Editor's note: I don't find any redeeming qualities in quick-time events, but Michael argues that their use can benefit an experience. I'm not convinced (for reasons already stated) -- I'd still rather see developers build engines from the ground up to handle the type of action they'd like to model in-game. -Rob

Although Yu Suzuki only coined the term quick-time event (QTE) in 1999 to describe Shenmue’s gameplay, the act of timed button presses with on-screen prompts is an age-old concept and one we still see in triple-A games today.

But many people feel that these prompts remove control from the player and relegate him to bystander status. The argument is valid, especially as we enter an age where interactivity and immersion are critical to success.

There are times, though, when a game can really stand out with the inclusion of QTEs. In some cases, the gameplay device can actually deepen a player’s sense of immersion. The following is a series of circumstances where appropriate use of the mechanic can drive the experience forward in exciting ways.

Quick-time events enhance a game experience when....

They enable special context-sensitive interactions. While game controls are often limited for the sake of practicality, that doesn’t preclude the player from performing an epic scripted maneuver. The gameplay device allows players to do some truly extraordinary and unique things that conventional controls wouldn’t normally allow.

Resident Evil 4, for example, had no game mechanic in place for catching a thrown knife. In oder to avoid damage, players needed to dodge or shoot all projectiles. To give players a chance to perform a memorable action in a particular cut-scene, the developers included a knife catch as a QTE. This was meant to make players feel more capable and skilled with the added benefit of looking totally badass.

They create a direct connection to the player’s avatar. This mostly applies to sequences that require hitting a button rapidly [Raven Software refers to these as "tappies" -- Ed.] A skilled developer can take the art of button mashing and use it to make players “feel” the action happening on-screen. Whether struggling to overpower an enemy in God of War or charging up magical energy for an apocalyptic beat down in Bayonetta, players wind up feeling that the force of their pounding is directly influencing a character’s power -- so long as the physical duress relates in some way to what’s happening on-screen.

The best example of this is Metal Gear Solid 4’s famous hallway scene, a segment that vividly stands out as both physically and emotionally painful. My hammering on triangle never hurt so much.

They create tension. Traditionally, letter-boxed cut-scenes served as safe havens designed to reward players for passing specific challenges and furthering the plot. Along came Resident Evil 4, a game which played with our perceptions with its dirty penchant for tossing QTEs into scenes that previously lacked interactivity. I don’t know a single player who didn’t put down the controller during a “break,” only to frantically scramble for it moments later to avoid death.

When used artfully, the mechainc fosters an environment where players must be constantly alert. For some genres, this can have a profound effect on the action.

Of course, the mechanic can do real, lasting damage to an experience when not implemented with thought and care. Sometimes, they can frustrate players beyond the edge of reason and remove the ability to have a meaningful impact on the game world. Here’s what can happen when good QTEs go bad.

Quick-time events detract from a game experience when....

They aren’t consistent. God of War had its share of frustrating moments, most of which resulted from a lack of consistency in execution. Inputs should never be random. If I need to press "square, triangle, triangle," then the next time I perform the same action the game should still ask me to press the same sequence. Far too many games randomize button presses to artificially increase difficulty. The experience degenerates into playing Simon while watching a movie.

The inputs don’t relate to the action. Whether through randomized prompts or just plain thoughtless design, many QTEs don’t have anything to do with what’s happening on-screen. If War from Darksiders is locking swords with an enemy, then jamming on the attack button makes sense to me; however, if Bayonetta needs to jump off a falling tower, why would I press the fire key? Likewise, how does pressing aim and fire simultaneously allow Chris Redfield to dive clear of a speeding motorcycle in Resident Evil 5? If there’s no connection to the action, then the event is nothing more than pointless masturbation.

They carry high stakes. Ever since Dragon’s Lair, the gameplay device has often carried death as a result of failure. Sometimes, these death scenes can be amusing or reinforcing, but often, they just frustrate. Failing a sequence should never massively impact the player’s experience unless the game’s premise specifically demands such an impact.

When you consider that many players panic during QTEs and hit the wrong button, swift defeat for an entire boss fight because of a single, failed execution of the finishing move is just plain cruel. If developers decide that death is a reasonable cost of failure, then a checkpoint should directly precede the event to minimize frustration. We’re not paying for our game time in quarters anymore; thus, the need to send us back so far is no longer acceptable.

Like any game design tenet, QTEs can help or hinder a title’s quality. Not every sequence warrants the mechanic, and developers should always carefully weigh the decision to include them. So long as they add something substantial to the game, nobody can ever -- oh crap press X right now!

Which are your favorites? Do you absolutely hate any? Tell me about your experiences!