Has it ever occurred to you that you can use you hands for an infinite number of activities? I mean, really think about it, anything you can imagine using your hands for, you most likely can. I know that may sound pretty silly but consider that a moment. For years we have been playing computer games with “a hand” that can only do one thing. Think I’m crazy? Well think about it. If you want to fire a weapon, there is usually only one way to do it…it may be the thumbstick, it may be a button, but that is all you can do with that tool. Every time you use it, you fire a weapon.
Well, now imagine having total flexibility, just as you do with your hand. Imagine a game that allows the same button or thumbstick to be used for thousands of different actions. How does that affect your game? How does that affect your ability as a gamer? Sound intriguing? Well, get ready for it. Get ready for free will in gaming. Right now, no one knows how having free-will will work out, or even if it will garner enough customers to be around for a while, but one thing is certain, come next month, the PS3 owners among you will have the option of trying out the concept.
If you have time, take a look at a French developer by the name of Quantic Dream. Its co-founder, David Cage, has come up with what he thinks is a better idea. His feeling, over all, is that the standard control system used in virtually all games is more like a straitjacket for the gamer, than a tool to assist in bringing the gamer closer to reality as well as closer to complete satisfaction with the game he/she is playing.
As you all know, most tools on the controller have a single purpose, but suppose you were to develop the programming that allowed each button to be used for say, 20 things, or 40 or even more? Suppose you completely freed the gamer from the restrictions placed on him or her by yesterday’s technology and capabilities? So far, it has been the same thing, you press a button, you shoot a gun, and you do that same thing through 20 levels of play. If you wanted to use a knife, or a bomb, you need another button for that action. The antagonist, your evil enemy in each game, may be different, but the way you play is not! You always press the same button to get the gun to fire and that is all you can do with that button…think about it, it is like a straight jacket? Cage believes that to really tell a story, an honestly realistic and diverse story, you need a hero capable of doing anything! He says, “One button needs to control an infinite number of different things in different contexts.”
To prove his point, he has developed Heavy Rain, due out in February. The fascinating thing about the game is as we’ve noted above, it throws out the entire concept behind one-button, one action kind of play. Cage believes his approach will make game playing more flexible, allowing for more actions and options; essentially, anything you could do, your hero could be made to do… assuming his exuberant promises prove to be the case. Just like in real life there will be constantly changing, shifting options the hero will be required to understand and act upon.
That said, though, a single button might let you talk to a clown, discipline a child, dodge a punch, and even more spectacular, each decision you make will lead to an entirely different outcome. How interesting and thought-provoking is that? No more foregone results for the actions you take. Killing the bad guy in most games will help you win, but in Heavy Rain it’s entirely possible that if you don’t kill him in the right way, the game could go in an different direction.
How is that possible, you ask? Well, one thing that certainly opens the door is a far broader storyline with multiple outcomes and options available to the player. The script, for example, exceeds 2000 pages. That allows for behaviors for your character that can vary from heroic to bizarre; from sensible to absolutely insane. The real question will become: How skilled are you at handling a multiplicity of tasks all at once, sometimes within seconds of one another? Just like real life you say? Yup, probably so, but can we gamers really get out of our current fantasy-land of game control and into the real world?
Cage is betting the farm that we can, but do beware. You will be playing a game that is, in itself, a different experience; but, you will be playing it in a manner that you are totally unaccustomed to playing. For example, consider the right thumbstick! How good would your play be if you could use the right thumbstick to pull out your wallet, knock on a door, offer someone a business card, or rummage through your pockets for something you had brought with you? And by the way, that might not be all you could use the right thumbstick for…remember the earlier use of the word infinite?
The square button might be used in interrogations and combat, for example, extracting clues, dodging thrusts by a knife, blocking punches, etc. etc. etc. The point is all the inputs will have a multiplicity of functions, even the Sixaxis motion sensor is called into action. The game uses it to allow the hero to kick in a door, or struggle to shake free of someone (or thing) that has tripped you or tackled you. The options are endless.
Now I know, I know, our very own Steerpike discussed Heavy Rain in some detail (and with a definite hint of dubiousness) here. Because while we might relish the multiplicity of control options, we hate Quick Time Events. And it remains to be seen whether Heavy Rain frees us, or shackles us to a despised mechanism.
The real question in my mind is, will it work? I don’t mean functionally, I mean will the approach to win the minds and hearts of gamers? Cage and Quantic Dream have failed before. Is this the next wave of gaming or will it die on the vine? As gaming got more complicated through the use of multiple controller functions, many people, some with slow brains like mine, tended to drop out of gaming itself and take up observation, review and criticism instead. Will that happen to Heavy Rain? Only time and you the gamer will tell, but I sure would like to hear your opinions on this potential game changer.
The idea of having a single button do thousands of different actions is great, except there’s only two ways for it to work in practice: a) QTEs, with the button’s action displayed prominently on screen, or b) the game needs to read your mind. I wonder which one Heavy Rain will do.
I, for one, look forward to watching Steerpike play “Heavy Rain”. I will never play it myself, though.
If this “one button does it all” thing catches fire, I wont know what to do with my awesome, programable multi-button mouse.
My concern is that each action has to be context sensitive as there simply isn’t enough buttons to do all the actions everywhere. So this means you’re never really aware of what your character can do and what button you need to press until the context changes! To empower the player with adequate and predictable control, consistent control systems need by created to use in given situations. Much like The Secret of Monkey Island had Walk to, Look at, Talk to, Push, Pull, Give, Pick up, Open, Close, Use etc. and GTA has its systems for fighting, shooting, driving, flying and probably other minor parts of the game, they’re there throughout and are only called upon in certain contexts. I think a combination of these ‘continuous’ and consistent control systems and the context sensitive button presses is the way forward.
Heavy Rain is one of the reasons I got my PS3 and I wish Quantic Dream and David Cage all the best with it because there’s years of anticipation on its shoulders. I wait with bated breath.
EDIT: Hello David and welcome to Tap! I agree. I actually typed the above before your comment was approved and it sort of relates to your point. We can only hope that Heavy Rain redefines the QTE if that’s the case!
Right there with you, Gregg. Along with Demon’s Souls, Valkyria Chronicles, and Uncharted 2, Heavy Rain was one of the games that sold me on the PS3. I hope it does well, and I gotta say, I admire Tony’s excitement over its potential.
The concern is that a lack of consistency with the controls, and the fact that you can’t actually do anything – not really – you can only do what the programmers have anticipated and presented prompts for. Unless it is such an organic control system as to be natural, so whatever we happen to do or push makes muscle-memory sense rather than “Oh, I see, to hand this guy my credit card I need to tap square.” While I doubt they’ll accomplish it, I’m looking forward to the experience. Ajax, you are welcome in my home any time to watch.
What turns me on by the “multiplicity of functions” is that one could play the game through several times through and never experience the same events, or even outcomes. Of course, we are all wary about QTE’s. The fact is thinking about what button to push instead of your objectives could easily lead to your death. As exciting as the possibility of this control scheme may be, we are concerned because we need to manage the events of the game.
Imagine, as Steerpike suggests, having to hit square, square, circle, triangle, square, trigger, circle, triangle, circle, and start in about two seconds with a virtual guarantee of a nasty outcome if you get the sequence wrong. It definitely is a different way to play, far more challenging, far more liberating, and by the way, with a potential to be far more frustrating. But let’s not forget, there was a time when we only needed one button…a trigger. How far we have come.
Well put Matt. That was what I was getting at.
Hahah, Tony when you put it like that it sounds like a rhythm action game! 😉
“Kick! Punch! It’s all in the mind…”
Thanks for the welcome, Gregg. Tap-Repeatedly made it onto my Google Reader a while ago, but for some reason this is the first time I’ve felt compelled to chime in.
Tony, I think you’re conflating input mechanics and game mechanics. Being able to play the game multiple times through and experience different events and outcomes has nothing to do with how the player inputs their decisions, and everything to do with what kind of choices the game gives the player. Quantic Dream could just as easily make a PC version where every discrete action in the game was mapped to a different keyboard key, and the game would remain essentially unchanged.
Not to say that I’m not excited about Heavy Rain. I’m a huge fan of Indigo Prophecy (or at least the first 80% or so). I just know that there’s a big difference between the fanciful theory of artsy types like David Cage and the reality of game construction. Heavy Rain will fundamentally play the same as Indigo Prophecy, guaranteed, but I’m ok with that.
You know, an interesting point (and also: welcome to the site, David!) is that David Cage has gone on record saying that he hopes people will only play through once… meaning that were gamers to follow his wishes, we’d miss huge swathes of story.
He’s said it’s because he wants Heavy Rain to be a single, unified experience for the player, not a disconnected series of attempts to see everything. Still, I suspect most people will judiciously use saves and replays to see what they can, provided the game remains good.
As much as it may be a failure, this is a Day Zero purchase for me, so we’ll see soon enough.
Interesting that the developer is hoping we only play through once. I wonder sometimes, when playing a game, why I have this urge to see all the different threads, experience all the divergent paths. I think I do this less and less. More and more I’m taking a path and living with it and I’m finding I’m okay with that. It makes the game more memorable. Trying to find all the different ways to go sort of blands out the experience.
As for the mechanics, my one brief encounter with quick time events was not pretty. Maybe ajax can record Steerpike playing the game and post it for all to see. I’ll be interested how this will unfold.
Interesting perspective, Mike, and one that I believe we all can easily subscribe to. It is almost as though we are determined to get through whatever it is we are doing so we can move on to whatever is next! I agree that we tend to “take a path and live with it,” but I can’t help the feeling that I may be missing something exciting….you know, what would happen if I took the right fork instead of the left. In life we don’t have the luxury, so maybe we shouldn’t in games either.
Sort of off topic (having Four Fat Chicks DNA will do that) but the last game I played, Dragon Age has a bunch of different endings possible. I picked a path that sort of surprised me and was kinda interesting then for other reasons I reloaded and replayed some of the game leading up to the endings. Once I got to that fork in the road I took a different path, probably a more conventional one. The ending was a little eh in that regard. In this case my first impulse to subvert myself proved to have been a good one. I need to remember that in the future and just cowboy up and stay the course….etc.
I’m not sure. On the one hand I remember watching the Alien trilogy when I was younger and hoping that certain things didn’t happen so the story would change. Games give us the ability to do that, which could prove one of the medium’s defining characteristics and something I think we should definitely be exploring…
But on the other hand, it could be its Achilles heel; why should the alternative experiences matter? Life’s not a rehearsal. That’s fascinating what David Cage said about a ‘single, unified experience’ and something I’ve considered before when Roger Ebert mentioned the multiple ending Romeo and Juliet scenario. Would it have the same impact if Romeo and Juliet actually got away?
I expect that with every alternative play through of Heavy Rain you’re exposing more of the mechanics that make the experience a game, taking away some of that magic.
Color me doubtful when it comes to multiple endings.
How does strapping the plot gimmick of Clue onto the plot of, say, Citizen Kane, serve either the gimmick or the plot? Could Rosebud have multiple meanings? Do its multiple meanings produce a variation on the story (Rosebud was a favorite pony or prized whisky or beloved chorus girl) or a whole new series of plots?
Part of the joy of stories is that they allow us to trace back to the decision (huge in retrospect, minor at the time) that set the wheels in motion that ultimately delivered a satisfying conclusion. Singular. One. Period.
Not perhaps the way it works in real life, but that’s precisely the reason we enjoy watching it appear to work in fiction.
I think this also explains why gamers are generally hesitant to leave certain stones unturned, even when it’s encouraged in the gameplay. We don’t want to miss anything, any tidbit that might help us further understand or enjoy that singular conclusion.
I guess I can live with multiple endings, though I tend to play most games through once and am rarely satisfied with the ending I get. Personally I’d rather developers worked to create a unified narrative experience with a single unified ending than break it up into many.
I remember Planescape: Torment having multiple endings (though I only witnessed one) and it seemed that they weren’t that different really, just subtle differences that were affected by certain decisions you’d made through your playthrough. I think this is a good way of doing it because it maintains that unified authorial experience while still allowing you to tailor it somewhat. I’d have been gutted if my choices hadn’t altered certain aspects at the end because I was really trying for them. Planescape: Torment… wow.
True, true. Of course, Torment was so unique and unusual among games in that it had the ability to gut you… we still haven’t seen a game like that since.
You know, I’m not sure I ever actually finished Torment. I think I got close to the end, then stopped. Perhaps I should give it another go.
Going back to the “one button to rule all actions” subject:
Our hands perform a huge number of tasks but all of them involve the same basic actions: you move your fingers and arms to manipulate objects: grab, touch, press, push, pull. And in different contexts, the same actions can accomplish the tasks of typing, writing, firing a gun, swinging a sword, etc.
To bridge the gap and do the same with a controller, we would need to assign to each button a basic action and use just those to do everything. That way things would be “context sensitive” but still intuitive. I doubt that will happen. Instead everything will get confusing and players will have to learn every possible way to use the X button.
It’s not a bad thing, others have done it in the past. I just don’t think it will be groundbreaking.
@Steerpike: will we ever see a game like that again? I bloody well hope so but I can’t see it. It’s unique.
If you haven’t finished Torment then it’s time to feel the love again and get to it.
Totally off topic, brother if you’re reading this, now you’re ‘MMO-free’, it’s time to play Planescape: Torment, you pansie assed chimp.
Cesar, I think you break it down pretty well. What you describe sounds similar to Assassin’s Creed’s control scheme. It’s a neat idea, and works for the game, but I often felt that the avatar was actually trying to act retarded in tight situations. If we were going to make a button do anything, why would we need more than one button?
I’m sorry, but am I missing something?
It’s the videogame itself which is a straightjacket- not the user control method. Unless a video game permits user interaction to such a degree where anything is possible, there is always going to be rudimentary controls in place that are functional and accesible.
Heavy Rain isn’t doing anything new by having a context based control method. It’s just creating interactive environments with a single button (or multiple) that do varying actions.
To quote you: “That said, though, a single button might let you talk to a clown, discipline a child, dodge a punch, and even more spectacular, each decision you make will lead to an entirely different outcome. How interesting and thought-provoking is that? “
Not really actually. It will all most likely be QTE’s, or a single button press to undertake all those actions. Hardly ground breaking.
Shen Mui undertook a similar path, much like Heavy Rain, in attempting to bring to the fore a new level of player immersion and interaction through realism, and through its own hype fell relatively flat.
I honestly fail to understand the hype behind this game- it is doing nothing new. Perhaps if they had spent less time in trying to create realistic graphics, and instead chose an art style which was different, but less development time demanding they may have had greater financial resources to actually be truly experimental.
I’ll eat my own hat if this game is anything more than 7/10.
Easy tiger! Let’s not devolve to whipping abstract numbers out the hat just yet.
Lets assume Heavy Rain does use QTEs. I don’t expect David Cage and Quantic to implement them as clumsily and artificially as previously seen in other games. From what I read in Edge magazine’s preview they said the problem was with the inconsistency of the interaction. One minute you’re pursuing somebody, the next minute you’re watching a cut-scene of your protagonist pursuing somebody. One minute you’re buttoning up your jacket, the next minute you’re watching it happen automatically.
May I also ask, considering you’ve been playing Beneath a Steel Sky, how adventure games are any less of a straight jacket?! Don’t get me wrong I love adventure games but lets consider the sum of the experience before the mechanical parts of the game.
David Cage himself has said that it shouldn’t be approached as a traditional experience. The game doesn’t stop if a character dies, it keeps on moving. Death is rarely treated in such a way within an ‘interactive’ story. If that’s not interesting in itself then I’ll eat my own hat.
I really cannot see them implementing QTE’s in a way which is of interest, or highly interactive. Pressing a single button to undertake a specific action, irrespective of context is still pressing a button. Its no more satisfying. In contrast, I would consider Penumbra highly satisfying in that regard. That is ingenuity and interaction with a purpose. I would like to see that same level of interaction in future games, not just Heavy Rain.
As it stands, I cannot help but ask myself as to why on earth I would be interested in undertaking actions for the smallest of things. Why would I want to button up my coat? It’s completely pointless and adds nothing to the game (then again in attempting to portray realism does it need to have a point?)
My term “straightjacket”, is that games are naturally restrictive, not its control methods. They are restrictive for the purpose of practically, and necessity. What would be the purpose in a developer making everything interactive, when all the player needs (in Beneath a Steel Skies circumstance) are several key elements in order to push the narrative forward, yet still retain the players interest. The interface is entirely efficient in what the game permits. There is no need for anything more.
I would consider that in Heavy Rains case, they are wasting a great deal of resources on the most minor of things that add little to nothing to the game.
Finally, death is often the “end of the game” in most titles, because you are the lone protagonist. And thus, without you the inevitable climax of the game would never be. However, where there is more than one player character- of course a continuation is a possibility. Multiple story arches based on player actions are not anything new.
What interests me about Heavy Rain is not its control system (I bet dollars to doughnuts it’ll be QTEs, regardless of what David Cage says or how they dress them up). No, what interests me is the effort to tell a melancholy adult story with adult characters dealing with adult problems. You see dramas so rarely in games, unless they’re couched in swords and sorceries and spaceships. My hope is that Heavy Rain demonstrates how an interactive drama can work as a game. If it succeeds, I’m guessing it’ll have done so in spite of its controls, not because of them.
I see what you’re saying Lew and I agree but at what point do we say “Nah, we’ll have that action be carried out automatically and this… yeah, we’ll let the player do this.” At what point is an interaction a gimmick or hindrance as opposed to an immersive addition?
I agree with Steerpike as well though and as I said earlier I think it will be down to the sum of the experience rather than the mechanical parts of the gameplay whether they will be naturalistic or contrived. The thing is it’s taking a bold step to be a different overall experience than many other titles. We shall see.
The Edge article also mentions an ominous sounding shower scene before one of the female characters has even been introduced. A game trying to be adult and having an obligatory shower scene off the bat is going to raise some eyebrows and we know there will be a lot of eyes on this title when it’s released.
I cannot grasp why developers, and those who play games need to distance themselves into the “Adult” category. Why are we so quick to laud praise onto developers which choose to embrace an 18 certificate on titles? There have been many which have tackled adult content, without resorting to chasing this title. While there have been developers who have had 18 certificated imposed on them, through no fault of their own. I really dislike this desire by David Cage and his team to continue pushing this issue. For me, you see drama’s so rarely in games because dramas on television are always incredibly drab. Shen Mui (the best comparison to HR) marketed itself exactly how HR is, and fell flat due to the fact that it was so much like real life (the ability to have a job) and for its generation was incredibly interactive, however it was dull because of it.
Do we not as gamers, play videogames for escapism and enjoyment and that alone, not to purposefully seek out adult content? I don’t find myself saying “Oh I didn’t enjoy Mario Galaxy because it wasn’t adult enough. Or “I didn’t enjoy Half Life 2 because it wasn’t graphic enough.” These are still adult games, albeit without the dark storyline of a serial killer and examples of graphic nudity, but I don’t really find any of these things necessarily benefit a game anyway.
Back to the controls Gregg, it’s a fine line to define gimmick/hindrance over enjoyment/boredom/necessity.
In videogames current capacity, for me, the only way we will ever have true adaptive, context game play is where a videogame developer uses context interactive actions, combined with the movement and spatial ability the Wii Remote offers.
I see it as a blending of Mirrors Edge movement (refined, obviously), combined with Penumbra’s physical interactions (turning motions etc) with the true player motion of Metroid Prime 3 (opening and closing valves while your hand outstretches) I think only then would we be some where in creating a truly refined user interaction experience.
A shower scene raising eyebrows? Perhaps you remember Omikron (1999) that had a full sex scene between you and your girlfriend in glorious 3D within ten minutes, and who was the developer you ask? Quantic Dream of course! (at least they are persistant in “adult content”!) 🙂
Well, when I say “adult” I mean “grown up;” it’s true that “adult” has another connotation altogether.
To be clear, I don’t mind not-very-grown-up storylines in games, but I’d also like to see games be able to sensitively examine complex emotions and themes like friendship, love, melancholy, estrangement, and so forth. It just seems like games can’t get past very surface level themes.
While I admit that Heavy Rain is going for the carnal, as I understand it, it also tries to be a more grown up narrative than we’re used to seeing.
Don’t worry Matt, Lew is too young for blood and boobies. That’s why he’s an angry little man.
I’m not angry I’m just passionate:)
[…] Toes wrote wonderfully about the opportunity of Heavy Rain, the implication of contextual controls and what have you. […]