Heavy Rain Dev: "Sequels Kill Creativity and Innovation"

[Sarah LeBoeuf]

Heavy Rain Dev: "Sequels Kill Creativity and Innovation"

Quantic Dream's David Cage avoids sequels in favor of giving gamers "something they want without knowing they want it."

It's no secret that sequels sell in the video game industry. Many of the best selling titles of 2012, like Call of Duty: Black Ops 2, Halo 4, and Assassin's Creed III, are numbered installments in long-running series, and it can be hard for new properties to make their mark. Quantic Dream, the developer behind 2010 PS3 murder mystery Heavy Rain and the upcoming Beyond: Two Souls, has so far managed to avoid sequelitis, even though one of its founders, game designer David Cage, knows that gamers want them. Speaking with Official PlayStation Magazine, Cage stated, "Many people want the same and if that's what you offer them, they will gladly buy it."

So if sequels sell and they're what gamers want to spend their hard-earned cash on, what's the problem? Well, as Cage believes, "sequels kill creativity and innovation." Cage and the developers at Quantic Dream are going a different way with Beyond, hoping to pleasantly surprise gamers with their unconventional game that explores the realm beyond death. "We don't give people what they expect. We want to give them something they want without knowing they want it."

Cage's assessment about gamers buying sequels because they have "no interest in innovation" might be a little unfair; gaming is an expensive hobby, and trying out a new IP is a risk not everyone can afford. It's always great to see inventive, original games manage some degree of success, but it's also hard to complain when publishers give us more of what we want. Beyond: Two Souls was positively [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/conferences/e3-2012/9734-E3-Sarahs-Five-Favorites] at E3 2012, so it's entirely possible that Cage's promise to give gamers what they don't even know they want will pay off when the game is released in 2013.

Source: Polygon [http://www.officialplaystationmagazine.co.uk/2013/01/10/david-cage-sequels-kill-creativity-and-innovation-we-dont-give-people-what-they-expect-we-give-them-something-they-want-without-knowing-they-want-it/#null]

Permalink

 

[A Raging Emo]

I agree entirely. Not every sequel is bad, of course, but sometimes they kill how good the first game was. In my opinion, Bioshock is a prime example of this; I think that it should have just been left on the first one.

 

[Fappy]

Some games should never have sequels. Other games only get better with each consecutive addition to the series. It's not as black and white as he's making it out to be.

 

[Sylveria]

So the same guy who took the worst game mechanic ever created and built an entire game around and says "Only play my game once" also says sequels kill creativity. While I'm always up for seeing/trying new, good, titles I can easily rattle off long-running series who have innovated from one entry to the next. Not every game series ends up like Call of Duty and just recycles the same game every year.

 

[Eri]

You know what else kills creativity and innovation? Not having the money to produce a new game because you refused to put out a sequel everyone wanted.

 

[JenSeven]

Seems like David Cage hates Silent Hill 2, Super Mario 3, Skyrim, Portal 2, TF2, the Dynasty Warriors games and all those other great games.
This guy is full of faecal matter.

 

[mad825]

Says the guy who sold his soul to Sony...

There's nothing wrong of a expanding and changing universe when it still shows potential.

 

[Falterfire]

Forcing the creation of a sequel might, but just building one? Nope, not buying it. There have been a lot of rubbish sequels made, but there are a lot of rubbish games made in general. (See Sturgeon's Law) Quite a few of my favorite games this past year (Far Cry 3, XCOM, Borderlands 2, Torchlight 2, Mass Effect 3) were all sequels.

Depending on how you count it, it might somewhat reduce the 'creativity' and 'innovation' that goes into making the game, but a game is a LOT more than just how speshul and new its mechanics are. Sequels give a team a chance to learn from their mistakes and build on their successes and the result is frequently spectacular. For instance, Pokémon games haven't changed at their heart since ever, but that didn't stop Black & White being, from a pure design standpoint, much better than Red & Blue. Whether you like the new Pokémon or not, comparing White to Red shows how much the design has advanced.

 

[JenSeven]

He seriously hasn't grasped the idea that a sequel doesn't kill creativity and innovation, greedy publishers and devs that want to churn out a quick cashgrab kill creativity and innovation.
There are plenty of sequels that had a lot of creativity and innovation but those were created by devs and publishers that actually wanted to make a good game and not just make more money by simply creating a game through doing as little work as possible.

 

[geizr]

In my opinion, making a serial game depends on the specific game concept. Some concepts work well to be serialized and others don't. Even of the ones that are serialized, for many, there are only a very finite number of sequels that make sense before the sensible possibilities have been explored, while others can run much longer to become long-standing franchises (e.g. Mario and Zelda; although, I feel even such franchises as these two still have a finite lifetime and will eventually expire). To that matter, the sequels only progress if there is an exploration of possibilities or revelation of new aspects of the total concept that had been previously hidden or unknown. In other words, it is possible to be creative with sequels; it simply depends on how you do it. When it comes to creative endeavors and creative products, in my opinion, it's hard to really pin down any absolutes. It always seems like what you do, how you do it, and what you use to do it depends on the needs and constraints for realizing the concept and the intended effects.

Even so saying, I do feel that the turn-the-crank type sequels do kill creativity, as there is really nothing new added to the game; it's just the same stuff but with shinier, higher-resolution graphics. However, it often seems that that is exactly what the greater percentage of the gaming community wants. The gaming community doesn't do a very good job of rewarding any true innovation and creativity, yet, complains bitterly about the stagnation of the gaming industry. Instead, through overall buying habits, we prove to the industry we just want the same old thing but with shinier, higher-resolution graphics. Basically, gamers just don't know what the hell they want.

 

[Zhukov]

This guy manages to sound like a douche even when I basically agree with him.

 

[Ariseishirou]

Planned sequels can be amazing. Stories that were never intended to have sequels, but oh hey it made money so let's make another one - what, you don't have any ideas for another one? No problem, let's just rehash the same plot - those, those are terrible. And unfortunately in an industry where art = big business, this phenomenon is inevitable.

I would certainly not mind if we adopted the "discrete run" phenomenon of, say, Japanese television as opposed to just running something into the ground. Or, for video games, the Final Fantasy/Spec Ops/Far Cry approach of being a sequel in name only, but in fact a completely new story and approach.

 

[Carrots_macduff]

thats a nice theory there mister cage, but what the bloody hell is so creative and original about any of your games, apart from your unparalleled pretentiousness

 

[grigjd3]

Well, he's not wrong.

 

[Shadow-Phoenix]

Although sequels can kill maybe a little innovation (looking at COD), sometimes it can expand upon a story that can turn out to become a great sequel/trilogy.

Also this:

 

[FFP2]

People actually take this hack seriously? Heavy Rain was awful.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Yes because every original game is creative and every sequel is the same thing. Never, but never, use a term that is an absolute, always use more nebulous terms like 'probably', 'usually', 'a tendency'. That way you probably won't get burned alter when people point out exceptions.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

He seriously hasn't grasped the idea that a sequel doesn't kill creativity and innovation, greedy publishers and devs that want to churn out a quick cashgrab kill creativity and innovation.
There are plenty of sequels that had a lot of creativity and innovation but those were created by devs and publishers that actually wanted to make a good game and not just make more money by simply creating a game through doing as little work as possible.

What this guy said. It all depends on the circumstances.