So if I like StarCraft and Battlefield but thought I wasted my money on Heavy Rain I need to grow up?

Why does the industry need to "grow up"? Make whatever you want to make, the industry isn't stopping you, and if more people want Zombie games, don't blame the industry.

I really don't like david cage, the guy has an attitude issue and he seems more interested in making films then games. Story should never take precedence over gameplay in games. Gameplay is the core of video games, without it you don't have a game.

It's starting to feel like two or three "YOU'RE DOING IT ALL WRONG" articles a day.

I guess I can understand with the slipping revenues.

Funnily enough, that same David Cage in an ITW alongside Eric Viennot quite some time ago (late 2011 I think) had the question "What are in your opinion the best games of 2010?" asked to them.
He was already in the process of working on B:TS, and his answers were pretty much spot on the "grow up" part: Call of Duty: MW & PES.

I'm always having a hard time to fathom dichotomy among creators. "Do as I say, not as I do", ey?

Is the argument where the games industry "is young" or we need to "grow up" still valid? I mean, come on, for every "Little Miss Sunshine" there are ten "Expandables". Also, slapping half a dozen movie scenes you liked in one game sequence neither makes for a "grown up" approach of the media.

We've already having games that go further than the shooting part, and, admittedly in the indie circles more often than not, there are many games that reach beyond "telling and into "feeling".

What we're missing the most, I fear, is a recognition of sorts; especially self-recognition.

I find this ironic, since I bought Heavy Rain with the expectation of getting a mature story with a rich narrative, but was subjecting to a good hour of mindless button-mashing, the objectives of which were making coffee, carrying groceries, and setting the dinner tablet. If that's what Cage believes is "growing up," then put me in the Peter Pan camp...

David has to remember there is a huge risk at trying something different (like your job). Plenty of studios have closed because they tried something new and many developers are not financially in the position to take that risk. Sad but true. Developers have families and need to put food on the table.

While you may be quick to blame publishers, they need to make money and they look at what people are buying. End of story. We need to look towards the small/indie studios that are using Kickstarter and Indie Fund to fund their games and have the freedom to make something different. They will push the game industry in that direction. Once the publishers see those games are selling over a million copies, they will have hard data saying "Yes, we can fund these none traditionally game now because people are buying".

I agree with David Cage because he is also backing his words with his actions. Love or hate their game, Quantic Dream is trying to do something different.

I'm kinda stunned by the hostility in the comments so far. I get why you might disagree with Cage or take umbrage at his tone, but don't you think that games still have a ton of room to grow? Shouldn't we be ambitious? And isn't this a valid direction for pursuing that ambition?

I'll take David Cage seriously as soon as he produces a video game.

think "we" are growing up, just not in the way Cage wants us to or expect us to.

i appreciate Cage tries new things (i.e. the "infusion" of story in games) but he is either willfully ignorant or just trying to get attention imho.

the market dictates the direction of products (games are no exception). if there was a huge market for his brand of story in games we would see heavy rain sell many-millions and, as a side-effect many companies/publishers would follow suit and make more "story based" games rather than "first person dude-bro alien-kill fests".

cage has done a good job of communicating/differentiating his brand of storytelling from others and i think the media has done a good job of promoting his "cause", i just don't think (at this point in time) the market really "wants" games that are that heavy on exposition else the market would abide.

meanwhile he should be happy that (as an industry) we have evolved as much as we have, perhaps he is a man ahead of his time, but at present he just comes across with an arrogant attitude that "people are stupid for not appreciating my form of art"

I think it is evidence that frustration is seeping out of some people (both creators and players, though the latter may not get as much attention), that there are too few opportunities to approach games in different ways. For the players, it's a limited breadth of variety to choose from. For the designers, it's limited access to budgets needed to make games that people will notice. Maybe those designers are too used to having too much money, and need to demonstrate what they can do with less. That's how it works in other creative fields. If you want to take bigger risks, you have to make smaller bets.

I think it would be better if more large companies placed more smaller, riskier bets. I worry that there is too much burden being placed on indie devs, who might not get the chance to work with established people while making those risk-taking, ground-breaking games. It would make for a healthier ecosystem, and give new game designers and developers more opportunities to explore and innovate, instead of having to face such a yawning chasm of safe and predictable on one side, and risky and innovative and lonely and broke on the other. Too much talent might be withering away, but who could even tell? (I'm a total outsider, though, so fuck me, what do I know?)

I hope more established designers break out and build new small and medium-sized studios, and do more to help mentor new developers. And don't immediately sell out to the monsters if they succeed. What about what Peter Molyneux is doing? I hope it inspires other people, and doesn't turn out to be a financial failure—or at least that the creative wins make it worth it. Also, more companies like Valve when it was young and scrappy. But, yes, less combat! There must be challenging and exciting things to do in games other than shooting and stabbing. Combat has been done to (I never tire of saying it) death. Yes, it's OK to re-imagine the work of the past in the context of today, but surely, there must be something else to explore.

While I agree with some of his thoughts. It seems people ideas on making games grow up. Is taking away the actually control form players, and make games more into QTE movies. I'm sorry I would rather play 24 hours a day on Nuketown. Than to play 1 hour of Heavy Rain. I want the control, and want to play the game. Not watch something that is just a HD version of Dragon Lairs.

FPS are not the problem. Innovation is.

And one could argue that Cage doesn't necessarily make games, more like interactive stories. I loved Heavy Rain, but I can't say that I pick it up a lot to play.

Yes, having multiple Call of Duties, Battlefields, and other FPS games dominate the market sucks overall when promising games get canned. But, you can't blame the industry as a whole. There's clearly a demand for the games, and hey....the consumer is always right.

Please have Cage describe what he means by "Mature Theme's" before we tear eachother apart over it.

Does he want more Crime/Political Drama? More adult relationships and nudity/sex? Or does he just dislike pop culture based fantasy/sci-fi?

i'm a huge fan of storybased games and wish there were better (or even mildly decent) stories in games, but asking huge companies with huge investments in an extremely risky industry to make more cerebral fare while CoDs sell bajillions is just silly. Who really needs to grow up?

and FPSs and their variants generally have better stories than most other big budget games, so I'm not sure what the gameplay genre has to do with anything.

I like the idea of pushing different kinds of stories and all that, but he forgets/ignores he's making games, not movies. Maybe he could take more risks himself on his own projects, like maybe adding a little big more "game" to his "games" so they grow out of the "press the right button" paradigm? I mean, "how many QTE games can you make?" There's a moment where Cage himself also needs to grow up.

Now that I think on it, doesn't every medium have this problem? Whether we're talking film, tv, books, or music, the uninspired drivel is what tends to connect with the masses (i.e. Twilight, Transformers, Kardashians, Katy Perry, etc), so why would it be any different with video games? Fluff will sell and anything heady will struggle.

There's new footage of the gameplay in Beyond: Two Souls from Gamescom 2012 just in case anybody wants to update their argument from Heavy Rain.

I'll bet every one posting here can name several games that they felt were solidly mature in their content. There are many mature games you can play, right now. Let's offer them up, instead of arguing over terms. Each will have their own set. How will they overlap? Here are some old games, to remind that mature games aren't new: Myst. A Mind Forever Voyaging. Loom. Planescape: Torment. Police Quest. Bureaucracy. Passage.

The problem is ever since doom the shooters have been the template and the driving force behing everything sure i'd rather play many games with "stories" than you become the character and here's some light story to be peppered in but it's mostly about the graphics,arena's,physics and now multiplayer.

Are f.p.s bad not really they help hone your reflexes /killer instinct however anything from jack,ratchet,sly xenoblade,blue dragon,valkyria chronicles or the world ends with you has almost 100% more story and really the story driven shooters are bioshock,mass effect and uncharted not that i won't be getting halo 4 but gears or killzone hang enough story to support the intense action when the characters are deeper and you care what happens in uncharted which has danger,humor and exciting set pieces + there's no better play as indiana jones game series out there.

Third person @ least shows a character you can see which helps the story arc even chief is shown in 3rd person for the story and while you can see dom and marcus is still feels like a f.p.s story.

I believe humor is just as important as suspense ,terror of the unknown/seen and much more than sheer bullets or violence which again isn't much of a story without so much as a villans monologe "this is why i did it etc".

I believe borderlands has tons more character due to it's cartoonish look if it had run with the uber real early graphics it would've been lost in the croud and we wouldn't have a borderlands 2 that almost certain.

Have shooters brought us this far yes can they continue unchanged without fading to black no.

What would you rather play the most gourgus looking but hollow shooter or something that looks very good like uncharted 1 which has :drama,laughs,characters who interact like humans with each other and a very good indy modern story?!!

Things started with platformers moved to fighting and then shooting but somewhere along the line games developed stories deep enough to care about so i doubt f.p.s will remain king of the hill much longer without drastic changes.

I'm a bit sick of hearing this "game's need to grow up" thing over and over again. Why do they need to grow up? Haven't they alreayd grown up in a lot of places? Isn't there already a great range of titles aimed at all age groups and taste? Also this argument that games need to be more like films and TV is flawed otherwise those media wouldn't still be producing vacuous action, horror, tean comedies etc etc alongside intelligent, deep, arthouse cinema that gets made. Really I think it's time for people, developers and press, to live and let live. In the words of the Jam "The public gets what the public wants, but I don't get what society wants!".

Grownups are boring pretty much by definition. No thanks.

Games are fast becoming like comic books.
Even the loftiest attempt to be mature has failed miserably in most cases.
Heavy Rain was a good example of what CAN be done with a mature premise, but it's still really slow paced and the story is more of a B movie than a great, mature drama.

We need a Kubrick in '68 or a Noe in '03.
We desperately need a Malick or a Lynch or a Kieslowski or a Jodorowsky.
We have none of that.
We have a bunch of Michael Bays and a whole lot of Chris Nolans and James Camerons.
There is no art to what they do, there is only spectacle.
It's, in a plain word, boring.

I have yet to be truly rocked by a game premise the same way I am by a good film, book or song.
Will that change? Hopefully.
If not I guess I'll continue to do what I do now and be truly impressed by a single game every 10 or so years and laugh off the rest of them.

Also, real grown ups are not boring, but grown ups who CAN'T GROW UP sure the fuck are.

nothing to say in this box.

As long as 'grow up' doesn't imply only making only "M" rated games then I agree. I hate to see so many people mistake maturity for swearing and sex.

Video game design requires technical skill (from experience) like no other medium. Video games do not generally have a director that can control every aspect of the final product.

All that aside, I'm looking forward to Jon Blow's new game, The Witness. (If nothing else.)

Also, thanks to the "Heavy Rain director" for spurring intelligent discussion.

I disagree, so the game industry needs to grow up? Well the problem with that it state industry. So commercial. Bussness. suply vs demand. Due to computers get more powerfull and can prosces more complicated content. Making content heavy games very expensive. So suply what is not in demand is very risky. The problem is games needs huge investments so those that do invest needs proof of demand. So wat sells. FPS shooters. Even COD one year cycle shows how huge this demand is. Even with some competition.

So what he want is forget company continuity and take excesive risk. Make what you as dev want to make regardles if there is market for. Well I dont call that be part of the game industy. But more be part of the art scene. As modern art. Creative Art focused. The bussness is then secondary.
one problem investment. Well don't expect big investment from commercial driven publishers. So need to be independant. wich means self funding and so limited.

I also think there is a middle way. Independant scene using Kickstarter. With small fundings you can suply nice markets. The way I see it. the massmarket are FPS genre. Where huge funded triple A budged work.

I played the Heavy rain demo with sony move. I know what kind of gamer I am. But it sound new. So i tried it. As gameplay it a desaster.
Grow up as gamers must be forced with emotional drama heavy stories. With some forced interaction slapped on it. I believe there are other mediums much better fitting this. Drama emotional focus.

Flim where the ladies tent to cry. Soap TV series. Oh lot of Oscars etc there.

Games. Games is a medium where story is optional. And be story heavy can be done.
But the right way is using the game medium as it it. So grow up and using it as a interaction heavy mediem where the game makes his own story and no gamer got the same.

what wrong is put mutiple choice menu in front of gamer make a choice like Mass effect. So that you can call it non liniar. In movies you can branch to. Like alternative ends. The difference is the choice is made before you start the movie. In game they do it right at the branching point. It is nice that you can call it lineair. But the gameplay is lineair between the branches. Very much like movie medium.

So you get those sandbox free roam game. but then they slam in there story like quest or missions but linearity in freedom.

Also there is also this. why do gamers game. Seeking emotional drama in games, maybe some.

But i think more like this.
Chalange.
Competision Online play
Escaping reality.
Simulating dangerous jobs like soldier.
Play with friend cooperating play.

FPS games offer this. Suplied in spades to demand.

But I do like other genres to wich a mis some big titles in.

There are developers willing to take on the hard stories or topics (Destineer was one), but the publishers this generation are too timid thus the glut of sequels and copycat games. I don't expect this to change, it's a mindset at the top and they only think of themselves are "entertainers" so that's all they will ever be.

Look to the movie industry, how do controversial movies get made? They are funded by high risk publishing houses who specialize in these kind of films, the more topical and controversial actually the higher chances for their films success. There doesn't exist such a analogous publisher on the game side. Due to a series of consolidation over the years these publishing houses have lost all identity. They all make the same types of games now, all risk averse, catering to the lowest common denominator etc.

That's going to change of course with digital distribution and the advent of affordable middleware indies will start to tackle these topics. There is a momentum building, people want to evolve games beyond just entertainment. Thus the constant articles of "games as art"..

Why are most blockbusters films PG13? Airplanes. You cant show R rated films on planes. So making an R rated film its like leaving money on the table. Sure there are exceptions like "Hangover" - but the studio wasnt expecting that film to blow up - which is why they gave the director such a sweet deal.

AAA RPGs have similar economics to studio film productions. If they made the games more mature, they target a smaller audience and are a bigger financial risk.

That's why mature high brow branching narratives should be executed as IF. Less budget. Less risk.

I agree with Cage in the sense that I would like to see more games that push the boundaries of the subject matter that games can address, but I don't understand why he feels we would need to stop making shooters in order for that to happen.

I know it is dangerous to draw parallels between games and film, but bear with me for this analogy: You can make films that tackle any subject matter you want, without feeling threatened by the existence of films in a different genre. The Coen brothers, Wes Anderson, Michel Gondry, Darren Aronofsky... Their films cover a wide range of subject matter, and do so in wildly different tones. Nobody had to tell Michael Bay to stop making explosion-filled summer blockbusters in order for those other guys to do their thing.

Cage wants to expand the territory covered by the games industry? Great! Me too! More power to anyone trying to do that. But there is always going to be an appetite for summer blockbusters, and there will always be an appetite for shooters. And that's okay.

So, a guy who wrote a cookie-cutter detective yarn where you use three controller buttons to open a car door thinks he knows where the future of gaming is going? Wait, let me get a pen so I can write down every word he says.

Dumb action games will probably live forever, but there's no doubt that there's room for games with more mature themes. If Cage thinks he's leading the way, though, he's deluded.

Movies are a great way to tell a story, videogames aren't. If videogames are going to mature as art and communication, videogame makers need to grow out of the insistence that games need a linear narrative, especially a narrative conveyed through dreary cutscenes and dialogue trees.

Some of the most "mature" games I have played has been on the Commodore 64. Trust me, there will never be another "Modem Wars" or "Bard's Tale I/II" ever again.

Games are simply interactive entertainment with rules;
If you're able to follow the rules, it rewards you - if not, it punishes you.

Beyond that, the content can - and should - be absolutely anything.
Just remember that if you want to make a game, focus on the point of it: The game.

Some games have stories, while others have competitive challenge,
and whining about either one - or any other aspect in the non-game content - simply shows

how much YOU have growing up to do.

Games are games, and should be games, because that means they can be anything and

everything, if people just stop whining about them and focus on making them.

To be honest I agree with him. I am sick Modern Battle Field Ops Of Duty (insert number).

We need more games that take risks and innovate and actually have a point to them. Don't get me wrong I like a good shooter now and again but it seems like that is all the industry is looking at.

As a consumer what I see is that we are being bombarded with shooters without much variation between them and while these games get hyped up by the gaming press actual games that are trying to innovate and do something different get pushed to the side.

My 1 thing I have been looking for this year is NEW IP and I am happy to say we are starting to see it. Part of the reason I am looking forward to steam Greenlight. We the consumers will finally have a say (aside from our wallets).

I'm all for branching out, trying new things, and taking risks. With that said, the industry should make whatever it wants to make. If it wants to keep on making shooters, so be it. It will move on when it's ready.