|
The PlayStation 3-exclusive cinematic action title Heavy Rain came
out last month to strong sales and high levels of critical acclaim. While the
game has its share of vocal detractors (many of whom have valid criticisms)
there's no doubt that the game is bold, takes risks, and is connecting with an
audience.
To that end, Gamasutra spoke to the game's director, David
Cage, head of French development studio Quantic Dream. Quantic Dream made a critical
splash a few years ago with Indigo
Prophecy -- known also in Europe as Fahrenheit. Though critics and fans
generally agree that the game stumbles by the end, it showed the potential of
interactive, cinematic narrative in games. Many say that promise has come
closer to being fulfilled by Heavy Rain.
From the nature of interactivity to the game's
less-than-perfect English voice acting, this interview touches on different
facets of this interactive drama -- and includes a few spoilers, too, so be
warned.
Something that I've
been thinking about while I've been playing this game is that very often when
you're playing a game that's got a psychological component, it concentrates on
that. Say it has shooting mechanics; they're not as polished as a shooter, and
so the game gets evaluated against shooters and is found lacking.
I felt that
your decision to back away from traditional gameplay mechanics actually helped
ensure you don't get compared to other games by the players. Was that intentional?
David Cage: It was... not
intentional, but we became conscious that that would be the result in the end. In
fact, the initial idea was to say: there are some fantastic games out there
based on the rules that we've followed for twenty years. These games are
incredibly well-implemented, they look fantastic, and technology's great. They
follow, by the book, every single rule that this industry has defined for
twenty years.
And still, when you play them, you've got this strange feeling
that they lack something; they don't have this depth, this meaning, that you
would look for -- because they are based on mechanics, and basically it's doing
the same thing in different levels with different enemies; basically you do always
the same thing. Sometimes you just stop playing and say, "Why am I doing
this, by the way?" Yeah, it's fun, but, when I turn off my console, that's
it. There is nothing left in me when I stop playing.
When I stop watching a movie that I really like, the movie left
something in me that changes my vision, or the way I am, or how I think, or how
I see the world, or whatever. But when I stop playing this game, nothing's left.
We thought that, if it's not possible to use these rules and get better results
-- emotional results -- maybe it means that the rules are not reliable. Maybe
we should change them; maybe we should break them and invent new rules that
would allow us to go further. That was exactly how we thought of Heavy Rain.
You put the
button prompts in the game. With Fahrenheit
they were at the bottom of the screen, overlayed. Now they're in the
environment. Why do it that way?
DC: In Fahrenheit, you
had to look at the 3D world, what you want to interact with: look up and say,
"Okay, it's this movement", make the move and look down for the
result. Basically, it's really unfocusing. What we wanted to achieve is the
fact that you look at something, and you know at the same time you want to
interact with this. This is how I'm supposed to do it, and here I can see the
result. So your attention is focused only on the object, and you got all of the
information at the same time.
That was really a challenge; it was a change we made maybe a year
before the end, so it was a massive change. It really changes the entire look
and feel of the game. We were really scared that it would look strange with
symbols flashing here and there -- that people would just feel, "Oh, this
is a video game." It would remind you all the time that this is a video
game. And in fact, it didn't happen. We thought it was not that intrusive, and
after awhile you don't see them at all.
There is a balance --
there's a certain amount of "gaminess" in the game. Particularly, I'm
thinking about things like the power plant: you've got the maze through the
tunnel, and the challenge with the wires. How much do you want to stick to
gaminess in the design, and how much do you want to back away from it?
DC: I try to back away, but sometimes I feel bad about this and
get to feeling I need to do something a little bit more gamey. But I'm happy with the balance in Heavy Rain, because it's almost like a
reference to old games, and old adventure games especially. There is also the
scene with Manfred when you need to get rid of the fingerprints, which is
really --
Which, apparently, I screwed up, but I thought I had gotten it
right; but I found out I got into the police station.
DC: You forgot something. Yeah, and that's the kind of gameplay
mechanics [we use]. Having a little bit of this is fine when it supports the
story -- when it's not just something to keep you busy, when it really means
something and has its place in the narrative. That's fine.
|
Drug-Killer-Example: I did not think, what I would do in that situation, I asked myself what would Ethan do, or what's interesting for me as a player...
If you focus on story, why is the story so uninspired? It is C-movie trash at best. What's interesting about the explanaiton of the killers motivation? Nothing, really.
I liked the tech, I liked the game engine and the possibilities, but next time, please, give us an interesting story.
I am passionate about this, because I love and hate Heavy Rain and it makes me angry, that with a real good script, it would have had some value... right now, it is just one more pulp story...
Anyway fantastic interview, I always love how candid David Cage is, and am inspired by his views and design philosophy. As a fan of the adventure genre, his past 2 games give me hope for the future. I also think that the industry is always open to new ideas, despite the commercial success or failure of innovative games.
I believe that we wouldn't have Heavy Rain if not for Fahrenheit; at least not in the current incarnation. Even though Fahrenheit didn't do so well commercially, Cage was able to iterate upon it's ideas and refine the formula to create an even better game. That's what game development is all about; it's a cycle of revolution, iteration, revolution. Look at any genre that exists today - we have brilliant games like Portal because of iteration on the FPS genre. We have mastered FPS; developing a tight shooter is now no problem for us. So we can revolutionize it with new technology. The same thing goes for cover based shooters; Gears of War was great, but then GTAIV took that mechanic and blended it into an open world game to create a stellar experience. Heavy Rain is taking iterated mechanics from 3rd person adventure games (Shenmue, Yakuza, Fahrenheit) and blending them with stellar storytelling and a better QTE system to create something new. The gaming industry will always build upon itself to create new experiences for folks to get into; thank you David Cage for expanding the horizons of one of my favorite genres!
George, it's compreensible that you point those issues, which I think could be better resolved in the game, but, honestly, your missing the point here. The plot was made for a game (which it is), to abuse the moral decisions and put the player in tense situations. It's not a movie, so there's no sense saying that "It is C-movie trash at best". Writing for games and movies are completly different. About the uncanny valley and other issues... I think you're just being petulant.
(sorry for my english, I'm brazillian)
I do hope that some designers won't back away from "gaminess", that some of them don't see the "absolute holy grail" in making someone cry. I thought there were other potentially interesting facets to video games.
I agree with you. Heavy Rain is probably the most enjoyable game I've played in the last 10 years, and I'm desperately hoping that other designers ape it as much as possible - just to give some variety to the medium and some artistic chops.
I don't think this has to be a zero sum game, however. Both "types" of games can exist side by side and (GASP) even be enjoyed by the same audience. We tend to typecast our players in this industry. We have our core and our casual - and within the core there are FPS gamers, RPG players, MMORPG players and never shall they meet.
Well I like all those kinds of games. And I like narrative based games. I love art house films and I think Shaun of Dead was one of best things I've seen in a while. A single consumer has many different tastes, and it would be wise for the industry to realize this.
Case in point: The game I purchased after Heavy Rain? Sega All Stars Racing.
Both are awesome.
I see what you mean. I believe you don't need to make an interactive drama in order to explore emotions, Shadow of the Colossus is a an action-adventure title where you kill monsters, but the ending is such an emotional rush. But i would like to see more games explore human themes, and although not all elements in Heavy Rain's story worked for me, i've found the father/son angle pretty effective for instance. (Jason!)
Hopefully Quantic Dreams can push the concept further in future titles, or someone else takes their own spin on it. I believe games should not become movies, to my relief HR felt more like a game than a movie structurally, you have some goals, you complete them, the story advances, and fortunately it never stops.
People focus too much on the QTEs, but discarding the "fail-repeat" mechanic is Quantic's boldest and best implemented design choice. It actually enhances the tension and urgency of your decisions, i hope more games explore that.
However, I'm happy to hear about strong sales (behind decent marketing), as it may mean we can look forward to more fully realized works in the genre before long.
"I'm desperately hoping that other designers ape it as much as possible - just to give some variety to the medium and some artistic chops"
Reconsider what you just wrote; specifically whether it makes any sense.
Which is funny, because I love this game and think people like you who think that there has to be action and repetitive gameplay in every second are ruining games, and frankly your statement is insulting to anyone with different opinions- like me. Heavy Rain was amazing, my favorite game ever to date period. Movies are all, "something happened but I missed it and now I'm confused". By allowing me the time to focus on the details, to take in the environment, to look at the pieces myself, to wonder what matters and what doesn't- those are the things that make Heavy Rain great. The interaction turns a mediocre psych story into an epic adventure.
Movies are like a textbook. Games are like the professor that you can ask questions of and learn more detail and nuance to things you encounter, and frankly I can't wait for more games like Heavy Rain.
While I disagree wholeheartedly with your summary of film, it's relatively easy to realign your comparison.
If movies are textbooks and games are "the professor that you can ask questions of and learn more detail and nuance to things you encounter," then Heavy Rain is nothing more than a Choose Your Own Adventure novel. That would be like a professor that has a few dozen canned responses, through all of which you can listen in slightly varying arrangements. Little more than a rendered Dragon's Lair, or a snail's paced Road Avenger, while still achingly less interactive than even Shenmue.
You the player empathize with Ethan, and understand his motivation which means you the player understand what you are supposed to do. Why am I telling my son to do his homework? Because I'm trying to be a good father. OR why am I letting my son NOT do his homework? Because I'm afraid if I make him do it he won't love me. Or I suppose for people like George, because I'm looking for something to shoot.
I mean, if George grades Heavy Rain as C-movie trash, I wonder how he grades other industry acclaimed game stories? And for Bob, 'slapping on' a Resident Evil game mechanic represents a fundamental misunderstanding of how story works in a game. Certainly more traditional games can learn from what Cage has done as far as structuring his story, but each game has its own specific story needs. What I believe Bob means is that he wants a Resident Evil type game - or any type game - that contains a story that engages as well as Heavy Rain does. Well, I wholeheartedly agree.
I'm not saying the story in Heavy Rain is anywhere near perfect, I'm just saying it has broken new ground toward using story to motivate game play and is a lesson in how to connect with players on a psychological level. We can all criticize it and point out its flaws, which I'm sure Cage is mostly aware of and will improve upon in his next title.
It's a real simple answer to why they don't ask tense questions. When you get these esteemed developers or famous gaming figure heads to respond to your questions and you behave in any other way than as if they where the second coming of Jesus then they and there trendy buddys in the future will refuse your offer to criticise them publicly. Common sense really.
@ Heavy Rain
I was ambivalent about it. I loved what it was trying to do. However the huge plot holes, lapses in logic and several weak characters utterly ruined it. The biggest fault of all was this so called "CHOICE". There is only choice in this game providing you can always perfectly input the QTE's. Therefore you can decide YES or NO on whatever happens to be going on. If not you had little choice and had actions forced upon you. Even worse, that is only when you logically inspect it and realise choice was nothing more than WIN/FAIL scenarios.
Now I propose this. What gamer is going to willing ignore these giant hovering attention whoring Quick Time Events? Choice wise YES and NO is the same as WIN and FAIL. What kind of gamer is going to FAIL on purpose to say NO? Gamers have been conditioned and encouraged to always WIN at games. I know choice exists beyond this as those few morality choices. But in number, frequency and most importantly significance they don't even compare.
Speaking of Pheonix Wright check out this excerpt from a review:
"Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney Review
Even with its strict, linear design, Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney is a good throwback to the old-school point-and-click PC adventures. The game's script is worth the price of admission by itself; intriguing characters, unique situations, and well-written and humorous dialogue keep the interest level high all the way through the multiple chapters."
I think Heavy Rain appeals to the same segment of people who love might love Pheonix Wright. However, Heavy Rain is very different from Pheonix Wright. It's far more sophisticated in both story and interactive design.
And I agree with Andrew. You have logical basis to attack people who enjoy interactive story/movie/cinematic games.
Obviously there is significant market for these titles and therefore, it is completely and utterly ridiculous to argue that there is limitus test as to what constitutes a good game and good gameplay.
"tools need to develop and development costs need to drop orders of magnitude before someone will be able to do such a game "right" for _gamers_ and not passive movie-people (I don't really call heavy rain fans gamers, they don't understand they've switched to movie mode) who are not interested in interactivity."
Wow, because I liked Heavy Rain I am to be stripped of the my right to be called a gamer.
And you said:
" The kind of audience Heavy rain attracts may ruin gaming if it goes mainstream, because Heavy rain is essentially interactive movies for people who can't play games."
Pure hyperbole.
With Heavy Rain, I think the main obstacle faced Quantic Dream was the coupling of bleeding edge technology with branching narrative. Had they concentrated on one linear experience a lot of time would have been available to polish and refine the gameplay and the script (Maybe even add a cover system and an online mode :) )
All that said, Heavy Rain is nothing if not a breath of fresh air for this industry.
The obvious troll is obvious. Too bad this kind of parasite has infected the Gamasutra comment sections. I hope we can get some moderation soon.
Using profanity, calling people morons and persistently being rude and obnoxious is not "real criticism. It is immature, and unprofessional behavior. You have attacked anyone that does not agree with your opinions. Go spend your time trolling on Gamespot.com at least then you will be addressing your peers.
Mr. Cage is an accomplished designer in his own right and I am certain that his abilities far exceed anything you have done.
Now, your point is that story should never take precedence over action gameplay- I believe you are wrong: Interactivity can be used to enhance a linear story progression by giving the player a space to explore and understand each action the character is taking as they are taking it. Actions scenes are enhanced because even if all I have to do is pick between the two paths, I have to think about the consequences of my actions and get inside the head of my character. Killing a person in Heavy Rain has more impact and importance than any death in an action shooter like Call of Duty or whatnot.
I did not say that interactivity was not important: only that it shares a complicated relationship with narrative, and sometimes it makes a better impact to restrain the interactivity of a game in order to bring out the power of the narrative.
You should not forget that there are people who enjoy this sort of game even if you personally don't. This is like saying that casual games should stop because they are insultingly simple or meaningless for the hardcore gamer.
Heavy Rain definetly had its weaknesses but its sales prove (just like the huge volume of users of FarmVille) that it made a certain mix of design choices that made it succesful.
First of all, nothing that anyone says (disqualify) them from commenting or the right to state their opinion.
In the case of games like Heavy Rain, Batman: AA, and Uncharted 2 the sales were coupled with critical acclaim and awards. Don't tell me that the sum of all of those three are not enough for you to consider a game succesful.
In the end of the day, the reason you end up super expensive to produce AAA titles is because money was put into them. Developers would really like the chance to keep polishing and refining their games indefintely but investors will not accept such a concept. You come to a point where you have to ship and keep new features to future releases. You wouldn't have Heavy Rain if it wasn't for Indigo Prophecy's ground work.
No need to flame each other guys.. What you're arguing about is what's so wonderful about games, Heavy Rain and GoW3 can come out in the same month and you get 2 very different entertainment experiences. It's beautiful!
Not everyone is gonna like everything. People bag on the dialog in Heavy Rain.. people thought Avatar's dialog was terrible, yet it's the most successful movie ever made.
Heavy Rain is a massive technological and storytelling achievement not only for the games industry, but for all of mankind!!
You should work on the latest Final Fantasy games if you think story takes a backseat to action and gameplay. Especially in the RPG genre, where story is never necessary because you're not playing a role, right? Just like in Heavy Rain, you don't play a role, therefore there is no role/character to develop and the story doesn't necessarily have to be strong. Why would you put something in a game that captivates the curiosity of the consumer when you can just have them mash endlessly on buttons? Your logic is infallible. Did you perchance work on Devil May Cry 2 or Star Fox Adventures?
The interactivity was simple and linear, but it is the sheer quality of that simple interaction that makes Heavy Rain a good game. Maybe a few usability issues here and there, but its not like there's been much iteration on this style of gameplay. They took what basically amounts to simon-says mini-games and made EVERYTHING contextual: The simple commands allowed for a greater range of actions to be represented, while still providing challenge and a means of failure, particularly where failure could affect the narrative being presented. This in turn deepens the connection to a mediocre (but reasonably epic) story. If somewhere along the way this isn't working out to be enjoyable for you, you should consider what makes us different as people that makes one person enjoy it while another does not.
You take a very narrow view of what actually makes a good game, then provide no evidence supporting your string of opinions. That's the problem with you and your Nietzsche quote there: you assume there is some linear standard for excellence and expertise in games- your framework for evaluating games is different than mine, and you cannot seem to comprehend an explanation for that other than my supposed ignorance.
I'm not going to say any more on this (though I'm sure you'll make that hard with a personal attack that will have to go unchallenged), just that I regret that I couldn't convince you of the game's validity for other people, even if I'd never be able to convince you to like the game.
In defense of these kinds of games:
1. Rarity increases value. By having fewer choices, each choice becomes more valuable.
2. Pre-choreographing scenes allows a designer to craft a specific emotional response from character interactions and player choices based on playtesting.
3. Therefore, by having a limited amount of choices of pre-choreographed scenes, the player makes valuable choices that result in a specific, intended response that was crafted by a designer.
From what I can tell from the Youtube teaser, and from playing Fahrenheit, the game is about exploring a branching story in an abstract way. In other words, the game makes it clear to you that there's a story that's made up of a series of choices, and your actions in the game involve exploring the path by selecting the choices. For people who are really into branching story exploration (choose your own adventure), maybe they are fine with selecting choices directly because they're more interested in the abstract story-as-system.
Maybe people like Bob want to explore the story through more concrete actions, so that the game is less about abstract exploration of the story and more about concrete exploration of the story through interacting more directly with the world itself? In other words, he doesn't want to see the abstract-ness of the story and doesn't want to select points in the path abstractly. He wants to interact with objects and have that interaction affect the story.
Am I getting that right? That's about the only coherent criticism I can see relating to design.
If so, I can certainly sympathize with that. And I'd say that highlights a very classic adventure game design problem. Without abstracting your choices to make them more apparent, how do you know what they are? How do you find out that you can grab the frying pan vs. the bottle vs. not being able to grab a random box on the shelf? Or can you grab anything and then see what happens? But if you do that, you can lose an intended effect on a player. It's certainly a hard problem to solve.
I play a lot of games, my favs being those like Fallout 3, BioShock, Uncharted 2 but I also direct movies. Having played Heavy Rain several times over taking different paths, I would totally love to direct something like this. I hope that this will open up new opportunities: not exactly a "game" and yet more than a movie.
It's interesting that much of the criticism is based on whether its a game or not. Can't it just be judged as an experience in its own right? If it needs a box to be placed in, my box would be "interactive movie".
I think that compared to games and movies it's well written and well directed. George has a point about the things he finds wrong with Heavy Rain but I don't take such an extreme view, I think it's far, far better than most Hollywood movies and especially when measured in terms of emotional impact.
Much of that emotional impact comes not just from the story but from the directing. I think almost every directing "trick" in the book is used - track back while zooming in, wide angle lens, dutch tilt etc. - but they're all used appropriately. The worst that could be said is that it might sometimes tend towards the Sidney J. Furie school of directing when having to search for interesting new angles :)
It feels to me that in optimizing Heavy Rain for emotional impact, the player has to concede some control to the director and the story to take the player though a pre-determined arc. If the game was more open-ended, like say Fallout 3, then it's hit and miss that the player encounters the plot points at the "right time". I love Fallout 3 for many reasons but it doesn't have the emotional impact of Heavy Rain.
Just for the record, in future releases, I'd happily do without the game-y aspects like weaving through the power lines and just make informed choices about the narrative.
Bottom line: great experience and hope they'll be more like this.
Heavy Rain is insultingly ignorant of intelligent or even competent storytelling and direction. The dialogue is terrible, the story is almost retarded (for lack of a better word), the direction is shallow. Some gameplay moments are genuinely credible as ways to help identify the character's emotions through gameplay, but that doesn't count for much when those emotions come out of a ridiculously and sometimes childishly constructed narrative and also when the gameplay is generally clunky, frustrating, overly complex (sometimes under-developed or lacking focus) and inaccessible. It's a shame when the technology is incredibly impressive.
And don't get me wrong, I am all up for games like Heavy Rain trying to push the medium forward and incorporate storytelling (and there is nothing wrong with linear gameplay either), but this was a horrendous effort in terms of writing, direction, and design, despite most people being hypnotized by the production values and pretentiousness into thinking it's decent and knows what it's doing. One person I used in an experiment once said it is a game that lets you play the mundane and unimportant things and not the things that push the story and matter, making you as a player redundant.
someone in one of the world's biggest games companies once asked me "don't you admire that they tried to do something different?" and I replied "Yes I absolutely do, but they already had Fahrenheit's mistakes to learn from (although that game wasn't as bad) which they haven't, and also storytelling is very old and not new at all, so integration into an interactive game just requires someone capable of it, and Mr Cage is not". And it frustrates me once more when the game poses as a masterpiece when it fails to be a good film or a good game unless you are trying to impress children.
If this game tries to draw in new audiences to games then it is very mistaken. I did an experiment with people playing this game and most people couldn't get through the first door. The game even confused me at times and I've been playing games all my life so newcomers were very lost thanks to bad instructions. Other results said that no one could get immersed in the story let alone touched because they were too frustrated trying to control the characters. This contradicts the many attempts to immerse the player through story and direction as the controls are blocking the player from interacting naturally. This is absurd when the same results could be achieved with much simplified controls and a more competent use of camera.
The highlights of the game come from a mishmash of film influences but it seems unaware of the underlying themes that made the original source materials engaging and meaningful and so these end up feeling very obscure and remind one of the no-limits madness of a child's playtime. For instance, the game becomes something like ‘Saw’ half way through throwing the protagonist into crazy tasks, but for what reason? This seems so randomly inserted as it’s an absurd concept with no payoff to justify itself.
Its' heart was in the right place, and someone has to push this medium forward, but it feels a shame that it could have been so much more if professional storytellers were involved, and accessibility was taken into account to support the attempts at immersion and identification. There is also a lot of filler that is irrelevant and this all damages the experience.
I guess the best way of summing it up is that this is not the work of an artist but instead of an art student... Sony made some money out of it though so good for them, and if anything what Heavy Rain does is show what is potentially possible when learning from it's many amateur mistakes but people who were disappointed by this sometimes laughable experience may be weary of playing something by a greater interactive storyteller and therefore making investment of much more competent drama games harder.