Cut Scenes, Schmut Scenes

The always thought-provoking Clive Thompson just published an article at Slate arguing that games aren't good vehicles for narrative, citing cut scenes as a prime example. His basic argument is that stopping gameplay to show a cut scene interupts the fun of the experience. Games are about interactivity, not passivity. I won't recap the whole article, but that's the basic point (it's worth reading though).

There were some good responses around the Internet, like this one by Arkady from the Slate forums... and this one by Ron Gilbert. The first one argues that cut scenes serve the same purpose as box art, setting a more nuanced, detailed narrative scene in the head of the player before they become immersed in gameplay. Arkady calls for shorter cut scenes with more interactivity (even just a single choice). Ron Gilbert agrees with Thompson that games aren't good at narrative, but says that it's not a reason we shouldn't try.

I'm somewhere in the middle on this one. I agree that cut scenes run counter to the spirit of the medium. They break the flow of interactivity. Half-Life and Half-Life 2 show pretty clearly that games can work without cut scenes. However, I do believe that narrative in games is worth pursuing. Again, Half-Life 2 shows that narrative can be conveyed in-game. I think it should go much further though. Narrative in games can't be thought of as conveying a single, pre-written story. Game narrative should be about giving the player interesting choices (just as in any form of good gameplay). Designers interested in furthering narrative gameplay should be looking at mechanics that put the power of authorship into the player's hands.