The Asian Power Hour

So after I beat Metal Gear Solid 4, I've been thinking and mulling over this topic for a while. Is the cutscene still the best way to tell a tightly woven narrative in games? But what about the interactivity, isn't this technically a setback for the medium? And what about game like Resident Evil 4 and God of War, that have Dragon Lair style interactive cutscenes?

Well, after weighing the two types of storytelling in games;
1. Scripted
2. Emergent
I think I'd have to say that yes, MGS4 may not be the "best" example (aka xenosaga-esque length and confusion worthy cutscenes), but cutscenes are still the best way to tell a tightly woven narrative in games because there is nothing left to the hand of the player, everything is controlled by the designer and storyteller, who want you to see the story from their point of view. In this case, I sometimes feel that interactive cutscenes are inapporpriate as what this does is:

Force the player into one state (passive viewing of the cutscene), but then tries to interject interactivity suddenly, a rude awakening almost. If people in theatres were asked to do something like this, I'm sure the popular reaction would be very different. It's mixing two different mediums, but in a way that is unnatural. I feel that cutscenes in RE4 and games like Asian Dynamite do this poorly sometimes, even MGS4, although the alternative camera angle and flashback option is interesting.

However, if the cutscenes and interactivity are worked well together though, the outcome is amazing, much like the final boss fight in MGS4, no spoilers here, but if you've played it, it's mostly cutscene, but it feels like the player is controlling the action at all times. The key here I think is that:

The start and end of the cutscenes are controlled directly by the player. The very short length is also instrumental in this amazing demostration of illusionary player control.

Emergent narrative may catch up someday, but I think that even with emergent storytelling, most of it is dependent on the rules and system of the game that it is limited to. Most of these happen within MMORPGS or other online based games, which is a great example of open world design with an extremely limited (kill, quest, chat, etc) system, no matter how complex it seems, they filter down to a few base systems with highly restricted actions. And when mechanics and systems get completely opened up, like Second Life, well, sure, there is emergent narrative, but is it a game anymore?

And now, an outline of some brief thoughts on MGS4, hit the jump for the full article:

Top 5 Things I like about MGS4:
1. Possibly the strongest final boss fight in any game I've ever played.
2. The versatility of gameplay.
3. Core narrative and character design conveyed through game mechanics.
4. Drebin's shop system.
5. Production values.

Top 5 things I hate about MGS4:
1. Long and convoluted cutscenes.
2. Overattention to minute details.
3. Drebin's Shop and the case of the massive arsenal.
4. Install times between chapters.
5. Metal Gear Online.

So this completely blows my mind. Apparently there is a new sport out there (new being since 2003) called "Chess Boxing", in which opponents will box and then play chess in alternating rounds. The winner either wins the game of chess or KOs their opponent. This literally takes puts the meaning of brains and brawn into perspective. I'd say more, but really, that's the entire sport in a nutshell.

What I'd personally like to see is a marathon through obstacle courses with rounds of Sonic inbetween.

For more info, here's the wikipedia link.
And here's a video of the PT2 Chess Boxing World Championship.

Was linked this at work, I can not express in words how happy this makes me. Enjoy, as I have.

I think this simple one-panel comic pretty much sums the issue up. Elegant isn't it? Thanks to Chris for linking this to me from the TVtropes.org website. I think I pretty much go through life like the guy on the right.

Full-Sized Pic Here