Indeed, I did read the article. Did you? It's interesting that you take a jab at Kojima even though nothing in the article indicates that his method is bad. In fact, you have a blantant untruth in the 2nd sentence of your post: " I find it especially interesting that cutscenes were actually harmful, and disengaged the players" That's not what the article said at all.

"

What Went Right

1. Cutscenes with overarching emotional themes.

Uncovering the "perfect" cutscene, in terms of power of physiological emotional response, proved to have no formula. Just like their cinematic movie counterparts, game cutscenes have no single creative blueprint. As you can imagine, a horror film evokes a different set of emotions than a comedy, but both may be powerful and effective pieces of art.

What we did find is that games like Gears of War, F.E.A.R., and Call of Duty 3 consistently engage players by specializing in a particular thematic emotion."

They then give 3 examples of games they studied and how the cutscenes were beneficial. About Gears of War they said of the cutscenes: "Together, over 80 percent of players reacted with one of the 10 most intense engagement responses of the game, no small feat for a title with bloody chainsaws and huge courtyard battles." Sounds like a ringing endorsement to me.

Their examples of bad cutscenes are briefings in GRAW2 and the info on battles in Resistance. Well, duh. Those aren't very exciting cutscenes.

Where they should have given more credit to Resistance is under the section about novelty weapons, because I felt Resistance had great weapons.

Their conclusion also contradicts your claim:

"Clients (and family members) always ask us if there's a single formula to compelling, engaging media, whether it's a video game, advertisement, or a movie. The truth is, there isn't.

But there are definite trends in what makes engaging and successful gameplay. At the end of the day, each of these successful games relies on superior execution and creativity to craft a uniquely engaging experience. Our big surprise is just how important the little things, like throwing a grenade, can be -- even more engaging than that epic and highly-scripted plot events.

Little things add up to more enjoyable experiences, higher Metacritic scores, and higher sales. In short, more fun. As we've seen, there are definitely some "rules of fun" that hold across these titles, and in some cases, across games in general. More interestingly, though, we're looking forward to seeing how future titles innovate and break these rules. As players expect more and more from their game experience, smart risk-taking in game design may be the only way to truly stand out in the crowd."

Your example of CoD4 is false because it does have cutscenes. That's why I mentioned that in my response.

Also, most reviews mention the pacing of games if they are good. That's not a new concept. I happen to love all the little things, great combat, great cutscenes, and great pacing of MGS games, so pardon me if I defend a guy that you had no justification to attack based on this article that really presents no new information other than telling us that some Xbox games did a good job.

That is very interesting. I find is especially interesting that cutscenes were actually harmful, and disengaged the players (suck on that one for a while, Kojima). But I can completely relate to that, because games like Half life or COD4 that keep you in the action at all times I feel are far more intense, immersive and engaging than games that have frequent cut scenes.

Also fascinating is how important pacing is. I've felt for a long time that pacing in a game is a far overlooked aspect to a game's quality. It takes alot of level design and fore thought to create an effective experience. Slower down times followed by big battles or intense fights. Lure you into security, give you a minute to come down off your high and then throw you right back up there into something crazy. Or gradually build up the pace into a climactic crescendo, and have the expected reward system of it coming down into something of a breather after the high is hit. Pacing is incredibly important to a satisfying experience.

I've always been saying that pacing is the most important aspect of storytelling (in any medium), interactive entertainment, and sex.

And regarding cutscenes, they're always better when done in-game so they don't distract you by making you want to set the controller down and wait.  If you're still controlling at least the camera or something while the scene goes on, you still feel involved.  That's one of the many reasons Half-Life was so genius back in 1998.