Kubrick, Kundera, and why cinematics in gaming suck balls

[Machocruz]

Kubrick/2001 nuthuggers are the worst

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

The idea video games shouldn't have cinematics is dumb. Take Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri for example. Alpha Centauri for my money is one of the best examples of video game storytelling there is; too many games try and be movies, (shitty movies at that) but instead of trying to tell a story in a traditional manner like books and film, Alpha Centauri delivers a nontraditional narrative through its gameplay...but also shapes the story the player is creating themselves with the cinematics that come with research. You strip out those nice well written cinematics from Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri and you've still got a good fun game, you've even still got half of what it's doing to create a story, but you don't have one of the best examples of what video games can do storytelling wise that other stuff really can't anymore.

The original Civilization already presented the player with celebratory and informational screens following completion of research, and the sequel added brief celebratory videos for constructing Wonders of the World. Alpha Centauri cleverly utilized these pre-existing features to add color and substance to the factions, the meta-story, and the setting more generally, by embedding quotes from faction leaders and others within completion of research and secret projects. However, the basic concept of allowing the player a brief moment to celebrate a technological advancement, completion of a major project, or even just success generally by improving another piece of your palace (or throne room in Civilization II) fulfills a valid function even without the addition of a story-telling purpose.

 

[J_C]

As a matter of fact, there was a book written for the movie by Arthur C Clarke, but it is not considered a masterpiece or of much importance.

 

[Assisted Living Godzilla]

The idea video games shouldn't have cinematics is dumb. Take Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri for example. Alpha Centauri for my money is one of the best examples of video game storytelling there is; too many games try and be movies, (shitty movies at that) but instead of trying to tell a story in a traditional manner like books and film, Alpha Centauri delivers a nontraditional narrative through its gameplay...but also shapes the story the player is creating themselves with the cinematics that come with research. You strip out those nice well written cinematics from Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri and you've still got a good fun game, you've even still got half of what it's doing to create a story, but you don't have one of the best examples of what video games can do storytelling wise that other stuff really can't anymore.

The original Civilization already presented the player with celebratory and informational screens following completion of research, and the sequel added brief celebratory videos for constructing Wonders of the World. Alpha Centauri cleverly utilized these pre-existing features to add color and substance to the factions, the meta-story, and the setting more generally, by embedding quotes from faction leaders and others within completion of research and secret projects. However, the basic concept of allowing the player a brief moment to celebrate a technological advancement, completion of a major project, or even just success generally by improving another piece of your palace (or throne room in Civilization II) fulfills a valid function even without the addition of a story-telling purpose.

It didn't say it did it first. Although Alpha Centauri did it better than any Civilization game before or after it. My point is simply that cinematics served a valid storytelling funtion in Alpha Centauri, and helped tell a story with a nontraditional narrative that to me feels uniquely video game in the manner it's told. I was addressing the op and using Alpha Centauri as an example of games doing what games do, and how cinematics were a key component in what makes that particular game so good beyond just the gameplay aspect of it.

I mean when it comes to video games I'd be the first to say: I don't want to watch the developers shitty movie. But I also don't think simply having a cinematic falls into that realm, and think cinematics can serve a function in a game. Cinematics can just be fun cool shit that makes stuff seems cooler too. I mean, takes something like Capcom vs SNK 2. There you've got a fighting game, which is about as pure gameplay of a video game genre you can get outside of puzzle games like Tetris, but the little special pre-fight intros some characters get with each other is this little extra bit of flair that's just cool to see...same with the stage intros in the first game. Same with strategy games like Nintendo's Wars games and SSI's Panzer General, and how you get a little cinematic of the two forces fighting during an attack. Do you need them? No. But they are cool, they do sell the action, and they do show those icons representing a unit are groups of whatever in a better and more interesting way than just a number does. Like I love those original Heroes of Might and Magic games, but they could've really used little cutaway cinematics like PG and Wars had.

 

[Jarpie]

But the question is, does those cinematics make the games to be "Citizen Kane of video games"?

 

[JarlFrank]

Both of these things ARE cutscenes.

Both were implemented specifically to cut down on cinematics, to keep players "in the game" or "in the moment". They serve the same function as proper cinematics, but they couldn't be less similar.

Both were implemented to cut down on cinematics... while still just being cinematics, except you still get to press buttons during them. Kinda like QTEs which tried to turn cutscenes into gameplay (and utterly failed at doing that, because everyone agrees QTEs suck).

Maybe the real solution for cutting down on cinematics would be to... actually cut down on cinematics?

 

[Trashos]

Let it be known that I DEMAND that my ice cream is COLD, and I will tolerate no fraud who tries to sell me hot ice cream.

I disagree that we are not at this point in gaming, we are deep into it. But maybe it does not matter what I believe. There has been a war going on recently (~2 years) in the movie industry about whether they should be serving cold ice cream once in a while, or just hot ice cream as they usually do. If the bad guys win, take a wild guess what it will mean for all media.
(you can search for Scorsese Amusement Park Films to find Scorsese's interview on BBC 1 that started the war.)

But the sad truth is that games are filled to the brim with features that are not even there for the people who came for the gameplay. I happened to focus on cinematics in the OP, but you can easily expand following the same logic. Judging by the answers, we have some people who can think here.

Now, I see that some of you have written reasonable posts about asterisks and exceptions. Knock yourselves out, I am not getting into that myself. Enjoy the incoming posts that will argue that the 40min unskippable cutscene in their favorite "game" exists to support the gameplay by fleshing out your companions. We have already had such occurences ITT. And I just gave an exaggerated example, but a cutscene neither needs to be long nor unskippable to be totally unacceptable. I am afraid that you are going to have to judge intentions.

 

[Riskbreaker]

Deleuze made much the same argument somewhere or other, it was one of few things from him that was intelligible to me/stuck with me. Each media ought strive to actualize its difference, be that which only it and no other media can, be that to the max.

But you can be more autistic and delusional with this. Wagner spoke of Absolute Work of Art. These were to be his operas (obviously) because they fused every other art form. So each work of art is participating in the idea of its particular form (say individual painting in the idea of painting), being its instantiation/embodiment, and all these are participating in the Idea of Art as such. It's all very German Idealisty and Romanticky and shiet. So Wagner opera is the most perfect embodiment of Art precisely because of its syncretism.
But what does it lack? It lacks involvement/participation of the audience.
So what would be the Absolutier Absolute Work of Art than opera (of later cinema)? Teh Vidya! Because it is the syncretism of all other forms PLUS participation of the audience.

That way you convince yourself that we're not (best/least harmful case!) wasting our time on something utterly ephemeral and that this industry isn't just late capitalism at its worst.

 

[Butter]

I think the most useful way to frame this issue is to say "How should developers try to advance the video game medium?" In the past 15-20 years, the primary advancements have been in presentation, e.g. fancier graphics, motion capture, 4K. I think most of us would agree that the gameplay has actually worsened over the same period. Developers have neglected the essential aspect of video games in favor of aspects that are easier to market in TV commercials and screenshots. They've tried to make video games less like games, and more like movies.

 

[Cugel]

If you follow this logic to its extreme then your ideal version of a videogame is stuff like Pacman or Robotron 2084 (they're definitely much more "pure" videogame than something like Planescape Torment). I don't think cinematics are the issue, the issue is developers who don't actually care about games making some shitty Hollywood ripoff because they couldn't make it in the movie industry.

 

[Trashos]

Daaaamn. I had promised to myself that I would not be commenting on specific games or developers ITT, unless Avellone's name came up. You got me now.

Tomorrow though. We have hell-like temperatures here and my brain is fried rn.

 

[Daemongar]

Just some thoughts: After seeing 2001, thought reading the book was essential as like most mortals, I had a question or two after seeing 2001. Answers it had, and it was a great book in its own right.

I also get Trashos - his premise about cut-scenes taking away from games rather than contributing. If I wanted to see a movie, I'd see a movie. I'm here to play a game so the medium should explore the strengths of what is available programmatically. In current games the cut-scenes take the place of gameplay - in older games they more or less added dimension that wasn't available at the time in any other way. The cut scenes in Lands of Lore 2 were effectively short videos to show what happens at key events to fill gaps, not so much as the story itself that unfolds when you play.

Additionally I think it was different when Civ 2 did it (as I still watch those cinematics after 1000s of hours) then when Assassin's Creed has some long boring talk between missions that in theory advances the story but in reality pads game time and bores everyone, contributing nothing.

Ah what the hell - here are all of the Civ 2 wonder cinematics, since they are so damn good.

 

[3 others]

Solid OP, and I agree with the core premise. Kundera's phrase ethical novel is odd, but sure, why not go with that and talk about ethics in games journ.. ethical music/movies/games. It's a useful concept.

2001: Space Odyssey is also a good example of an ethical movie that clearly knows what the strengths of a particular medium are, but it's not necessary to get stuck on only high art movies as ethical cinema. I mean, Kung Fu Hustle or plenty of Jackie Chan films are examples of cultural products that could only exist on worthwhile form as movies. And in between you have middlebrow ethical cinema such as Blade Runner. And then there are hybrid cases like Kurosawa's movies (or for a bit more contemporary example, Apocalypto) which could be written as adventure novels but greatly benefit from the cinematography and the director's skill with visual storytelling.

To riff on movies a bit more, sometimes it takes some time for a new art form to really come to grips with what makes it unique. I was watching the 1959 Sleeping Beauty animation film with the kids and was struck how the screenplay seemed to be written with a stage production in mind. Each scene seemed to form its own entity that could have been arranged for stageplay, with the most egregious example being the semi-comedic end scene of the movie's first act where the two kings carouse together with wine and song, setting up marriages for their children.

On the other hand, Buster Keaton movies from the silent era already seem very aware of what benefits a moving picture has, but that's enough digression...

Back to the main point, vidya games. This is a personal preference, but I think systems-oriented games (I'll call these systemic games for conciseness' sake) get closest to an ethical game archetype. By a systemic game I mean something like Papers, Please where the mechanics of the game guide you towards actually adopting the persona of a customs officer. The livelihood of your family depends on your salary, your salary depends on your job performance, and your job performance is measured with metrics out of your control. Maybe you'd like to be lenient with people and their sob stories but since all mistakes are docked from your salary, there's very little room for personal discretion. You can't really pull that type of immersion or storytelling (in a very light sense) in other media. That is an ethical game.

Lucas Pope's other game - Return of the Obra Dinn - is a different but not as comprehensive approach towards an ethical game by way of aesthetics. The same might well be true of generic 8-bit chiptune pixel art platformers, actually. Not an argument I'm particularly pleased with but it is what it is.

On a larger scale, Crusader Kings (at least 1 & 2) also creates a reasonably believable illusion of feudal Europe, and you have to adopt a medieval mindset to flourish in the game world. Your liege's word is law, a daughter is an asset to be married off, ambitious blood relatives are the biggest threat to your legitimacy, and scheming to kill your own child is a perfectly rational decision in the circumstances your realm might find itself in. Again, a very ethical game, if not necessarily an ethical video game, by which I mean that it could be reproduced as an overly complex boardgame as well.

 

[Trashos]

Well, here is the deal: Would you read Stephen King's The Shining and conclude that it explains Kubrick's film The Shining? I mean, the film is based on the book, right? But they are two very different beasts. Stephen King went public with his disapproval of Kubrick's film, so people quickly caught on that they should not base their understanding of the film on the book.

The situation with Space Odyssey is slightly different, as Arthur Clarke was hired by Kubrick to write the book, but it is still fundamentally the same. For example, the monolith in the movie is not the same thing as the monolith in the book. HAL's functions are not the same in the 2 works. Etc-etc. So no, you cannot expect the books to give you perfect answers for Kubrick's movies. Kubrick made movies, not books.

I do not claim to understand Kubrick's works perfectly (and I am confident that nobody can claim that), but it has been well-established that Kubrick was deep into Carl Jung's works on psychology. Among other things, Jung is notable for his work on the subconscious and intuition (and also archetypes, but that's probably more relevant to The Shining). So when Kubrick does not give you concrete answers in his film (and after repeating viewing, the concrete answers are still not there), I dare say that he does not want you to accept the book's answers. He wants you to engage brain functions that you didn't even know you had.

One last thing. One might think that you could meet Kubrick when he was alive, get him drunk or put a gun on his head, and he would explain what his films really mean. He could definitely give you some answers in words on why he made certain decisions, but as far as the full answer goes he 'd inform you that you already have it. The full answer is the movie itself, and it could not have been anything else.

 

[Trashos]

3 others, awesome post. I initially debated whether I should use Space Odyssey or Christopher Nolan's TENET as an example in the OP. Christopher Nolan (a huge Kubrick fan, btw) understands perfectly well what real cinema is, although he tends to compromise his vision to commercial needs much more than Kubrick ever did.

I could not decide however whether TENET could also have been a great action video game. Too early for me to make such a decision, I 'd need to rewatch.

 

[luj1]

Games becoming movies is one of the worst declines in gaming.

 

[J1M]

(this thread needs a warning at the beginning, but I am not sure what the warning should be.)

Ask any serious cinephile about the crowning achievements of cinema, and you will invariably get Stanley Kubrick's 2001 Space Odyssey among the answers. Space Odyssey may be an acquired taste, and may be a movie that is hard to understand. But there is no doubt that it is real *cinema*. It could not have been a great book, for example. As a matter of fact, there was a book written for the movie by Arthur C Clarke, but it is not considered a masterpiece or of much importance. The book was just another book. The movie, now the movie was a freaking masterpiece of cinema.

But what makes me say that Space Odyssey is "real cinema"? What is "real cinema"? Real cinema is movies that are movies, and could not have been books, games or anything else.

So let's explain this important concept. I am going to borrow Milan Kundera's ideas on what is a real novel (or, in Kundera's own words, what is an "ethical novel") and extend them to other media. According to Kundera, an ethical novel is a novel that does what only a novel can do. In other words, if there is something a writer can do with a novel that a director cannot do with a movie, a musician cannot do with music, a developer cannot do with a game, then that is exactly what he should be doing.

So let's get back to Space Odyssey. Do you think you can describe what it is about and do it justice? Do you think it could have been a book as important as the movie is? Or take one of the masterpieces of literature, say Gabriel Garcia Marquez's A Hundred Years of Solitude. Try to make a movie out of THAT without making a fool of yourself. Yeah, good luck. That is an ethical novel, a real novel. Try to transport it to another medium, and it will fall apart.

So now let's talk about gaming. Gaming has writing, sound, it has moving images, it has gameplay. GAMEPLAY. That's the distinguishing characteristic of gaming. In real gaming, in ethical gaming, you are supposed to be interacting with the content in ways that you cannot achieve in other media! Now, you can have writing, you can have sound, you can have impressive images, but they all should be in the service of gameplay.

Cinematics in games, on the other hand, make games that would rather have been movies. In light of my argument (or Kundera's argument rather) above, cinematics in gaming are UNETHICAL.


TL;DR: Novels are supposed to be doing what only novels can do. Movies are supposed to be doing what only movies can do. Games are supposed to be doing what only games can do. Take your cinematics and stick them up your ass.

Gameplay takes place in your head, not when you press an awesome button.

See: turn-based games. QED

 

[Trashos]

OK, as promised: Avellone time!

I do not care if you love Avellone or hate Avellone. I do not care if you love PST or hate PST. I do not care if you enjoy PST's particular brand of gameplay or abhore PST's particular brand of gameplay. This is going to be always in the context of the OP. Is PST an ethical/real videogame? And what about the cutscenes?

The way I see it, PST not only is a real videogame, but it is a pioneering one at that (if not in terms of invention-I don't know about that-, then in terms of mastery). Here, we are going to accept that gameplay is not just the fighting, but all the little games that exist within the interactive conversations, the skill checks, and everything the players can do in the game that they wouldn't be able to do in another medium. But with all the details going on within PST, where do we even begin?

I will try to cut right into what I believe is the core: PST, and Avellone's works in general, are impressive in the way that gameplay emerges out of the characters, the overall narrative, and the setting. Or maybe I should put it like this: In many Avellone's works, and certainly in PST, it is hard to discern where the story/characters/setting end, and where the gameplay begins. It is also hard to discern where the setting ends and the characters begin or where the characters end and the story begins. That is because all these components are blended together in a unique way that quickly became an Avellone trademark (in the works that he has plenty of control over). You wear your character's experiences as an armor for your fighting ffs!

But it is more than a trademark. In the light of my OP, it is easy to see that this unique blend could not exist in any other medium. It is a piece of videogaming's soul that Avellone brought to the forefront. And I don't know if he thinks about it in his head the same way that I do, but it is definitely intentional. We see it again and again in his works (in Dead Money too, for example), whole or elements of it.

Now, after all that, the rest is just details, and PST is certainly not without its flaws. I will quickly state that the cutscenes for spell casting were silly, the quick in-engine cutscene that introduced the shadows was at best sloppy, the writing could have been edited down here and there, and there are a couple of more cutscenes towards the end that you can take as homework.

But we have already agreed that we are thinking people here. You do not have to agree with me.

 

[baud]

Both of these things ARE cutscenes.

Both were implemented specifically to cut down on cinematics, to keep players "in the game" or "in the moment". They serve the same function as proper cinematics, but they couldn't be less similar.

they are worst, because you can't skip them, unlike most cinematics. Yes, in the HF2 you can move around and throw shit, but you're still stuck waiting for the Important Characters to tell how important Gordon is and how he's going to fix everything

 

[Neuromancer]

The situation with Space Odyssey is slightly different, as Arthur Clarke was hired by Kubrick to write the book

From what I remember from some interviews, it was more of a collaboration - and in the end the lack of one.


Kubrick wanted to make a Science Fiction movie together with Clarke and they went together through Clarke's work to see, what would be suitable to turn into a film.
They agreed on one short story from Clarke, which basically was only the scene, where the scientists dig out the monolith on the moon.

They worked together to flesh out this short story into a full fledged story and collaborated both on the script/book until at some point they disagreed about some fundamental things.
After that each finished the story in his own way. And this is the main reason, that especially the ending is very different in both adaptations.


Clarke wrote a pretty straight Science Fiction scenario where the astronaut travels through some quantum gate/wormhole and reaches a place provided for by alien beings without any corporal form. They kind of a transform him into into a spiritual being at the end.

Kubrick's ending is much more ambiguous with metaphorical and even religious allusions.

 

[Assisted Living Godzilla]

It's a space zoo. The astronaut gets put in a space zoo. Kubrick went all artsy with it to try and show how the astronaut had no sense of the passage of time, (he's doing the ending of Ken Russell's TV movie The Debussy Film) but I don't think it works because unless you've read the book or heard the interview where Kubrick expectedly says it's a space zoo you aren't going to know what the fucking is happening at the end of the movie,

The room looks weird because it's meant to be that the aliens constructed the exhibit by looking into the astronauts head, but they don't quite understand the design elements they're seeing.

Don't think either the space zoo or the stargate bits work. The stargate sequence is way too long for what it is and where in the movie it is. Like every version of it, from the Doctor Who intro I'd guess it's surely based on, to the drug vision is Enter the Void are better matches of imagery and music.

 

[RNGsus]

Gen Z produced games won't contain cinematics, because they won't remember what Indiana Jones or Star Wars looked like. They can barely watch a three second tiktok without falling asleep.

 

[Maxwell's Demon]

I do not claim to understand Kubrick's works perfectly (and I am confident that nobody can claim that), but it has been well-established that Kubrick was deep into Carl Jung's works on psychology. Among other things, Jung is notable for his work on the subconscious and intuition (and also archetypes, but that's probably more relevant to The Shining). So when Kubrick does not give you concrete answers in his film (and after repeating viewing, the concrete answers are still not there), I dare say that he does not want you to accept the book's answers. He wants you to engage brain functions that you didn't even know you had.

FYI: You should be reading Nietzsche, not Jung. Kubrick originally commissioned a completely original soundtrack for the film, but later decided to use classical pieces instead, making his choice of music significant. Nietzsche is right there in the title track. This fact would have been obvious to educated people at the time of screening, but most people today aren't aware due to the decline of classical music in the popular consciousness. Go look up "eternal recurrence" and the "Übermensch," and think upon those ideas every time you hear Also Sprach Zarathustra played, and all that once seemed inscrutable about the film will become clear to you.

 

[Trashos]

Maxwell's Demon, I have read my Nietzsche, do not worry about that. Agreed, the connection seems to be there.

 

[Monk]

I had a similar view in light of games like Starflight, Ultima IV, Below the Root, and Crusade in Europe. That is, they provided a lot even with limited memory and storage space.