GAME JOBS
Contents
Tense Questions: David Cage On Heavy Rain
 
 
Printer-Friendly VersionPrinter-Friendly Version
 
Latest Jobs
spacer View All     Post a Job     RSS spacer
 
June 7, 2013
 
Social Point
Senior Game Developer
 
Treyarch / Activision
Senior Environment Artist
 
Sony Computer Entertainment America - Santa Monica
Senior Staff Programmer
 
Sony Computer Entertainment America - Santa Monica
Sr Game Designer
 
Trendy Entertainment
Gameplay Producer
 
Trendy Entertainment
Technical Producer
spacer
Latest Blogs
spacer View All     Post     RSS spacer
 
June 7, 2013
 
Tenets of Videodreams, Part 3: Musicality
 
Post Mortem: Minecraft Oakland
 
Free to Play: A Call for Games Lacking Challenge [2]
 
Cracking the Touchscreen Code [4]
 
10 Business Law and Tax Law Steps to Improve the Chance of Crowdfunding Success
spacer
About
spacer Editor-In-Chief:
Kris Graft
Blog Director:
Christian Nutt
Senior Contributing Editor:
Brandon Sheffield
News Editors:
Mike Rose, Kris Ligman
Editors-At-Large:
Leigh Alexander, Chris Morris
Advertising:
Jennifer Sulik
Recruitment:
Gina Gross
Education:
Gillian Crowley
 
Contact Gamasutra
 
Report a Problem
 
Submit News
 
Comment Guidelines
 
Blogging Guidelines
Sponsor
Features
  Tense Questions: David Cage On Heavy Rain
by Christian Nutt [Business/Marketing, Design, Interview]
32 comments Share on Twitter Share on Facebook RSS
 
 
March 26, 2010 Article Start Previous Page 4 of 4
 

When I'm playing a game -- like God of War -- yes, it's violent, but I think that violence is abstracted. Even when it's realistic, you know it's not a realistic context. But if you want to up the realism of the narrative -- up the realism of the world -- then suddenly the violence is, in the case of Yakuza, incongruous.

You have the abstract, concrete; abstract, concrete -- a switch back and forth. Walking down a street in Tokyo, even if you're a gangster, you're not going to get into fistfights with -- by the time you beat that game, we're talking like 2,000 guys or something. (Laughs) You know what I mean? It's just not realistic.



DC: Well, that's the problem with most action games: that the story, at some point, needs to justify that the hero goes from jungle level to the snow level to the sand level, so this is already something difficult.

It also has to justify that there are zillions of people attacking you all the time wherever you are; there are people shooting at you because this is what the game is about. So it's really difficult to have decent storytelling in most games, and I think that games like Uncharted 2 or God of War III did a great job at that, trying to have a story really supporting the experience.

At the same time, I made a different decision, which was to get rid of the violence, the mechanics, the patterns in the gameplay. I think that this is not an absolute necessity; there are other ways of offering gameplay than using the same loops in a way.

Did you kill the drug dealer?

Yes.

DC: No hesitation?

Yes, there was hesitation. In fact, after I did that part, I got up at the next break and grabbed my roommate who had already beaten the game, and I said, "Did you kill the drug dealer?" I had to ask him immediately. I had to compare notes. Yeah, there was hesitation; that was a moment where I said, "Look. I know I'm playing a game, so I can..." I knew I had that power because there wasn't a real consequence. So I was able to play around with that.

DC: But is it something you would have done personally, in real life?

It's so hard to say. We're talking about a scenario that's very -- I don't have kids, so I don't have that bond. I can't anticipate what my reaction would be in this scenario at all.

DC: It's difficult to tell what you would do. Did you cut your finger?

Yeah. I've done everything, basically.

DC: Okay. Did you kill the religious guy?

No, I didn't; I saved him. think I do behave differently with the different characters -- with Jayden, I really don't like the other cop. I mean me; I don't like him. I don't like him at all, and I like the rational approach.

DC: That's funny. Many people shot the religious guy when he takes the crucifix out because they thought it was a gun, and it's incredible how many people shot him. It's funny.

Why'd you record the English voices in France? I think that's a common criticism of the game.

DC: Yeah. It's really funny because most of the actors are American, actually. Scott Shelby, Madison Paige, Carter Blake. There are a couple of English actors: Ethan and Jayden are English actors, actually. But there are no French actors.

I haven't heard the English voice acting because I was about a week late in starting it, and everyone I talked to said, "Play it in French with subtitles."

DC: (Scoffs) That's absurd.

Really? You think?

DC: Yeah, it's absurd. I think the English version is really the real version; the original version. But some people probably complained about the accent, and this is something we tried to care about; but actors have so many technical constraints on stage that it was really difficult to fight for everything.

They needed to know their lines by heart. Facial animation... Many technical constraints. A lot of text to record. Plus, you want them to act and to deliver their lines, etc. etc. So, yeah, we'll probably pay more attention to that and probably work with American actors only in the next game to make sure that this is not in the way.

How did you do the recording? Did you just record them in booths, or did you actually have people acting together?

DC: We actually shot in a sound booth for facial animation because it's a different camera setup. They had an actor delivering the lines to them; they were actually acting with someone.

That's just another thing that's different in games; finding the footing, as we move into these more dramatic, serious games that require really convincing acting. To have Kratos shouting like, "Ah, Ares, I'm gonna fucking kill you!" doesn't require the same sort of depth as a guy screaming about his son getting run over by a car.

DC: Mm; agreed. You know, the cast was really amazing; there are some really great actors. We gave them so many technical constraints, and we're working on this. The goal is not to find better actors; the goal is to find ways of allowing them to deliver with less constraints. That's the main goal. But we learn, we discover, we improve the technology and the way it produces kind of things. I also notice that many people felt the emotions that we wanted them to feel, and it's also due to the acting.

Oh, yeah! Even my friends and people I've spoken to -- everyone is feeling the emotions of the game. Well, not everyone; you have to be aware that there are people who totally don't like the game at all, and that's going to happen with any piece of media or art.

DC: Very few, to be honest. Very few, to my big surprise. (Laughs)

Did you feel like you had to set the game in America to appeal to the widest audience? Why not set it in France?

DC: Well, because the genre's really a dark thriller, and it made sense -- as this is a very codified genre -- to use the rules of the genre; and the rule is it takes place usually in the U.S. There are some great thrillers taking place in South Korea, which is also very interesting; so I'm not saying it was impossible to set in France, but that was not how I felt about it.

 
Article Start Previous Page 4 of 4
 
Top Stories

image
How Kinect's brute force strategy could make Xbox One a success
image
Microsoft's official stance on used games for Xbox One
image
Gearbox's Randy Pitchford on games and gun violence
image
Why you can't trade items in MMOs anymore
Comments

George Dudas
profile image
hm. I don't know. Not very tense questions... I would have asked: Why are there so many plot holes? Where is the subtlety in the story? What's up with the sexploitation of Madison during the whole game? There is no psychological depth to the killers motivation. Why is the dialog so weak (not the voice acting, but the actual words). Why are the main characters so boring except Lt. Blake. Why is there uncanny valley everywhere. It is bad with the adults, but the kids are the worst. And I would say the game is not about: what would a parent do to save his kid (we know what parents would do, that is not an interesting question). The important question for the player/audience is: why is the killer killing children? This question is handled very clumsy.



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...

jo jobber
profile image
The best thing I've ever read. lol, but you are right on the money, this is just how I feel and I'm sooo frustrated that people are overlooking the unforgivable story for the quirky ideas which are nice but cannot be applauded when they are not used in decent scenarios.

Robert D'Elia
profile image
I really wish I could play Heavy Rain (absolutely loved Fahrenheit,) but unfortunately I do not own a PS3. Someday, certainly.



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!

Robert Gill
profile image
Great article. Really wish something like this would come to the 360 other than Indigo Prophecy...

George Dudas
profile image
btw. I really wonder if gamers or game journos ever, EVER, watch any good movies? Don't you see the difference between a good story and a bad story? In a shooter, I would not care. But this game is build for telling a story or multiple stories, and it fails utterly, it is really hurting, man.

Henrique Sampaio
profile image
Great interview! I thanks Gamasutra for doing it. David Cage is a visionary of this industry. Pushing the limits of the narrative in the game medium is not something you see everyday. Actually, I'm going to use some of his answers in my Master's Degree project.



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)

Matt Riley
profile image
I really enjoyed this article. Mostly because, despite George's objections, this is one of the few Gamasutra pieces that actually felt somewhat critical to me, at least as someone who has never played Heavy Rain. For example, with Dante's Inferno, the interviewer didn't push any controversial questions whatsoever. I'm really not interested in hearing how awesome the developer is, or how awesome he thinks his game is. For any studio who has loftier ambitions than simply putting food on the table, I think it's important that sites like Gamasutra give them a chance to justify their artistic choices and/or account for their failings.

Terii Stein
profile image
That was an interesting interview.

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.

Sean Currie
profile image
@ Terii



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.

Ary Monteiro Jr
profile image
@Terii



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.

Nathan Tompkins
profile image
I have to say I agree with George on this one. I wanted to love this game for the challenging questions on game design it raises (a stronger version of Indigo Prophecy in many ways), but since those explorations happen to center on the presentation of theme, story, and dialogue, those things too really should be on point for such a project to be considered successful. After reading all the glowing reviews of this game (not just for the bold choices in design, but also for the story and characterization itself), I found myself thinking: "Do other gamers watch movies? Read books? Because this is just one hackneyed cliche after another..." And it wasn't the cliche itself that bothered me the most, but the absolutely humorless solemnity with which it's all presented.

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.

Luther Diten
profile image
@ Sean



"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.

Andrew Hopper
profile image
@Bob dillan



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.

Luther Diten
profile image
@Andrew



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.

Ryan Galletta
profile image
While I agree that the story has many serious plot holes, and I would have liked to see more gaminess content: more use of the mechanic that gave the player options, it nevertheless does a better job of story telling than any other game to date. For the most part it does a good job of establishing each character, with particular focus on Ethan, which is the critical component that has made this game a success.



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.

Michael Murphy
profile image
@George Dudas



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.

steve roger
profile image
@Bob, based on your remarks we a call assume that this means that you hate the Wii and it's Wii-fit games. You also hate the DS and it's Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney game.



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.

Ahmad Jadallah
profile image
After years of hearing that adventure gaming is dead I play Heavy Rain and think that this is what would have happened to Police Quest and Kings Quest had Sierra continued developing them. The problem is that today's gamers are being pushed toward accepting free-roaming open-world cover-based MMO shooters as the standard by which everything should be evaluated wither its fun or not.



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 :) )

Fourk
profile image
Hearing (or rather reading) an industry leader parroting phrases such as "gaming's own Citizen Kane" that were coined by well meaning but wide-eyed 'games-are-art' proponents is worrying. When films such as Citizen Kane were being made, while the medium was searching for recognition, directors didn't talk about creating film's own "Moonlight Sonata" or "Mona Lisa". Games and film are distinct mediums, a concept that I would expect David Cage to struggle with.

All that said, Heavy Rain is nothing if not a breath of fresh air for this industry.

steve roger
profile image
RE: Bob dillan



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.

steve roger
profile image
@Bob



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.

Andrew Hopper
profile image
I find it hilarious to be called ignorant, this whole conversation is historical in nature. It's a classic art discussion, of whether a medium should be defined by what makes it different or by what makes it complete. Frankly, I'm amused.



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.

Ahmad Jadallah
profile image
@Bob Dillan



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.

Ahmad Jadallah
profile image
@Bob



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.

Jeremy Reaban
profile image
Since the games often get compared, albeit sometimes humorously, I would love a similar interview with the director of Deadly Premonition.

Tony Dormanesh
profile image
Heavy Rain was great! My g/f beat it twice before I did. I love Quantic Dream for going that direction in games.



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!!

Daniel Martinez
profile image
@ Bob Dillan



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?

Andrew Hopper
profile image
@Bob



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.

Andrew Hopper
profile image
That's not a criticism, that's a review that describes a series of opinions. Why is being forced to pantomime pre-choreographed scenes bad? I've argued that the pantomiming provides a connection to the pre-choreographed scene that is impossible to reproduce in other mediums, and the fact that they are pre-choreographed allows the designer to create more detail and nuance in the individual scenes.



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.

Josh Larson
profile image
Don't forget that every game is pre-choreographed, whether it's an open-world, simulated system with pre-choreographed behaviors and parameters or a cinematic scene with pre-choreographed character animations and plot points.



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.

Robert Pratten
profile image
I'll say upfront that I really liked Heavy Rain and I think the world of games and movies are better off because of it.



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.

jo jobber
profile image
I'm sorry but anyone who thinks Heavy Rain is a very very good game is obviously uneducated in film and video games!



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.


none
 
Comment:
 




UBM Tech