By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony Discussion - David Cage: No one should be allowed to define what a game is

deskpro2k3 on 08 October 2013

 


video games as a form of art is a controversial topic. This is why Cage is right.



CPU: Ryzen 7950X
GPU: MSI 4090 SUPRIM X 24G
Motherboard: MSI MEG X670E GODLIKE
RAM: CORSAIR DOMINATOR PLATINUM 32GB DDR5
SSD: Kingston FURY Renegade 4TB
Gaming Console: PLAYSTATION 5
Around the Network
melbye on 08 October 2013

Let's ask gaming god Shigeru Miyamoto what a game is



WiiBox3 on 08 October 2013
Pavolink said:
So, is it a game, or not? Considering nobody is allowed to define it.


If Captain Power And the Soldiers of the Future can be considered a video game, anything can.



Max King of the Wild on 08 October 2013
kowenicki said:
 

Cage said:

"Some people wish that games would always stay what they were in the past 30 years, just with more polygons

Did De Gruttola and Quantic Dream have a massive presentation bragging about polygon count with a creepy old geezers head?


 Come on kowenicki... youre smarter than that. That presentation doesn't descredit what he said and what he said doesnt discredit the presentation. You are just looking for a reason to jmp on something here



impertinence on 08 October 2013
Max King of the Wild said:
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.


What required properties are missing from Beyond? please enlighten me

Sure, a game requires goals, rules, challenge and interactivity. Beyond two souls fails to deliver both challenge and interactivity at the level you would need to be able to call it a game. It might even be argued that it doesn't fulfill the requirement for goals.

A better genre for this kind of experience would be interactive art, which is perfectly fine. Kudos to David Cage for attempting to make inroads into this area, we always need people to challenge what we already have, but there's no need to break down the definitions of words we already have pretty well defined. I wish him luck in his projects, but I am pretty sure that the current path of interactive movies is a dead end as the video game format he is trying to emply to movie type storytelling is very ill suited for what he wants to do. To me it's a case of trying to do something using completely inappropriate tools. So far what I have seen produced in this genre has not changed my mind, but who knows, there might be a revolutionary idea or concept out there that manages to merge the interactivity of a game with the extremely linear structure of storytelling. God knows I am too stupid to know what that would be though.



Around the Network
ishiki on 08 October 2013

arguing over semantics is cute yo.



bananaking21 on 08 October 2013
kowenicki said:
 Cage said:

"Some people wish that games would always stay what they were in the past 30 years, just with more polygons.

Did De Gruttola and Quantic Dream have a massive presentation bragging about polygon count with a creepy old geezers head?

 


Posted by Jake on 20 Feb 2013


Quantic Dream, developers of Heavy Rain, have pushed the envelope in terms of graphic quality and the future will be no different. Announced at the PlayStation conference, they revealed the character polygon count for their upcoming title, Beyond: Two Souls, at an astounding 30,000. Some games can currently match that, but combined with the high resolution produced by the PlayStation 4, this will surely appear to be the most realistic game to date. The elderly gentleman pictured above is just a tease of things to come. Look at that ear hair!

- See more at: http://www.hardcoregamer.com/2013/02/20/more-polygons-for-the-future/30536/#sthash.xihRhI5F.dpuf

your posts to try rile up people in this thread are getting rather pathatic. everyone who saw that presentation knows that it was a tech demo first of all, second of all it was very well known that he was trying to show off how well the facial animations can be, why? so he can do what he has been trying to do for a very long while, push video games into new terretory when it comes to provoking emotions from gamers. we both know it wasnt about polygon count. 



Max King of the Wild on 08 October 2013
impertinence said:
Max King of the Wild said:
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.


What required properties are missing from Beyond? please enlighten me

Sure, a game requires goals, rules, challenge and interactivity. Beyond two souls fails to deliver both challenge and interactivity at the level you would need to be able to call it a game. It might even be argued that it doesn't fulfill the requirement for goals.

A better genre for this kind of experience would be interactive art, which is perfectly fine. Kudos to David Cage for attempting to make inroads into this area, we always need people to challenge what we already have, but there's no need to break down the definitions of words we already have pretty well defined. I wish him luck in his projects, but I am pretty sure that the current path of interactive movies is a dead end as the video game format he is trying to emply to movie type storytelling is very ill suited for what he wants to do. To me it's a case of trying to do something using completely inappropriate tools. So far what I have seen produced in this genre has not changed my mind, but who knows, there might be a revolutionary idea or concept out there that manages to merge the interactivity of a game with the extremely linear structure of storytelling. God knows I am too stupid to know what that would be though.

Portal 2, Angry Birds, Walking Dead fail to meet challenge and interactivity. They must not be games



the_dengle on 08 October 2013

Low scores are the fault of the reviewers.



impertinence on 08 October 2013

Max King of the Wild said:
 

Portal 2, Angry Birds, Walking Dead fail to meet challenge and interactivity. They must not be games

 

I don't know about Walking Dead, but the other two examples show that you do not understand the concept of what makes something a game or not. In general though, you are right that there are probably quite a few fringe cases where video games are not really games per say. I am not going to pretend that the border between games and art are absolute.