| impertinence said: The problem here of course is that the concept of a game is already a defined concept, and David Cage is trying to make something that is not a game (or just very loosely could be called a game) fit into a definition of what he wants it to be. A game is a game Cage, the word has an actual meaning, and you don't have the right to say that it doesn't. He has left the path of making games and is now pushing down the path of interactive art. Good for him, but don't get all butthurt when people point out that your product doesn't have the properties required for something to be a game. The quotes from David Cage makes as much sense as someone saying that no one has the right to say what a sandwich is, and more people should be open to try his soupwich and not be so set in their ways of what makes something a sandwich. |
EXACTLY! This is what I've been saying as well.
A "game" is by definition (and name) defined by its "gameplay". If whatever you are making doesn't have much or very little gameplay, then its not really a "game". That's not to say what you are making is bad by any means. Heck, it could be the start of a new form of entertainment medium. Just don't try to tout something as a video game when it clearly doesn't have the required characteristics, or enough of them.
This "game" should have been marketed as something else. More as an interactive film. But of course that would mean that they'd have to fix the price, launch and all sorts of different stuff. A hybrid between a game and a movie is a tough thing to get right.
Nice analogy with the soupwich. Definitely wouldn't mind trying that out lol ;)
