A Word or Two on Cut Scenes

Where would video games be without cutscene's? Not nearly as far as we are now that's for sure, they build tension, tell a story, give invaluable information for proceeding through the remainder of the game, and they're just plain entertaining. In short, the video game as we know it today would be nothing without the cutscene. Having said that however, cutscenes are a delicate scalpel that too often get treated like a broadsword, hacking and slashing legitimate gameplay to make room for their own purposes. Cutscenes are meant to by symbiotic, benefiting both game and gamer, yet all too often they become parasitic, killing both.

An example would be in order, and, right off the top of the list, I would have to say the best use I've seen in recent gaming would be in Red Dead Redemption. It actually makes sparing use of cutscenes, choosing instead to use travel time to relay information and what scenes there are end up being more memorable and interesting. This is contrast to COD: Black Ops which chose to use almost no cutscenes and attempted to deliver all its information through the course of events, it just doesn't give the player enough engagement to get involved. Mafia II struggled a bit with this balance, the scenes were a bit long at times, even though they told a great story, and they might have killed the game if it hadn't been for the fact they were skippable (I found this particularly true with the expansions).

This is the cardinal rule that gets broken all too often, and one you'll hear players complain about above all others, when cutscenes cannot be skipped over. Put as little or as much s you want in there and let the player choose how they want to treat it, especially if you're trying to sell replay value.

A bad example? The worst I've ever seen is in a game called Bonetown, an X-rated game about sex and drug use, nothing innovative or compelling (beyond the nudity), but largely playable; that is to say largely playable other than the frequent, unskippable, and boring custcenes. They're meant to be funny and entertaining, but the game is just difficult enough that you often end up sitting through the pedantic dialog over and over again, waiting to see if you'll get it this time. I guess people who write porn aren't really cut out for interactive creativity, who'd have thought?

Pay attention to the next game you play and judge for yourself, if you don't enjoy it due to boredom or difficulty, there's at least an even money chance this is due to the data being relayed to you as a player, a well made cutscene might engage you more or help you out of a bad spot. If you are enjoying it, it's very likely due to well placed cutscenes, providing engagement and information that makes you want to stick around.

Green Lantern Trailer

Watched a new trailer for the Green Lantern today and while it looks leaps and bounds better than the one released last year I still have reservations. Here it is:

The movie looks cool and I think I may have gotten past Ryan Reynolds being chosen as Hal Jordan; I still think he's a tool, but I had reservations about Robert Downey Jr as Iron Man up until I saw the first movie and that worked out fantastically. My problem is a legendary issue with super hero movies, it just usually doesn't manifest until the a sequel, often the third, the rule of multiple bad guys. Check your super hero movie history and you'll quickly see what I'm talking about: Batman Forever, Batman and Robin, Spiderman 3, and Superman 2 for example.

In most cases (not Superman 2, that one ruled) this has brought a demise to a franchise, the creative teams start running dry and pull in multiple bad guys. They don't offer enough on their own to be spectacular, but bringing them all in at the same time dilutes the soup too much and you don't get a sense of flavor. You want an example of too many villains making a bland movie? Try Daredevil, Ben Afleck wasn't the worst part of that movie, he actually didn't make a bad Matt Murdock, it was too many bad guys mixing it up.

Based on the trailer alone I see Parralax, Hector Hammond, Sinestro, and what looks to be elements of the Blackest Night story lines, which could bring the Anti-Monitor into play. At best I think they are making a movie inaccessible to the uninitiated, too many weird and fantastic plot turns to explain in one movie without prior knowledge, and at worst they're going to skim over most of them like third rate characters in a bank heist movie.

Now to be fair it looks like Sinestro is going to still be a Lantern for the entirety of this movie, and I could be mistaken about the Blackest Night stuff, and therefore also the Anti-Monitor, but that still leaves Hector and Parralax to deal with. Take a look at the Iron Man plot, the villain barely counted as a bad guy, but it worked; I think they could have done something similar here, an origin story with some conflict. At this rate there won't be much room for sequels, even if they are warranted. I truly believe that a good writer could take any of these guys and make a great movie, especially when an origin story is being told at the same time. Nobody wants an Iron Man clone, but when a formula works it might be a good idea to apply elements of it.

I still plan on watching this movie and actually have a bit higher hopes for it now, but I'm keeping my reservations until it's over.