I'm curious to hear your thoughts on the cinematics within the game. Do you consider them a mere luxury, or do you believe they significantly enhance the overall gaming experience and atmosphere? Moreover, I'm interested in your perspective on the additional effort put into creating these cinematics. Could the development time have been better allocated to other aspects of the game? Would it suffice to reserve cinematics for special events and characters integral to the storyline, such as boss battles and key characters? Is it truly necessary to include a cinematic for every seemingly insignificant NPC? What do you think?
Whilst I'm generally opposed to cinematics/cutscenes (games are an interactive medium and cinematics keep them from exploring that further): There's quite a few that enhance the experience. Like first staring into that abyss going down to the Underdark... Additionally, going cinematic seems have paid off in the bet to attract a larget audience to this type of game.
That doesn't mean I'd like to be every game to go cinematic now. Quite the contrary. It boggles the mind what this game could have achieved if it DIDN't have to keep cinematics in mind. There's an awful lot of work visibly being done here. Because Larian didn't merely go cinematic. They paired that with fairly open quest structures, customizable parties/player characters and their systems driven design allowing for emergent gameplay / non-scripted things to happen, which actually is fundamentally opposed to cinemetics in a way.
Cinematics are scripted. Emergent systems aren't. So they had to take into account all of that. During the Early Access, I thus "broke" such a cinematic. There's a dungeon with a bunch of skeletons rising if you pull a lever. This is shown in a cinematic. Apparently you cannot do that anymore as the skeletons rise immediately if you try. But during EA I reloaded and picked up the corpses and threw them into a firepit nearby. This worked... and the skeletons died upon pulling the lever. Except for the cinematic beforehand, being scripted, showing the skeletons rising in their usual place.
A more recent example of how much work went into this I only noticed upon a reload likewise: Recently, I approached a character who prior had given me a task. Basically, he knew me from a copule hours prior meeting him in another place. I approached him and he asked me about that task. Then I reloaded, transformed my character's appearance via the disguise self spell. I approached that character likewise, and the cinematic (plus VO) acknowledged that my character had transformed. Dude plain didn't recognize me anymore and treated me as we had first met. That's crazy amounts of extra work. You may not even have that spell, let alone use it here for anything. And it's still in the game. There's lots of stuff like that.
Very few, if any studios have the kind of budget to do that, and if they do, they go for far more linear experiences, oft on purpose. However, if you go for a more linear and scripted structure, less improvisation and moment to moment decision making is allowed to impact things... be it during a quest or else.
They are a luxury. They enhance a already good game, but sadly here they get used to distract from an otherwise weak core, namely mechanics, story and writing. And sadly that is successful meaning more companies will copy BG3s style over substance. Not to mention that there are many things cinematics (and voiceover) prevent as they increase production cost somewhat meaning there will be less variants.
I love how cinematic BG3 is, and for me it definitely enhances immersion and brings the characters and story to life. Which isn't to say that I need fancy graphics to appreciate a cRPG - I've been a fan of the BG games since they came out and enjoyed more recent games like WotR - but I do think they take a game to another level. And I am very glad that Larian put the effort they did into creating such a cinematic experience. Maybe I wouldn't be if I didn't like so much else about the game, too, but unlike some I definitely don't feel that BG3 is style over substance but enjoy the story, the characters and the gameplay too. And the cinematics for me enhance the first two, at least, considerably.
"You may call it 'nonsense' if you like, but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"
I don't think that BG3 is a template that others should (and could) follow though in that regard. There's a reason why cinematic games are usually a whole lot more linear than this, boiling down to Chose Your Own Adventure type of reactivity/agency, like: What decision do I make at this specific plot point to advance it? And which girl do I pick? BG3 tries its hardest to mix its pretty open / systemic gameplay with cinematics, as described. It's not merely about making the odd plot decision here and there. It's about having cinematics for every possible path and action you can take throughout the game+quests.
And I suspect it's also why they ran a bit out of "steam" in the final act of the game here. Despite the quite sizeable team developing it. Specifically doingn scripts, animations, VO for every possible permutation is a fight you eventually are not going to win. It's a losing battle. And arguably, it doesn't have much of a future.Doesn't surprise me that they seem to be eyeing a smaller scale project next as it seems clear that they've reached a limit here.
I think that's a good thing though, actually. The pen&paper experience likewise is all about moment to moment improvisation, rather than making a CYOA-style plot decision here and there. That's not gonna be targeted much in big games going all out cinematic.
Except if it's coming off crazy dudes like this (at least once).
I'm going to disagree with this take. There's a subset of players like yourself that do not value cinematics much (they are perhaps a bit overrepresented on this forum too). That's perfectly fine, different strokes for different folks. But I will argue that the cinematics in this game are essential to its success, and not an extravagancy.
Video games are an interactive medium, true. They are also a visual medium. Seeing something happen matters. There's a narrative depth to cutscenes that you cannot emulate with writing or speech. And I'm not only talking about the big story moments. It's the little things that matter the most: a character crouching to pick up an item, a quick hand gesture, the facial animations. It all serves to immerse you into the world. A significant part of the fanbase is getting hyped at the moment about the possibility of a hugging animation being developed. And I don't blame them. Near the end of the game there's a moment when you can choose to spare or execute an enemy. If you choose to kill, your character will take a dagger, crouch, and plunge it into her vitals. That cutscene adds gravitas, which would be absent if you just walked up and killed her with a default attack.
Originally Posted by Sven_
It boggles the mind what this game could have achieved if it DIDN't have to keep cinematics in mind.
This is the crux of the issue, isn't it? You say it takes a lot of resources to do this. I'm not a game dev, but that seems reasonable to me. Maybe the game would be twice its current size if they minimized cinematics or went for a more linear structure. Or perhaps there would be even more player freedom. But would that improve the game? If you push the player agency argument to its limit, you end up with something like dwarf fortress. A game with a passionate community to be sure, but not something I would ever play myself.
It's all a balancing act in the end. Larian went for a quality over quantity approach, and it paid off.
It's essential in my view, but I also think we're in an intermediate period, similar to where Cinema was like a 100 years ago or towards the tail end of the silent era where they were still trying to figure out what moved people. It needs to iterate through a phase like this so we can build out the proper repertoire.
I'm so impressed with what they managed to pull off though, it's got the vibe like a cult classic or a beloved B flick. What it doesn't quite have yet is the full open casting call where the player can invent a totally unique performance and direct their own narrative with the freedom to try everything, in a D&D context. They basically gave us a grab bag of standard tropes are archetypes for like the building blocks. The cinemagician angle is good though, this is what it needs to keep the reels spinning.
I swear what they need now is wardrobe, makeup, voice and movement coaching for gestures and idles, but like for the player - the Custom Tav! When it gets there, it's on!
Right now I'm reminded a bit of this sort of situation... like when the strange brew first started bubbling. Imaginative realism, but with that sort of cauldron.
I think cutscenes can be powerful, but so often they're simply just putting npcs together talking, with no real thought to making a powerful scene. BG3 has lots of sexiness, and LOTS of cutscenes, but almost all of them are just ..there. They don't draw any real emotion out of me, they don't make go to youtube to rewatch them again, or reload my save, they don't grab me.
Meanwhile, a simple scene from Elden Ring imo, can evoke more emotion from me than really anything in BG3, and there isn't a single line of dialogue spoken, or really a totally clear explanation of what you're witnessing. You have to connect the dots, and different players might see something that others don't.
THAT's what I want in cutscenes. Not just tons of dialogue. FFXVI had 11 HOURS of cutscenes and managed to say almost nothing.
The thing I've always said about the graphics and cinematic of this game is that they're playing outside their weight class. They're beneath the level of games like god of war or last of us yet are trying to achieve the same level, yet don't come close. The cinematic to me aren't even that impressive or noteworthy compared to other stuff, which to me makes them even more pointless. Right now I'm playing a game called Star Ocean: The second story R. Its a remake of an old ps2 game and I find the remade graphics gorgeous. But they're not going doe visual fidelity. They're mixing lush background art with pixel art sprites and it is another game that impresses me far more than BG3 in terms of art style and graphics. I can probably count on o e hand the number of times I was really wowed by BG3, but in games like star Ocean, wotr, PoE, I was constantly amazed by their graphics. And I think the worst thing that could happen to crpgs, genuinely, is them trying to chase the cinematic approach bg3 did. It would ruin the stuff that makes the genre actually great.
In fact I'd go a step further and say that the industry obsession with graphical fidelity is a net negative to gaming as a whole.
Some of the cinematcs show how the caharcters work on a deeper level than normal dialogues. The voiced parts add more emotion and you can see how they feel in that moment. The rest was saod by the others already. Strongly agree.
The thing I've always said about the graphics and cinematic of this game is that they're playing outside their weight class. They're beneath the level of games like god of war or last of us yet are trying to achieve the same level, yet don't come close. The cinematic to me aren't even that impressive or noteworthy compared to other stuff, which to me makes them even more pointless. Right now I'm playing a game called Star Ocean: The second story R. Its a remake of an old ps2 game and I find the remade graphics gorgeous. But they're not going doe visual fidelity. They're mixing lush background art with pixel art sprites and it is another game that impresses me far more than BG3 in terms of art style and graphics. I can probably count on o e hand the number of times I was really wowed by BG3, but in games like star Ocean, wotr, PoE, I was constantly amazed by their graphics. And I think the worst thing that could happen to crpgs, genuinely, is them trying to chase the cinematic approach bg3 did. It would ruin the stuff that makes the genre actually great.
In fact I'd go a step further and say that the industry obsession with graphical fidelity is a net negative to gaming as a whole.
The industry is only obsessed with it because, sadly, dumbing down and adding graphics and sex sells more copies. BG3 is a good example of that.
The thing I've always said about the graphics and cinematic of this game is that they're playing outside their weight class. They're beneath the level of games like god of war or last of us yet are trying to achieve the same level, yet don't come close. The cinematic to me aren't even that impressive or noteworthy compared to other stuff, which to me makes them even more pointless. Right now I'm playing a game called Star Ocean: The second story R. Its a remake of an old ps2 game and I find the remade graphics gorgeous. But they're not going doe visual fidelity. They're mixing lush background art with pixel art sprites and it is another game that impresses me far more than BG3 in terms of art style and graphics. I can probably count on o e hand the number of times I was really wowed by BG3, but in games like star Ocean, wotr, PoE, I was constantly amazed by their graphics. And I think the worst thing that could happen to crpgs, genuinely, is them trying to chase the cinematic approach bg3 did. It would ruin the stuff that makes the genre actually great.
In fact I'd go a step further and say that the industry obsession with graphical fidelity is a net negative to gaming as a whole.
The industry is only obsessed with it because, sadly, dumbing down and adding graphics and sex sells more copies. BG3 is a good example of that.
I firmly disagree with this notion and I am deeply suspicious of accusations of "dumbing down" for mass appeal because I find it an inherently arrogant argument. But that part is a different discussion. The industry is o sessed with graphical fidelity because its a clear, easy thing to convey. It's hard to fully get across what playing their game is like. Especially a decade or so ago when the obsession really started to take root, conveying via easily absorbed trailers what a game's gameplay actually felt like wasn't that easy. Doable but not easy. What was easy was showing off how good the game looked. And now we are at a point where for people who aren't really invested in video games and the video game scene, graphics are conflated with quality. They're easier to market since they're a clearer storytelling tool. A trailer can't convey how elegantly a game like Joyrney reflects the hero's journey and if it did it would take something away from the experience of playing the game. Same as how a trailer can't sell people on the deep research and consideration of Greek myths that the game is built off of from bottom to top.
The thing I've always said about the graphics and cinematic of this game is that they're playing outside their weight class. They're beneath the level of games like god of war or last of us yet are trying to achieve the same level, yet don't come close. The cinematic to me aren't even that impressive or noteworthy compared to other stuff, which to me makes them even more pointless. Right now I'm playing a game called Star Ocean: The second story R. Its a remake of an old ps2 game and I find the remade graphics gorgeous. But they're not going doe visual fidelity. They're mixing lush background art with pixel art sprites and it is another game that impresses me far more than BG3 in terms of art style and graphics. I can probably count on o e hand the number of times I was really wowed by BG3, but in games like star Ocean, wotr, PoE, I was constantly amazed by their graphics. And I think the worst thing that could happen to crpgs, genuinely, is them trying to chase the cinematic approach bg3 did. It would ruin the stuff that makes the genre actually great.
In fact I'd go a step further and say that the industry obsession with graphical fidelity is a net negative to gaming as a whole.
The industry is only obsessed with it because, sadly, dumbing down and adding graphics and sex sells more copies. BG3 is a good example of that.
I firmly disagree with this notion and I am deeply suspicious of accusations of "dumbing down" for mass appeal because I find it an inherently arrogant argument. But that part is a different discussion. The industry is o sessed with graphical fidelity because its a clear, easy thing to convey. It's hard to fully get across what playing their game is like. Especially a decade or so ago when the obsession really started to take root, conveying via easily absorbed trailers what a game's gameplay actually felt like wasn't that easy. Doable but not easy. What was easy was showing off how good the game looked. And now we are at a point where for people who aren't really invested in video games and the video game scene, graphics are conflated with quality. They're easier to market since they're a clearer storytelling tool. A trailer can't convey how elegantly a game like Joyrney reflects the hero's journey and if it did it would take something away from the experience of playing the game. Same as how a trailer can't sell people on the deep research and consideration of Greek myths that the game is built off of from bottom to top.
I stand by my words because cinematics come not for free. Not only do they eat up lots of resources, they also make it harder to improve other areas of the game. For example having more varied body types is very expensive with cinematics and also changes later are hard if not impossible which you can also see in BG3 when the voiceover does not match events in the game like when using tadpoles, decreasing the overall quality of the game.
A focus on cinematics will eventually always lead to a Cyberpunk/Witcher linear experience. Something like WotR would have been impossible to do with BG3s cinematics because of the many different creatures that would have needed animation.
I agree with this argument about the consquences of cinematics, entirely. I just disagree with the argument of "dumbing down". Just look at Spiderman or God of War, two incredibly high fidelity games that are also incredibly good and worthy of the praise they get. And God of War certainly tells a far deeper, more complex and interesting story than BG3 ever comes close to. So things like that make me very unwilling to attribute this sort of thing to something as simple and frankly, a little insulting as "games being dumbed down" to sell more. Though I agree that prettier graphics doend up selling more games at a ratio that isn't fair or inherently reflective of quality, which was my argument.
The cinematics are a good thing, I think. This is a role playing game, so there is a clear connection between enjoyment of the game and one's ability to immerse oneself in the play. For that, we humans (dear reader: please admit you are one) need to see body language and facial expressions.
That said, I think the game could do well without the cinematic breaks for screen filler NPC's to deliver their one line. Close up cinematics should be reserved for moments of high emotion or high tension.
In that vein, one area in which cinematics are sadly lacking is combat. It is now a very sterile thing, like watching a football match from low priced seats.
In conversation, I see my Tavs making expressions, awkward grimaces, that I feel are overdone for the cool characters that they are. But if they would show those same faces in a fight, now that would be appropriate. And that would probably get me, the player, more emotionally involved in combat. How about showing quick close ups of a fighter dodging a blow? Or showing the pain of getting hit? How about showing an archer drawing her bow, or a wizard concentrating on a spell, beads of sweat on his forehead? How about showing a close up of the raw emotion of seeing your companion, or even your lover, die?
Also, and I guess that is probably more difficult to achieve, would it be good if Tav cinematics took Tav's characteristics into account. High wisdom characters could display a knowing smile, high strength characters could be seen flexing their muscles, high dex characters flipping very sharps knives, high intelligence characters looking smug, and so on.
I firmly disagree with this notion and I am deeply suspicious of accusations of "dumbing down" for mass appeal because I find it an inherently arrogant argument.
It's also kinda funny, since Baldur's Gate -- as a series -- has always been Entry Gate for 1st timers to RPGs. In their respective eras, they've always tried to appeal to the "masses". Strongly so. Now I do Like BG1+2. A whole bloody lot. But:
When BG was released in 1998, it wasn't exactly Darklands or Jagged Alliance or Realms Of Arkania. Bioware clearly aimed at the huge Diablo and RTS crowd also. The super easy control scheme was pretty much ripped off Warcraft. And in comparison to other RPGs of that era, their combat looked as actionish as Diablo. Their decision to go for a more action-based real-time (with pause) system was highly controversial, even though it paid off. They attracted players who'd prior had never touched an RPG even if you'd threatened to critical hit them on the spot.
By 1998 standards, Baldur's Gate was also a very pretty and good sounding game to boot. It had an "orchestrated" soundtrack and its backdrop visuals were unusual for that time, fully handcrafted and rendered rather than tile-based, making every area look unique, as opposed to built from a limited set of tiles/blocks (such as Diablo). In fact, for the people responsible for signing Bioware at Interplay, the latter played a big role.
BG2 marked the birth of Bioware as the "romance" and "cinematic" company (their engine's elaborate cinematics such as the repeating dream sequences were just limited by tech), attracting storyplayers who'd prior never touched an RPG likewise. After that, they just took a step further and shed all their D&D-ish roots, mission complete. Baldur's Gate has alwas been an Entry Gate for 1st timers to RPGs. And Bioware has been a company set up to appeal to large audiences since their very inception.
Or as Guido Henkel (formerly Attic and Interplay and the guy on Planscape Torment's box art) put it:
Quote
It is easy to glorify these games in retrospect with nostalgic glasses on, but the fact of the matter is that compared to many other games and genres, games like Star Trail simply did not nearly make as much money. As a result publishers turned their backs on these kinds of hard core games and instead went down the path of streamlined mainstream products, especially since Baldur’s Gate proved very clearly at the time that there is a market for light role-playing games.
I love how cinematic BG3 is, and for me it definitely enhances immersion and brings the characters and story to life. Which isn't to say that I need fancy graphics to appreciate a cRPG - I've been a fan of the BG games since they came out and enjoyed more recent games like WotR - but I do think they take a game to another level. And I am very glad that Larian put the effort they did into creating such a cinematic experience. Maybe I wouldn't be if I didn't like so much else about the game, too, but unlike some I definitely don't feel that BG3 is style over substance but enjoy the story, the characters and the gameplay too. And the cinematics for me enhance the first two, at least, considerably.
Completely agree.
There's something incredibly immersive about seeing your character react to conversations, a character you created. It's why Mass Effect drew me in so much.
Additionally, I believe it connects you to the characters. Seeing their expressions and their faces in the cinematic way definitely lends itself to the entire experience.
I'm absolutely on board with more games doing this and I believe I wouldn't love BG3 nearly as much as I do if they didn't put in the extra effort to have cutscenes everywhere. I love love love it.
![[Linked Image from 64.media.tumblr.com]](https://64.media.tumblr.com/c2125667ec3395da13c5cbd8461615e5/1b60c8f13e625dc4-ff/s1280x1920/6d3c6a292f563f34cc01ec9d1d8125261ec52ceb.jpg)
