Right & Wrong: QTEs

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, I said "rework the scene" for a reason. I knew it wouldn't be easy to directly control that, but I bet you could still do it with, say, Super Mario 64 controls. Zoom the camera back out a bit so you can see behind you and I'm sure you could predict when your car is about to be destroyed. Also remember that with a real control scheme you wouldn't be restricted to necessarily go with the planned path that you see in-game, so it's not completely necessary to, say, wall run the truck if you don't want to. Considering it's a third person shooter I doubt they'd go that route, but such a thing IS possible if the game designer is really intent on making it work. Direct control over a scene like that would be incredibly difficult but you WOULD feel utterly badass when you stopped screwing up and actually beat such a thing with manual control.

Another option that they could go with is the system used in Wind Waker (and sorta in Twilight Princess), where the A button is context sensitive. As a reminder, in Wind Waker, when you're attacked you have a certain time window (represented by a sound and a small onscreen prompt), to hit the context-sensitive A button to do a counterattack without getting hit. The major difference between this and QTEs is that unlike QTEs, if the player knows what the window is for the counterattack, they can ignore the prompt entirely and just hit the A button when they want to counter. In fact, by the end of the game it's almost necessary to watch the animations of the opponents instead of the prompt, because by the time you see the prompt your counterattack window will have already passed.

This is similar in USE to QTEs but drastically different in application, because unlike QTEs this does not remove the normal game's controls. The A button is always context-sensitive in Zelda, and pressing it at the proper time performs the counterattack. The player doesn't need the on-screen prompt, it simply aids in recognizing the timing. WET could implement a context-sensitive button and prompt the player to press it to jump. The advantage to this over QTEs is that the player can simply watch the scene in-game and does not need to look at the prompts to determine when to jump if he or she doesn't want to. They could also press the button early in an attempt to speedrun the section.

My argument is that any QTE could be done better with another method of control, and should be abolished. Since you guys seem to keep providing examples to try to push the idea that QTEs, how about you provide an example of something that could ONLY be done with a QTE that couldn't be improved by reworking the controls slightly to do away with the QTEs.
 
Mystic said:
I did so. QTEs are bad because all QTEs could be replaced by either removing the command entry and making it a cutscene or reworking the design so the player can do it in actual gameplay. I would rather just watch the character do it or do it myself with the normal game controls, not be forced to hit buttons out of context like some kind of controller whack-a-mole.


This is not a QTE. This is a different genre of game. You call these "rhythm games", and generally they're set to music. DDR and Guitar Hero both use this exact design to great effect.
Click to expand...

I am not talking about rhythm, but instead just press the buttons correctly in any speed, just make sure you stay within the allotted time.
 
The thing is, that's not nearly as interesting a game as doing it to a beat, which is why rhythm games are a massively profitable genre and button mashing like you describe doesn't exist.
 
Requesting this thread be moved to the Collosseum. This thread seems better suited for that board, and in hindsight I probably should've posted there in the first place.

Mystic said:
Zoom the camera back out a bit so you can see behind you and I'm sure you could predict when your car is about to be destroyed.
Click to expand...
Have you considered the fact that WET is a third-person shooter, and that Mario isn't? How exactly do you expect to hit anything reliably with the camera zoomed that far out? Hell, even with ironsights-style zoom in it's pretty difficult to get a shot off anything the way everything moves.

Considering it's a third person shooter I doubt they'd go that route, but such a thing IS possible if the game designer is really intent on making it work. Direct control over a scene like that would be incredibly difficult but you WOULD feel utterly badass when you stopped screwing up and actually beat such a thing with manual control.
Click to expand...
WET is a game that actively avoids such trial-and-error for the sake of simplicity, so in the context of the rest of the game having a level that nasty would be throwing a wrench in things. This isn't like Mirror's Edge where the engine is complex but versatile - players get a jump button, a slide button, a sword button and a gun button, and are told to shoot crap until it stops moving. Maybe in a different kind of game where such difficulty is to be expected, yes, it could work, but not in WET. Not by a longshot.

Another option that they could go with is the system used in Wind Waker (and sorta in Twilight Princess), where the A button is context sensitive. As a reminder, in Wind Waker, when you're attacked you have a certain time window (represented by a sound and a small onscreen prompt), to hit the context-sensitive A button to do a counterattack without getting hit. The major difference between this and QTEs is that unlike QTEs, if the player knows what the window is for the counterattack, they can ignore the prompt entirely and just hit the A button when they want to counter. In fact, by the end of the game it's almost necessary to watch the animations of the opponents instead of the prompt, because by the time you see the prompt your counterattack window will have already passed.
Click to expand...
...um, this is almost exactly what nearly the entire chase scene does already. I fail to see the problem here.

My argument is that any QTE could be done better with another method of control, and should be abolished. Since you guys seem to keep providing examples to try to push the idea that QTEs, how about you provide an example of something that could ONLY be done with a QTE that couldn't be improved by reworking the controls slightly to do away with the QTEs.
Click to expand...
My dear, I have no idea where you're getting this preconception from. My arguments revolve around the practicality of QTEs - necessity doesn't even enter into it. Matter of fact, I actively encourage the use of standard gameplay where it is more practical to do so (case in point, the second point of the OP), but the thing is, some actions of a game simply aren't practical as a main game mechanic and are better off regulated to a QTE or spawn thereof.

Seeing as you asked for an example, I'll list several. Going back yet again to the chase sequence, there is a QTE which causes Rubi to throw her sword in mid-jump at an occupant of the car she's about to land on. Are you honestly trying to suggest that sword-throwing would be better off as an ingame technique? I mean, sure, it's possible and there's no doubting that, but the only reason this is feasible even as a QTE is that there's a 100% guarantee of both hitting your target and being able to retrieve your sword again - as an ingame move, you have to wonder, what happens if you miss? You have to waste time retrieving it again minus your melee ability until you find it again. What if you lose it, or impale someone with it out of your reach? Well that leaves you right buggered, doesn't it? Not only can you not cut anyone anymore, that's your only method of forcing open locked doors you just threw away. All that hassle, for a move that's only even needed once in the entire game. In a QTE, none of those factors matter because it's completely automated beyond a single button press.

For another, going back to RE4/5. You have a larger number of moves than you might think, but the majority of them are usable only in QTE contexts. There's plenty of small ones, so I'll case-in-point the most memorable - dodging. Now I'm sure you're already about to argue this would be better off as a standard move, but it begs the question - what reason would you have to do a dodge move, when there's nothing around to dodge? Not only that, but you have to consider that it doesn't take up any space on your controller, leaving room for the more basic and necessary stuff - hell, if you tried hard enough you could make the entire game out of these with the control stick being the only constant. Well okay, maybe a slight exaggeration but it's a very versatile kind of QTE nonetheless.

Then you have to take into account feats that are pretty bat**** insane, to be overly general about it, in the context of the standard game engine - a pretty common usage of a QTE. You say it's possible ingame with only slight alterations, but with the scope of some of these scenes it sounds more like you're trying to make them into entirely different games, even to extents that it was never intended to be. Generally, yes, you're right, this is stuff that we'd rather perform ourselves. But there are many times the QTE is used not as a crutch, but for a (often one-time) scene of a nature that the game itself was never designed or intended for in such an involved, long term manner. Good ol' Shenmue is the first example that comes to mind here, but there are surely plenty of others spread about the place.

Finally, sometimes you have to bear in mind that sometimes it's there for simplicity's sake, and colour me seriously impressed if you can think of any interaction simpler than a QTE. Even Let's Tap requires the use of TWO alternating taps from different directions to control. This can mean a number of things, really - sometimes a game is simple overall and wants to accomplish something that in proper practice would not be simple. Maybe it's the finisher to a boss fight, much like a warm-down you get to watch while still handing out the final doses of asskicking. Sometimes it's even a little minigame that doesn't expect to be taken seriously. Whatever the case, the ideal QTE is never any deeper than a button press, and this is not a bad thing by itself - in fact, this can very well be a large benefit when used with common sense. It depends on the context of its usage for the most part, and needless to say, that's the main area where most devs infamously **** it up.

And I'm tired and sleepy by this point and have probably made at least one major mistake typing all this out. Eh, I'll pick up on it later.
 
Last edited:
Tomb Raider vs. Tomb Raider Anniversary - the dinosaur fight.

:(

Also, the earliest 3d game I know that was entirely QTEs was Cyberswine, which was hailed as the most unplayable game of the year ('97). It wasn't until Shenmue when it was suddenly re-pushed and seen as a new godsend in gaming mechanics.
 
Blacklightning said:
Seeing as you asked for an example, I'll list several. Going back yet again to the chase sequence, there is a QTE which causes Rubi to throw her sword in mid-jump at an occupant of the car she's about to land on. Are you honestly trying to suggest that sword-throwing would be better off as an ingame technique? I mean, sure, it's possible and there's no doubting that, but the only reason this is feasible even as a QTE is that there's a 100% guarantee of both hitting your target and being able to retrieve your sword again - as an ingame move, you have to wonder, what happens if you miss? You have to waste time retrieving it again minus your melee ability until you find it again. What if you lose it, or impale someone with it out of your reach? Well that leaves you right buggered, doesn't it? Not only can you not cut anyone anymore, that's your only method of forcing open locked doors you just threw away. All that hassle, for a move that's only even needed once in the entire game. In a QTE, none of those factors matter because it's completely automated beyond a single button press.
Click to expand...
Just make it automatic as part of the jump cutscene. You could also just have the player hit the attack button to do it. Why bother worrying about such details when you can program the attack to always hit?

Blacklightning said:
For another, going back to RE4/5. You have a larger number of moves than you might think, but the majority of them are usable only in QTE contexts. There's plenty of small ones, so I'll case-in-point the most memorable - dodging. Now I'm sure you're already about to argue this would be better off as a standard move, but it begs the question - what reason would you have to do a dodge move, when there's nothing around to dodge? Not only that, but you have to consider that it doesn't take up any space on your controller, leaving room for the more basic and necessary stuff - hell, if you tried hard enough you could make the entire game out of these with the control stick being the only constant. Well okay, maybe a slight exaggeration but it's a very versatile kind of QTE nonetheless.
Click to expand...
Dodging mechanics have been done constantly in normal game controls, I don't see how this should be any different. To use Zelda as an example again, in combat the context-sensitive A button became the dodge button as long as you were targeting something. I don't see how this wastes space in a game like Resident Evil where you need an "inspect" button anyways.

Blacklightning said:
Then you have to take into account feats that are pretty bat**** insane, to be overly general about it, in the context of the standard game engine - a pretty common usage of a QTE. You say it's possible ingame with only slight alterations, but with the scope of some of these scenes it sounds more like you're trying to make them into entirely different games, even to extents that it was never intended to be. Generally, yes, you're right, this is stuff that we'd rather perform ourselves. But there are many times the QTE is used not as a crutch, but for a (often one-time) scene of a nature that the game itself was never designed or intended for in such an involved, long term manner. Good ol' Shenmue is the first example that comes to mind here, but there are surely plenty of others spread about the place.
Click to expand...
I'd argue that for a one-time only thing, there is a far more simple, elegant method to perform said action: cutscenes. Just make the maneuver automatic when you defeat the opponent.

Blacklightning said:
Finally, sometimes you have to bear in mind that sometimes it's there for simplicity's sake, and colour me seriously impressed if you can think of any interaction simpler than a QTE. Even Let's Tap requires the use of TWO alternating taps from different directions to control. This can mean a number of things, really - sometimes a game is simple overall and wants to accomplish something that in proper practice would not be simple. Maybe it's the finisher to a boss fight, much like a warm-down you get to watch while still handing out the final doses of asskicking. Sometimes it's even a little minigame that doesn't expect to be taken seriously. Whatever the case, the ideal QTE is never any deeper than a button press, and this is not a bad thing by itself - in fact, this can very well be a large benefit when used with common sense. It depends on the context of its usage for the most part, and needless to say, that's the main area where most devs infamously **** it up.
Click to expand...
Sure I can: Cutscenes are far more simple than a QTE. It removes the necessity to press a button, and doesn't force the player to watch the cutscene again if they fail at the QTE, to boot.

Again, I reiterate. Name a QTE that couldn't be done in one of the following, far better ways:
1. Automatic cutscene.
2. Using a context-sensitive button similar to the 3D Zelda games.
3. Reworking the scene or the in-game controls to let the player do it themselves.

Your previous examples all fit under one or more of those three categories.
 
Mystic said:
Just make it automatic as part of the jump cutscene. You could also just have the player hit the attack button to do it. Why bother worrying about such details when you can program the attack to always hit?
Click to expand...
Well, for one thing, think of how badly it could be abused. If you really programmed a move to simply not miss at all, you'd no longer have any use for the four different kinds of heat you're packing. And for another, it doesn't cover the hassle of retrieving it either, particularly because, as mentioned, there's the possibility of throwing it into an unreachable spot, 100% accuracy or no.


Dodging mechanics have been done constantly in normal game controls, I don't see how this should be any different. To use Zelda as an example again, in combat the context-sensitive A button became the dodge button as long as you were targeting something. I don't see how this wastes space in a game like Resident Evil where you need an "inspect" button anyways.
Click to expand...
Umm... what exactly are you trying to prove here? The RE dodges work in almost the exact same way - only real difference is its extension to classic "movie" style QTEs (not something I 100% agree with either, for the record). Other than that, it's all about waiting for the sign of a big attack, and tapping a pair of buttons when you're about to be hit by it. Zelda is no different here at all.


I'd argue that for a one-time only thing, there is a far more simple, elegant method to perform said action: cutscenes. Just make the maneuver automatic when you defeat the opponent.
Click to expand...
Who said I was talking strictly about fighting? Have you even seen a Shenmue game?


Sure I can: Cutscenes are far more simple than a QTE.
Click to expand...
Interaction being the key word here. Like it or not, a QTE is a form of interaction - a cutscene is not.

It removes the necessity to press a button, and doesn't force the player to watch the cutscene again if they fail at the QTE, to boot.

Again, I reiterate. Name a QTE that couldn't be done in one of the following, far better ways:
1. Automatic cutscene.
2. Using a context-sensitive button similar to the 3D Zelda games.
3. Reworking the scene or the in-game controls to let the player do it themselves.

Your previous examples all fit under one or more of those three categories.
Click to expand...
*facepalm*

Once again my actual point has fallen on deaf ears. I am NOT implying that a QTE is impossible to convert to standard gameplay, and in fact I encourage standard gameplay where it's more practical. This is an agreement with you, so why on earth do you persist with this argument when there has literally been nobody else pressing the issue? Are you really that stubborn?

To make a reiteration of my own, it's the practicality of such a concept that matters. Often QTEs are used as a crutch to avoid actual level or boss design, yes I am agreeing with you there and I am not attempting to deny it. Sometimes though, the concept of using scenes like this in standard gameplay is simply pointless and impractical, among things, and yet, still requires a bare minimum of interaction to be most effective. You also have to consider the context of the QTE in regards to the main aim of the actual gameplay engine, the target audience and the scene itself - sometimes a QTE is made to fill a small niche that the game was never designed for, and would end up alienating the very people the game was aimed at in the first place in a proper gameplay scheme - much like the dreaded yet mysteriously obligatory "vehicle section" most FPS fans keep gabbing on about. Very few of these things, as of yet, are things you've actually considered as far as I can see.

And just in case I didn't make the message clear enough the first three or so times, I agree that a gameplay scheme is preferable to a QTE sequence and I wouldn't have it any other way where possible. For the most part I'm just playing devil's advocate and seeing things from different points of view (and let's face it, we don't really learn anything if we look at it from one side). Also yeah, rewatching QTE scenes really sucks, it's better off when failing merely damages or hinders you instead.

a bee said:
Tomb Raider vs. Tomb Raider Anniversary - the dinosaur fight.
Click to expand...
Christ, don't remind me. It's a real wonder why that couldn't have been done with an ingame workaround, or hell, just stopping the fight once the health bar hit zero.
 
Last edited:
Blacklightning said:
Interaction being the key word here. Like it or not, a QTE is a form of interaction - a cutscene is not.
Click to expand...
See, right HERE is the actual disagreement. I don't consider QTEs interactive. I consider it to be a contrived method to continue a cutscene, fulfilling the same purpose as hitting the A button to view the next paragraph of text in a cutscene so I can keep reading. I would rather just hit A to see what happens next.
 
Irregardless, it requires the player's input and you would have to be a fool to deny it. This is a simple fact that you cannot twist no matter how hard you try - interaction is to imply that the player actually affects the game, and one-dimensional button presses still fall under this category as long as there is a criteria for success and failure. Did you have an actual point to prove here? Were you going somewhere with this? I was honestly expecting more. =\
 
Well, lemme ask you this:

Is hitting A to scroll the text interaction? I personally would say it's not, considering it's the same "interaction" you have when you say, turn the page in a book. Technically you're pressing a button and the game is responding, but what's really happening is you're reading text on the screen. Surely you're not going to argue that a book is interactive because you can "scroll" the pages backwards and forwards. Technically that IS input to the machine after all.

Generally QTEs don't really affect the game at all. You press the button entry to continue "scrolling the text" (the cutscene), and the only condition is that you press the _proper_ button instead of A. Failure means you simply have to scroll back in the text a bit and read again. This is simply not "interaction", it's turning the page in a book. Just because there is a condition for failure doesn't make it any more interactive watching your character do something cool.

To give a counterexample, is a slot machine interactive? You put your money in and there's a chance you will get a lot of money back. The input is putting a coin in the slot and the output is either a success (lots of money back) or a failure (nothing back). By your standards (a failure condition), a slot machine is an interactive game, since you have a "button press" of putting the coin into the machine, and a chance of success and failure.
 
Mystic said:
To give a counterexample, is a slot machine interactive? You put your money in and there's a chance you will get a lot of money back. The input is putting a coin in the slot and the output is either a success (lots of money back) or a failure (nothing back). By your standards (a failure condition), a slot machine is an interactive game, since you have a "button press" of putting the coin into the machine, and a chance of success and failure.
Click to expand...
I get your point, but with a slot machine, the machine determines what happens. In a QTE, you can determine what happens yourself. It IS actually interactive, it's just not interactive ENOUGH.
 
Mystic wrote:

"See, right HERE is the actual disagreement. I don't consider QTEs interactive. I consider it to be a contrived method to continue a cutscene, fulfilling the same purpose as hitting the A button to view the next paragraph of text in a cutscene so I can keep reading. I would rather just hit A to see what happens next."

This is really a good point. Are there any cut-scene style QTEs where failure branches the story, as opposed to forcing the player to try again? I don't know any good examples, but then again I don't play many videogames.

I was thinking maybe Shenmue, but I could be totally wrong.
 
Wombatwarlord777, why don't you use quote tags? It looks much nicer.

I've never really seen a QTE done properly in games before. I generally don't like them because they force you to switch between gameplay styles, which disrupts the flow of normal gameplay most of the time.
 
I love QTEs in Kingdom Hearts. Here is one example

You are fighting a monster, on a pillar. He flips it over and you fall and throws a huge energy ball at you. If you press triangle you'll hit it back. It was used rarely so if you didn't like that, then oh well.
 
Mystic said:
Is hitting A to scroll the text interaction?
Click to expand...
Well, yes. There's no doubting it's shallow in the context of a more indepth gameplay scheme, but most of the time the player's still required to signal when he's done reading. I don't get why you're trying to argue this, there is literally no denying that it's player input either way. You might wanna try a different argument, because I get the feeling you're trying to explain a completely unrelated point here.

Generally QTEs don't really affect the game at all. You press the button entry to continue "scrolling the text" (the cutscene), and the only condition is that you press the _proper_ button instead of A. Failure means you simply have to scroll back in the text a bit and read again. This is simply not "interaction", it's turning the page in a book. Just because there is a condition for failure doesn't make it any more interactive watching your character do something cool.
Click to expand...
I think we've already gathered that it is in fact still more interactive than watching a cutscene of the same setpiece. Again, you can't even attempt to argue otherwise. I mean, now we're just diving into petty nitpicking and it's not helping either of us, really. Naturally, I'm not about to doubt that such interaction can be somewhat basic and/or convulted, but there are correct ways around doing them and that's what I intend on finding out, exactly.

One such way I've gathered is to make them consistent with a similar ingame mechanic, such as the aformentioned Wind Waker and Resident Evil 4/5 dodge/counter moves. RE gets off pretty easy simply because they resemble short-time contextual dodges so strongly, and as such, they can actually be expected outside of standard gameplay after a brief learning curve. Hell, you could probably do much the same in Wind Waker and it wouldn't seem totally out of place, as long as they aren't insta-death-on-fail (RE, again, gets off lightly for this as many ingame threats can easily kill you in a single hit, such as Dr. Salvador's chainsaw). This is a key mistake that most QTE abusers make - they are such a sudden trip from standard gameplay that they abruptly become frustrating and difficult to predict (and I'm willing to bet this is what you already think of most of them), and as such, a pointless addition and a tedious time waster.

Maybe I'm starting to repeat myself here, but it'd be nice to get back on topic anyways.

Wombatwarlord777 said:
This is really a good point. Are there any cut-scene style QTEs where failure branches the story, as opposed to forcing the player to try again? I don't know any good examples, but then again I don't play many videogames.

I was thinking maybe Shenmue, but I could be totally wrong.
Click to expand...
Many of Shenmue's prompts don't result in instant failure per se (there have been exceptions though, as far as I've played) - so far they've either given me several chances to get through a whole QTE sequence, made me start a fight with a health handicap for failing (which I can honestly say I probably deserved for letting my guard down in the first place, given the situation), and some are... well, optional minigames, some of which earn you money for how well you do, and screwing up costs time which could otherwise have been spent making more potential money.

Not all QTEs are based on cutscenes though - it's important to remember that. Some take place in actual gameplay and show off a brief button prompt relating to an incoming hazard of various sorts. The most they'll do is automate the next action to ensure you won't be punished for getting it right (such as WET's, which autoguides walljumps to offscreen locations when prompted - something you can't actually do in standard gameplay most of the time without some overly confusing camera angles), but other than that, they don't change gameplay all that much and sometimes it's even possible to ignore it and take your own approach to the situation, level design withstanding.

Kyasarin said:
I've never really seen a QTE done properly in games before. I generally don't like them because they force you to switch between gameplay styles, which disrupts the flow of normal gameplay most of the time.
Click to expand...
I'm not gonna lie - it's fairly difficult to find a QTE-heavy game that does do it to an acceptable level, and in fact it's often a crutch for developers that simply don't know how to design a boss or action setpiece. The ones that do it right usually do so in a way that makes sense in the actual gameplay's context, so that it's not actually that big of a playstyle switch when the QTE prompts occur. This is generally why Shenmue and RE4 are largely forgiven for it, but I'm sure there's more than that.

Also, just asking out of curiousity because it seems I've completely neglected it until now. What do you guys think of Wii QTEs? The way I see it, a bit of motion sensing could potentially have a bit of an edge over traditional button QTEs simply for being much more involving than normal... well, provided they actually have any depth to them and aren't just generic shakes all the time. Madworld's a good place to start here I guess. I personally liked the ones that were used in the Darkspines fight in Secret Rings, but eh, I'm not expecting everyone to like those. Wimps. *shot*
 
Why has no one mentioned Mario Party? There are a few minigames that use QTE's, like Mario Party 6's Insectiride (which battles different QTE sequences against each other). The other one that REALLY comes to mind is the pirate duel minigame from Mario Party 2. The reason I didn't like it is not because it's an 8-button (or is it 6- or 7-button?) QTE, but because it's only ONE QTE and as such, is about the speed of a WarioWare microgame. If it were maybe like a series of best 5 out of 9 who-can-perform-the-QTE-the-fastest events, it would have been a decent minigame with an appopriate control scheme. And Mario Party is one game where not just quality, but quantity of minigames as well, matters. If you can make something decent as a minigame for Mario Party, do it!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Who is viewing this thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Back
Top