QTE hate

Quick thing,

I was reading about Ryse (out of boredom I am not buying either of the new systems). For those unaware, Ryse is for the new Xbox and is your typical hack'n'slash brawler type game - albeit with gorgeous visuals. Now, the thing that got my attention was the hate tossed at the game for using QTE's (Quick Time Events where you need to push a certain key at a certain time) Many people were saying how this was a "casual gamer gimmick" or something to that effect - and they may certainly be right - however, aren't pretty much all games a QTE? I mean, pick a fighter, you need to block when you see your opponent do X and to block you... hit X. In a shooter you need to shoot when the bad guy pops his head out of cover while you sit in scoped mode looking at a hunk of concrete.. list goes on and on.

So, I'd just like someone to explain what it is about QTE's that people hate and how QTE's are different then.. every game mechanic in existence. I mean, I get the hatred towards having a huge prompt pop up on the screen with flashing red text saying HIT X HIT X HIT X.. that's just visually abhorrent, but in Ryse at least that isn't the case, an enemy receives a kind of aura and depending on the color of the aura you hit a different button to execute them. Before the execution prompt its a brawler like Arkham or Double Dragon.

The QTE hate is mostly due to a historical flood of games that put them in not because they helped the game but because they felt necessary. The QTEs themselves were used for mundane tasks and felt "phoned in".

Over time, game designers are getting much better about correctly using this (and other) new toys, and the QTE hate will dwindle.

Because prototype 2 happened.

Quicktime Events, in my opinion, more traditionally describe an arbitrary sequence of button presses or joystick movements that interrupt a pre-scripted/pre-rendered event in the game. In other words, the inputs technically serve no other purpose than to continue (or hinder, as it were) the progress of the initiated sequence. I actually thought the origin of this nomenclature came from the PC-DVD games of the 90's where you were basically watching pre-rendered Quicktime movies, and they would pause in the middle of the scene and force you to input some keystrokes before the movie would proceed. Sometimes it would branch (a la Dragon's Lair), and other times, a wrong key press would dump you into a recycled death cinematic.

I may be splitting hairs a little, but what you describe I consider more of a 'counter' or a 'combo' move, where additional inputs in the correct sequence will actually result in greater damage (a combo) or a defensive action that mitigates damage (a counter). My example of this would be from the panned remake Golden Axe, which used a mechanic very similar to what you describe. An attacking monster would briefly flash an arc of a certain colour (of two choices) prior to initiating a particularly powerful attack. If you are successful in pressing the correct 'counter' button, it exposes the monster to a counter attack. If you use a different button or ignore the 'telegraphed indicator', that action simply takes place instead. This creates some depth to combat, as countering rewards skilled combat, without it being an absolute requirement (i.e. you can, for the most part, defeat most monsters without countering).

The worst case of QTE in my recent experience was in Dante's Inferno, where in order to absolve a soul, you had to repeatedly press 'x' numerous times until the soul was released. Even the game developers realized the inanity of this because once you completed the game once, it allowed you to toggle an option to 'auto-absolve', doing away with all the arbitrary button mashing. It also needed inane button mashing simply to use a health/mana fountain or to open a door. This is the epitome of bad game design. It required arbitrary button presses that serve no other purpose than to make the player feel like they are doing something.

I know this from the early Resident Evil games for Game Cube, God of War 2 for PS3 and the recent Tomb Raider Game. And I hate it in all these games (I dont see any improvement over time @pneuma). It feels like the actual game stops and you have to play a mini game. A short one...
Then when you miss the time frame or press the wrong button, you have to repeat the same sequence...its kind of "unnatural" and not fluent.

"

Subh wrote:

I know this from the early Resident Evil games for Game Cube, God of War 2 for PS3 and the recent Tomb Raider Game. And I hate it in all these games (I dont see any improvement over time @GhostOfLiemannen). It feels like the actual game stops and you have to play a mini game. A short one...
Then when you miss the time frame or press the wrong button, you have to repeat the same sequence...its kind of "unnatural" and not fluent.

What I meant with my comment was that prototype 2 final boss fight was a slow and poorly excecuted QTE that made it to be the most anti-climatic boss fight ever, when I finally beat it I was still expecting the real fight to begin.

All I got was credits.

"

GhostOfLiemannen wrote:

"

Subh wrote:

I know this from the early Resident Evil games for Game Cube, God of War 2 for PS3 and the recent Tomb Raider Game. And I hate it in all these games (I dont see any improvement over time @pneuma). It feels like the actual game stops and you have to play a mini game. A short one...
Then when you miss the time frame or press the wrong button, you have to repeat the same sequence...its kind of "unnatural" and not fluent.

What I meant with my comment was that prototype 2 final boss fight was a slow and poorly excecuted QTE that made it to be the most anti-climatic boss fight ever, when I finally beat it I was still expecting the real fight to begin.

All I got was credits.

Sorry GhostOfLiemannen copied the wrong nick to my post....^^ corrected it above

personally, I hate Quick-Time Events with a passion.
I also hate "invisible walls" in the middle of a level, designed to keep you on a linear path.

the people who invented those, should burn in the hell of a thousand Virtual Boy consoles for their sins.

Thanks for the replies, to me there is no difference between being faced with an obstacle.. say in Mario, and being given only one option out - jumping, which is just - hitting A and there being a prompt at that obstacle which says/indicates - hit A.

I guess the latter is holding the players hand, and that can be objectionable, but the end result as well as the players interaction are the same.

"

Wittgenstein wrote:

Thanks for the replies, to me there is no difference between being faced with an obstacle.. say in Mario, and being given only one option out - jumping, which is just - hitting A and there being a prompt at that obstacle which says/indicates - hit A.

I guess the latter is holding the players hand, and that can be objectionable, but the end result as well as the players interaction are the same.

there is a difference: if faced with an obstacle in Mario, you can choose to go back and grab that coin you missed, and do a thousand other stuff, before finally hitting A to pass the obstacle.

the reason I hate QTE and "invisible walls" equally, isn't because it's "less hardcore".
it's because they are denying the freedom of choice from the player.
press A or die.
try to get out of the window instead of the door, and you die - despite the fact there really isn't anything there to kill you.

it's a shitty mechanic designed to cut corners and annoy players.

at least dying in Dragon's Lair was fun.