I’ve never been a fan of the Metal Gear Solid games, and one of the reasons is that the frequency and length of the cutscenes drove me nuts. I can’t remember which one I last played, I think it was MGS2, but even within the short time I played I wanted to get up, fly to Japan, and shake Kojima vigourously while telling him to go become a bloody movie director already instead of interrupting honest gaming all the damn time. It’s all horses for courses obviously, many people love the MGS franchise for the cutscene laden story I know, but for me, playing a game that seems like 50% movie was hugely infuriating.
I read in the news today that at least one of the cutscenes in MGS4 runs to 90 minutes long. For a second there I had a double-take - surely they meant the total runtime of all the cutscenes (which IMO would be bad enough)? But no, they really did mean 90 minutes for a single cutscene. And the implication seems to be that there’s more than one like that. I can’t even get my head around the idea - being interrupted mid-game to watch a full 90 minute film? Bonkers. I’d be hitting the skip button within about 90 seconds, never mind minutes. I don’t know whether they mean cutscene in a traditional sense, or some kind of interactive scripted event, but I get the impression that they really do mean a regular cutscene.
I heard in related talk that MGS2 actually had one 45 minute cutscene, which I didn’t realise because I gave up on it way before I encountered it. Some people obviously loved that game, so maybe Kojima is justified in feeling he can take it up a notch with all that Blu-Ray space available. Personally, I can’t help but feel utterly disconnected from the concept of a game being made better with more & longer cutscenes. I don’t like to be interrupted with a film when I’m playing, any more than I’d like to suddenly stop and play Pac-Man in the middle of watching a film. But, clearly some people want this level of movie indulgence in their games? I can’t fathom it.
Never mind, I guess that’s why I’m not an MGS fan, right? 
May 23rd, 2008 at 1:56 pm
90 minutes? jeez, i hope it saves where you get to as its playing so you can stop at any time.
I liked MGS1 and 2 (havent played the 3rd one yet), at the end of number 2 theres a lot of cutscenes, IIRC some (or all?) arent skippable, and the credits definatly arent skippable, they go on for 15 mins i think, its been a long time, but i think you only got to save after the credits finished too :S
May 23rd, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Okay even I (as a MGS fan) have to admit that 90 minutes for a cutscene is a little over the top!
I know that MGS2 had a lot (I don’t remember anything near 45 minutes), MGS3 was probably not as bad…
I guess I’ll just need to see what it’s like in a couple of weeks!
May 23rd, 2008 at 2:53 pm
PS - good choice of picture
May 23rd, 2008 at 6:37 pm
90 minutes, WTF?
Thats what I want for games, not something like Gears of War, where you have a one minut intro.
Kojimas Goal is to make games like or even better than movies and not games like pac man. A fully interactiv movie.
May 23rd, 2008 at 6:39 pm
PS: MGS3 is the best game of the series.
May 23rd, 2008 at 8:28 pm
I’m of the opinion that games are already the equal of movies, but don’t need to be like them to achieve that. It’s a different medium, I hate it when it’s inferred that games must be more cinematic (and less interactive) in order to improve. Games shouldn’t have to ape film to feel worthwhile.
May 23rd, 2008 at 8:43 pm
Hmmm I dont know, but as a game designer, a 90 min cutscene clearly is a design flaw, doesnt it? Generally talking, cutscenes are design flaws. Stop the world, take away the control from the player, and let the game play for itself… :Q
If you are into storytelling and you cant advance the plot with gameplay, then obviously, you are not a good GAME designer, if any. And maybe, 90 min older, we could also argue if you are or not a good film maker
The worst is… they are proud of it
*sigh*
May 23rd, 2008 at 9:24 pm
@MaaS: I absolutely agree - as I’ve said before in other posts, it’s a lot to do with the fact that mechanisms for delivering complex narative elements in an interactive environment are not fully developed yet. I think it’s a lot like early film using fixed cameras & theatre-like sets because they hadn’t figured out cinematography yet, so they just copied the media that came before. And yet now if a film was shot like that people would consider it backward. If anything, games are far more removed from film than film was from theatre, and yet emulation of film seems the ultimate goal for many games people - I personally think that’s as stifling and backward looking as making film like theatre, but not everyone agrees.
May 26th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
okay first im tired of playing these overly easy games where i can run through it from start to finished. Okay 90 mins is that bad if its in the right spot to slow down the gamer. You like running through game but I hate it. Dont bash it cause out all the game with series its doing great….. Okay
May 26th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
Interesting - firstly, I’m not bashing it, I’m saying *I* don’t like cutscene-heavy games. If you do, that’s fine, I hope you enjoy it. But I’m not going to pretend I like the series or the concept of using a ton of cutscenes in an interactive entertainment medium just because it’s popular with people who do like that kind of thing. My blog, my opinions.
Secondly, ’slowing the player down’? Is that really how you measure value? Personally, I would prefer that all the time spent on heavy cutscenes was spent instead creating interactive content, because that’s why I play games, rather than going to the cinema. I don’t charge through my games, I actually savour the experience, but I’d rather be ’slowed down’ by stuff I actually play, not stuff I passively watch. Personally, I don’t count time watching cutscenes as ‘play time’. YMMV of course. As I mentioned in the OP, some people clearly disagree, and that’s fine - one person’s opinion does not invalidate an opposing one.