David Cage (Heavy Rain) talks about games being nowhere close to film as a story telling medium

[Segatarious1]

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/video-games-are-the-most-fascinating-medium-ever-created-david-cage-says/1100-6419818/

"My opinion is that we have nothing in games that gets anywhere near to a good film in terms of narrative or characterization. Games focus on simple themes and target a teenage audience," Cage said. "They could become meaningful. They could have the power to move a larger audience. But it would take new paradigms, a shift to privileging meaning over action and a lot more power given to talented people for that to happen."

"The more things go on, the more I doubt things will change. To be honest, we are very few people in the world thinking this way. Maybe incremental changes, step by step, could make a difference, but I will probably be dead by the time it happens."

Then he goes on to paint himself as a martyr

Despite Cage's apparent negativity, he says he's not going to give up. He also stressed that just because he wants to create "meaningful" games, it doesn't mean this should be the only type of game out there.

"This work is always fascinating, always challenging. I still think there should be games for all, games for different people who have different expectations. I wish I could learn and work faster, and have more courage to do more crazy things. Game after game, I try to explore boundaries. I believe you could make a very unique experience by doing an interactive Shakespeare play. So, although there is strong resistance from the games industry when it comes to considering different creative directions, I love lost causes. It's probably my romantic French side. "

The bolded part is a big failure - an interactive play? Then your play has no plot. Or becomes a choose your own adventure novel. If he truly thinks games have so much more potential than plays, books, or films, he need to think past this simple minded 'make a play into a video game' mindset.

It is a lost cause, game culture has  never been anything to be proud of, but right now it is not only immature, it is just so strange and detached from reality in so many ways. If only they could focus on the strengths of game play, instead of fighting this futile battle.

[Vexer1]

Games DO have much more potential though so that's not a "big failure" and it's not detached from reality at all, game culture is very much something to be proud of, it's the most succesful entertainment medium there is, so it's not a "futile battle" or anything like that.

 

[Sut1]

I never understand this push for narrative, be like a play, etc, aren't games just supposed to be fun ? They are called 'games' for a reason, I don't play Monopoly for it's take on capitalism or play tag for some deeper social meaning. Why do some expect more from video games ?
It's like complaining a roller coaster doesn't actually take you anywhere - who cares ? It's a rush, it's fun and in the end isn't that the point ?

[Vexer1]

I personally understand it, yes games are primarily supposed to be fun, but it sure as heck dosen't hurt if they're also compelling, which is the main purpose of a narrative, so i've got no issues with video games having "deeper meanings"

I love mindless action games as much as the next person, but every once in awhile it's nice to play a game that goes a little deeper. 

The Silent Hill series is a good example of a compelling narrative making already games even more fun.

[Segatarious1]

You cannot have a concise plot with interaction. Period.

Look at this board as proof. It has no plot, no deeper meaning, no underlying narrative or moral....just discussions, that end at any time, or are derailed or become pointless in short order, any kind of random outcome, and never a resolution. Sports are the same way, and are not art. The media draws narratives out of sports all the time, and little story morals, but it is just to pass time, or to promote the product, - these narratives grow, wither and die continually, and onto the next narrative they go. In the end there is no point, just the passing of a season, and crowning this years champ. That is interactive narrative for you.

And you cannot take Shakespeare, disassemble it, and put it back together in a new way and have art. If you take the Mona Lisa and make a puzzle out of it (which is a game), and put it back together - have you made an art out of art? No, you have made a game out of art, the art is trivial to the puzzle. You are figuring out which piece fit where -(do the edges first!, then the face!), not contemplating the art.

So, on one hand it is refreshing to hear a big name dev dismissing games when compared to nay respectable film, but on the other hand, there is no hope for this guy either.

[ptdebate1]

[QUOTE=Segatarious]http://www.gamespot.com/articles/video-games-are-the-most-fascinating-medium-ever-created-david-cage-says/1100-6419818/

"My opinion is that we have nothing in games that gets anywhere near to a good film in terms of narrative or characterization. Games focus on simple themes and target a teenage audience," Cage said. "They could become meaningful. They could have the power to move a larger audience. But it would take new paradigms, a shift to privileging meaning over action and a lot more power given to talented people for that to happen."

"The more things go on, the more I doubt things will change. To be honest, we are very few people in the world thinking this way. Maybe incremental changes, step by step, could make a difference, but I will probably be dead by the time it happens."

Then he goes on to paint himself as a martyr

Despite Cage's apparent negativity, he says he's not going to give up. He also stressed that just because he wants to create "meaningful" games, it doesn't mean this should be the only type of game out there.

"This work is always fascinating, always challenging. I still think there should be games for all, games for different people who have different expectations. I wish I could learn and work faster, and have more courage to do more crazy things. Game after game, I try to explore boundaries. I believe you could make a very unique experience by doing an interactive Shakespeare play. So, although there is strong resistance from the games industry when it comes to considering different creative directions, I love lost causes. It's probably my romantic French side. "

The bolded part is a big failure - an interactive play? Then your play has no plot. Or becomes a choose your own adventure novel. If he truly thinks games have so much more potential than plays, books, or films, he need to think past this simple minded 'make a play into a video game' mindset.

It is a lost cause, game culture has  never been anything to be proud of, but right now it is not only immature, it is just so strange and detached from reality in so many ways. If only they could focus on the strengths of game play, instead of fighting this futile battle.

[/QUOTE]

David Cage's career-defining misunderstanding is the idea that games should tell stories in the same way as film, literature, or other non-interactive media. It's led him to create two very subpar animated films with a few gameplay devices attached (Heavy Rain and Beyond: Two Souls). Hype was big for these games because they were showcased as the future of entertainment, a bold new "interactive drama" drawing upon the best elements of film and games. The result was, of course, a very un-fun experience.

The best games--and the most artful, I would argue--play upon the strengths of games themselves without trying to ape other media. Demon's Souls, Fez, Bioware games, Gone Home, Journey, Flower, and Rez are just a few that come to mind. That being said, there have been ludo-cinematic experiments similar to Cage's that succeeded. Games like Final Fantasy X or Metal Gear Solid both use the language of cinema to narrate a compelling story. "Compelling" being operative here. And both games still retain all the accouterments of an interactive experience. Cage's Frankenstein creations always seem to sacrifice player agency at the altar of Narrative.

[ptdebate1]

[QUOTE=Segatarious]

You cannot have a concise plot with interaction. Period.

Look at this board as proof. It has no plot, no deeper meaning, no underlying narrative or moral....just discussions, that end at any time, or are derailed or become pointless in short order, any kind of random outcome, and never a resolution. Sports are the same way, and are not art. The media draws narratives out of sports all the time, and little story morals, but it is just to pass time, or to promote the product, - these narratives grow, wither and die continually, and onto the next narrative they go. In the end there is no point, just the passing of a season, and crowning this years champ. That is interactive narrative for you.

And you cannot take Shakespeare, disassemble it, and put it back together in a new way and have art. If you take the Mona Lisa and make a puzzle out of it (which is a game), and put it back together - have you made an art out of art? No, you have made a game out of art, the art is trivial to the puzzle. You are figuring out which piece fit where -(do the edges first!, then the face!), not contemplating the art.

So, on one hand it is refreshing to hear a big name dev dismissing games when compared to nay respectable film, but on the other hand, there is no hope for this guy either.

[/QUOTE]


Sorry for the double post, mods, but I just realized I forgot to address SegaT's recent comment.

SegaT, let's be careful not to equate "plot," as we understand it from static media, with "art." Self-consciously created "art games" are a whole subgenre of interactive entertainment that has existed for more than thirty years. For some background, check out the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_game. Paying particular attention to the works of John Horton Conway, you will see that avante-garde and art-centric software development is as old as the videogame industry itself. Take Passage by Jason Rohrer, for example. Does the game have a plot? Absolutely--even though it has no words. Is it art? Of course--that's like asking whether or not ice can be defined as "water." 

[Rev1]

Ironically, Steer did this exact same topic like 6 months ago. I'm pretty sure it was locked after a bunch of grueling debates.

Actually... I found it, here it is. Pretty much the exact same arguments as this topic:

http://dmrozek.websitetoolbox.com/post/reasons-why-game-stories-cannot-resononate-6726225?&trail=15

[Vexer1]

ptdebate-Well most people wouldn't call Heavy Rain "subpar", quite a few people(the critic included) enjoyed it.

[Segatarious1]

I only brought it up because this is the first time I have seen a major dev (who specializes in stories in games) strongly criticize the quality of stories in game. That is rare, as far as I know. If anyone has even one other example, please post it.

And a plot is essential to the art of  narrative, which is what Mr Cage and I are specifically talking about.