"people often underestimate the deadliness of Ben Franklin"

Lately I've come across some heated debates as to whether or not cut scenes are a good way to display a story in video games. It should come as no surprise that this has become a fairly popular topic over the last few months. I mean, just a little while ago, there were many discussions as to whether or not videogames can be considered art. It seems logical that a conversation would arise about the nature of interactive art. Do non-interactive cut-scenes--like FMV's, for instance--pull the player out of the experience as a whole as it attempts to tell a story? Can developers express a deep narrative without slowing down the pace, or removing interactivity? Is there some sort of happy medium?

Cut-scenes aren't new. God knows that the Final Fantasy series wouldn't have been as ridiculously impressive during the Playstation era without it's beautiful FMV sequences--especially Final Fantasy 8. Of course, it doesn't stop at FMV's. Many games now use pre-rendered cut-scenes using the in-game graphics engine--the Metal Gear Solid series being the key example. The purpose of these sequences, for the most part, is to display a gripping story. The argument against it, however, is that it pulls the player away from the game. By removing interactivity from large portions of the game, you are crossing the line between game and movie. The end sequence of Metal Gear Solid 2, for example, was a half-an-hour long period of exposition by the characters, with literally no interactivity whatsoever. It becomes even harder to defend cut-scenes when games like Oblivion, or a better example, Half-Life 2, are able to tell captivating and well written stories without ever taking the control away from the player.

Personally, I am a proponent of cut-scenes. I could never really understand the idea that cut-scenes take away from a game rather than add to it. The thing I love most about the Metal Gear Solid series has from the beginning been its amazing use of the in-game engine to create gorgeous sequences that tell a deep story. Personally, I am a proponent of cut-scenes. I could never really understand the idea that cut-scenes take away from a game rather than add to it. The thing I love most about the Metal Gear Solid series has from the beginning been its amazing use of the in-game engine to create gorgeous sequences that tell a deep story. God knows the game mechanics are nowhere near perfect, and I'd probably argue that the Splinter Cell games are probably more fun to play. But Kojima has always pulled me back in by being a great storyteller. The problem, I think, comes not from creating more of a movie-like sequences--though FF8 certainly gives fuel to that argument--but rather, from games that may have impressive cut-scenes, but on the whole are just really bad games. It'd be much easier to argue for cut-scenes if they didn't so often feel like an attempt at distracting you from how crappy the game actually is.

Now, that's not to say that cut-scenes are a must. As companies like Valve have proven, it is possible to tell an interesting story without taking away control. But to say that cut-scenes are passe, or needless, I think is kind of ignorant. I mean, could you imagine a world without Manny Calavera? Because that’s what you get when you completely ignore games with good cut-scenes. There will always be a place for them, especially if games are to be considered more than just mind-numbing solutions for twitch junkies. I think that they're an essential tool for story-telling in a game, and should always be there.

Peace,
Ram