In a year ripe with major video game releases, Star Wars: The Force Unleashed had achieved the coveted third spot in Stub's "ZOMG I NEEDS 2 BE OWNING THAT GAME" list of 2008. Big deal, I know. And so Monday night, at 11:55 pm, there I was at Gamestop, not so patiently waiting for its midnight release. Some people say I'm getting too old for that sort of thing. I just squirt those people with my Ecto Cooler juice box. I'm still on the fence as to whether Force Unleashed is the best Star Wars game of all time (I'm leaning towards no) but sufficed to say its up there. The fun factor is off the charts, the story (so far) is fantastic, and I feel pretty comfortable saying that Unleashed has been a better contribution to the Star Wars universe than the entire prequel trilogy. But this isnt a post about Star Wars, or even really the Force Unleashed. Its about mechanics - more specifically, one I don't like very much.
There is a design tactic in video games known as "quick time events" or QTEs. If you are not a gamer, or if the term doesnt ring a bell, QTEs "allow for limited control of the game character at cinematic points in the game, and generally involves the player following onscreen prompts to press buttons" *. Put more concisely, quick time events allow you to have a minimal interaction with in game movies. And that all amounts to something that looks like this (nothing major is revealed in this clip - also no sound for some reason).
The purpose of the QTE, as you can see from the video, is to blend the interactivity of a game with the highly scripted "cinematography" of a movie to create an extremely compelling experience. All you as the player need to do to make this scene play out is to press the right button when prompted to do so (shown by the triangle, X, square, or circles that appear). The result? Game interactions that are nothing short of stunning. Movies that you can play. Visually, the quick time event phenomenon is a home run.
But is it any fun? And if the interactivity of the game is little more than a monkey see monkey do routine, does it really capture the spirit of interactivity that games are built upon? Does it just become a crutch?The very idea behind the QTE detracts from the point of a video game. When you finish a defeat a boss in a game, it feels good because you accomplished something. Every boss has weaknesses, and in any game worth its salt, success involves developing and effectively implementing a strategy to exploit those weaknesses. Ultimately, part of that strategy will involve button mashing (or Wii waggling) because that is how we interface with games. But choosing which buttons to press, and indeed why you choose the buttons you do is what makes the accomplishment an accomplishment. Its what makes games worth playing. And that says nothing of the way the jarring and obvious prompts detract from the immersion of an otherwise well designed experience. Oh, and detracting from the immersion detracts from the learning potential. Not so bueno.
When quick time events are used, it removes any strategy from a game, in favor of Simon Says and eye candy. Value is most certainly added, but even more is lost, at least in my opinion. Because QTEs deny you the opportunity to make your own decisions. Either do what you are told, or fail. There is no need for practice or experimentation. No customization. No individuality, no reflection, no decisions to make. There is nothing to discuss.
Become a beautiful lemming, or die.
I love Force Unleashed. God of War. Resident Evil 4. Honestly, I would be lying if I told you I didnt enjoy a beautifully rendered quick time event. And to be fair to any game I've ever played that utilized the QTE mechanic, it is the exception of interaction, not the rule. The finishing move. The means to make sure you're awake. The emphasis. But something feels cheap about the artificial view, as if it all came at the price of the things I love most about games.
Is it worth it I wonder? I have to think not. But for whatever its worth, I thought it on my own.
* quote from Wikipedia "Quick Time Event"
Image from amazon.com and gamespy.com
Thanks for putting some perspective on this Dave. I think you are right in that there is certainly an element of my own game snobbery at work here. At the core, I suppose the question is "what is a game (or rock climbing) really supposed to be"? I'm no more right than anyone... but its my blog so I can pretend to be =)
Obviously at the end of the day, its about making a buck. I totally understand that. But if, as you suggest, its more about pleasing the lowest common denominator than demanding some level of effort from your audience, then I have to be concerned for future of the medium. To me, a future of quick time events would deprive gaming of its potential and send it spiraling into idiocracy. But thats only because of what games mean to me.
Different strokes for different folks I suppose. But rock climbing with a ladder is still cheating.
Very smart analysis. I'm not a gamer, but can easily see the problem: a bit like coming upon a small ladder while rock climbing, it really destroys the flow. Is it the fault of the game authors who need story specifics closely scripted to move the game forward? I would think avoiding those moments (which might be an ego boost for a less talented writer) would be a skill sought by better developers. Or is it just the technology that can't deliver an eye-popping spontaneous event? I would think having my eyes popped would be a satisfying reward for in-game player expertise if it could be delivered with the same intensity and complexity as a scripted moment (QTE?).
but I guess games have to be really cool for players who suck, too; and if seeing the eye-popping event depended on their skill, they'd soon stop playing. Too bad. My guess is only the skilled, intelligent, and analytical players are bothered by the QTEs. Maybe you need to create something so cool, it could no longer be called a game?