Heavy Rain Comments by Tom Bramwell

"You cannot when you visit the prostitute, for example, just take a pillow and throw it on her and make a mess," he explains.

But can you do a poo on her?

@Knot

Good links.

Says in the first preview link, "All characters have to move and behave right, all elements in the environment that the player may want to interact with must be interactive". Like the famed pillow?

"This is because the videogame, as a medium, has been too immature to tell complex and subtle stories"
/drums desk with fingers


"you can even have the character sit down on the sofa"

No way!!! (sarcasm ends).

I can't think of the last adventure game I played that didn't let me sit down in any chair in the environment. Oblivion does it, Fallout 3 does it. Ah, Fable 2 doesn't. I guess Fable 2 must be shit then ;)


"A lot of people just want to see it fail, merely because it's a PS3 game"

That certainly doesn't apply to me. I don't want it to "fail" at all, and the console platform has nothing to do with anything.

"Anyway, QD's still working hard on a final control setup ; trying NOT to get into your dreaded QTE type of gameplay"

That isn't what I read.

"There are some very interesting aspects to PAR: There's no limit to the types of actions, animations, and cameras you can offer, which makes every single action and scene unique. These scenes are very spectacular, fully contextual, and easy to understand and play. They're also more and more common, as they've been used in games like Shenmue, Tomb Raider, and God of War."

Sounds like he is dead keen on them to me, but just thinks there are some issues to sort in the presentation of the QTE symbols.

Hence,
"I think we found an interesting new solution by integrating symbols in 3D in the set and in animating them with the character or object they relate to."

@ kangarootoo :

"I think we found an interesting new solution by integrating symbols in 3D in the set and in animating them with the character or object they relate to." :

From your wording, I think you are assuming a set of preset animations or situational set-ups & conclusions will be the result.
From Cage's wording & the public presentation, I see realtime interaction & use of objects, as your character comes accross them.

Let's take the 'pillow' example into the "Taxidermist" scene. The battle situation : You manouvre your character to avoid this guy from slashing her ; she comes accross both a hammer and such a pillow - then triangle icon lights up for using the hammer ; which (instinctively) is going to be a means of defense : but not the same applies to the pillow. Perhaps because, instinctively, she might not deem the pillow as an effective means of defense ? A small piece of paper on that table wouldn't make much sense as a means of defense either ; hence, the interaction icon would only lit up for the hammer on the table.

The most recent use of QTE in my memory is the end fight between Old Snake & Oceliquid in MGS4's ending ; now, that was a prime example of QTE use which bugs me indeed ; a preset animation kicking in, the moment you hit that button combo or mash, completely resetting your character's stance and relative position & direction.

So, from what I read from HR's info ; is that once a sensible & usable object comes within reach or within sensible context ; you will see an icon which you can make your character use, calculating your character's interaction and subsequent use of the item on the fly/ in real time, based upon the current parameters of the situation in 3D ; rather than seeing a preset animation kicking in or a canned animation which jars with your character's relative position & direction iin worldspace as well.

Well we seem to be talking about the specific implementation of QTEs, rather than an apparent effort to move away from them.

I've said in other threads that I don't much mind QTEs. They are just a button reaction based mechanic like any other, and I think that the reason many people dislike them is that in most cases they are implemented badly.

One of the key areas that often causes QTEs to go bad is "what happens if I cock it up". Too many games either make you dead, or they make you fail a big sequence resulting in a quick trip to repetition town.

Now Fahrenheit used a combination of results, and sometimes did a very good job of it. There was some situations where instant death was dealed out, and there were others where you got a few "lives" (though tbh that was usually just helping you avoid the same thing), but then there were other occasions where it didn't really matter short of you missing out on a reward. I rather liked that last approach; more carrot and less stick.

Another area of frequent un-fun is that the player isn't given enough warning when a QTE moments comes around. But Fahrenheit was very rarely guilty of this so I've no major worries there.


So my query is not so much over how they implement the QTEs (their "in-scene" idea sounds quite tidy as it happens), but what happens when I inevitably bugger things up. If I get a knife in the guts and yet another visit to the "load your saved game" screen then I shall be feeling all sulky, but IF the sequence ends up heading in different direction (you don't get stabbed but you do get pushed back off the sofa and onto the floor, for example) then I shall remain interested and involved.

Maybe their new secret way of dealing with death will be a solution to this concern, but I remain skeptical on that one. What I don't really want to see is some heavenly world, other dimension, find your way back to life type section... as after numerous repeat visits I will probably be thinking that a quick reload of a saved game might be quicker.

The correct answer is of course "its a piece of computer software, and as such it can't accomodate a truly open choice structure",

The answer to which question?

but instead he comes out with feeble nonsense about it not being fitting to the personality of the character in the video game, as if to suggest that his game COULD give you endless choice and freedom but that it would be in poor taste to do so. Nothing but nothing but ridiculous.

You can talk to me directly, jerk. You're trying hard to be ignorant, right?
I suggested nothing, you were reading something into my words that I didn't say. I guess you want me to be your enemy type, an apologetic fanboy of David Cage who falls for the hype. Like I said, I didn't play Fahrenheit, so I couldn't even be one if I wanted to.
Anyway, back to my point: You can't tell a story and give the player unlimited choice. Those two things are contradictionary. If the player can do what he wants then he will not only play against the personality of his character but will also be able to work outside the story, break it or ignore it at all. Blade Runner tried to give you unlimited choice and a story and it failed (was still a solid game, though). If you disagree then you have no idea how game design works. Don't feel bad, though. The guys at Westwood didn't either.
Heavy Rain wants to tell a story, not give you an open world with unlimited choices. It's not even Cages intention.
If this isn't your cup of tea then you don't have to play it.

Sure, unlimited choice in a game isn't possible out of many technical and financial reasons. And because it might never get finished. But there is a sound reason why Heavy Rain doesn't even try to give you those.

@Kluff

You need to calm down mate. I didn't attack you directly. You quoted DG, and I took issue with what he had said. If that wasn't clear then I guess that is my bad.

"The answer to which question?"

Its a turn of phrase. The question is the question any gamer who wants to throw the pillow would be asking, the question to which DG's response is "it doesn't make sense for the character to throw the pillow around".


"You can't tell a story and give the player unlimited choice"

I agree completely. Not sure why you would think otherwise.


"If the player can do what he wants then he will not only play against the personality of his character but will also be able to work outside the story, break it or ignore it at all"

I would go one step further and simply say that a player will NEVER be able to do anything they want within the confines of a game. The possible effects of being able to do so don't really come into it.


"Blade Runner tried to give you unlimited choice"

I must have a played a different Bladerunner game to you. It was a great title, but it didn't give me anything like unlimited choice. I'm not sure how the word "try" is even part of the deal. Either a game does give unlimited choice (as I said before, I can't) or it doesn't.


"If you disagree then you have no idea how game design works"

Haha, great statement. The old "if you disagree with me then MADE UP FACT" approach. I'm far from expert, but I seem to get by knowing about game design, it pays my mortgage for a start.


"The guys at Westwood didn't either."

The guys that made Bladerunner knew a damn sight more about good game design than David Cage does. If you had actually played Fahrenheit you might have something to compare Bladerunner to, and maybe you would be a little more questioning of DG's hyperbole. Bladerunner is one of this industry's defining moments... errr, and if you disagree the moon will fall on your house (hey, I could get used to this).


As it happens, Heavy Rain is completely my cup of tea insofar as the genre in which it sits. I just remain skeptical that it will live up to the hype that keeps getting pumped into the atmosphere.

@ Kangarootoo :

Still, from your description, it seems you think of QTE's as timed sequences ; a "Once X happens, press 'triangle, square, circle' quick enough to avoid death or any other outcome.

What I think the difference is in HR : the QTE doesn't come around ; but instead : you guided your character towards any direction, and you happen to come in range of an object and the icon appears, so you can grab / interact with that object.

In other words ; A QTE doesn't happen to you in a timed manner along the story branch line, instead.... you make it happen that your character goes to the interactive item and interact with it ; it's just that there will be an icon onscreen, indicating the respective button to press. Basically not much different from any adventure game.

I think that many people have mistaken those onscreen icons for QTE's, while they are actually not timed QTE's ; instead, interactive icon prompts if you steered your character in realtime towards that item/object. Let's say this happens ; she grabs the hammer, but she trips while evading the taxidermist and the hammer falls to the floor. .... later on, she might be able to pick it up again, so then you press triangle again to pick it up as soon as the hammer is within reach once more.

So, in HR you make the interaction happen, the interaction doesn't happen to you in a timed/scripted manner such as 'real' QTE's do. But it's not a sandbox game either, where you can do about anything, whatever pops up into mind at any given time.

Cage mentioned that the goal is to have everything (which is interactive) in the game in modeled 3D ; not a 2D plane detail ; in order, to have your character relate & interact with it, in a visually realistic manner.

You shouldn't wonder that my response was harsh since you were rude in the first place, at least it seemed like that to me.

Well, when I say that Blade Runner tried to give you unlimited choice then I meant more that the designers tried to include it. The hype that surrounded, the hyperbole that was made was probably quite similar to the one around Fahrenheit.
Like I said, Blade Runner is a solid game, but I think the designers were more wishfully thinking than actually considering if their plans could work. Somehow they still got it together, though it wasn't nearly as great as promised.

This is the opening paragraph of the Gamespot review, for example:
Westwood Studios has been extremely vocal about how its adaptation of Ridley Scott's Blade Runner would revolutionize the adventure genre. Touting it as "the first real-time adventure game" and promising a "constantly changing plot," the designers have made numerous claims about how the game's characters and story would be unpredictable, creating an entirely new experience. Unfortunately, almost none of the claims are true. Blade Runner is an interesting mood piece, built upon some very detailed graphic work and an interesting premise - but somewhere along the production line, someone forgot to include a game.

Sounds familiar?
I 'm not sure anymore if the designers also promised unlimited choice or something similar, maybe I confused that, but still, hyperbole galore.
My statement "If you disagree then you have no idea how game design works" may be a cliche, but you wouldn't grasp the basic concepts of a story and free choice if you would see it otherwise. Not that they are hard to grasp.

Anyway, I see we agree on much more than it seemed like in the first place. But then, you were the one who accused me of talking nonsense. So there.

@Kluff: "The game will be released in 2010. Don't you think it's a bit early for this? "
Yes. Except Don't you also think it's a bit early to be calling a press conference. In Paris. Not sending out a press release. Not writing a blog. Not posting on a games website. But spending several hundreds/thousands of pounds (Euros) on shipping god-knows how many journalists half-way across the continent to a conference, sticking them all in a room and telling them "Well, we've not actually got anything to show you yet, but when we do actually make something , it's going to be fab. Here are some of the ideas we've had which may or may-not eventually make it into the game, if we ever finish it."

It's very very easy to create a list of things which you want to put into a game. It's another matter entirely to actually carry it out. All Cage has done so far is reveal some of the former and NONE of the latter. It's impossible to over-emphasise this point - He called a press conference when he had NOTHING to show.

If I was on the board of the company funding this project, I'd have started looking for the phone-numbers of reputable hitmen at this point.

(For the record - I quite liked Farenheit)

@Kluff: "The game will be released in 2010. Don't you think it's a bit early for this? "
Yes. Except Don't you also think it's a bit early to be calling a press conference. In Paris. Not sending out a press release. Not writing a blog. Not posting on a games website. But spending several hundreds/thousands of pounds (Euros) on shipping god-knows how many journalists half-way across the continent to a conference, sticking them all in a room and telling them "Well, we've not actually got anything to show you yet, but when we do actually make something , it's going to be fab. Here are some of the ideas we've had which may or may-not eventually make it into the game, if we ever finish it."


Probably. But then, I guess we should stay excited about it without them showing too much. There's still enough time ahead where we need to be hyped so....well, I don't know too much about marketing, but it's just my general impression that they want to keep the hype around Heavy Rain alive. No one should forget that it exists and that it should come out sooner or later.
Don't show too much too early!

Easily the mist anticipated "game" ever in gaming history.
Finally something really great.
Will change the whole media forever.
Games like Gears2, RE5 and so on are all great games. But nothing really special or completely great.
Heavy Rain is a masterpiece (already).
And what I always loved to see is finally coming true ("With Heavy Rain, we took a big risk, and said, okay, this is a huge challenge but let's try to ensure that whatever happens we don't need game-over. There will be different ways of dealing with that.")

@Knot

The whole "placing button prompts in the environment" part sounds really nice. But that isn't all they were talking about. It is the time pressure aspect that makes a QTE what it is, and it looks like they are still planning on including those in their action scenes. Like I said, I don't dislike them perse, but it didn't seem to me like they were moving away from them in Heavy Rain (which was the initial point made).


@Kluff

Well ok, I guess I was taking my cynisism at DG's comments and aiming that at you. I apologise, I shouldn't have been so offhand with you for being the messenger :)

I still don't buy that restricting choice based on "what the character would do" is an excuse with any weight to it, but I absolutely accept that restricting choice is necessary in any game. I suppose I am questioning why DG feels the need to try and spin something in that way. It makes me suspicious when someone feels they must have a clever answer to every question they are presented with, as if they don't think the truth will be good enough (if DG feels that the truth isn't good enough, why shouldn't I suspect the same?).

As it happens, the Gamespot review DOES sound very familiar. I didn't read reviews at the time but neither did I read any of the pre-release hype, I just played the game and I remember enjoying it a whole lot.

Would I be less critical of Heavy Rain if I had not read any of the hype surrounding it or Fahrenheit? Almost certainly. But then this whole article and associated discussion thread exists purely because of the questionable hype. Maybe I should stop reading the hype and try and play HR with clear expectations...

@Creasy

I honestly can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not. A masterpiece?

I mean ffs EG, did they promise you gameplay and then provide only coffee when you got there? In NO way is this a preview, and you might have avoided a bit of comment thread flak by changing the name of the article to interview.

If QD will show nothing, I can only assume they have nothing to show. I'd love to be wrong 'cos quality adventure games (you know, the kind I was playing 20 years ago while DG was still in short trousers) are in too short supply these days.




very much agree with these sentiments. would love this to be something fresh, interesting and a different game experience. This whole game will depend on the quality of the writing no matter how classy the style and graphic representation. Its fair to say most writing for games is really shit. Really really shit.
Apart from Jill the master of unlocking line from Res 1 which was pure class .
Most people don't care I guess because if you want to shoot someone in the face over and over again you don't need an existential rasion d'etre to do it ( Though Half life 2 manages to deliver a decent story imo).

With this style of interactive story though the words wot peeps say are vital innit.... LOLZ