Cutscenes vs. Active narrative

Storytelling in games in the past has apparently taken a page from other forms of media by utilizing "cutscenes," where control is taken away from the player in order to continue the story. This practice can break immersion for the player, though, and it's certainly not the only option game developers have for driving stories in their games.

For contrast, let's reexamine Portal for a minute. Portal doesn't use the cutscene technique for its storytelling. (The very ending after the final boss is one exception) The narrative is carried forward through the items and events the player encounters, as well as through the ever-present voice of GLaDOS. Direct control is never really taken away from the player until the game is over, and this makes the experience much more engaging, allowing the story to carry forward without breaking the "flow" of the game.

Just to play devil's advocate for a moment, though, it's worth noting that some players really do like cutscenes in games. If gameplay is fast-paced or frustrating, the opportunity to just sit back and enjoy watching a cutscene can seem like a welcome break from the action, or even a reward for conquering a challenge. (It's also part of the reason some players hate Quicktime Event scenes like in Resident Evil 4, but I'll revisit that later) It still breaks immersion, but sometimes gamers are okay with that. This is by no means an excuse to justify taking control away from the player, but it's something else to think about.

Games like Portal prove that narrative in a game need not be done purely through non-interactive cutscenes. For the most part, players want to be involved in a game, not casually observing it. Games are an interactive medium, and should usually be designed as such, whether they are narratively-driven or not.