So by now if you are a Destructoid regular (which as a newbie here, I am still working on that merit badge), you have probably read the Jim Sterling article called "Heavy Rain has no replay value (but that's a good thing?)".

While I can understand the point David Cage is trying to make, I think it is the wrong point to make in the realm of gaming. The best way I can explain that is from my own personal expierences with repeat gameplays.

That is one of the great things about video games - you can go and change your story path at your decision. By following Cage's example, Fallout 3 is a complete waste of time. Oblivion should have been nothing but closing gates. GTA IV is a horrible gametype. Even in a game like Pacman, you can just put the controller down and let the ghosts eat you.

Have you ever watched a movie or TV show and wondered how things might have turned out if there was a slight change to the story here and there? One of the greatest gifts video games gives us is the ability to control ourselves as we want (within reason). Fallout 3, for example, can be played in a bunch of different ways. Yes, the ending the still the same, but how you get to that ending is what counts. We can destroy an entire city if we want - if we do, we lose out on a good chunk of potential story time within the game. But it also opens up new ways to play the game that leaving the city intact can not give you - choosing either way does not derail our efforts to see the game to its conclusion.

Heavy Rain was SUPPOSED to be like that, right? If a person in story dies, we lose their input for the rest of the story. Ok, fine. But then we can go back and play the game and make changes to the decision making process to see what might have been. Now David Cage acknowledges this, but then states that to do so with his game is diluting the overall game experience. You know what that tells me? It tells me that perhaps his game is not as well designed as he thinks it is.

Is there now not enough variety in Heavy Rain itself to make a repeat playthrough worth it? Does having someone in his game die not change the game enough to where a repeat playthrough is worth seeing? That is the message I get from him now.

And that is a bad message to send to someone who has to fork over their money for your design. So please game developers, learn from David Cage. Learn that forced limitations (or poor game design?) in your game is a quick way for it to wind up in the bargin bin. Take into consideration that a player might try and do something you may not be aware of. While you can not prepare for everything in that regard, try and at least put some variety into your title in case they do try and play your game differently from how you may see it - especially if your title is "story driven" like Heavy Rain is supposed to be.

(Disclaimer: I sincerely hope this makes sense. I wrote this at 3:30 am while just skimming the internet with a cup of tea. But I came across Jim's article and it made me take pause. No MS Paint this time, just some words from me about this topic.)