In defence of: Cutscenes.

Put that controller down for a second.

Wanna know what grinds my gears? All of this lambasting culture around the art of video game cutscenes does. It really drives me nuts. I'm not talking about a few people who dislike a certain type of lazy cutscene or one that imbues a confused tone, I'm talking about a wide part of the gaming community (Emboldened mostly by reviewers and journalists) who feel is it their duty to try and exorcise cutscenes from gaming altogether. It absolutely astounds me that such an innocuous and, occasionally, positively transformative practise is treated so brutally by people who seem to consider it a 'lazy storytelling tool.'

To play devil's advocate, I do understand where this sentiment spreads from. Afterall, Video games are meant to be games, right? You play through the interactive portion, complete your objective, score your points (like the wider media likes to say) and then promptly switch of the console the moment that the credits roll. That's how games used to be, back in the days of the Atari, and that is the way that they should always be, right? Perhaps I'm being a tad facetious there, but you can see the root of my ire. People want to treat video games like it is it's own form of media and therefore cannot borrow some of it's elements from similar forms of media otherwise it's "Cutting corners" or "being unimaginative."

Allow me to shatter this idea that people have about gaming; it's not a brand new artform that materialized the second someone invented Pong, it is an evolution of several art forms that collate into something distinct. It borrows from the visual storytelling that one can find in paintings, drawings and Film, with the audible storytelling from film, radio and music and, occasionally, the written storytelling from books. There are a few unique aspects to gaming, such as the concept of interactivity and the way that immerses the player into the world, but this is just the backbone of an organism made of several parts.

None of this is to say that there is no such thing as lazy cutscenes in video games that take from the experience, of course they exist. Just as we moan when we see a wall of text at the beginning of a movie telling us what we should know, (or clap, if its in Star Wars)  there can be some erroneous uses of cutscenes that do more to harm one's immersion rather than aid it. The key is balance and quality of content. Balance, in assuring that the most important element of a game (the gameplay) holds up and that you don't start seeing cutscenes as a 'reward' for pushing through the game (if you're playing the game just to see the next cutscene, then your priorities are clearly out-of-whack.) ; and Quality, in ensuring that the artistry behind the scene borrows from the medium that mastered visual storytelling (Movies) as much as possible and doesn't just become an exposition dump.

"But why are you so passionate about this particular topic?" You may wonder. Well, it stems from the same source that fueled my passion in the 'lore' blog; I live for context. Every part of an immersive journey is shaped and made by it's ties to context; without it, everything becomes meaningless. Playing a game for the sake of gathering points or reaching the end screen is fine enough; heck, if the game is good enough I will even play for the sake of playing, but I cannot feel like part of that world until you begin to make it real in my head or allow me to do so myself. Just look at 'The Bells' from Game of Thrones Season 8; (Spoilers; as if that matters.) that entire series dropped the ball in it's storytelling to such a degree that nothing felt like it mattered anymore. As a consequence, a visually spectacular scene (the burning of King's Landing) lacked all emotion resonance and just became a 30 minute stunt show. I remember checking the time on my phone during the scene, wondering how big this bleeding city is. Establishing the correct context is paramount to making a story.

Cutscenes are another tool towards establishing that context. They allow for the focus of the game to be taken away from the action for a second and give you moment for your characters to shine through and your stage to be set. Some games, such as Assassin's Creed, try to do away with traditional cutscenes whether out of artistic choice or to save on resources. As a result, Assassin's Creed has to rely on exposition delivered while walking around the environment listening to someone else. Reviewers hate this too, claiming how these games are all just walking down the street listening to someone else talk (An incredibly reductive comment in it's own right, but still a somewhat valid criticism.)

The truth of the matter is that game companies could relegate all of their conversations to occurring in-game, but in many instances this would sacrifice the pace of the game. (The biggest point of contention for these critics.) When you are in the middle of action gameplay, that action is the central point of your attention and everything else is secondary. When someone is talking and explaining important things to you, it is easy to ignore some context if that isn't the only thing that the player is focusing on; this is the reason why some of the later COD game's stories get lost in themselves.

"But doesn't pausing the action for a cutscene also cut into the pacing?" Absolutely. If you misplace them, just like anything else in the creative process. If you are in the middle of a shootout and you cut away to a peaceful scene elsewhere, that would rob the story of it's pace and urgency and throw you off your game, just like it would if that happened in any movie. Most game writers and developers are cognizant enough not to do that and instead insert scenes during lulls in the action. Critics could then argue that such a measure would elongate lulls and stagnate the action, to which I would have to refute that such a stance fails to account for the medium at play.

You see, there is another aspect that separates video games from movies, their length. Games can be 20-30 hours longer than a movie, maybe even 80-100 if we're talking about an RPG. In all of that time, it would insane to maintain a pace that even resembles the structure of pacing in a movie. In film, once you hit a rhythm you need to ride that as long as possible, maybe even until the end; In games, that rhythm should ride you onto the next big narrative event before things cool back down. It would be tiring and desensitizing to try and maintain that pace for the full experience and would harm the overall story. Just look at COD and Battlefield, they always fall into this trap in their single player campaigns and everyone one comes away remembering them as adrenaline-filled and shallow. You need that variation in the pacing in order to keep things fresh.

Ultimately, cutscenes are not a detriment to video game storytelling but an incredibly vital component. It may be trendy to throw that, and other lore establishing devices, under the bus whilst pining for the simplicity of 'the good old days', but one needs to remember that the art of Video games has evolved substantially since the Atari days. When we recall what it was about bar-raising video games, like Ocarina of Time and Metal Gear Solid, that pushed the medium forward, we can see it was the maturity and deftness with which they handled and delivered a compelling narrative. As new experiences shape the way that games are made I doubt we will be seeing less of cutscenes, but more elaborate and groundbreaking ones as we push the art of visual storytelling forward. (and subtly replace movies.) Oh, and for the record: Say what you will about Metal Gear but Snake Eater's cutscenes are all sublime.