More Thoughts on Heavy Rain

Phil Cameron over at Resolution Magazine has a lengthy review of Heavy Rain up that I pretty much agree with. Phil’s a little more effusive in parts than I am, and I am still digesting the narrative shenanigans I mentioned in my post last night, but he said what I would have said. (Phil references the lack of narrative truthiness in his piece as well, and as a writer/designer/author I’m really having to chew on that …)

He also points out something obvious that I completely missed when I was talking about Quick Time Events – the Paragon/Renegade scene interrupt option in Mass Effect 2 are absolutely QTEs using a symbol rather than explicit button graphic as the prompt. Frankly, the entire conversation mechanic in Mass Effect 2 is basically a QTE scheme and it works just fine, thank you.

I also have to give Phil points for invoking the Talking Heads. :::golf clap:::

Read Full Post »

Thinking about Quick Time Events

The debate around Quick Time Events as an action control mechanism has reared up again with the release of Quantic Dream’s Heavy Rain for the Playstation 3 which uses the scheme as it primary interface system. In a nutshell, instead of providing a static mapping of controls to actions, where the [X] button is always Use, the [Right Trigger] is always Run, and so on, the Quick Time Events (QTE) scheme dynamically maps controls to contextual actions and prompts the player to use the required controls right as they’re needed. With most game control schemes the player has access to a discrete set of actions that they can perform at any time (or nearly any time) just by executing the correct button/trigger sequence. In a QTE system a particular action cannot be performed until the player is prompted to perform the action, and then success or failure is judged by the timing of the execution of the controls. (It should be pointed out that Heavy Rain designer David Cage literally called bullshit on the game having QTEs.)

What makes a Quick Time Event a QTE is the timing. One control or multiple controls in sequence or simultaneously, has to be executed in the time allotted. For example, after opening a door the player is shown a bomb about to detonate on the far side. The player receives another QTE control prompt to dive to the side and if that control isn’t executed in a second or two the bomb explodes and the player-character is caught in the blast. If he does execute it, the character dodges aside. The game’s difficulty is managed by changing the timing or the number of commands that must be executed in sequence or simultaneously.

With a traditional game control scheme the player uses the pre-determined control for moving or jumping out of the way. With a QTE scheme that player uses the control indicated right then for getting clear. Similar actions usually have the same control requirement, so the player can often anticipate what control he’s going to be prompted for, but sometimes it’s not what is expected. For example, the action prompt might be to close the door, rather than dive out of the way, and that would require a different control execution than what is normally used for diving out of the way. Player freedom is actually very limited since at any given QTE prompt there is only one, occasionally two, things that the player is allowed to do. For players who are used to traditional control schemes that allow him to chose from the actions available to him (Run, Shoot, Punch, Heal, etc.) to resolve an action scene this feels very limiting. This is an important point in that most game control schemes are tactical control schemes and are built to give the player optimal movement/combat control over a scene in accordance with the game mechanics. These kinds of control schemes are associated with action and shooter games where that kind of tactical move and shoot gameplay is king.

(As a brief aside, some more traditional presentations subtly incorporate the equivalent of QTEs without most people even realizing it. For example, Batman: Arkham Asylum visually prompts the player as to  which opponent is going to attack next, thereby allowing the player the opportunity to react by hitting the right control to block the incoming attack. The game doesn’t flash a controller symbol on screen, but it is effectively the same thing.)

An argument often heard against QTE schemes is that player is basically playing Simon, or Guitar Hero or Dance Dance Revolution just without the musical beats, but I think a better way to look at QTEs is as action scene choreography. QTEs allow action sequences to be much more cinematic and really the entire experience to be much more like playing a movie than playing a traditional action shooter. This may or may not be your thing, but it is just as valid a form of presentation as a tactical combat simulator, except that it places the emphasis on dramatic beats rather than tactical prowess. It also allows a greater, more dramatic, control of the pacing of an action sequence. It also creates a dramatic imperative:  Once the QTE sequence of the fight starts, unless it prompts him with the option to get out of the fight, he’s in it until the end. No matter what the player may want to do he is forced to guide his character through the fight until he either wins or loses. He is dramatically committed to the fight…or whatever sequence he is attempting to complete. And with a well-constructed QTE sequence that experience should be tight, taught, and dramatically compelling since the designers and artists are in absolute control.

A game like Heavy Rain isn’t interested in tactical control, but rather narrative flow, and in this case the flow is like a fast moving roller-coaster – once it gets going, there’s no getting off. . The fight with the thug is important, and momentarily thrilling, but narratively what’s more important isn’t how you defeated the thug – which fist punched the thug where – but why you did it and what happens after you do… or don’t.

Read Full Post »