Cage pays tribute to ICO developer News

Nice. Good taste, then.

Poetry? Fish? Can I have some of what he's been smoking? I get what he says though but dude, calm down.

No need for pot, just play Ico and Shadow and you know what he talks about!

'He has a real sense of poetry in his games'

I would like him to explain what that vacuous statement actually means.

"that ICO and Shadow are the only two games that have the emotional impact he sought in Fahrenheit"

...but mostly failed to create

@riz23: He's French, so that may explain it :-).

I don't see video games as art... I see them as purely entertainment. To try to make people beieve you are creating art sounds somewhat pompous and self aggrandizing.

Saying that, I love ICO and SotC.

^ ICO, Shadow, Okami and Braid disagree

you can say the same about film, that it should be purely entertainment and not artistic. Some people would agree, some wouldn't.

"ICO, Shadow, Okami and Braid disagree"

Planescape: Torment also disagrees.

And I disagree.

Take the statement "To try to make people beieve you are creating art sounds somewhat pompous and self aggrandizing." out of the context specific to games and think about it for a moment.

...

"Heavy Rain developer David Cage has described ICO and Shadow of the Colossus director Fumito Ueda as one of "very, very few artists" working in videogames."

Oh christ, he is doing it again. First he insults every story writer in the business, now he gives artists the same treatment.

Is there any way that it is humanly possible to send someone a slap in the mail?


"adding that ICO and Shadow are the only two games that have the emotional impact he sought in Fahrenheit and seeks again now"

He is aware he didn't find it the first time around, right?

@retribra

"When all's said and done, art is about communication - at best it puts you in the headspace of the artist - if only for a few fleeting moments- and allows you to see the world in a different light"

If the art in case is a game, is it also allowed to be fun and imaginative to play? Or does that hurt its expression?

@retibra

"Ideally you have both"

Absolutely, but in the case of a game, if you can't have both... what takes the hit?

I know my own answer to that, but then I suppose I am biased.

I suppose a question closer to the source material, is whether originality comes into it. If someone has a bleeding artistic expression to let out, but in the end it is viewed by certain others as nothing new under the sun, is it still as valuable. Can the personal interpretation of art be used as a defense in the face of an accusation that "I've seen it all before"?

I frankly don't disagree one iota with any of the the points you make, I just feel that Fahrenheit is not up the task of poster boy in this case.

He is aware he didn't find it the first time around, right?

I don't think he's saying he did, it comes across as something he is striving for.

I know. I'm being a bit childish about it all really :)

Clearly I have some anti-David Cage ire to work out of my joints. It all stems from that first couple of interviews I read on EG ages back, where he just let his massive ego insult the character driven video games of my youth, like he was the only person with any skills in the field.

The fact Fahrenheit turned out to be so mediocre just made it worse, and any suggestion that Fahrenheit could touch ICO with a long stick is yet more farse.

I'll get over it one day :)

I tend to be a bit pragmatic and businessy when it comes to game dev, and no doubt I will get worse as I get older.

I think too many games turn out badly because artistic expression has got in the way of best practice and due process and all that boring stuff. Its a tough one, because I don't want to play well made but mind numbingly boring games any more than the next person, and I certainly don't want to make them.

I tend to think that if you can ONLY have one, then I would want "well made" over new and original, 'cos if your game isn't fun to play nobody will stick around long enough to discover anything else, and you may never get the future funding you need in order to learn from your mistakes.

Maybe game dev needs more of the multi-tier model that the film (and to a much lesser degree music) industry is used to. A big figure head studio to turn out the safe-but-well-made games that will always shift off the shelves and make you plenty of dosh, and then a couple of smaller side studios (with edgy names and so on) that can take the risks. The production values should ALWAYS be present (poor project management is not artistic expression, it is just a lack of skills) but the subject matter and game mechanics can be more blue sky.

Everyso often one of your side studios will produce something of great worth, an unexpected cult hit that pays for itself multiple times, and maybe after a few sequels that awesome new IP gets the life burnt out of it... but that is ok because your side studios are still beavering away in the back ground creating the great works of art.


I guess an independant studio can't really do that sort of thing, as it requires big funding. But maybe (just maybe, cue airy music and clouds and stuff) the big publishers could use small indies as their side studios. They would STILL keep them signed up even if their title didn't sell well, because they know said indie produces quality work and experimenting with new IP is exactly what they are paid to do. Making the big bucks should not be what secures their future, because they are part of a bigger plan.

Ah, I can dream. Then maybe from time to time we can have both, and when we don't have both it doesn't matter so much.

Kangarootoo: What game are you developing?

(Just so that I don't accidentally buy it)

"Oh christ, he is doing it again. First he insults every story writer in the business, now he gives artists the same treatment."

Don't really see it as an insult. For games you can easily get away with being a crap writer. In fact, the worse you are, the better. The video game industry has attracted lots of Hollywood script writers or even novel writers in recent years and the games they've been involved with are all crap story wise because they take themselves seriously. So games need more bad writers. What matters is gameplay, the more derrivative the better. Just point and shoot or run and jump or if you're really in a crazy mood combine the two things or press some buttons to a rhythm or sing to a tune. That's all that's required for a bit of fun.

As for the art thing, anyone claiming to be an artist isn't one. Art is the handywork that survives by sheer luck and if the future generations are lucky, through a little bit of extra quality.

I'm obviously a philistine, but I thought both Ico and Shadow of the Collossus were pretty dull games.

Yes, they were very arty. Yes, they gave you a sense of place & context very well. But honestly, they weren't that much fun to play, IMO.

Ico was filled with simple push-this, pull-that puzzles and a huge amount of repetitive saving of that stupid girl who couldn't figure out that RUNNING AWAY from big horrid monsters might be a good idea. Honestly, far from empathising with the relationship between the characters, I just wanted to let that silly bitch die after a while and stop wasting my time.

SoC had a great core principle, making you feel like a bastard for killing these majestic beings, and a wonderful art style. But the game was pretty frustrating as many boss fights with scripted 'weak points' and 'attack cycles', and the awkward control scheme didn't help.

So, forgive me if I prefer something that's fun over something arty. I don't spend my time in galleries or coffee shops talking about Sartre, so I'm not really in that 'scene'. I don't watch art house cinema, generally. So laud away on these types of games, but honestly, don't expect me to care all that much unless they're also a fantastic play.

"People really underestimate the difficulty of writing for games"

No, people overestimate the need for proper writing in games. Games aren't first and foremost a storytelling medium. In gaming's hunger for status (which ultimately can be reduced to the craving for getting laid like most shallow things in human life) it has tried to be like books and movies. Like you correctly say, that hasn't been much of a success as story telling rules ('proven' rules, created over thousands of years) don't really fit with gaming's interactive nature.

The problem is not those story telling rules, it's trying to get an interactive medium to gel with something that's the epitome of non-interactivity, whose essence can only be diluted by incorporating interactive elements. You don't need a good story to enjoy shooting monsters in the face. In fact, any good story would ruin the fun.

Just to include a quote from a Gamespot Chris Avellone interview, because I like it and try to shoehorn it into discussions on game story/writing everywhere:


I'd say game stories can be a little formulaic at times and a little unpolished, but then I would point up at the sky and say, "Holy s***, look at that!" And when they do, I would punch them in the gut, and while they were gasping for breath, I would lean down and go, "You are wrong. There are several games with compelling stories, stories that achieve greater strength because it's a story you can interact with. Thus, the experience is even more personal than reading a novel, where you are basically watching the characters go about their adventures without any participation from you except flicking your eyes across the page." At this point, the person would be about to get up, so I would kick them in the shins and then run.

To be honest: I'm probably the only person in this forum that liked Fahrenheit, found it was quite special, it felt very special.
Just the introduction/tutorials were to my opinions revolutionary.

Am very interested in Heavy Rain. I think Cage points on some very important points. The starting of a discussion for itself is very important.

Videogames are a form of art, they can express feelings, can make people laugh, cry. For me thats art.
I think we are in a very interesting situation: Videogames have become a multimillion business, with millions of people playing, but has still not earned the respect that other mediums (film, music, books...) have. For example: Telling people that you like movies is quite common, but if you tell them (I'm 32 years old) that you play videogames, than they look at you like you would be crazy.

I think there's a transition in the mediums taking place. I for my part prefer turning on my PS3 than watching the boring telly.

Very good points kangaratoo.
Would be the best option for a publisher like EA to have the "cash-cows" (Madden, etc.)but in the same time support some independent developer working on new franchises or ideas. Because these are exactly the new franchises which revolutionize the medium (and can be the next "cash-cow").

Isn't this what Sony is doing? Producing a Gran Turismo, but in the same time supporting the development of Linger in Shadows, Heavy Rain, Pixeljunk stuff, the new indie-shortmovies, etc.

For my part: Sony is the most inventive company of the three. Everyone is praising Nintendo for the Wii, but come on.... the Wiimote is a gadget isn't it?

Not much of an article...

"They also tie into the unlocking process for the various endings"

Don't get me started on multiple endings... Let's just say we disagree as much as people can disagree. ;)

Games aren't art, that much is true.
Shadow of the Colossus and Ico are less games than they are interactive artworks. And who cares that they aren't games? Games are old hat anyway. Thousands of years and no progress. Now we finally have an opportunity to develop the interactive medium without the restrictions of rules, "must be fun" etc. I think artwork could be fun to experience, but that's all up to the audience and shouldn't be a goal of the aritst.

As for the idea that anyone who considers themselves an artist isn't one, that's false. People consciously know that they're creating art. Developers of the everyday game, made by committee to make quick cash and entertain the masses, could never be artists, and hopefully they know it.

Anyone who gives props to Ueda is ok by me.

"I think artwork could be fun to experience, but that's all up to the audience and shouldn't be a goal of the aritst."

Whether the 'artist' (I prefer craftsman) succeeds in making something fun definitely depends on the audience. But if the craftsman doesn't start out with trying to create something he assumes the audience will think is fun, his chances of success decline drastically.

"As for the idea that anyone who considers themselves an artist isn't one, that's false. People consciously know that they're creating art."

No, people try to create art, because the artist moniker can make them more attractive mates (I'll give them the benefit of the doubt in assuming they're not all consciously aware of this 100% of the time). Current day 'artists' are just craftsmen with great PR skills. Only time can make artists (though in the vast majority of cases it destroys them).

"No, people try to create art, because the artist moniker can make them more attractive mates"

*What!?* I have that theory for most modern musicians but to try and generalize and simplify reasons for all of human creativity like that is laughable at best. Even if everything we are and do is one way or another related to our libidos (I'm not saying it's not nor am I just agreeing with Freud without question), the connection is far more complex then "just trying to be an attractive mate" - not to mention how hard it is to prove it and I'm bringing that up only because the oh so mighty "proof" is so often called upon these days.

"Whether the 'artist' (I prefer craftsman) succeeds in making something fun definitely depends on the audience. But if the craftsman doesn't start out with trying to create something he assumes the audience will think is fun, his chances of success decline drastically."

Art can *also* be fun, yes, but it's not *about* fun, even though every individual has a freedom of choice to value it only by its fun factor. This fun factor and its importance is one of the reasons games are not yet (or so easily) percieved as an Art form - and rightly so, as far as I'm concerned.

"*What!?* I have that theory for most modern musicians but to try and generalize and simplify reasons for all of human creativity like that is laughable at best."

I was using hyperbole of course, but the 'exclusive' label of 'artist' and the importance that it's given certainly has strong ties with humanity's craving for status, which is in the end just a means to enhance one's procreation chances. It's telling that whether something is perceived as art depends more on its creator than on its intrinsic qualities (e.g. a 17th century painting that's supposed to be created by Rembrandt is a piece of art and worth a lot while if the painter would be unknown, it would be worth much less and might not even be considered art, while that doesn't impact the quality of the painting whatsoever).

"Art can *also* be fun, yes, but it's not *about* fun"

That wasn't my point. I was just arguing that, while how something ultimately will be perceived by the audience isn't completely under control of the artist, if the audience perceives a piece of art as fun, chances are high the artist set out to create something that would result in a fun experience.

Ugh.

Art should never aim to be fun. If it does, that's when it fails in its impact. It's meant to challenge and to teach you more about the world and life. It's irrelevant if an audience member enjoys the experience (to put more specifically the idea of fun) - I deeply enjoy great film and the challenges it poses.

Unfortunately, I'm not as well versed in literature to list examples from that field, but Wong Kar-Wai, Abbas Kiarostami and Werner Herzog are great examples of living filmmakers that are undeniably artists. The artist moniker does carry around a lot of prestige (when applied correctly), which may explain someone's reluctance (false modesty) in labelling themselves as an artist. Nevertheless, the idea that art is created by history is garbage. Some works are better appreciated with time, and some begin as "classics," for want of a better word, and mature accordingly.

"Art should never aim to be fun."

Bullshit.

"It's meant to challenge and to teach you more about the world and life."

I think science does a better job at that TBH (and still manages to be entertaining). 'Artists' always claim that that's their goal but in most cases what they have to tell is wrong and not that interesting. While what they created can still be entertaining in its own right, stripped from its failed and pretentious message. Most pieces of art actually improve by completely discarding the delusioned rambling of their creators.

"Nevertheless, the idea that art is created by history is garbage. Some works are better appreciated with time, and some begin as "classics," for want of a better word, and mature accordingly"

That's not what I meant. You can say someone is an artist right now but it's meaningless. If his/her work stands the test of time (more by luck than real intrinsic qualities often) and is still appreciated by future generations it can be considered more than a fad, a product of its time, like fashion. The history test is the best (but still bad) criterium for determining whether something really deserves the label 'art'.

Again, art should never aim to be fun. If you can't comprehend that, there's no point in continuing this discussion. Fun is the antithesis of what art strives to be. It was Andrei Tarkovsky that expressed frustration at the 80% of audiences who got it into their heads that filmmakers were meant to entertain them. That thought process, on the audience's part, is still present today. That's bullshit.

I'm starting to get the feeling that you don't understand art at all. You seem to be stuck on failures. That'd be fine if it were relevant to the discussion, but let's for a moment assume that when we say art we mean successful works like Au Hasard Balthazar, The Golden Bowl, The Great Gatsby and L'Atalante.
Science can teach you the technical, clinical aspects of life, that's true. It struggles to explain even the most basic aspects of humanity, because those aren't quantifiable by numbers, figures or brain scans. That's why we have art.

As for your third point - that is exactly what you meant. Perhaps I didn't phrase it correctly, but we were on the same page. What isn't true is that history decides anything. There is no all-important 'test of time.' Often, art even reflects the times in which it was created. You see this, somehow, as a negative. It's not. The mass market, popular opinion, whatever - they've missed the boat consistently and can only really appreciate art when someone makes a list 30 years on and free from the latest Batman's hype. That's not art's problem.

"It was Andrei Tarkovsky that expressed frustration at the 80% of audiences who got it into their heads that filmmakers were meant to entertain them. That thought process, on the audience's part, is still present today. That's bullshit."

I think it's rather the other way around: Somewhere along the way, some film makers got it into their heads that they no longer should strive to entertain people but that they should put a message in and take the entertainment out of their movies... I think this is a rather condescending attitude towards the audience that provides their living in the end.

"I'm starting to get the feeling that you don't understand art at all."

Not in the traditionalist art history kind of way. What I want from a piece of art is to provide me with a valuable experience. That can be beauty, fun, sadness, or any other. I don’t really care for a message or some ‘insight’ that the artist tries to convey. The piece of art for me has to be able to survive without the explanatory card in the museum. The skill of the artist is more important to me than his/her ‘inspiration’.

“It struggles to explain even the most basic aspects of humanity, because those aren't quantifiable by numbers, figures or brain scans. That's why we have art.”

Well, today we’ve got the blossoming field of evolutionary psychology that does a great job of giving a proper explanation of human nature. Science isn’t just about numbers.

“Often, art even reflects the times in which it was created. You see this, somehow, as a negative. It's not.”

Art definitely reflects the time in which it was created. But if that’s all that it does, if it can’t survive without that context, it’s not real ‘art’ to me (and certainly if it’s meant to give us insights in humanity as you argue, it should transcend the times). There just isn't a good and usable definition of what 'art' is (in no small part thanks to artists and art critics) and TBH I really question if we need the label 'art'. What's important is that a creation resonates with people. Even if it's just one, it's a valuable creation. Whether or not the masses or art critics appreciate it is in the end irrelevant, unless you care about the money.

"I think it's rather the other way around: Somewhere along the way, some film makers got it into their heads that they no longer should strive to entertain people but that they should put a message in and take the entertainment out of their movies... I think this is a rather condescending attitude towards the audience that provides their living in the end."

So, you think wrong. It's a pity, too, that people think that way. That they feel they deserve entertainment instead of challenge. It's despicable, in fact. It certainly isn't the other way around, seeing as the mass media, a recent invention, pushes entertainment and money as all important icons. That you say audiences make up their living again reveals your lack of understanding. Artists like Tarkovsky didn't make films to make money. Cassavetes acted and made an entertainment-based film to finance a future project, but his legacy is in A Woman Under the Influence and not some Hollywood schlock.

"The piece of art for me has to be able to survive without the explanatory card in the museum."

Society has been dumbed down enough to want things handed to them on explanation cards, true. The traditional way of thinking is what's wrong. Semiotics -- which probably the kind of explanation you're referencing -- is a laughable practice. It's obtuse, unrealistic and irrelevant to great art.

Beauty, fun or sadness aren't "valuable experiences." They're shallow emotions. Except beauty. That's a shallow adjective. What I know from experience is that understanding great art, and in turn, more about ourselves, is far more elating than any manipulative rollercoaster ride.

"Well, today we’ve got the blossoming field of evolutionary psychology that does a great job of giving a proper explanation of human nature. Science isn’t just about numbers. "

No? I'm talking about the human condition. Unquantifiable by science.

"Art definitely reflects the time in which it was created. But if that’s all that it does, if it can’t survive without that context, it’s not real ‘art’ to me (and certainly if it’s meant to give us insights in humanity as you argue, it should transcend the times)."

Makes sense. Except that it doesn't only have to reflect a time (say, the social conditions in a country), but the lasting sensibility of the people. An inability to identify that attribute at the time of its creation is again, not art's problem.

"There just isn't a good and usable definition of what 'art' is"
"What's important is that a creation resonates with people. Even if it's just one, it's a valuable creation."

Art is emotional truth; the reflection of the human condition. It's not "expression" or "something created by man to convey a theme or message," which are the oversimplified definitions. It's not something purely aesthetic or technoligically capable or something that forces you to feel something.

A 'creation' doesn't say much. Someone created Ocarina of Time. Everyone will forget it in the years to come if we're lucky. Anything can resonate with petty people. Why not, when people are so eager to be manipulated?

Gaming seems to attract the worst philistines.