Story in games

[Malakili]

So, I want to talk about story in video games, so I figured I'd just start a thread, say my piece and see where it goes.

This is sparked by the last two years or so of my gaming experience during which I have noticed that I have come to not care about story in video games *almost* universally (almost explained later).   I used to be huge into story, and this is a really big shift for me, and I'm trying to make sense of it.

Things I have noticed:

1) It may be me, but I feel like games (or maybe just the games I am playing) have moved less to showing the story evolving through the game play, and more towards -Gameplay that has nothing to do with anything-cut scene explaining how the plot has moved forward, etc.

I guess to some extent this has always been the case, but it has seemed really acute to me lately. 

2) The emphasis on "choice" has made stories worse, not better.  I've yet to see this done well, and most of the time it just makes feel like the game is made for people who have a sense of morality suitable for a 7 year old.  Before at least I could sort of imagine a justification for my character doing something or another, now I'm told its one of 2 or 3 reasons, each of which is often shit.

3) When it comes to MMOs, you either way quests that have no effect on the world, or you have wow style phasing in which you aren't actually in the same world, both a fairly bad result as far as I am concerned in temrs fo my experience of the story.  This is somewhat unique to MMOs though and may be a separate issue, and isn't really a central part of my problem.

4) I really ENJOY Half Life 2 and Portal, for example.  They story is sort of discovered rather than told, and there are lots of details that are fuzzy or missing, leading you to have to fill in gaps as you go, or simply not know the answer to some things, this is much more entertaining to me.  The story is also rarely told through cut scenes/exposition, and when Valve does choose to do that, its as much for reasons of pacing their game as it is for getting the story out.    Example: The officer at the beginning of Hl2 who forces you to toss out the can on the floor.  It teaches me and mechanic, and establishes to me that the combine has authoritarian control over citizens in city 17.  IN other words, more showing less telling makes me happy.


On the other hand - I have been enjoying games with a focus on mechanics - Torchlight had really sleek APRG mechanics, though I have a love hate relationship with Starcraft 2, I think the multiplayer is really quite good.  World War 2 Online is my favorite MMO in the last few years which I consistently go back to because the mechanics and gameplay are just really to my liking.

Lastly, I still enjoy a good book, and a good movie.  It just seems to be the way story has been in games that really leaves me totally uninterested the vast majority of the time.  Ironically, I think it may because it seems liek the story in games is going MORE towards movie-like telling of their stories, and that I think is a crap way to take advantage of the medium.

Has any one else felt this way either lately or longer term?  Am I just a grumpy old guy who is nitpicking too much?  How do you guys feel about story in general in games?

[Azazel]

I guess I expect the story in games to be pretty thin, and I'd prefer a thin story stringing fun gameplay together over overly-involved story making me wait for long periods before I can play again. Of course, sometimes you get something where the story is actually well-written and the cutscenes are actually enjoyable to watch (Uncharted/2) or games where the story is actually so bad it makes the game worse (Wanted: Weapons of Fate).

Mostly, though, a nonsensical or weak story is bearable as long as it's not too grating, such as in games like Dark Void or most shooters. I mean, Gears of War is fun enough (haven't actually finished it yet) but "we're the bro-marines and we need to bro blow up the bad aliens." is pretty standard stuff when it comes down to it. The stories in BF:BC 1 and 2 weren't especially good, but the characters you play alongside made both fun and memorable. I haven''t played MW2, but I thought COD4 actually had a pretty good story for a game, especially a shooter.

I expect more story in RPGs, but with WoW and Lotro on my menu, I play very few SP-RPGs. KOTRO would probably have been the last one, which actually had a derivative-but-fun story to play through. I do know what you mean by HL2 and Portal, and enjoyed them the same way. At the same time for proper RPGs there's a big gap between what (say) EQ1 did - which was throw you into a world that you knoew absolutely nothing about and expect you to figure it all out and something like a JRPG (even down to the recent Zelda games for Wii) where you have to suffer through what can feel like endless exposition befroe you're allowed to do anything.

Just some random thoughts from early in the morning. Not sure if any of that helps to answer anything.

[Velorath]

All I can say is that if a developer is going to tell a story in a game, hire a good writer, and don't make the story intrusive to the gameplay.  If I'm setting down the controller, the cutscene is too long (Metal Gear Solid, I'm looking at you).

[Margalis]

I agree with the original post almost 100%.

I definitely prefer mechanic-driven games and I feel that games are increasingly moving in the opposite direction into the "cinematic experience" or "roller coaster ride" style of game. It seems a lot of games these days have high production value, "cool" set pieces, "awesome" cinematics and very little actual gameplay. And often you have to suffer through long tutorials and cutscenes to experience the meagre gameplay.

I tried to play Assassin's Creed 1 a while ago...you begin with seemingly unskippable tutorials where your character has to go through a crowd of people without knocking pots off their heads - excitement! After a bunch of boring tutorials unrelated to the game in which you do things not at all badass or assassin-like you make it to the actual game, which consists of you character navigating the environment for you. It's the kind of game where it feels impossible to be good or bad at. Enslaved is a more recent example of this, all the "platforming" bits are basically automated.

I think in general big console games are moving towards something "experiential" and not very game-like in the traditional sense where you have rules and objectives and systems to interact with. It's common to hear people in video games say that features are bad when they're too "gamey." And the experience blockbuster titles foist upon you comes from a very narrow range.

That said, "casual" consumers love gamey games. Simple iPhone games, Wii Sports, New Super Mario Brothers, Mario Kart, Facebook games, Tetris DS - these are all pretty classic games and not at all "interactive experiences." The same can be said of COD multiplayer or SC2 multiplayer.

I find myself retreating into the world of older and niche titles. I honestly don't understand how people get super excited about the usual AAA suspects. But then I don't like summer event movies either, for much the same reasons.

[Baldrake]

I completely agree. I was disappointed with DragonAge for exactly this reason. I felt that the game flow was all off - basically that the combat bits were interrupting the story. The pacing felt all off. I never finished the game, but have been considering playing again with the difficulty on "easy" so that I can get through the story without the interruption of, you know, actually playing the game.

[Nebu]

I've played through Dragon Age twice now and it has really given me a more biased opinion on story in games.  Dragon Age uses the illusion of choice to drive the story.  It does a decent job of masking just how linear the game is.  While that's all fine and good, it has made me realize that I want to be the protagonist in games with story.  I want to make the story, not follow it.  That or, as mentioned above, figure the story out as I play through the game. 

[Rasix]

Dragon Age uses the illusion of choice to drive the story.  It does a decent job of masking just how linear the game is.  

It's the just the standard Bioware formula plugged into a generic fantasy world.  Chaotic beginnings into becoming "special"-> 4 major side tasks -> End game where you choose a side regardless of what you've done up to this point.

Almost all choice in games is merely an illusion.  It's all window dressing.  But when you're supposed to be enjoying the journey (for 40+ hours in some instances), it can make a significant difference in your enjoyment level.

Fake edit:
I'll contribute more when I'm not suffering from a splitting headache and a desire to sleep. I'm guessing one will prevent the the other, but it's still hard to type when it feels like you've got a screwdriver wedged in the back of your brain.

[Rendakor]

Compared to Bioware's standard formula, Fallout: New Vegas at least offers several different, mutually exclusive paths TO the end.

[Ratman_tf]

I'm not against cutscenes, and I enjoyed the stories in ME2, Torchlight and SC2 single player campaign, but those are exceptions. In general, if I want a story, I'm going to seek out a book or a movie. I play videogames to be playing videogames.

I think I've yakked here before about how I think the best way to tell a story with video games is to make the story part of the gameplay somehow.

[Nebu]

In general, if I want a story, I'm going to seek out a book or a movie. I play videogames to be playing videogames.

I think I've yakked here before about how I think the best way to tell a story with video games is to make the story part of the gameplay somehow.

I have as well, but I agree with you completely.  The cut scenes really kill the flow of game play for me. 

[Raguel]

Does anyone else wish that, if playing a druid/shaman they can actually lead their own village/tribe, or when playing a monk/paladin/cleric start their own Order?

[Ratman_tf]

Does anyone else wish that, if playing a druid/shaman they can actually lead their own village/tribe, or when playing a monk/paladin/cleric start their own Order?

This was my big gripe about Everquest back in the day. Paladin, Ranger, Monk, doesn't matter. Everyone did the exact same quests and camping.

We've got limitations on how much content can be crafted in a timely manner, but it would be so neat to have Rangers doing outdoorsy stuff, and Paladins doing crusadey stuff, and so on.

[Phire]

My biggest peeve is with short, 30 second endings. I mean I just played your game for 8 hours, invested in the world and its characters and the game just abruptly ends or ends in a lousy cliffhanger.

I don't think I have played a single game this year that had a satisfying conclusion and it drives me crazy!

[Riggswolfe]

Hmmm....I'm almost the complete opposite. I'll forgive bad mechanics if the game has a good story. But a game with good mechanics, with no story or a poor story will bore me quickly and end up getting sold back.

[Malakili]

. It's the kind of game where it feels impossible to be good or bad at.

This is a separate issue, but I think related to the mechanics v. story argument.  What keeps me playing most times, even in single player, is improving at some mechanic.  And it can get pretty abstract, like in Diablo you aren't getting drastically better as a player, but I feel like even there understanding builds and loot and how to "play" that meta game properly is really the thing that kept me going in terms of "being good" or at least getting better at it.

I quoted this post actually because you mentioned Assassin's Creed, and after playing Assassin's Creed 2, which my friend absolutely RAVED about, saying that it was one of the best story's he had experienced in a game, I was totally and utterly uninspired.  It found like a thinly veiled attempt to get me from point A to point B and shiv people.  I'm actually alright with that for the most part, as long as the game sort of realizes that.  But between my friend trumping the story up, and the cut scene's that interrupted my gameplay every 10 minutes, it actually ended up just pissing me off.  Not to mention the free running/killing part of the game, which is the game's strength, was generally discouraged by the fact that the game bitched at me for killing innocents.  Of course, the game was also insanely easy, I think I took 10 times as much damage from falling when trying to do goofy shit off of roofs as I did from actual enemies.   I did make it through the whole thing (at least in part because I really wanted to finish it for my friend's benefit), but I couldn't help but think I would've had just as much fun with some kind of massive city and randomized targets or something.  The story hamstrung what were at least decent mechanics in that sense.

Thanks for all the replies so far.  I'm interested that there has been quite a lot of affirmatives on this one, I thought I might be alone in this.

[LK]

Games are inherently about empowering the consumer to choose the experience they take out of the product. The ideal story is the one the user creates out of the game universe provided. A developer getting involved means a compromise between the interests of the consumer and the interests of the developer. The consumer may want the developer's story, and they may want the developer to piss off. Can't please everyone.

Consumer choice is the bane of a story teller. "Once upon a time in a magic kingdom..." "NO, SCI FI CITY!" "..."

[Kail]

Not to mention the free running/killing part of the game, which is the game's strength, was generally discouraged by the fact that the game bitched at me for killing innocents. 

This is probably my only real problem with stories.  I don't mind them in linear games (because you can generally just skip the cutscenes if they're obnoxious enough) or games where the story is the whole point (like Metal Gear Solid or Final Fantasy), but when they try to sandwich in an epic narrative into something which is otherwise a fairly open sandbox game, it annoys me, especially when it gates content.  Like in GTA, where you can't do X until you've unlocked the mission which allows you to do X (said mission being the middle of the main storyline chain), or Fable, where you can't go to a place until you get the quest directing you there.  If it's a free roaming game, let me roam around, for fuck's sake.

Also, seconding Phire's annoyance with endings.  People who write cliffhanger endings to hype the inevitable sequel need to be fucking dipped in acid.

[Ingmar]

was generally discouraged by the fact that the game bitched at me for killing innocents.

This is the part where I have to stop you to ask what exactly is the problem there. Oh no, consequences?

[Malakili]

Games are inherently about empowering the consumer to choose the experience they take out of the product. The ideal story is the one the user creates out of the game universe provided. A developer getting involved means a compromise between the interests of the consumer and the interests of the developer. The consumer may want the developer's story, and they may want the developer to piss off. Can't please everyone.

Consumer choice is the bane of a story teller. "Once upon a time in a magic kingdom..." "NO, SCI FI CITY!" "..."

I don't even really care about sci fi v. fantasy or anything like that.  The setting is the setting, whatever.   I really hate is when I reach that point in a game (which I inevitably reach in any game that is heavily into its story), where it suddenly hits me that I know exactly where I'm going, what I'm doing, and so forth.   From there on in, its just going through the motions, and unless the mechanics are good enough to stand on their own at that point, I'll put the game away and read a plot summary online.    Sure, sometimes they'll put in an arbitrary twist to keep you on your toes, but whatever, thats just a parlor trick.

This consumer v. developer thing doesnt NEED to be so.  For instance, most of what Bethesda puts out has a solid set of game mechanics, and a world.  You can pretty much enjoy the world and the mechanics while utterly and totally ignoring part or whole of their story.  Its one of the reasons that I love their games.   "Story" based game seems just to be a series of set pieces duct taped together, the kind of thing that you use to sell a concept to executives that don't know any better. But as soon as you try to look behind it, you realize everything is a cardboard cutout.

[Malakili]

was generally discouraged by the fact that the game bitched at me for killing innocents.

This is the part where I have to stop you to ask what exactly is the problem there. Oh no, consequences?

The problem is they made one of the most fun parts of their games impossible due to an arbitrary restriction put in to protect the integrity of their sacred story that I didn't give a shit about in the first place.

ETA: There already were "consequences" for doing stuff that was 'illegal' - the guards would get pissed at you and eventually you'd be kill on sight.   Thats a consequence that is totally reasonable. 

[Fordel]

Does anyone else wish that, if playing a druid/shaman they can actually lead their own village/tribe, or when playing a monk/paladin/cleric start their own Order?

This is something that SWTOR is theoretically supposed to handle better I think? Where each class has it's own mission/story arcs or whatever?

[Ingmar]

was generally discouraged by the fact that the game bitched at me for killing innocents.

This is the part where I have to stop you to ask what exactly is the problem there. Oh no, consequences?

The problem is they made one of the most fun parts of their games impossible due to an arbitrary restriction put in to protect the integrity of their sacred story that I didn't give a shit about in the first place.

ETA: There already were "consequences" for doing stuff that was 'illegal' - the guards would get pissed at you and eventually you'd be kill on sight.   Thats a consequence that is totally reasonable. 

What exactly are you prevented from doing though? Going on a random murder spree? Why does this specific game need to support that, story or not? It isn't as if there is a shortage of sandbox games where random murder sprees are more possible - isn't a spectrum of games that appeal to more people better than everything being the same?

[UnSub]

One area why I think The Witcher has a better game narrative than Mass Effect is that player choice matters a bit more. In The Witcher you can annoy someone with dialogue options that means they won't talk to you anymore, as well as doing a quest that will have the (not completely obvious) result of locking you out from doing quests for other characters, or it has a result later on in-game.

ME relies much more on the illusion of choice - what your character says and does has a lot less impact on your character. You can be the biggest jerk in the galaxy and people will still talk to you. I did my absolute best to create an alien-hating Shepherd (named Arizona) and the only alien that didn't end up on the Normandy was Wrex. And I was forced to put an alien on my active squad due to a forced narrative situation.

ME2 tried to make player choice slightly more important, but lined that up with the end-game so that there is a 'right' choice - get everyone on board (for the ship upgrades) and get them loyal (if you want them to live). There is one choice in The Witcher that ties to the final section of the game, but it isn't that big a thing.

Of course, both ME / ME2 and The Witcher have fixed starting, middle and end bits, but The Witcher gives you more control of the narrative in-between.

[Ingmar]

Interesting, I personally felt the Witcher was more linear since everything mostly happens in the same order, for example. I never felt like the choices I was making really influenced the story any more than the ME2. I'm not sure I would say they influenced it *less* either, but "help the elves"/"help the knights" was not really appreciably different from, say, "kill the rachni queen/save the rachni queen" to me.

The one exception I would make is the murder mystery stuff in chapter 2, which is the one and only piece of great design in the game IMO, you can be led to the completely wrong conclusion in a sensible way, which I enjoyed.

Neither of them compare to something like New Vegas in terms of non-linearity.

[LK]

Games are inherently about empowering the consumer to choose the experience they take out of the product. The ideal story is the one the user creates out of the game universe provided. A developer getting involved means a compromise between the interests of the consumer and the interests of the developer. The consumer may want the developer's story, and they may want the developer to piss off. Can't please everyone.

Consumer choice is the bane of a story teller. "Once upon a time in a magic kingdom..." "NO, SCI FI CITY!" "..."

I don't even really care about sci fi v. fantasy or anything like that.  The setting is the setting, whatever.   I really hate is when I reach that point in a game (which I inevitably reach in any game that is heavily into its story), where it suddenly hits me that I know exactly where I'm going, what I'm doing, and so forth.   From there on in, its just going through the motions, and unless the mechanics are good enough to stand on their own at that point, I'll put the game away and read a plot summary online.    Sure, sometimes they'll put in an arbitrary twist to keep you on your toes, but whatever, thats just a parlor trick.

This consumer v. developer thing doesnt NEED to be so.  For instance, most of what Bethesda puts out has a solid set of game mechanics, and a world.  You can pretty much enjoy the world and the mechanics while utterly and totally ignoring part or whole of their story.  Its one of the reasons that I love their games.   "Story" based game seems just to be a series of set pieces duct taped together, the kind of thing that you use to sell a concept to executives that don't know any better. But as soon as you try to look behind it, you realize everything is a cardboard cutout.

You missed my point. The consumer was changing the story, which wasn't what the developer / story teller intended. Accounting for consumer choice = more work to account for the possibilities. It was an extreme example about that, not about setting.

Also, you don't appear to care for stories in games. That's fine. But we're talking about stories in games so...

You can either make a pure story-driven experience (all cinematics, non-interactive really), a pure game experience (a universe with a system of rules; goals either set by the game or no goal provided at all -- see Sims, any board game ever), or a compromise between the two (any story-driven game, Half-Life 2). It all depends on what the developer wants to do, and what audience they are catering to. But one game cannot cater to EVERY member of the audience.

[Malakili]

You don't appear to care for stories in games. That's fine. But we're talking about stories in games so...

Well, yeah, thats why I made this thread.  Because I don't care for stories in games.  But I USED TO care a lot for stories in games, and what I'm trying to get at is, why did I used to, why don't I know, is it just personal preferences? Has the way story is presented changed over the last say, 5 years?

Let me try this on for size:

I like discovering a story, or a bit of information, or what have you, about the game world I am in.  I like feeling like, as the player, am part of something bigger than just my story.  Not just part of a larger story, but part of a larger context, in which other separate stories are happening.

[Sheepherder]

I really hate is when I reach that point in a game (which I inevitably reach in any game that is heavily into its story), where it suddenly hits me that I know exactly where I'm going, what I'm doing, and so forth.   From there on in, its just going through the motions, and unless the mechanics are good enough to stand on their own at that point, I'll put the game away and read a plot summary online.    Sure, sometimes they'll put in an arbitrary twist to keep you on your toes, but whatever, thats just a parlor trick.

Have you played Planescape?  Did you play it through?

[Musashi]

[LK]

You don't appear to care for stories in games. That's fine. But we're talking about stories in games so...

Well, yeah, thats why I made this thread.  Because I don't care for stories in games.  But I USED TO care a lot for stories in games, and what I'm trying to get at is, why did I used to, why don't I know, is it just personal preferences? Has the way story is presented changed over the last say, 5 years?

Let me try this on for size:

I like discovering a story, or a bit of information, or what have you, about the game world I am in.  I like feeling like, as the player, am part of something bigger than just my story.  Not just part of a larger story, but part of a larger context, in which other separate stories are happening.

Sorry, only read the last response of yours which I replied to. Was in a rush, failed to notice you started the thread. x_x

I think because game stories are mostly blatant nowadays to keep people on rails and present a cinematic experience, hitting all the beats regardless of what the player does, and don't take the time to immerse you in the world. Action games in particular have an immediacy to them that forces a certain pacing, thereby making exposition or discovery counter-productive to the point: fast-paced action. Gears of War comes to mind.

Moreover, if the developer / designer fails to draw the eye of the player to a certain piece of content, then that's technically wasted content, because the player will not experience it unless they happen across it. That's something most people on a tight development deadline want to avoid.

Another problem: the world's story can't advance without the player, or the player gets left behind, which is something that should be avoided at all costs.

[ghost]

2) The emphasis on "choice" has made stories worse, not better.  I've yet to see this done well, and most of the time it just makes feel like the game is made for people who have a sense of morality suitable for a 7 year old.  Before at least I could sort of imagine a justification for my character doing something or another, now I'm told its one of 2 or 3 reasons, each of which is often shit.

This is really the fucking truth.  Generally you get two real choices:  1.  saving the kitten or 2.  poking the grandma in the eye with the ice pick.  I think some of the older games, like Shadow Hearts, did the same thing a little better with no actual choices.  

Also, I think a little bit of your problem may be due to the fact that you may have seen many of these same stories before:  there are only so many basic plot lines available.  It's all Star Wars when you get down to it. 

[Malakili]

2) The emphasis on "choice" has made stories worse, not better.  I've yet to see this done well, and most of the time it just makes feel like the game is made for people who have a sense of morality suitable for a 7 year old.  Before at least I could sort of imagine a justification for my character doing something or another, now I'm told its one of 2 or 3 reasons, each of which is often shit.

This is really the fucking truth.  Generally you get two real choices:  1.  saving the kitten or 2.  poking the grandma in the eye with the ice pick.  I think some of the older games, like Shadow Hearts, did the same thing a little better with no actual choices.  

Also, I think a little bit of your problem may be due to the fact that you may have seen many of these same stories before:  there are only so many basic plot lines available.  It's all Star Wars when you get down to it. 

Yeah, I've been on to the idea that its probably more me changing than the games.  I've noticed that I have a really hard time letting myself get immersed regardless of anything else these days.  The Bethesda games I mentioned earlier are about as close as I can get, but no matter what I do I have a really REALLY hard time no "seeing the man behind the curtain" as it were.  No matter what the story is trying to tell me, my brain sees game mechanics and developer intent, not characters or plot.  That would also explain why I prefer a robust set of game mechanics, because thats what I'm seeing anyway, so they may as well be solid.

[Sheepherder]

[image]

I'm not sure what Ludwig Mies van der Rohe has to do with anything, but Planescape is a good litmus test for if you're capable of liking story.  It also pretty much telegraphs the way it's going to be as soon as you start playing, it starts telegraphing how it's going end as soon as you hit Ravel halfway through, and focuses the plot on how much of an irredeemable cockfag you are.

[Margalis]

Also, I think a little bit of your problem may be due to the fact that you may have seen many of these same stories before:  there are only so many basic plot lines available. 

There are a lot of plot lines available, games just keep using the same single one over and over.

A lot of games today offer a "cinematic experience" but what cinema? The Bicycle Thief? No, obviously not. Real cinema is composed of comedy, drama, tragedy, horror, action, character pieces, documentary, etc. Blockbuster games are nearly all "play badass white dude who kills other dudes by shooting or stabbing them."

[Azazel]

This is probably my only real problem with stories.  ...  but when they try to sandwich in an epic narrative into something which is otherwise a fairly open sandbox game, it annoys me, especially when it gates content.  Like in GTA, where you can't do X until you've unlocked the mission which allows you to do X (said mission being the middle of the main storyline chain), ...  If it's a free roaming game, let me roam around, for fuck's sake.

That's one of the things I really appreciated in the Saints Row games - you can pretty much roam anywhere right from the start. Doing missions unlocks stuff (cars, guns, etc) but you can go anywhere right from the get-go. Which is nice.

[Azazel]

Well, yeah, thats why I made this thread.  Because I don't care for stories in games.  But I USED TO care a lot for stories in games, and what I'm trying to get at is, why did I used to, why don't I know, is it just personal preferences? Has the way story is presented changed over the last say, 5 years?

I can only speak for myself of course, but maybe you're older and a bit more money-rich and time poor. I feel I have less time to fuck around with subpar plots and uncovering every nook of the story, and the awareness of this, along with having a ton more games to play before I die or they get relegated to the "Last-Gen" pile makes you more crotchety and impatient. I really enjoyed KOTOR a few years back - fuck, 5 or 6 years ago. I'd love to play Mass Effect 1, 2, Witcher, Dragon Age, etc but one major thing that puts me off starting is the fact that I'm much more time poor (and sporadic MMO Gaming doesn't help either), so I don't know if I have the time to invest in a long term and deep RPG that can take a normal person 2 weeks, since I tend to play in smaller chunks (unless it's a MMO, for soem reason) and so games take even longer to finish for me than for normal people. - result - less care for and tolerance for shitty story.

I fired up Crysis for the first time earlier this evening. The 2-3 mins of exposition really started to piss me off. Why? Because in the intro to the game it's the same-old, same-old story, and I'm playing Crysis because I want to shoot people in the face. So stop talking and let me do that. Of course I'm also tired and grumpy, but years ago I may have been all excited to watch the non-interactive cutscenes of a plane flying through the night sky?

I dunno. Compare it to the opening of Uncharted 2. That hooked me in.