The thing with HL's scripted sequences is that the devs encourage you to look at them, but they don't force you to do so. You can completely ignore what's happening if you want. Current games, on the other hand, force you to look at them by locking your view/immobilizing you because it took devs hours and hours to make these sequences. 

Yeah, that's true and it's also illustrative of how Half-Life benefited from a thin plot. If you missed one of the interactive scenes or something someone said, it didn't really matter. Or, more precisely, the designers didn't mind.

These days, designers often see themselves as master story tellers and therefore want to make sure you hear and see every detail of the web they're weaving for alpha bravo kilo squad in uzkatstan or where ever.

The reality is, nobody care. :) 

it's still a C grade story. 

So is pretty much anything. The value is in the execution, not the story. The story is just a catalyst for the experience. 

as in different formats like books and films can have better than C grade stories.

But yeah I agree execution can cover up simplicity and unorignality in a format like a game.

Also my comment wasnt directed at Half Life's story but your point about designers thinking they are master storyellers. 

Sure the story is nothing special, but the presentation is very nice. It reminded me of a lot of the environmental effects in Duke 3D but now in actual 3D. Eg the grenade thrown in your face as you crawl through a pipe or the air shaft being shot to pieces. The events are short and fun, not OMG SO EPIC!!!! DRAMATIC MUSIC PLAYING! AVATAR SAYS OMG TOO!!

I think what makes it better than "modern games" is that the scripted sequences are very short and to the point (ignoring the intro). Also no cringe-worthy things or actions the avatar does iirc. Pretty much the only thing like that is the weapon animation with the bugs? 

These days, designers often see themselves as master story tellers and therefore want to make sure you hear and see every detail of the web they're weaving for alpha bravo kilo squad in uzkatstan or where ever.

Agree completely.

They also see themselves as master directors, and it's important that you lose control during these sequences because they really really really want to frame the action like this and cut dramatically here.

To be fair, framing and camera cuts are basically free. If you can create a feeling of dread with good camera work, you're better off than if you tried to create it through palpable emotional tone in a room full of characters, visibly and audibly frightened, glancing with worry at each other, etc, even if the latter is much better for grounding the player in the world.

then of course you have the risk that as Dr. Manchester is giving his dramatic monologue about whatever, the player spends the entire scene trying to balance a trashbin on his head, but you've lost those players anyway. 

is just a sub-game... Also I feel like in a lot of modern shooters that I'm not THE guy. If I'm playing a game I want to be the hero of my own damn fantasy world. 

In my experience designers want to make a game.

The expensive bauble of FMV littered throughout a game is usually mandated by production and the client.

No level or game designer is going to wake up one day and say 'I really want to stick a tedious couple of minutes in the middle of my game today!'

After it's been done, they are the ones who enable the trashcan on head feature to mess about with the animation department's painstakingly constructed scene and productions pricetag justification feature. 

"In my experience designers want to make a game. "

Some want to make movies. They SAY they want to make games but, really ... 

That's true. There are many self deceivers.

But they tend not to last long and the games they work on are bad, so who cares.

Maybe those unlucky enough to have paid for the game. But if you don't take the time to read a couple of reviews before an expensive purchase then you've only yourself to blame. 

I've come around to the Carmack sentiment.

"Stories in games are like stories in porn - everbody expects one to be there but nobody really cares about it"

Which seems ridiculous at first glance - everyone has played loads of games where the story was pivotal and had real meaning and blah blah blah.

But you play a game for the play. The only good story in a game is one told through the mechanics of play.

Bastion comes to mind as a good (if slightly overkill) example. 

Bastion wasn't my type of game because at one point I realised I was collecting maguffins and not pieces of the plot anymore. 

"But they tend not to last long and the games they work on are bad, so who cares. "

*cough*Kojima*cough*

Heh... 

Lets be honest, Kojima lasted bloody ages... and the games were good despite the ridiculously long cutscenes. 

 

Fucking perfectly expressed. 

http://phoboslab.org/xibalba/
Cute little WebGL Wolf3D-ish FPS. Five levels, takes about 30 mins to play through. First level is a bit boring. I like the tree enemies.

Borrows some quake textures, and if I squint right it looks like some quake 3 and doom 3 textures as well. Hard to tell with so low res though. 

crashes and exits when I hold down ctrl for too long in Chrome, it seems.


.


But WHY 

... how can I strafe left or right... ? that would be usefull :( 

a and d? 

Quite a few games I loved had cutscenes. They always felt like a reward, and if they were actually good, they didn't bug me at all. I've seen some amazing cutscenes.

I think it's a matter of taking a good hard look at your list of cutscenes and turning them into interactive ingame things wherever possible - leaving control to the player, and making the rest of them convey crucial, meaningful information at least in an entertaining way.

Personally I have nothing against not being THE GUY in games, I like steering protagonists around like in Mass Effect equally much. Heck, I play as female characters regularly despite being straight male because I like steroid beefcake space marines even less. I guess it's how likeable the protagonist is, and how much reason he/she has for being himself/herself, that makes the difference.

I find talking protagonists quite charming.

It's just hard to avoid cutscenes in some cases. Dialogue for instance - if the player makes the conscious effort to initiate dialogue with some NPC, you can assume they really want that conversation, and thus disallowing them to do the thrashbin thing for the duration of the dialogue isn't really such a big difference. The player stated their intent when they approached that NPC.

If the cutscene can be ended by pressing ESC I don't see the big problem - in that case it's just optional bonus content, and are you gonna bitch about that?

It's a bit like in a classroom - sometimes you gotta be able to stop them throwing paper balls around, if you want to keep it at a certain niveau, else you can just designate it Garry's Mod and give the teacher a week off and every pupil gets a book of matches. Hooray. You now have a base level game about anarchy and destruction.

But there are some games that aren't that kind of game, don't advertise themselves as that kind of game, and that is OK. Different games for different people. Sometimes you want to show how something affects the protagonist without words, or specific meaningful interactions of the protagonist with other characters, and that's perhaps not possible if the player is allowed to set shit on fire while the scene tries to happen. If you declare things like this unreasonable in games, you rule out an entire class of games.

The Carmack quote about porn is in my mind one of the dumbest things anyone has ever said. He is basically comparing games to porn without batting an eyelash. Says a lot about his idea of his own games. Incidentally, Carmack is a big mechanics guy - maybe that limited mindset explains why he finds games and porn so comparable. Yep, you can compare mechanics to mechanics but games are not necessarily just about mechanics.

Reducing everything about video games to mechanics - mechanics are king - especially with the whole move to massively multiplayer stuff (mechanics are even more king) is a newfangled thing I don't like. It is a mindset that is too much like an engineer's for my liking and not enough like an author's or an artist's. This is not just an issue in games - it's a social issue where mechanics and everything you can test and measure are deemed most worthy and desirable, and where the individual or the consumer is seen as the center of the world. The consumer is king, don't take power away from the consumer. Bow to his will.

It should be the privilege of an artist - of a human - to ignore that, really. The world is big enough for games with cutscenes. Sure, it's a difficult thing to tell a story well in a videogame, and it can be done better. But I'll take a game that tells a good story in an imperfect way over a massively multiplayer online jerkfest with shitstorms if a shotgun delay is changed from 0.2 to 0.3 ANY FUCKING DAY.

That's just me. Feel free to disagree. 

HTH, discussion over. 

http://phoboslab.org/wipeout/ 

Reminds me of http://www.locomalito.com/8bit_killer.php