Ben-DutkaHere at PSXE, Quantic Dream visionary David Cage is one of our favorite people. His desire to move the video game industry forward in terms of storytelling, artistry, and cinematography should be embraced by all.
But not everyone sees it that way. On top of which, we seem to be moving in a different direction in the new generation; the future appears to be open-world, sandbox games with less story and more gameplay immersion. Not that that's a bad thing, per se, but the "interactive dramas" that Quantic creates may not go over well in the coming years. There's this entrenched old guard that simply don't want games to change, and therein lies Cage and Company's biggest hurdle. It'll be tough to counter.
While Heavy Rain was widely revered by critics and beloved by many gamers, there was a very vocal group that accused it of not being a video game. It was just an "interactive movie" and shouldn't be viewed as a game. Personally, if there's any interaction at all, if someone inputs commands of any kind, the entertainment is automatically a "video game" by the very definition of the term. And it's how we see the story unfolding that matters, because the story and characters are the focal point. Although we've seen games with great stories before, can we really say they're ever the focal point when compared to Quantic's productions?
Some gamers just aren't interested in leaving the past behind and exploring new frontiers. They claim they are, but in truth, they really just want what they have now, only bigger and better. They still want shooters, they just want more open shooters with more space to explore, more enemies to kill, more people to play with, etc. You know, like Destiny . And the bigger our virtual environments get, the more fragmented the main story or sub-stories will become, as we'll be spending more and more of our time exploring and conquering. Some say that's what a video game is and always should be. But isn't that limiting the scope just a tad?
I guarantee that you will see quite a few articles this week condemning Beyond: Two Souls for not being a game. Then you'll hear people say that in reality, the plot is actually terrible when compared to movies. At the core of all of this is a deep-rooted desire to keep games the way they've always been, and I'm not down with that.
I agree, the haters will come out with their usual bag of tricks. "Things still happen if you don't do the prompt" or "There are holes in the narrative".
Well, it's about the feeling you get when you are in control of unfolding events, when where the story goes depends on you. It doesn't matter that you could spend five minutes explaining to police why you never got your fingerprints off everything in Heavy Rain, it was still intense as hell trying to remember everything you touched when you thought you were free to do as you pleased.
It's gonna be great for those who will play it properly instead of "playtesting" it. And the definition of games just need to be broad, it's the same medium.
That good ole bag o' tricks.
haha! It's like when anyone talks crap about any movie now a days, they say "plot holes" and "incoherent".
I agree with you World. Heavy Rain was fun as a game. But what about when you play through it again, it the knowledge that the story will go along it's pre-determined path?
As I say in my comment below, if you were to play through Heavy Rain again straight after, the basic gameplay becomes apparent. Because that's what you're looking forward to, to keep you engaged. And there's no real engagement there, because the mechanics aren't fun. They don't even try to be.
One quality we all look for in games is replayability – and for a game to have that, it needs to be fun. So really, Heavy Rain and Beyond fail as games, in this sense. People are perfectly warranted in reviewing the game with this perspective.
However, if you were to review this game based on only having that initial playthrough, it would be getting those higher scores. But that's like reviewing a movie. And a movie this is not.
When does the review come Ben? I personally am excited for this game (or whatever people wanna call it)!
Review should come tomorrow.
Can't wait for your review Ben! Always a review I can trust. So far I've seen reviews ranging from as low as a 4 and as high as a 9.5 so obviously this article is spot on with how people will feel about this experience.
I do absolutely agree that most gamers want interactivity, competitiveness, and immersion, in gaming, ultimately GAME play is at the core of what they do in this entertainment. It's the backbone of this industry. Everything we have today in gaming is built off of this. People love games.
Passionate story lovers can read books, watch movies, and stuff. And some guys like Cage come along and try to appeal to those people with a more story focused game. There's nothing wrong with that. That's cool and I look forward to playing Beyond. But I don't expect gamers to need to embrace this. It's not their domain. It's not why they, or I, game. Personally, I actually wouldn't be into games as much as I am if the industry was shaped after games like Heavy Rain and presumably Beyond. I'm okay with stories and interactive movies and all, but that's not why I game. I game for game play and there's a ton of progress games can still achieve with that as their focus. And I'm not suggesting a story can't compliment a game. It can and does. But the core, the thing that keeps this machine rolling as it has and is always boils down to the game play. Some companies like Nintendo has known this forever. And they know their audience doesn't care much for heavy stories in their games. (they've said it in the past. that's how I know 😉
Anyway, I hope Beyond makes some cash and helps draw in story buffs who normally don't care for throwing Hadoken's and getting headshots.
Last edited by Temjin001 on 10/7/2013 10:49:50 PM
When I said they should embrace it, I didn't mean they had to play it, or even like it.
I mean everyone should be embracing positive new directions, especially when we're talking about an industry that is always accused of being brainless. And "gameplay" isn't reliant upon the amount of action involved, or the number of commands the player must input. That's just conditioned thinking based on the history of the hobby. It's gameplay the instant you input ONE command.
After that, it's just subjective as to how many commands you really need to input; i.e., your desired ratio between active and passive participation.
"It's gameplay the instant you input ONE command"
Indeed. No one has a problem with that definition.
But the issue players have with games such as Heavy Rain and now Beyond, is the QUALITY of the gameplay & how the game values your input.
If you've ever played "games" that come in many DVD's for kids, you've noticed that the "gameplay" in those games comes down to choosing between a very limited set of options. That when activated, releases static screens telling you that you did good or wrong, depending on your choices. But unlike in BEYOND, at least in those lousy kiddie games from a DVD, you can actually do something wrong and you get punished for it (cue the Game Over screen).
In Beyond, your input is considered merely as something that is needed to move the story forward. Not caring if it is FUN for the player to input commands. Because at the end of the day, what is more important to Cage & Co. is that the story gets told.
Your game playing abilities getting tested or anything even close to that, that's not relevant in this game. We've come to know that with games from this developer.
Still, there is little merit in moving the game industry forward when they're leaving behind the most important aspect of what made players dive into gaming in the first place: experiencing fun, engaging and challenging gameplay that actually values your input. That's why games had scores or gave you points. Because your skills were being tested. I don't think players are in any hurry to lose that.
Last edited by Bonampak on 10/9/2013 11:19:14 AM
Anyone played pheonix Wright? Its a game full of fixed images and question and answering. Its an interactive story and is awesome. I dont see how heavy rain and two souls are not games. Ppl who makes these accusations should tell us what they,play. Im sure we'll see a pattern from their answers.
If the next gen is all about open world then it will be the last console generation. Nintendo will be the only one to move onto the next generation of consoles because they don't do the fads. Even if they're games don't sell 8 million they still ensure creativity and polish and uniqueness is somewhere in there. Sony is the same way and since the ps4 is taking the helm good things will happen.
Anyone who says otherwise is delusional. Thousands of people say CoD is garbage and half of them buy every one anyway. Xbox fanboys talk crap about the ps3, on the ps3. People who say they hated heavy rain platinumed the game. People are dumb and ignorant and lie to make themselves 'fit' in. If they hear "ps4 is awesome" from a popular person, the people follow in suit. In a line, not thinking for themselves. I believe 70% of the population is like that.
Not having a good day, ignore my post. i typed it i may as well enter it. I'll even thumbs it down. I hope beyond does good and that people start to think for themselves. Its becoming a virus in the next generation of children.
Uh…open-world isn't a "fad" and Nintendo looks for all the world like they're going down in the console business.
And Nintendo hasn't done "uniqueness" since the N64 days. Have they even produced a new IP that has become a new franchise in the past decade? Hardly innovators when it comes to gameplay, either.
Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 10/8/2013 10:15:14 AM
Ben, do you not consider Mario Galaxy unique? I think it's one of the most unique games in the past decade solely for its gameplay. How about Wii Sports? I thought it was a great experience with friends and family. And Mario Strikers? And Zelda Skyward Sword? I think Pikmin had a great gameplay mechanic and was definitely something I hadn't seen before, though the game was released in 2001. Hardly innovators? Hmm…
I see Mario, Zelda, and a sports game. You can't try to make something new with the exact same characters you've had for a quarter-century. I said NEW IP. Anything with "Mario" and "Zelda" in the title doesn't qualify.
You said that Nintendo hasn't done uniqueness since the N64 days. I don't see how those titles I mentioned are not unique. Same mascots? Yes. Same game? No. I don't see how just because Wii sports is a game it doesn't make it unique or special; I hadn't really seen a Sports compilation game with motion controls and a simple interface. Anyway, you have a Mario game unlike anything seen before (Galaxy) and with the Wii's controls; a Zelda game with a different visual style, motion controls and a departure from the typical Ganon as the antagonist and a whole new world; a soccer/football game in which tackling your opponents recklessly , hurting them and throwing objects at them are allowed, which is quite fun by the way; Pikmin which I'm sure was most appealing to many for its control scheme and noble nature. My point was not that they develop new IPs, but that even though they have been using Mario, Zelda and other mascots again and again doesn't mean these new games are not unique in their own way.
innovation doesn't require a new ip. Metroid Prime and Metroid Other M and traditional Metroid are all examples of this, just as 2D mario, mario 64, sunshine and Galaxies innovate in different ways. but all of nintendo's games usually don't innovate by way of content. Their's is NOT a content driven community.
Last edited by Temjin001 on 10/8/2013 1:21:44 PM
No. None of those games did anything we haven't seen before in terms of mechanics. It's all just various versions of more platforming.
Big damn deal.
that's actually wrong Ben. But I know your reputation when it comes to matters of Nintendo and PC.
Better left alone.
It's not wrong. Nobody is giving Nintendo any credit for "uniqueness," especially not critics, and there's a very good reason for that. Here's a fact: Nintendo hasn't innovated since the N64. Not in terms of gameplay, no. They do variations of one or two genres and that's it. If you want to call those variations "original," that's your prerogative. Doesn't make it true.
Unless, of course, you'd try to claim that any of the games mentioned actually don't fall into an action/platforming category. And we both know that they all do. As for my "reputation," the clueless have no idea what my stance is concerning either Nintendo or PC. I could say a hundred times in a day that I grew up with both, and have the greatest respect for both.
Conveniently, all of that would be forgotten. I have no time to waste listening to selective judgment from strangers.
Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 10/8/2013 3:42:26 PM
Goodness Ben.
I understand you might be sick of having to monitor trolls, but sometimes you treat people with legit ideas like a waste of your time simply because you are convinced your idea is right.
I know better because I have been here for years, but if a new reader sees that, they would be totally discouraged from even becoming a part of the community.
So what you consider innovative, or in this case, "not innovative" is true, but what I consider innovative doesn't make it true? Well… I definitely don't agree, but I respect your opinion. And I think I'll just stop right here. This is a Playstation website, after all.
Last edited by Masszt3r on 10/8/2013 4:36:30 PM
Fabi: Nobody is being treated any way whatever. I made a statement about Nintendo, not about anyone here. I never even referred to anyone specifically. I don't waffle and I don't make disclaimers; I make statements, as everyone should. I'm not here to appease feelings. That's what children do; adults assert a claim and stand by it, that's all.
Masszt3r: Opinion is irrelevant. The definition of innovation is clear; look it up in Webster's, if you need to. I'm commenting on that definition, not on my opinion or anyone else's. If I had my way, Nintendo would have remained the innovators they were. They didn't. That has nothing to do with me and it's not subject to opinion.
Like 'em? Great. More power to you. I never said you couldn't like Nintendo. I never even implied it.
Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 10/8/2013 5:07:04 PM
leave Ben alone guys. trust me. this will go no where.
It's quite amazing to see how Nintendo manage to craft individual levels in Super Mario Galaxy 2 that comprise more innovation, variation and ingenuity than other developers build their entire games upon. This is a superior game to it's predecessor and the finest game in the genre available today.
Galaxy 2 is a constant deluge of fresh ideas that are successful — not because of its place in a franchise — but because it is wholly willing to reinvent itself on the fly.
Simultaneously more and less than its predecessor. It expands and elaborates on the gameplay in unpredictable ways, but the last one felt like a bigger, more complete adventure. That said, better core gameplay with less window dressing is infinitely preferable to the reverse.
Super Mario Galaxy 2 throws something new at you nearly every single level – and with over 240 stars to collect, that's no small feat.
..and for the record here's some review headlines for Super Mario Galaxies 2 (it holds a 97 aggregate) . Each paragraph comes from separate critics from gaming websites.
Last edited by Temjin001 on 10/8/2013 5:27:56 PM
"Since the end of the N64 era, as Nintendo has explored new pastures and methodically tended old ones, it’s been easy to forget the times when every major release from the company felt like this. It’s a bravura piece of design that pulls off stunts no one else has even thought of."
"As redefining an experience as "Super Mario 64" was, and we can all remember how that game made us feel, Super Mario Galaxy is the most profound game since "Super Mario Bros." defined action gaming on the NES. There’s something almost transcendental about SMG."
"A true evolution of the platforming genre and one of the best videogames to come out in a long time."
"Rapturous. There is simply no better word to describe this game. It’s a joy to play from start to finish; jam-packed full of both inventive new ideas and nods to Mario past, with a difficulty curve that climbs slowly and steadily."
I checked out the original Super Mario Galaxies headlines and they're also oozing with accolades. haha man I can't help myself. =p
I want to play Mario again real bad now lol
Last edited by Temjin001 on 10/8/2013 6:58:17 PM
@temjin. A quote from God wouldn't change anything. If he doesn't think it's innovative, it's not. End of story.
That 97% only means a lot of people's opinions suck!
Last edited by Fabi on 10/8/2013 10:10:43 PM
Ben if none of those Nintendo games did anything innovative or new in terms of gameplay mechanics, why then did you praise TLOUs gameplay mechanics, which were all done before in other games? After all the gameplay in TLOU is just an action shooter right?
In fact by the definition only a handful of games have been actually innovative in the last 10 years, and Bens three game of the year contenders(probably TLOU, Bioshock, and GTA5) are not innovative by the definition he is using, because they are all just action shooter games.
This is just like the time he tried to argue with me that Minecraft wasn't mainstream. He never admitted he was wrong to that so I don't think he will admit being wrong to this.
I'd much rather the future contain a world where video games follow the path of Heavy Rain and Beyond: Two Souls, than a world filled with Angry Birds and Candy Crush.
Here here.
Also, I'm so tired of all the "freemium" and "pay-to-win"/"pay-to-advance" crap games for mobile devices. I don't game on my phone a lot, but when I do, I want to play something that feels like a regular videogame, not some crappy app that tries to push you into spending real money. I'd rather pay for a game once and enjoy the entire thing, than have to deal with all that nonsense.
Here we go. I am not a big fan of open worlds myself…per se. But I have enjoyed say Fallout 4 and Skyrim… mostly. The open world games for me… get boring real quick. Yep, I am sure having everyone online and in the same will make it that more exciting.. sure. The chatting and the…. chatting…. and the… more chatting with more colourful metaphors (thank you Spock). I find the open worlds with so called side missions… repetitive and boring. They world does not evolve. Its a static world with the same old thing going on. I am sure Destiny (Bungie) is trying to create something or has created something more dynamic where if you go away, when you come back.. it might not be the same world. But I am sure the gameplay is exactly the same.
Not knocking it. We need these types of games for variety but if gamers honestly think thats a game and that is what Vid games should be and have been… their nuts. Its just another genre of game. Look at whats happen to WoW. I use toplay it and had to force myself to play all the areas to justify my purchase and not let it go to waste. It was repetitive. Everyone going on about what armour they had or weapons and such. It was like being in a mall listening to shoppers. Again, if thats your think, its great that you have these games that cater to you.
But to alienate all other games that, in my opinion and for example, Heavy Rain, Uncharted series, and LoU to name a few, which actually give you a great story, human emotion, emotional investment, interactivity and most of them a roller coaster ride to remember…its just wrong to poo poo them. I thinkt that these "products" epitomize what a game is all about.. therefore they are games.
Yep Beyond Two Souls… ugh I think its gonna get trashed by some. Already I have seen some go on about GTAV beating LoU for Game of the Year because… LoU was linear and like Beyond.. just an interactive movie.
You know what… call them what you want. As long as people like David Cage and Naughty Dog and all the other similar devs out there continue to move "forward" and create great and even better games…. I'm happy.
Play what you like, hopefully there are studios out their to cater to you… but leave the creativity alone. Creativiy is not a skill… you just either have it or you don't. David Cage and his people have it. Thank god!
Keep playing and be safe for those of you on the GTAV streets!
My argument for Quantic Dreams titles would be that more than ever games are embracing QTE's as part of their gameplay. Final Fantasy XIII-2 had QTE's in certain battles, even Halo 4 snook a few in. While I don't necessarily like the implementation for such games, I have never had a problem with quantic Dreams methods. The point is, now that many of our games have adopted QTE events in their games, just because Quantic Dream focuses on them more does not make their games any less authentic.
Beyond: Two Souls actually has more gameplay controlled by QTE's with the spirit you can move around at free will (to a point) and interact with people, the environment and the scenarios you'll get into. It's a big portion of the game too, so if anything, I hope with Beyond Two Souls such negative criticism will fade away.
oh bullshit!
just because theres a emphasis on more open world games does not mean theres less a emphasis on story.
if anything quite the opposite.
AC has always been open world and it has one of the best stories out there!
GTAV had a big push towards story much more than most games of today.
same goes to watch dogs, after speaking with the games lead writer i was really impressed and excited how much emphasis and work had gone into making the world a living breathing place.
not to mention the explosion of open world RPGs weve had, the witcher 3 you cant get more open world storytelling than that!
heavy rain was a game, it had enough interactivity and depth for you to matter.
your not sitting there pressing a few buttons here and there, you were much more engadged than that.
what id struggle to call a game is more along the likes of journey, the unfinished swan, rain, i am home, dear esther, things like that.
they are so devoid of any gameplay, there basically just tech demos all you do is just move around the environment.
at least heavy rain has you engaged in things, yea its QTEs but at least your reacting to things, and its not just moving around the environment the whole time.
AC has never had some of the best stories.
I won't explain why storytelling goes on the decline the bigger a game gets, because you're too insane to get it.
not the best stories but the deepest.
starting with the original with all the collectibles, the glyphs arcing back to adam and eve, and all the script written on the walls by subject 16.
hell after all these games, we still know practically jack sh*t about him!
1 and 2 had so much depth and interesting things to find, you litterally could find as much environmental storytelling as you wanted.
now though, well, ever since revelations its all pretty much disappeared!
and now we hear that modern times, desmonds story, is now taking a even smaller role than previous games.
thats like ferrari coming out and saying hey our next cars not going to be a 500K exotic supercar, its not going to be uber fast, uber luxurious, its going to be a ford focus rebranded as a ferrari!
so forgive me if i flip out a little when i hear my favorite series in the world is turning its back on what made it so great!
A game is game. Like Tron or Rain
I always play the exact same way.
Now the title game don't apply to all gaming.
But all gaming has a little game in it.
You just have to side what you think gaming is
take like Beyond Two Souls even.
It starts with the letter G
It makes gaming like B thinks its better than me.
Now some get mad, others just play it
What can you do cause some is gonna hate it.
It makes em go deaf in the ear that's why.
When you say fly, they say go die.
Are you too good to play this Two Souls and why?
Bytch each crap and die.
Ethirdcube coming at ya like a penguin tamed.
I think a game is a game.
End of line.
Last edited by ethird1 on 10/8/2013 5:41:08 AM
Would that not be poetry in motion?
I think it's Rap.
Agreed. What can you really do, though? After all, haters gonna hate. I get the feeling that critics are going to go absolutely ga-ga for Beyond, and that the target audience of the game is going to love it. Those that just don't get what Monsieur Cage is trying to do will write it off with the same ridiculous complaints that they levelled at Heavy Rain. There isn't a whole lot that you can do about that.
As for the fact that the vast majority of games are going in a direction diametrically opposed to Beyond… At this point, it's what the market is clamouring for. Assassin's Creed, GTA, Skyrim, all are open-world games that sell very, very well. Even the fact that Battlefield 3 came within sniping distance of the sales figures of Modern Warfare 3 implies that more and more gamers want greater scale. It's a marked trend, but one that I feel is little more than the latest trend. Sooner or later people are going to get bored with games simply being bigger and bigger and are going to want the next big thing.
For me, I'm already there. Skyrim and Fallout 3 are great games, but I got bored traversing their landscapes fairly quickly. GTA IV and V are both great games, but the cities annoy me because the scale of them is so large that it becomes very, very difficult to get even a rough layout of the streets in your head as you could in the GTA III era. I'm not saying that I want every game to be as linear and heavily directed as Beyond or The Last of Us.
Scale and complexity are almost necessarily linked, and both lead to an increase in the spending that must go into releasing a game in a workable state. We're already hearing of developers going under because of the ridiculous costs of creating games, so why do they continue to push the prices up for themselves? And really, how is a $265 million dollar spend viable for anything other than GTA (or CoD, but it doesn't get that much funding)?
I think that I just lost the thread of what I was raving about…
Basically, yeah. Projects like Heavy Rain and Beyond, which tailor gameplay in a way to make it subservient to the story, are going to continue to be almost non-existent in the AAA sector, unless Beyond somehow manages to sell a megaton more copies than Heavy Rain did. Before such projects can enter mainstream development, a developer has to prove that there is a market for it. Three million copies (or whatever Heavy Rain did) is a phenomenal achievement, especially for an experimental platform exclusive, but in a world where everyone is shooting for 20M+, that's like a fart in a hurricane. It isn't going to convince anyone that it is the kind of thing that the general audience is looking for, and so it will remain as niche a product as modern JRPGs and puzzle games.
In short, variety is the spice of life. As long as the games in development are varied and I have the choice of the kind of game I want to play at any given time, I shall remain a happy camper.
Peace.
I applaud Cage for his effort in these games. Sadly, it does look like more and more developers are taking the open world route, the social aspects, etc., not to mention the already established FPS realm; they are coming out with the same stuff with a different coating.
I'm not a HUGE fan of Heavy Rain, but I have to say it is a master piece in its genre, and I hope that Beyond does well so QD can do more master pieces.
There should always be variety in everything, not limited to video games, so having one or two of these games every couple of years can only do good for the gaming industry. I'm sure the game will not sell as much as other blockbuster games, but I know at least two million people will look into it.
How aren't these games? You direct your characters. You react to on screen prompts. I don't see how they aren't games.
These people who complain that games like Heavy Rain and Beyond are not really games are the reason there are few visual novels coming to the West.
I believe that these are considered video games for sure. But when you have to review them for the gameplay how do you review it fairly when the game is mostly QTEs and the gameplay that is there is weak compared to other titles? Obviously you have to take into account that it is designed this way and not simply this way because they don't know how to make more involving gameplay, but still it seems hard to judge this games gameplay to say The Last of Us, or Demon Souls.
I am going to get a lot of thumbs down but I played the Beyond demo and I LOVED the story but hated the gameplay. It was boring, basic and uninspiring. I liked playing as Aiden and being a troll to people, but the interaction felt so bare bones I dunno I just kept wanting more to do.
Let me be clear I consider this a video game, but the emphasis is on the video part less the game, because the gameplay that is here is to be frank pretty weak. For example when I possessed a guy, it was just a QTE to shoot his swat friend. I couldn't aim, or move or look around. That little be more interaction would have done a lot for me.
I really love the story and love that apparently the game doesn't end and just changes and branches, this is something I think David and the game should be praised for.
It would just be nice if they could make a game like that but with more involving gameplay.
I agree with you 100%. While I played through and enjoyed Heavy Rain…it was lacking in the gameplay department.
I'm in the belief that you can't take the same approach to storytelling in video games as you can in movies or books. There's an interactive element there, and if it's not engaging enough then people are bound to get bored or lose interest….even if the story tries it's hardest to be compelling.
I played the Beyond demo, and while it seemed decent enough in the storytelling aspect (there was only so much that I could've taken from the demo), the gameplay isn't up to snuff.
Controlling Jodie feels quite stiff (Heavy Rain was the same in that aspect), and while the gameplay attempts to feel intuitive…it just comes across as confusing sometimes.
And then there's the sections where you switch over to Aiden…and I'll admit, I was disappointed in this greatly.
Yeah, the controls felt a little wonky at first (but that just may be me..), but barring that, it felt very restrictive in terms of what you can and cannot interact with….Overall, very linear.
And while being linear in itself isn't a bad thing, its the fact that all the gameplay you have to play around with, is very basic.
I'm all for good storytelling in video games, but I still feel we shouldn't forget about what makes our entertainment medium unique….the interactivity; the gameplay.
We haven't reached the same caliber as movies and books when it comes to storytelling…but we shouldn't disregard what makes games unique in aiming for that goal.
No disrespect to David Cage (I appreciate his work, along with many others), but I'm afraid he may be pushing it in the wrong direction.
Honestly…I agree with you. I'm not someone who will cry out when control is taken from me, and I'm fine with being passive some of the time. Goes against what gaming is – the interactivity of it – but I can still enjoy it. I enjoyed the Beyond demo, basic gameplay and all. I actually think there's enough interactivity and consequence to make it feel different to a movie, even if both are lacking.
But I just thought, the only reason I could play through Heavy Rain more than once, is because I had like a year gap between each playthrough. If I had went to play it through again straight after, I think the basic gameplay of it all would become apparent – because I'm no longer interested in the story, in that 'what happens next' sense. Mechanically, it is very shallow and context sensitive (to that story). I mean…you can play through it all with a smartphone.
You tear the mechanics from the story, and there's nothing enjoyable there.
I'm all for using interactivity as just a narrative tool in the game, but fundamentally, the mechanics have to be FUN. That is the rule when you make a game. I really do think Cage didn't put a whole lot of thought into how he can make gameplay more emotional, while still being a fun game. Same can be said for Heavy Rain I guess, and yet it sits at 87 on metacritic.
What I think that shows, is that Heavy Rain was the first to do it. You can look past all the shortfalls as a game because – it's new; it's innovative. But when you get another that doesn't really change anything…that is gone. So I don't think critics have gone all hypocritical.
But what I feel this game truly shows, is just how great The Last of Us was at merging story with fun mechanics, and keeping it all balanced. I'm all for pushing new ways of using the interactive medium, and I really did love Heavy Rain, but this isn't where gaming should be headed. In my opinion, when we look back at the most innovative game of 2013, it is TLOU.
*Drops a lit match as he leaves the room* … xD
All that said I'm gunna enjoy the game when I get it. I just think of the reviews I've read so far, IGN, Eurogamer, GT, are all pretty spot on.
I enjoyed both of your responses. Seems like we are on the same page here.
It would be so excellent to see if David could make a game with a wicked story and involving gameplay that would be something special.
" the future appears to be open-world, sandbox games with less story and more gameplay immersion."
This is why the hype for GTA5 is hurting the gaming industry. Ben you are a hypocrite here as you are apart of the machine. Not a personal attack as I usually agree with your opinion gaming, but the media has so much influence over what people choose to play as is the same with COD.
Because I say GTAV is great I'm a hypocrite? How does that make any sense whatsoever?
Heavy Rain was not for me, but I respected their work on that title. I just hope they find a better balance between game and movie this time around, I am worried that they may take it too far to the "movie" side of the spectre.
I've not played the demo but I don't think I've ever heard about anyone being particularly fond of it.
would you look at that very broad slate of reviews. hehe wow. the contention makes me want to play it more!
EDIT: Leave it to Cage to create something that confuses the heck out of gaming culture. All of these pro critics just can't agree. It's like they all went haywire =p
Last edited by Temjin001 on 10/8/2013 1:29:02 PM
Reviews will probably be all over the place on this game. The bad reviews may hurt sales. If this game does not make a profit it may force QD (or Sony to ask/force them) to change philosophy and make more user interactive games with full character control, open world games, etc., or force them to close up shop. Sony could give them another try maybe with less capital investment or QD might have to find another publisher willing to publish their heavily story driven games. It is sad but unfortunately this is how capitalism works.
For my part I hope this game succeeds and QD thrives. I really liked the story of Heavy Rain. I was not overly thrilled with the abundance of QTEs but it was the story that kept me enthralled. As of now I do plan on buying BTS sometime before the end of this year.
I just don't personally like QTEs that much. Did not like them in GOW boss fights, Resident Evil 4 (only one I ever played), Guitar Hero (just a bunch of QTEs in my mind), etc.
What I would like is for QD to make an RPG. An RPG can tell a great story. Obviously a turn based RPG would be my dream (may I say quantic dream LOL) but I highly doubt that will ever happen.
Last edited by wiley_kyotee on 10/8/2013 1:26:11 PM