|
Gameplay and Cutscenes have often been at war with each other, with one providing an interactive experience and the other a passive one. They can both represent large portions of the entertainment in games, but the two forces have been kept separate for several decades. Early games had such weak presentation that cutscenes did not have as large an importance as they do today, so the games that benefited most towards making cutscenes interactive were interactive movies such as Dragon’s Lair where the cutscenes commanded a large portion of the entertainment.
It wasn’t until around the arrival of the Dreamcast that video games no longer need pre-rendered footage to deliver scenes that rivaled films, so making them more dynamic had finally become an option. This is when Yu Suzuki gave us not only Shenmue, but the term QTE (Quick Time Event). After the mechanic was popularized in games like Shenmue, God of War, and Resident Evil 4, its usage in other games dramatically increased to the point where it is now a well-known mechanic and aid for designers in their games.
As the mechanic saw more use, it also saw more misuse, and it really looked like the QTE’s only purpose was that it made everything more interesting. It made cutscenes more like gameplay and it made gameplay more like cutscenes, and it seems that’s all developers really needed to know before they found several different ways to abuse it.
Even as I say that QTEs have been misused, there isn’t currently a “right” and “wrong” way of using them. I would however consider that there are effective and ineffective methods of utilizing QTEs, where the effective methods fully display the engaging potential of the mechanic. While QTEs are implemented in many different ways, there are three categories that seem to represent how they are predominantly used in games today. Two of the three categories represent ineffective usages of QTEs, they are QTEs that make gameplay feel more like a cutscene and QTEs that make cutscenes feel more like gameplay.
When used “ineffectively” QTEs will maintain the disconnect between what is a cutscene and what is gameplay.
The first category represents QTEs that make gameplay feel more like a cutscene. These are used to give gameplay a cool presentation by allowing the character to perform context-sensitive actions that do not exist within the game’s normal mechanics. This is when the QTEs feel like a mini-game, where the experience feels like a game that is separate from the core mechanics. This is used often in many action games such as God of War when Kratos utilizes flashy finishers on his enemies.
The QTEs in God of War can differ depending on whether Kratos is dealing with a regular foe or a boss. When fighting regular foes his QTEs are simple and often fit with the rest of the gameplay, so he may for instance do a context-sensitive grab on an enemy using the grab button. When fighting bosses however, the QTEs become so elaborate with so many button presses that players see a stark contrast between what they’re doing during those QTEs and their actions during the rest of the game. In addition to the contrast of what they are doing, these QTEs are often mandatory to perform unlike the ones used on regular enemies; this leads the players to see the scripted nature of the event and subsequently associate their actions with “acting out a scene” rather than triumphantly beating a boss. These QTEs consequently create a disconnect between regular gameplay and QTE gameplay, rather than seamlessly creating one unified gameplay experience.

The second category represents QTEs that make cutscenes feel more like gameplay. These are used in games like Bayonetta and Ultimate Ninja Storm, where it is very apparent to the player that they are interacting with a cutscene. Because these QTEs are used to modify the cutscenes, there is a greater disconnect between the rest of the gameplay than the QTEs in the first category. Again, this disconnect only ends up creating two contrasting types of gameplay instead of one unified experience.

When used effectively there should not be a distinction between the cutscene and gameplay, in the context of the QTE they should be perceived as the same thing.
The third category represents QTEs that successfully link gameplay and cutscenes by creating experiences that enhances established gameplay rather than disconnects the player from it. A good example of this are the Paragon and Renegade moments in Mass Effect 2, where the player is able to interrupt cutscenes by performing good or evil options when prompted to on the screen. Making choices in Mass Effect represents a large portion of the enjoyment in the game by allowing the player to alter the story via several options that are usually presented in a dialogue wheel. The QTEs in Mass Effect enhance this mechanic by allowing the effect to happen within cutscenes. Their implementation is slightly different from other dialogue choices since they are timed events that must be performed quickly (see what I did there), but they remain completely optional and end up having the same effect as other conversation options by letting the player shape the story.

One of my favorite examples of QTE usage comes from Shenmue II. While the QTEs in that game range from extending gameplay in the fight scenes to interactive cutscenes in the chase scenes, there was at least one particular moment that always stood out. There was one scene where Ryo visited a barber who was formerly a martial arts master so that he could learn from him. In an effort to teach Ryo on how to be fearless, he held a razor blade to his neck and told him not to move at all. At this moment a QTE occurs and a button rapidly flashes on the screen, however the player must fight their instincts to press the button in order to pass the QTE. It managed to use the player’s own learned behavior against them; after spending two games teaching players how to quickly press a button to respond to a QTE, they were able to then use that conditioning to create this interesting scene where the only way to progress was to NOT press the button. It's a passive scene where the player's refusal to interact is in fact the interaction, making it both a passive scene and part of the game at the same time.
One game where you can find great implementations of QTEs would be Heavy Rain, as QTEs represent a large portion of both the gameplay and the cutscenes. Almost every action scene is handled through QTEs, and the same goes for the action in the gameplay. QTEs make up the core of the game’s experience and the developers managed to include various implementations of the mechanic. In some instances the QTEs become harder to read depending on how tense the situation is, creating a new experience where the player must attempt to read their options, weight them out, and react to them in a limited time.

Not every game can implement QTEs effectively, so it would probably benefit those games to find other methods of creating entertaining moments. The reason QTEs often get a lot of hate when put in games isn’t because the mechanic itself is bad, but rather it’s implementation has often been poor and it only distracts the player from the type of gameplay they really purchased the game for. We will undoubtedly find new ways to implemenet QTEs in games, we should just make sure that we’re doing it with good reason, and not just because God of War does it.
Oh yeah, also don’t use QTEs in fighting games. That’s a rule now.
|
The problem with QTE's is the same with cutscenes - they're not games. They both replace the game with something else - in the case of QTE's, a puzzle.
In other words, QTE's are not GAMEplay, unless it's a true puzzle-game - (i.e. a race to complete a puzzle).
Unfortunately, the root cause of the problems of the understanding and recognition of such different types of behaviour and their relationships with each other, lies a lot deeper than just the words game, art, puzzle and competition themselves.
So, since cutscenes and QTE's are not games, their inclusion within (interleaved with) a game always needs to be fully justified. (Which, of course, means understanding them in relation to each other).
We will NEVER allow games to reach their true potential, especially for entertainment purposes, until we are able to understand what it is they are - what application of what behaviour the word game represents - in relation to the rest of human behaviour itself.
Likewise, however, puzzles and competitions will never reach their full potential, either, if they're constantly being interleaved with games, too...
I do think that developers should be able to understand how the various implementations of QTEs relate to the rest of a game's mechanics, however with publishers pushing for designs based on what what the public is familiar with, the game designer role ends up largely being filled by whatever market research data dictates.
It all depends on how they are applied, as to whether or not they would count as games, puzzles or competitions (or even something else - (merely work or play/toys or tools etc.)). But since none of those are being fully recognised and applied consistently at this time - (especially concerning the use of computers (of all kinds/types) in enabling such things) - we have problems...
Just calling any activity a game, because it's a piece of software running on a computer and is interactive is NOT helping.
A crossword is interactive - but is considered to be a puzzle everywhere. So why would/should it be considered a GAME just because it's a piece of software running on a computer?
Competition != goals (in such an objective manner).
(To compete is to try and gain any outcome/goal at the expense of, or IN SPITE OF (lots of people fail to understand this), someone or something else, even if not possible/attainable or existing! - As such, any goals/outcomes to be competed for can be (and often are) purely subjective, and mainly form part of its application).
Games, puzzles and competitions can all be seen to involve competition - and work and play, for example, can also be competitive separately from any of those...
Rules - (i.e. structure) != game in themselves - merely being one element they require (competition being another) - but as part of the application of the behaviour the word game represents. Again, puzzles and competitions, (and work and play), can have rules too - but are not, in themselves, games.
Game, art, puzzle and competition (and even work and play (as nouns)) all represent different applications of often different behaviour, and are very often only compatible in either limited ways, or when applied to and by different people, if compatible at all.
Games and puzzles - (QTE's are puzzles (of whatever applicable type)) - are rarely compatible - again, a race to complete a puzzle is IT...
Competitions, however, are completely INcompatible with games, (unless using a game to PROMOTE a competition - e.g. win a game to enter a competition), which is also, unfortunately a large part of the problems we have. Although the words puzzle and competition are used consistently outside of computers and their software - (sometimes inaccurately, though, so even then it's not totally 'consistent', (i.e. consistently wrong in places - (see: hangman/blackjack (they're competitions, not games, based on the behaviour they enable from anyone taking part)) - but such is the nature of the problems we have)) - they are not being used consistently AT ALL, in general, for computer software.
I seriously recommend reading my blog (all of it (so far)) before commenting further on this matter...
(I hope you understand the difference between enable and promote? For instance, an opening cut-scene promotes a game, whereas a setting enables it).
There's an interesting contradiction going on with the two, as well. Cutscenes are theoretically there for two main reasons - to provide plot elements that would be difficult to communicate in-game, and to provide breaks for the player to aid in pacing - but many games display even the most mundane of events in cutscenes. Assassin's Creed even deals out exposition during gameplay, then switches to cutscenes for no clear reason to deliver more exposition, and then goes back to gameplay to give more exposition! Meanwhile, quick-time events are usually justified as existing to make cutscenes more interesting and involved for players (though this is questionable in many cases). If one of the main reasons cutscenes are used in games is because of their non-interactive natures, why do we need quick-time events to make them more interactive?
It's also worth mentioning that quick-time events vary in terms of button input, and this can have a pretty big impact on how they're perceived by players. Many games will use inconsistent or random button combinations in an attempt to catch the player off guard and prevent them from memorizing the sequence (Resident Evil 4 and 5 do this), and usually the end result is frustration when you consistently can't pull off a quick-time event sequence. The point of quick-time events is to keep the player involved, so what does griefing the player with difficult Simon Says sequences gain? It doesn't make the game more fun, it doesn't make it more interesting... all it really makes players want to do is shut the thing off. If you must have quick-time events - fine, whatever, I'll do them. But if I have to replay the same sequence 10 times in a row because it's both challenging and unpredictable? Congratulations, you've just made the player give your game up *in a sequence that is by nature mostly non-interactive.* I am not sure I can fathom a greater design failure, and it's not even an admirable failure to boot.
With cutscenes you just need a team of animators to make the scene look good and maybe one programmer. Implementing the same stuff in real time during gameplay however (ala Uncharted) is a huge, coordinated effort that involves many, many more people from all parts of the team (mechanics, scripting, gameplay and level design, etc.) This sucks up a lot of resources and time unless you already have an engine and process that is built to support it.
Using cutscenes also allows you to "hide" or "turn off" everything else that's going on in the game to prevent unexpected props, characters, or system interactions from taking place while the cinematic are playing (which is more challenging to control when the game is running real-time in a simulated world).
Admittedly, how you approach this issue of using cutscenes vs in-game events will depend somewhat on the technology you are using and how well it can handle some of the drawbacks and problems that implementing events in-game can cause. It also depends on just how badly you want to avoid cutscenes and keep everything in game. Different teams choose to invest their (often limited) resources into different things, so...
Ideally, I think games should always try to keep the player in control, but when it comes to the production realities, it can actually be quite a large investment to do that (of course it also depends on the scope and complexity of your game. It's a lot harder to make in-game events feel natural in a 3rd person openworld game with lots of overlapping ambient systems than in a 2D platformer where you can always know what the player is seeing if there are at a certain point in the level).
Anyway, just wanted to point out that there are in fact other reasons cutscenes are used that have less to do with art and more to do with engineering. I honestly feel that many of these reasons though could be resolved with better planning, level design, and tools for animating complex as well as subtle events in-game.
Cheers,
-~-
@Cary Chichester: I thought the first boss from Infamous had an interesting use of QTE that felt natural and didn't pull me out of the game experience, in fact it enhanced it quite a bit. You can see it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=6uvbrTZ98J8#t=41 8s
It required moving the analogue sticks to specific points on the screen while tapping the button. I felt it worked well in the context of that particular experience.
I also liked the Arkham City phone signal scanning and Catwoman locomotion mini-games. They felt a lot less like QTEs, but essentially fulfilled the same purposes.
It's often true that QTEs do nothing that the gameplay could not do, but actually coming up with how to implement that new gameplay and the work involved in the implementation are part of what makes QTEs appealing. So if the designer thinks "It would be really cool if during the fight the character did this and that, but I can't figure out a way to teach the player how to do all these new things that are only important for this one fight", then that's when QTEs show their worth. The designer doesn't have to think about how to let the player do all of those things, because they can just show a scene of the character doing it and have all interaction turn into matching the button prompts on the screen. It enables them to show whatever crazy scene they have in mind and still call it gameplay by turning it into a QTE, but as you've mentioned it could probably be done better with regular gameplay.
@Kasan
Thanks for the link, I didn't get far in Infamous so I never got to that part. I'm tempted to not call that a QTE however, and instead view it as a regular mini-game. I usually associate QTEs with the act of pushing a button quickly as being the main mechanic, whereas in the Infamous fight the player also has to align their cursor over the target (splitting hairs is fun). I do agree that the result is effective. Slowly moving the cursor towards the target helps the interaction feel like a struggle, so unlike other boss fights where the QTEs are the easy part, this tries to make the player feel like they're constantly struggling throughout the entire battle, and that's what a boss fight SHOULD feel like.
Kasan, your argument that cutscenes are actually a resource SAVING device has an unspoken premise. You say that it's cheaper to show dramatic character stuff with a few animations than to build all that stuff into the gameworld. Well the premise you didn't address is this: "games are a good medium for showing dramatic character stuff". I challenge that premise, and contend that if we developers nixed this whole idea that we need dramatic story-arcs told in linear edited story segments we could redistribute those resources to building on the FOUNDATION of the medium, rather than the pretense that we feel we have to shoehorn into our games.
The mechanic really is bad. It's literally no different than "Whack a mole". Something pops up, you hit it. But even in whack-a-mole, it's more intuitive because mankind has been whacking things over the head with a hammer since we evolved.
But the catch with QTEs is that you need to know which button is which on the controller. Hardcore gamers do, but despite owning Playstation products for 15 years, I can't remember offhand where the O and square buttons are (X is on the bottom and Triangle on the top).
So when I'm caught up in a game and suddenly it tells me I need to press a certain button and I have to glance down at my controller to see which button is what, it really breaks the mood, both in terms of story and gameplay...
Which you have to admit make it better than QTEs, which are, as you say, almost always a detriment to your game. I despise them. But then I feel almost as strongly about non-interactive cinematics. Both should be avoided wherever possible.