If your game is focusing on story as the primary element as opposed to gameplay, then you need to at least have good storytelling. Telltale gets this. LucasArts got this. Quantic Dream does not. No matter what you might think... If your game has a bad story and bad gameplay, then you have a bad game. If your game has a good story and bad gameplay, then you have a good game. If your game has a bad story and good gameplay, then you have a good game. If your game has a good story and good gameplay, then you have an awesome game.
David Cage's games get attacked for "no gameplay" yet LucasArts games are worshipped
- Thread starter fvng
- Start date
Gipsy Danger
Member
Just because it's not twitch gameplay doesn't mean it isn't gameplay. The old LucasArts games had interesting puzzles that were well designed and would illicit great thought from the player.
Cage's games are usually just going through the motions and waiting for QTEs to show up. I can't even imagine how you could compare the two.
Side-note - I've beaten Monkey Island 1, Full Throttle, Grim Fandango, Maniac Mansion on the LucasArts side and I've beaten Fahrenheit/Indigo Prophecy and Heavy Rain on the Cage side of things. I enjoyed my time with Heavy Rain but it is nowhere near as fun or interesting as a game like Grim Fandango.
Cage's games are usually just going through the motions and waiting for QTEs to show up. I can't even imagine how you could compare the two.
Side-note - I've beaten Monkey Island 1, Full Throttle, Grim Fandango, Maniac Mansion on the LucasArts side and I've beaten Fahrenheit/Indigo Prophecy and Heavy Rain on the Cage side of things. I enjoyed my time with Heavy Rain but it is nowhere near as fun or interesting as a game like Grim Fandango.
Earthpainting
Member
This whole "non-game" business that's thrown at certain games can indeed be a bit unfair. Having a too narrow view of what a game is or isn't does a disservice to the medium. People can personally like or dislike what they want, but ultimately you have to judge a game based on what it is, and not based on what you wish it was. If you step into a Cage game expecting a visual novel, you'll have a much easier time seeing what they intended to make.
That said, I must admit I don't really like any of his work to date. I enjoy the style, and the production values in this genre are unheard of, but the writing and acting just doesn't really cut it for me to make a cohesive and appealing package. I'd like to see him and his crew try something more fantastical and playful next time. They have the ability and means to do some stunning things on-screen, and a more creative setting could allow them to really explore their limits. It may also maybe help mask the weaker emotional notes and performances a bit, which have been a consistent issue to me.
Regardless of what they chose to do, I'll probably still be there, since I want to stimulate the interest in the styles of games they make.
That said, I must admit I don't really like any of his work to date. I enjoy the style, and the production values in this genre are unheard of, but the writing and acting just doesn't really cut it for me to make a cohesive and appealing package. I'd like to see him and his crew try something more fantastical and playful next time. They have the ability and means to do some stunning things on-screen, and a more creative setting could allow them to really explore their limits. It may also maybe help mask the weaker emotional notes and performances a bit, which have been a consistent issue to me.
Regardless of what they chose to do, I'll probably still be there, since I want to stimulate the interest in the styles of games they make.
hooijdonk17
Member
Lucasarts games had great visual puzzles and enjoyable narrative.
Cage games have tedious QTEs and shitty narrative.
A better example of retro gaming comparable to Cage's games would be the Tex Murphy adventures, and they get the thing done a million times better despite being 20 years old.
Cage games have tedious QTEs and shitty narrative.
A better example of retro gaming comparable to Cage's games would be the Tex Murphy adventures, and they get the thing done a million times better despite being 20 years old.
PdotMichael
Banned
Point and click adventures aren't games anymore?
A braindead idiot could finish David Cage games.
A braindead idiot could finish David Cage games.
Screaming Meat
Unconfirmed Member
"Twitch" isn't a prerequisite nor an integral component of gameplay.
What a weird comparison to make. People have already done a good job of explaining the difference, so I won't, but I just had to post to ask what on earth prompted you to invite comparison between classic LucasArts adventure games with David Cage's (imo, if that really needed to be said) dull QTE fests?
I think of Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis, Maniac Mansion, Day of the Tentacle and Curse of Monkey Island and I remember them being hilariously written, fun to play games that engaged my brain. I remember Indigo Prophecy as being a promising yet seriously under delivering title, and Heavy Rain as one of the dullest, most irritating QTE-heavy experiences I've had while playing a game.
It's obvious that I don't really like David Cage's "games" while I have little but fond memories for the LucasArts classics, but I still find it hard to believe that you thought this was a good comparison to make, OP.
I think of Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis, Maniac Mansion, Day of the Tentacle and Curse of Monkey Island and I remember them being hilariously written, fun to play games that engaged my brain. I remember Indigo Prophecy as being a promising yet seriously under delivering title, and Heavy Rain as one of the dullest, most irritating QTE-heavy experiences I've had while playing a game.
It's obvious that I don't really like David Cage's "games" while I have little but fond memories for the LucasArts classics, but I still find it hard to believe that you thought this was a good comparison to make, OP.
yurinka
Member
I love both David Cage and Lucasarts games.
I'd say Cage wouldn't get 80% of the hate if it wasn't Sony exclusive.
I found that similar "no gameplay", "it ins't a game, it's a move", "QTE LOL", "too short", "it's a corridor", etc criticism use to be attached to Sony exclusives only (specially the ones with great graphics + art) by some people, and not to similar multi-platform games or exclusives to other platforms that also could receive the same criticism if it would make sense.
I'd say Cage wouldn't get 80% of the hate if it wasn't Sony exclusive.
I found that similar "no gameplay", "it ins't a game, it's a move", "QTE LOL", "too short", "it's a corridor", etc criticism use to be attached to Sony exclusives only (specially the ones with great graphics + art) by some people, and not to similar multi-platform games or exclusives to other platforms that also could receive the same criticism if it would make sense.
He's not aiming for the sky either, honestly, he aiming for the plane in the sky piloted by movies. Not designing a flying method or vehicle of his own from scratch or reading and comprehending the blueprints of this plane, but looking at that plane from a distance, slapping 3 wings on a sports car and then sitting there frustrated and confused as the thing won't take off and the lot of us stand there shaking our heads
I'm no fan of Quantic Dream, but it always surprises me to see the degree of venom David Cage attracts on internet forums. He didn't cop nearly as much bile for Omikron and Farenheit being garbage as I recall. Seems when QD went Sony exclusive is when it all kicked off.
I think the posters pointing out an underlying console wars element to some of it may be onto something, because otherwise the hatred just feels a tad... disproportionate.
I think the posters pointing out an underlying console wars element to some of it may be onto something, because otherwise the hatred just feels a tad... disproportionate.
MrCunningham
Member
David Cages games are related to visual novels, and I can completely accept them on those terms as being "games". Lucas arts games were puzzle driven. The player would solve a puzzle and get rewarded with more game story.
fvng
Member
I already acknowledge puzzle solving is lacking and would be welcomed in future QD games. How many times should I state that? I also said game over screens would be another welcome addition.
Earthpainting
Member
I assume the increased volume of haters is mainly due to the fact that he gets more exposure these days. Most people that actually played Fahrenheit/Indigo Prophecy will probably agree that it is his most frustrating work and that perfectly illustrates pretty much all his flaws and strengths. There's also something to be said about making the same mistakes multiple times.
I won't discount there being some console war element to a certain extent, but I doubt it's the major contributor.
More Fun To Compute
Member
Why do people seem to universally love Portal games but not David Cage games? Such hypocrisy loving games with great gameplay that are genuinely funny but hating games with bad gameplay that are awkward and stupid. I mean, both are games with a lot of audiovisual content that require button pushes at the correct time occasionally.
Imperfected
Member
Honestly, it makes more sense to compare Quantic Dream games to Tell-Tale games. The structure is similar, the (spartan) gameplay elements are very similar, and they even use similar methods to give the appearance that player choice matters and creates a dense, branching story when it is not the case. They are, by the numbers, very similar designs.
That said, it's already been reiterated a dozen times in this thread what the difference between the two is: writing. The setting, characters, and narrative are just stronger. David Cage does seem to have grown into a surprisingly skilled director of actors, though, so it's not as if he has nothing to contribute to a production; he just needs to quash his ego and get help where it's needed.
He needs to be a director and not a writer. There's nothing wrong with that. Most great directors of film aren't particularly good writers.
That said, it's already been reiterated a dozen times in this thread what the difference between the two is: writing. The setting, characters, and narrative are just stronger. David Cage does seem to have grown into a surprisingly skilled director of actors, though, so it's not as if he has nothing to contribute to a production; he just needs to quash his ego and get help where it's needed.
He needs to be a director and not a writer. There's nothing wrong with that. Most great directors of film aren't particularly good writers.
Amazeballs
Member
This brings up a good point. It's the content of the story that sticks with the audience, or, more specifically, what themes and messages writer communicates to the audience via the events of the story. A good story writer should not have a sense for creating and arranging a flow of events, but should trust the audience enough to let them reason the messages and themes using the information conveyed through story events. This information needs to be coherent or sufficiently explained otherwise the audience will not be able to reason through it and will come to the conclusion that the information is nonsense. For instance, Sci-Fi explains just enough about its technology that players stop questioning it, and especially good Sci-Fi maintains a set of coherent rules to govern that technology (see Mass Effect 1&2, but not 3 and definitely not Bioshock Infinite). This is higher brain stuff and it takes a lot of skill and experience to pull off.
David Cage storytelling fails on most accounts because it tries to mimic realistic events with mechanics that aren't conducive to realism or create events that are coherent to the his game's narrative. Disregarding even that his stories are nonsense, the content leaning on uncanny valley not because of graphics but because of poor directing, stilted dialogue and inconsistent acting. Their saving grace is that this nonsense is masked with a veneer of cinematography that engages the player on emotional level rather than a rational one. This is lower brain stuff that any high school drop out can accomplish on a conceptual level if they watched enough movies, because it is literally accomplished aping the superficial elements of movies like camera angles.
It's not a stretch to say that Mario's narrative is more successful because it's mechanics, the events created from the player using those mechanics and the world the designers created to inform the player are all coherent and share a common logic, no matter how zany everything is.
Omikron and Indigo Prophecy were obscure titles, while Heavy Rain and Beyond have had much more in the way of marketing push.
Larger marketing led to higher sales, and people were naturally going to criticize the games they played over the games they didn't play.
Also coinciding with Cage's games rise in sales were the promises of how he was going to revolutionize (what was then next-gen) storytelling with HR. So naturally that was going to led to some scrutiny and backlash if it didn't live up to the hype.
The Sony console war connection is marginal at best.
CosmicGroinPull
Member
I think it is though.. it's annoying but also part of their charm. As is trying all possible item combinations or actions if you get stuck.
Cave Johnson
Member
David Cage's "gameplay" with his PS3 titles is practically non-existent. The game is essentially a contextual-choice simulator while managing degrees of actions of investigations. I'm pretty sure he basically admitted he wasn't making a "game", or at least the traditional aspect of it so the argument about his games are without "gameplay" is vindicated.
But is it a bad thing? For me, Heavy Rain implemented those interactive elements far superior to Beyond: Two Souls
But is it a bad thing? For me, Heavy Rain implemented those interactive elements far superior to Beyond: Two Souls
The Portal series is not universally loved.
Does the 'pure mouse operated' movement make Lucas Arts games feel less 'gamey' than a similar game with keyboard controls? I think that's a prejudice a lot of gamers have who say they just don't "get" these games. Clicking everything reminds them of a menu (heck, the bottom of these games HAVE significant menus) and by extension an interactive storybook.
I actually like Cage's games for the wiacky things they are - and I love games like Grim Fandango - so I see where you're coming from OP but I don't think the comparison is quite as 1 to 1 as you seem to suggest (as I'm reading it anyway).
Classic adventure games feature pretty tricky puzzles and are the opposite of the more timed event driven (or QTE) nature of Cage's games. While some of Cage's games definitely have elements of puzzles they are for the most part light or easy puzzles, and are almost always tied to a time limit of some sort.
What Cage is going for is a mix of inputs linked to directly what's going on - for example I need to make quick decision whether to go left/right or I need to react very quickly to a specific input or I need to concentrate to make a difficult input where the game is deliberately making input challenging : he's trying to generate the additional experience of having to make the right choices quickly with the events on-screen (getting out of a sinking car for example) vs traditional puzzle games which normally give you endless time to consider the puzzle and work out a solution.
Face value there are similarities but I actually think drawing your conclusion is a bit of a red herring - I think the question is really why do many see a negative around what Cage does in terms of using gameplay mechanics vs what other games (including point/click or similar adventure games) do with their mechanics and whether their arguments have validity.
For myself I have no problem with what he tries to do with the mechanics I just think the main issue is that - compared to other titles - his execution has always been spotty and the games uneven vs the best titles in other genres and he's never really pinned down a perfect marriage of elements between narrative and gameplay mechanic vs other games which are arguably near perfect (Grim Fandango or Day Of The Tentacle for example represent best in class for their genres which is why they're revered while Cage has never really achieved something that's as consistently good with his titles).
I don't think he does himself any favours in interviews or with his comments at times - although you could argue the real issue is how people react to them but there's no doubt his comments seem to rub more people up the wrong way than say Tim Schaffers.
Classic adventure games feature pretty tricky puzzles and are the opposite of the more timed event driven (or QTE) nature of Cage's games. While some of Cage's games definitely have elements of puzzles they are for the most part light or easy puzzles, and are almost always tied to a time limit of some sort.
What Cage is going for is a mix of inputs linked to directly what's going on - for example I need to make quick decision whether to go left/right or I need to react very quickly to a specific input or I need to concentrate to make a difficult input where the game is deliberately making input challenging : he's trying to generate the additional experience of having to make the right choices quickly with the events on-screen (getting out of a sinking car for example) vs traditional puzzle games which normally give you endless time to consider the puzzle and work out a solution.
Face value there are similarities but I actually think drawing your conclusion is a bit of a red herring - I think the question is really why do many see a negative around what Cage does in terms of using gameplay mechanics vs what other games (including point/click or similar adventure games) do with their mechanics and whether their arguments have validity.
For myself I have no problem with what he tries to do with the mechanics I just think the main issue is that - compared to other titles - his execution has always been spotty and the games uneven vs the best titles in other genres and he's never really pinned down a perfect marriage of elements between narrative and gameplay mechanic vs other games which are arguably near perfect (Grim Fandango or Day Of The Tentacle for example represent best in class for their genres which is why they're revered while Cage has never really achieved something that's as consistently good with his titles).
I don't think he does himself any favours in interviews or with his comments at times - although you could argue the real issue is how people react to them but there's no doubt his comments seem to rub more people up the wrong way than say Tim Schaffers.
snoopeasystreet
Member
There's certainly some valid criticism of Portal 2 but show me someone who doesn't love Portal and I'll show you someone who doesn't love games. That game is are a master class in design.
I don't love Portal. I don't even like it. I've been playing games for decades, from my C64 through to my Wii U, and still do every day. I'm a huge fan of Nintendo's efforts, strategy games such as the Total War and Paradox Interactive series (Crusader Kings, Europa Universalis, Heart of Iron, etc.), as well as stuff like Mount & Blade, Rust, Kerbal Space Program, etc.
Don't tell me I don't love games
1.21Gigawatts
Banned
I neither like LucasArts games nor David Cage games.
But I know a lot of people that do.
Thing is, different people like different things.
While many might bitch about Cages games, there are a lot of people who enjoy them, same goes for LucasArts games.
But I know a lot of people that do.
Thing is, different people like different things.
While many might bitch about Cages games, there are a lot of people who enjoy them, same goes for LucasArts games.
manzo
Member
Yep. The dialogue in the LucasArts' games are something that Cage's games lack.
snoopeasystreet
Member
I don't love Portal. I don't even like it. I've been playing games for decades and still do every day. I'm a huge fan of Nintendo's efforts, strategy games such as the Total War and Paradox Interactive series (Crusader Kings, Europa Universalis, Heart of Iron, etc.), as well as stuff like Mount & Blade, Rust, Kerbal Space Program, etc.
Don't tell me I don't love games
I was being a bit facetious with my comment but what I meant was, even if you don't like portal, you should certainly be able to see why it's so universally lauded as being great in a similar way to how you can appreciate the design of something like chess without actually being into it.
Anyway, this thread isn't about Portal so I won't derail it any further.
Yeah I do, I was just stringing you along. Of course I see why Portal is so loved
Chainsawkitten
Member
"It doesn't have any gameplay" isn't really a valid criticism. There's absolutely no problem with not having any gameplay (had it actually been true, Cage games do have gamplay). It is, however, indicative of problems with the game. One of the most important lessons to learn when doing anything creative is to not take criticism by face-value but to try to understand why that criticism is being made. Sometimes the listener/player/viewer gets it right and correctly identifies their problems with a product but a lot of the time they're not enjoying the experience and try to find a reason why, but the reason they come up with isn't necessarily the problem and trying to fix it won't lead anywhere. See: plot holes in films. (Sure, a plot hole is a problem, but almost every film ever made has plot holes yet you usually don't notice them because you've suspended your disbelief and the film is engrossing. If you're latching onto plot holes, the real problem is probably that you're not engrossed in the experience.)
So, what does "there's no gameplay" actually mean? Well, it could mean that you've set up expectations in the player for how the game is going to be but then you don't fulfill those expectations. The problem isn't what the game is, but what the player thought it was going to be. So how do we make sure the player doesn't get the wrong expectations?
Example: I made a short game in which you play as a failed experiment, your only action is to type on the keyboard and send those messages, except due to communication errors, every letter you type turns into Z. The scientists try to communicate with you but eventually give up and shut you down, killing you in the process. The game is specifically about disempowerment. For the most part it worked but some players found it very frustrating, trying to look for alternative endings (that didn't exist). The problem wasn't the lack of alternative endings, the problem was that I had somehow given these players the faulty expectation that there would be alternative endings, which made the experience very frustrating for them.
But the problem can of course also be in what the game actually is, as I suspect it is in the case of Cage games. I haven't played any Cage game apart from a little bit of Indigo Prophecy, but I understand that they involve Quick Time Events.
QTEs are clearly gameplay. They require user responses and challenge the player, failing him/her if they don't manage to do what the game requires them to. But even if they didn't provide any challenge or fun, that wouldn't be a problem if they added something to the game. (In fact, sometimes a game should be a little "boring", it's called pacing.) The problem with QTEs is that they usually don't add to the game; rather, they distract from it.
So, what's the purpose of QTEs? What are they supposed to convey to the player? I can think of two potent use cases.
1. To convey disconnect and disempowerment.
In games, you usually want to feel like you're in control of a character. One of the most important things in establishing that relationship between player and in-game character is consistency in rules. Humans tend to love consistency. If A is the jump button, then the player should never be required to press B to jump. If button-to-action mapping was completely random (every time you press a button, the mappings are reconfigured, so now left-button is jump and right trigger is walk forward) you wouldn't feel like you were actually controlling that character.
This is pretty much the case with QTEs (as they are commonly implemented, not inherently, though). In the common implementation of QTEs the player is required to press a semi-random button or sequence of buttons to continue. This means that there is no clear, consistent connection between input and action. The effects of a button press are not easily predictable, leading to a disconnect between the gameplay and what is happening on screen, as if they don't really have anything to do with each other. This is why players sometimes complain that it feels like watching a movie that occassionally stops and asks you to press some buttons to continue.
This is great if you want to convey a disconnect or disempowerment.
2. To convey stress and urgency.
"QUICK! PRESS THE BUTTON OR SOMETHING BAD WILL HAPPEN! YOU NEED TO DO SOMETHING! NOOOW!!!!"
Ah! Oh God! Shiit! Where's that button?! Shiiiit!
This is how I feel most games want to use QTEs. And it certainly has the potential to be effective. It can, however, be very difficult to implement, for a number of reasons.
A. It can conflict with use case 1.
If you want the player to feel urgency and the need to do something, it usually helps if the player feels like their actions matter in some way, rather than be useless.
B. It can't actually be that urgent, or, what if the player sees through it?
You can't actually require the player to be all that fast. The player needs time to process what they're supposed to do, and you don't want players with poor reaction time to have to replay the same scene over and over again. (Because replaying the same thing completely and utterly ruins immersion.) So what if the player notices that it isn't actually urgent? If you play The Walking Dead and intentionally don't do the QTEs, you'll see that you actually have a pretty large window to do them.
This is a relatively easy (and yet difficult at the same time) problem to get around. The solution is simply: immerse the player. Convince him/her that it actually is urgent and that they do have to press the button even if it's not true. If the game is well designed and immersive, this shouldn't be too much of a problem.
C. You can never EVER, EVER use QTEs for something that isn't stressful and urgent.
You can't use QTEs to stroke the head of the main character's child. You can't use QTEs to light a cigarette. Why? Because you just established that QTEs aren't urgent or stressful. In one action alone, you completely ruined the potential of QTEs to be stressful or urgent. That's a deadly sin! The player will now forever associate QTEs with the scene in which the protagonists calmly and slowly lit a cigarette, with no pressure whatsoever.
Example of good use: The Walking Dead
The reasons QTEs actually work in The Walking Dead are multiple but they all stem from the same base: Telltale knows what QTEs mean for The Walking Dead and they consistently use them in that manner.
Problem A isn't much of a problem because The Walking Dead largely is about disempowerment. It is, to a large degree, about hopeless characters in a hopeless situation. The sense of disempowerment is entirely appropriate.
Problem B isn't that much of a problem since The Walking Dead is mostly well-designed and immersive.
Problem C isn't a problem because Telltale uses QTEs consistently. It was a little while since I played it, but I can't remember any QTEs in situations that weren't stressful or urgent.
Example of poor use: Battlefield 3 (Single player)
Battlefield 3 was, as I interpreted it, larglely supposed to be a power fantasy. That's the last place you'll want a sense of disconnect and disempowerment. If it wasn't supposed to be a power fantasy, then I suppose the QTEs were mostly appropriate, it's just every other aspect of the game that needs to change because every other element of the game screams power fantasy.
Battlefield 3 also has plenty of doses of Problem C. Not because it uses QTEs for non-stressful things, but because it uses other mechanics for stressful things as well. Battlefield 3 is constantly supposed to be exciting and stressful. This means there isn't much of a difference between the shooting gameplay and the QTEs. The QTEs don't seem to ramp up the stress-levels, they just seem to remain the same. In this way, Battlefield 3 has very poor pacing. For comparison, The Walking Dead has a much clearer difference between walking-around-adventure-style-gameplay and QTEs. It has better consistency.
Without having played Cage's game, I suspect they use QTEs in a way that's not consistent or to express things other than what QTEs are good at expressing.
So, what does "there's no gameplay" actually mean? Well, it could mean that you've set up expectations in the player for how the game is going to be but then you don't fulfill those expectations. The problem isn't what the game is, but what the player thought it was going to be. So how do we make sure the player doesn't get the wrong expectations?
Example: I made a short game in which you play as a failed experiment, your only action is to type on the keyboard and send those messages, except due to communication errors, every letter you type turns into Z. The scientists try to communicate with you but eventually give up and shut you down, killing you in the process. The game is specifically about disempowerment. For the most part it worked but some players found it very frustrating, trying to look for alternative endings (that didn't exist). The problem wasn't the lack of alternative endings, the problem was that I had somehow given these players the faulty expectation that there would be alternative endings, which made the experience very frustrating for them.
But the problem can of course also be in what the game actually is, as I suspect it is in the case of Cage games. I haven't played any Cage game apart from a little bit of Indigo Prophecy, but I understand that they involve Quick Time Events.
QTEs are clearly gameplay. They require user responses and challenge the player, failing him/her if they don't manage to do what the game requires them to. But even if they didn't provide any challenge or fun, that wouldn't be a problem if they added something to the game. (In fact, sometimes a game should be a little "boring", it's called pacing.) The problem with QTEs is that they usually don't add to the game; rather, they distract from it.
So, what's the purpose of QTEs? What are they supposed to convey to the player? I can think of two potent use cases.
1. To convey disconnect and disempowerment.
In games, you usually want to feel like you're in control of a character. One of the most important things in establishing that relationship between player and in-game character is consistency in rules. Humans tend to love consistency. If A is the jump button, then the player should never be required to press B to jump. If button-to-action mapping was completely random (every time you press a button, the mappings are reconfigured, so now left-button is jump and right trigger is walk forward) you wouldn't feel like you were actually controlling that character.
This is pretty much the case with QTEs (as they are commonly implemented, not inherently, though). In the common implementation of QTEs the player is required to press a semi-random button or sequence of buttons to continue. This means that there is no clear, consistent connection between input and action. The effects of a button press are not easily predictable, leading to a disconnect between the gameplay and what is happening on screen, as if they don't really have anything to do with each other. This is why players sometimes complain that it feels like watching a movie that occassionally stops and asks you to press some buttons to continue.
This is great if you want to convey a disconnect or disempowerment.
2. To convey stress and urgency.
"QUICK! PRESS THE BUTTON OR SOMETHING BAD WILL HAPPEN! YOU NEED TO DO SOMETHING! NOOOW!!!!"
Ah! Oh God! Shiit! Where's that button?! Shiiiit!
This is how I feel most games want to use QTEs. And it certainly has the potential to be effective. It can, however, be very difficult to implement, for a number of reasons.
A. It can conflict with use case 1.
If you want the player to feel urgency and the need to do something, it usually helps if the player feels like their actions matter in some way, rather than be useless.
B. It can't actually be that urgent, or, what if the player sees through it?
You can't actually require the player to be all that fast. The player needs time to process what they're supposed to do, and you don't want players with poor reaction time to have to replay the same scene over and over again. (Because replaying the same thing completely and utterly ruins immersion.) So what if the player notices that it isn't actually urgent? If you play The Walking Dead and intentionally don't do the QTEs, you'll see that you actually have a pretty large window to do them.
This is a relatively easy (and yet difficult at the same time) problem to get around. The solution is simply: immerse the player. Convince him/her that it actually is urgent and that they do have to press the button even if it's not true. If the game is well designed and immersive, this shouldn't be too much of a problem.
C. You can never EVER, EVER use QTEs for something that isn't stressful and urgent.
You can't use QTEs to stroke the head of the main character's child. You can't use QTEs to light a cigarette. Why? Because you just established that QTEs aren't urgent or stressful. In one action alone, you completely ruined the potential of QTEs to be stressful or urgent. That's a deadly sin! The player will now forever associate QTEs with the scene in which the protagonists calmly and slowly lit a cigarette, with no pressure whatsoever.
Example of good use: The Walking Dead
The reasons QTEs actually work in The Walking Dead are multiple but they all stem from the same base: Telltale knows what QTEs mean for The Walking Dead and they consistently use them in that manner.
Problem A isn't much of a problem because The Walking Dead largely is about disempowerment. It is, to a large degree, about hopeless characters in a hopeless situation. The sense of disempowerment is entirely appropriate.
Problem B isn't that much of a problem since The Walking Dead is mostly well-designed and immersive.
Problem C isn't a problem because Telltale uses QTEs consistently. It was a little while since I played it, but I can't remember any QTEs in situations that weren't stressful or urgent.
Example of poor use: Battlefield 3 (Single player)
Battlefield 3 was, as I interpreted it, larglely supposed to be a power fantasy. That's the last place you'll want a sense of disconnect and disempowerment. If it wasn't supposed to be a power fantasy, then I suppose the QTEs were mostly appropriate, it's just every other aspect of the game that needs to change because every other element of the game screams power fantasy.
Battlefield 3 also has plenty of doses of Problem C. Not because it uses QTEs for non-stressful things, but because it uses other mechanics for stressful things as well. Battlefield 3 is constantly supposed to be exciting and stressful. This means there isn't much of a difference between the shooting gameplay and the QTEs. The QTEs don't seem to ramp up the stress-levels, they just seem to remain the same. In this way, Battlefield 3 has very poor pacing. For comparison, The Walking Dead has a much clearer difference between walking-around-adventure-style-gameplay and QTEs. It has better consistency.
Without having played Cage's game, I suspect they use QTEs in a way that's not consistent or to express things other than what QTEs are good at expressing.
David Cage writes bad, melodramatic stories. At the very least LucasArt games are moderately amusing in terms of stories.
In terms of game play, there is much more enticing game play in LucasArts games when compared to David Cage's games. David Cage games are QTE-city down a linear path, with usually a few insubstantial choices until the end where you make a final decision leading to one of a handful of badly written Deus Ex Machina inspired plot twist endings.
His games would be so much better if they added more gameplay and they hired an editor... Preferably a hard-ass editor to keep his stories in check.
In terms of game play, there is much more enticing game play in LucasArts games when compared to David Cage's games. David Cage games are QTE-city down a linear path, with usually a few insubstantial choices until the end where you make a final decision leading to one of a handful of badly written Deus Ex Machina inspired plot twist endings.
His games would be so much better if they added more gameplay and they hired an editor... Preferably a hard-ass editor to keep his stories in check.
This is "practically" not true.
You want 'game over' fail states in a David Cage game? Ew. I already don't take his games seriously. I wouldn't want to have to play them seriously, so to speak.
BrokenEchelon
Banned
LA games had good, fun stories.
David Cage's games are devoid of positive aspects because he's shit at everything he does in this industry.
David Cage's games are devoid of positive aspects because he's shit at everything he does in this industry.
I think the OP's issue is possibly that he doesn't either regard or comprehend deduction - which may take place wholly or partly outside of the game - as valid gameplay in and of itself; whether the process of comprehending the world mechanics is enjoyable gameplay. Does gameplay, in short, have to actually take place directly within the confines of the game itself?
I think the stumbling block he's having with failing to understand the difference is the fact that he isn't regarding that as 'valid gameplay'. Hence my walkthrough comment I described earlier: Playing through a point-and-click adventure with a walkthrough in hand *is* like a David Cage title because it's circumventing the deduction.
There's a text adventure I've often cited, because it has a puzzle I adore in it. The heart of the puzzle is very very simple: Solve an anagram, and you'll get a significant clue to how to proceed. It's not even a difficult anagram - with themes you've picked up from elsewhere in the game, it's trivial to get one of the major words in it.
But the bit about the puzzle that I loved? The bit where it's challenging? The bit which doesn't actually take place within the game at all?
The puzzle isn't solving the anagram. The puzzle is recognising that it's an anagram. I remember vividly that I had that flash of inspiration at school, clear of the game itself at the time!
So, yes. That was good, deductive gameplay - but the game itself didn't directly test it. All *it* was concerned with was me arbitrarily looking the right entry up in an encyclopedia in-game, and *that* action, that action isn't good gameplay. It was the *process* of getting to the action that was wonderful.
Visual novels and David Cage games, though? They don't actually ask the player *to* carry out the process of getting to the action: The action is presented to you, and you select it. While I enjoy such games on their own merits, that's the key difference.
(And, for that matter, while the *presentation* of Phoenix Wright may be more akin to a VN, I'd argue that in gameplay terms it's much more like a pure adventure for similar reasons: you need to deduce the correct action and act on it. The interface is more limited to do so than a text adventure or a point-and-click one, but there's still that crucial deductive step)
Corleth the Fey
Member
I'm not getting what seems to be a general consent in this thread that David Cage's games lack humour.
I consistently and without fail find flailing analogue sticks in random directions and shaking game controllers to represent mundane physical tasks absolutely fucking hilarious. Seriously, I'm chuckling away whenever I fire up Heavy Rain.
Combined with the overwrought attempts at eliciting an emotional response which without fail, fall Keystone Cops style face first in the dirt. I can quite clearly see the OP's argument comparing them to the old Lucasarts funnies. They made me laugh a lot too!
I consistently and without fail find flailing analogue sticks in random directions and shaking game controllers to represent mundane physical tasks absolutely fucking hilarious. Seriously, I'm chuckling away whenever I fire up Heavy Rain.
Combined with the overwrought attempts at eliciting an emotional response which without fail, fall Keystone Cops style face first in the dirt. I can quite clearly see the OP's argument comparing them to the old Lucasarts funnies. They made me laugh a lot too!
Freeman
Banned
Its surprising how he doesn't try to fix the most obvious issue, on the contrary, of every aspect of his games(outside of working with Ellen Page) he seems most proud of the writing.
I think he should work on games of a much shorter length, Kara Demo was actually pretty good and for branching story it would make things easy. Best case scenario he would just direct and not write his games(or at least not right them alone).
The problem is that people can't make that distinction.
I addressed this subject earlier in the thread:
David Cage games are not completely without value but people's patience with jank and bad writing can vary.
test_account
XP-39C²
Could you fail in any Lucas Arts point-n-click games? I know that Monkey Island 1 had a failing joke, that if you walked off a cliff, you got a fake death scene that was on the expence of the Sierra point-n-click games (where you often could die). And if you stay under water for more than 10 minutes in Monkey Island 1, i think you can die as well, but if i remember correctly, it just set you back to that exact same place without any loss of progress. I know that you just said "adventure games" and not Lucas Arts in specific, but i wonder if its possible to die in any of the Lucas Arts point-n-click games.
DryvBy
Member
Here's why:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90eoeb5MF7w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90eoeb5MF7w
SiegfriedFM
Member
Not going to read the entire thread since the ignorance is disturbingly high. But its fascinating how much hate Cage gets around here. That campaign where he drove all across the world running over everyones cats and stopped to take a dump in everyones cereal really was a bad career move.
Its obvious how many people havent played Heavy Rain. If youre saying X to Jason or just a sequence of QTE:s then I know youre just a troll. Its the cool thing to do, apparently.
Heavy Rain IS an adventure game just like the point-and-clicks, only instead of clicking to move your character around you actually turn and walk. And once you get to something that can be interacted with, you get a range of options to explore with different buttons, instead of, typically, clicking verbs or a popup icon list. This is NO different from any classic adventure game, only mapped to a controller where it doesnt make sense to have a pointer or lists of stuff. There are highlighted options in pretty much any adventure game, letting you pixel hunt for things to do. Only here you do some vaguely realistic motion with the analog stick instead of clicking LOOK AT and then at the object youre standing next to. You could make an exact copy of Heavy Rain with less fancy graphics and less "intuitive" controls in SCUMM, that's how related the gameplay is.
Can anyone tell me how the overpass investigation with Norman (oh, Im sorry, Naaahman) is fundamentally different than any Police Quest game? You arrive, you talk to people (or not), you look at clues and collect various pieces of evidence, and depending on how many you manage to get it will affect what you can figure out in coming scenes.
Sure, you can criticize the writing and the acting, which was often excellent in Lucasarts games and a VERY TINY MINORITY of other adventure games. But to dismiss Heavy Rain as an interactive movie when this very idea was the entire point of the classic adventure games is rather insulting. Dont try to tell me Monkey Island or Day of the Tentacle or The Dig didnt aspire to be cinematic, with cut scenes, narrators etc.
Its obvious how many people havent played Heavy Rain. If youre saying X to Jason or just a sequence of QTE:s then I know youre just a troll. Its the cool thing to do, apparently.
Heavy Rain IS an adventure game just like the point-and-clicks, only instead of clicking to move your character around you actually turn and walk. And once you get to something that can be interacted with, you get a range of options to explore with different buttons, instead of, typically, clicking verbs or a popup icon list. This is NO different from any classic adventure game, only mapped to a controller where it doesnt make sense to have a pointer or lists of stuff. There are highlighted options in pretty much any adventure game, letting you pixel hunt for things to do. Only here you do some vaguely realistic motion with the analog stick instead of clicking LOOK AT and then at the object youre standing next to. You could make an exact copy of Heavy Rain with less fancy graphics and less "intuitive" controls in SCUMM, that's how related the gameplay is.
Can anyone tell me how the overpass investigation with Norman (oh, Im sorry, Naaahman) is fundamentally different than any Police Quest game? You arrive, you talk to people (or not), you look at clues and collect various pieces of evidence, and depending on how many you manage to get it will affect what you can figure out in coming scenes.
Sure, you can criticize the writing and the acting, which was often excellent in Lucasarts games and a VERY TINY MINORITY of other adventure games. But to dismiss Heavy Rain as an interactive movie when this very idea was the entire point of the classic adventure games is rather insulting. Dont try to tell me Monkey Island or Day of the Tentacle or The Dig didnt aspire to be cinematic, with cut scenes, narrators etc.
Yeah and your suspicions are based on..?
you're basically saying young people is too dumb to play both games and judge for themselves (i.e actually notice the difference in quality)? Because I've played some of those classics recently (some for the very first time) and I do notice it. Cage's games suck, too horribly written to be a movie, too void of gameplay to be decent video games.
It's an important distinction that does not get made frequently enough.
Adventure games died almost a decade ago and now exist as vanity projects funded through donations. Aside from a couple latched onto to so hot right now television shows the genre is stagnant. Those heaping praise on lucasarts are loud but not legion. Otherwise lucasarts might still exist.