"The controller is just a means" - Cage

Move won't "solve" mainstream uptake.

Quantic Dream's emotional leader David Cage does not believe motion-sensing controllers are the key to unlocking mainstream acceptance of videogames.

Speaking to Eurogamer, the Heavy Rain creator said "the controller is just a means" and that the content must do the talking - presumably in a silky French accent.

"For me, the main challenges are in the content; how we can get rid of gameplay loops and invent new ways of playing; how we can bring more complex emotions in our experiences; how we can invent worlds, stories, characters and gameplay that will fascinate and immerse from the first minute to the last," Cage shared.

"Motion control is an attempt at expanding the audience of games by getting rid of this barrier that is the controller. We can probably get new people playing tennis with a motion controller in front of their TV, but I am more interested in discovering how we can create content that will make them want to play more mature games. Both can be compatible, but getting more people playing party games won't support creativity unless we create different types of content for this device.

"What is important is what happens in players' minds," he added, "the controller is just a means, and won't solve all the issues we have in making interactivity a valid creative and mainstream medium."

Cage comments were made on the topic of the Move Edition of Heavy Rain, which is being bundled for retail this year as well as offered to existing game owners via a downloadable patch.

Cage has been open about his disappointment at sacrificing Heavy Rain's Chronicles DLC in order to accommodate Sony's new controller. However, he also told us the Move Edition is closer than ever to what Quantic Dream had originally visualised for Heavy Rain.

"The device we imagined at the beginning of the game was based on motion detection on both hands with a plastic shape embedding both fists," he revealed. "Our approach was maybe a little bit more organic but, in general, we are close to what we initially imagined for the game.

"This is what makes the Move edition fluid and natural to play, it ideally fits the interface we initially designed."

Moving.

Cage went on to say that the reaction to the Move Edition had so far been good.

"We get a lot of very positive feedback about this version - even players who were initially reluctant about the device because it has been mainly used for party games," said Cage.

"The action sequences especially are extremely well perceived because they become very physical and intense, while the adventure part of the game benefits of a reinforced sense of mimicry even in the simplest actions."

Cage told us how Quantic Dream tried to "push the boundaries of what the hardware could do" and avoid a "quick and dirty conversion just for the sake of making it".

He said the team explored depth, twirling the Move controller, using "composed movements" for complex actions and changing the orientation of the device. Even opening a door in-game became a "pleasant experience", promised Cage.

But, he cautioned: "I would not say that it is a better experience; rather a different approach to the original game."

Cage admitted he has been impatient to start work on new ideas, but said Move controls weren't necessarily a certainty for future QD output - apparently your reaction to them will decide that.

"We now have the technology and tools to make games that are fully compatible with both control systems and taking the best of each," boasted Cage. "Where we will put the emphasis in the future depends on how gamers react to the Move version.

"We are prepared for both possibilities, although I doubt that there will be a huge shift with all games being motion controlled in a near future.

"It is great for certain games at certain moments," he added, "but not all players want to move and jump on their coach."

Comments (26) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Stuz359 #1 2 years ago

    In any form of interactive entertainment the controller is just a means to an end.
  • Ryze #2 2 years ago

    He's right about the content and gameplay loops.

    I was playing God of War yesterday, and turned the console off after falling off a ledge, and being sent back about 7 minutes, before a load of annoyingly tedious battles with loads of annoying enemies. I only tried to cross the chasm to get an orb power-up. No need to send me back so far, as I didn't need punishing for that. So the game was turned off.

    This is the type of thing that David Cage is referring to. Sending me back so far served no purpose at all, and was just punishment. Only kids and hardcore gamers can tolerate that. GTA was probably the worst for it before the recent expansions, with all of the driving about that would be forced on you before you get to the battle and get slaughtered due to trial and error gameplay.


    The motion controllers can absolutely encourage people to try who haven't previously, though.

    Seeing somebody in front of a large, clear HD screen of realistic 'movie-like' content, physically acting out a movement which is analogous (if that's the appropriate word) to the on-screen action is a very powerful way of drawing in the 'non-believers', for many reasons.

    This is as opposed to them seeing someone sat on a couch with an arched back, twiddling their thumbs, staring into a tiny 50Hz screen at pixelated 'cartoons' while not being able to even hold a conversation due to the non-stop twitch reactions needed..

    People who don't understand, will often see the second image as being unhealthy, and something that they don't want to be drawn into. Many would immediately reject it.

    Another example. Many of our parents have played arcade driving games such as Outrun at Blackpool (or wherever) in the 80s, in the sit-down motion cabinet.

    Try getting your parents, or anyone over 35-40 who doesn't touch video games, to play Outrun 2006/Online Arcade with a 360 pad.

    Most wont.

    I remember my auntie asking me in 1993 if she could play my MegaDrive, as she visited when I was playing a driving game (Test Drive II). She was about 40 at the time, and I was surprised that she was keen to try it out.

    The problem was, that she had no idea how to use the control pad. She couldn't get used to the D-Pad and using B to accelerate and A to brake. She didn't have fun, and just gave up.

    It's these people who will benefit from Move and Kinect. The games industry will benefit because more people will want to have a go, and will have a fun experience. They can move onto the controller in time as they're drawn into deeper experiences.
    Edited by 1 at 06/07/10 @ 17:40
  • ignatiusjreilly #3 2 years ago

    I've not actually played any of his games, but I love what he has to say about making them.

    More devs like this please.

    edit: actually there are probably loads of devs like this, it's just that no one lets them speak ;)
    Edited by 1 at 06/07/10 @ 15:16
  • sonicyoda #4 2 years ago

    I like his honesty.
  • Markitron #5 2 years ago

    Loved heavy Rain, Im actually waitin till move comes out to play it again. Might be a good way to compare the move with the DS3
  • Eraysor #6 2 years ago

    But you could hardly say millions of Wiis were purchased due to the quality of the average game on the system being better than systems with conventional controllers...
  • Arwin #7 2 years ago

    ouch ... as in ... couch. ;) (for you, Robert)

    I heard they added a scene where you have to balance a cup of coffee with the Move controller, trying not to spill any? If so, they did indeed try to add a little more than just different movements. ;)

    Also, I think changing the color of the Move controller from green to red depending on whether or not you did the right 'move' is cute in this game.
    Edited by 1 at 06/07/10 @ 15:36
  • andijames #8 2 years ago

    I quite like his views on controls i think he speaks a lot of sense. Well. Most of the time.

    I'm still dreading to know how he's integrated move into Heavy Rain particularly in the rumpy pumpy scene!
  • kangarootoo #9 2 years ago

    I'm in two minds about this. On the face of it, what he says makes a lot of sense. Well actually, even after scrutiny, much of what he says makes sense.

    However, it is this stuff I... how to put it. I don't take exception to it, but I'm just not sure it is true.

    "For me, the main challenges are in the content; how we can get rid of gameplay loops and invent new ways of playing; how we can bring more complex emotions in our experiences; how we can invent worlds, stories, characters and gameplay that will fascinate and immerse from the first minute to the last"

    He starts by saying "For me..." and I think that is the root of it all. What he is talking about are his ambitions within game development, and they are great ambitions to have. But to suggest that these things are what make games gain mainstream acceptance...? I'm not sure sure.

    The Wii is clearly the most sucessful console ever when it comes to mainstream penetration, and the games that sold it (Wii Sports, Wii Fit, etc) had none of the things he described. They don't give you a story, they don't trigger complex emotions, they don't remove "game loops" and other mechanics... they do exactly the opposite in many cases.



    I suppose the point I am dragging my feet towards it that with hevy Rain as a reference, what he says stands up. But as a guide to what will make games more widely accepted, I think his definition is too narrow. Just like the hardcore audiences, the mainstream wants a variety of different experiences.

    There often seems to be this air around Hevy Rain, suggesting that it is finally what the mainstream have been waiting for because it is mature and serious and story driven and so on. I'm not saying that isn't true, but it isn't the whole picture. The mainstream isn't some species that all want one thing, just like some of the mainstream like 24 and House, and some like Antiques Roadshow, and some like Takeshi's Castle. Some "mainstream gamers" (whatever that means) don't want emotion or story or an apparent removal of game mechanics... they just want to play board games, or dance, or sing, or hit a mole on the head with a virtual mallet.
    Edited by 1 at 06/07/10 @ 16:16
  • Raiko101 #10 2 years ago

    At the end of the day, not all games are going to appeal to everyone. Whilst motion controls have clearly bought in a new audience, its still the types of games those people play that they'll be most interested in. Wii Sports, for example, is one of those games you can get into very quickly, enjoy socially and play in short bursts. It appeals to the casual audience because it's not something you feel you have to invest your time in. You can go months without playing it and still get into it as quickly as ever. Games like Heavy Rain, however, require gamers to invest more time as they're story-driven and they're games you'll often experience alone. Two things that wont appeal to all video game players.

    I think what seperates the casual and hardcore audiences is the amount of time they wish to put into the games they play. The more hardcore gamer chooses to play video games more often because its possibly their main hobby. Casual gamers may enjoy video games too, but its perhaps not their main hobby or interest.

    My point is, it doesn't matter how much you reinvent your gameplay, refine your stories or improve the sense of immersion. Sure it'll win over a few people, but it all depends on how interested in video games they are and whether or not they're already satisfied with what they're playing.
  • ParanoidZombie #11 2 years ago

    I really can't understand this whole "mainstream audience" ideology. Look at other mediums, movies, music, books: the will to reach as large an audience as possible doesn't make the content any better... The Wii party games are the Lady Gaga, the Michael Bay and the Dan Brown of videogames: they sell a megaton, but they don't open any door for anything else but their clones.

    Videogames in general ARE mainstream, simply because a lot of people are in contact with them. Genuinely mature games aren't necessarily mainstream right now, but the same could be said of "mature" music, books or movies: most people have never heard a song from Sufjan Stevens, never saw a Terence Malik movie and never read anything from Tolstoļ. And these mediums are as mainstream as it gets.

    In this context, thinking that a more user-friendly controller would turn things around for ambitious games is based on nothing but wishful thinking and a massive dose of ignorance IMO.
    Edited by 1 at 06/07/10 @ 16:39
  • Steroyd #12 2 years ago

    As long as motion control simplifies gaming controls rather than adding unnecesary complexity to them, the audience will naturally expand.

    Which is why I don't see it in something like Kinect going 100% controller free.
  • kangarootoo #13 2 years ago

    @ParanoidZombie

    I think we tend to use mainstream as a term for "generally accepted", and I think we are getting there but we aren't as close as you might think.

    A good litmus test is to imagine describing your hobby to a variety of people. What would you expect their response to be, and what might their response be if you instead said your hobby was fishing, sailing, cycling or playing chess?

    I still see raised eyebrows when I describe what I do for a living, and on that basis video gaming isn't as mainstream as film making, authorship or music recording (all of which are far more likely to result in a "coool, what a cool job you have" response). That said, I do also get the "cool" response from time to time (usually from people my age or younger), which perhaps wasn't the case so much when I started.


    I think what we also see in video gaming circles (often among younger participants) is that secret desire to be exclusive and shunned. People talk often about "proper gamers", and use the term mainstream as an insult. Its the same mentality that makes people (including me in my day) grow their hair long and wear clothes that cause rejection by some circles (at the time it seemed like a desire, but in hindsight of course you realise that it was easier to choose not to fit in in a specific and self-chosen way, than to struggle to fit in on someone elses terms).


    Maybe its like England and the world cup rivalries between us and Germany/France. We think there is rivalry, we think that people look on video gaming as a null-hobby (or that Germany and France care about beating us as much as we apparently care about beating them). When the truth is that everyone else doens't give it half as much thought as we do.

    The games industry probably persists the idea that gaming is not mainstream, whereas a lot of non-gamers view it the same way as they might individually view sailing or fishing (i.e. I'm not really interested in it personally... and I have no other strong feelings on the matter).
  • darleysam #14 2 years ago

    Man, the rage and mockery that would ensue if Peter Molyneux made a similar statement.
  • drumbaby #15 2 years ago

    He speaks the truth. Kind of why I haven't bought a Wii, with its glut of shit games.
  • Colin8703 #16 2 years ago

    My thoughts on this revolve around actual game design. Gamers accept and understand the boundaries that are laid out by the designer.

    I played through Broken Sword 1 on the DS the other day and thought about recommending it to my father in law due to the story, puzzles and easy control system. I went off the idea when a priest in a church polished a chalice for me and repeatedly told me he was not done with it despite traveling to Spain from France etc within the game. My point being that he may not understand that the way to get the chalice requires a trigger in the game to allow the priest to release it for use as an item.

    The triggers in many games may not be understood by non gamers which may be why some of them remain unconverted.

    Let's also add that you die if try to swim in Red Dead Redemption which again, the only answer to that is 'because it does' which could also help to put off a non gamer.

    Give them a game where the ruleset is easily recognizable and theoretically less 'real world' in it's design and the attitudes have the potential to change but this may be more due to expectation being managed.

    I think designers have to look at the actual boundaries of their games in order to make more of an impact on a non gamer and not just modify the control system.
  • old_skool #17 2 years ago

    I partly agree with his comments, BUT , ease of use is (which is provided by the interface) is just as important as the content. A combination of the two is part of a recipe for success.
    The software and hardware industry is littered with example, Windows/Linux, adhesives like Pritt vs a pot of glue, C++ vs assembler and Wii vs the REST. Ease of use increases popularity, there's no substitute.
  • GamesConnoisseur #18 2 years ago

    Interesting discussions re gaming and how non gamers may be best assisted in being able to enjoy the games. Though we can see Wii market as an exhibit A of appealing to wider audience, but difficult juggling acts to please both non gamers and hardcore as Nintendo had found. They are only really making more efforts for hardcore with 3DS but yes there are still gamers.s games ie SMG 2.

    As for Heavy Rain, the game itself still generates debates on what gaming/fmv/story/arts. However Cage being pretty honest knew that his game would causes some debates and was pleased that proportionally the responses were much largely positives.

    We will be able to in a matter of time, decides on the merits of Move enabled Heavy Rain as the definitive version of the game, as it's meant to me, with immersion factors greatly enhanced and also allowing non gamers to get it far easier.

    I believe this is pretty likely, but we ll see!
  • IronCladChicken #19 2 years ago

    @Colin8703
    Non-gamers are smarther than you think :)
  • Spungles #20 2 years ago

    He's very right about nobody doing much for this tech other than party games yet. Sure, give it a while and maybe HD Move is as good as he says. But right now it seems like... tennis. And maybe if we can wrestle Nan away from the tennis game, there's bowling.
  • Ryze #21 2 years ago

    If there was no innovation, compromise and evolution in RDR, it would have similar mechanics to 2001's GTA III.

    No checkpoints, no autosave, no autoaim, dodgy targeting...

    RE5 is also suffering from a blinkered attitude to games design.

    Making innovative games and trying new things doesn't have to compromise pure or hardcore gameplay.

    At all.
  • Grayvern #22 2 years ago

    I've said it before Ill say it again cage seems to base his knowledge of the wider audience on what he wants to see.

    Interesting emotional highly immersive games have always existed albeit in small numbers. Cages argument suffers from him wanting games to become one thing or to heavily lean toward one thing. The fact is given the diversity of games as sports, entertainment, edutainment, stories, art, toys and simulations then the small number of games that engage Cage is small wonder.

    Cage also misses another ramification of his comment if the controller is just a means then logically it is the imperative of the designer to allow the person who plays the game to control it in the way they want, and saying the move edition of his game Is closer to what he envisioned is therefore pointless.

    Ultimately few people love games the way that many of us do because of perception and lack of will, all it takes to watch most films is to sit down and press play, you can have someone install the home theatre system for you.

    However easy or engaging some games are they will not attract a large section of the population. Similar to the fact that rightfully simplified versions of Foucault exist but few will ever read them let alone the original books.

    I've said it before Ill say it again cage seems to base his knowledge of the wider audience on what he wants to see.

  • Grayvern #23 2 years ago

    No one will disagree that it would be great to have more nonviolent or meaningful games or both, but coming from the maker of what is essentially Dragons Lair 2010 its hard not to be skeptical.

    The language of videogames may be a language that has to be learned but guess what so does film. Show videos to those who have never seen them before and there is no guarantee they will even register at all. In this context the learning of certain videogame tropes, the abstraction of action even with a movement registering device like kinect will always be a barrier.

    Which also correlates with the uptake of casual games given the fact most of us need to use computers just to function in daily life.

    It could perhaps then be more beneficial to bring people up to speed with games and or change people perception of them through advertising.
    Edited by 1 at 07/07/10 @ 05:12
  • kangarootoo #24 2 years ago

    @Thought_Criminal

    I think you have Rockstar on a slightly too tall pedestal a little bit there. RDR is an extremely good game, but its not without its flaws. Like all R* sandbox games, it has barely any plot, it just has the main character running mostly unrelated errands for people before they finally help him on his way(for a hardman of the west, Marston seems to get treated like a bell boy by absolutely everyone he meets, regardless of the tens of times he gruffly threatens - but never follows through on - putting a bullet between their eyes). And how many version of GTA did we have to go through before R* started fixing things such as you describe that should have been sorted in the first sequel?

    Anyway, this isn't a rant about RDR, I love the game and am still playing it. Its just a bit odd to start acting like R* and Activision are at opposite ends of the spectrum, just because you enjoy RDR and get annoyed by Bobby Kotick. R* and Acti are quite similar beasts in many ways.


    @Thought_Criminal

    Bad marketing departments do all the things you describe, but good ones perform a useful function. It is always easy to find an example of how a bad marketing campaign dicked about with someone's vision and resulted in a poor game, but that is not a case of bad marketing, it is a case of marketing driving the product development (which is not what marketing is for). It happens frequently I admit, but that doesn't change the nature of what marketing SHOULD be, when done properly.


    @IronCladChicken

    I think in Colin8703's example, its not about the player being smart, its about them being given conflicting information. I remember that exact moment in Broken Sword, and it is simply bad design (minor as it may be in an otherwise great game). The player is told that time is a factor, when that is simply not the case. A smart person can still believe a lie, which is the issue in that instance.

    @Colin8703

    I remember thinking that an early RDR cutscene could have sorted the non-swimming issue. A conversation between Marston and Bonnie about him growing up a mid-state orphanage and never learning to swim could have least covered the base a little (if not completely explained the immediate drowing in 2 feet of water).
  • Skooch #25 2 years ago

    @ Thought_Criminal

    I'm afraid you are wrong on so many levels; RDR was aimed at a specific gaming demographic; males who are 15-30yrs. This demographic makes up the majority of games console players and targets those with high disposable incomes, which has contributed to why RDR has sold so many copies. And as for all marketing being useless? RDR has been marketed a bucketload, TV ads, banner ads on websites and a big marketing push. This all combines to make RDR a product that stands out from the masses.

    I agree RDR is a good game, which is the main reason it has sold well, but to generalise that marketing departments are all useless, that gaming companies shouldn't target particular demographics and that market research is pointless is going too far.
  • RexRunti #26 2 years ago

    I think part of the problem with games over the years is that until very recently every game has been the equivilent of an action movie. Sure they sometimes stray out of the action genre into sci-fi, thriller or fantasy but at the core games are all about the action. Romance in games is still treated like it is in an 80's action movie: tacked on to get a sex scene. There are very few games with emotional maturity to have the main character get dumped and even fewer which make you care about it (Mass Effect 2 depending on your choices in Mass Effect 1, the Sims and much to my suprise Brutal Legend).

    It is no suprise that games and action movies share a demographic. However if we look at the few games that have split from this action movie staple, like the Sims, Tetris, Guitar Hero, Wii Sports, Professor Layton we see a much broader support base.

    Yes the controller is also a barrier to gaming but until we have the gaming equivilent of Notting Hill, Pride and Pedjudice and Sex and the City games won't be engaging to a huge proportion of people.

    PS I appreciate sports games don't really fall into the action category but they are just as far away from romatic comedy.