Archive for August 31st, 2009

D. Cage talks emotion and experience for Heavy Rain

For the most part, I liked Quantic Dream’s other game in this vein, Indigo Prophecy (2005). The story was engaging, if it did fall apart a bit in the later chapters. The characters were well drawn. And some of the set pieces were extremely engaging. But I always felt as though some of the gameplay mechanics just didn’t fit the fiction very well. The on-screen interfaces and cues were intrusive, drawing attention away from the action.

In the example below, you can see what I mean. In addition, the “Simon Says”-style button sequence never seemed to have even an abstract connection to the action. I always found myself feeling frustrated because the action kept pushing me in one emotional direction while the mechanics kept pushing me in another.

Their rhythmic patterns don’t even really mesh in any recognizable way. I’m hoping Heavy Rain better synthesizes some of these systems into a more involving experience. The sequence above makes me think games like God of War (2005) have a better idea of how players relate to action sequences via standard controllers. I’m not sure how you’d design a Wii-mote into this experience and maintain its tone.

I’m very happy David Cage and Quantic Dream are willing to risk this kind of experimentation on a highly touted game played on a major home console. Very few other companies are willing to try this sort of high-concept kind of experience.

[Insert "field" here] Studies

After reading David Silver’s introduction from Critical Cyberculture Studies (2006), I’m left with a few questions (which I think is Dr. Liza Potts’s nefarious plan). Silver makes this statement regarding however it is this scholarly endeavor might be defined:

It can be argued that a commonly shared set of theories and methodologies is a sign of an academic field’s development and sophistication. It can also be argued that such commonly held approaches signal ossification, stagnation, and a lack of imagination. I favor the side of a temporarily canonless field of study (Silver 2004). If and when the canon appears, replete with acceptable theories, methods and method0logies, I surely hope its foundations are pliable enough for whatever meets us in the future.

We have a young field of study, one that, depending on with whom one speaks, stretches back only five, ten, or fifteen years. In other words, what we have is a field of study under construction — with boundaries not yet set, with borders not yet full erected, and with a canon not yet established. As such, we have a field of study ripe for growth and twigging, becoming and re-becoming, imagined and reimagined. Now, before the mold is set, is the time for experimentation. (pp. 5-6, emphasis in original)

As Steve Jones notes, we mix, match, and borrow from all kinds of academic fields/disciplines in order to generate insight into an always-emerging site of study. What does a “canon” look like when it is focused on something that evolves at such a rapid pace? The internet now is, in many ways, not the same internet of even five years ago. Collaborative technologies on the web facilitate spaces of (kinda/sorta) user-centered participation. But not only do the technologies change rapidly, so do the nature of the networks in which users play and work.

For example, fan cultures have emerged from underground networks of hyper-stereotyped “geeks” and “nerds” into the public spotlight. Such mainstreaming has been facilitated by these technologies. And it’s also been facilitated by the marketing forces seeking to take advantage of potential revenue streams. Tweeting and live-blogging from San Diego Comic Con has taken on a life of its own as TV and movie studios use the venue to gauge fans’ reactions to upcoming seasons and films. It’s essentially free publicity, utilizing Web 2.0 infrastructures and fan participation.

Thus, from a socio-cultural perspective, the ever increasing presence of marketing forces in fan experiences alters those experiences. But it’s not always clear how they do so since we’re only beginning to understand how those experiences emerge from the intersection of interior phenomenological factors with external technological and cultural forces.