[Wobble73]

The game was going to have a branching point there and allow you to work for UNATCO in Hong Kong, but Ion Storm dropped that idea later in development. Even though the game is quite long, they actually left out quite a few things that were originally planned.

Then I would love to see developers cut of this game!

[Vidmaster]

now I see that Ransom and I are talking past each other (does this expression actually exist in English )

You want to stress that
possibility A) telling a good story (for example Beyond Good & Evil) with Gameplay between the cutscenes (maybe even non-linear elements)
and
possibility B) actually letting the player "make" the story, not experiencing   (Sims?)

is an entirely different thing for you. Right? But which one do you define as "story"? B? Or both?

To my mind, it's A. Although that may not make full use of the medium's possibilities, it's not just a sandbox. You get to play/live/see a tale that sb has planned and written for you.
A tells you a story, B makes you tell one. But one that lacks direction most of the time.

[phatosealpha]

An interactive medium that 'tells' stories is entirely missing the point.  Telling is one directional.  Therefore, storytelling in a game setting is robbing the game of the one thing that differentiates it from other types of media - interactivity.

You're using a very literal definition of storytelling here. That's not what I meant, and you know it. I'm referring to any method with which an author conveys a story to an audience.

Every truly good game story is more than just a bunch of cutscenes, no matter how well they're made or how good the writing is. For it to have real weight the story and themes have to be a part of the gameplay - the player's actions throughout the experience must reflect what the game is about or all those awesome cutscenes become nothing more than narrative window-dressing. Strip the cutscenes out of Gears of War or Halo and there's nothing there that tells a story. The same can't be said for games like Torment, Far Cry 2 or Immortal Defense.

It's not to say you can't have really good window-dressing. Some of the better Final Fantasies can attest to that, and it could be argued also our beloved Freespace. But it's like a film constructed entirely of long shots - it could still be a fantastic story, but it's essentially a radio play with a visual gimmick. It would very probably be more at home in a different medium.

To that end I think your exploration of interactivity is a dead end. Pointing out the fact that the player can't shape the story is missing the point just as much as any game that strictly 'tells' a story. I might be opening a can of worms by mentioning the A word here, but art is all about intent. Of course the interactivity is limited. Ignoring the technical limitations, any story must have constraints or it will become flailing, unfocused and ultimately meaningless. You rightly point out that no story - at least not the sort we're talking about - can exist in such a game. It's a whole other discussion about emergent narrative which, while fascinating, I don't think is relevant here.

Already answered.  The post directly above this one deals specifically with the so-called 'branching' stories, and the actual nature of the player's interaction.
This is important though....

. Ignoring the technical limitations, any story must have constraints or it will become flailing, unfocused and ultimately meaningless.

This is why using gaming as a storytelling medium is ultimately missing the point.  The primary advantage of gaming is that it lacks those constraints of direction.  Trying to turn gaming into a storytelling medium akin to movies or books - both of which are already completely constrained - it simply robbing the medium of it's main advantage by putting constraints into place for the sake of emulating another medium.

[Ransom]

Already answered.  The post directly above this one deals specifically with the so-called 'branching' stories, and the actual nature of the player's interaction.

That's what I was responding to. I'm saying your discussion of the level of player interaction misunderstands the medium.

This is why using gaming as a storytelling medium is ultimately missing the point.  The primary advantage of gaming is that it lacks those constraints of direction.  Trying to turn gaming into a storytelling medium akin to movies or books - both of which are already completely constrained - it simply robbing the medium of it's main advantage by putting constraints into place for the sake of emulating another medium.

I can't agree. A good story in a game is completely unlike a story told in the other mediums - it can hardly be emulating something if it's doing it in a way they're incapable of. I agree with you completely in regard to the average game story, which is basically just a short movie cut up and slotted into the game at various points, but you've completely ignored everything I said about the player actions reflecting the story. None of the other mediums can create that level of audience involvement. It's an entirely different way to express a story.

You seem to be misunderstanding what I mean when I talk about constraints. I do not believe that limiting the interactivity is somehow at odds with the medium, just as I don't believe the parts of a film or novel that are glossed over or omitted are the result of a technical limitation.

A novel should never go into infinite detail about every little thing, and that's not because the author doesn't have the time to write it all. Readers probably don't need to know the name of the shop where the vase on top of the protagonist's dining room table was bought. A film doesn't need to capture every single facial expression, every little movement or piece of scenery, and a painting doesn't have to show a dozen angles of its scene to immortalise every single detail. Art in all its forms must be limited or it is no longer art but a medium in itself. You seem to be treating games like a technical exercise.

At the end of the day, if you're going to argue that games should not be a storytelling medium simply because of their potential for interactivity then I don't see any point in continuing this debate, because we're never going to find common ground.

You want to stress that
possibility A) telling a good story (for example Beyond Good & Evil) with Gameplay between the cutscenes (maybe even non-linear elements)
and
possibility B) actually letting the player "make" the story, not experiencing   (Sims?)

I'm advocating neither. A is a lazy form of gaming storytelling which fails to take advantage of the medium. On that me and phatosealpha agree - simply telling a story in a game isn't enough. B takes full advantage of the medium but (in the case of things like Eve or The Sims) has no tangible direction and therefore, despite certainly having its own merits, isn't the sort of thing I'm talking about. There's very good arguments to be made that B can be art, and I'm inclined to agree. But I don't agree with phatosealpha that anything which limits such interactivity for the sake of delivering a directed experience is automatically a misuse of the medium.

What I'm talking about is C: weaving the story into the gameplay. Perhaps it has cutscenes, perhaps it doesn't, but the game and the story must be inseparable. With the actions the player takes throughout the course of the game - actions which are to varying extents directed by the situations the player is placed in and the tools he's given to deal with them - he knowingly or not contributes to the game's overriding themes.

[blackhole]

I'm too lazy to wade through the volumes of text you guys have been outputting, but as a game designer with many plans for my own games, several of which have very complex storylines, I wanted to put in my own opinion here.

The thing you guys are failing to point out is that in a linear storyline, a game can still take advantage of its medium by provided the player with a huge amount of immersion in side-quests and optional subplots. This is what the truly great games of past ages, such as Zelda: The Ocarina of Time, did. By surrounding a largely linear storyline with subplots, they created an immersive experience that was still a storytelling experience (albiet a rather thin one due to the technical constraints of the time).

A really good game will take a linear storyline and divide it up into several chunks that can be completed in any order, however having similar end results, coupled with multiple optional subplots. I believe Golden Sun did this to an extent. This allows a discernible story to be told without making it completely linear.

If you are going to have a storyline, its either going to be made up by the player, or it will be linear. Both options have their advantages and disadvantages.

This is why using gaming as a storytelling medium is ultimately missing the point.  The primary advantage of gaming is that it lacks those constraints of direction.  Trying to turn gaming into a storytelling medium akin to movies or books - both of which are already completely constrained - it simply robbing the medium of it's main advantage by putting constraints into place for the sake of emulating another medium.

Play eversion, then come back and tell me with a straight face that it did not just scare the crap out of you. It's an 8-bit sprite game.

But eversion does more then scare the crap out of you - it scares the crap out of you in a way you never anticipated, and in a way that is not possible in a movie or in a book. In a movie you know someone's going to jump out at the screen, and yes its scary in some ways, but try playing FEAR and then going to bed.

There are things you can do in games you cannot do in any other medium, and that is why they are a valid platform for storytelling. You fail to take into account that in a well-designed game, the player can feel like they are the hero, and that everything is happening to them, and that their actions have direct consequences inside their world. That is far more powerful then a book or a movie will ever be.

A game without a story is a flash-based webbrowser shootemup. A game that lets you do anything is Spore, which does exactly that - lets the player build his own storyline. But you are simply... a creature; you aren't Master Chief, the guy who jumped out of a ship in orbit with a nuke, blew up an alien spaceship with it and then landed on another ship a good 10 thousand miles above the earth.

You can't do that in Spore, dude.

[Vidmaster]

What I'm talking about is C: weaving the story into the gameplay. Perhaps it has cutscenes, perhaps it doesn't, but the game and the story must be inseparable. With the actions the player takes throughout the course of the game - actions which are to varying extents directed by the situations the player is placed in and the tools he's given to deal with them - he knowingly or not contributes to the game's overriding themes.

Agreed of course. That's when the developer takes full advantage of the medium.
But it doesn't happen very often.

[phatosealpha]

A game without a story is a flash-based webbrowser shootemup. A game that lets you do anything is Spore, which does exactly that - lets the player build his own storyline. But you are simply... a creature; you aren't Master Chief, the guy who jumped out of a ship in orbit with a nuke, blew up an alien spaceship with it and then landed on another ship a good 10 thousand miles above the earth.

As it stands, yes.  And if the current definition of 'story' is permanently acceptable, it will remain so.  But I do not believe this is a necessity of the medium, but a technological hurdle combined with traditionalist mindset.  The problem is that no one's interested in trying to make Drama dynamic and adaptable when you can can a storyline, plug it in, and have no one the wiser.

Imagine, if you will, the director from Left 4 Dead, except with a far, far greater scope then just creating zombies.  A procedural algorithm that causes events to happen when it would be Dramatic to do so, instead of follow a pre-set path, or a choice of pre-set paths.  That's what we should be aiming for.  Technologically extraordinarily difficult, but I don't believe it's insurmountable.  At the very least, a primitive and constrained engine attempting to do so with a greater scope then spawning monsters could do a hell of a lot to make games more interesting.

Truly dynamic 'stories' - that's what I'm after.  People are fundamentally machines, and we can come up with Drama.  Properly programmed, a current machine ain't going to be human, but it can and should be doing a hell of a lot more to make things dynamic then they actually are.



And, now a challenge.

Does anyone have an actual example of  a game which couldn't be summarized as a choose your own adventure book where you occasionally have to beat a level of doom before you can turn the page?  My experience is that story driven games - even highly celebrated ones like Deus Ex or Torment - never do anything with interactivity that couldn't be achieved by a combination of those two.

[Ransom]

I'm not convinced by the idea of a procedural narrative. We're yet to create an AI that can hold a decent conversation, let alone spit out a compelling story. And if it wasn't writing them on its own but simply choosing when to use an assortment of pre-made plot events, how does it differ from your much-despised choose your own adventure books?

I don't think anybody can argue that it isn't an excellent idea, and I won't deny I've entertained it myself on occasion, but even if it was smart enough to create its very own narrative on the fly I don't believe it could ever match the quality or cohesion possible in a hand-crafted story. Not for many centuries, at least.

Your challenge is interesting. Vidmaster's not going to like this, but here's one: Far Cry 2. It's far from hitting most of your lofty goals, but I believe it steps beyond choose-your-own-adventure style game structure. It could be boiled down to CYOA - you wander around, pick a mission, blow up some guys then rinse and repeat - but I think that's an oversimplification. Why I think it escapes that is because unlike a CYOA book where all the pages are pre-written, in Far Cry 2 it's only the turn-to-page-X directions that are pre-written. The engagements themselves are so variable and can be tackled in so many different ways that combined with the open-world environment no single mission will ever play out remotely similarly, let alone a playthrough. I think at this point your CYOA analogy collapses because the level of interactivity is too high for any author to realistically account for every possibility open to the player. The only way to fully exorcise CYOA from the game would be to make the mission events randomised and take that choice away from the player. In which case you've made the game so dynamic that you've missed the point: players want that level of control.

Of course, I remain unconvinced that the industry should strive for the kind of interactivity you describe. Some games, sure. Maybe in the future an entire genre will be born from it. But I don't think every or even most games need to be so dynamic. There's two different kinds of joy to be found in emergent environments like Far Cry 2's and the static ones of most other games. To say one is inherently superior seems arbitrary. Takes better advantage of the medium? Sure. But objectively better, no.

[Vidmaster]

the CYOA book comparison is smart. Yeah, like that non-linear stories work 

I think it boils down to personal preference here. You may have the freedom to approach a situation very different in FarCry2 (not like a simple choice "do I attack from left or right?") but this game also just puts you into a world with no clear goal nor direction and your actions never feel like they have ANY impact at all (with is the game's biggest letdown for me). I think Oblivion was more successful on that although it's not that great either, since it suffers from the usual Bethesta problems.

I personally like the road that Crysis took. Using a linear story usual produces much much more intense events *coughscriptingcough* and trading a completely open-world for a linear level structure with open levels is the way to go I think. I enjoyed that game a lot.
But on the other hand, I prefer intensity and tension over freedom most of the time, at least in my action games. RPGs are something entirely different of course.

For the future, I am curious about Operation Flashpoint 2 and Rage. Both promise a similar design philosophy as Crysis (and Flashpoint 1 already had that).

[TrashMan]

This is why using gaming as a storytelling medium is ultimately missing the point.  The primary advantage of gaming is that it lacks those constraints of direction.  Trying to turn gaming into a storytelling medium akin to movies or books - both of which are already completely constrained - it simply robbing the medium of it's main advantage by putting constraints into place for the sake of emulating another medium.

Go to the Bioware forums and tell that to the devs there. There had been numerous threads discussing just that.
The problem is that player freedom and telling a good story are mutually opposed. A good story requires you to know what happens so you cna plot the next part. Problem is, the player can do all sorts of stuff you haven't taken into account, breaking the game.

You can have a game with almost unlimited freedom, but it will be bland and fell like it doesn't have any direction whatsoever (Oblivion, FarCry2 for example).
On the other hand you got completley linear games that deliver the story and atmosphere, but player options are limited.

Now, you can find some happy middle ground there, but for a lot of people it won't be "free enough" or it won't be "detailed enough".

[phatosealpha]

If I were to get a chance to tell Bioware dev's anything, I wouldn't spend it with philosophical discussions.  I'd spend it trying to convince them they should make their UI's at least as function as friggin' squaresoft did on the SNES.


Anyway, here's the thing - I don't believe that a game with unlimited freedom is innately bland.  I view that as a technical problem, not a reasonable statement on the nature of the game itself.  A good human DM, for instance, is quite capable of handling extraordinarily chaotic players while still making a Dramatic experience.

Do I expect the current paradigm is going to go away anytime soon, or that a game with AI capable of making drama for the players no matter what they do is just around the corner?  Hell no - I may be chasing an ideal here, but I ain't stupid.



Thing is, it's not that I see slow progress in that direction, or even no progress - I see no one even trying to move in that direction.  And in Bioware's case, they could even be taken as moving backward with technology, instead of forward - largely cause of Voice acting.  Can you really say Mass Effect is any less constrained then Baldur's gate?

[TrashMan]

Anyway, here's the thing - I don't believe that a game with unlimited freedom is innately bland.  I view that as a technical problem, not a reasonable statement on the nature of the game itself.  A good human DM, for instance, is quite capable of handling extraordinarily chaotic players while still making a Dramatic experience.

The DM is still steering the players, limiting their actions, telling them what they can and cannot do. And he's a living, thinking person.
Programing a AI that's capable of coming up with interesting stories regardless of player action is mission impossible.

And yes, games with unlimited freedom simply can't have the same amount of polish as more liner ones. Why? Because each area, each segment of the story, each NPC is hand-crafted with care. Development respources are focused on things the player will experience and you KNOW what he will experience and where he will go.
A truly free game in comparison feels more empty, simply because there's more areas, more possible things to make available, and ultimatively you don't have the time or resources to polish them all. Not to mention that generated content can never stand up to hand-crafted one.

Thing is, it's not that I see slow progress in that direction, or even no progress - I see no one even trying to move in that direction.  And in Bioware's case, they could even be taken as moving backward with technology, instead of forward - largely cause of Voice acting.  Can you really say Mass Effect is any less constrained then Baldur's gate?

Yes. Voice Acting in ME was good for the type of game they were making. You character was set. Your race in set. In DA they are not using voice acting for the player, because it's simply not suited well for the type of game they are making now (not to mention the costs and space for so many different voice sets).
Just because something works well in A, doesn't mean it will work well in B too.

[Mongoose]

Thing is, it's not that I see slow progress in that direction, or even no progress - I see no one even trying to move in that direction.  And in Bioware's case, they could even be taken as moving backward with technology, instead of forward - largely cause of Voice acting.  Can you really say Mass Effect is any less constrained then Baldur's gate?

But with the obvious exception of yourself, do you really think there are that many people out there who even want what you're proposing?  I know that I myself am in the exact opposite camp.  As incomprehensible as it might seem to you, I generally prefer my games to be as linear as possible, and I've never had any real interest in seeking out and playing more sandbox-esque titles.  Why, you might ask?  Because I play games for the same reason that I read novels or watch movies: I want to be presented with a series of events leading to some conclusion.  Amongst those other media, games offer the unique experience of allowing me, through my viewpoint as the player, to directly experience and interact with that story.  I'm the one being shot at by aliens, slaughtering zombies, flying a spaceship, or swinging a sword, and it's up to me to ensure that everything turns out right in the end.  To me, a well-crafted game can generate those sensations in even the most rigidly linear title, and it's that sort of game that I value most highly.

It's like the oft-quoted Yahtzee stated during his recent review of the PS3 title Little Big Planet.  I have no interest in "making" my own gameplay, because in my mind, that's exactly what I'm paying the developers to do.  They are the ones who are (theoretically, anyway) masters of game design, interactive storytelling, and the like.  I want to directly experience their own expertise and craftsmanship, not rely on my own nonexistent imagination or the whims of some procedural generator.

(And yes, I always loathed those "choose-your-own-adventure" sorts of things, too. )

[blackhole]

Goddamn it you people post too much.

I'll just say that the idea of a procedural narrative has been put forth many times with many different theories. You can get away with procedurally generated subplots (maybe), but not much more then that. Storylines require creativity. Computers do not have creativity.

Storyline and sandbox are mutually opposed to each other and any attempts at mating them will produce offspring of unspeakable horror. You can put a little sandbox in a storyline game or a little story into a sandbox game, but you cannot combine equal amounts of both. It's like trying to dilute too much salt in your water, or something. I'm running out of analogies here

Freelancer is actually a nice example of how sandbox gameplay can be combined with storytelling. Whenever your actively participating in the storyline, its linear. When you aren't, its sandbox. Freelancer also happens to be one of my favorite games of all time.

[Raven2001]

Ahhhh, the famous narrative vs ludology debate

My take on it, as simple as possible: I believe both fields have to understand that both sides of the coin are needed. Both the linear approach and the stimulation approach. IMO both are fine, each have its strengths and weaknesses.

However, if the "media is the message", then many games have something wrong going on. IMO, attempts like Mass Effect are only injuring the media, not because of having a linear (mostly) storyline, but because at some point or another, interactivity (the media's strenght) is taken away from us: during dialogues, those cutscenes, etc. Games like Halo suffer the same problem, each time you finish a level or whatever there we go again, another cutscene... christ, I'll go to the big screen if I want to watch movies, thanks.
Yeah sure, my character, the Master Chief, jumped from a ship to the other in plain space, what a hero!!... only problem is it wasn't ME jumping of that ship. Which brings me to the next point.

I believe that the real discussion that should be ongoing nowadays, shouldn't be wether or not games should have pre-determined narrative elements. I honestly believe a balance between narrative\simulation is needed.
The discussion should be on how to present that narrative and simulation.

From my comments above it is obvious that I think that Halo or Mass Effect aren't the way to go... borrowing literal solutions from other media is a cheap, lame way.

We have gems though: Left 4 Dead, Half Life. They make great work of combining both aspects particularly well. Heck, who felt the need for a non interactive cutscene in Half-Life? Gordon did this, did that, seen this did that. The designers were clever enough to build the various scenes in a way that whenever they wanted you to look at something, from a certain angle, you would be there looking at it (arriving at the citadel comes to mind for instance).

On another point, this time related to narrative only, I honestly believe that a fractal narrative system is the way to go. Play Fallout 1&2, and you will see what a "near fractal" narrative system can do in terms of story flexibility, etc etc. That was 10 years ago by the way.

Nowadays the trend is complaining that developers can't do much to increase content because of production costs... I'd say up yours to that.
The problem is most developers nowadays want to relegate all their problems to the programming and art departments, instead of trying to come with intelligent, elegant solutions themselves.
Make no mistake, the gaming media, except on the technological side, has been regressing in the last decade. 

[Wobble73]

Thing is, it's not that I see slow progress in that direction, or even no progress - I see no one even trying to move in that direction.  And in Bioware's case, they could even be taken as moving backward with technology, instead of forward - largely cause of Voice acting.  Can you really say Mass Effect is any less constrained then Baldur's gate?

But with the obvious exception of yourself, do you really think there are that many people out there who even want what you're proposing?  I know that I myself am in the exact opposite camp.  As incomprehensible as it might seem to you, I generally prefer my games to be as linear as possible, and I've never had any real interest in seeking out and playing more sandbox-esque titles.  Why, you might ask?  Because I play games for the same reason that I read novels or watch movies: I want to be presented with a series of events leading to some conclusion.  Amongst those other media, games offer the unique experience of allowing me, through my viewpoint as the player, to directly experience and interact with that story.  I'm the one being shot at by aliens, slaughtering zombies, flying a spaceship, or swinging a sword, and it's up to me to ensure that everything turns out right in the end.  To me, a well-crafted game can generate those sensations in even the most rigidly linear title, and it's that sort of game that I value most highly.

It's like the oft-quoted Yahtzee stated during his recent review of the PS3 title Little Big Planet.  I have no interest in "making" my own gameplay, because in my mind, that's exactly what I'm paying the developers to do.  They are the ones who are (theoretically, anyway) masters of game design, interactive storytelling, and the like.  I want to directly experience their own expertise and craftsmanship, not rely on my own nonexistent imagination or the whims of some procedural generator.

(And yes, I always loathed those "choose-your-own-adventure" sorts of things, too. )

I agree, for a while I'm Masterchief, or Alpha 1, or Mario, or any other game character you could think of for a while.
It's a bit of escapism for a short time, but also interactive. I feel a part of it rather than a spectator! Don't get me wrong, I enjoy a good film or book, but a game comes close to the escapism I really crave! I can lose myself in a virtual world, where my mistakes can lead to my death but, I can always restart the level and have  another try!

[TrashMan]

However, if the "media is the message", then many games have something wrong going on. IMO, attempts like Mass Effect are only injuring the media, not because of having a linear (mostly) storyline, but because at some point or another, interactivity (the media's strenght) is taken away from us: during dialogues, those cutscenes, etc. Games like Halo suffer the same problem, each time you finish a level or whatever there we go again, another cutscene... christ, I'll go to the big screen if I want to watch movies, thanks.
Yeah sure, my character, the Master Chief, jumped from a ship to the other in plain space, what a hero!!... only problem is it wasn't ME jumping of that ship. Which brings me to the next point.

First Person View doesn't always fit with the scene the devs had in mind. Taking control of the camera away from the player for a tad, in order to create a better atmosphere or convey something better, if fully justified IMHO.
As long as the character doesn't do anything retarded during that cutscene (something you'd never do), as long as what happens is an expected and credible outcome of your action, it's all OK.
And example would be coming to the edge of the ship and jumping - and only THEN does the game cut, showing the massive jump from a cool angle.

Nowadays the trend is complaining that developers can't do much to increase content because of production costs... I'd say up yours to that.
The problem is most developers nowadays want to relegate all their problems to the programming and art departments, instead of trying to come with intelligent, elegant solutions themselves.
Make no mistake, the gaming media, except on the technological side, has been regressing in the last decade. 

I assume you're talking from your massive experience in making big gaming titles? You think making a game is easy? It's everything BUT that.
Take for example Bioware's Dragon Age. They are actually making what you are saying here - fractal, multiple starting points, multiple endings, completely different chapters depending on your race/class, different quests and NPC's, etc...
However, it takes so much time they had to cut some content and ask for a 5 month delay. So now DA has 6 origins (2 have been confirmed as cut for various reasons), 1 party NPC confirmed cut and probably a few tidbits more. It will still end up being a MASSIVE game, but this just goes to show you how difficult such a thing is.
If you ever had experience with NWN or NWN2 modules, even making such mods took a hulluvalot of time and effort, and they were very linerar and short.

[Raven2001]

First Person View doesn't always fit with the scene the devs had in mind. Taking control of the camera away from the player for a tad, in order to create a better atmosphere or convey something better, if fully justified IMHO.
As long as the character doesn't do anything retarded during that cutscene (something you'd never do), as long as what happens is an expected and credible outcome of your action, it's all OK.
And example would be coming to the edge of the ship and jumping - and only THEN does the game cut, showing the massive jump from a cool angle.

I disagree. Taking away the interactivity of the game is never justified IMO. If they want to convey a certain scene, then do so intelligently within the medium. Half Life (1&2, and episodes) does that, quite perfectly a number of times. Notice they are smart to the point to think the scenes in a way that you will only be able to see them from the best "camera angle" possible within the confines of a first person camera: the only way out of the rubble leads to a vista of the citadel where you can feel its immense size; You are knocked down and forced to see Alyx get injured and a strange Vort kill a hunter just in the nick of time; these are just 2 examples.

I mentioned the second example for a purpose. Note that they did take away certain parts of interactivity for that scene, but it works within the context.
All was thought of in advance= good scene design of the medium.

Another good game in that regard that I forgot to mention before is Dead Space. In there, sometimes, the camera is "slaved" at looking at something, but you still can, however, move it around a bit, interact. Other times the camera is fixed (contextually in a 3rd person shooter), but you are still interacting with the game.
Again, all was thought of in advance= good scene design of the medium.

Say in the example of the Master Chief's jump. I really don't remember the full details of that particular scene, but I do remember the chief jumps, camera changes n times, he lands with a noise and Sarge (camera cuts to the inside of the ship) makes a comment.
Why not the player jumps, the LZ is looking bigger, and bigger, and bigger... he lands with a noise, he hears sarge's comment via radio (or whatever they use there)? During the player he obviously cannot manipulate his movement, because he is on freefall, but he can still look around.
Wouldn't that convey the huge proportions of the jump? I believe so. Wouldn't that be better design? Absolutely
Mirror's edge does such things too.

I assume you're talking from your massive experience in making big gaming titles? You think making a game is easy? It's everything BUT that.

No, I'm talking from my experience in design in general, my studies in both game design, game theory, production experience in similar projects (and no I'm not talking of mods) that employ design, programming and art skills just like games.
I'm perfectly aware that making games ain't easy, perhaps I'm even more aware of that than you are. However, you seem to think that making a game is mainly the production process. You are wrong.
The hardest part, which is also the one that dictates how easily the production is done, is the design and planning process.
If the game designers and department managers plan things better, in terms of work pipeline, tools to make and use, etc, the game will be easier to make (I'm not saying it will be easy, I'm saying easier), have more content etc.

Say for instance, perhaps Mass Effect could've had more actual game content if the Designers didn't have the "brilliant" idea of making movies out of the dialogues.
The resources they wasted there could've been used to script more dialogue trees, quests, or areas.
Or if they hadn't had the "brilliant" idea that the player could land on a bazillion, uninteresting planets just to drive around his jeep to collect useless stuff.
The resources they wasted there could've been used to script more dialogue trees, quests, or areas.
They also had the "brilliant" idea of casting stupidly expensive voice actors, because they are famous voices, instead of cheaper, just as good, but less known voices.
The resources they wasted there could've been used to script more dialogue trees, quests, or areas.

Take for example Bioware's Dragon Age. They are actually making what you are saying here - fractal, multiple starting points, multiple endings, completely different chapters depending on your race/class, different quests and NPC's, etc...
However, it takes so much time they had to cut some content and ask for a 5 month delay. So now DA has 6 origins (2 have been confirmed as cut for various reasons), 1 party NPC confirmed cut and probably a few tidbits more. It will still end up being a MASSIVE game, but this just goes to show you how difficult such a thing is.
If you ever had experience with NWN or NWN2 modules, even making such mods took a hulluvalot of time and effort, and they were very linerar and short.

I'm not following Dragon Age, but I'll hold my breath for them. And anyways, Bioware's promises don't really hold up for me. We'll see how different are 2 playtroughs in DA when it comes out. You know, you also start in different areas depending of race in LotR Online and WoW.
But assuming they are being 100% true on what they say: cutting content happens everywhere, everytime. Delays? Check as well.
But anyways, if in the Fallouts they managed to almost make a fractal narrative, with a budget nowhere near of DA's budget, then Bioware is simply, finally, justifying the money they are given.

NWN or NWN2 Toolsets are pretty old and "primitive". Take a look how things are done nowadays (U3, Crysis, FarCry2) and you will realise that good development tools (as well as a pretty well established working pipeline) saves time. Again, part of the planning process.

[blackhole]

I assume you're talking from your massive experience in making big gaming titles? You think making a game is easy? It's everything BUT that.

He's got that right

[TrashMan]

I disagree. Taking away the interactivity of the game is never justified IMO.

Say in the example of the Master Chief's jump. I really don't remember the full details of that particular scene, but I do remember the chief jumps, camera changes n times, he lands with a noise and Sarge (camera cuts to the inside of the ship) makes a comment.
Why not the player jumps, the LZ is looking bigger, and bigger, and bigger... he lands with a noise, he hears sarge's comment via radio (or whatever they use there)? During the player he obviously cannot manipulate his movement, because he is on freefall, but he can still look around.
Wouldn't that convey the huge proportions of the jump? I believe so. Wouldn't that be better design? Absolutely
Mirror's edge does such things too. [/quote{

And both things are, of course, fully subjective.
Which is why game design is such a difficult process in the first place. It also differs from game type to game type.
If the game is not first person, taking away camera control seems less of an issue.
As a general rule I would avoid taking control from the player, but there are instances where it might be for the better, and for more reasons than just pure asthetics.

Say for instance, perhaps Mass Effect could've had more actual game content if the Designers didn't have the "brilliant" idea of making movies out of the dialogues.
The resources they wasted there could've been used to script more dialogue trees, quests, or areas.

Which most people think WAS a brilliant idea, since such dialogue added a lot to the atmosphere and feel.

I'm not following Dragon Age, but I'll hold my breath for them. And anyways, Bioware's promises don't really hold up for me. We'll see how different are 2 playtroughs in DA when it comes out. You know, you also start in different areas depending of race in LotR Online and WoW.
But assuming they are being 100% true on what they say: cutting content happens everywhere, everytime. Delays? Check as well.
But anyways, if in the Fallouts they managed to almost make a fractal narrative, with a budget nowhere near of DA's budget, then Bioware is simply, finally, justifying the money they are given.

Fallout series, as briliant as it is, is old and does not compare well, since new games DEMAND a LOT more resources, which consequently requires a lot more time and $$$. Not to mention that the protagonist in Fallout is pre-set, which makes telling a story and creating content easier.