|
You must have done a postmortem on Heavy Rain at the end of the project and really identified things where you felt you succeeded and failed. I was wondering if you'd share some of the things that you feel strongest about.
DC: [Big sigh] Well, there were different things. With the team, we were pretty much unhappy with everything. We thought we could have done a better job in all areas, and have better rendering, and better visuals, and better gameplay, and better everything.
So, yeah, this is definitely things we took into account designing the new technology, wanting to work with performance capture. And we wanted a better blend of storytelling and interactivity. We thought that sometimes in Heavy Rain there were moments where the balance wasn't exactly right. We are working on new ways of merging this in a more natural and fluid way.
There were so many things, after Heavy Rain, that we learned. We felt on a marketing point of view, I would say that some people maybe didn't give Heavy Rain a chance, just because they felt it wasn't a game for them. Maybe some people thought it was just a game where you would just press buttons, and some kind of interactive movie thing, which Heavy Rain absolutely was not.
We felt we lost some people because we couldn't convince them to give the game a chance. So, this is also something we took into account in trying to convince more people that they should give the game a chance.
On the flipside, what were you maybe the proudest of in terms of your accomplishments with Heavy Rain?
DC: I'm really proud of Heavy Rain. Not in an arrogant way, like, "Look at how good we are"; we're just proud of having made it. I mean, to meet people every day, telling us about their experience playing Heavy Rain. And many come to me and tell me about the scene where they need to cut the finger, and how the wife was sitting on the couch with them and saying "Do it" or "Don't do it" or whatever, and how it generated conversations and dialogues within the couple. Many people played with their wives.
I'm really proud of the fact that for the people who really enjoyed the experience, it seems to be a part of the culture now. It's something that they really lived, not just a game they played and they closed the box and that's it, "Forget about it." It's something that they keep talking about and that really left an imprint in their mind. Yeah. I'm incredibly proud of that.
Do you see yourself as an auteur?
DC: It really depends on what you call an auteur, because it has some positives and negatives to it. If you mean do I consider myself doing art? Honestly, certainly not. I don't think I'm doing art. I'm just doing it by passion, and I'm doing what I believe in.
It's more about crafting something, and building something all together for two or three years with a team. That's really what we do. And if something of what we create today, people still talk about it 50 years from now, then we'll say, "Okay, it was art." But that's really not something I have in mind every morning. Honestly, I don't care.
Now, I think I'm an auteur in that sense that I spend a year writing this stuff. It's one year of my life doing this from morning to night, non-stop, for a year. And I put a lot of myself. I'm not talking about me -- I'm talking about what I feel, what I think. Heavy Rain was really about me becoming a father, and all the fears that go with it. Yeah, all the fear and all the promise and all the things... In that sense, yeah, I think I'm an auteur, in a way.
Now, I know that a lot of time, obviously, during production of games, things change. And a lot of developers like to be really reactive to that and go with what works. But when you're working with a heavily written piece, it may not have that flexibility. So, can you talk about that process?
DC: My games are really written. I spend a year writing them, and very little can change. So, what I try to do when I write is identify areas where I know there is space for changes. Usually it's about interface. It's about gameplay. It's these kind of things that, yeah, you cannot plan it on paper, but you know that you'll need to do it on-screen and see if it works. And if it doesn't, you need to have a contingency plan.
But regarding the story itself, the production pipeline is so heavy -- because you need to build all these assets and shoot all these animations -- that you cannot really change your mind in the middle. So, I try to identify these places for potential changes, but if I've done a wrong decision regarding the story, there's usually little you can do along the line, just because the process is so heavy that you cannot really change.
But there are many things that changed during development. All of the 3D interface in Heavy Rain, for example. It was an idea that came in the middle of development. We were going for 2D interfaces in the lower corner.
Similar to Fahrenheit.
DC: Yeah. We said, "Well, wait a minute. We need to find..." We had this idea in Fahrenheit, of having them in 3D in the environment, but we couldn't find a way to make it. I just wanted to try again. And we tried again, and we found new solutions. We decided to implement it.
So, these are the kind of things that can happen during development, and you need to leave space for new ideas during development. Otherwise you are just implementing, and you lose track of what you try to achieve. When you know there is space for discoveries, and this is still a living being in a way. Your project becomes like a living being. You need to be careful that it breathes, that it's alive all the time.
|
Printer-Friendly Version
As fantastic an experience as Heavy Rain was, I don't think it's something that I would personally want to call a game. I think the reason many people would sooner label killing monsters as a game than Heavy Rain is because one is centered around having fun and the other is focused on telling a story and delivering a different experience. People have used the word "game" for a long time to describe something that is fun, challenging, or competitive, and it's not been that long since we've used the term to describe a storytelling medium that can make you feel a variety of emotions.
Mass Effect 3 had a great system for their different modes, those being Story Mode, Action Mode, and RPG Mode. With that system, they could offer an experience to people who expected action and challenges in their game while still having the option for an experience that focuses on story. Heavy Rain only offers an Easy, Normal, and Hard setting which alters the challenge that is offered; however the challenge isn't what people take away from the game, it's the choices they make in the story and those moments outside of the game when players recall how long it took them to finally make the decision to sever an appendage. I think if we stop calling these experiences "games" (and replace it with interactive stories/dramas/entertainment or something similar) or stop treating them like games (defining the experience as easy, normal, or hard) then the audience will stop looking at narrative-driven experiences as a negative thing.
I have no problem have 60% exploration 40% game.. or 60% story and 40% game,60% fascinations 40% game, 60% competition 40% game.
But when the only part of a game is the minimalist functions of it's whole and emphasis on something other than what games are about, calling them games is dishonest in one form or another.
I have a problem calling everything a game.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bejeweled
These concepts of game overs were introduced with arcade games to get people to put more coins in. It became a matter of pride. Some people don't have that pride, and don't feel like they should have to go through hell to get there (looking at you, Crash Bandicoot). They just want to experience the adventure in all its glory.
In the case of the example you gave with Mass Effect, if Heavy Rain had taken the same approach, one mode would be considered a game (according to your definition), while another would be an interactive experience. That's ridiculous. If I want to talk about the game Heavy Rain. I shouldn't have to know what mode you played and then be like, "Hey, what'd you think of that game, Heavy Rain?" or "Hey, what'd you think of that interactive experience, Heavy Rain?" just so you don't feel like they're cheating the concept of games (which again is just according to your perceptions).
This industry is still trying to feel itself out. Its in the midst of growing pains, I see nothing wrong with calling these experiences games because I know just how broad the term "games" is. But I understand that there are a lot of people who do not recognize games like Heavy Rain as games because of what other types of games they grew up around. In that case, I wouldn't be opposed to changing the name. Such a thing would only be a formality however because technically all current games are interactive experiences as well.
That was the point Cage was trying to make. He was referring to all sorts of different games. Games where you can shoot people (Call of Duty), games where you can jump (platformers), games where your goal is to get the highest score -- these are all interactive experiences.
My favorite games are ones that affect me the most. Games like Shadow of the Colossus, Ico, Uncharted 2, Mass Effect, Digital Devil Saga 2, Persona 3, Alan Wake, etc. These are games that tugged at my heart strings, made me feel something more emotionally resonant than any manner of pride could from achieving the highest score or 1st place on the leader boards.
I suppose I should thank Rock Band for that realization (I think it was the original). I managed to break the Top 10 on a particular song over five years ago. I thought I'd be excited, ecstatic, anything. Instead, I was dead inside. It meant nothing to me. I didn't care. In fact, it made me sick to see that I was only separated from the next highest by 10 pts. In a game where each song you should be scoring tens of thousands of points. It's insane to think people actually compete that hard with such little difference... for those couple extra points, and for what? Bragging rights? That's childish.
In my opinion, those kind of games need to die in a fire. It's the kind of mechanics businesses used to get kids hooked on games, feeding an addiction. We're better than that. Games shouldn't be about pissing contests. If you play Rock Band to compete, you're playing for all the wrong reasons. It's a far better gaming experience when you're jamming with your mates on a favorite song. That's where the real joy comes in.
I despise arcade games, which is what I call game-y games with little other point than becoming the best at something. The focus should always be on the experience. And like Cage said, you need to design story and gameplay at the same time. They work hand-in-hand. Well, I'd expand it to say narrative and gameplay because I think story is just one way to explore a narrative while games like Journey, Limbo, and flower take other approaches.
However, if you guys would rather use a different name, by all means. I'd like to hear some suggestions as to what it could be. One word though, because terms like "interactive experience" is a mouthful and "experience" is just way too broad (movies, books, and music are experiences too). Also, remember, different mediums often have multiple names. In the case of movies, you also have films, flicks, and cinema. Back in the day, people often refer to songs as records. In fact, Academies still do, at least for singles. And, of course, with books there are many different terms, each mean a different thing, a short-story/novella, novel, etc.
Also, something worth noting. A lot of early films often captured nothing more than brief actions. For instance, a train running along tracks. That was considered a movie. It might only last five minutes. But it was still considered a movie back then. Nowadays, we'd have a hard time grasping the concept that such a thing could be a movie, that people literally huddled under tents to see a screening of this five minute flick. Yet, it still is/was a movie. Technically, now we call them shorts, but still the point remains.
And I realize I've been rambling a lot now, so I should probably just stop, but just know that this is something I'm really passionate about as I myself would like to become a future game designer someday.
It would be criminal not to respond to an open query headed in the right direction. But as zealous as I am for naming good art I think starting simply may be the best answer.
Interactive fiction I think would work
as well as Interactive non fiction .. to begin the divide to claim back games as games.
By placing emphasis on the importance of non-games.
It's a fair trade.
After that I have some silly ideas .. but nothing clear cut .. as to RPGs? I think they need to be clearly understood as what they are .. this will take education. Labeling them may be folly until the broader social intersection is established.
In other words, names of media forms are generally historical accidents, they're not something we get to choose. Try if you like, and let me know how that goes for you. I think we're better off trying to change perceptions of the word we have than trying to change them by changing the word.
I did.
She loved the game and she’s not interested in any other games I play. I think this is another proof that there is a mature audience hungry for different approaches to interactivity.
David Cage is a real innovator. Even though Fahrenheit had a lot of silly stuff as well as combat, it was the small touches like pouring a glass of wine or exercising that added a touch of immersion and made the whole experience more meaningful and cohesive. Fahrenheit was the game that made me appreciate dual analog joysticks - it made a gamepad feel more like a tangible extension of the game than the Wiimote ever did.
Heavy Rain was every bit as much a game as Tetris, Gears of War, or Chess. It had rules which the player understood, and it had a win condition. I'm not even positive that both are required to qualify something as a "game".
Certainly, being interactive and entertaining should be more than enough. Artificial limitations do absolutely nothing to advance the medium. If anything, they hold it back. I've worked with enough industry folk who insist on imposing these poorly defined restrictions to feel bothered by the pervasiveness of the attitude.
Thank God there's people out there who don't listen to it. Kudos, Quantic Dream.
Pushing the lever on a spinner top to watch it twirl has rules, and thats not a game. Making a pie has rules that's not a game.
But the pendulum quite frenetically bobs when you consider the values the make games distinct like obstacles,problems and puzzles. The distinction has more social value when thsoe activities have weight, meaning or risk. And they have not much of the above without authorship and captive audience.
Spinning a top is play. It could easily BE a game, if a win condition was applied. "See who can spin it the longest".
Artificial restrictions are the perfect way to guarantee "undiscovery", and are why the games industry continues to export Call of Duty clones en masse.
Who are you (or I, or any individual) to militantly dictate on the value of authorship and user experience in something such as Heavy Rain (or Tetris, or Chess) in ANY capacity other than entirely subjectively?
A choose-your-own-adventure interactive YouTube video can have authorship and a captive audience. And it's every bit as valid a creative expression as whatever arbitrary example of gaming someone wants to throw at it.
Just ask yourself those questions. Does this experience have an obstacle for me to overcome, does the experience pit me against an problem or does it need me to apply my wits to solve the puzzle.
I don't think anyone is disagreeing about the artistic expression present here in the experience or validation as another form of art.
It's that the experience isn't sincerely a game, but rather something other.
If the central focus really isn't those things be honest about what it's actually trying to be.
Artificial limitations are already in place around games though because they are irreverently named without concern to what experience is really being achieved.
this doesn't change the wonderful power of complete latitude of an interactive medium (computers, or really any other social arts) to be anything. But because games are so broadly termed without concern to the content they aren't changing to become greater experiences.
And of course the line between a game and, say, a DVD-Menu (as an interactive electronic medium) exists SOMEWHERE. But my complaint is that plenty of folk within this industry utter the phrase "not a REAL game" as some kind of admonishment, as though lacking THEIR set of expectations for rules and mechanics, in some way they always refuse to explain, results in an inferior contribution to our art form.
And that, quite frankly, is bullshit.
Your final sentence: "But because games are so broadly termed without concern to the content they aren't changing to become greater experiences."... Are you saying that we need restrictions in order to improve upon our understanding of what games are and can be? If so, I would appreciate some clarification: Why do you think this?
Because I think the exact opposite: I think that artificial limitations impose an expectation on our game developers to deliver tried, tested, and ultimately uninspired formulaic works. I think admonishing a creative individual or group for producing work which doesn't fit those narrow-minded standards shows a lack of creative vision and is the reason this industry is stagnating.
" Are you saying that we need restrictions in order to improve upon our understanding of what games are and can be? If so, I would appreciate some clarification: Why do you think this?
Because I think the exact opposite: I think that artificial limitations impose an expectation on our game developers to deliver tried, tested, and ultimately uninspired formulaic works."
No restrictions at all. what I'm talking about is the broad terminology of games/gameplay and the the broad terminology of such terms .. like MMO, RPG, ect. Which do zero justice to the art of games.
the reason those terms exist isn't some fascist strict ideal, it's advertisement and how social ideas are communicated.
But right now there are 2 major problems.
1 a lack of education, and complete misunderstanding of agreeable general terms under the category of art in games and gameart as games.
and
2 a force of social nature working without concern of the consequences creating that pervasive attitude, which is that games can and should mean just about anything. but for a particular bent to make sales.
Not only does this kill the art we are here to celebrate, it goes a step farther to unconscionably create social dilemmas. Addiction, social disconnection, hatred ect. the list goes on.
Without understanding and naming what we are doing we can not find purchase to create change.
Games have to be identified, if not empirically at in least socially acceptable terms.
I agree with almost everything you just wrote. I agree that we too rigidly define our genres by the mechanics they employ (FPS, MMO, Puzzle, etc.) rather than the thoughts, debates, or emotions they evoke (which is ultimately the primary purpose of any art form).
But I am arguing that while you or I discussing the "line" in this way is simply talking academic definitions, there are a large number of folk out there - gamers AND games industry professionals - who turn their nose up at work which doesn't fit their personal definitions.
We can argue till Christmas about degree of permutations, emotional engagement, style versus substance, challenge, systems of rules and mechanics... We can argue how all of these things push and pull on that defining line in an ACADEMIC way, and that's a *great discussion to have* because that in itself is a means of exploring possibility and potential in games as a valid form of artistic expression (or even purely as a commercial entertainment craft).
But arguing that Game X is NOT a "real game" and therefore is not worthy of respect or admiration or consumption because it - in some intangible, indefinable way (other than subjective rambling) - doesn't conform to a set of arbitrary criteria, is not just pointless, it's harmful.
I think at this point you and I might be doing the first thing, while my original complaint was about people doing the second.
Actually, mechanics in the strictest sense, are bad. I agree with Cage. There shouldn't be limitations. Artists should be free to explore what best exemplifies the character's emotions and what bit of interaction will help you identify with them the most.
While creators of games like this can expound to their hearts' content about the creation of emotion and how it is supposed to feel, the lack of substance in activity really lets them down. It creates a dissonance between what the screen is trying to tell me versus what amount to often quite feeble mini-games, and those start to become annoying pretty quickly. How many times must I sway the joypad back and forth to placate the baby? Or execute right-stick quarter turns to open doors? Before it just starts to feel like interaction for interaction's sake? Or to put it another way: filler.
Some players may be more tolerant of that kind of interaction because they are enjoying the story more, and they are welcome to their enjoyment. Personally, I am not. Much like with point-and-click adventure games, where the gameplay often boiled down to fetch tasks, what these games actually prove is the power of tech demos and graphics to inspire possibility, but the experience invariably proves hollow. (See also: LA Noire)
What I would love to see is Cage and similar designers marrying their writing ideas with actual game design rather than persistently fobbing off the lack of depth in their games as somehow being sophisticated. There is more potential in creating meaningful experiences when developers try to do that (for example: Journey is a far better example of how games and storysense can work together than Heavy Rain) than in avoiding the question.
Adventure games faded because more action-filled games caught up in terms of graphics and proved far more substantial. When the tech demos and trailers stop being so impressive, this current round of joypad adventures will do likewise. They're simply not strong enough to bear the weight of their claims.
The current AAA format seems to be aimed at making things "realistic" or "virtual reality", but realism is served in abstraction far better most of the time allowing the imagination to fill in the blanks largely and virtual experiences push us away from hedonistic divergent thinking and autonomous involvement.
It's like a birthday party with all the bells and whistles and your asked a multiple choice question . press 1 to enjoy 2 to rebel and smash the cake with a bat.
I would argue that they were less substantial, catering to a younger crowd that thought finger twitching was more important than solving puzzles. They started out as adult games and became teenage games. The "stories" in action games are rot. A hero grows more and more powerful and defeats that baddest bad guy. Choice is so important in games because they are all about narcissism. The rewards have to be the shortest possible term. They aren't games, they are drugs.
One might also say:
"How many times must I move the mouse pointer to a different part of the screen and then click the left mouse button a couple of times? Before it just starts to feel like interaction for interaction's sake? Or to put it another way: filler" to describe a first-person shooter.
Or maybe "How many times must I press 1, then 4, then 2, then 4, then 7 against the same tiny digital bear? Before it just starts to feel like interaction for interaction's sake? Or to put it another way: filler" to describe an MMO.
And yet millions of people enjoy doing those things. We don't even have to stick to video games. How about "How many times do I have to move a single pawn one space forward and then sit around waiting?" to describe parts of chess?
Virtually all games sound repetitive and bland when described at the level of physical interaction. Where games really occur is in the mind. If you buy into the mental/emotional engagement of the experience, the experience will probably work for you.
Nor, for that matter, are many of the "gameplay-focused" titles I've played in the last little while that leap to mind as examples of games that have a lot to say with gameplay necessarily that directly comparable either.
I think however misinterpreting enjoyment of a "game" for addiction and / or interest in something "other" that the interactivity produces or simulates rather than actually playing a game ~ this needs clarity.
Christian, it's quite interesting for about five minutes.
Roger, I mean substantial in terms of the ability of players to do things and see clear results, and then build on it. RPGs often have as much story as adventure games ever did, but the difference in game type sees the player simply doing a lot more (building their avatar, completing missions, completing more abstract tasks).You're talking about thematic substance, which is different and (in my opinion) unrelated.
"Adventure games" general offer a more holistic gameplay immersion but lack believeability.
"rpgs" good ones anyways generally offer greater immersion through believable contrasts, but come up short where gameplay immersion is necessary.
They both generally fail at this intersection because they both used older game formats that are flawed.
the best immersion however comes from delivering what the audience wants in the most believable manner.
Most of the best hedonistic immersion from games comes from believable sequencing, and well done experienced art. and neither of these really are about specific gameplay types. They're about how gameplay is demonstrated.
The key is whether you feel that you are making a difference or not though. There is a gap in game design between the perception of self-created change and the actuality of it, and a great game is one that delivers the former even if the latter is totally gamed behind the scenes. It's always all about what the player perceives to be true, not what is actually true.
So going back to Heavy Rain, my point is that it is pretty obvious from the first scene or two that really there is no self-created change. You, as player, do not actually feel as though are really doing anything other than pressing Next on a long-running story, like turning a page of a novel.
I haven't played Heavy Rain, so I can only speak about adventure games in general. You are confusing this coloring book creativity from rpg's with gaming in general, thinking that's what games are all about. It's not. There are strategy games, puzzle games, many games. It's like thinking all games have to be like dress up Barbie where you get to choose which clothes she wears. Like I said, the thing you are doing in an adventure isn't causing an illusion of creating a story as in an rpg, it's using clues to solve puzzles and move the story forward. I don't color in coloring books, never have. I never saw the reasoning behind it, and I can only play rpgs for a few hours at the most before it feels like a coloring book. I finish quite a few adventures because the puzzles and story are interesting. I don't even like branching stories in adventures because it starts to feel like a coloring book.
"You, as player, do not actually feel as though are really doing anything other than pressing Next on a long-running story, like turning a page of a novel. "
*You* as a player may have felt that way but *I* as a player did not. I felt as though my actions in Heavy Rain had a significantly greater effect on what occurred over the course of the game than in most other games I've played.
Not just that but whether what your doing objectively matters, psychologically.
the question then becomes is this meaningful? and even a well told immersive storycan be utterly meaningless. The question then becomes is it believable and how does it relate. And if is talking as if to a 15 year old ... well.
Games need greater believability, even a totally farcical animation can touch us deeply but it must make a meaningful connection, it has to say something worthwhile especially to the well read or experienced gamer.
Sequencial gameplay and art from my experiene are what is lacking. And a lot of times, it's the philosophy is lacking depth, or worse you don't get a choice in what is important to you.
Games must be made in a sense that your throwing a birthday paty for the gamer, it must touch you or take you captive. sometimes this is done simply with well done sequencing and intelilgent artistry
A key example of the game's lack of agency/substance for me (spoiler alert) is the sequence where I (as the FBI agent) and my partner go to visit a suspect, it all gets tense and the suspect grabs a weapon. He puts it to the partner's throat and you as the player are invited to talk/shoot/something out of it.
Having been playing the game for quite a while at this point and become pretty sick of the busywork interactivity, I simply put the joypad down to see what happened if I just let it ride. And the game chose for me, the scene more or less resolving itself. I didn't even need to be there at all, when it got right down to it.
It's an example of how brittle games like this actually are as games, or even as interactive experiences. What it boils down to is that it's just about David's story and you as player are really just the page-turner, only it lacks pace. That's not avant garde game design, it's just weak.
Yet it can be said that people who does not enjoy Heavy Rain are simply not tolerant of it's player tasks.
Somehow I feel like gaming relate in people's lives as either directly or inversely to the way a person treats work. You either follow the same philosophy or want it to be the complete opposite.
I personally hate being micromanaged, in anything.
I think the issues you had with that scene are part of what made me enjoy it. A tense situation breaks out, so in order to make it seem believable the events must continue happening in something like real time. You're given the choice to affect the outcome or not affect the outcome, but not affecting the outcome is still a choice. I find that to be far more interesting; I'm tired of games where the entire universe sits and waits for me to decide. I like the idea of being in an environment in which what I do has some bearing on the outcome, but I don't control it directly.
Other games do present these kinds of choices, but they present them in a really inelegant way. If a game requires me to go rescue a hostage within two minutes, I can have the player character hide behind cover for two minutes and not save the hostage. But then the game will just say "Game over, you can't really do what the game just let you do." Heavy Rain, on the other hand says "You don't want to take charge? Fine, this world exists outside of your actions and you'll have to deal with the results." I find that thrilling, not limiting.
I think the issues you had with that scene are part of what made me enjoy it ... I find that thrilling, not limiting.
---
So here's where I'm coming from:
The ability actually do things and cause change is the basic foundation of all things 'game'. In whatever format you'd care to name, it's about the tension of limit versus the capability, enclosed by pressure. Somewhere in between those two poles you get a dynamic that leads to an interesting game, and that's then the basis for an interesting fiction. That's game design. Not old school or tired game design. Eternal will-never-change-has-been-since-the-dawn-of-dawns game design.
While I'm happy, keen even, to suggest that games are not the only kind of digital art (and cite various works like Dear Esther and The Stanley Parable and The Passage regularly regarding this), I do think that games are the main sustainable version of same because of that tension between agency and urgency.
What you're describing is a little bit like that rationale you hear floating around fashion designers from time to time when they clothe models in baked mud topped with fajita bread and send them onto the catwalk. There is a certain segment of the audience that loves the intended message, the coded communication, and defends it to their dying breath. To most people however it's some poor woman dressed as a falafel.
So to your rationale, I want to stand beside you and say "Oh come on Adam, look it's just a woman wearing a falafel". Yes I mean sure, it's briefly curious in an intellectually exploratory sort of way but that aura of pretention quickly fades, leaving something no more sophisticated than a game of flipping coins, only if you get a few too many heads then don't worry about it. We'll just call those tails.
You're simply dressing it up to be significant, in fact adding substance that is not there, like the fashionistas, to what is no more than a curio. What's genuinely intellectually deep about it? Nothing. What's even emotionally engaging about it? Again, nothing. There is only a sort of rationalised "emperor's new clothes" feeling, that it MUST be important because it seems important.
I've seen more emotionally engaging slot machines, and many more artistically sound games too. Journey is my current favourite in that respect because of the way it marries agency and urgency to a sense of story. But as to this kind of game? It may do very well pitching as a multi-million dollar project, and so get sold through those sorts of hype channels.
But is it significant? Not at all.
Heavy Rain was tied to an ambitious design decision to do away with the "game over" screen. There are multiple ways that this decision could have been implemented successfully. Unfortunately, the only way that the game was able to "raise the stakes" for the player was to offer the possibility of the death or survival of its characters. This resulted in multiple sequences where a character's life is in perceived danger that actually end up being vehicles for tension without real consequence.
Having life or death as the success or fail state is a relic of games since the arcade era. It is also what fledgling writers think of first when trying to provide excitement to a narrative. It would have been much more difficult to implement, but Heavy Rain would have been a much more interesting game and narrative had the consequences been more nuanced.
For example, if a character refused to help his wife put up the groceries at the beginning of the game, it lead to a short confrontation about shirking his responsibilities as a father. Or, his interactions with his son affecting the boy's emotional attachment to him. Or, for the game as a whole, delays or the inability to discern clues leading to leads in the investigation being missed and the killer never being found.
I suppose it can be argued that the assumption and thematic core of Heavy Rain is that only death will stop these characters from conducting their search. In that case, maybe the game only needed many more actual fail states where a gun to the head really would have resulted in a character's death. Again, this is also difficult to implement given time and budgetary constraints, but it would eliminate the resentment resulting from fake player agency.
"Having life or death as the success or fail state is a relic of games since the arcade era."
It's not a relic. It's good game design. Without the possibility of failure there really is little reason to proceed. It doesn't have to be all-encompassing failure (like actual death) but still every game needs some sort of risk component. Otherwise why play?
This is one of the reasons why I wrote this:
http://www.whatgamesare.com/2011/05/all-games-are-about-death-fund amentals.html
This is one of the biggest flaws in this guy's way of thinking. There AREN'T other ways to create interactivity. Anytime you have interactivity, that's a mechanism. Selecting a bit of dialogue is a mechanism.
When this guy thinks he's avoiding mechanisms, he's actually just using shitty, flat mechanisms.
"What I would love to see is Cage and similar designers marrying their writing ideas with actual game design rather than persistently fobbing off the lack of depth in their games as somehow being sophisticated."
I think the problem you guys are both seeing and one I agree with is the lack quality in creating a symbiotic artistic form, one that doesn't seperate the user from the experience because of the presentation.
A large part of this is the interface, keyboard, mouse, flatvideo screen. the other part is creating believeable gameplay.
there may be some interpretation of which is best, but immersion in the experience is what I would term as the best. This doesn't necessaroly require "flow", but it does require believeable engagement with what is percievable.
The flaw I see most often is the dissonance caused by a lack of believable sequencing and interesting focus. the novelty and pimary ideas that are the focus are lackluster and unintelligently designed when compared with what we know about the world around us.
It is perhaps simply put a lack of details .. but I think moreso a lack of well done sequential delivery .
a movie or a book has delivery rules that work well .. games need to employ some of their own.
Looking at the thread of discussion I'd say Heavy Rain is most certainly a game; it has win and fail states, mechanical offerings and features more in terms of consequence and consideration of player input then lets say, Call of Duty.
That being said my oh my the narrative was bipolar in Heavy Rain. It has real strengths in delivery, marred by atrocious writing, character turns and voice acting, this side of an unfolding plot that would be terrible in a TV movie, rather than a game that's taking itself so seriously.
Fahrenheit had similar problems but it seemed to embrace its actual goofiness more, same with Nomad Soul. Heavy Rain was outright po-face to the degree in which it was almost a parody of itself as the plot degenerated.
However I am glad David Cage is making these games, pushing into new avenues and raising mainstream awareness.
Personally I loved Heavy Rain, I consider it a game, and I just hope that more games like it are released in the future. Most games do not grab my attention now because it's all been done before.
Also I wish people would stop theorising over what makes a game, just accept it as a game.
@Joshua
There is no fail state, just shittier endings depending on who dies.
My main problem, by the way with the posts here, is that people feel the need to come and shit on a game for no reason. Why hate something so much when you can just ignore it and let those of us who like enjoy it.
That is why I insulted those people, they deserve it.