CG cutscenes and gaming culture

by Ross Miller { Jan 3rd 2007 at 2:55PM }

In an interview with Lost Planet Community's Brian Dunn, Cutscene Director Yoshiyuki Tonoe and Director Kenji Oguro discussed the differences between how cutscenes are used in Western and Eastern gaming worlds. Their decision to use real-time cutscenes in Lost Planet stems from their research into how Western developers tended to tell the story within the game engine, whereas Japanese developers typically rely on CG graphics for the cinematic storytelling.

Tonoe dates the Eastern obsession with CG cutscenes to the original Biohazard (released March 1996), though arguably Square Enix had already begun to look into CG before the horror title's release with Final Fantasy VII, whose long development process began in 1995. "The latest CG movies found in games are stunning and really help sell the game," said Tonoe, "but when I think about how they are used to tie the story to the gameplay, I wonder if they are effective at making the games any better."

Pictured are some of the games used as reference material during Lost Planet's development. Tonoe cites The Lord of the Rings games, whose cutscenes were amalgamations of movie footage and in-game footage, as "above what Japanese developers were doing at the time."

Specific to their game, Tonoe remarks that there are 33 cutscenes in Lost Planet, totaling 73 minutes, averaging just under three minutes with the longest cutscene at around six minutes in length. What's your preference -- explosive CG eye candy or more immersive real-time storytelling?

[Via 1UP]

Tags: asia, bio hazard, BioHazard, culture, cut scenes, CutScenes, eastern, final fantasy, FinalFantasy, japan, lost planet, LostPlanet, resident evil, ResidentEvil, western

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)

Fernando Rocker @ Jan 3rd 2007 3:01PM

Just wondering if anyone knows if Nintendo will release an update in the future to support 720P video output (like how the XBox 360 now supports 1080P when before it only supported 1080i).

It seems a shame that the Wii's 480P resolution is less than the mainstream HDTVs that are now coming out, which tend to support 720P and above. I am happy with my Wii on my regular TV, but I can imagine there will be a lot of unhappy people who buy HDTVs with a native resolution of 720P and above, who will witness upscaling effects, who will not be happy. This may force an update to support 720P. What do other people think?

I mean... the first XBOX can display 720p and 1080i... and the Wii is more powerful than the first Xbox...

Daigoji Gai @ Jan 3rd 2007 3:07PM

More immersive storytelling, naturally. ;) Though, you can have both. E.g. Metal Gear Solid series. Not only does the franchise deliver in game cutscenes to further the action (which was done to perfection in Twin Snakes and reached new heights in Snake Eater), but they also feature plenty of explosive eye-candy!

Sean @ Jan 3rd 2007 3:14PM

I hate prerendered cutscenes. It destroys customization.

"At this point in the game, you and everyone else who ever plays the game, will have the exact same inventory, same character, and same party."

pandlcg @ Jan 3rd 2007 3:18PM

@ Fernando Rocker,
Quit posting that shit in the comments sections

ChrisBo @ Jan 3rd 2007 3:19PM

Personally, I prefer Half-Life's mode of storytelling.

Panadero @ Jan 3rd 2007 3:20PM

Just use the freaking game engine. Not only is it cheaper and requires less loading time, but it can lead to more dynamic "cutscenes" because you don't have to have every specific detail set in stone like with CG. If a character is wearing a particular suit or has a particular item in hand, those will be present in the cutscene as well. That and the fact that CG still looks better than ingame graphics means that using the engine would be less jarring when transitioning between gameplay and cutscenes. We should be past the "oooh, shiny" stage and be done with CG.

Ryan @ Jan 3rd 2007 3:24PM

I think in-game cut scenes work but I prefer CG. I liked how oblivion used in-game but I love how Metal Gear Solid uses CG and lets you watch the great story unfold. It's like playing a game and watching a movie at the same time. I think the CG puts you more into the story, but hey that's just me.

doubtful @ Jan 3rd 2007 3:25PM

I prefer in-game, game engine based story telling. Don't take the player out of the game or, as Sean mentioned, remove the customized aspects of the game.

32_Footsteps @ Jan 3rd 2007 3:25PM

I think pre-rendered cutscenes actually ruin in the immersive experience.

I'm sitting back, watching this incredibly beautiful scene unfold before me... and then when I get to actually control it, there's an incredibly obvious step down in quality. I don't get to control the gorgeous parts - just the parts that seem like a pale imitation. It's jarring.

Besides, more often than not the focus in development is obviously in making the cut scenes, which take up way too much disc space, pretty as opposed to making the actual gameplay deep or long.

Yeah, I could pretty much be happy if I never see another CG cutscene again.

tituspullo @ Jan 3rd 2007 3:33PM

I don't really care as long as you can skip them!

Duscrom @ Jan 3rd 2007 3:34PM

The irony is, Ryan, that MGS series has always done it's storytelling in Engine as well. IMHO, where real time graphics are currently, i want to see more developers pull away from pre-rendered nonsense, and use the game engine. I think Enchanted Arms gets it right. Most cutscenes are handled in engine, save for the ludicrisly beig ones.. where you're destroying a city with hundreds of people running in terror.

But for the most part you almost can have situations, like in DOA4, where the real-time models actually look better the the CG-pre-rendered ones.

I think the article does disservice to the readers as it talks about In Engine vs CG... and it confuses people like Ryan above.. considering that all Metal Gear Solid games, non-PSP ones, use the game engine for 99% of it's cut-scenes.

jaysins @ Jan 3rd 2007 3:37PM

I prefer ingame as well. I remember seeing all the CG cutscenes in FFVII commercials, and being quite young at the time, expected the entire game to look like that and was obviously dissappointed. Also, in Gears of War, I love how in the begining of the game the, scene where you get off the copter, it shows you and your squad fighting in a ingame cutscene and then goes to actual gameplay. You see the helicopter you just saw in the cutscene fly past you and shoot your enemies with no loading time and a very smooth transition. I thought it was really cool and loved way it was done. No load times and a smooth transition really helps move the action along. Less CG would be my preference.

bigd7387 @ Jan 3rd 2007 3:40PM

#1 don't understand what this has to do with the topic, but to answer your question, the Wii cannot do 720p because it's graphic chip isn't capable to do so. The 360 could do 1080p when it was released because the graphic chip had this available to use but the software wasn't activated until a year later.
On topic, I like realtime, if I want to watch a movie than I watch a movie, playing games is about playing games. Keyword=Playing, Not watching.

yggdrasil @ Jan 3rd 2007 3:43PM

Greetings;

I actually prefer CG cutscenes and I find them to be more immersive than the in-game scenes. The reason for this is that it is possible to achieve much greater facial detail through a pre-rendered CG cutscene, than is possible through the in-game engine. Almost half of our communication takes place without words; it's facial expressions, body language, tiny changes that we pick up as part of communication. These things are rarely done well in in-game cinematics. Whenever I watch an in game scene play out, I am often struck by how wooden the characters feel. This results in disbelief in the secondary world of the narrative, and as such a lessened degree of immersion in the story. With CG, these added details can be accomplished to a greater degree.

Just my opinion.

cronotrigger913 @ Jan 3rd 2007 3:43PM

What I'm seeing with CG is that they have to compress the video, making it look really bad. It actually comes out worse than the in-game graphics. I say get rid of CG altogether. It also helps with immersion, where you don't have to wait for it to load, seeing a black screen, and then watching it. It should work dynamically, like how in-game cinematics work.

Dracula Jones @ Jan 3rd 2007 3:47PM

It depends on how good the game engine is. Dead Rising's real-time cutscenes were great because the engine looked good enough to be cinematic. But Marvel Ultimate Alliance's tiny character models just wouldn't look good blown up to full screen size, so it had to use CG cutscenes, which were gorgeous. But relying on CG in a game that could easily go real-time is a development holdover from the original Playstation and needs to stop.

Les Doodis @ Jan 3rd 2007 3:49PM

I used to prefer CG cutscenes myself. Back when in-game graphics weren't that great, it was neat to see a full-blown cutscene with life-like realism. But now that the new consoles are pushing amazing in-game graphics, it works just as well to use that engine for cutscenes also.

BklynKid @ Jan 3rd 2007 4:02PM

Personally, I can't stand CG. Don't get me started on using CG for TV ads/trailers either, I consider that to be false advertisement and should be criminal. CG, in my opinion just takes away from a game. Nothing like playing a game and having the screen change to a movie. Give me in-engine cutscenes as an extention of the gameplay. GRAW did a great job with its lead-in. The helicopter scene as the briefing while allowing you to look around and behold the great graphics and when it was all done the helicopter landed, the camera flew into the guys head and boom you were in there playing the game. A lot more immersive than a CG movie could ever be. But all that is just me.

qbix @ Jan 3rd 2007 4:04PM

As long as I can skip cutscenes even if it's the first time I've played the game, I don't mind them. In fact, I like watching good CG sequences like the ones Blizzard implements in their games. However, most of the time I just want to play without unnecessary interruptions. I think the only place I really enjoy a great CG sequence is the ending.

Justin Hopewell @ Jan 3rd 2007 4:07PM

I have to agree with ChrisBo. Half-life and Half-life 2 had very engaging cutscenes, because it never felt like you were going into a cutscene. You never lost complete control of your character. On the other hand, I do enjoy the cutscenes in the MGS series and the Final Fantasy series because so much care and work went into them. A lot of games have cutscenes just for the sake of having them; its pretty much expected now. And they're not always that great.

Two things that drive me crazy are: A) Watching a load screen for a minute or so only to discover it was loading a cutscene instead of a playable part of the game and B) Cutscenes that cannot be skipped, even if you've already watched it (ex. you die and restart at a checkpoint that happens to be right before a cutscene trigger).

A lot of us older gamers don't have a lot of free-time, so we value every minute we have.

-justin hopewell

Fernando Rocker @ Jan 3rd 2007 4:08PM

Jeff @ Jan 3rd 2007 4:11PM

A cut-scene is a cut-scene, it doesn't matter if it uses the in-game graphics or not. The fact is it takes you out of the action either way. Given that, why not make it look as good as possible?

Personally, I've got nothing against cut-scenes as a general idea. Who doesn't need to take a break from gaming every now and then? The point is cut-scenes are a development consideration like any other; i.e. what cut-scenes do you really need? Is this the right place for a game break? Does the game flow right if you stick a cut-scene in a particular place? How long should this cut-scene be before you just want to get back into the action? Then of course, every cut-scene itself has got to be compelling, both visually and from a story standpoint.

I still think the Final Fantasy series makes the best use of cut-scenes and they're a mix of in-game and pre-rendered graphics. The in-game graphics are used for basic exposition, the pre-rendered for more important events. The in-game cut-scenes are usually short and don't break the action too much, whereas the pre-rendered ones can be quite long, but they're pretty infrequent. They're also almost always exquisitely beautiful, so that you're usually actually looking forward to the next one.

But bad developers can and do make bad use of cut-scenes, and that's mostly where they've got the bad rep they have. They're also not really appropriate to all types of games (though let's remember that both Pac-Man and Donkey Kong - the original arcade games - both pioneered the use of cut-scenes).

But in the right hands in the right game, a good cut scene can be a welcome break.

Daryl Kelly @ Jan 3rd 2007 4:12PM

Half Life had it right..

rcf1105 @ Jan 3rd 2007 4:15PM

Real-time. When I'm watching a CG cutscene, I'm no longer playing a game.

matthew @ Jan 3rd 2007 4:17PM

In general I prefer in-game, but there were a few cutscenes in Gears, for example, that I thought could have used a little CG touch ups.

It should maintain the same look and feel, but things like crumbling buildings or explosions could be enhanced a bit.

Bottom line, though, I hate not having control for more than a minute. I liked how Gears let you at least walk around slowly with Fenix while he's on the phone. They used that trick to both slip in story details *and* load the next environment. The story itself was weak, but I liked how they tried to deliver it.

J.Goodwin @ Jan 3rd 2007 4:20PM

Non-engine cutscenes certainly didn't originate with Final Fantasy VII.

Animated cutscenes with voice acting were around on the PC Engine CD, and still frames with text introducing the story were used a lot by SEGA in classics like Phantasy Star.

I'm not as familiar with Nintendo products, but I'd assume that they would have followed that same arcade tradition (attract screens). Even PAC-MAN had animated cutscenes.

Mr. Khan @ Jan 3rd 2007 4:36PM

You should use cutscenes based on the quality of your engine

I would say anything from 6th generation (PS2, GC, and so on) should be done realtime

Now, take the DS games FFIII and Metroid Prime Hunters, those games would've looked shitty had they used real-time cutscenes, and CG worked pretty well there

Regula Oblique @ Jan 3rd 2007 4:37PM

I love cg cut scenes, thats why im glad sony put blu-ray in the ps3 so devs can fill it up :) I really don't have a problem with it, games like final fantasy look beautiful with them, but games like gears or war still manage to look good with the in game engine, so both work for me.

Sean @ Jan 3rd 2007 4:41PM

Yggdrasil: I didn't know trees used facial expressions. :)

A counterpoint to your argument is Mass Effect. It's all 100% in-game, and has better facial expressions than most CG I've seen. Plus you can interact with the cutscenes. If someone is being long winded, you can actually interrupt them!

EkaFrikay @ Jan 3rd 2007 4:47PM

@1 will you please quit posting that comment? it has nothing to do with the topic.

I personally think cutscenes are annoying and should either be skippable or cut our altogether.

Dirk Dorkelson @ Jan 3rd 2007 4:51PM

I think whether CG cutscenes work varies from title to title. The CG Cutscenes in Lego Star Wars II, for example, are great. (It's too bad you can't skip 'em when you go back and replay the levels, though.)

My biggest pet peeve about CG cutscenes, though, involves ones in which the controller vibrates. I just don't like sitting on my couch, watching a three-minute movie while some thing shakes in my hand. You've already ditched the immersiveness of gameplay in favor of telling the story via a movie. Don't try to fool me into thinking there's still immersiveness and interactivity. It's an insult to gamers' intelligence to do this. We know when we're playing a game and when we're watching a movie.

imokurok @ Jan 3rd 2007 4:52PM

I was just thinking about this the other day. It was one thing in the PS1 days when the in game graphics weren't that pretty up close but this gen (and even last gen) the graphics are good enough that CG scenes aren't necessary anymore.

With game engine scenes there's more flexibility, like everyone's mentioned customizations aren't discarded and you can let the player control things like camera angle or interactive portions and you can drop straight from a scene to the next gameplay segment seamlessly.

I still like CG scenes for major beginning and ending sequences like the opener of MK Shaolin Monks for example. But after that the rest of the CG actually looks worse than the in game models. CG is expensive and time consuming and is no longer a major visual benefit so I think it's time to limit it to the periphery.

ill trooper @ Jan 3rd 2007 4:56PM

The machines are powerful enough now to create the in-game cut-scenes if they need to be there, and it keeps the imagery consistant with what it looks like when you're actually playing. When you see a beautifully pre-rendered cut scene, it makes you realize what the developer wants you to _pretend_ you're playing, and it can knock you out of your 'suspension of disbelief' momentarily.

I don't mind the story exposition, and It's not to annoying to me as long as the second time I see them, I can interrupt them.

It's a little off-topic, but I'm with BklynKid: I hate the CG commercials we see these days, (even the ones you dudes find poignant - you know, the one with the Tears for Fears cover song) because that's NOT what the games generally tend to look like - it's just misrepresentative of the game itself.

I liked when the Call of Duty 2 ad got flat busted in the UK and pulled for being a misrepresentation of the game, and I liked it when the Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory ads specified 'actual In-game footage.'

accidental @ Jan 3rd 2007 4:59PM

Resident Evil 4 used it's in-game engine for all cutscenes which I thought was awesome. I agree that CG makes you realise the in-game graphics look shit, especially when you're seeing amazing-detail in the characters and environments and when you're back in-game those same things are ther but look 10 times worse. Even if the cutscenes are kinda pre-rendered but using the in-game engine is fine, the main problem with CG is the transition between what you're seeing in-game suddenly look amazing in CG and then look decidedly lame afterwards when you're back in the game.

Fernando Rocker @ Jan 3rd 2007 4:59PM

Zelda Twilight have beautiful in-game scenes

Ken Seang @ Jan 3rd 2007 5:02PM

Well, if the game has good graphics then in-game cut scene will do, but if its crap then CG is best. Also, on another note, did anyone forget RE4 cut scene where you would have to pay attention to it and press the correct set of buttons correctly or else your character will die?!?!

ill trooper @ Jan 3rd 2007 5:08PM

Dirk, We have just the thing for YOU! The PS3! Some new cell-processor advances make it so there is no possibility of rumble during cutscenes!

Rubang @ Jan 3rd 2007 5:10PM

CG cutscenes are for YouTube, not for games.

Matt @ Jan 3rd 2007 5:18PM

Personally I have never been a huge fan of the long cut scene. I really enjoy the movies that developers put in before the game starts. I think those do a lot to setup a storyline before you hit that "start" button, but 3-6 minute cut scenes are way too long. I don't have the paitience to sit through that, especially when I plan to play a game. What makes cutscenes even worse is perhaps the voice acting. Even if it is good I can always read it faster then the characters speak it so I skip through it anyways.

VampireHunter Z @ Jan 3rd 2007 5:22PM

So I guess the general consensus here is typical of western gamers: No CG. Some of you don't even want any cutscenes. I hope you are not the same people complaining about the story in Gears. If it was up to you, you would skip the story anyway.

doghell @ Jan 3rd 2007 5:31PM

in games like metal gear and gears of war the cutscenes use in-game assets most of the time. even if they are pre-rendered. its easier that way. there isnt any load time, cause its pre-rendered, and the devs use in-game assets (sometimes they up the poly counts a little) so that the transition is smooth.
this seems like the best way.

although pure cg cutscenes rock when they done right. check blizzards stuff man.

Jake @ Jan 3rd 2007 5:33PM

I have a novel idea: Let's make the whole game look good! Do we have the technology nowadays? Why yeeeesss!(Simpsons character ftw)

Delive @ Jan 3rd 2007 5:44PM

Using marvel:Ultimate alliance as an example, the CG scenes get replay because it's more interesting to watch.

The TiaMaster @ Jan 3rd 2007 5:45PM

The cutscenes in GoW were arguably some of the most exciting ever, and were in-engine, which is preferable to most people. So why not just have all games have in-engine graphics like that?

Ben @ Jan 3rd 2007 5:52PM

CG Cutscenes are a lie...

Any of the CD-ROM based consoles and beyond can display hollywood-budget video and CG. But I don't care that millions of dollars worth of equipment can make an CG image that looks amazing. I already know that. That's why we have movies.

I love storytelling aspects of games, but show me what this $400 piece of hardware can do.

Leave me submerged in the same virtual environement I play the game in.

And PLEASE stop showing off CG cutscenes in commercials. Ever see a Final Fantasy commercial? Looks like the most amazing looking game ever. Then you pop it in and it's a 2d turn-based crap basket. No thanks.