surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
@Anthony Burch
"the point is that in a game like Heavy Rain, choice undermines story quality and meaningfulness, which is exactly what Ebert's smaller point was. His larger point, that the entire medium is artistically bankrupt, is bunk."
If that's the case, I was incorrect with my comment as well, so I must offer my apologies. Though I must admit, a few dickheads and bat-shit crazy lunatics aside, it's been awhile since I've seen such a varied, involved, and well thought-out response to an article. So that's pretty awesome. :D
"the point is that in a game like Heavy Rain, choice undermines story quality and meaningfulness, which is exactly what Ebert's smaller point was. His larger point, that the entire medium is artistically bankrupt, is bunk."
If that's the case, I was incorrect with my comment as well, so I must offer my apologies. Though I must admit, a few dickheads and bat-shit crazy lunatics aside, it's been awhile since I've seen such a varied, involved, and well thought-out response to an article. So that's pretty awesome. :D
"I can force the characters to do things that they wouldn't normally do for my entertainment, or I can feel useless."
You're assuming that you know how the character WOULD react. But you don't. You don't know the kind of bravery or cowardice in Ethan. You as the player have the chance to shape that. Feeling brave? Go ahead with the trials. No? Choose the easy way.
In that regard, your entire argument falls apart. Heavy Rain still allows you to shape your character based on how you'd react IF you are the character. Is Ethan Mars necessarily a devoted father? NO. You just make that assumption. He can be whatever the player chooses him to be.
You're assuming that you know how the character WOULD react. But you don't. You don't know the kind of bravery or cowardice in Ethan. You as the player have the chance to shape that. Feeling brave? Go ahead with the trials. No? Choose the easy way.
In that regard, your entire argument falls apart. Heavy Rain still allows you to shape your character based on how you'd react IF you are the character. Is Ethan Mars necessarily a devoted father? NO. You just make that assumption. He can be whatever the player chooses him to be.
Why would you take anything Ebert says as fact, or remotely so? He gets paid to say the kind of shit he does. It's an interesting retrospect that he gave Titanic near perfect marks (which was hardly a work of absolute art), he consistently gives movies that are over budget and over hyped praise (when in fact, most high budget movies have no interweaving story plot) and now after all of his fallacies we're all going to jump all this mans bandwagon? While Heavy Rain was nothing more than an over glorified piece of abstract bullshit, other game's plot weaving is much more intricate than most of the movies this man reviews. I guarantee if you made Ebert play a game is emotional and intricate (intelligent as well) as the Mass Effect saga, he would review it in a scathing manner, even though he would be contradicting his beliefs.
I know how to read most people, even through their words and not face to face. Ebert has no clue what he is doing, and never will. He consistently contradicts himself over multiple reviews.
I know how to read most people, even through their words and not face to face. Ebert has no clue what he is doing, and never will. He consistently contradicts himself over multiple reviews.
In my own playthrough, I chose to have sex with Madison because it was immediately after Ethan had failed the previous challenge, that of killing the drug dealer. In my mind, even though he was saying out loud that the only thing that mattered was saving Shaun, my Ethan (the one I had constructed in my mind) had already given up. He was never going to find him after failing one of the challenges. In that despair, he turned to Madison for comfort, a selfish but understandable or possibly relatable act. The process of forgiving her for her lies led to him being re-engergized to keep trying to find Shaun. It was a moment of recommitting to not giving up on other people or yourself.
I think Heavy Rain would have been ten times better if the "L2 to reveal character's inner thoughts" was abandoned completely. I tried to minimize my usage of it as much as possible, only relying on it to explain a scene that had little context at the outset. It's a rock squarely aimed at smashing any potential for subtext. Listening to some of the asinine things characters have to say is so mood deflating too.
Post Scott Shelby reveal, I thought it made all of his previous scenes deepen in thought. Here he is visiting the mothers of the unfortunate kids whose fathers failed his deadly tests. He's doing kind acts for them substituting that for the comfort he wish he could give to his own mother. As for him saving the rich man, technically that father did protect his son and, I imagine, Shelby saw some redeeming aspect to that from his warped point of view.
I think Heavy Rain would have been ten times better if the "L2 to reveal character's inner thoughts" was abandoned completely. I tried to minimize my usage of it as much as possible, only relying on it to explain a scene that had little context at the outset. It's a rock squarely aimed at smashing any potential for subtext. Listening to some of the asinine things characters have to say is so mood deflating too.
Post Scott Shelby reveal, I thought it made all of his previous scenes deepen in thought. Here he is visiting the mothers of the unfortunate kids whose fathers failed his deadly tests. He's doing kind acts for them substituting that for the comfort he wish he could give to his own mother. As for him saving the rich man, technically that father did protect his son and, I imagine, Shelby saw some redeeming aspect to that from his warped point of view.
"I am prepared to believe that video games can be elegant, subtle, sophisticated, challenging and visually wonderful. But I believe the nature of the medium prevents it from moving beyond craftsmanship to the stature of art"
Great, his own definition of art!
[b]Art
1. Art consists of paintings, sculpture, and other pictures or objects which are created for people to look at and admire or think deeply about.
2. Art is the activity or educational subject that consists of creating paintings, sculptures, and other pictures or objects for people to look at and admire or think deeply about.[/b]
Man, wonder which definition I'm going to go with?
The problem here is the close-minded concept of what is art and what is required of art. To look at this as if a game needs to be free of influence externally to be considered art because other art mediums prevent such things is just a close-minded approach to realizing that part of the artistic element of games isn't just in their presentation but the ability of the player(s) to mold the storyline and elements in the designed artistic fashion.
Great, his own definition of art!
[b]Art
1. Art consists of paintings, sculpture, and other pictures or objects which are created for people to look at and admire or think deeply about.
2. Art is the activity or educational subject that consists of creating paintings, sculptures, and other pictures or objects for people to look at and admire or think deeply about.[/b]
Man, wonder which definition I'm going to go with?
The problem here is the close-minded concept of what is art and what is required of art. To look at this as if a game needs to be free of influence externally to be considered art because other art mediums prevent such things is just a close-minded approach to realizing that part of the artistic element of games isn't just in their presentation but the ability of the player(s) to mold the storyline and elements in the designed artistic fashion.
"I see the words "plot holes" and "heavy rain" together, and I can only conclude that you haven't played it yourself, or enough to understand that there aren't any."
If you don't think there are plot holes, you're kidding yourself.
Something as simple as Shelby having Asthma isn't even consistent through out the game. The guy has an Asthma attack after talking to a prostitute, yet he gets in a couple brawls/shoot outs afterwards and is never effect by his Asthma again. Yet when you're in his apartment with Madison you come across at least 2-3.
If you don't think there are plot holes, you're kidding yourself.
Something as simple as Shelby having Asthma isn't even consistent through out the game. The guy has an Asthma attack after talking to a prostitute, yet he gets in a couple brawls/shoot outs afterwards and is never effect by his Asthma again. Yet when you're in his apartment with Madison you come across at least 2-3.
Fearzone:
The idea that games aren't art is ridiculous if you evaluate the definition of art
as far as I can tell, the only practical definition for art is, "that which is the product of intended creation" such as, if you were to create a painting, and were intending to create a painting, then that painting is art, if you were to create a sculpture, a song, design a building, create a particularly delicious dinner, etc. etc. etc.
but, you might see fault in this definition, in that it's a very broad definition, and brings in everything in society that has been designed. At which point, you might argue, art is "that which is the product of intended creation that, through intent, causes emotion in the audience"
But, video games, even horrible video games, cause emotions in the player, everything causes emotions, your definition includes everything I've included, but it also adds an element of subjectivity, and a definition is, by definition, objective, if art is subjective, then what you view as art, could be viewed as not art by someone else, and if it's definition becomes subjective, then it is both art and not art, violating the logical rule of non-contradiction, meaning that is not a logical definition, and is, therefore, wrong. Whereas my definition is objective.
Then which point, you might argue, art is "that which is the product of intended creation that, through intent, causes a specific emotion in the viewer that which is the goal of the artist"
At which point I would argue that, by that definition, the Sistine Chapel Ceiling, painted by Michelangelo, is not art. Because, his intention was not to cause a specific emotion in the viewer, his intention was to pick up a paycheck, from his childhood friend that hired him to paint a pretty picture on the ceiling. His intention wasn't to cause an emotional reaction in the viewer, his intention was to ensure that he could continue living, and isn't that the goal of most working artists, musicians, etc. etc. etc.
Games are art, it doesn't mean their good art, or that they're bad art, because art is not a value judgement. It's a statement that things were designed by an intelligence.
The idea that games aren't art is ridiculous if you evaluate the definition of art
as far as I can tell, the only practical definition for art is, "that which is the product of intended creation" such as, if you were to create a painting, and were intending to create a painting, then that painting is art, if you were to create a sculpture, a song, design a building, create a particularly delicious dinner, etc. etc. etc.
but, you might see fault in this definition, in that it's a very broad definition, and brings in everything in society that has been designed. At which point, you might argue, art is "that which is the product of intended creation that, through intent, causes emotion in the audience"
But, video games, even horrible video games, cause emotions in the player, everything causes emotions, your definition includes everything I've included, but it also adds an element of subjectivity, and a definition is, by definition, objective, if art is subjective, then what you view as art, could be viewed as not art by someone else, and if it's definition becomes subjective, then it is both art and not art, violating the logical rule of non-contradiction, meaning that is not a logical definition, and is, therefore, wrong. Whereas my definition is objective.
Then which point, you might argue, art is "that which is the product of intended creation that, through intent, causes a specific emotion in the viewer that which is the goal of the artist"
At which point I would argue that, by that definition, the Sistine Chapel Ceiling, painted by Michelangelo, is not art. Because, his intention was not to cause a specific emotion in the viewer, his intention was to pick up a paycheck, from his childhood friend that hired him to paint a pretty picture on the ceiling. His intention wasn't to cause an emotional reaction in the viewer, his intention was to ensure that he could continue living, and isn't that the goal of most working artists, musicians, etc. etc. etc.
Games are art, it doesn't mean their good art, or that they're bad art, because art is not a value judgement. It's a statement that things were designed by an intelligence.
This article pisses me off because it renders an poorly thought out ultimatum about the state of video games that I guarantee will be proven false eventually. Does the availability of player choice hurt the story of Heavy Rain? I have not played it but it sounds like it. Can you extrapolate that this means the availability of player choice will hurt every story and that all stories would be better off being either linear without the choice of the player with the only other alternative being having the player make their own story like this article says? Maybe if you're lacking in imagination or critical thought. The medium of video games is very young. We have not seen everything it has to offer, especially in terms of story telling. Should we tell ourselves now what the medium is capable of? By the sound of it Heavy Rain failed at what it was trying to accomplish but does that mean no other attempts should be made? I don't think so.
I do agree with what you said, Anthony. Your evidence is certainly solid to back up your point. However, at the risk of sounding like a "self promoter"... I disagreed quite a lot.
(mgs3 spoilers, I guess)
Ebert's statement is too broad, apart from his moronic use of the analogy as "proof" that games cannot be high art (which is not what you're focusing on in this article, anyway). Games have authorial control AND player interaction, and "require" them both. You hypothetical Se7en game made me think of the Boss's death in Metal Gear Solid 3. You were forced to go along with the game's linearity there, but the way the moment was presented made you believe you had a choice - you were fully responsible for her death.
That's just to say that there's a very fine line between writing and gameplay, and few games manage to strike a balance. Your point about inconsistent character development is dead on.
Ebert's statement is too broad, apart from his moronic use of the analogy as "proof" that games cannot be high art (which is not what you're focusing on in this article, anyway). Games have authorial control AND player interaction, and "require" them both. You hypothetical Se7en game made me think of the Boss's death in Metal Gear Solid 3. You were forced to go along with the game's linearity there, but the way the moment was presented made you believe you had a choice - you were fully responsible for her death.
That's just to say that there's a very fine line between writing and gameplay, and few games manage to strike a balance. Your point about inconsistent character development is dead on.
Good article, I agree with the point about pre-existing character palattes that we either ruin or maintain but I'm not too sure Heavy Rain is the best example of this. Obviously the advantage of a blank slate is there, games like Fallout 1&2, Planescape, KoTOR (among many others) all have a decent way of making that happen.
Also, I'd say Heavy Rain's problems stem from other areas than it's 10 second, immersive, act like that guy choice system. (Even if there is an argument against that). It's a poor film trapped inside obtrusive and unecessary gameplay elements and I don't feel like David Cage has learned anything from the failures of Indigo Prophecy/Fahrenheit, even going as far as to keep the totally rushed and stupid sex scene. Maturity doesn't come from throwing boobs into a stilted and poor sequence, it comes from not writing like a fuckwit, unfortunately Cage has his wires crossed me thinks.
I would argue that the ability to sabotage a game isn't necessarily a bad thing though, the fact that can be accomplished showcases the inherent difference between something passive and interactive, it just needs to be appreciated, although I guess that's where emergent coding comes into things. :d
For a good example of character U-turns, how about Two Face from The Dark Knight. The Joker says like 2 sentences to him in hospital and he's now willing to kill people with a coin toss, why the fuck not, that makes sense...!
I'm happy that Dtoid is actively criticising Heavy Rain, it shouldn't get a pass because it aims to be a decent action/thriller film. It doesn't reach any marriage between gameplay and storytelling and fails to relay everything without some obstruction or abstract mechanic that only worsens the delivery.
Thanks for continuing to write about things more pertinent than most other games writers...!
Also, I'd say Heavy Rain's problems stem from other areas than it's 10 second, immersive, act like that guy choice system. (Even if there is an argument against that). It's a poor film trapped inside obtrusive and unecessary gameplay elements and I don't feel like David Cage has learned anything from the failures of Indigo Prophecy/Fahrenheit, even going as far as to keep the totally rushed and stupid sex scene. Maturity doesn't come from throwing boobs into a stilted and poor sequence, it comes from not writing like a fuckwit, unfortunately Cage has his wires crossed me thinks.
I would argue that the ability to sabotage a game isn't necessarily a bad thing though, the fact that can be accomplished showcases the inherent difference between something passive and interactive, it just needs to be appreciated, although I guess that's where emergent coding comes into things. :d
For a good example of character U-turns, how about Two Face from The Dark Knight. The Joker says like 2 sentences to him in hospital and he's now willing to kill people with a coin toss, why the fuck not, that makes sense...!
I'm happy that Dtoid is actively criticising Heavy Rain, it shouldn't get a pass because it aims to be a decent action/thriller film. It doesn't reach any marriage between gameplay and storytelling and fails to relay everything without some obstruction or abstract mechanic that only worsens the delivery.
Thanks for continuing to write about things more pertinent than most other games writers...!
like how you completely ignore silent hill 2 entirely in this, with another character with history and just as many different endings. and the suicide or alien endings etc etc etc.
I also like how you assume so many things about a person. I'm surprised no mention of jaydens complete failure to control his partner regardles of what you do or do not do.
I also like how you assume so many things about a person. I'm surprised no mention of jaydens complete failure to control his partner regardles of what you do or do not do.
I still want more games to try this, Sure it wasn't a complete success but...
Fuck Halo and Gears and Modern Warfare. That is not what I want from a game.
Fuck Halo and Gears and Modern Warfare. That is not what I want from a game.
I like to think of the game as a whole as art. It is like this multiverse all of these characters existing in different situations. It is up to you to interpret it through your choices. Yes narrative does suffer because of this, because in reality you can only have the best story once. Anyone who does not do everything "right" (based on what you personally would consider the best way for the story to play out) will get a subsequently worse story. Just the way a person can interpret a painting very differently from someone else. This does not mean the painting its self has lost artistic value.
This was a very interesting post it was nice too see lots of people with vary different and valid opinions. Also vary interesting to see how much people can miss the point, or just freak out shit them selves and start trying to throw it at everyone.
This was a very interesting post it was nice too see lots of people with vary different and valid opinions. Also vary interesting to see how much people can miss the point, or just freak out shit them selves and start trying to throw it at everyone.
"Patriot Snake: Fact, Heavy Rain is better than most movies. And Anthony is bashing on Heavy Rain just like his fat xbot BFF Jim."
What? If you had no interaction with Heavy Rains story it would be the most least interesting cliche story for a movie.
What? If you had no interaction with Heavy Rains story it would be the most least interesting cliche story for a movie.
I think Ebert is wrong, basically because he's comparing apples with carrots. What he's saying is equivalent to saying: "A movie will always be superior to a Frank Zappa album because the dialogues are cleverer".
Videogames are not (only) about storytelling and the adherence to a movie canon. That's why I think we badly need a new critical approach to videogaming, one that is not based upon comparisons with other media. Something that explains why Zelda is a great game despite its simplistic story and characters.
Incidentally, that's why I think that a game like GTA IV is far more artistic than Heavy Rain. HR tries oh so hard to be a movie, while GTA is a fully fleshed work of art: the auteur shines through the characterization of Niko, the whole cast and the city, and most of all through the way every action is crafted. The player decides how the objective is to be accomplished. Thus we have a strong interaction between the auteur and the player, creating something different from your average movie/novel. That's how a piece of videogaming art is created, not by trying to be a movie-wannabe.
One last line before I go: the article is great, Anthony, but I think you're missing the spot with the Se7en reference. Who cares whether Doe dies or not? The fact that he gives Bradpitt a choice is what counts. The movie could have ended right before the pulling of the trigger and it would still have been a great, provocative work of art. The mere existence of a choice is what counts, not what Bradpitt decides to choose. Don't you think?
Videogames are not (only) about storytelling and the adherence to a movie canon. That's why I think we badly need a new critical approach to videogaming, one that is not based upon comparisons with other media. Something that explains why Zelda is a great game despite its simplistic story and characters.
Incidentally, that's why I think that a game like GTA IV is far more artistic than Heavy Rain. HR tries oh so hard to be a movie, while GTA is a fully fleshed work of art: the auteur shines through the characterization of Niko, the whole cast and the city, and most of all through the way every action is crafted. The player decides how the objective is to be accomplished. Thus we have a strong interaction between the auteur and the player, creating something different from your average movie/novel. That's how a piece of videogaming art is created, not by trying to be a movie-wannabe.
One last line before I go: the article is great, Anthony, but I think you're missing the spot with the Se7en reference. Who cares whether Doe dies or not? The fact that he gives Bradpitt a choice is what counts. The movie could have ended right before the pulling of the trigger and it would still have been a great, provocative work of art. The mere existence of a choice is what counts, not what Bradpitt decides to choose. Don't you think?
One thing I notice people getting confused over is the word "story" in the context of HL2 and Anthony's assertion that the player can "sabotage" it.
This was clarified in the comments but I've heard a simple way of conceptualizing this elsewhere: there's plot and then there's narrative.
In Half-life 2, there is a singular plot (a series of events) set in stone. The narrative (a series of experiences), meanwhile, is largely in the hands of the player.
In Heavy Rain, the plot branches (i.e., there are multiple possible plots) depending on the player's narrative choices but those narrative choices are incredibly restrictive because the bulk of gameplay is made up of QTEs.
The problem is, all of Heavy Rain's branching plots aren't all logical and/or meaningful plots (and even the good plots aren't that great, apparently). Half-life 2's single plot may not be exactly amazing either but its heavy emphasis of narrative over plot let's the player forget about the plot as they progress while Heavy Rain is almost nothing but plot.
Thoughtful editorial, Anthony. Ebert would be proven right in this instance.
This was clarified in the comments but I've heard a simple way of conceptualizing this elsewhere: there's plot and then there's narrative.
In Half-life 2, there is a singular plot (a series of events) set in stone. The narrative (a series of experiences), meanwhile, is largely in the hands of the player.
In Heavy Rain, the plot branches (i.e., there are multiple possible plots) depending on the player's narrative choices but those narrative choices are incredibly restrictive because the bulk of gameplay is made up of QTEs.
The problem is, all of Heavy Rain's branching plots aren't all logical and/or meaningful plots (and even the good plots aren't that great, apparently). Half-life 2's single plot may not be exactly amazing either but its heavy emphasis of narrative over plot let's the player forget about the plot as they progress while Heavy Rain is almost nothing but plot.
Thoughtful editorial, Anthony. Ebert would be proven right in this instance.
I don't think games need to be art, and moreover, I think that the quest to legitimize them as such brings too much off-putting heavy-handed pretense to the hobby.
Games can certainly have artistic elements, but why do we play them if not to enjoy them? Everything I've read about Heavy Rain speaks to an experience far too passive to really be enjoyable, and and while its story might be a thought-provoking experience: one just pretentious enough to spark myriad discussions about games as art, it's not anything I would be even remotely interested in playing myself. It is in fact the antithesis of why I play games.
In fact I have to question whether or not Heavy Rain is meant to capitalize on our obsessive need to legitimize the hobby as art. The cynic in me looks at all the reviews that gloss over its gameplay faults while lauding the game for its story, and wonders if Quantic Dreams didn't intend for that to be its primary selling-point from the beginning. I wonder if they didn't sit together during the planning stages and agree to load the game up with artistic pretense in the hopes that it might give the game an air of legitimacy strong enough to override the fact that as a game, it barely qualifies.
I was playing Darksiders the other day, and it got me thinking about the backlash its suffered because it cherry-picks design elements from other games. It's a fun game, but in spite of videogames living or dying based almost entirely upon it, its fun-factor wasn't as important to some folks as the fact that it wasn't quite unique enough was. Then you get a game like this one, that barely qualifies as a game when you consider its gameplay separately from its story, and people eat it up. They love it for a story that's objectively not too far removed from what the industry that they have an obsessive drive to compare this one to has already achieved hundreds of times over, and they gloss over its flaws becausee they want the hobby to be considered art at any cost. They need it to be, and so they devour anything that might help legitimize it as such, even if it's arguably not that good, story aside. What that says to me is that we've all apparently long-since stopped playing games to have fun, and now all it takes to sell a game is to load it the rafters with artsy pretense. Then we get to sit around and have these pseudo-intellectual discussions about games as art, when I'd rather just play games to have fun. And fuck me if that heavy-handed bullshit doesn't annoy the living hell out of me.
When the pretense of artistry becomes enough to sell a game, then it's time to reconsider why the hell we even play games to begin with. As for me, if I want to passively experience a heady story, I'll watch a film. In the meantime I'll get back to playing brainless schlock like Darksiders. At least I'm having fun with it, even if it doesn't do anything to help legitimize the hobby as an art-form.
Games can certainly have artistic elements, but why do we play them if not to enjoy them? Everything I've read about Heavy Rain speaks to an experience far too passive to really be enjoyable, and and while its story might be a thought-provoking experience: one just pretentious enough to spark myriad discussions about games as art, it's not anything I would be even remotely interested in playing myself. It is in fact the antithesis of why I play games.
In fact I have to question whether or not Heavy Rain is meant to capitalize on our obsessive need to legitimize the hobby as art. The cynic in me looks at all the reviews that gloss over its gameplay faults while lauding the game for its story, and wonders if Quantic Dreams didn't intend for that to be its primary selling-point from the beginning. I wonder if they didn't sit together during the planning stages and agree to load the game up with artistic pretense in the hopes that it might give the game an air of legitimacy strong enough to override the fact that as a game, it barely qualifies.
I was playing Darksiders the other day, and it got me thinking about the backlash its suffered because it cherry-picks design elements from other games. It's a fun game, but in spite of videogames living or dying based almost entirely upon it, its fun-factor wasn't as important to some folks as the fact that it wasn't quite unique enough was. Then you get a game like this one, that barely qualifies as a game when you consider its gameplay separately from its story, and people eat it up. They love it for a story that's objectively not too far removed from what the industry that they have an obsessive drive to compare this one to has already achieved hundreds of times over, and they gloss over its flaws becausee they want the hobby to be considered art at any cost. They need it to be, and so they devour anything that might help legitimize it as such, even if it's arguably not that good, story aside. What that says to me is that we've all apparently long-since stopped playing games to have fun, and now all it takes to sell a game is to load it the rafters with artsy pretense. Then we get to sit around and have these pseudo-intellectual discussions about games as art, when I'd rather just play games to have fun. And fuck me if that heavy-handed bullshit doesn't annoy the living hell out of me.
When the pretense of artistry becomes enough to sell a game, then it's time to reconsider why the hell we even play games to begin with. As for me, if I want to passively experience a heady story, I'll watch a film. In the meantime I'll get back to playing brainless schlock like Darksiders. At least I'm having fun with it, even if it doesn't do anything to help legitimize the hobby as an art-form.
I can't say I agree with what you wrote, but you gave an honest shot at trying to say something new about the game and that is a lot more then most people would do.
I hate the idea of players having control over a story, but then disengaging the player from being able to make any choices ruins immersion. It seems the only way to create decent characters players have some control over is to constantly be editing the characters personality towards other characters and towards their actions with each choice.
Say for example the player is constantly a jerk to the women he meets, over time the character would only have negative things to say to women and the player would only be able to choose negative things to say.
Computer game stories need more focus on memories and character consistency, it makes no sense for a character that’s been constantly angry to one party to suddenly have a change of heart and instantly get a positive response back.
Say for example the player is constantly a jerk to the women he meets, over time the character would only have negative things to say to women and the player would only be able to choose negative things to say.
Computer game stories need more focus on memories and character consistency, it makes no sense for a character that’s been constantly angry to one party to suddenly have a change of heart and instantly get a positive response back.
SPOILERS inside, but boy are you in the wrong thread to avoid spoilers.
Two of your (Anthony Burch) examples of not being true to a character can be answered as being true, just you possibly didn't have the perspective to "get" it.
Ethan going through physical torment of such levels, but not taking the suicide apprach of drinking the poison?
It is physical pain that doesn't end his life up to that point of the games, but as he points out in his head if you didn't drink it was what if the killer lied? What if he doesn't tell him where his kid is and he dies?
What if he could find another way so he didn't have to sentence himself to death and his kid to a life without a dad?
To kill himself would be to let the killer win. It's within character for him to be distraught enough to endure the other tests, but see that one as going too far and being the point of saying enough to this killer's games.
You used Shelby as another example. Why the drowning of kids to prove the dad's love and worth but let the other guy live (if you so choose) who's dying of the heart attack? How can that be within character?
Because the guy dying of the heart attack did what he did, went to the lengths he did, to protect his son and keep him out of trouble. He did it all for love of his son, which would be one of the only things, within character, that makes sense for Shelby to feel mercy over.
Even the sex thing between Ethan and Madison, your other example, is extremely subjective, not an out and out truth.
For one, (most) people are complex and emotional, not logical, when it comes towards love of any level, be it love of your pet, love of your parents, love of a son or daughter or even sexual attraction and love making.
And yes, in times of trauma, of emotionally draining and high anxiety points in life, it is completely plausible for two desperate and lonely people also in danger (not to say the story is based on the average person's day to day), sometimes what logically, from an outside view, be seen as an inappropriate time, can erupt in a sexual encounter because sometimes sex can be an emotional eruption, not just a physical getting off.
I don't know your age or how mellow a life you lived, but maybe some of those situations you're either too inexperienced or lived too calm a life to relate or have seen how any of those reasonings would hold, but it wouldn't change the fact that humans put into such positions, many could react that way.
I think it's so divisive to the gaming community because of the vast age differences in gamers. Literally what kind of life you've lived could dictate if you can relate or understand some choices others can and do make.
And yeah, the story itself is over the top compared to reality, but from an emotional standpoint, the writing is much more subtle in the drive of the people than it seems the (I'm betting usually) kids comprehend, so when they look at it through their movie watching eyes instead of the more complex person to person situations they will hopefully learn when they've lived longer, when all they can do is apply a second hand logic, it seems implausible. Because all they have to go on is logic over personal experience.
The story as a whole is for fun, is implausible, but the choices if those situations arised are both consistant and within character of how many people would be, including the established characters.
Game might have stilted walking animations, some glitches here and there, but the writing...it's some of the best seen in any game I've ever played and I've played thousands in my loooong life (damn, I'm old.)
It seems Heavy Rain might only be as good (dialogue, choice and character-wise) as to what that individual brings with them in their own life experiences and abilities to relate. And that to me is incredible writing.
What I've seen so far from those not into Heavy Rain (aside from liking this style of gameplay or not), but story and decision-wise is their own lack of comprehending it because of their interpretive skills, not because of the writing itself.
And I would say the opposite when it comes to Ebert. Heavy Rain proves more than ever just how wrong that pompous ass Ebert is. This could be debated as either reaching games into being high art or at the least taking it ever closer toward that goal.
But it proving games aren't? No. Not true.
Two of your (Anthony Burch) examples of not being true to a character can be answered as being true, just you possibly didn't have the perspective to "get" it.
Ethan going through physical torment of such levels, but not taking the suicide apprach of drinking the poison?
It is physical pain that doesn't end his life up to that point of the games, but as he points out in his head if you didn't drink it was what if the killer lied? What if he doesn't tell him where his kid is and he dies?
What if he could find another way so he didn't have to sentence himself to death and his kid to a life without a dad?
To kill himself would be to let the killer win. It's within character for him to be distraught enough to endure the other tests, but see that one as going too far and being the point of saying enough to this killer's games.
You used Shelby as another example. Why the drowning of kids to prove the dad's love and worth but let the other guy live (if you so choose) who's dying of the heart attack? How can that be within character?
Because the guy dying of the heart attack did what he did, went to the lengths he did, to protect his son and keep him out of trouble. He did it all for love of his son, which would be one of the only things, within character, that makes sense for Shelby to feel mercy over.
Even the sex thing between Ethan and Madison, your other example, is extremely subjective, not an out and out truth.
For one, (most) people are complex and emotional, not logical, when it comes towards love of any level, be it love of your pet, love of your parents, love of a son or daughter or even sexual attraction and love making.
And yes, in times of trauma, of emotionally draining and high anxiety points in life, it is completely plausible for two desperate and lonely people also in danger (not to say the story is based on the average person's day to day), sometimes what logically, from an outside view, be seen as an inappropriate time, can erupt in a sexual encounter because sometimes sex can be an emotional eruption, not just a physical getting off.
I don't know your age or how mellow a life you lived, but maybe some of those situations you're either too inexperienced or lived too calm a life to relate or have seen how any of those reasonings would hold, but it wouldn't change the fact that humans put into such positions, many could react that way.
I think it's so divisive to the gaming community because of the vast age differences in gamers. Literally what kind of life you've lived could dictate if you can relate or understand some choices others can and do make.
And yeah, the story itself is over the top compared to reality, but from an emotional standpoint, the writing is much more subtle in the drive of the people than it seems the (I'm betting usually) kids comprehend, so when they look at it through their movie watching eyes instead of the more complex person to person situations they will hopefully learn when they've lived longer, when all they can do is apply a second hand logic, it seems implausible. Because all they have to go on is logic over personal experience.
The story as a whole is for fun, is implausible, but the choices if those situations arised are both consistant and within character of how many people would be, including the established characters.
Game might have stilted walking animations, some glitches here and there, but the writing...it's some of the best seen in any game I've ever played and I've played thousands in my loooong life (damn, I'm old.)
It seems Heavy Rain might only be as good (dialogue, choice and character-wise) as to what that individual brings with them in their own life experiences and abilities to relate. And that to me is incredible writing.
What I've seen so far from those not into Heavy Rain (aside from liking this style of gameplay or not), but story and decision-wise is their own lack of comprehending it because of their interpretive skills, not because of the writing itself.
And I would say the opposite when it comes to Ebert. Heavy Rain proves more than ever just how wrong that pompous ass Ebert is. This could be debated as either reaching games into being high art or at the least taking it ever closer toward that goal.
But it proving games aren't? No. Not true.
I feel like you kind of missed a huge section of what makes the game different. Sure, YOUR take on Ethan wouldn't have him kiss Madison, etc. But what about the player who took their son's death hard, and didn't keep up with taking care of their other kid, and chickened out on the trials? What if Ethan wants to rise to the occasion but simply falls short?
The characters can be what you make them to be. If Jayden fails to find enough clues, does he give up? Well?
It's YOUR call, and that's why it works. It's not inconsistent with your suspension of disbelief, because you choose it. So don't tell me that choosing the other option "kills the character". No, it kills your character, which is why you shouldn't. Mine, he's feeling vulnerable and wasn't quite able to do everything that was asked of him. He just failed at getting closer to his son. People faced with stressful situations or death orten seek things to reaffirm they are alive. Taking comfort in a woman who has been amazingly helpful in a time of dire need isn't that unrealistic.
But hey, you bashed a game and stirred up hits, so kudos you got what you wanted. Do Monster Hunter next, tell me how bad a game it is because it doesn't have lock-on.
The characters can be what you make them to be. If Jayden fails to find enough clues, does he give up? Well?
It's YOUR call, and that's why it works. It's not inconsistent with your suspension of disbelief, because you choose it. So don't tell me that choosing the other option "kills the character". No, it kills your character, which is why you shouldn't. Mine, he's feeling vulnerable and wasn't quite able to do everything that was asked of him. He just failed at getting closer to his son. People faced with stressful situations or death orten seek things to reaffirm they are alive. Taking comfort in a woman who has been amazingly helpful in a time of dire need isn't that unrealistic.
But hey, you bashed a game and stirred up hits, so kudos you got what you wanted. Do Monster Hunter next, tell me how bad a game it is because it doesn't have lock-on.
I agree that the reveal about who the killer was seems off to me, given how I had played him up until that point. He was, in fact my favorite character! It would be so nice to have a pair of endings, one of which has the father as the killer, and the other of which has Shelby. Simply put, Ethan being the killer fits with a 'I'm a neglectful father and have a split personality that punishes me. The ending as written likely would have fit if i had played Shelby a different way, maybe so, maybe not.
I completely disagree with the sex scene however. I played him as a good father, I completed all of the trials excepting killing someone (couldn't bring myself to do it). Yet the sex scene was not out of character. In my game he was grieving about not having been able to kill the man, worrying about his son. Madison comforts him, and this leads to them making love. Would it have fit for him to push her away? Yes, but at the same time him accepting the gesture of kindness doesn't seem far fetched to me. It seemed like the sort of a thing a man on the verge of breaking might well find himself giving into in his grief and emotional turmoil.
He might well regret it afterwords, but it doesn't strike me as being unbelievable.
I realize I am -way- over analyzing the plot here. The sex scene was included not because of the reasoning I have given, but because sex scenes sell games! That said, Ethan's character was as much a product of my own mind and views as those specifically setup by the game. In my story, everything (except the twist) made sense.
The point however, is that the game -is- highly personalized. The fact that the character's are given the option to do something wildly outside of how you would play them/how you see their character does not mean you -have- to take that choice. You are given two options. In your game, saying yes to the sex game didn't fit his character, so you said no. In mine, saying yes fit how I saw Ethan, so I could say yes or no. In another game (as someone already mentioned) saying yes made the most sense.
The argument to me seems lacking. This is like saying the ME2 story is broken because I have the option of having a fully paragon character suddenly commit a renegade act. My Shepard -wouldn't- do such things, just because I have the option doesn't mean I have to take it. I get to tell the story as I see it, that's what makes games like this great. It seems hard for me to accept that there is absolutely -no- way Ethan wouldn't sleep with Madison in that situation, regardless of how you have played him/viewed his character progression up until that point. There are hundreds of ways to view the character after all!
Yes, you are playing/watching a scripted movie in a way with Heavy Rain. But for me at least, the script is written in part by me, and how i choose to perceive and view the characters. Taking the seven comment for example. Had that been heavy rain, it might have been totally within 'my' version Mill's personality to let John Doe live. There would have been so many ways for me to play out his character up until that point after all! In such a story, such an ending might well have been much more fitting. A tale of a man consumed by anger who slowly overcomes his demons. Or I could have played him as such a man, who tried to do so but failed. Or I could have played him as an anger hot head, who -did- try to kill John Doe, only to find his gun jams/was out of bullets. Imagine him trying to pull the trigger multiple times and finally screaming in anger and attempting to joke the john doe to death, only to have his partner stop him. John Doe lives, he still wins.
All of that could make for a very good ending. Maybe not all of them would be -as- good, but that would be the point of such a game, helping to write your own story. Heavy Rain doesn't allow for that as much as some other games (like the Sims say if you want to look at it that way), and maybe true freedom isn't ever truly possible until we develop some sort of game that has an A.I. that mimics a human DM in a table top role playing game. (thats decades if not centuries away I am sure but :P)
For now, we have to use our imaginations somewhat, if you do so though Heavy Rain can produce, if numerous plots that would make A+ movies, but it does allow for many people to help tell and enjoy a satisfying (for the most part) or tragic story, all of which are different in some small or large way. That is an experience a movie simply can't do. Video games can be made to allow for and have plenty of authorial control, the players. Heavy rain certainly could have been done better, but it goes a long way towards putting such control into the players hands in a meaningful way. I might not be tell the same sort of great story as a famous director, but I can tell my own, personal version of a good story. And that makes it great to me. On a personal level, that's all that matters.
I completely disagree with the sex scene however. I played him as a good father, I completed all of the trials excepting killing someone (couldn't bring myself to do it). Yet the sex scene was not out of character. In my game he was grieving about not having been able to kill the man, worrying about his son. Madison comforts him, and this leads to them making love. Would it have fit for him to push her away? Yes, but at the same time him accepting the gesture of kindness doesn't seem far fetched to me. It seemed like the sort of a thing a man on the verge of breaking might well find himself giving into in his grief and emotional turmoil.
He might well regret it afterwords, but it doesn't strike me as being unbelievable.
I realize I am -way- over analyzing the plot here. The sex scene was included not because of the reasoning I have given, but because sex scenes sell games! That said, Ethan's character was as much a product of my own mind and views as those specifically setup by the game. In my story, everything (except the twist) made sense.
The point however, is that the game -is- highly personalized. The fact that the character's are given the option to do something wildly outside of how you would play them/how you see their character does not mean you -have- to take that choice. You are given two options. In your game, saying yes to the sex game didn't fit his character, so you said no. In mine, saying yes fit how I saw Ethan, so I could say yes or no. In another game (as someone already mentioned) saying yes made the most sense.
The argument to me seems lacking. This is like saying the ME2 story is broken because I have the option of having a fully paragon character suddenly commit a renegade act. My Shepard -wouldn't- do such things, just because I have the option doesn't mean I have to take it. I get to tell the story as I see it, that's what makes games like this great. It seems hard for me to accept that there is absolutely -no- way Ethan wouldn't sleep with Madison in that situation, regardless of how you have played him/viewed his character progression up until that point. There are hundreds of ways to view the character after all!
Yes, you are playing/watching a scripted movie in a way with Heavy Rain. But for me at least, the script is written in part by me, and how i choose to perceive and view the characters. Taking the seven comment for example. Had that been heavy rain, it might have been totally within 'my' version Mill's personality to let John Doe live. There would have been so many ways for me to play out his character up until that point after all! In such a story, such an ending might well have been much more fitting. A tale of a man consumed by anger who slowly overcomes his demons. Or I could have played him as such a man, who tried to do so but failed. Or I could have played him as an anger hot head, who -did- try to kill John Doe, only to find his gun jams/was out of bullets. Imagine him trying to pull the trigger multiple times and finally screaming in anger and attempting to joke the john doe to death, only to have his partner stop him. John Doe lives, he still wins.
All of that could make for a very good ending. Maybe not all of them would be -as- good, but that would be the point of such a game, helping to write your own story. Heavy Rain doesn't allow for that as much as some other games (like the Sims say if you want to look at it that way), and maybe true freedom isn't ever truly possible until we develop some sort of game that has an A.I. that mimics a human DM in a table top role playing game. (thats decades if not centuries away I am sure but :P)
For now, we have to use our imaginations somewhat, if you do so though Heavy Rain can produce, if numerous plots that would make A+ movies, but it does allow for many people to help tell and enjoy a satisfying (for the most part) or tragic story, all of which are different in some small or large way. That is an experience a movie simply can't do. Video games can be made to allow for and have plenty of authorial control, the players. Heavy rain certainly could have been done better, but it goes a long way towards putting such control into the players hands in a meaningful way. I might not be tell the same sort of great story as a famous director, but I can tell my own, personal version of a good story. And that makes it great to me. On a personal level, that's all that matters.
A presumptuous and pretentious read/writer. The whole argument hinges on the fact that the whole world has to agree with you for it to work. It falls apart the second someone can find answers to your questions.
1) Sex with Madison. If you've ever been in love, or read a newspaper article about people being caught in the act at the most innapropriate times, you'd get it. Even Kyle Reese took the time to bonk Sarah Connor and they were in just as much a race against time. Love. Consider that Ethan is a human being for the sake of the story, and not a robot that hasn't slept, eaten or pooped for a week.
2)Poison. Press L2 more often and explore some of the charachters' thoughts. Ethan ANSWERS your questions buddy. There's NO GUARANTEE that the poison won't kill him instantly, or before the hour is up. That's why not taking it is a VIABLE choice. Cutting off a finger won't kill you. Drinking an UNKNOWN cocktail from a KILLER puts you entirely at THEIR mercy with no guaratee that they're telling the truth. Ethan says via L2, if he drinks it and dies...who will save Shaun? It's a risk perhaps too big to take.
3) Saying Shelby was a stupid plot twist as it pertains to that heart attack guy etc. It really wasn't. You don't know much about murderers, or human nature. You think that just because someone kills someone else that it's open season for them to kill everyone and everything they come across from that point on? If that were the case then murderers would be easy as hell to catch. Just look for the only living person on a block of corpses. I work in a jail. I see Shelbys all the time. Why am I not dead? Why do people that have done horrible things to other people still have family come visit them, why do they universally hate skinners, despite any hypocrisy you may try to point out to them? Because the world ain't black and white, and not everyone fits into a neat little box.
4) About HL2 at least having some shooty-shoot moments. So did Heavy Rain, and there it actually meant something. I can tell you the names of every major charachter that died bar the mansion bodyguards. Can't do that for HL2, because none of the kills mattered. I didn't even get a proper ending. Saying HR has nothing to fall back on after the story is an arrogant thing to say. I enjoy the atmosphere, the gameplay on hard is challenging and fun as it got my heart racing, who are you to tell me I didn't get anything out of it besides the story?
This is why Destructoid continues to fail. It's your way or the highway. Read the NY Times Heavy Rain review. I'm sure Ebert will.
1) Sex with Madison. If you've ever been in love, or read a newspaper article about people being caught in the act at the most innapropriate times, you'd get it. Even Kyle Reese took the time to bonk Sarah Connor and they were in just as much a race against time. Love. Consider that Ethan is a human being for the sake of the story, and not a robot that hasn't slept, eaten or pooped for a week.
2)Poison. Press L2 more often and explore some of the charachters' thoughts. Ethan ANSWERS your questions buddy. There's NO GUARANTEE that the poison won't kill him instantly, or before the hour is up. That's why not taking it is a VIABLE choice. Cutting off a finger won't kill you. Drinking an UNKNOWN cocktail from a KILLER puts you entirely at THEIR mercy with no guaratee that they're telling the truth. Ethan says via L2, if he drinks it and dies...who will save Shaun? It's a risk perhaps too big to take.
3) Saying Shelby was a stupid plot twist as it pertains to that heart attack guy etc. It really wasn't. You don't know much about murderers, or human nature. You think that just because someone kills someone else that it's open season for them to kill everyone and everything they come across from that point on? If that were the case then murderers would be easy as hell to catch. Just look for the only living person on a block of corpses. I work in a jail. I see Shelbys all the time. Why am I not dead? Why do people that have done horrible things to other people still have family come visit them, why do they universally hate skinners, despite any hypocrisy you may try to point out to them? Because the world ain't black and white, and not everyone fits into a neat little box.
4) About HL2 at least having some shooty-shoot moments. So did Heavy Rain, and there it actually meant something. I can tell you the names of every major charachter that died bar the mansion bodyguards. Can't do that for HL2, because none of the kills mattered. I didn't even get a proper ending. Saying HR has nothing to fall back on after the story is an arrogant thing to say. I enjoy the atmosphere, the gameplay on hard is challenging and fun as it got my heart racing, who are you to tell me I didn't get anything out of it besides the story?
This is why Destructoid continues to fail. It's your way or the highway. Read the NY Times Heavy Rain review. I'm sure Ebert will.
This article is a narrow-minded travesty that enshrines one of the most bigoted, fearful assumptions anyone has ever made about the video game medium.
First of all, you've absolutely missed the point of the game -- the power of subjectivity. Not all video games have to offer complete interactive control. This game differs in no way from films (highly-acclaimed by critics) such as Run Lola Run that offer an insight into the effect that minor decisions can have in the overall spectrum of outcome.
Second, Ebert is speaking from a viewpoint that is anachronistic at best -- a psychoanalytical, Mulvey-style 1970s school of screen theory that invests films with absolute power (that should be "read" as "texts") and inscribes the spectator as nothing more than a construct upon which narrative film is to be reflected.
Anyone who has read any modern film theory knows that the spectator has (rightly) become a relevant player since the highly-politicized time of Mulvey and her cohort. It is absurd to imply that the film contains all the power in the film-viewing experience; the spectator is an essential component. To deny a game like Heavy Rain's power precisely because the player (nothing more than a highly-powered spectator, with the ability to outwardly project his/her vision of the film through his/her interpretive prism) has an obvious effect on the game is to, frankly, live in a highly-discredited past.
Articles like these, agreeing with bigots like Ebert -- whose interest lies solely in making sure that a new, more powerful medium like the video game does not eclipse the artistic position of film, as it is his life's investment -- are what are hindering the development of the video game medium. You are responsible for our endless sequels, our pathetic hordes of clones of anything with a smidge of innovation, and our stagnant subject matter because you are taking the word of film-supremacists that the medium is incapable of more.
Pathetic and sad. I have a number of issues with Heavy Rain, but NONE of them have to do with its artistic vision -- one that is more solidly manifested in the game mechanics, story, and visuals that practically any other top-market game out there.
Also, for those who believe the games-as-art argument is worthless or a waste of time -- why do you fear art so much? Film is considered art and can be enjoyable, so you won't lose your precious entertainment source just because games are endowed with the validity they deserve and have always had. It is amazing how frightened people can be to expand their narrow definitions of the activities that dominate their lives.
Art is not pretentiousness - art is not a weight or a damning of a medium. It is simply putting it on the same level as other mediums, allowing its full potential to be explored, without the assumption that games are "just entertainment". Anyone who has ever been emotionally affected by a game will protest such a castration of the medium, and it is a sad human being who feels the need to constrain the new so as to minimize their fear of it.
Grow up.
First of all, you've absolutely missed the point of the game -- the power of subjectivity. Not all video games have to offer complete interactive control. This game differs in no way from films (highly-acclaimed by critics) such as Run Lola Run that offer an insight into the effect that minor decisions can have in the overall spectrum of outcome.
Second, Ebert is speaking from a viewpoint that is anachronistic at best -- a psychoanalytical, Mulvey-style 1970s school of screen theory that invests films with absolute power (that should be "read" as "texts") and inscribes the spectator as nothing more than a construct upon which narrative film is to be reflected.
Anyone who has read any modern film theory knows that the spectator has (rightly) become a relevant player since the highly-politicized time of Mulvey and her cohort. It is absurd to imply that the film contains all the power in the film-viewing experience; the spectator is an essential component. To deny a game like Heavy Rain's power precisely because the player (nothing more than a highly-powered spectator, with the ability to outwardly project his/her vision of the film through his/her interpretive prism) has an obvious effect on the game is to, frankly, live in a highly-discredited past.
Articles like these, agreeing with bigots like Ebert -- whose interest lies solely in making sure that a new, more powerful medium like the video game does not eclipse the artistic position of film, as it is his life's investment -- are what are hindering the development of the video game medium. You are responsible for our endless sequels, our pathetic hordes of clones of anything with a smidge of innovation, and our stagnant subject matter because you are taking the word of film-supremacists that the medium is incapable of more.
Pathetic and sad. I have a number of issues with Heavy Rain, but NONE of them have to do with its artistic vision -- one that is more solidly manifested in the game mechanics, story, and visuals that practically any other top-market game out there.
Also, for those who believe the games-as-art argument is worthless or a waste of time -- why do you fear art so much? Film is considered art and can be enjoyable, so you won't lose your precious entertainment source just because games are endowed with the validity they deserve and have always had. It is amazing how frightened people can be to expand their narrow definitions of the activities that dominate their lives.
Art is not pretentiousness - art is not a weight or a damning of a medium. It is simply putting it on the same level as other mediums, allowing its full potential to be explored, without the assumption that games are "just entertainment". Anyone who has ever been emotionally affected by a game will protest such a castration of the medium, and it is a sad human being who feels the need to constrain the new so as to minimize their fear of it.
Grow up.
First person shooters killed the adventure game genre, and now the Destructoid crew is terrified that an adventure game (Heavy Rain) is going to kill off their precious FPSes like Half-Life 2. Karma's a bitch, ain't it?
The fact that status-quoers like Destructoid think that Heavy Rain is dangerous only makes me all the more eager to play it, because that probably means it's brilliant.
The fact that status-quoers like Destructoid think that Heavy Rain is dangerous only makes me all the more eager to play it, because that probably means it's brilliant.
I see the point the article is trying to make, but the mistake here is that the author is trying to call Heavy Rain on the merits of non-interactive fiction, or rather falsified interactive fiction. Rather, I considered Heavy Rain more of an interactive fiction that determines the behavior of the characters. Most of the choices in the game the player has to make don't really go against their characters nature because the player gets to decide what that characters nature is. Sure, Shelby may let an innocent child die, but he feels strongly about that subject. It's believable that Shelby would possess a different constitution for a different situation. Heavy Rain isn't a perfect game by far, but it is a step in a direction that more games are going now: putting the shape of the story in the hands of the player. Films and games need to be placed in separate categories. Heavy Rain is still very much a game, and its purpose is clear. I never felt like the game tried to be a film, since its intent was always to put choices in the players hand. I never once thought, well, this isn't something that character would do, and often times I did have to think about the choices I was making. I realize that the game doesn't work for a lot of people, but that nonetheless doesn't mean that, for the most part, what the game tries to do it does well.
It's not a game. The illusion of "interactivity" is just to draw you into the characters.
It's clunky, and full of flaws, but I'm enjoying it anyway.
It's clunky, and full of flaws, but I'm enjoying it anyway.
Loool, I like how people think completely over sensationalised characters and stupid motives, reason and connective dissonance =/= good or great writing...it's funny that every stupidly thought out caricature is meant to be gritty, textured and meaningful in a narrative sense...hilarious.
@Andres Miguel, Anthony's on your side? Have you read more of his work + did you take the Ebert quote to mean everything Ebert says on gaming, which Anthony pointed out after about 2 sentences he doesn't agree with? I don't get your comment. It's superfluous vitriol. Although your correct about games as art.
@Achemki, your first three points are abit self-defeating, the first you give an example from a film to prove the reality of the game's characters? Second, that he thinks not killing himself with poision is the thing to do when the L2 button is pressed proves Anthony's point about killing him...? Third, the greyness of morality and ethics et al is correct, but it further reinforces the stupidity of this game that everyone is either good/bad or retartedly meta evil. Each to their own though, if you enjoyed it, great, but I can't say it has good writing (even if that's a fairly subjective point).
@Andres Miguel, Anthony's on your side? Have you read more of his work + did you take the Ebert quote to mean everything Ebert says on gaming, which Anthony pointed out after about 2 sentences he doesn't agree with? I don't get your comment. It's superfluous vitriol. Although your correct about games as art.
@Achemki, your first three points are abit self-defeating, the first you give an example from a film to prove the reality of the game's characters? Second, that he thinks not killing himself with poision is the thing to do when the L2 button is pressed proves Anthony's point about killing him...? Third, the greyness of morality and ethics et al is correct, but it further reinforces the stupidity of this game that everyone is either good/bad or retartedly meta evil. Each to their own though, if you enjoyed it, great, but I can't say it has good writing (even if that's a fairly subjective point).
@Omgyiyja
While I agree that I was a bit blinded by anger when I read this initially (although I do not agree that my post was "vitriol").
I've done extensive research on Ebert's views on gaming. I have written multiple lengthy scholarly articles on why he wrong, on the immense power of interactivity as compared to passive spectatorship, the dissonance and fear that people respond to it with (especially in the case of those firmly entrenched in the assumed superiority of an aging medium), and the absurd comments made in order to cure such cognitive gaps.
Ebert continues to believe videogames are incapable of evolving into "art". To write an article about how one of the most pointedly artistic games to be released in recent memory is a travesty to the medium as a whole.
As I said, I believe Anthony's views on the definition of art-game are extremely narrow. To say that a tabula rasa approach to interactivity is necessary (a la any generic FPS) is strikingly misguided; the very cause of the stagnation of the genre as of this very moment is the prevalence of that type of game. It is not that the tabula rasa is a bad approach -- in fact, in the ideal world, it might be the ultimate interactive experience -- but right now players are trained to avoid investing themselves whenever possible. To the world, games are a pure-entertainment medium, and until games like Heavy Rain appear and push the envelope, FORCE gamers to realize the power of interactivity -- despite any amount of artifice, hackneyed writing, and piss-poor controls -- the medium WILL NOT evolve.
Additionally, to assume that there is an objective definition of "character" in Heavy Rain is ludicrous. The characters are outlines, sketches with plenty of room to fill through player interaction. The only constraints on it at the moment are purely technical, as can be seen from the leap in interactive freedom between Farenheit and Heavy Rain. To subscribe to worship of the work in such a way is to eliminate the subjectivity of the audience entirely -- which is precisely what the video game medium has the power to avoid, through interactivity.
While I agree that I was a bit blinded by anger when I read this initially (although I do not agree that my post was "vitriol").
I've done extensive research on Ebert's views on gaming. I have written multiple lengthy scholarly articles on why he wrong, on the immense power of interactivity as compared to passive spectatorship, the dissonance and fear that people respond to it with (especially in the case of those firmly entrenched in the assumed superiority of an aging medium), and the absurd comments made in order to cure such cognitive gaps.
Ebert continues to believe videogames are incapable of evolving into "art". To write an article about how one of the most pointedly artistic games to be released in recent memory is a travesty to the medium as a whole.
As I said, I believe Anthony's views on the definition of art-game are extremely narrow. To say that a tabula rasa approach to interactivity is necessary (a la any generic FPS) is strikingly misguided; the very cause of the stagnation of the genre as of this very moment is the prevalence of that type of game. It is not that the tabula rasa is a bad approach -- in fact, in the ideal world, it might be the ultimate interactive experience -- but right now players are trained to avoid investing themselves whenever possible. To the world, games are a pure-entertainment medium, and until games like Heavy Rain appear and push the envelope, FORCE gamers to realize the power of interactivity -- despite any amount of artifice, hackneyed writing, and piss-poor controls -- the medium WILL NOT evolve.
Additionally, to assume that there is an objective definition of "character" in Heavy Rain is ludicrous. The characters are outlines, sketches with plenty of room to fill through player interaction. The only constraints on it at the moment are purely technical, as can be seen from the leap in interactive freedom between Farenheit and Heavy Rain. To subscribe to worship of the work in such a way is to eliminate the subjectivity of the audience entirely -- which is precisely what the video game medium has the power to avoid, through interactivity.
Thanks for a thoughtful article.
The one thing people need to understand is that the choices you are able to make in this game are decided by the author of the game. You do very little to shape the characters...otherwise how come I wasn't allowed to prevent Shelby from killing the antique dealer? When one of the characters was doing something what I didn't want them to do, why couldn't I change their course?
This is where the illusion that Heavy Rains completely breaks down...because ultimately you are still being forced down certain paths by the writers.
Just the fact they let you play a killer, yet you don't know it's the killer, and you get to see what these characters are thinking about, is a bad, bad, BAD idea.
All it does is set it up so the developers have to cheat and withhold information from the player in order to maintain the mystery. Even worse is when the killer's thoughts are even censored for the player benefit.
If you want a game that truly lets you shape a character, try something by Bioware...they have that down pretty good.
The one thing people need to understand is that the choices you are able to make in this game are decided by the author of the game. You do very little to shape the characters...otherwise how come I wasn't allowed to prevent Shelby from killing the antique dealer? When one of the characters was doing something what I didn't want them to do, why couldn't I change their course?
This is where the illusion that Heavy Rains completely breaks down...because ultimately you are still being forced down certain paths by the writers.
Just the fact they let you play a killer, yet you don't know it's the killer, and you get to see what these characters are thinking about, is a bad, bad, BAD idea.
All it does is set it up so the developers have to cheat and withhold information from the player in order to maintain the mystery. Even worse is when the killer's thoughts are even censored for the player benefit.
If you want a game that truly lets you shape a character, try something by Bioware...they have that down pretty good.
"He's a movie critic - not a game critic. Stop putting so much stake in what he says."
Stop saying that Heavy Rain is supposed to be cinematic! It's a video game, not a movie! :)
Stop saying that Heavy Rain is supposed to be cinematic! It's a video game, not a movie! :)
You're quite the intellectual, aren't you? Why can't you just play the game instead of fucking analyzing it? The video game industry NEEDS more things like this, not more fucking Call Of Duty clones.
@Omgyiyja
While I agree that I was a bit blinded by anger when I read this initially (although I do not agree that my post was "vitriol").
I've done extensive research on Ebert's views on gaming. I have written multiple lengthy scholarly articles on why he wrong, on the immense power of interactivity as compared to passive spectatorship, the dissonance and fear that people respond to it with (especially in the case of those firmly entrenched in the assumed superiority of an aging medium), and the absurd comments made in order to cure such cognitive gaps.
Ebert continues to believe videogames are incapable of evolving into "art". To write an article about how one of the most pointedly artistic games to be released in recent memory is a travesty to the medium as a whole.
As I said, I believe Anthony's views on the definition of art-game are extremely narrow. To say that a tabula rasa approach to interactivity is necessary (a la any generic FPS) is strikingly misguided; the very cause of the stagnation of the genre as of this very moment is the prevalence of that type of game. It is not that the tabula rasa is a bad approach -- in fact, in the ideal world, it might be the ultimate interactive experience -- but right now players are trained to avoid investing themselves whenever possible. To the world, games are a pure-entertainment medium, and until games like Heavy Rain appear and push the envelope, FORCE gamers to realize the power of interactivity -- despite any amount of artifice, hackneyed writing, and piss-poor controls -- the medium WILL NOT evolve.
Additionally, to assume that there is an objective definition of "character" in Heavy Rain is ludicrous. The characters are outlines, sketches with plenty of room to fill through player interaction. The only constraints on it at the moment are purely technical, as can be seen from the leap in interactive freedom between Farenheit and Heavy Rain. To subscribe to worship of the work in such a way is to eliminate the subjectivity of the audience entirely -- which is precisely what the video game medium has the power to avoid, through interactivity.
While I agree that I was a bit blinded by anger when I read this initially (although I do not agree that my post was "vitriol").
I've done extensive research on Ebert's views on gaming. I have written multiple lengthy scholarly articles on why he wrong, on the immense power of interactivity as compared to passive spectatorship, the dissonance and fear that people respond to it with (especially in the case of those firmly entrenched in the assumed superiority of an aging medium), and the absurd comments made in order to cure such cognitive gaps.
Ebert continues to believe videogames are incapable of evolving into "art". To write an article about how one of the most pointedly artistic games to be released in recent memory is a travesty to the medium as a whole.
As I said, I believe Anthony's views on the definition of art-game are extremely narrow. To say that a tabula rasa approach to interactivity is necessary (a la any generic FPS) is strikingly misguided; the very cause of the stagnation of the genre as of this very moment is the prevalence of that type of game. It is not that the tabula rasa is a bad approach -- in fact, in the ideal world, it might be the ultimate interactive experience -- but right now players are trained to avoid investing themselves whenever possible. To the world, games are a pure-entertainment medium, and until games like Heavy Rain appear and push the envelope, FORCE gamers to realize the power of interactivity -- despite any amount of artifice, hackneyed writing, and piss-poor controls -- the medium WILL NOT evolve.
Additionally, to assume that there is an objective definition of "character" in Heavy Rain is ludicrous. The characters are outlines, sketches with plenty of room to fill through player interaction. The only constraints on it at the moment are purely technical, as can be seen from the leap in interactive freedom between Farenheit and Heavy Rain. To subscribe to worship of the work in such a way is to eliminate the subjectivity of the audience entirely -- which is precisely what the video game medium has the power to avoid, through interactivity.
@Andres Miguel
I like where your coming from and I would somewhat agree that Heavy Rain's apparent (and somewhat misplaced) "artsy" tag can at least give further attention to the expanse of meaningful and artful gaming experiences.
As a game though, Heavy Rain does fail in it's entirety in my opinion, much like Fahrenheit/Indigo Prophecy. I don't personally see the potential in creating something between 2 mediums and failing at both because of the attempt.
Perhaps the heralding of games like this is as bad as encouraging something like CoD or even HL, because acclaim leads to imitation and unfortuantely I don't the potential being there for a definitive and tangible gaming experience in this genre. Evolution may take a side step or reverse itself! Hopefully a Humanistic (Kurosawa inspired!) approach and the exclusion of clunky and obtrusive mechanics may satiate my apprehension.
I would agree with you that tabula rasa approaches don't have to be necessary but I'm not sure as to whether Anthony thinks all games need this as a prerequisite (although at the same time, like he and you mention, Dwarf Fortress is a supreme example of why a lack of knowledge or insight into pretext behind the story or characters can lead to a better experience).
As fas as characters go, I would say that the NPC's are the problem insofar as poor design and stupidly inflated characteristics, not necessarily the player characters, which could be avoided if David Cage wasn't spewing out the script :d
I like where your coming from and I would somewhat agree that Heavy Rain's apparent (and somewhat misplaced) "artsy" tag can at least give further attention to the expanse of meaningful and artful gaming experiences.
As a game though, Heavy Rain does fail in it's entirety in my opinion, much like Fahrenheit/Indigo Prophecy. I don't personally see the potential in creating something between 2 mediums and failing at both because of the attempt.
Perhaps the heralding of games like this is as bad as encouraging something like CoD or even HL, because acclaim leads to imitation and unfortuantely I don't the potential being there for a definitive and tangible gaming experience in this genre. Evolution may take a side step or reverse itself! Hopefully a Humanistic (Kurosawa inspired!) approach and the exclusion of clunky and obtrusive mechanics may satiate my apprehension.
I would agree with you that tabula rasa approaches don't have to be necessary but I'm not sure as to whether Anthony thinks all games need this as a prerequisite (although at the same time, like he and you mention, Dwarf Fortress is a supreme example of why a lack of knowledge or insight into pretext behind the story or characters can lead to a better experience).
As fas as characters go, I would say that the NPC's are the problem insofar as poor design and stupidly inflated characteristics, not necessarily the player characters, which could be avoided if David Cage wasn't spewing out the script :d
Can someone please define 'art' for me? I don't even think I know what it means anymore. Does it have to follow the three act structure? Do the stories need to play out in a specific way based on age old storytelling techniques (setup here, climax there, etc)? Do I have to cry? When do we cross the line into art?
I dont get it
Because someone said videogames require player choice that means they aren't art? I mean its all so subjective anyway, what you think is a terrible story, someone else could love and vice-versa. Just because a story doesn't follow the rules you learned in your college writing class means its in some way worse even though many may love it? Its not art? Does it matter?
Maybe I want to bone the girl even if it doesn't make sense! What other medium lets you make decisions like that- I wouldn't have it any other way.
I dont get it
Because someone said videogames require player choice that means they aren't art? I mean its all so subjective anyway, what you think is a terrible story, someone else could love and vice-versa. Just because a story doesn't follow the rules you learned in your college writing class means its in some way worse even though many may love it? Its not art? Does it matter?
Maybe I want to bone the girl even if it doesn't make sense! What other medium lets you make decisions like that- I wouldn't have it any other way.
Heavy rain is about voyeurism & intrusive control. Not whether the story makes sense. You get to control a girl taking a piss for fuck sake. Ok I bought that Shelby was the killer. Basically he was trying to track down the cunt that was imitating him i.e Shelby didnt kill all those kiddies & he's wondering why. The endgame shows Shelby gettin dodgy & u never saw that shit he was up to, see. Then at the end I let him gun down Madison just because I could 10/10
Oh and all the pissing comes from Kubrick. U seen Eyes Wide Shut when Nicole Kidman takes a slash. Kubrick took over 100 takes of her pissing & dumping. Thats the European cinema style.
"I'll be generous and say Heavy Rain might be artistic, but the game is so flawed..."
So "art" must be perfect? What art doesn't have flaws, yet we marvel at it?
"...I wonder if we have to start calling these things something else."
Maybe games?
So "art" must be perfect? What art doesn't have flaws, yet we marvel at it?
"...I wonder if we have to start calling these things something else."
Maybe games?
I agree with player choice can ruin a story, which is why its a good thing that the story is only part of the experience. In fact ruining the story might be what makes the game exciting to the player. Lets be honest, GTA wouldn't be as big as it is if you didn't have the option of taking a break from the missions and running your tank through town, then getting a paint job to lose your wanted level.
And we all have seen movies where the director's choice ruined the story.
I read Eberts statement in the Q&A linked, and I do believe it misses the point. Go to liteary circles, and you'll find people who don't think film belongs in the same category as they. In poetry circles you'll find people who do not think modern music belongs in the same category. So where is the low bar? Until somebody arguing against games as art can answer that, there really is no authoritative stance.
But here's the truth: ALL ART HAS USER INPUT. The artists motivations have less to do with the art after it's released than the user's (viewer) read on it. Reaction to art is more important than the intention. The message doens't mean anything if nobody gets that. Many great artists have actually written descriptions of how they got to where they are in art (Picasso didn't just start painting blue things, or random triangles.)
Also, the link is from 2005, Ebert isn't talking about games where the user can change the ending.
And we all have seen movies where the director's choice ruined the story.
I read Eberts statement in the Q&A linked, and I do believe it misses the point. Go to liteary circles, and you'll find people who don't think film belongs in the same category as they. In poetry circles you'll find people who do not think modern music belongs in the same category. So where is the low bar? Until somebody arguing against games as art can answer that, there really is no authoritative stance.
But here's the truth: ALL ART HAS USER INPUT. The artists motivations have less to do with the art after it's released than the user's (viewer) read on it. Reaction to art is more important than the intention. The message doens't mean anything if nobody gets that. Many great artists have actually written descriptions of how they got to where they are in art (Picasso didn't just start painting blue things, or random triangles.)
Also, the link is from 2005, Ebert isn't talking about games where the user can change the ending.
Se7en was a terrible movie. That out of the way, I wouldn't be so dismissive of interactive movies. The fact that you can control a character's outcome doesn't really affect the uniqueness and personalities of the other characters in the game, even if it determines some of their actions. For all of its years, gaming is still an emerging media. Sure, it's come a long way in recent years but it still doesn't have the history that cinema does. When movies first came out (and hell, even today), they faced similar criticism because they required less imagination and were viewed as lacking the subtlety of books and traditional art. Yet years later movies got to the point where self-entitled assholes could raise all sorts of pretenses around them and use that to decry other emerging media. Some day games will reach that same point >_>
Anthony, good write up. I wanted to ask you about what the following quote FTA "The characters of Heavy Rain are not blank slates, or characters whose identities we fill in through our own decisions -- they aren't like Gordon Freeman or Commander Shepard. They're characters with existing histories and personalities."
How are the characters of HR any less blank slates than Gordon Freeman or Commander Shepard? I mean, I see what you are are saying but why do you think we feel that way? What crucial information did the developers convey that makes us feel that way?
Aside from Ethan's story in the prologue, I didn't really feel I understood the motivations of most of the characters. 10 minutes into playing HR, I knew Ethan was an architect just as 10 minutes into Half-Life, I knew Freeman was a physicist. Where does the difference come into play?
How are the characters of HR any less blank slates than Gordon Freeman or Commander Shepard? I mean, I see what you are are saying but why do you think we feel that way? What crucial information did the developers convey that makes us feel that way?
Aside from Ethan's story in the prologue, I didn't really feel I understood the motivations of most of the characters. 10 minutes into playing HR, I knew Ethan was an architect just as 10 minutes into Half-Life, I knew Freeman was a physicist. Where does the difference come into play?
@SpiralKing, gaming is already at a level where they have pretentious assholes, its called PC gaming.
I kid, sort of.
I kid, sort of.
I have a huge issue with this.
Why does art have to operate on authority?
What is art if not manipulation of the user's emotion?
If art has only one primary "message," if the only vision that matters to the art the vision of the creator, then what would this author say of David Lynch's films?
Are you really going to tell me that high art, "true" art only has _one meaning_?
You are Brad Pitt, looking down at Kevin Spacey and thinking about what he just did and every bit of you is screaming to shoot that mother!@#$er. Could you resist?
How is this not just as effective if not _more so_ than actually watching Se7en?
This is an extremely narrow minded point of view, in my opinion.
You take from a film what you take from a film. You don't always take what the artist put in. And you shouldn't.
Playing Heavy Rain, I am Agent Jayden pointing a gun at a psychotic pointing a gun at my partner. I have a variety of options available to me and not much time to choose one. I pause the game and look down - this feeling is familiar. Real, authentic tension?
I felt the same way I did watching Josh Brolin flee from Javier Bardem in No Country for old men. The same emotion, different context. Please, explain to me how the difference in delivery changes the validity of the art?
If anything, it seems like one could draw much stronger emotion from interactive art than from any sort of static "high" art. Think about that Modern Warfare 2 "controversy" awhile back. Would that have made anywhere near the splash it did if it was in a film. Hell no, because _you're the one doing it_.
You and Ebert can keep your definition of "high art". I'll keep mine.
And this from a film student.
Why does art have to operate on authority?
What is art if not manipulation of the user's emotion?
If art has only one primary "message," if the only vision that matters to the art the vision of the creator, then what would this author say of David Lynch's films?
Are you really going to tell me that high art, "true" art only has _one meaning_?
You are Brad Pitt, looking down at Kevin Spacey and thinking about what he just did and every bit of you is screaming to shoot that mother!@#$er. Could you resist?
How is this not just as effective if not _more so_ than actually watching Se7en?
This is an extremely narrow minded point of view, in my opinion.
You take from a film what you take from a film. You don't always take what the artist put in. And you shouldn't.
Playing Heavy Rain, I am Agent Jayden pointing a gun at a psychotic pointing a gun at my partner. I have a variety of options available to me and not much time to choose one. I pause the game and look down - this feeling is familiar. Real, authentic tension?
I felt the same way I did watching Josh Brolin flee from Javier Bardem in No Country for old men. The same emotion, different context. Please, explain to me how the difference in delivery changes the validity of the art?
If anything, it seems like one could draw much stronger emotion from interactive art than from any sort of static "high" art. Think about that Modern Warfare 2 "controversy" awhile back. Would that have made anywhere near the splash it did if it was in a film. Hell no, because _you're the one doing it_.
You and Ebert can keep your definition of "high art". I'll keep mine.
And this from a film student.
'You want Ethan to survive so you can get that Four Heroes trophy, so you decide not to have Ethan drink the poison. But wait: you just created a version of Ethan Mars who is willing to endure intense physical torment and commit murder to save his son...but who won't drink some poison to completely ensure Shaun's survival? That doesn't make any sense.'
You make some very interesting points but on this particular one I disagree. I thought this was incredibly clever and subversive as it took the theme of the game 'how far will you go to save someone you love?' and used it against the player. I wanted the trophy but I cared and was invested enough in Ethan to (I thought) sacrifice him. Plainly put, I wanted to carry out his motivations despite my own greedy desire.
This, for me, was absolutely genius, seemingly give the player the choice between doing the right thing and getting a moral reward or doing the wrong thing and getting a physical one (in the end if you do the 'right thing' you get both). It's an incredible illusion of choice.
Remember David Cage's comments about being pissed off at having to include trophies? Now note that it's one of the ONLY trophies that's not hidden. To me it seemed as though this was a deliberate subversion of the trophy collecting mechanic. Yes, it ran the risk of breaking the game for some people (and no doubt did) but for others, such as myself, it made it all the more pleasing when I was awarded the trophy.
The game DOES suffer from some horrendous plotholes (though I have heard that they're not as obvious in the original French script), but in a second playthrough, knowing that Scott Shelby was the killer, in my opinion the main plot twist holds up - regardless of how you play him. If you play him as being a 'nice guy' he's not evil, he's just a twisted, broken man trying to bring a little honour into a world he views as unfair and uncaring. If you play him as an arsehole, it's plainly much simpler from a narrative perspective but far less interesting.
For me I feel the main problem people seem to have with the plot twist is that they played Scott as a nice guy and were angry when he turned out to be a cold blooded killer. To those people I ask; disturbing a thought or no, can't he be both?
Anywho, an excellent article that I enjoyed reading - despite not fully agreeing with you.
You make some very interesting points but on this particular one I disagree. I thought this was incredibly clever and subversive as it took the theme of the game 'how far will you go to save someone you love?' and used it against the player. I wanted the trophy but I cared and was invested enough in Ethan to (I thought) sacrifice him. Plainly put, I wanted to carry out his motivations despite my own greedy desire.
This, for me, was absolutely genius, seemingly give the player the choice between doing the right thing and getting a moral reward or doing the wrong thing and getting a physical one (in the end if you do the 'right thing' you get both). It's an incredible illusion of choice.
Remember David Cage's comments about being pissed off at having to include trophies? Now note that it's one of the ONLY trophies that's not hidden. To me it seemed as though this was a deliberate subversion of the trophy collecting mechanic. Yes, it ran the risk of breaking the game for some people (and no doubt did) but for others, such as myself, it made it all the more pleasing when I was awarded the trophy.
The game DOES suffer from some horrendous plotholes (though I have heard that they're not as obvious in the original French script), but in a second playthrough, knowing that Scott Shelby was the killer, in my opinion the main plot twist holds up - regardless of how you play him. If you play him as being a 'nice guy' he's not evil, he's just a twisted, broken man trying to bring a little honour into a world he views as unfair and uncaring. If you play him as an arsehole, it's plainly much simpler from a narrative perspective but far less interesting.
For me I feel the main problem people seem to have with the plot twist is that they played Scott as a nice guy and were angry when he turned out to be a cold blooded killer. To those people I ask; disturbing a thought or no, can't he be both?
Anywho, an excellent article that I enjoyed reading - despite not fully agreeing with you.
It's an all right article, except for the fact that many parts of your argument rely on one idea; that the player will want to constantly choose some random course of action while playing. I think that's a rather ridiculous assumption. What if he DIDN'T choose to murder the guy before? Also, you don't have to drink the poison if you've gone through all the other motions because by completing all those tasks, you have enough of the address to find where you need to go! I usually enjoy your in-depth articles, but it seems like you didn't spend NEARLY enough time researching your argument this time around, and I'm disappointed. Jim Sterling is a dipshit, and you're the only reason I read this website at all. If you can't make a strong argument either, I guess I'll stick with the ones who know what they're doing, like Giant Bomb or Kotaku.
I don't see why game designers are responsible for pleasing people who aren't interested in playing along. I don't think there is any great experience than when the player and designer work TOGETHER to create the experience (like in Heavy Rain). I also don't think that it is fair to expect games to BE movies. This is why game/movie crossovers (in both directions) rarely work: they are different art forms and cannot possibly be expected to function in the same way.
More specific to Heavy Rain, I want you to really think about these characters for a moment. Lets take the sex scene for example. My reaction during that was: oh man, why am I making out with her? I have got much more important things to be doing.
Yet, as a human being, I wanted it to happen anyway. This is exactly what is going through Ethan's head, I assure you. People do not always behave rationaly or consistently. Obviously if Ethan had pulled out the gun and started shooting all of the people in the motel that would have been silly...but having sex is something that people tend to do, whether it makes sense or not. It also happens to happen for no praticular reason in movies all the time.
The design of Heavy Rain is all about balance. It never lets you do anything that is completely out of character, because it leaves a certain amount of blank space for you to work with. If you really want to play so that Shelby kills half of the people and helps the others, that is you screwing up the experience for yourself. I played along, and it was one of the most memorable expeiences of my life (period).
To sum up, games are art and can contain incredible narrative...but they have to be designed well, and you won't enjoy them if you don't want to. And expecting them to play within the rules of any other medium is foolish and closed minded.
More specific to Heavy Rain, I want you to really think about these characters for a moment. Lets take the sex scene for example. My reaction during that was: oh man, why am I making out with her? I have got much more important things to be doing.
Yet, as a human being, I wanted it to happen anyway. This is exactly what is going through Ethan's head, I assure you. People do not always behave rationaly or consistently. Obviously if Ethan had pulled out the gun and started shooting all of the people in the motel that would have been silly...but having sex is something that people tend to do, whether it makes sense or not. It also happens to happen for no praticular reason in movies all the time.
The design of Heavy Rain is all about balance. It never lets you do anything that is completely out of character, because it leaves a certain amount of blank space for you to work with. If you really want to play so that Shelby kills half of the people and helps the others, that is you screwing up the experience for yourself. I played along, and it was one of the most memorable expeiences of my life (period).
To sum up, games are art and can contain incredible narrative...but they have to be designed well, and you won't enjoy them if you don't want to. And expecting them to play within the rules of any other medium is foolish and closed minded.
Heavy Rain isn't as divisive as you seem to think, Mr. Burch. A large majority of the reviews of the game have been quite positive. Destructoid.com is merely one of only a few of it's detractors.
And on Amazon.com it's consumer written reviews are also positive by a very wide margin. At the time of this writing there are 84 favorable reviews and only 19 critical ones.
And on Amazon.com it's consumer written reviews are also positive by a very wide margin. At the time of this writing there are 84 favorable reviews and only 19 critical ones.
follow
