It's a surprising thing to post a ranting video one morning and then find your inbox flooded with emails (in this case, six emails constitutes a "flood") a few hours later. It's even more surprising to find that several of those emails link to a video rebuttal of your aforementioned rant. It is still more surprising when one realizes that the rebuttal in question was made by David Jaffe, the man behind Twisted Metal, God of War, and Calling All Cars!
As an experiment in what our founder calls "realtime interactive Internets," you can watch David Jaffe's rebuttal to my most recent Rev Rant after the jump, as well as a text-only rebuttal to his rebuttal. A rebuttal squared.
If you're interested, hit the jump to watch the director of one of the most profitable Sony franchises in history tell me to shut the f*ck up.
Here is the weird thing about Jaffe's rant, in relation to mine: we both seem to agree with everything I said. The stuff Jaffe seems to disagree with...well, it's stuff I don't recall ranting about.
My argument was, and remains, that games should be more than just mindless fun, that the medium needs to expand in order to be taken seriously, and that those people who want games to just be fun are cowards who are stifling the inherent expressiveness of games as an art form.
Jaffe's, at least as posited in this video, seems to be that the reason we don't see these games comes not from some mixture of greed and/or laziness on the part of big publishers, but from the fact that game designers have absolutely no idea how to speak to the human condition through their medium of choice. People should stop preaching for the evolution of games as art, and just start doing it (or, alternately, shut the fuck up about it).
In other words, we're arguing two completely different things. Still -- that's no reason not to continue the discussion, right?
If the argument is that big companies like Sony simply haven't seen anything artistically feasible that they'd get behind, then sure -- that's fair. I haven't been privy to as many design meetings or industry shenanigans as Jaffe is, and I'm more than willing to accept the fact that a lot of people just don't know how to speak to the human condition through button presses.
But that nobody knows how to do it? That nobody could turn something like Passage into a longer, $60, "real" game?
I don't buy it.
If five-minute artgames can speak to the human condition through gameplay alone -- and I'd argue that they can -- then a hefty amount of the theoretical work is already done. Games like Today I Die and Passageprove that interactivity on its basest levels can evoke an emotional or intellectual reaction unlike any found in other, established artforms. If you can get a button press to make players cry in five minutes, you can make it do the same thing over a period of hours -- it's just much, much harder. At which point, "we don't know how to do it" seems less like irrefutable fact and more like an excuse.
I don't know how to speak Spanish, for instance, but I'll never be able to do so if I don't try and fail to pronounce "sacapuntas" hundreds and hundreds of times. The "shut up about it until you can do it" mantra seems irrelevant at best -- is all videogame critique of any sort just supposed to cease until someone makes an unerringly artful game? -- and regressive at worst.
Jaffe says nobody knows how to do it correctly. I'd point to, just as a start, games like Braid, Silent Hill 2, Ico, Shadow of the Colossus -- hell, even parts of not-great games like Fable II can speak to the human condition. If these games prove that it can be done, even if only occasionally, then what excuses does the industry have as a whole for not pursuing those goals further if not purely pragmatic ones?
As someone who tried to make a big-budget artgame and failed to do so, Jaffe presumes I'm (to briefly quote his Twitter) a poser who bitches without actually doing anything about the state of the industry. Even if I hadn't made an artgame of questionable quality in an attempt to explore the very things I rant about in this video, however, I'd still take issue with the idea that gamers shouldn't be asking for more from their media with every breath in their bodies. It's possible and it's insanely difficult, but it's what the medium -- and gamers as fans of that medium -- ultimately deserve.
I look forward to a long and heated back and forth between you and Jaffe, Anthony. This is the exact type of feud the videogame industry needs right now!
I think it is more or less the point that you make it sound like no one is trying, that the "WE NEED FUN OMG!" guys are holding the industry back. The "cowards" you speak of.
I don't wish to flame, I don't wish to offend. But they are doing it wrong. I don't think you wake up one morning and pitch an idea about a meaningful game and succeed. For something to be meaningful, it has to be considered, and worked on, and ironed out, until the love and meaning one wishes to convey shows though the work. Something I feel Braid did.
I think Anthony you do need to shut up and do a game, and stop talking.
And don't come back at me with any silly comebacks like you do. Just shut up and do a game.
I know this is probably the highlight of your life having someone like Jaffe tell you to shut up, but just go do a game, and maybe you might do something good for this industry.
"At which point, "we don't know how to do it" seems less like irrefutable fact and more like an excuse."
And I think it's incredibly easy to criticize from the outside looking in. And Bedroom coding a little "game" doesn't help to qualify your statement either.
Debating game design as whole is entirely out of your or my league, and it's probably pretty insensitive of the hard working people in the industry.
Oh I believe Jaffe when he says that they actually could do it.
But they are not interested. And I don't buy the story about pitches etc. Even if it would be the case: If the industry would incourage new ideas, new ideas will pop up. But the industry doesn't.
I think this is one of the greatest things that has happened on this front page, including your rerebuttal. Would it be too much to hope Jaffe responds to this as well?
@Liam, Calling it now, this ends with Rev and Jaffe wrestling in a showdown to prove "WHO WON THE INTERNET ARGUMENT?" at E3 next year. Booth babes, chainsaw bayonets, and meaningful discussion will surround the booth leading up to the main event.
Anthony I think Luc has a point that you should make a game. I don't think you should shut up though, because these kind of topics are important. But if you made a game that implemented your ideas then it would be a very great game.
I agree with this 99.9%. Anthony certainly doesn't have the same perspective on the industry and development, nor does he have the experience, that David has. However, I don't necessarily think that makes his opinion, questions, or thoughts on what he'd like from gaming invalid. I don't think it was his intention to disrespect designers, either, regardless of how it comes off.
And for the record, I my thoughts on this probably lie closer to David's than Anthony's.
I thought his video wasn't too bad. The Rev makes good points, Jaffe makes good points, both swear a little here and there to add flavor. Hardly a war here. I enjoyed doing Topher's activity though and lol'd heartily.
"If you can get a button press to make players cry in five minutes, you can make it do the same thing over a period of hours -- it's just much, much harder."
Thus is the problem. I think it really would be hard to make Passage both engaging AND long enough to make it into something retail. As much as it was enjoyable, unless you drastically changed it from the simple and short vision it is now, possibly to something completely different, I can't see it being that well done. It would more...drag it out to become boring then give that immediate impact that I got from it.
What he said. Whatever you might think of Jaffe, as a web publisher it's cool to see an industry heavy react to one of our writers in a video blog and then we can post his with a reaction so the community can get into it. I'm glad we can foster this kind of stuff without it (hopefully) turning into a conversation about nazis, penises, and nazi penises.
I thought Flower and Flow where artistic games and they are both Sony related.
I actually think Microsoft make less arty farty games.
I own both consoles and am not a fan of either (just to make that clear).
Neither am I saying arty games are good or bad.
I;m just a little lsot, perhaps because I have not had the time to watch the videos and have only scan read very quickly the main points of the text. (me bad).
I'm also not sure where the line is drawn on weether a game is artistic or not? Is GTAIV artistic? Some would say so, whilst others would not.
What premise or boxes need to be ticked for this classification?
I think long form passage could definitely work. What is Passage? a 2D sidescroller, with a significant decision at the beginning that changes the gameplay from there on. After playing through, you're presented with the result of that decision, as it relates to the game you played. If no one sees the ending coming (too late) I think the game, or the form of it, could be very powerful.
Maybe I'm over simplifying it. But look at Fable II. Its partway there, I think, on a component implementation sort of level.
@Luc Bernard; He did make one. It's called 'Runner'. You played it. Remember? It was like a game without the Advance Wars.
I wouldn't really take the words of David Jaffe too much to heart. For one thing one of his most famous franchises does focus around cars what have guns strapped to them.. he's hardly the most original of characters. Besides that, I don't understand what the hell he is saying.
First he believes that we don't know how to make games that evoke any feelings beyond 'Yay I'm having fun', but at the same time he thinks we should shut up? Why not.. talk about it, discuss it, collaborate and then create a way of making these things. Which clearly I take personally because.. Mr. Jaffe.. people ARE already doing this. It isn't bullshit. Your explanation is bullshit.
I feel silly actually even trying to have either an arguement or discussion about this because I'm sure there's nothing I could say to make him any less of a douche. If he knows Shadow of the Colossus exists and doesn't consider it a game which understands how to do things beyond 'fun', and actually engages the player on a range of emotional levels as it is intended to do, then he is a god damn idiot.
SOTC and ICO were both games created with that intention, and they achieved their goals. They are titles from the previous generation, and Jaffe doesn't even acknowledge them as examples of what he believes actually cannot be done, probably because it actually proves him wrong, or at the very least incredibly narrow sighted.
His inadequacy as a commentor of this subject is almost insultingly obvious.
Destructoid is an open discussion community. You don't need to "audition" to post a comment - just speak your mind. We respect differing opinions on the site, so have at it. Be smart, funny, insightful, clueless, or cute -- but back it up with substance. Keep your cool, keep it fun. We only ask that you act respectfully and above all: don't be a troll and ruin it for everyone else. Don't bring down gamers or we'll, you know, gently shoot you in the face and stuff you into a flaming mailbox. Each comment is your opportuntity to make this community awesomer. Is that even a word?
Avoiding the banhammer only requires common sense: spamming, trolling, racism, NSFW stuff, and other forms of sucking will not be tolerated. If anyone is griefing please report abuse. Be good. Don't suck!
Destructoid is an independently-run publication forged by our love of video games and the gaming community's need of accountable enthusiast press living the dream since March 16, 2006
But God of War rulez!!!!111!!1!