My Heavy Rain Post-Release Analysis: A Successful Failure

This is a rebuttal to a Gamasutra article (Also posted there) regarding Cage's statement about Heavy Rain serving as a gauge for innovation within the industry. I didn't structure this in the manner that I normally employ when making a thread but I felt that my thoughts on this incredibly interesting game certainly belonged on this forum. You can read the original article here:

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/27825/Cage_Heavy_Rain_Sales_Sent_Very_Strong_Message_About_Innovation.php

I really enjoyed my time with Heavy Rain but when you honestly analyze what it offers, there is no way to logically denote it as a game, at least not beyond an incredibly rudimentary definition of the concept. Heavy Rain, for all of its praise and technical achievement, is only marginally more interactive than something like Dragon's Lair. While that assessment may seem harsh the reality is that Heavy Rain leads the player by the nose throughout the entire experience, occasionally punctuating the narrative-rich game with a QTE sequence that may (or may not) change the next series of cut scenes. The game play is at best cursory, at worse obligatory but regardless the actual interactivity of Heavy Rain is altogether secondary to the story. That isn't a criticism so much as an observation, but it does bring up some interesting questions about this medium as we collectively ponder the delineation between watching a game and actually, well, playing it.

I purchased Heavy Rain day one and I'm happy to have done so. Unlike so many fellow gamers who posture and claim to want innovation, I actually use my money to support developers who try new and interesting things. However, I also traded in Heavy Rain a few weeks later because while I do not regret buying the game, it is also the type of experience I have zero interest in repeating. And the reason for that is very simple: Heavy Rain isn't much of a game.

For me, interactivity is what defines this medium and makes it something so different than passive forms of entertainment. As involved as we may become in literature or films, what we watch and read has a preset narrative and the manner in which that conclusion is reached has been decided by the author or director; we are merely passive observers. In a videogame, even if the narrative and conclusion is predetermined, the manner in which we arrive at that conclusion is often malleable and gives the gamer choice and freedom in how to progress. While Heavy Rain offers choice, that choice is mostly a façade, especially once we realize that the final reveal of the Origami Killer remains the same regardless of our in-game decisions.

Even the most generous editorials acknowledge that the differences found within the game are marginal and it is at this point that we realize Heavy Rain fails as a game because the actual mechanics are so simple and superficial that for many, they do not warrant replay. What are memorable are the story, atmosphere and characters and while all of those things are certainly worthy of praise, what does it matter if the game itself isn't all that playable?

What I find mostinteresting about Heavy Rain is that it demonstrates how so many developers seem obsessed with emulating cinema rather than finding their own voices using gaming as a conduit for their respective visions. Heavy Rain is nothing more than an interactive film with incredibly limited gameplay options and this design would seem to go against the grain of truly defining this medium as something wholly unique and separate from cinema and television. Worse, by emulating film, developers are then forcing us as gamers to compare these interactive films to true cinema and when that occurs, even the most robust narrative tends to falter because film is simply a better medium for static storytelling. I would argue that story should never be the primary propellant of any videogame. Otherwise, why not just make a film?

As previously mentioned, I enjoyed my time with Heavy Rain but placing it upon a pedestal as a shining beacon of innovation doesn't strike me as particularly accurate. I'm currently playing through Avalanche's Just Cause 2 and I would argue that game is far more innovative than Heavy Rain in just about every way, especially where it should count. I'm also currently playing through Yakuza 3 which also contains a robust and compelling narrative yet manages to also implement enjoyable gameplay mechanics, which makes me wonder why Cage and his development team were so adverse to making Heavy Rain playable beyond the superficial QTE's that comprise the entirety of the experience.

Lastly, as I play through Santa Monica's impressive God of War III, the incredibly vibrant cinematic feel of that game matches anything found in Heavy Rain yet simultaneously manages to offer up incredibly polished and enjoyable game mechanics that make me feel in control. When a more cinematic feel is necessary, QTE's are utilized in that game to great effect but the responsibility of interactivity is never lost on the developers who seem to understand that gameplay is crucial within any form of entertainment that is founded upon interaction.

I suppose when comparing Heavy Rain to more passive interactive games like the aforementioned Dragon's Lair, what it offers up is certainly an evolutionary step in merging two mediums into one but I'm not convinced that such a merger is necessary when so many brilliant games are rejecting the notion ofa traditionalnarrative structure and opting to use the freedom of interactivity to unfold the story. When I look at titles like Portal, Shadow of the Colossus, and Braid, what I see in those titles are brilliant games that push this medium forward by creating an experience that couldn't be replicated in any other medium. Heavy Rain feels like a movie masquerading as a videogame and while I applaud the many things it does well I can't forgive it for such a glaring omission in an era when games have become so much more than conduits for wannabe filmmakers.

You are a million percent correct. I wish I could offer more constructive criticism for such a well written piece, but the truth is that, in my opinion, you are correct. Gaming is an interactive medium, and by taking that piece of it out, you're stripping the game of it's primary function.

This is where the arguments over games being too much about graphics come from. Problem is not everyone can express themselves in such a way.

I posted a blog about this when I played this supposed "innovator" a few days after it's release. Heavy Rain is a game you watch, not a movie you can play.

Forgot to mention: That's some damn fine writing you did there.

I would argue that story should never be the primary propellant of any videogame. Otherwise, why not just make a film?Grammaton-Cleric

Oooh, I strongly disagree. A game's primary focus can literally be anything, the only prerequisite is that is has to excel in whatever that focus is. Besides, there's nothing more compelling than a good story. Since the dawn of man, telling a story has been the primary force of virtually every and any kind of human expression and games are no exception. The true challenge is how to integrate the story directly into the gameplay. In my opinion, Valve has been the primary pioneer of this technique, but I feel that even Valve has only scratched the surface. I think gaming has insane potential in delivering types of storytelling we've never experienced before, but we'll probably need a new generation of game designers who are capable of thinking beyond the current game design presets to get to that level.

Anyway, even though I haven't had the chance to play Heavy Rain yet, I think you made some good points. However, I believe there's room for all kinds of game design formulas so if Cage wants to make games light on gameplay, but heavy on storytelling - there's nothing inherently wrong with that. But the story has to be really good. If it is, there's your replay factor. It is no more or less inherently valid than the replay factor of a multiplayer game that shines in gameplay and balance.

Since the dawn of man, telling a story has been the primary force of virtually every and any kind of human expression and games are no exception.

UpInFlames

Not really mate, you can't bucket the ability to express yourself in as two-dimensionally as saying that it's all used to tell a story. That's just making yourself look incredibley naive to prove a point.

Interesting points. I think Metal Gear Solid is just as bad in that sense. Let's be honest, if you're spending more time watching the game, than playing it, then there is a serious problem. I don't care what anybody says, that's a poor game, maybe a decent animated movie, but a poor game. If you need to switch to another medium (movies/videos/cutscenes) constantly to tell your story, than you're not even remotely taking advantage of this medium.

The good developers are the ones that atleast balance it, and by that I mean more gameplay than cutscenes (Gta 4, for example). But the best developers, are the ones who literally fuse both gameplay, and storytelling, into one solid experience- games such as Half-life, and Bioshock are the best examples of this. Like Upinflames said, game developers need to stop relying on cutscenes so much, and start exploring new ways to tell the story, in a medium as interactive as this one- I see no reason not to.

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]I would argue that story should never be the primary propellant of any videogame. Otherwise, why not just make a film?UpInFlames

Oooh, I strongly disagree. A game's primary focus can literally be anything, the only prerequisite is that is has to excel in whatever that focus is. Besides, there's nothing more compelling than a good story. Since the dawn of man, telling a story has been the primary force of virtually every and any kind of human expression and games are no exception. The true challenge is how to integrate the story directly into the gameplay. In my opinion, Valve has been the primary pioneer of this technique, but I feel that even Valve has only scratched the surface. I think gaming has insane potential in delivering types of storytelling we've never experienced before, but we'll probably need a new generation of game designers who are capable of thinking beyond the current game design presets to get to that level.

Anyway, even though I haven't had the chance to play Heavy Rain yet, I think you made some good points. However, I believe there's room for all kinds of game design formulas so if Cage wants to make games light on gameplay, but heavy on storytelling - there's nothing inherently wrong with that. But the story has to be really good. If it is, there's your replay factor. It is no more or less inherently valid than the replay factor of a multiplayer game that shines in gameplay and balance.

I agree and to be honest my own comment regarding what should and shouldn't propel a game wasn't clearly delineated. I think a great story can be an excellent core for a game, as evidenced by one of my favorite (and admittedly flawed) franchises, Legacy of Kain. My point is that story should never be the primary motivation and the game play secondary because, in my opinion, that defeats the purpose of interactivity, which is what this medium is based upon. I think what Valve had done in this regard has been one of the high water marks, especially with the HL games, and other titles are also doing a fantastic job of integrating story directly into the narrative. By contrast, Heavy Rain feels like a movie with some obligatory game play mechanics added after the fact.

As to the quality of story, Heavy Rain is solid but falters in the last act, specifically in regards to the identity of the killer. Once that was revealed I had no desire to play through it again.

[QUOTE="UpInFlames"]

Since the dawn of man, telling a story has been the primary force of virtually every and any kind of human expression and games are no exception.

Partcik

Not really mate, you can't bucket the ability to express yourself in as two-dimensionally as saying that it's all used to tell a story. That's just making yourself look incredibley naive to prove a point.

Naturally, I used the term "story" in a very broad sense in that statement. What I meant was that there's always some kind of reasoning and intent for our expression. Almost anything we do or create in order to express ourselves tells some kind of story be it a sheet of music, a painting, a vase or indeed, a videogame. There are exceptions, as to everything, but that's besides the point.

Interesting points. I think Metal Gear Solid is just as bad in that sense. Let's be honest, if you're spending more time watching the game, than playing it, then there is a serious problem. I don't care what anybody says, that's a poor game, maybe a decent animated movie, but a poor game. If you need to switch to another medium (movies/videos/cutscenes) constantly to tell your story, than you're not even remotely taking advantage of this medium.

The good developers are the ones that atleast balance it, and by that I mean more gameplay than cutscenes (Gta 4, for example). But the best developers, are the ones who literally fuse both gameplay, and storytelling, into one solid experience- games such as Half-life, and Bioshock are the best examples of this. Like Upinflames said, game developers need to stop relying on cutscenes so much, and start exploring new ways to tell the story, in a medium as interactive as this one- I see no reason not to.

TheGrayEye

I agree and have always felt the lengthy, at time laborious cut scenes in all of the Metal Gear games were excessive. I think what saves those games however is that the core mechanics are pretty brilliant and you can simply abandon the story (which I did)and enjoy the outstanding stealth game play.

That said, your examples of games that fuse both elements together are outstanding.

I disagree Grammaton. I haven't yet replayed HR (I like to wait a few months before replaying games) and I can see how all the choices could lead to a finite number of possibilities, but still, I have seen screenshot of situations my characters never found themselves in, so I know that there is still quite a bit for me to find, so that makes it worth at least a couple playthroughs.

As for your complaints about the control scheme, I had similar worries before I played HR, but once I played it they were set aside. As David Cage stated, he didn't have a single control scheme because he wanted to put players in a widevariety of situations and give them control they had never had in such situations. Stuff that would be relegated to cutscenes or the press of a button in other games was actually carried out in-game by players. One minute one might be driving a car, the next searching a crime scene, the next selecting the line of questioning one wants to pursue, the next next cradling a baby, the next engaging in a fist fight, the next searching for one's asthma medicine, etc, etc.

On a related note, the developers did a good job of using the controls to approximate whatever your character was trying to do. Hard stuff for the character (recovering from the withdrawal attack the detective has while confronting the big guy in the junk yard that I don't feel I'm spoiling because it was shown in much of the promotional material) is hard to do and some stuff requires fast timing (one has more time to select a conversation response than to react to a punch, though both are time sensitive).

Heavy Rain was kind of a cross between the point and click adventure games of old, a choose your own adventure book, and something else. So I'm quite comfortable ****fying Heavy Rain as an innovative game which I hope other developers will borrow from and more importantly, be inspired by,

"film is simply a better medium for static storytelling."

Why?

You make some really good points, and made it really hard for me to disagree with you. I agree that it doesn't innovate like David Cage is claiming it does. I agree that the gameplay is just a bunch of QTEs. And yeah, it's basically a movie disguised as a game.

That said, I still found the game to have an incredible replay value. I suppose if you dismiss the gameplay as a bunch of QTEs then yeah, I can see why you'd think there is not much gameplay. But IMO, the game is much more. There are quite a few ways the story can end. (17 endings to be exact.) There are trophies that you get not just for not screwing up the QTEs, but performing specific tasks in the game. Things that you dont think count as gameplay sequences, things you will surely miss on your first playthrough. To me, the trying out different things in the game was very rewarding. I was not only rewarded with new endings, different cutscenes/outcomes, but also whole new playable sequences that I completely missed out on my first playthrough.

I'm also with Carnage about Cage's decision to go with the QTEs as the main gameplay mechanic. It enabled them to make some extremely thrilling and "organic" sequences that we simply wouldnt have seen in a game with traditional driving and shooting controls. The chase scene with Jayden in the market, the the Lizard challenge with Ethan, and the basement fight with Madison simply cant be done in traditional games.

I disagree Grammaton. I haven't yet replayed HR (I like to wait a few months before replaying games) and I can see how all the choices could lead to a finite number of possibilities, but still, I have seen screenshot of situations my characters never found themselves in, so I know that there is still quite a bit for me to find, so that makes it worth at least a couple playthroughs.

As for your complaints about the control scheme, I had similar worries before I played HR, but once I played it they were set aside. As David Cage stated, he didn't have a single control scheme because he wanted to put players in a widevariety of situations and give them control they had never had in such situations. Stuff that would be relegated to cutscenes or the press of a button in other games was actually carried out in-game by players. One minute one might be driving a car, the next searching a crime scene, the next selecting the line of questioning one wants to pursue, the next next cradling a baby, the next engaging in a fist fight, the next searching for one's asthma medicine, etc, etc.

On a related note, the developers did a good job of using the controls to approximate whatever your character was trying to do. Hard stuff for the character (recovering from the withdrawal attack the detective has while confronting the big guy in the junk yard that I don't feel I'm spoiling because it was shown in much of the promotional material) is hard to do and some stuff requires fast timing (one has more time to select a conversation response than to react to a punch, though both are time sensitive).

Heavy Rain was kind of a cross between the point and click adventure games of old, a choose your own adventure book, and something else. So I'm quite comfortable ****fying Heavy Rain as an innovative game which I hope other developers will borrow from and more importantly, be inspired by,

CarnageHeart

I fully understand where you are coming from and even agree to a certain extent. My problem with this game stems from the fact that with more interactivity and superior gameplay, Heavy Rain could have been so much more. Frankly, I don't buy Cage's rationale; I think he wanted to tell a story and I think he felt that story superceded any gameplay mechanics, however thoughtful or deliberate those mechanics might be. I personally think QTE's, regardless of how clever, are lazy game design when used excessively. Also, in regards to control, I think the pressing of the button to walk was a HUGE mistake. It made movement incredibly clunky and even after adjusting to it still felt like old school tank control. Full analog support would have gone a significant way to making the actual gameplay far less clunky than it was, but obviously it bothers me to an extent that isn't necessarily echoed by others.

I guess I really don't see why any developer would be inspired by something that is, at best, a marginally interactive film. When I play something like Uncharted 2, I see a game that not only looks and feels like a film but offers some very exciting gameplay as well. IF the issue is one of a compelling narrative, I can play something like Silent Hill: Shattered Memories and get an incredibly nuanced story that still manages to retain compelling game play. Actually, I've juststarted playing Silent Hill and it is a very non-traditional experience (no combat, heavy emphasis on exploration) but it feels infinitely more compelling as an actual game because of the control I exercise and the choices I get to make as the player.

Again, I'm really glad I played through Heavy Rain but at thesame time I'm also irked that Cage thinks his vision is innovative when I would actually assert it is merely the combination of other established ideas into one construct. I think what he delivered is what many developers strive for: interactive films. The problem, at least from my perspective, is that I think by merely emulating film (which Heavy Rain does in spades) something crucial is lost because Ifeel the best development teams can make their games interactive and still tell a compelling story. However, to be fair, I loathed Indigo Prophecy and I think HR was a much better game so I'll be the first in line to play whatever Mr. Cage hasin the works.

I could have told whomever that the game was a successful failure for being a niche title tied to PS3 exclusivity and saved them the hyper-analytical, yet lucid and well written review.

As I don't have a PS3, too bad I'll never get to play it.

I posted a blog about this when I played this supposed "innovator" a few days after it's release. Heavy Rain is a game you watch, not a movie you can play.

Jbul

Nothing will get me rolling my eyes more than anyone claiming their game is innovative. I don't think the word means what the people who throw it around think it means.

All it did was really reinforce how awfully far videogame narratives still have to go for me. I mean, I enjoyed it; it had its moments; it tackled some tough issues; and so on, but there were some massive plotholes and unexplained plot devices coupled with some stuff that was just OFF. Which leaves us with two possibilities as far as I'm concerned:

The first is that Cage, like Kojima, fancies himself a bit too much, and as such, doesn't know when to stop being a huffy-chested pontificator, sort of like the drunken santa in The Ref.

And the second is that, while improved, Heavy Rain is a flawed product from a flawed game-maker who genuinely TRIED to make a better product.

I'm more inclined to believe it's the latter. Heavy Rain avoids the pitfalls of Fahrenheit, but God, how could it not? When the bar is so absolutely low it's hard not to outdo it. And let's face it, if this were Hollywood, Cage would've been run out of the business after Fahrenheit, along with all his prancing ninnies in the press who praised a product that was inarguably and fatally flawed to the point of being broken. I agree with Grammaton's assessment that Heavy Rain isn't really a game, but at least it had something to say, unlike Fahrenheit, which also wasn't really a game and it had a butt-numbing story, which kind of made it like a high-rent Happy Meal toy.

Anyway, I enjoyed parts of Heavy Rain. I just didn't feel particularly moved one way or the other after playing it, and the plot holes were so glaring that I wondered why some of the devices were introduced (I mean, was the apartment break-in just a reason to see Madison's breasts? It sure felt that way.) And what about Tripto? Zero explanation. What about Jayden's glasses? No reason is ever given why he's the lucky guy who gets to wear the magic glasses. There are at least three more holes/unresolved plot points, but they veer into spoiler territory and I don't feel like wrestling with this busted site's HTML editor to post a goddamn synopsis on Heavy Rain plotholes -- trust me -- they are there, folks.

As bad as it sounds like I'm ragging on the game, I still think it is the best example of story-driven gaming that this generation has offered, seeing as Metal Gear got so absolutely rife with stupidity that the series is dead for good as far as I'm concerned. Cage gets a little unfocused and sloppy with Heavy Rain, but there's still a story worth seeing, unlike Metal Gear, which just got a terminal case of the Stupids on top of an existing case of the Conceiteds.

And maybe that's where there's a happy ending for Cage. Unlike his Japanese counterpart, people weren't afraid to tell him he sucked, and as a result, he threw his nuts over his shoulder and made a better game. That's really a backhanded compliment to Cage, me comparing him to Kojima, but it actually means something -- there was a time when Kojima was something special, and now I see that possibility in Cage, only more unrefined and loose, like a vat of gunpowder -- all foomp and no PROPULSION, maybe nothing even to PROPEL. Still, I'd be lying if I didn't want to see what this guy does next.

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

"film is simply a better medium for static storytelling."

Why?

dvader654

Oh and excellent post Grammaton, I have not played Heavy Rain yet so I cant comment much.

Yet I would argue that movies are often restricted by time and a very specific type of pacing. Videogames can be like movies, as with Heavy Rain (despite being notably longer than most movies), but the way that videogames can communicate narratives is far more varied.

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

I disagree Grammaton. I haven't yet replayed HR (I like to wait a few months before replaying games) and I can see how all the choices could lead to a finite number of possibilities, but still, I have seen screenshot of situations my characters never found themselves in, so I know that there is still quite a bit for me to find, so that makes it worth at least a couple playthroughs.

As for your complaints about the control scheme, I had similar worries before I played HR, but once I played it they were set aside. As David Cage stated, he didn't have a single control scheme because he wanted to put players in a widevariety of situations and give them control they had never had in such situations. Stuff that would be relegated to cutscenes or the press of a button in other games was actually carried out in-game by players. One minute one might be driving a car, the next searching a crime scene, the next selecting the line of questioning one wants to pursue, the next next cradling a baby, the next engaging in a fist fight, the next searching for one's asthma medicine, etc, etc.

On a related note, the developers did a good job of using the controls to approximate whatever your character was trying to do. Hard stuff for the character (recovering from the withdrawal attack the detective has while confronting the big guy in the junk yard that I don't feel I'm spoiling because it was shown in much of the promotional material) is hard to do and some stuff requires fast timing (one has more time to select a conversation response than to react to a punch, though both are time sensitive).

Heavy Rain was kind of a cross between the point and click adventure games of old, a choose your own adventure book, and something else. So I'm quite comfortable ****fying Heavy Rain as an innovative game which I hope other developers will borrow from and more importantly, be inspired by,

Grammaton-Cleric

I fully understand where you are coming from and even agree to a certain extent. My problem with this game stems from the fact that with more interactivity and superior gameplay, Heavy Rain could have been so much more. Frankly, I don't buy Cage's rationale; I think he wanted to tell a story and I think he felt that story superceded any gameplay mechanics, however thoughtful or deliberate those mechanics might be. I personally think QTE's, regardless of how clever, are lazy game design when used excessively. Also, in regards to control, I think the pressing of the button to walk was a HUGE mistake. It made movement incredibly clunky and even after adjusting to it still felt like old school tank control. Full analog support would have gone a significant way to making the actual gameplay far less clunky than it was, but obviously it bothers me to an extent that isn't necessarily echoed by others.

I guess I really don't see why any developer would be inspired by something that is, at best, a marginally interactive film. When I play something like Uncharted 2, I see a game that not only looks and feels like a film but offers some very exciting gameplay as well. IF the issue is one of a compelling narrative, I can play something like Silent Hill: Shattered Memories and get an incredibly nuanced story that still manages to retain compelling game play. Actually, I've juststarted playing Silent Hill and it is a very non-traditional experience (no combat, heavy emphasis on exploration) but it feels infinitely more compelling as an actual game because of the control I exercise and the choices I get to make as the player.

Again, I'm really glad I played through Heavy Rain but at thesame time I'm also irked that Cage thinks his vision is innovative when I would actually assert it is merely the combination of other established ideas into one construct. I think what he delivered is what many developers strive for: interactive films. The problem, at least from my perspective, is that I think by merely emulating film (which Heavy Rain does in spades) something crucial is lost because Ifeel the best development teams can make their games interactive and still tell a compelling story. However, to be fair, I loathed Indigo Prophecy and I think HR was a much better game so I'll be the first in line to play whatever Mr. Cage hasin the works.

*Shrugs* You and I disagree about what gameplay is. In HR one plays the game constantly. Unlike in MGS4 (or to a lesser extent other games) there aren't bits where one puts down the controller and watches (during conversations one selects either from questions or answers). One can skip entire segments (Don't want to fight a abusive guy? Then don't). There are many paths you can take to multiple endings and your decisions impact those paths, and your mistakes can make the paths of the main characters short.

Is it perfect? No. I agree with you about normal walking being clunky (I played a lot of the old RE games, so I got used to it, but that doesn't mean its an ideal control method). But it does a lot of interesting things.

But I don't have an issue with the fact that the gameplay and the plot are so closely tied together (the bit where the guy is just alone in the house with his son anda ll the optionsat your fingerprintsduring said scene was awesome).

Yet I would argue that movies are often restricted by time and a very specific type of pacing. Videogames can be like movies, as with Heavy Rain (despite being notably longer than most movies), but the way that videogames can communicate narratives is far more varied.

hakanakumono

Let's assume that your assertion here is correct. That still brings into question why so many developers opt to emulate cinema when they have so many other possibilities and tools at their disposal. You are right that film as a medium has certain parameters that videogames do not, so why use film as a rigid template for delivering the narrative?

*Shrugs* You and I disagree about what gameplay is. In HR one plays the game constantly. Unlike in MGS4 (or to a lesser extent other games) there aren't bits where one puts down the controller and watches (during conversations one selects either from questions or answers). One can skip entire segments (Don't want to fight a abusive guy? Then don't). There are many paths you can take to multiple endings and your decisions impact those paths, and your mistakes can make the paths of the main characters short.

Is it perfect? No. I agree with you about normal walking being clunky (I played a lot of the old RE games, so I got used to it, but that doesn't mean its an ideal control method). But it does a lot of interesting things.

But I don't have an issue with the fact that the gameplay and the plot are so closely tied together (the bit where the guy is just alone in the house with his son anda ll the optionsat your fingerprintsduring said scene was awesome).

CarnageHeart

I don't think we disagree about what constitutes gameplay so much as we disagree that what Heavy Rain offered was quality gameplay. Personally, I find the entire QTE approach to be tiresome and the notion of a full game using only that mechanic, along with some rudimentary exploration, doesn't sit well with me. You have a point that Heavy Rain is a very proactive experience in that it is constantly requiring input from the player but that input is so basic that it feels perfunctory.

As to MGS4, I won't defend the ridiculous cut scenes but the core mechanics of that game were pretty brilliant and frankly, that's why I play games. I skip most cut scenes because the vast majority of videogames contain narratives that are either incredibly juvenile or rife with clichés and steeped in banality. To give credit where it is due, Heavy Rain was successful in delivering a mostly solid narrative, though towards the end I think it faltered severely.

Again, I don't mean to deride this game into the ground; I enjoyed it for what it was. But looking at what is currently occupying my time and also what is on the horizon, just about everything in regards to the gameplay mechanics of this title seem archaic. Looking ahead to something like Rockstar's LA Noir, I see a game that appears to do everything Cage's game accomplished but with a fully playable Los Angeles sandbox at the player's disposal. I guess I don't agree with the notion that gameplay and story are mutually exclusive because I think both can be represented brilliantly in this medium. In my estimation, Cage got half of it right but having played both this and Indigo Prophecy, I'm sincerely beginning to wonder if gameplay is evena priority for this guy.

Pretty accurate assessment, Grammaton. I share a lot of your viewpoints on the game, and much like you, I did enjoy it a lot, but don't feel too compelled to go back to it for a second playthrough.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I saw this game as an evolution of sorts of point-and-click adventure games, minus the usual focus on puzzles that those games usually have. Unfortunately, as others have stated, if your main (or sole) focus is going to be plot and narrative, you better be damn sure it is cohesive, smart, and well acted, and even though Heavy Rain shows a vast improvement over Indigo, it still falls short from what could be its true potential as a storytelling vessel. Plot holes and inconsistencies, lack of information on critical issues, and uneven acting all across the character roster are only a couple of the game's shortcomings.

So, what do I treasure from the game? For starters, the way it tries to portray human relationships (although with mixed results), this resulting in some involving and immersing scenes (at least for me, I guess having a couple kids my own it was easier for me to relate), also, a couple of the most intense, white-knuckled sequences I've played in a long time (won't spoil them, those who have played the game know what those are). But most of all, I treasure the way Cage and QD aim for a different way of presenting stories in videogames. It sure has its flaws, but I do believe it's a commendable effort, and totally worthy of further refinement.

I really enjoyed my time with Heavy Rain but when you honestly analyze what it offers, there is no way to logically denote it as a game

Grammaton-Cleric

Oh god. =\

Even Dragon's Lair was a game.

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

Yet I would argue that movies are often restricted by time and a very specific type of pacing. Videogames can be like movies, as with Heavy Rain (despite being notably longer than most movies), but the way that videogames can communicate narratives is far more varied.

Grammaton-Cleric

Let's assume that your assertion here is correct. That still brings into question why so many developers opt to emulate cinema when they have so many other possibilities and tools at their disposal. You are right that film as a medium has certain parameters that videogames do not, so why use film as a rigid template for delivering the narrative?

What games use film as a rigid template for delivering narrative? Heavy Rain is the only one I've played. Unless you're insinuating that cutscenes themselves are 'emulating movies," which I would disagree with.

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

I really enjoyed my time with Heavy Rain but when you honestly analyze what it offers, there is no way to logically denote it as a game

KHAndAnime

Oh god. =\

Even Dragon's Lair was a game.

I noticed you omitted the rest of that sentence which clearly explains my rationale, which you are of course welcometo disagree with. That said, I would argue Dragon's Lair isn't really a game at all but a slightly interactive collection of beautifully animated segments. There was actually a period of time when these types of "games" enjoyed a prolific cycle before crashing and burning for obvious reasons.

The primary reason being they offer no real gameplay beyond the superficial.

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

Yet I would argue that movies are often restricted by time and a very specific type of pacing. Videogames can be like movies, as with Heavy Rain (despite being notably longer than most movies), but the way that videogames can communicate narratives is far more varied.

hakanakumono

Let's assume that your assertion here is correct. That still brings into question why so many developers opt to emulate cinema when they have so many other possibilities and tools at their disposal. You are right that film as a medium has certain parameters that videogames do not, so why use film as a rigid template for delivering the narrative?

What games use film as a rigid template for delivering narrative? Heavy Rain is the only one I've played. Unless you're insinuating that cutscenes themselves are 'emulating movies," which I would disagree with.

Most games that feature a narrative, mainly those of the last decade, generally follow a three act structure very similar to films. It's painfully obvious that most of the storytelling in games has been directly affected by cinema, so in all sincerity I really have no clue as to what part of my statement continues to mystify you. If you want examples there are numerous games. As a point of fact, most games use a three act structure and employ a contemporary story arch to deliver the narrative. This includes everything from Halo and Modern Warfare to God of War and Uncharted. For years the industry seemed to be pursuing the notion that achieving a filmic quality in games was the ultimate goal but that philosophy has in recent years begun to wane as the medium matures and developers discover that videogames can be something altogether different than movies. In finding that uniqueness, the true artistic merit of this medium subsequently comes to fruition.

If we are going to dismantle and deconstruct Heavy Rain in purely academic terms, I would actually assert the design philosophies that propelled its development cycle are a throwback to games where interactivity was supplanted by story and visual opulence. As extreme as my Dragon's Lair example might have been, I sincerely believe that HR has more in common with that game than contemporary offerings where the gamer is given a large measure of freedom in terms of choice and interaction. HR reflects an archaic paradigm where achieving the look and feel of a movie is the highest possible goal, which I personally think is a very limiting philosophy.

Strangely, when reading the OP I was reminded of bunch of recent threads that had titles like, how could Heavy Rain get a lower score than Modern Warfare or why aren't game reviews as consistent as movie reviews. I think these types of threads get made so often because there is an assumption out there that quality games are those that most resemble quality movies.

I like the fact that OP challenges this assumption.

For me, interactivity is what defines this medium and makes it something so different than passive forms of entertainment

… What I find mostinteresting about Heavy Rain is that it demonstrates how so many developers seem obsessed with emulating cinema rather than finding their own voices using gaming as a conduit for their respective visions. Grammaton-Cleric

All these threads bring up the interesting issue of what makes a game a quality game. I tend to agree with the OP that intense interactivity is what games should be striving for and that playing a Just Cause 2 is a better gaming experience than playing a Heavy Rain. But does that really answer the question of which is the better quality game? I'm not sure. Because it seems to boil down to my personal preference more than quality experience.

Afterall the people who enjoyed HR may not have had an intense interactive experience, but they did have an intense cinematic experience based on storytelling. Perhaps a movie could have easily replicated that experience or even done it better. But that does not invalidate the fact that the game was successful at doing it too.

So was Heavy Rain innovative? Sort of. It took a game in a different direction than usual – as the OP noted, it made gameplay secondary and story telling first. That can be seen as an innovation. Not a good innovation imo. But ymmv.

Personally I think this game could be considered a different type of genre, regarding for what it offers in gameplay during the entire game. Sure comparing it to most games it may fall short in the gameplay department, but it offers a more cinematic and different experience than those games. Could the game be improved by letting the player have more control? Definitely. This type of game is in its infancy and I'm sure most developers will follow suit while trying to balance the gameplay/storytelling time, I'm sure there will be better efforts in the future. I believe long cutscenes will by replaced by QTE's instead of letting the player yawning most of the time.

I hope more of this type of game flood the market instead of those Wii minigame collections. As long as it brings a solid storytelling and intense gameplay sequences, I'll be buying that "game" on day one.

Strangely, when reading the OP I was reminded of bunch of recent threads that had titles like, how could Heavy Rain get a lower score than Modern Warfare or why aren't game reviews as consistent as movie reviews. I think these types of threads get made so often because there is an assumption out there that quality games are those that most resemble quality movies.

I like the fact that OP challenges this assumption.

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"] For me, interactivity is what defines this medium and makes it something so different than passive forms of entertainment

… What I find mostinteresting about Heavy Rain is that it demonstrates how so many developers seem obsessed with emulating cinema rather than finding their own voices using gaming as a conduit for their respective visions. Solori

All these threads bring up the interesting issue of what makes a game a quality game. I tend to agree with the OP that intense interactivity is what games should be striving for and that playing a Just Cause 2 is a better gaming experience than playing a Heavy Rain. But does that really answer the question of which is the better quality game? I'm not sure. Because it seems to boil down to my personal preference more than quality experience.

Afterall the people who enjoyed HR may not have had an intense interactive experience, but they did have an intense cinematic experience based on storytelling. Perhaps a movie could have easily replicated that experience or even done it better. But that does not invalidate the fact that the game was successful at doing it too.

So was Heavy Rain innovative? Sort of. It took a game in a different direction than usual – as the OP noted, it made gameplay secondary and story telling first. That can be seen as an innovation. Not a good innovation imo. But ymmv.

Some excellent observations and I actually agree with what you've stated here. When I make these assertions I try and make it very clear these are my own personal ideas as to what gaming iswhen comparedto other forms of media. While I think my position is a very solid one, that doesn't mean there isn't another way to look at this game.

One of the most interesting aspects of this whole issue is that my own background gives me a very different perspective on this medium because having received formal education in both literature and film I have spent most of my life indulging heavily in both, which is why I appreciate gaming for being something utterly unique. I generally skip most cut scenes and care very little about most game-related narratives because as a voracious reader and film buff few games can compare to books and movies in terms of story, character development, etc. What I love about games is that they can deliver unique narratives using the open-ended parameters of the medium, which is why I consider something like Shadow of the Colossus not only a work of art but also a shinning example of a videogame that could not be effectively translated into a film without losing the artistic integrity of what a videogame construct offers. More and more I am playing games that defy the traditional story structure and dare to create their own rules because developers are finally beginning to understand that they are working within a medium that is boundless.

At the same time, it is myopic on my part to dismiss what others feel about a game like HR because frankly, not everybody is invested in literature and film to the same degree as me. For many people, Heavy Rain may have been a profoundly moving experience even if the level of interaction was limited. For some, interactivity may not even factor into the equation and if that is the case then power to them. I think this is an important game if only to help other developers and consumers decide what direction the medium should take in regards to emulating cinema versus striving to differentiate the gaming medium as something overtly unique and disparate from films.

The only thing I can think of to describe it is a "choice simulator" kind of like the choose your own adventure books I remember reading as a kid. It does barely qualify as a game, but only just. It does provide a bit more interaction than Dragon's Lair as you have far more independence, so I do consider it a game even if it does lean a lot more towards trying to be a movie. Innovative? That term is thrown around too often by way too many people in and out of the business. Besides from what I've seen, it is questionable how much people want innovation.

Personally I think this game could be considered a different type of genre, regarding for what it offers in gameplay during the entire game. Sure comparing it to most games it may fall short in the gameplay department, but it offers a more cinematic and different experience than those games.

D3s7rUc71oN

I would argue that both God of War III and Uncharted 2, just to name two recent critical and commercially successful games, offered plenty of cinematic structure and flourishes that rival anything seen in Heavy Rain while delivering outstanding gameplay mechanics. I do agree Heavy Rain delivers something unique in terms of a gaming narrative but when a title like L.A. Noir lands next fall and offers a similar experience replete with a fully immersive sandbox city to explore, I really don't think HR will retain its luster.

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

*Shrugs* You and I disagree about what gameplay is. In HR one plays the game constantly. Unlike in MGS4 (or to a lesser extent other games) there aren't bits where one puts down the controller and watches (during conversations one selects either from questions or answers). One can skip entire segments (Don't want to fight a abusive guy? Then don't). There are many paths you can take to multiple endings and your decisions impact those paths, and your mistakes can make the paths of the main characters short.

Is it perfect? No. I agree with you about normal walking being clunky (I played a lot of the old RE games, so I got used to it, but that doesn't mean its an ideal control method). But it does a lot of interesting things.

But I don't have an issue with the fact that the gameplay and the plot are so closely tied together (the bit where the guy is just alone in the house with his son anda ll the optionsat your fingerprintsduring said scene was awesome).

Grammaton-Cleric

I don't think we disagree about what constitutes gameplay so much as we disagree that what Heavy Rain offered was quality gameplay. Personally, I find the entire QTE approach to be tiresome and the notion of a full game using only that mechanic, along with some rudimentary exploration, doesn't sit well with me. You have a point that Heavy Rain is a very proactive experience in that it is constantly requiring input from the player but that input is so basic that it feels perfunctory.

As to MGS4, I won't defend the ridiculous cut scenes but the core mechanics of that game were pretty brilliant and frankly, that's why I play games. I skip most cut scenes because the vast majority of videogames contain narratives that are either incredibly juvenile or rife with clichés and steeped in banality. To give credit where it is due, Heavy Rain was successful in delivering a mostly solid narrative, though towards the end I think it faltered severely.

Again, I don't mean to deride this game into the ground; I enjoyed it for what it was. But looking at what is currently occupying my time and also what is on the horizon, just about everything in regards to the gameplay mechanics of this title seem archaic. Looking ahead to something like Rockstar's LA Noir, I see a game that appears to do everything Cage's game accomplished but with a fully playable Los Angeles sandbox at the player's disposal. I guess I don't agree with the notion that gameplay and story are mutually exclusive because I think both can be represented brilliantly in this medium. In my estimation, Cage got half of it right but having played both this and Indigo Prophecy, I'm sincerely beginning to wonder if gameplay is evena priority for this guy.

I qualify HR's gameplay/game design as quality because it puts one in situations games have rarely (if ever) put them and then gives them a range of options. In most games you're locked into a defined control scheme and the world fits around it (in shooters you shoot everything). I agree that HR's design is more driven by story than in most games but I maintain that they developed the story with gameplay scenarios in mind. HR's gameplay changes to fit the context of whatever scenario the player finds him or herself in (and normally players have a handful of options) and as I said,the controls IMHO do a good job of approximating how tricky (or easy) something is for the character.

Also, I disliked the length of MGS4's cutscenes, but I like MGS4's gameplay/game design (especially its bosses) and I even liked the characters and the storytelling (it is mostly entertaining, there's just too much of it).

As for LA Noire, I've read the previews and seen the screenshots, but haven't seen any gameplay vids, so I haven't gotten excited about it yet (I confess to being a little biased agaisnt Team Bondi due to my intense disappointment with The Getaway).

[QUOTE="D3s7rUc71oN"]

Personally I think this game could be considered a different type of genre, regarding for what it offers in gameplay during the entire game. Sure comparing it to most games it may fall short in the gameplay department, but it offers a more cinematic and different experience than those games.

Grammaton-Cleric

I would argue that both God of War III and Uncharted 2, just to name two recent critical and commercially successful games, offered plenty of cinematic structure and flourishes that rival anything seen in Heavy Rain while delivering outstanding gameplay mechanics. I do agree Heavy Rain delivers something unique in terms of a gaming narrative but when a title like L.A. Noir lands next fall and offers a similar experience replete with a fully immersive sandbox city to explore, I really don't think HR will retain its luster.

While I haven't beaten many games as of late, The three games you mentioned I've finished ( well I'm 90% complete in GoWIII, yes I haven't finished it due to playing it for very small portions as of late. I got to say its longer than those reviewers mentioned:P) Uncharted 2 felt like a summer film blockbuster, while it offered a cinematic experience, I would say that GoW 3 takes it to the next level in terms of what its at stake and the presentation if offers. I haven't had the chance to read on LA Noir, though I have GI front page cover of the game so I'll get to read on it soon.

I think GoW3, Uncharted 2 offered a different type of cinematic feel to Heavy Rain, I find the former the better game, while at the same time the latter delivers a unique experience that's stuck with me in terms of what unfolds. Sure it could be b/c there's not games like these in abundance, it could be a possibility as to why its unique. At the same time I can't help but think to compare this to the way JRPG's and WRPG's play out. Both are in the same genre, but one of them gives you more control than the other in a completely different way.