Not that I want to open a can of worms, but about Heavy Rain, I think the story holds up fine. It is a matter on whether you can relate with the main character and I don't think you can do that if you don't have children of your own. While you can an have en empathic understanding of the bonds between parent and child if you don't have children, the game really resonates with the gamer if he/she has children. The motivations of the main character and what he is willing to do to save his other son become more understandable and plausible...

Couple of observations: Coppola added significant parts in Apocalypse Now. Picasso probably scraped some of his paintings Tired of bad ending = art and good ending = Disney. Gears of War: great ending, no one had to die to make it memorable. The Artists of Mass Effect are free to revisit the end - it is artistic freedom, like it or not Gamespot.

Games as an art from appeared in a very different context when connections between artists (please don't use the word developer - it just ruins the whole game as art position) and the patrons, i.e. fans, are closer and more intense than before. Internet has accelerated this process and now fans and artists are engaged in conversations that, in my opinion, can only result in better art as these discussions can enrich the end "art piece". Now, artists need to cater to multiple patrons if they want to continue making arts. And the artist's ability to get an accurate "feeling" of the Zeit Geist and of the player community will decide whether the art piece is a success or not. We need to keep this context in mind when we discuss games as art. They don't belong in museum next to painting by grand masters of old or in parks alongside the works of Rodin. Games are a different kind of art: an interactive art. Players interact with the environments created by game artists. Players interacts with the artists. So instead of falling into the "museum syndrome", perhaps it is time for game critics to embrace this trend of closer interactions and of the dynamic process linking players and artists. Gone are the days of the Ivory tower artist! I believe this will, in the end, make games/art better.

When did Gamespot become the defenders of the ivory tower of fine art? Although I agree that games are art, they shouldn't be put in the same category of "high" art such as painting and music. What we consider "art" and the examples cited by Gamespot and fans (Beethoveen, Michaelangelo, Rubens, etc.) arose in a very different context. These work of art were the result of demands by the Pope, the King of France, merchant prince and other patrons. The artists had to please their sponsors otherwise, no more funds and no more privileges. A single person hired the artist and decided if the end result was pleasing or not.

My problem with the ending is that I didn't feel good after the game was over. At the end of Mass Effect 2, I really had a feeling of accomplishment with all my team alive because I made the right choice, my ship intact because of research and most of all because I had destroyed the Reapers base. At the end of ME3, I had no such feeling. I think happy endings, or at least endings that make you feel good, are really rare and somewhat under-appreciated. They are associated with Disney-like products. Perhaps the art of the good end is lost... But nevertheless, I didn't feel good at the end of ME3 as I did at the end of ME2. Finding a good end to ME3 was not something easy and Bioware has chosen one way to finish the trilogy that follows the precepts of epic tale a la Beowulf in which the hero has to die because of his being too amazing. And that's sad...