It hadn't occurred to me until now (spotted it in http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/gaming/interviews/a654353/fallout-4-interview-todd-howard-talks-mods-in-game-building-and-map-size.html#~ppEzVd1pBnu52A)

but Fallout 4 does not have cutscenes.

ok, Skyrim and Fallout 4 didn't either, as a mute protagonist you're just close to the NPC speaking.

Oblivion would famously give you a zoomed in face-cam shot.

But a voiced protagonist raises the stakes so that people expect stronger 'cinematic' dialogue.

Examples of cutscene heavy game series include: Dragon Age, Mass Effect, The Witcher, Metal Gear Solid.

But animated cutscenes are expensive, particularly when in a open world you have a ton of conversations.

Dragon Age Inquisition came under criticism for not having side content cutscenes, which people were accustomed to,

which was presented that it was either not have cutscenes or not have the side content at all.

So how does Bethesda get away with (or alleviate the need) for a lack of cutscenes when others get beaten up about that?

In the conversation with Codsworth, I'm seeing the protagonist have a cutscene conversation, but it isn't says Todd:

"Can we make it where the game isn't paused and it's just another [cutscene]? We do it differently, and if you watch the video, it seems like a cinematic scene you'd see in a lot of games, but it's not. You can play it in first-person and I could be talking to you and I could look at somebody else and talk to them and then turn back to you and answer your question. We don't do that a lot, but it allows it. It's all just a smooth system, so that part of it was important to us."

They're being really clever with the perspective camera and the in-game dialogue animation is up to the task.

Or with a voiced protagonist do you feel you lose something without cutscenes?

Meh, I never missed cutscenes in previous Beth games, don't see a reason to miss them here.

Technically, don't we have cutscenes? Where if you talk to an NPC while in first-person, there's a cinematic cut-scene?

Bethesda doeesn't need to 'get away' with not having cutscenes - it doesnt need them. Any scenes I've seen so far that resemble a cutscene just seem to be an enhancement of their previous approach. Having the camera rotate the protagonist during conversations (The Wadsworth conversation in the video) doesnt seem to affect choosing the dialogue and is a nicer way of viewing someone having that conversation.

It's interesting that Bethesda seem to be able to accomplish something in-engine that other publishers struggle with.

I've always thought these game engines, Creation, Frostbite, Fox etc were kind of the same thing, but maybe I'm wrong.

I'm not a big fan of cut scenes (they are over used imo). I really like that Beth doesn't use them.

I love cinamatic dialogue like that of Mass Effect and previous DA games.

It looks like Fallout 4 might have somthing similar which would be great. They really are taking bold steps forward and I applaud them for it.

In regards to your question - Yes, I do. I was very vocal about DAI copying Skyrim's dialogue with no cinamatic. So, what Fallout 4 is doing looks very interesting

Sometimes I find cutscenes to be a lazier way to tell the story. It breaks the game up into "story time!" during a cutscene and then "hack and slash time!" during everything else, which I find detrimental to storytelling. The story should always be being told.

I prefer cutscenes be kept to a minimum. I like them for major turning points, but other than that, no thanks.

Cutscenes are good when they serve to tell a better story for the game it's in.

Bethesda has managed to avoid them, and has managed to tell their stories without them. They have no need for them.

Some games would be lost without them in their storytelling.

As long as the entire game is a four hour long marathon of quicktime events, I'm happy.

They've talked about it - they use procedural animations for the face, and canned mocap animations for different body movements (which can be used for every NPC). So they didn't personally animate every conversation, but they have a wide library of animations they can draw on and reuse as needed. The camera angles are probably generated on the spot, too, like the cinematics for kill-cams or VATS - wouldn't surprise me if it's the same system. I imagine the cinematic camera will work great 99% of the time, but every now and then there will be some weird thing where a random static gets in the way of the screen and blocks the NPC's face or whatever. I've even had that happen in Mass Effect.

A little off-topic, but the advantage of the Creation Engine (and the reason Bethesda chose Gamebryo way back when they did Morrowind and built from there) is that it can handle lots and lots of little things, which is how Bethesda creates their worlds. It can better handle every physics-enabled clutter item, every piece of furniture, and even the architecture (built from kit-pieces that snap together), plus it's designed so that Bethesda can build these environments quickly and smoothly.

While I agree that breaking the flow of action for "story time" can be jarring if done improperly, I also like the idea of some quiet time where I can concentrate on dialog and story and not worry about some random mole rat gnawing on my ankle and making me miss some of the dialog which the NPC will now never repeat (unless I reload an earlier save game).

Star Wars: The Old Republic had one of the best solutions to this --- when you entered a conversation with an NPC, you switched to cinematic mode and had your dialog, complete with animations and so on, and your avatar "in the world" was totally immune to harm. Yes, it was jarring at times and it was Story Time ~or~ Action Time, but the alternative was, for example, a game like Everquest II (which I've been playing while waiting for Fallout-4) where you can be talking to an NPC and some foe paths too nearby and initiates a fight with you.

It was even worse "back in the day" ---- you could attack quest-givers and guards, which could lead to unexpected fights. Instead of typing "hail" in a chat window, you might forget to enter chat mode and just hit the H key (which usually says Hail anyway) and then when you hit the "A" key you start attacking the guy you were trying to talk to! Needless to say, you didn't get to hit the " i " and the " L " to finish up your HAIL.

I'm a little wary of these procedurally-generated "faux-cutscenes".... too often if you're inside a building, for example, the camera angle will pan around and you'll be staring at a section of wall, or the back of your Companion's head is blocking the speaker's face, etc.

I for one applaud the lack of cut-scenes. They make me feel I'm following a pre-set trail in a movie and not roaming around freely. What Beth is doing here with the open dialogue seems perfect to me. The best of both worlds, really. No stopping the game for dialogue and and no lengthy cut-scenes that you have to watch. Just shoot the guy in the face and it's over. Also leaves the PC in control of the situation instead of a pre-recorded conversation. Perfect IMO.

I don't think it's so much that Creation engine can do something that others can't, but it doesn't try to do what they do and they don't bother to do what it does.

An example of something the Creation engine could do (if they implemented cutscenes), but doesn't try to do:

In Mass Effect 3 I could have Shepard talk to Mordin in his lab. During the conversation s/he could lean back on a bench and cross his/her arms while looking sceptical. Mordin could gesture excitedly at a hologram of something. Shepard could stand upright and lean forward, peering at the hologram, giving Mordin a sidelong glance.

Whether it's done well or not, cutscenes offer more scope for showing a wide range of naturalistic movement and body language that is appropriate to the tone and circumstances of a conversation.

Bethesda's system will, after a while, be seen to be what it always was. Two characters standing and looking at each other while talking.

True, sometimes the NPC will be running through their standard idles for whatever routine they're running at that point (smithing, eating, tending a bar) and there may be more flexibility with how the PC stands, but unless the player actually breaks away from the conversation to initiate an action (which could be wildly inappropriate to the conversation), then the PC will just stand and talk with a few arm gestures, and the NPC will just do what they would be doing anyway while trying desperately to keep eye contact with the player.

The choice of more dynamic camera angles than in the past will help somewhat, and it's a very sensible approach to a tough problem in development resources, but it doesn't intrinsically lead to a better result. It may seem better when compared with poorly choreographed or implemented cutscenes.

I will add I only care for cinamatic dialogue when I am presented with different responses throughout the conversation that all lead to varied responses and consquences.

Cinamatics in a game like MGS get boring fast

Only for dialogue (Deus Ex 1 style). No QTE or Cutscenes taking you out of immersion.

I [censored] hate cutscenes in the fallout universe, and im glad they haven't had them, although im scared they're going to be in Fallout 4. It makes you feel SO MUCH closer when you watch all of those intense scenes from a first person, controlled perspective.

no... I think you just do not see it a lot because the DEV did not do any more than that most of the time. What I mean is that in skyrim for example I have seen NPC walk over to a table and pound their fist, walk to a balcony and stare out over at the sky, move to a chair to sit down when it was emotionally appropriate to do so per what they were saying. Obviously this was programmed as part of the dialog scene.

But it proves it CAN be done in the existing system, the DEV just did not bother to do a lot of it.

Try the Mod called interesting people, the guy that made that did a LOT of that stuff with his NPC longer story telling moments.

Even in Oblivion this "kind of thing" was possible, there were several times that an NPC would do things like walk up and down a line of troops with a didlog scene to "inspire" them before a battle in that game.

With Fallout 4 Bethesda seems to go beyond cutscenes and tries to do fully immersive dialogs. Traditional cutscenes force the user to be passive and to focus on the dialogs. Whatt Bethesda tries to do is to give full control to the user, he can follow the conversation or do something completely different. I must admit that I really like that idea.

They already tried immersive and interactive "cutscenes" in Skyrim. Remember when you report the dragon attacks to Jarl Balgruuf, and he is discussing the matter with Irileth and the other guy whose name I don't remember. You as the player have full control over the PC during that scene, you can listen to them, wander around, attack them, basically do what you want. In Skyrim this only works for dialogs between NPCs, and in Fallout 4 they seem to do that also for dialogs between the player and NPCs. The only thing I am wondering how you can make new dialogs in the Creation Kit.

Going back to the OP's question. Bethesda does not get away with not doing cutscenes, they are redefining "cutscenes", they bring them to the next level.

All of this is true, but one of the first things I noticed when they premiered Fallout 4 at E3 was how much more expressive the NPCs were in dialog. Look at the body language used by the Vault-Tec representative, Preston Garvey, or the player character - it looks way more natural than prior Bethesda games.

And they've confirmed that you can do regular first-person conversations, too, the cinematic mode is optional (and was actually a late addition).

And through the magic of idle markers and radiant AI, we could totally see NPCs in Fallout 4 sandboxing around like Mordin Solus during a conversation; not sure they would do it for the PC though, since we can move freely regardless of dialog. (your post implies that you already know this, though, so I'm mostly just saying this for emphasis) They kind of did that with Serana in Dragonborn - she would randomly decide to use whatever idle or furniture markers were around her at the time, like working at an enchanting table or warming her hands next to a fire. Created some interesting scenes when she sandboxed into a quest specific idle marker, like cowering at Molag Bal's shrine.

The only cut scene I remotely remember in a Fallout game,was the beginning Of Point Lookout. Those kinds are welcome.

Heh, in my defense, I did say "An example of something the Creation engine could do (if they implemented cutscenes), but doesn't try to do:"

Even so, there is a marked difference between a full cutscene and the sort of thing you have in Bethesda games, where it is only the NPCs that are given any sort of expressive body language (through idle markers etc.), which is a matter of player focus. Full cutscenes control the player's viewpoint in the same way as a movie does. The NPCs' and PC's positions relative to each other, their gaze and their behaviour are controlled by the developer in the same way as the actors in a movie are controlled by the director. The mood and import of a conversation being conveyed is that chosen by the developers, even if the course of the conversation is guided by the player.

In a Bethesda game (and I'm thinking more of Skyrim here, where conversations aren't locked face-to-face), the PC is never hijacked by the game in order to convey the PCs mood, attitude or reaction, or to place them at a predetermined location relative to the NPCs. NPCs have to either ignore the PC, or try and accommodate their movements and gaze to the PC. In that sense, Bethesda's in-game version of cutscenes are more like a stage performance where not only the player but also the PC are an uninvolved audience.

In some ways that's a great strength, as the player retains their freedom of action, but it's also a weakness from a storytelling point of view, as it places a degree of remoteness between the PC and the world they're supposed to be inhabiting.

[edit]

And the ability of the player to (for instance) go bunny-hopping along a banquet table, entirely ignored, while an NPC is tragically emoting can rather make a nonsense of any emotional mood the developers want to convey. Just knowing they could do that must have an effect on the player's reaction... for good or for ill

Of course, the game could hijack player control in order to position them and play idles - the capability is there. But that would fly in the face of a central tenet of Bethesda's games.

[/edit]

I did notice the improved body language, and I hope it's more effective as a storytelling device - especially as the PC now gets gestures and expressions during conversation.

However, I suspect that the vast majority of conversations we see in Fallout 4 will follow the basic template of the conversations between the PC and the VaultTec salesman, Codsworth and Preston Garvey - two characters standing still talking at each other, with some upper-body gestures. There will probably be a few conversations where the NPC will sandbox (with the occasional irrelevant or wildly inappropriate action), and a tiny number where the NPC will actually act meaningfully given the context and course of the conversation.

Still, even modest improvement is still improvement

I would bet that if our PC does sandbox around idle markers during convsersation, they'll immediately snap out of it if we take the wheel and start moving them around ourselves. I'd be down for that.

Bethesda Game Studios doesn't need cut scenes because they have advanced slide projector technology.