Different types of non-interactivity

Sometimes I think I'd rather be tied to a chair with tape over my mouth than have to watch a cutscene. Let me explain.

It's occurred to met that there are two main ways for a video game to take control away from the player:

One way is to take away the player's control of the player character. This is what happens in a traditional cutscene. One minute I am making my character walk around, making him fight, and making him talk or at least triggering someone else to talk to him, all by pressing buttons. Once the cutscene starts, he walks and talks and fights without my having any control of what he does. Often (but not always) there will be a change of camera angle or perspective. While the cutscene is in progress, I'm engaged in a different activity: rather than playing a video game, I'm watching a movie, and generally not a very good movie at that.

The other way is to leave the player in control of their character, but take away the character's ability to act. My character might be tied up, or pinned down by rubble, or mind-controlled. Often I'll still be able to move the camera (or in a first-person game, move my character's head) but not affect the action that unfolds. Even though I'm not in control in any meaningful sense, I am still engaged in the same type of activity: playing a video game.

I think this is an important distinction, because the way in which the player perceives the non-interactive sequence is quite different. (Or at least mine is; I don't know about the rest of you.) In the second type, I still feel immersed in the game; I still feel like I am my character, and if I feel frustrated at my lack of agency then that helps immersion because my character will be frustrated too. In the first type, however well it is done, my sense of immersion takes a blow; for the duration of the cutscene, I am no longer am the character.

I started thinking along these lines because of a sequence in The Darkness that does both in the space of a few seconds. To start with, darkness tentacles appear and grab my hands, so I can't move (presumably there are more tentacles out of sight stopping me from walking), and I am forced to watch events unfold in front of me. Once the tentacles disappear, though, I am still not in control, this time because my character takes an action without my prompting. This was one of the few parts of the game that didn't really work for me, even though the action the character takes makes perfect sense dramatically and it's outside the normal range of actions the player can do. (And it would have been pretty creeping having an on-screen prompt telling me to do that.)

I know which type of non-interactivity I prefer. For me, the opening credits of Call of Duty 4, where my temporary character can only move his head as he is bundled into a car and driven to his place of execution, is worth a dozen flashy cutscenes where my character swings from chandaliers and guns down foes or whatever. That said, there are situations where a cutscene is appropriate and I would not want to ban them entirely from games. We would be limiting ourselves unduly if video game protagonists never performed activitities that can't sensbily be put in the player's control, and contriving to immobilize the player character every time we need to make them see something might remove their sense of being a hero. But I for one would rather be tied up and cackled at by the game's villain, than be moved around like a puppet by the game writer.