 and Quake 4 where people are just talking to you, while impeding your progress until they finally shut up after an eternity (and the sadistically inclined can't blast them either).

Cutscenes, I just like because they're rewarding if done well - specifically, I dig cutscenes that show animations/things you don't normally see ingame (such as your own character, if you're playing an FPS, especially if he/she/it looks alive and not like just a puppet). I love to just lean back and watch the graphics and the animations without having to stay on my toes at the same time.

I like how Crysis handled the cutscenes. Never leaving the player's eyes, but still skip-able.

Kristus wrote:

Actually, you do have the pistol at that point.

So i apologies to KoRnScythe...
Damn memory!

Edit:

I didn't really liked Crysis cutscenes because of boring player_character's answers ala "Don't worry, i'm an über american soldier... i'll kick all these aliens with only one arm..."
That's why sometimes i prefer silent player_characters...

I guess in some ways, if a game needs a muted hero to be used as an "alterego" it is because the devs want the player become closer to the gameplay - inTouch, so to speak.
All the other stuff (like i can oversee atm:) is more part of the story-telling process.

Just like the "quick-action" moments (if something grabs your gun, jumps in your face) it can be made pretty good but sometimes it feels out of place.
Would be great if devs become more of a wizard type - showing you one hand and preparing something great with the other but thats just only easy to say.

So "real-life" will be blended more and more, all these nice details and beautiful things like a mounzing cat passing by on the roof top, little stupid birds fighting with a worm -
beside the actual story-telling, so maybe even quick-decission making will be used like in that comic game with the stupid knight or the "Fahrenheit" thing (didnt played it though just heard about it).

However there is so much to consider that this really belongs to the whole gamedesign process imho - a good reason for a storyboard etc.

so what people are saying is that you like to be the character that you want to be not the character the developer wants you to be. Forcing a character on you would be a bad thing because it restricts your freedom.

There's also the other view that cut scenes show you things that the player wasn't able to do in the game e.g. do a super cool kick, so it makes the game play look bad in comparison to the cut scene ( the player would be like "hey, why can't I do that?!" ).

mavrik65 wrote:

just a bit of market reasurch. Which do you perfer? well made cinematics/cut scenes like in games such as metal gear solid and doom3 or in game events that tell the story like the ones in half-life?

Given the choice of cut scenes or Half-Life-esque free movement conversation points, it depends (sic). The latter naturally lends itself better to RPG or RPG-style FPSs, but either has the potential to work well. It's what's added to the story via the dialog between the characters or events which take place within that time frame that makes the difference.

But I don't see the need for (pre-rendered) cinematics these days. It's amazing how some games still use them (albeit restricted to an opening title sequence or something).