David Cage Attacks Sequels, Says They "Kill Creativity And Innovation"

Some things just can't be done without a sequel. However, there is a difference between a sequel that improves a franchise and a sequel that's an obvious cash in.

No offense to David Cage, but so does endless Simon says sequences and characters who go nowhere.

I am a bit bitter regarding Indigo Prophecy ok!

No offense to David Cage, but so does endless Simon says sequences and characters who go nowhere.

I am a bit bitter regarding Indigo Prophecy ok!

You know what would be innovative David Cage? Releasing heavy rain and beyond two souls on pc and other platforms. I bought Indigo Prophecy on the pc. And yes they mentioned before they have a 2 or 3 game contract with sony for the twats who want to reply.

Good point, but save it for another article

Or blog about it!

I agree with his sentiment, but I think the entire issue revolves around the point of whether you view video games merely entertainment, or as an art form.

if you only view video games as entertainment then it's fine for sequels to exist. one of my favourite games of 2012 was Borderlands 2 which isn't exactly a huge departure from the original. but that's why I loved it so much.

however from an artistic point of view Borderlands 2 (and the majority of sequels) fail dramatically as they simply retread old ground. imagine if an artist (musician, painter, writer, etc...) were to constantly rehash the same material year after year. they may continue to put out quality work, but it would lack innovation. these artists would no longer exists on the cutting edge.

and in all of this it is important to remember that innovation does not nessecarily equal quality. innovation is merely one of the factors we may or may not use when we appraise the quality of a piece of work.

Guess you don't listen to a lot of Nickelback

j/k

and regarding innovation, I believe the type of story-telling employed by heavy rain is extremely backwards thinking for the video game industry. developing what is akin to an interactive movie is not fully exploring the unique potential which the medium of video games offer for story telling.

that's why my favourite games this generation have been the Souls games (Demon and Dark Souls), as well as Journey. these are titles that give you so little but allow the user to flesh out the game world via their own means.

I agree with you but think you could have said it in less words.
You can only replay the same game so many times before you need something new, and if you love that game, you'll probably want the game/story to continue since you had such a blast the first time around.

Bitching about shooters and sequels dominating the industry is part of how Cage excuses his hackneyed writing. Does it help that games which were deliberately gonzo and over the top (several games in the Call of Duty series, particularly the ones by Treyarch, but also Modern Warfare 2) manage to have fewer plot holes than his stories? I mean, we're talking obvious, wall-bangingly stupid stuff here. The kind of stuff for which other studios would get heavy slag. Given the numerous problems Spec Ops: the Line's story also had, but which were largely excused outside those circles in which the game was destructively criticized, I think it might be that if you wrap your bad ideas in enough self-inflating pretension, game 'critics' will eat it up.

Out of curiosity, what issues did you have with Spec Ops: The Line's story?

It could form an entire article. Or set of articles. There exists a growing body of destructive criticism levelled at the game. My favorite article tearing into it is at All Were Thematically Revolting and it can be found via Google search by "Spec Ops the line maginot". Basically, the game's entire premise is built on a stitled framework of nonsense. Dubai is a coastal city but the evacuation was attempted by land. Konrad could not have done any of the things he did on his own authority, not even arriving in Dubai. Walker's team is the wrong size; it's missing 9 people. Despite the 'storm wall' (a thing which doesn't exist in real life) creating line-of-sight problems, satellite radios were not used, nor recon satellites to help plan the route through Dubai. Walker's presence on the field is itself an anomoly; he's trained in counter-terrorism, not SAR. His value to the mission would be as someone who could help provide insight on Konrad and, possibly, other men under his command. White phosphorous does not burn people like the civilians at the gate, but napalm does. None of these (and many more) plot holes are justified, explained or in any way dealt with in a satisfactory manner. Not even the 'it's all just a dream he's having as he bleeds out after the crash' can justify it. The only reason I'm not going into more detail is the character limit.

Interesting read, though I do disagree on some points with the author. A lot of the stuff you mentioned (logistical stuff like the squad being the wrong size, WP not behaving accurately ect...) I can get over, but the whole idea of the disconnect between the player and Walker was intriguing. As far as him referencing the fact that the player is never given the choice though the game keeps reinforcing that Walker's actions are your fault, I disagree to an extent. Very interesting read though, thanks for sharing it!

I'm glad you enjoyed it. It's interesting to turn a critical eye to the assumptions under a work.

Incidentally, I think a sequel handled by David Cage has high potential.

I'd agree in the sense that, if your game has nowhere good left to go, you should stop wasting your time with sequels and focus on something new...Resident Evil.

Sequels are a good thing as they can be a refinement on the original. Take Borderlands for example: the second one has stayed true to the original while removing negatives and adding positives, and is generally considered superior to the original. It would be a sad world if you played a new IP, thought "this is ok but has some issues" and had to accept the fact that was the only treatment the IP would ever get. Hey it better be good right out of the gate since that's it for the IP. How would it be worth developers time and money to create a universe like Mass Effect or The Elder Scrolls if you only make 1 game? Maybe for games with a small timescale like Cage's that's fine, but other people have worlds and universes begging for sequels. All sequels are not Call of Duty, which he talks like they are, and it makes him sound like an idiot.

Some franchises wouldn't have been hurt in terms of their historical significance if they'd never had sequels. Final Fantasy games (the main entries) could be called any old thing. They're more like masterpiece theatre on PBS - a series in which distinctive works are done. So each Final Fantasy could be a totally different thing. They have some basic (genre-inherited) mechanical similarities but each one takes place in a different world with different cast of characters and story. The advantage of the name is brand signalling. It lets people who liked previous games know that this game is a continuation in some sense on previous games and helps build sales.

The main final fantasy games are not sequels to each other and don't apply here. They are tied together in name only.

That's what I was saying. You could have dropped the name 'Final Fantasy' after the first one. They can stand entirely on their own. It's to their credit that they probably wouldn't be hurt by it. Maybe V wouldn't do so well - it comments on earlier games in the series.

Batman: Arkham City

That's what I call a jab and cross. Nice point

Without sequels, there would never have been Uncharted 2: Among Thieves, and that game is far and above the first game in terms of both gameplay and creativity. Sequels allow for fine-tuning both graphics and mechanics, especially when dealing with developers working on games that are trying to push new hardware and techiques.

He has a good point, but its wrong to group every sequel into the same group. I think the Assassin's Creed series is a good example of what he is talking about, while in my mind recent games like the mass effect trilogy are a good example of sequels that belong.

These are 2 perfect examples and mirror my thoughts exactly. I'm so behind in my gamelog I havn't picked up ME3 yet and i'm very excited to get to it, but AC on the otherhand lost me after Brotherhood. The third one finally looks worth getting due to the drastic change of setting/character, something they should do every single game with that series IMO. Next time let's be a ninja or ronin in fuedal Japan or something. We don't need 2 spin offs of AC3 in the meantime!

He has a good point, but its wrong to group every sequel into the same group. I think the Assassin's Creed series is a good example of what he is talking about, while in my mind recent games like the mass effect trilogy are a good example of sequels that belong.