Dragon's Lair Rides Again
by J. Matthew Sloderbeck

Most games, on the most basic of all levels, exist to do two things: to entertain the players, and to tell a story. Whether the story is of kings and queens sending their soldiers to do battle, a brave young hero adventuring with the fate of the planet in his hands, or something as basic as a simple love story, if a game wants to tell a story, it should do it succinctly, and do it well.

Roleplaying games by their very definition exist to tell each player a story. Whether it stands as something truly original, or merely rehashes the same tired plot, we as RPGamers are ultimately interested in watching a story unfold with its share of heroes, villains, monsters, and magic. That is why we play the games that we play, and why we put down our hard-earned money for them.

But the other side of that equation demands that along with a story, a game must be entertaining. More bluntly, a game should involve playing something. Chess players move their pieces in a coordinated attack. Monopoly players move their pieces around the game board, hoping to strike it rich. Hell, even kids playing Mousetrap get to interact with something while they're racing for that elusive piece of cheese at the end. If a game is about anything, it is about interaction.

So, where does that leave us when it comes to RPGs? In a delicate balancing act between telling a story and creating an actual game, some creators stray too far in the direction of becoming storytellers rather than actual game designers. This gave birth to what has at times become the bane of my gaming existence: the dreaded "cutscene." Cutscenes have been around for as long as RPGs have, but the nature of the cutscene changed forever during the last generation of consoles, when media could finally support and hold video and computer-generated clips which opened an entirely new segment of story development. I just wish someone would clue a few of these developers into the fact that if I wanted to watch a movie, I'd have bought one in the first place.

One example that immediately leaps to mind would be Xenosaga. This 'game,' if a game it can be called, stretched the concept of a cutscene to its absolute limit until it bordered on the ridiculous. Why do I have to sit through so much of a story? Isn't there supposed to be a game somewhere in the middle of so much animation? I'll readily admit that what story I saw there did have it good and bad parts, as every story does, and that I enjoyed what portions of the game I was able to play, but Xenosaga still pushed the boundaries of where a game ends and an "interactive movie" begins.

Far less of an offender in this department, yet still worth mentioning, might be some of the later entries in the Final Fantasy series, specifically Final Fantasy X and its sequel Final Fantasy X-2. It's far easier to classify these as games because the cutscenes aren't as painfully long as they are in Xenosaga, yet the overabundance of video clips can be jolting at times.

In essence, that might be the necessary evil that cutscenes have become, in my opinion. Some parts of the story are simply told better through acting and video clips and such, rather than the alternative of forcing a player to speak to his companions or countless numbers of NPCs to progress the story. In that case, cutscenes can be a good thing. That said, games that force numerous or overly long cinematics depreciate the actual gameplay experience in the long run.

It seems likely that as graphics become more crisp and impressive on new hardware in the future, the cinematic flair will only increase, which means that we can look forward to even more "games" that have less to do with gameplay and more to do with seeing what new full motion video developers can squeeze out of consoles and personal computers in the months and years to come. The actual possibility of gameplay graphics looking as good as cinematics is encouraging, but developers have yet to deliver on such promises. EA got caught with their proverbial hands in the cookie jar when it came to The Godfather for the Xbox 360 as the final results are decidedly less than what was originally promised. Everybody knows just how the 'Big Three' can be when it comes to hyping the graphics for new consoles.

Video games should be just that: games. They should involve entertaining gameplay. Cinematics and video can be good things and have their own place, but they shouldn't usurp the game that features them. After all, if I want to watch a movie that requires a controller, I'll go play Dragon's Lair again.

Frosting is Tasty
by Michael Cunningham

Cinematics are the frosting atop the RPG cake. Story and characters are the cake itself, but what is a cake without frosting? Not near as tasty as it should be, that's for sure. Good quality cinematics really make games, especially RPGs, stand out and be noticed. After all, RPGs are telling a story. Why shouldn't they be as grand as possible? Some would say that cinematics take away from the rest of the game in terms of gameplay, but I say that when done right, cinematics frost RPGs in a light that makes them shine.

Storytelling through the use of cinematics has helped RPGs become much more epic. Imagine trying to tell a story as deep and involved as the Xenosaga series without the use of cinematics. You would likely get lost in the mass amounts of text. Detractors of the Xenosaga series will sometimes cite the massive amount of cutscenes included in the game as the major downfall of the series. I disagree completely; if anything the cutscenes and cinematics saved the game from a boring, repetitive battle system. Was the majority of Xenosaga: Episode I cinematics? Yes. Was it a top notch RPG with tons of supporters? No. But does the mass amount of cinematics equal the loss of quality? No, there were clearly other issues that made it what it was; cinematics had nothing to do with it.

Immersion is what it's all about and cinematics help to accomplish that goal. How it accomplishes that goal depends on many factors. If you leave the eggs out of a cake, it doesn't matter how tasty your frosting is. Developing an RPG is much the same; you have to have the core of the game (story, gameplay, etc.) before the cinematics help at all. If the core aspects are in place, having beautiful cinematic cutscenes helping to tell the story immerses players even deeper within the game.

Taking that into account, cinematics have gotten a bad reputation because of the haphazard treatment they get. You can't just throw a CG intro onto a game and expect it to make magic. Adding cinematics as an afterthought does not constitute a good use of resources. Cutscenes should be included in RPGs as more than just eye candy to show off; they should serve a purpose. The area that cinematics are most going to help with should be the story. They should help to express and evoke emotions, not only be pleasing to the eye.

Many RPGs do have a tendency to use cinematics to add that extra flare to the game, but most do so in a tasteful way. Final Fantasy X's use of cinematics during key scenes, such as the sending on Kilika Island and the final scene on the airship, evoked emotions that a non-cinematic approach could not have accomplished. The little details like the people in tears and Yuna and Tidus's hug are the extra spark that cinematics added to capture the moment in a more realistic light. I'm not saying that non-cinematic scenes have no impact, but just imagine how much more impressive Kefka's reign of terror would have been in full CG glory.

The delicate touch of cinematics is essential and should be used only as needed. Not only should it be used as more than an afterthought, but its use should not be over abundant. A cake with too much frosting will make you sick. A cutscene is not needed for every little event that takes place. You don't need to see every ship take off, nor every city you enter in CG. Keep the CG for plot points and emotional evocation. Some would take the stance that the Xenosaga series took this over abundant method of cinematic use to extremes, but that's not entirely true. The heavy use of CG was focused on story elements for the majority of the game. If that is too much for some, then say that the game was too storyline centered. Don't blame the cinematics.

CG cutscenes are not the villain here. They are not reason for the success of games, nor are they the cause of failure. They merely assist a good game in becoming more polished or at least attempt to shine a piece of dung. Regardless, they are an essential part of the high end gaming industry and should not be looked down on or especially overlooked. At this stage in the game, RPGs without cinematics are almost always looked upon as outdated regardless of the other aspects. This is a shame and tends to lead into a negative spin. In such cases, RPGamers should not reward improper use of cinematics and should praise those that do it right. Beautiful stories deserve a beautiful presentation. Cinematics make that happen.