[Editor's Note: We're not just a (rad) news site -- we also publish opinions/editorials from our community & employees like this one, though be aware that it may not jive with the opinions of Destructoid as a whole, or how our moms raised us. Want to post your own article in response? Publish it now on our community blogs.]
Bold claim, indeed. Nintendo's Wii Fit and Quantic Dream's Heavy Rain exist at opposite ends of the spectrum. What could they possibly share in common?
A lot more than you may think.
These two titles are high-profile vanguards of experimentation in gaming. They have the potential to influence future software but can just as easily fade away if left unexplored. They find common ground not on the content they provide but on roles they fulfill. I would like to examine those roles in order to demonstrate just how similar these games are.
What is Wii Fit? An exercise game? There have been many exercise games in the past, so what makes this one so special? Calling it an "exercise game" is a bit misleading, however. A quick Google search yields polarizing conclusions as to the effectiveness of Wii Fit as a fitness tool. For those who do see results, it's only when Wii Fit is included as part of greater health program.
It would be more appropriate to call it a "lifestyle tool." The game offers no clear-cut goals; instead, users set goals for themselves and work to achieve them even while the Wii is inactive. Wii Fit encourages you to be a little more active and to make small changes in your daily routine, such as walking to the store instead of driving or drinking water instead of soda at work. It graphs your progress and suggests activities you should engage in next. On the whole, it's an experience far more personal than some ten-minute Pilates DVD.
Miyamoto may consider Wii Fit to be a game, but it's a game in the loosest sense of the word. The word that has come to encapsulate software like Wii Fit is "non-game." Non-games don't feature the usual video game trappings and as such are off-putting to the more traditional gamer. Is it any surprise then why many cry foul at Wii Fit's inclusion on official sales charts?
Now let's look at Heavy Rain. According to Game Informer:
"Concepts like shooting the bad guys, leveling up your character, and acquiring new items are so pervasive that they have been inextricably woven into most players' definition of what it means to be a video game. Heavy Rain forces you to reconsider that definition. It is barely a game in the popular sense of the word, but Quantic Dream's masterpiece makes groundbreaking strides in storytelling and character development, demonstrating that interactive entertainment still has a deep well of untapped potential."
GamePro says:
"Some may not be willing to accept the breaking of traditional gaming concepts."
IGN concludes:
"Heavy Rain's an interactive movie, and it's an enthralling experience."
The consensus is that Heavy Rain is unique and ambitious but ultimately not what you are accustomed to. Check out the language being used -- it's an "emotional experience," it'll "keep you guessing," the writing "pulls you in," the characters are believable "actors." If it weren't for the frequent mention of on-screen button prompts, you might think you were reading reviews for the latest Hollywood thriller.
As with Wii Fit, Heavy Rain is not the first of its ilk. Quantic Dream's previous game Fahrenheit, a.k.a. Indigo Prophecy, is the closest example in terms of presentation and progression. Heavy Rain goes even further by increasing the number of junction points to such a degree as to create the illusion that your every choice will have repercussions ranging from the overt to the subtle.
David Cage remarked that not even he considers Heavy Rain a videogame. What he does consider it to be is a personal and highly malleable experience. No two people will make the same choices, , none of them "right" or "wrong," and events will unfold in manifold directions. No matter the outcome of a particular scenario, the story will proceed to its conclusion. As such, there is no real way to "lose."
Are you starting to see the overlap?
As disparate as Wii Fit and Heavy Rain are, at their core they are about personal investment. One encourages awareness of your physical body while the other evaluates your decisions and alters the experience accordingly. Neither piece of software will condemn you for your shortcomings. Only you can decide whether your performance is satisfactory or in need of improvement. In fact, the only way to fail is simply to not play.
Even more interesting is how both titles work to remove players from the game and disconnect them from the on-screen action. Most games place you in the role of a character, giving you direct control over your avatar's well-being. Wii Fit does no such thing. Sure, there's your Mii right there on your TV, emulating your every action, but that's just it! It's emulating your actions! You are the one improving. You are the one being challenged. Your Wii Fit age is not some accumulation of stat-building experience but a representation of your personal off-screen growth.
In Heavy Rain, you follow the exploits of a set of characters. These "actors," are playing roles assigned to them as you guide them from a safe distance. You exert some measure of control, but it's indirect at best. Playing Heavy Rain is akin to directing a movie as it unfolds, altering the scene in real-time in the context of the characters' motivations and emotional state. Sometimes your commands are vague approximations of physical actions, but other times they are merely buttons to be pressed.
If the character you are directing dies, focus shifts to another one. The story doesn't end or double-back on itself. Why would it? You weren't the one who died. Events flow like a river -- you can redirect or siphon the water but can never control the water itself. There will be moments that highlight the gulf between you and these actors, moments that will unfold a specific way regardless of your direction.
So here we have two non-games that engage players not via immersion but via emersion. The experience is reliant not upon how linked players are to the digital realm but upon how disconnected they are. Wii Fit is effective when players commit to a plan of which the software itself is only a part, while Heavy Rain is effective when players realize that they aren't shackled down by necessity.
As unconventional as they may be, why shouldn't they be classified as games? The way I see it, they are captivating audiences through alternative means and expanding the definition of what a game can be. Unless it is our desire to bear witness to creative stagnation, we have to be accepting of a little radical experimentation here and there.
I must comment on the reception for both types of games from the enthusiast crowd and gaming press. Though detractors exist for both, it's clear that Wii Fit garners a lot more scorn. Heavy Rain, on the other hand, seems to be gathering accolades for its risky approach to narrative delivery. Heavy Rain is "evolving the medium" while Wii Fit is "holding the medium back."
To that I ask, "What's the difference?"
Contest:
11:00 AM on 02.20.2010
| 
Heavy Rain is more like a visual novel, it may have a couple game-like elements, but much like the visual novel, the adventure game elements are practically lobotomized and have a few trite "choices" to make along the way, which may or may not change anything.
Wii Fit, at the very least, is functional as a lifestyle tool and can be pushed toward being a game. Heavy Rain you will buy and quickly forget the second the next big game or movie is in you hands.
Mass Effect 2 exceeds HR in the realm of choice, which by comparison "choice" in HR looks extremely arbitrary. Games like Ico and SotC have become regarded as artistic masterpieces that you can play, all without the need to be overwhelmingly cinematic about it.
Well, actually I didnt
But now I do
And I couldnt be more disgusted.
Graphics whores
@Monodi: i fully support that thought.
"What's the difference?" Like EdgyDude, graphics whores; and an industry-wide hate for Nintendo (it's not FUD anymore, it's the damned truth that the vast majority of the industry nowadays harbors vitriol for the Big N).
Great article though, I'm just confused on that one thing.
Also, that header is really cool.
Perhaps that explains some of the reaction. But then again I am not telling you anything you don't know. The question itself is pretentious because you, being intelligent, probably already know the answer.
But honestly, saying that Wii Fit and Heavy Rain are similar because they remove you from the game is perhaps true but so what? It is only one aspect of two multifaceted games.
Yeah, I totally flubbed that part up.
I wanted to try to convey that Heavy Rain doesn't offer a "correct" way to play, that there are no rewards or penalties other than what assign to yourself. From many reviews I've read, there are sections of the game where you literally don't have to push a single button even though you could if you want. With that in mind, the game doesn't demand all that much out of you. Nothing is really "necessary." I hope that makes sense.
@bluexy
I've caught a few of your comments on my previous posts. You don't have much nice to say to me, do you?
The industry as a whole is rather fed up on Nintendo because, frankly, they're tired of being jerked around. Like Jim Sterling said, "The fact that they are STILL pretending like gamers matter ot them is what is offensive. Just admit it, you don't give a shit about us." during the E3 No8 podcast. You see the scorn because they keep promising and never really giving the carrot they dangle. Eventually, people get pissed off at that kind of behavior and there IS a backlash. See: Sony and PS3 launch, PSP Go.
As to this comparison, really? So now Nintendo invented Heavy Rain too? I'm guessing that's the point you're driving at here because no other point has been implied. Other than, of course, Heavy Rains massive influence from Adventure gaming. You know, that genre of games that supposedly died according to Roberta Williams because poor people could afford computers suddenly and not because her game design tactics were retarded, punishing, and not very clever. But I suppose Nintendo invented that too with Shadowgate, right?
I love it!
Did you miss this?
They find common ground not on the content they provide...
What the hell?
Well, it's not completely on rails. You do have to input something most of the time. You can't go down alternate paths unless you pick up the controller and follow the on-screen commands. It's all very downplayed, though.
Really? Damn, I was kind of hoping for a better reaction. Course my second paragraph was more towards Novacaine's victim mentality, explaining why there is a growing annoyance with Nintendo.
But really, I stand behind WiiFit being a worthless toy because it really was. It's just so sad Ellen and many other "daytimers" had to push it so hard.
But yeah, still kind of confused on the absolute intent of this article. And please, for future reference, when I troll that hard, either ignore me so I can see the other funny reactions, or at least troll me equally hard.
http://www.destructoid.com/blogs/sheppy/the-hard-sell-of-wii-games-148542.phtml
But the favor can't be returned. Fair enough, going away...
I agree with Monodi, every time you get to a keyboard magic happens.
My point was the similarity is, well, pointless. The article fails to answer the most important question "So what?" Honestly, this is a well written post, but I felt disappointed because it lacks anything I can recognize as a point beyond "Hey these two games are similar in a rather convoluted way."
It is like pointing out that Muddy Waters and Johnny Cash both sang about whisky, so why did some people like Cash but disliked Waters, without saying much more about on the matter.
On the necessity issue, I am honestly confused. So the players actions matter, but the player does not necessarily have to do much of anything to get to the end of the game. This is a good thing? This is innovation? Games that can play themselves? Really? Am I missing something?
OOOOOOOh SNAP SON!!!!
nonono but seriously, my terrible joke aside, great article. You've made me more interested in giving Heavy Rain a rental at least, despite getting my fingers burned by Fahrenheit.
I can understand your point from a developer’s perspective:
“we must learn what that did effectively and build off that.”
But most of us are consumers. We don’t build anything, video game wise.
Consumers only encourage innovation through buying, and to a much lesser extent, renting games. If an innovation does not look enjoyable, why should someone buy it?
Moreover, while your point is taken, both games innovate by having elements that take the player out of the game, they produce vastly different value to the consumer.
Wii fit did what educational games (not covered on game pages but games none the less) have been doing for 25 years: taking something people don’t like to do and adding a gaming element to make it more fun. If you don’t like exercise, but do like games and want to loose weight then there is allot of value there.
As far as Heavy Rain goes, we will see. Still, in an interactive medium, deemphasizing interaction, making it so your inputs on supposedly critical parts of the game really don't matter that much or that you are a passive director instead of an active participant (perhaps I am mischaracterizing your description, if so sorry), does not seem a step forward. I could well be wrong on this.
BTW, if Cage does not think of Heavy Rain as a game, who are we to argue?
Not sure if I'll ever get around to playing Heavy Rain but I'm still in love with WiiFit. Works well if you use it properly.
Basically, both pieces of software requires an experiential investment level that goes beyond the necessity of being a "game."
Can't blame them though, it's a strange article. Not a bad one, just an odd one.
One game is designed as a toy that you play with and ultimately get nothing besides a few fitness tips.
The other game is designed as a narrative experience and uses its gameplay to tell a story that can not be told in any other medium.
Heavy Rain is often described as a movie, but movies don't have any interaction with the viewer. The whole point of games is that you can interact with them, Heavy Rain mixes the inherit interactivity of games with a storyline, therefore pushing the medium forward, and showing people what games can accomplish.
WiiFit upholds the idea that games are nothing but something you play with and provide nothing else but temporary stimulation, similar to a toy.
I thought the article was interesting, but your concluding point is so ridiculous it induces rage. I also think its never a good idea to compare a game that isn't out yet.
I don't think that makes any sense. At least not in the way in which you intended. I've tried to look at it from every possible meaning of 'emersion' but I still don't get it.
And really, the only thing I see in common with them is that they're different from the norm. I think with a little time and effort, one could reasonably compare any two games to the same effect.
Oh, and by the way, Sheppy's comments are about as far from trolling as you can get. Perhaps it was a bit too much of a confrontational tone, but just because someone disagrees with you in a post doesn't mean that they're trolling.
Wii Fit is an exercise placebo for middle-aged women.
They are not even comparable. Just because some people consider them both to be "non-games" does not mean that they are the exact same type of thing. One leans away from 'game' and towards 'movie'; the other leans away from 'game' and towards 'workout video'. I mean... seriously. Come on now.
But what're you proving by doing such a thing? Meaningless correlations exist all around us.
Perfect example: "As such, there is no real way to "lose."
Are you starting to see the overlap?"
You also don't "lose" in The Sims. So now The Sims and Heavy Rain are not at all different?
You already know exactly what the difference is between Heavy Rain and Wii Fit. Honestly this just makes it sound like you're trying way too hard.