Beyond Game Design Announced
Jane Austen's Wii and Wonderment

For or Against QTEs

Resident_Evil_4_Wii.QTE Quick Time Events, or QTEs, are sequences in videogames which occur suddenly and ask the player to input a particular control to avoid a penalty (often death). They date back to the 1983 Cinematronics arcade machine Dragon's Lair, the gameplay of which consisted of nothing more than QTEs, but the term “Quick Time Event” was coined by Yu Suzuki in reference to sequences in his game Shenmue which featured numerous action sequences requiring sudden control input to be completed.

But are you for QTEs, or against them?


The beauty of the QTE is that it adds excitement and challenge to a game. Rather than watching a static cut scene in which the story unfolds, the player can be challenged to react quickly to a sudden event. This was the stated reason for the inclusion of QTEs in the popular Resident Evil 4 videogame. This game marks a turning point in videogames to some extent: before its release, QTEs were uncommon, after its success they began to become ubiquitous in certain action games (although it was not the only game to contribute to this trend).

Since the whole purpose of a videogame is to offer interactivity, part of the perceived benefit of including QTEs is that the entire game can offer interactivity – no sitting through long and tedious cut scenes with nothing to do... in a game with QTEs the player must stand ready at all times to react to a sudden occurrence. It keeps the player on their toes, never letting their pulse rate drop too low.

By including QTEs, the challenge that a game offers can be heightened. There are a fair number of players among the gamer hobbyists for whom overcoming difficult challenges is the reason they love videogames – Nicole Lazzaro calls this style of play Hard Fun, while International Hobo has dubbed players of this kind Conquerors. They are willing to endure hardships in order to rise to the challenge of overcoming them, ultimately resulting in the emotional reward which in Italian is known as fiero – triumph over adversity, that feeling that causes you to punch the air. Since action videogames are always pursuing this feeling of victory over impossible odds – after all, a boss fight is all about this feeling – it does not seem unreasonable for games to include other mechanics which lead to the same reward.

Of course, QTEs can be done badly – few if anyone will defend Fahrenheit's ten minute QTE sequence that requires the player to repeat the entire chunk of play every time they fail – but this doesn't change the fact that they can be done well. Ideally, the keys to be entered should make sense in the context of what the player has already been taught. If A is normally a forward roll, pressing A to roll out of the way of a boulder is an intuitive response. In this way, QTEs can be constructed such that rather than the player having to hit an arbitrary control, they learn the meaning of each control and can react in a logical fashion when the QTE occurs.

If a game is already targeting Conquerors as their audience, why shouldn't they include QTEs which add more challenge, enhance the excitement, and thus increase the eventual rewards of victory when all the challenges are overcome?


Up until recently, the Wikipedia entry for QTEs began with the phrase “QTEs are a form of torture used in videogames.” This is far from a minority view on the matter. If you are a Conqueror, QTEs have a lot to offer, but most players of videogames are not Conquerors.

What QTEs offer most players is frustration. You must complete the QTE or you fail, a gameplay mechanic which Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw of Zero Punctuation has devilishly characterised as “Press X To Not Die”. A recent survey of emotions in gameplay by International Hobo revealed that while 1 in 5 gamers report that frustration can enhance their enjoyment of a game (the classic Conqueror play experience) twice as many players reported that they don't enjoy feeling frustrated and angry, and avoided games that made them feel that way.

In a game which is offering to sandpaper off your face in your quest for victory (say, God of War) perhaps QTEs make sense, but there were a great many players who liked the core play of Resident Evil 4 but whose enjoyment of that game was stopped dead by the inclusion of QTEs in which the player had to rapidly and accurately enter the correct control, or die. This was a game with an innovative control scheme that split the moving and shooting actions into independent functions, allowing players who didn't enjoy “twin stick” controls to play a 3D shooter. It reached out to a more casual player with one hand, then slapped them with the other.

Game literate players – which includes pretty much everyone working at a game developer – routinely misjudge how complex the controls of videogames have become. A prerequisite for completing a QTE in the time alloted is that the player must know with absolute unconscious certainty which control is where on the controller – this doubtless seems trivial to those players who have racked up innumerable hours of play, but for more casual players this can be more problematic. When the time it takes them to work out which control is which equals or exceeds the time alloted for completing a QTE, such a player is effectively barred from enjoying the game.

Some games are intending to offer blisteringly difficult challenges, and thus appeal to a smaller audience (the reduction in breadth of appeal offset by the fact that most Conquerors buy and play many games each year, and thus suitably polished and marketed games of this kind can hit a few million unit sales quite comfortably). But any game which is trying to hit a wider audience cannot in good conscience include QTEs.

QTEs heighten the requirements of fast reactions at the exclusion of all other approaches: there is no way to devise a brilliant strategy to compensate for poor reflexes in a game which uses QTEs. If you insist on employing this kind of mechanic, why not allow the player to opt out of the QTEs when selecting the difficulty at the start of the game? Videogames are sold to players on the promise of an enjoyable and entertaining experience – shouldn't players for whom QTEs represent a form of torture have the right to leave them out of the play experiences they have paid good money to enjoy?

Over on The Minigame Court, we are putting QTEs on trial as an alleged Crime Against Gamers. Guilty? Not Guilty? You decide! Cast your vote here! Alternatively, if you want to discuss the finer points of videogame torture, feel free to engage in discussion in the comments here. Votes cast here, however, will not count in the trial so be sure to go to The Minigame Court if you want to determine the fate of QTEs.


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I agree that QTE's are a form of torture...

The only time I've seen them implemented well has been in Resident Evil: Umbrella Chronicles - because the only buttons you had to use were A, B, and 'waggle'

I think if the developer limited the buttons to 2 or 3 easy-to-find buttons (such as the triggers) they would possibly be easier for casual players to use (I'm not casual; but I get confused easily and have weak controller fu)

However... as me and a few friends have noticed - QTEs often distract completely from the cutscene underneath.

If the cutscene is pretty, I would rather be watching it than fannying around with buttons.

Im not a conqueror type at all, but when I've been watching a cut-scene, only to have it then cut back to the 'action' and tell you to run from boulders falling from the ceiling which already fell in the cutscene, and then only require you to move a small distance with no time limit whatsoever...

Basically my point (if you can't pick it out from the rambling) is that any interation within cutscenes is an improvement. However as GGG pointed out above, there is a right and a wrong way to go about it, and it has to fit with the rest of the game and work with the target audience.

Gamer Geek Girl: "If the cutscene is pretty, I would rather be watching it than fannying around with buttons."

Yes, a lot of players feel this way. The cut scenes serve as a reward for completing a section of gameplay. To make them into further gameplay thus chooses to support the needs of one portion of the audience over the other - and on the face of it, it looks like it supports the minority over the majority.

Katherine: "any interaction within cutscenes is an improvement"

An improvement over poor integration of cut scenes with gameplay, you mean? Of course, no one likes this kind of awkward switch.

But I think the thrust of the argument against QTEs is that they are exclusionary - they prevent players from playing/enjoying particular videogames. That's a huge problem in my eyes, one that surely must be balanced against any of the perceived benefits.

I accept that there are many reasons for players to enjoy them, and that obviously they can be done badly, but if a commercially developed game is going to include QTEs I feel the player should be allowed to opt out of them. That some developers see this as "permitting cheating" is indicative of a major problem in our industry.

Thanks for commenting!

organic i/o writes (over on the Minigame Court): " of my favourite genres of games are Rhythm games, such as Dance Dance Revolution. These, in essence, are solely QTE oriented. There would be no game without it. With the many thousands of hours I have enjoyed with DDR, there is no way I could possibly condemn this game mechanic."

The essence of the QTE is that it is *sudden*, that is, unexpected. In DDR and all similar games, you are given ample warning as to when the control entries are expected - the essence of the play of these games is a challenge of timing and co-ordination, not a challenge of quick reflexes. (Although obviously on the higher difficulties reflexes are a factor!).

Also, missing one of the control entries in DDR does not instantly result in failure!

So I would not personally consider rhythm-action games to utilise QTEs.

I quite like timed control entries that are expected - I enjoy the turtle-hopping game in "Bishi Bashi", or the Trampoline in "Mario and Sonic at the Olypic Games", for instance. But these aren't what I consider to be QTEs.

Personally, I tolerate QTEs, but I question their inclusion in commercial videogames without some choice to opt out.

Now interestingly, a recent Sega-published arcade game called "Let's Go Jungle!: Lost on the Island of Spice" (I kid you not!) took an interesting approach to QTEs: it shows a symbol on screen *before* each QTE to prepare the player for them. It still feels like a QTE, of course, because it occurs suddenly, but it does so in this game with an accompanying warning.

I think this approach makes QTEs more forgiving (and thus allows a wider audience to play), but I can imagine those who detest them might still have a problem.

Best wishes!

"Since the whole purpose of a videogame is to offer interactivity, part of the perceived benefit of including QTEs is that the entire game can offer interactivity – no sitting through long and tedious cut scenes with nothing to do... in a game with QTEs the player must stand ready at all times to react to a sudden occurrence. It keeps the player on their toes, never letting their pulse rate drop too low."

Sorry, but the only interactivity I want with long and tedious cutscenes is a "SKIP" button. If you have long and tedious cutscenes, forcing me to watch them every time I play will only serve to make me hate you, ESPECIALLY if said long and tedious cutscene makes me start over every time I stop paying attention for long enough to miss the "Press X to Not Die" event.

OK... I suppose I was wrong about DDR. I still vote not guilty for QTE's though.

Also Chris, if you want the discussion to take place here, next time, you should explicitly instruct us to only post "Guilty" or "Not guilty" on the minigame court, and carry discussion over here. :)

Trevel: you encapsulate a very common view rather neatly in this comment! :)

organic io: I don't think you were wrong about DDR, it was just an alternative interpretation.

And yes, I know I confused matters here by having both a discussion post and a minigame post. I was more concerned about people mistakenly posting guilty or not guilty here than not discussing here, which I thought I had covered in:

"Alternatively, if you want to discuss the finer points of videogame torture, feel free to engage in discussion in the comments here."

Anyway, next time I will try to be clearer on this.

Best wishes!

Posting in both threads for the sake of completeness: I missed the deadline for the verdict, but I decided to blog on the topic anyway:

The Dust Forms Words: Non-Stop

Thanks for the idea!

I couldn't bring myself to make a decision in the couple of days I had before going away and wasn't sure where discussion was meant to take place.

In future, maybe you could upload the iHobo post a week before the minigame post? That would allow folk to discuss the matter, 'providing evidence' before the jury reach their verdict.

Folk who want to discuss it can. Folk who just want a one-word post can do that, having more basis for their decision if they choose to read through the comments. I think it's all up-side, adding clarity and choice.

Bezman: this is an excellent idea! Have the debate, *then* hold the trial. (It would give time for Greg and others to get in on it as well).

I'll do this next time.

Thanks for the suggestion!

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)