Now we're getting somewhere!

"You read a book. You PLAY a videogame. It's about interaction. A 40 minute cutscene in a videogame does not interest me at all. I don't care how awesome the plot is. If I wanted to watch a movie, I'd pop Lord of the Rings in. If I wanted a super-engaging storyline, I'd read a long book. When I play a videogame, I want to have control over the character and have as much interaction as possible."

But is the same 40 minute cut-scene available in another form of media? If not then it is an essential element of the game. See, you could pop in The Lord of the Rings but doing so wouldn't advance the story that was occurring in the game which had the 40 minute cutscene.

.

"Let me see if an analogy will do the trick. Does it disturb you when you go to a theater, and you see all the action from one viewpoint? Now, does it disturb you when you see a movie and the camera never once moves? Why is it okay in one, but not the other?"

For the first part. No not really. If you go see horror movies, for example, you only see the action from two viewpoints. That of the protgonist and antagonist. And sometimes, if the film has a strong enough central character like The Dark Knight's Joker or Freddy Krueger or Coffin Joe, then you're really only seeing things from that one viewpoint. For the second part, most of my favorite movies are European pictures from the seventies and depending upon whom the actress is on the screen at the time, you oftentimes really dont want the camera to move that much.


ntially recorded theater productions).

"What it does mean is that a storyteller can get much more bang for the buck if he recognizes that his medium is not the same as any other, and that he should act accordingly. I've stated some examples above, and other people have done the same in this thread. But perhaps I should end this with a question for you: how much control do you, the viewer, have over the actors on the screen when you're watching T.V.? And how much do you have over the main character in a video game?"

Well the closest types of stories to those found in jrpgs (although most of them tell much less interesting stories imo) are soap operas. So, a jrpg which tells a thrilling and epic end of the world narrative is using the medium of video games to tell an incredible story that many times wouldn't be possible in any other medium. An example would be a show like Heroes. Actually not very many things take place in a episode of Heroes or even in an entire season. Many times you actually have to go years to see many things happen in a television drama. However, in a jrpgs, much as in novels, that many times lasts as long entire runs of tv series on a single disc, you see much more interesting things happen...there are many instances of rising actions, climaxes, descending actions, and repeats like a long fulfilling rollercoaster ride...like the best epic novels; however, you see these things presented cinematically. You don't just have to rely on your imaginations to depict what the author was trying to say because you can see it on the screen.

Anyway to answer your last question. It can vary. Obviously if the character is that important to the video game, then you can have quite a bit of control over what he does. But if it is a story that is told through a script and that needs for the character to complete that script then you really need to be willing to guide the video game character through the story to appreciate what the creator is trying to say. Again much as in reading a novel. You need to be able to guide Leon, Cloud, ICO, or Solid Snake through the objectives they need to complete. And I don't have any trouble being willing to that. It's much the same as when you read Salem's Lot, you guide Ben Mears to the conclusion by being willing to read the pages.

I'll be honest: I don't completely follow your points, so please forgive me if my remarks don't directly address what you meant. That said, I'll do my best.

For this part, I think we're talking about different things. I don't mean that you're only seeing the action from the perspective of a single character in the theater. Quite the contrary, it's common for stage productions to switch between characters in different scenes, and even in the same scene.

I was referring to camera angles and the like: a movie in which the camera never once moves, but remains static throughout the entire two hours would be dull dull dull, even though seeing all the action from your static seat in a theater feels perfectly normal. (And note that the first movies didn't have the camera remain completely static, but you'll notice that panning, close-ups, and other modern movie techniques were nearly non-existent, because the directors were almost universally theater-trained. The actors' exaggerated expressions also come from their training in the theater, where you have to exaggerate every motion to make sure it can be seen by people sitting in the back.)

To relate that to our discussion, game developers have the tool of interactivity, which other media lack. If they'd failed to take advantage of that in telling their story, it would be like movie directors leaving the camera in a static position throughout every scene (or even movie).

I'm not sure I agree with this section. While I'm positive that there's an exception or two, I can't think of too many JRPGs that do anything that can't be done in traditional anime or manga. Indeed, the extremely high rate of cross-pollination between those media argues that JRPGs aren't doing anything particularly unique or special. I'd actually argue that a well-made anime would tell the average JRPG story better than a video game would: they'd cut all the chaff (random battles, grinding, adjusting stats/equipment, the side-stories that don't relate to the main story, etc.) have better pacing, and be able to sweep along the viewer better as a result, as there are no sudden and jarring pauses between the story and the gameplay.

Your point about T.V. shows' pacing actually helps to illustrate the author's point. Because shows have to stretch out their story through an entire season, they only give you small chunks of the story at a time. This has to do with the medium they work in. By contrast, movies know they only have you for around two hours, so they speed up the pace considerably. In other words, the two media play by different rules. How many times have you read a movie review which complained that the movie "felt like a two-hour long T.V. show"? There's a reason for that: we've grown accustomed to teh media playing to their own strengths, so we know it feels awkward when they try to emulate another medium instead of playing to the strengths of their own.

Again, to relate this to our discussion, the author thinks games are the movies, and movies are the T.V. shows (or vice-versa). What works dandy in one won't always do in the other.

We actually agree here, which is why I'm only somewhat on the author's side. I too feel that with some games, you really just gotta let yourself go with the flow. That said, I also see the author's point. Wouldn't things be better if you, the player, didn't HAVE to passively accept what the developers handed you, but were instead able to forge your own story? (See my first post for more)

And I also have to admit that there's a clear divide between the gameplay and the cutscenes that's often jarring. How many times have we seen the character we're playing as do incredible things in cutscenes that we're unable to replicate when it's our turn to play? Take Twin Snakes: cutscene Snake can ride on freaking missles, while gameplay Snake takes several seconds just to change weapons. It feels crude.

Another example, this one from the article. How many times (particularly in RPGs) have you won a fight easily, but immediately went to a cutscene in which your character is on his knees, weakened by the ferocity of what was evidently supposed to be a tough battle? Or vice-versa, where your guy is crowing about a fight which you, the player, barely scraped through? THAT'S crude.

Hell, how many times has your character been "captured" in cutscenes because three or four of the same guards you've been butchering in droves for the past half-hour in gameplay scenes suddenly surround your character? That always makes me shake my head. So I can take on two thousand of you in groups of ten, but I have to surrender when all of three of you surround me at once? Crude is too polite a term for that situation; amateurish, lazy, sloppy...those are better fitting.

Those are the reasons I can see where the guy is coming from. It's not that I'm against cutscenes, or even that I insist that the character do what I command him to do at all times. Sometimes, surrendering control of the story can be beneficial to me, the player, as it allows the developer to refine the story better. But far too many developers do a crappy, disjointed job for my satisfaction.

When I was little, I played mario. When I played my first RPG (was it ToS for GC? I'm unsure) I remember thinking, "WOW! I didn't know there were games that were interactive fantasy novels! This is great!" and when I play FFTA I thought " I didn't know there was a chesslike video game set in a fantasy world! This is great" There are simply different kinds of games, but that doesn't make it bad. That said, for a game like mirror's edge, a book like story makes no snese, since you should be the charactr, not just acting them out. Its an FPA after all.

as much as I love JRPGs..when it's story time..I'm not playing a game..more like watching a movie..now it's not bad..because that what I want from a JRPG

now..let's get things straight..this person is trying to explain why true video game storytelling fails..and why most people don't acknowledge it as 'art' or stuff like that

it's because video games are too busy trying to be movies and books

I have to agree about the Half-Life, Metroid, Zelda thing..in wich the protagonist does NOT speak

but in wich you reflect yourself..I feel like I am Link while Playing LoZ..on the other hand..I don't feel like I'm Mario..never will..or Sonic..or Lloyd..because I'm not like them..I'd act differently..but in games in wich your character does not act on it's own..it feels better..I know Zelda has been spiraling down the same cinematic road lately..

but I was talking about the good days..(Alttp even MC)

hmm..but anyway..hope you get what I mean..

for the record..MGS4 took it way over the limit..TOO MUCH!!

Are story and storytelling the same thing?  Guess not because if you went by that article, MGS4 has poor storytelling but many gamers and critics praised the story for that same game.

JRPG'S have good stories imo.

Actually, most JRPGs stories and characters are stereostypical and generic.  There are great JRPG stories though.

I dissagree i enjoy playing games that have stories idk why it just makes me enjoy the game more but i dont just enjoy the game becuase of the story i enjoy it becuase of the gameplay and graphics too.