The Cinematic Is A Lie: The Misleading Art Of Cutscenes And Trailers

69 Comments Posted November 19, 2009 - By Jake Gaskill

The Cinematic Is A Lie

I can tell you the exact moment when game cinematics/trailers moved beyond casual fascination for me. Fittingly enough, I was at a movie, waiting for the feature presentation to start. (If I recall correctly, it was the James Bond flick Die Another Day). One of the trailers that played before the movie was for Blizzard's WarCraft III. The trailer went a little something like this:

This isn’t a knock against Blizzard, since they have produced some of the most acclaimed games ever made. However, when you watch the trailer and then watch the below gameplay footage, it’s pretty obvious that two very different experiences are being presented.

The theatrical trailer has a very Lord of the Rings vibe of high intensity action-fantasy, and the gameplay is decidedly not that at all. Sure, there is action taking place in a fantasy setting, but it doesn’t even come close to capturing the same sweeping, epic tone that the trailer teases. I thought the exact same thing when I saw the following trailer for BioWare’s most recent effort, Dragon Age: Origins:

Dragon Age: Origins Sacred Ashes Trailer »

Now look at some gameplay:

Dragon Age Origins E3 2009 HD Direct-Feed Gameplay »

Granted, fighting a dragon is pretty awesome, and Dragon Age has received much deserved praise, however that gameplay sequence doesn’t even come close to feeling or looking as cool as the action that takes place in that trailer. Obviously, the point of the trailer is to intrigue people enough to want to pick up the game, so showing dialogue trees and pointing and clicking wouldn’t be the sexiest approach. But that’s exactly my point; if the game experience isn’t going to mirror what’s presented in the trailer, then isn’t the trailer – and, as we’ll see shortly, the cinematic -- just a big lie? And if so, what purpose does that serve, other than bumming out players who decide to check out the game thinking that it’s going to be one thing when it’s something quite different?

To answer these questions, we’re going to take a little trip down cut-scene memory lane and take a look at some of the most illustrative examples of games whose cinematics/trailers are less than indicative of their actual gameplay, and perhaps learn a little something about why these differences matter more for some games and less for others.

* * *

One of the classic examples of this idea has always been the Final Fantasy series. My knowledge of the franchise is very limited, as I’ve only played parts of various installments. However, one thing I’m well aware of is how jaw-droppingly gorgeous Square Enix’s cinematics are. They are perhaps the best of any developer, and yet, when I watch them, all I can think of is how boring and unnatural the actual gameplay is. Clearly, I’m not a turn-based RPG fan (aside from Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, which is one of my favorite games of all time). So when I watch cut-scenes like the following one from Final Fantasy XII, it really bums me out because they make me really want to play it, but as soon as I see the actual game in action, that excitement is told to wait its turn.

Now here’s a bit of gameplay:

Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that the combat is “ugly” or flawed in any way; it just doesn’t reflect the tone and weight that the game world appears to have in the cinematics. Is there ever a cut-scene where characters are shown standing across from each other, having to wait for the enemies hit them before they can make a move? Of course not. This is probably because no one would want to watch a scene like that, but you see my point.

Let’s jump back to real-time strategy games for a second and take a look at Halo Wars. The game has some of the slickest cinematics I’ve ever seen, and some of the action depicted in them rivals that found in any of Bungie’s Halo games. The only "problem" is that the cut-scenes are so damn cool that they make you want to play whatever game Captain Forge and his Spartan troops appear to be operating inside when they are shown in the cinematics. Instead, after you’ve watched this breathtaking scene, you’re thrown back into building armories and ordering troops around a battlefield. Sure, that's enjoyable and entertaining, but also very different from the kinds of action portrayed in scenes like this one:

That’s a cut-scene for a real-time strategy game? Forget troop management; I want to be able to leap from ten feet away, land on the chests of a Covenant brute and dual-automatic pistol him in the chest from point blank range before moving on to take out the rest of those Covenant bastards. Instead, here is what you're actually able to do:

Halo Wars Direct-Feed: Campaign Mission 3 - Part 2 »

Again, there's nothing wrong with the gameplay, but compared to the cinematic, it doesn't come across as nearly as much fun or as invigorating.

Now for comparison’s sake, let’s take a look at a trailer for a title that pitch-perfectly reflects the style and tone of its gameplay:

Uncharted 2: Among Thieves Trailer »

And here’s some gameplay to show just how spot-on the trailer is:

Uncharted 2: Among Thieves Direct-Feed Gameplay »

I understand Uncharted 2: Among Thieves is designed specifically to be a highly cinematic action game, and that explains why the trailer and the gameplay are so similar. Final Fantasy is a turn-based RPG, WarCraft III is an RTS and Dragon Age is an action RPG, so naturally, their cinematics and trailers need to adhere to different aesthetics because their gameplay isn’t conducive to telling the kinds of mini-stories that cinematics and trailers need to tell. Uncharted 2 doesn’t have this problem, and as such, it’s able to deliver exactly the kind of experience it promises.

Clearly, genre plays a big part in terms of comparing cinematics and gameplay, but the fact that most cinematics present themselves in the same way (adhering mainly to film aesthetics), is a problem, especially since these various genres have decidedly different styles of gameplay. As a result, it means that ultimately the games end up featuring two narratives: the one told through the cut-scenes and the one told through the gameplay, even though they are both supposed to be telling the same story. For me, this is the worst possible scenario, because it means the interactive experience the game is supposed to provide has splintered. As a player, you’re left watching a bunch of fantastically cool stuff happening in the cinematics, while receiving enough exposition to make your next chunk of gameplay feel meaningful before jumping back into the game where what you’re doing bears little resemblance to what you just saw happen in the previous cutscene.

One of the more extreme examples of this idea is the Sega Dreamcast title, Sonic Adventure, which contains an opening cinematic that bears zero resemblance to the rest of the game. Check this out. Here's the opening scene:

And here's the first level:

That cinematic looks like an animatic for a scene from a Roland Emmerich movie. If it weren’t for the brief glimpses of the familiar Sonic cast of characters, you’d be hard-pressed to be able to tell what the game is about or what the gameplay will be like.

The other side of this coin would be something like Valve’s Left 4 Dead 2. While I’m firmly against cinematics in first-person shooters (thank you Half-Life!), primarily because jumping between first and third-person perspectives ruins the immersion for me, L4D2 gets a pass. The cinematic accurately reflects the tone and style of the gameplay, and it makes me feel like I’m not being cheated out of an experience that I desperately want to have when I finally get to play the game. Here’s the scene in case you haven’t seen it:

Left 4 Dead 2 Leaked Cinematic Trailer »

And a gameplay comparison:

Left 4 Dead 2 E3 2009 Garden Maze Gameplay Trailer »

It doesn’t even matter that the cinematic doesn’t explicitly indicate the game is a FPS, because once the game starts and you swoop into your character’s head, you’ve been properly introduced to what awaits you in terms of gameplay.

* * *

There is an infinite number of examples that further demonstrate the point, but the overarching lesson here is that for the most part, cinematics and trailers aren’t to be trusted. Sure they’re pretty to look at, and they’re good for getting across story points, but rarely do they end up accurately reflecting the gameplay experience. I'm not entirely sure why gamers have become so accepting of the artistic and philosophical issues raised by this dichotomy, but I think it's because we like seeing sexy, polygon-riddled scenes that show off the bad ass-ery of the game we're playing/thinking about playing, even if it bears little resemblance to what we're actually doing in the game.

Given that technology has closed the gap considerably between the graphical quality of cinematics/trailers and actual gameplay, it would seem that publishers wouldn’t be able to mislead gamers as easily as they could in the past, and yet this practice still occurs, and it doesn't look like it will be going away anytime soon.

Have you ever been fooled into checking out a game based on a trailer/cinematic only to find out the game was something completely different? What games ended up being far better than what was shown in their cinematics/trailers? Does the fact that the gameplay and cut-scenes are drastically different bother you at all? If not, why?

Tags: PC Gaming, PlayStation 3, Videogames, Videos, Xbox 360

Comments

Oldest First

Displaying 1–20 of 69

12 3 4 2

Thufir85

I've always looked at cinematics as what's really going on in battle. Trailers, on the other hand always lie, no matter what medium they are for.

Posted: November 19, 2009 4:15 PM | Reply | Report

+6 thumbs up thumbs down

0 Replies
Apsalus07

You forgot to mention Star Wars the Old Republic, the worst offender in all of this.

Posted: November 19, 2009 4:25 PM | Reply | Report

+5 thumbs up thumbs down

3 Replies
cheatingthesystem21

Uncharted 2 is the only one that translates lol

Posted: November 19, 2009 4:37 PM | Reply | Report

+20 thumbs up thumbs down

2 Replies
Metalstorm98

*sighhh... when i saw that title i thought it might have been something about a second portal... a stretch maybe but the wording brought that to mind... i agree with the article though ive been mislead many many times (and spotted some clear bs (ie the nba game trailer where you front flip over a hot dog vendor after single handedly dekeing out the whole court... probably not imitatable in gameplay))

Posted: November 19, 2009 4:58 PM | Reply | Report

+2 thumbs up thumbs down

0 Replies
I8NY

And this is why Half Life 2 is still probably my favorite game still. No cutscenes, but still keeping the relative dialogue, and FORCING that immersion onto everyone. Just brilliant.

Posted: November 19, 2009 5:04 PM | Reply | Report

+7 thumbs up thumbs down

0 Replies
solidsnakex37

Are you really that bored? Come on, Trailers just depict the story line, and what its all about. Not all video game trailers are just going to show gameplay, are they? Game trailers get the viewers excited for the game. Game play trailers are its own type, set aside from the trailers themselves.

Posted: November 19, 2009 5:15 PM | Reply | Report

+4 thumbs up thumbs down

0 Replies
halbert986

cod mw2 used nothing but gameplay footage. but yes trailers are stupid 90 percent of the time. all the halo trailers since 3 have been just ridiculous. live action warfare, chief assaulting an entire platoon of brutes, etc. world of warcraft is just as bad same story as warcraft 3

Posted: November 19, 2009 5:16 PM | Reply | Report

+1 thumbs up thumbs down

1 Reply
SpooderW

HL2 is one of the best games I have ever played! Orange box is like getting a car for $100!

Posted: November 19, 2009 5:19 PM | Reply | Report

+2 thumbs up thumbs down

0 Replies
lateralus11

I feel like this article was written by someone who doesn't truly understand the reality of the situation, you can't have your cake and eat it too. This probably won't be received well, but your statements are contradictory. You understand that trailers exist to sway the consumer, yet you're angry that the game doesn't live up to the extremely expensive, technically demanding aspects of the trailers..

I don't mind a game that doesn't match its cut scenes. Others may not share this opinion but I enjoy a cut scene which takes cinematics and has them overhauled, it's an enjoyable experience. I loved games such as MGS4 and the final fantasies, the cut scenes were great to watch.

Immersion is important but I just wanted to say that that dragon age origins trailer was AWESOME, and I loved the gameplay too. You're right that it obviously doesn't come close to resembling the action in the trailer, but how could it possibly? Do you propose the trailer instead be a chunk of gameplay that could be received either bad or good, strictly from appearance?

As far as Uncharted 2 goes, the trailer does reflect the game. But that was a HUGE endeavor by the creators, taking full advantage of recent technologies and an extremely large budget..

Posted: November 19, 2009 5:19 PM | Reply | Report

+2 thumbs up thumbs down

0 Replies
Moye Ishimoto

Oooh, glad you wrote about this. I think this is the main reason why I never got into Final Fantasy. The trailers always looked so amazing so seeing how the game was actually played was always such a huge disappointment. It's almost kind of like a bait and switch.

Posted: November 19, 2009 5:20 PM | Reply | Report

+10 thumbs up thumbs down

3 Replies
mm542

gameplay is very important to me because it is that experience that you take from a gaming experience. Sure the cinematics might look cool and move the story along to immerse the gamer...but come on you controlling a character is more important because that is what you will remember.

Posted: November 19, 2009 5:22 PM | Reply | Report

0 thumbs up thumbs down

0 Replies
RockieOllie

Uncharted Works because the cinematics is the game and the gameplay is the cinamatics.

I LOL'ed after watching the Sonic Adventure Trailer with a fast paced song to the game play that had a relaxing electric ukulele in the background.

Posted: November 19, 2009 5:32 PM | Reply | Report

+3 thumbs up thumbs down

0 Replies
thesilentmole

I've had a huge problem with this for a while now, and it seems like this year has been particularly bad about trailers that have little to nothing to do with the game. Remember the Knights of the Old Republic trailer? total waste of time because your game will be nothing as awesome as what you think you saw (and to be fair I don't think that was awesome because it was just a giant star wars fangasm on screen. "Dude, check it out, it''s like boba fette but with BOOOOBS!" Everyone talks about how awesome that game looks based on a CG trailer that is in no way involved in the gameplay.

I think the technology is in place that we can start moving away from cinematic teasers. And I don't mind cinematic cutscenes, but they need to be more in-engine like Resident Evil 4, New Super Mario Bros. Wii, and Castle Crashers. I think it can go along way to go that route.

'Course, it doesn't look as good for marketing.

Posted: November 19, 2009 5:43 PM | Reply | Report

0 thumbs up thumbs down

0 Replies
CustosIntusSilentium

Well the way I see things, it has to do with storytelling and limitations in graphics and code writing. Cut-scenes (or cinematic) were best used in the PS1 days (oh the good ol days) as a way to better convey what was occurring in the game. Could you imagine what FF7, 8, or 9 would have been if Square used the in-game graphics to render the cinematic moments? And even today there hasn't been a game that matches what real cut-scenes can do (Crysis is no exception, off my nuts). The intent of a cut-scene is to depict major events in story arc which would be harmed by an attempt to render them playable. I've played games which have taken a shot at this, and while I enjoyed those games, the method of storytelling was diminished due to my being focused on killing everything in my field of view instead of the dialog being lobbed over my head. The concept of poignancy is what mounts here. If you have a pivotal moment in story arc or highly detailed battle, should you allow the player to interact which sacrifices dramatics and flow or do you make a cut-scene and uphold artistic integrity but cause a fissure in visual styles? Also, if a specific, complex, or detailed action or sequence is required, these may not be used anywhere else in the game. This begs the question, why have a mechanic which is used only once? Furthermore, how impacting is it to see a character cry when in-game graphics are used vs. cinematic? It s very difficult to write code to accomplish these moments and the overall product is better with the cinematic. On a personal note, I always have viewed cut-scenes as a small treat for completeing story elements as I play a game. It also helps to render what a character actually was envisioned to appear as.

Posted: November 19, 2009 5:59 PM | Reply | Report

+2 thumbs up thumbs down

0 Replies
Latinkid2791

I remember Stars Wars: The Old Republic. I got it cause it was a Star Wars game and i thought what could go bad. Then when I saw the beginning scene I was so impressed and excited to start playing, and then it turns to much lower graphics and a lot slower pace. I was also not an RPG fan at the time so despised it.

Posted: November 19, 2009 6:00 PM | Reply | Report

+1 thumbs up thumbs down

0 Replies
Ieyke

Only a handful of games play nice with their cutscenes.

Uncharted 2 (top of the list because that trailer was actually half game footage :P)

Metal Gear Solid 4 (not far off from cutscenes)

Assassin's Creed 2 (you can do pretty much everything you see in the...does it even HAVE a trailer? Anyhow, you can do pretty much everything you see in Lineage, the prequel movie)

Left 4 Dead (the intro cinematic was Valve's version of a tutorial mode, and thus was a replication of the game's mechanics in movie form)

Left 4 Dead 2 (seems the trailer was cobbled together from things you do in game.)

Actually, if you think about it, all Mario games are pretty much exactly what the cinematics show.
:P

Posted: November 19, 2009 6:05 PM | Reply | Report

+2 thumbs up thumbs down

0 Replies
mrincubus88

I really think you are over looking this too much. A cinematic is just a another way of telling the story. They were most common during the days when graphics of regular game play couldn't achieve much more than what you see so they filled in the story with amazing scenes that couldn't be replicated in-game.

I don't see what the reason was behind this post nor do I see any logical flow to it.. It just seems that you are comparing cinematic to real game play... what are you trying to accomplish? I believe everyone here knows that cinematic are there to be eye candy and present the story in a different way.. end of discussion in my book.

Posted: November 19, 2009 6:14 PM | Reply | Report

0 thumbs up thumbs down

0 Replies
Sesslersprodigy

Uncharted 2 was a perfect example of a good game.

Posted: November 19, 2009 6:21 PM | Reply | Report

+2 thumbs up thumbs down

0 Replies
NinjaCrisis

Uncharted 2 was epic. Nothing compares
Uncharted 2 and Modern Warfare 2 FTW!!!!

Posted: November 19, 2009 6:29 PM | Reply | Report

+2 thumbs up thumbs down

0 Replies
NioShobu

I have to agree. There's some additions and points I will explain. One is the trailers. I agree that trailers shouldn't do that as much, but it's marketing and that's the way it is. We don't like it (especially when trailers over hype things such as Watchmen or 9) but it's a way of marketing and that's what has to happen. My second point is cutscenes. Cutscenes are kind of for the purpose of making that action. Most games won't have perfect cinematic gameplay, almost all of the ones that do are the new games. I think it's nice because it keeps the action from getting boring and while it sucks that it shows us a piece of something we won't get to do, it gives us an added perspective of entertainment that still keeps us kind of immersed in the game (even in shooters for me, but the lack of cinematics is very cool, too). I like cutscenes, but that's just my personal opinion.

Posted: November 19, 2009 6:30 PM | Reply | Report

+1 thumbs up thumbs down

0 Replies