Going Gold: Why You Need to Buy Heavy Rain

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Wow... if you want to sell more copies, don't subtly insult most gamers by calling us immature, put your game on more then one platform. Especially if that platform happens to be the least popular one.

Don't have a PS3, so won't be buying it.
If I had a PS3? Still wouldn't buy it.

Got one thing right though, that guy sure can sound pretentious at times....

Anyway, if this game is meant to be such a great thing, why is it just appearing on one format? As not everyone owns a PS3, not all of us are going to be able to experience this bold new direction for gaming for ourselves. Maybe it should have appeared on 360 and PC as well. In fact, seeing as their loathe to refer to this as a "game" at all, maybe it should have been released as some kind of interactive Blu-Ray or something, so that anyone with a TV and a blu-ray player can see those charming gentlemen invade Page's apartment...

Note: I don't need to hear of any budgetary/technology/exclusivity issues that likely exist to stop the above from happening. I was just shooting my mouth off...:)

Three reasons why I [b]won't[b] buy Heavy Rain:

1) It's a PS3 exclusive, despite having shitty graphics and barely any CPU eating physics. It could easily work on PCs and 360s, and I don't have a PS3.

2) Despite focusing entirely on plot and cinematics, the writing is bad and the animations look unnatural. (going purely of trailers here)

3) Nothing even close to actual gameplay.

To summarize, it strikes me as a game with out either fun gameplay, decent story or good graphics. Most games have at least one of those three, a game of this type should at least have the later two down.

Basically... this game is appealing to me as a horseshit enema.

Seeing as there is next to no gameplay what's to stop me watching a playthrough on youtube?

As someone with no emotions and no PS3, I do not need to buy Heavy Rain.

Im sorry, is this a game of Mass effectesque dialogue and quicktime events all mashed into one? If it is then im afraid compelling story cannot win me over. My friend will not shut up about it though, someone who owns the game give me a lowdown of the gameplay really, do you actually feel involved with the game?

Posted this on another thread already, but heavy rain is the most powerful game I have ever played, in terms of effect on me.
It's the first game that made me care for character's really deeply, specially the father, and feel actual fear for their lives. The combination of the gameplay, music and awesome voice acting in those scenes, create real terror for the characters, that transfers to you like no game did before.

Posted this on another thread already, but heavy rain is the most powerful game I have ever played, in terms of effect on me.
It's the first game that made me care for character's really deeply, specially the father, and feel actual fear for their lives. The combination of the gameplay, music and awesome voice acting in those scenes, create real terror for the characters, that transfers to you like no game did before.

Are you serious? I mean the game is really good but for the most part the Voice Acting sucks.

Sky Captanio:

Posted this on another thread already, but heavy rain is the most powerful game I have ever played, in terms of effect on me.
It's the first game that made me care for character's really deeply, specially the father, and feel actual fear for their lives. The combination of the gameplay, music and awesome voice acting in those scenes, create real terror for the characters, that transfers to you like no game did before.

Are you serious? I mean the game is really good but for the most part the Voice Acting sucks.

Well, at least the Portuguese voice acting was awesome, although the voice actors are all AAA-grade actors that you see regularly in Portuguese cinema and television. Only tried English audio on the Taxidermist scene, and thought it was great aswell, although it was Madison only.

I'm actually looking forward to getting my hands on this game. I've been playing games like halo and Left4Dead for a while now, so a game that's more of a choose your own adventure story actually sounds a little refreshing after just playing mindless shooters and such. I've been playing RPGs too... but the only one worth noting would be Dragon Age :/ even then it's just the first decent RPG to come out in a while, which is why people are lovin it so much. Like the end of a drought... only you have mud water that your not too sure about....

Back on topic, hell yes I'll give it a try.

A game strong for the story and the decisions you make, not for actual gameplay.

I congratulate the producers for having balls in doing something that violates the status quo, but it should've been less flawed. If gameplay and voiceacting were good (not needing to be excellent), Heavy Rain would be a masterpiece that would add a lot to game's plot writing.

With excellent aspects and terrible ones, now it is a 50/50 gamble.

I'll look into it and hope for the best, for the game and the industry.

It seems there are two camps here: People who haven't yet played it bashing it for what appears to them to be a game made up entirely of one big QTE, and people who have played it, applauding the game and trying to convince the people from group one to give it a shot.

Yes, this is a blanket statement to be sure, and there have been the odd few who have played it and come away unimpressed. But have you noticed that 90% of the people who have actually sat down with the complete finished product (not the demo, the demo cannot properly convey the full experience the game offers) have wholeheartedly enjoyed it? Does that say anything to you guys?

But have you noticed that 90% of the people who have actually sat down with the complete finished product have wholeheartedly enjoyed it? Does that say anything to you guys?

NOTE: I cut your post down a bit just to address the main point.

I want to point out that that was fairly inevitable unless the game was an abject failure. Heavy Rain was very clear about what it was in the marketing only the people who were garunteed to enjoy that were ever going to buy it, especially on release. I'm not makeing a comment on the quality of the game but Fahrenheit was a marmite game and HR was advertised as that but more so. We all knew that and only the people who wanted that were ever going tobuy it. The people critising the game are doing so from the experience of Farenheit and perfectly justified in doing so.

I'm not buying the game because it's on the PS3 (and it's one of the reasons I would buy a PS3 it's the type of game I get into). But the description as a deep, mature, freeform story reminds me of Planescape Torment so I have to ask anybody who's played both, is that a good comparison? And if so is HR anywhere near that standard?

Hmm IGN gave it a 9/10 and Gamespot gave it an 8.5/10
If I can pick it up for £30.00 from somewhere I'll get it.

From what I've seen the game itself is actually quite a decent looking concept and is more than just a "quick time movie"; my gripe with it however stems from the fact that David Cage is astoundingly pretentious. He acts like he's the first person ever to try and inject emotion and mature themes into a videogame, and the crux of his argument seems to revolve around his facetious assertion that everything else fails automatically because of the fantastical setting.

I call bullshit, Mr Cage. You wouldn't get away with saying that if you were an author, as numerous examples of spec fic spring to mind that evoke emotion and mature themes, notably Philip K. Dick or Aldous Huxley; so why is it a valid argument for this medium? It's my general perception that people in this industry continuously misuse the words "mature" and "emotion". Maturity is constantly evoked as some kind of justification for the inclusion of nudity, yet conveniently almost all the developers almost casually reveal said nudity in the development phase because they know it will garner controversy and interest: which is not really demonstrating a non-sensational and thus mature attitude to the subject matter at all. Likewise, 'emotion' is continually very shallowly interpreted as "it will make you cry." That's not at all hard to do, and it's more commonly achieved by sentimentality than by any serious emotional empathy developed with a character. Although not many people do it well, it's certainly not difficult to evoke pathos in a gaming environment, and Heavy Rain is certainly not the first to do so.

In short, my problem with Heavy Rain is that it comes across as pretentious, and telling me that I need to buy it if I care about the videogame industry is insulting.

I'm sorry. I bought Indigo Prophecy. I don't even have huge problems with the style. But I am not buying a freaking PS3 to play Heavy Rain. Nor am I shelling out $50 or more for disk that runs on a system I don't own, no matter how much I might want to "send a message".

In some ways, you kind've have to say: can a platform-exclusive release really be revolutionary? Someone who really wants to take a stand and shout a message of revolution to the heavens ought to make that message available to the largest number of people possible. C'mon, guys, meet us half way!

No, I don't 'need to buy this game' at all. As mentioned by the above poster, I find that command to be insulting.
Every time that a game came out that truly influenced the direction the industry would take next, like Starfox on the Snes with the Mode 6 technology for example, had the advantage of ACTUALLY BEING GOOD GAMES. A cobbled-together collection of QTEs mixed with unforgivably bad voice acting (in the English version at least) with no gameplay yet tries to pass itself off as a game is wrong.
I don't 'need' to buy it. Hell, I don't need to buy games at all: every now and then, I'll pick up a pre-owned game on the cheap. As Yahtzee says, 'Nothing dies down quicker than hype after a game is released.'

I need to buy food and water, otherwise I die. I need to pay my taxes, otherwise the bailiffs kick me out my house. I don't need to buy a game.

It seems to me that a lot of people who responded to this article are failing to see what the writer is getting at. It's not that he thinks that Heavy Rains system is how games should go, or that this type of story telling is the only kind there should be.

I believe he is saying that by supporting this game it shows the industry that gamers want to see developers try new things instead of making 53 different God of Mass Halo games. I can see his point and really for it's flaws it's an over all good.... what ever you want to call it. I may be wrong in this but it seems to me that most people who wrote nothing but negative things in the thread had no intention what so ever of buying Heavy Rain, and don't want to actually listen to what the writer is actually saying.

ME2 had lots of choices, but most of the time it was either "kill" or "not kill." Other times it didn't really matter as much what you chose, since the result is usually the same (mostly results in a fight).

To get this out of the way I own and love both games.

Now, choices in Mass Effect rarely come down to kill or not kill. Most of them are just in how you decide to treat people, which is very similar to Heavy Rain. It ultimately will not make a difference which of your sons you play with first or if you track down your son's teddy bear before putting him to bed. At least, no difference in the grand scale, but it is a valuable personal moment that connects you to the characters. I feel the same when I make all the trivial decisions that Shepard makes. I feel like I get to know him (or her), and knowing him makes me care all the more about what happens to him and his friends.

Heavy Rain just manages to make those choices more intense and stressful by forcing you to decide quickly and commonly handicapping your ability to choose the right thing by making your options difficult to read. It's a clever way to make your mindset match your character's in real time, but it is also challenging to a roleplayer who is trying to not play himself. And sometimes you just mess up and pick something you didn't mean to, leaving your character to say something you don't feel.

But that's ok, because the overall effect is phenomenal. I don't think I'll be devoting nearly the hours to it that I do to Bioware games, but I'm very happy to have it.

I see loads of potential for video games as an art form and I love seeing game designers try radically new things. I'm even willing to accept a game that sacrifices gameplay to experiment with storytelling. I'm still very skeptical I'd like Heavy Rain though, for one simple reason, its too realistic. In your article it mentioned that Heavy Rain has "mature, adult themes". That sounds good, but why do we have to stay in realistic urban settings to explore them?

Lord of the Rings had mature, adult themes right alongside its trolls, elves, and goblins. Also, does a work of art have to be mature and adult to be meaningful? The Chronicles of Narnia are clearly children's books but reading them now still provides me with plenty of food for thought.

That being said, Heavy Rain does interest me and if I had a PS3 I would probably rent it.

i never bought a record because i liked the cover, i pick them based on music
same goes for books, movies and games
if what makes a certain medium special and worth spending money on sucks (music in case of a record, gameplay in case of a game) sucks i won't buy it, no matter how nice the other ingredients might be

i won't be buying heavy rain, but if they include chest-high walls in the next DLC i will send them some money(or if they fire the QTE-department)

I totally disagree. The problem here is that there's really three options, and the third option is harder to signal publishers with.

Option 1: I want more zombies and goblins! Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!
You like gaming just fine the way it is. You don't see games as art, or don't see a need for games to be any more than they are now in order to be art.
Action: Just don't buy Heavy Rain. You're sending a message that these sorts of games aren't wanted.

Option 2: I want this! More cinematic games, more mature themes, please!
You're into this. David Cage's raw edged push for more cinematic design in games, with more focus on interpersonal interaction and less killing is just what games need.
Action: Buy Heavy Rain immediately. Buy all the DLC as soon as it comes out.

Option 3: I want more mature games, but Heavy Rain isn't mature.
You agree with Cage's opinions on the state of games, but you think his methods are disastrously wrong-headed. Maybe you find the reliance on Quick-Time Events juvenile. Maybe you feel that he's deeply disrespectful of gaming's heritage by tossing aside well-worn mechanics and devices that could have served his purposes better than his slipshod 'innovations'. Maybe you're a devotee of the Clint Hocking school of thought, which says that games should not try to become film, because all that means is that in twenty years, we'll be as good as, and no better, than film right now. (I'm all of the above.)
Action: ?????

Here's the problem for me. I think Cage's games are utterly, totally and completely the wrong way for the industry to go. It's a disaster -- He's doing his best to destroy games and replace them with weak film; hardly a recipe for success. I appreciate his concern about how limited games are, but his style of game making is to pitch out everything that's come before and denounce it as worthless.

What we need are more Jonathan Blows and Clint Hockings. People who see what gaming's accomplished, understand why it works and when it doesn't, and seek to leverage those traditions and mechanics into better games with brighter futures. We don't need David Cage. He's like that infamous girlfriend who goes out with a guy not because she likes him, but because she 'sees his potential', and sets about immediately to change him in the hopes of realising that potential. She's a horrible girlfriend, and gaming shouldn't be going out with David Cage, either.

So what do we do? Buy it, or not? Neither seem appropriate.

I like your point but who's saying we can't have both in videogames? Videogames always have and always will have something to please everyone. Some people will be looking for this kind of game and there is a market for it, others will not and that's the market at the moment. So why does it have to be one or the other? Why stop evolving and pick a path to be stuck with for the forseeable future? I want to encourage the idea behind Heavy Rain and that idea to me is to try something new. But I still prefer a different style of game. But it's better than the same old game being rehashed every year or so. I'm looking at you COD, GOW, cover based shooters and pretty much any sport game franchise.

Labcoat Samurai:
And sometimes you just mess up and pick something you didn't mean to, leaving your character to say something you don't feel.

I just want to note that that actually goes hand in hand with what a lot of people do when under stress, they end up saying something completely different from what they meant to. In this case, if you're faced with a difficult decision in Heavy Rain but the choices are all jumbled up, like the characters emotions at the time (life in danger or something), then anyone could say something that they never meant to.

Just wanted to point that out, it's actually pretty interesting when I think about it.

All in all I think Christian expects to much of gamers in general!

Still it is nice to have hope ...

Played some of it, not worth $60.

I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment in some regards, but there are still a lot of reasons that I am hesitant to jump on the Heavy Rain bandwagon (not the least of which is that I don't have a PS3).

Storytelling definitly needs to come a lot further and be an integral part of video gaming. That much we both agree on. The problem I see with Heavy rain is that it's hardly a game (as I'm sure this sentiment has been echoed time and time again on this board alone). What we need is a balancing of the two.

Video gaming has come a long way since the days of old. My aunt still has a Centipede arcade game in her basement and I play it every time I go over to her house. Is it fun? Yes! Is it engaging? No. Never once did I find myself wondering why I was shooting lasers at mushrooms, spiders, ghosts, and centipedes. It's a fun game to pass twenty minutes here and there, but there's no investment into it.

On the other hand we have Heavy Rain. Does it tell a great story and get you emotionally involved? From what I hear, yes. Is it challenging and fun? Probably not. (Again, I'm just going off of what I've read about the game, I don't have a PS3). From what I've been able to gather, most of the game focuses on moving you through the story without much actual "playing". While it's artistic, emotional and engaging, I would hesitate to call it a game any more than I would call a book a game. There's more interaction, sure, but no skill, and no challenge.

Here's what I would like to see: Have this "game" branch out into a category of it's own. Something between a video game and a movie. Like an interactive movie that you can guide along. At the same time, I would like to see the influence of this game sway video game makers in some senses, but not too much. What sets apart a video game from a movie or a book is that one word "game", that stuff we do between the cutscenes. Bioshock is an excellent example of what I'm talking about. Is it perfect? No, but the point I'm trying to make is rather than just a hack and slash shoot em up of you against the splicers, we have to fight our way through a ruined city, learning about it's tragic past and the history of its rise and fall. Could Bioshock have benefited from more direct storytelling? Absolutely, but it was a game that came very close to what I'm talking about. The same idea applies to Silent Hill 2. We make our way through a town, exploring a story as we look for our supposedly dead wife. There needs to be a balance. A game without a story is fun, but doesn't stick with you or draw you in. A story without a game is engaging, but isn't as much fun. Without one or the other, you only have half of the equation for something lasting, successful and amazing.

I propose to you this: imagine two alternate versions of Mass Effect were to be released on the market today. One version cut out all the action and shooting, leaving a game where your time is spent traveling back and forth, exploring settings and talking to people to solve an interstellar mystery. The other version is only the action and the shooting. No story involved, you just teleport into a room, kill everything, then teleport to the next level and kill everything there. It would be like Centipede again. Fun for a while, but pointless. Would either sell as well as the original version with both? No. It's the marriage of the two that makes the the game as much fun as it is.

As someone who loved Indigo Prophecy / Fahrenheit I want to get heavy rain, but 60 bucks is too much for me to drop right now.

What I'm curious about is Quantic Dream's decision to make this a PS3 exclusive. Fahrenheit came out on the PC and Xbox to my knowledge, possibly even the PS2? Why go single platform?

In the end I doubt it will sell very well. Fahrenheit bombed, even though I adored the game and I imagine this won't be any different. It also pisses me off that people are hailing Heavy Rain as being so revolutionary when it's MUCH more of an evolution of Fahrenheit. I guess I just find it hard to believe everyone ONLY plays the ultra-mainstream games and hasn't even touched or heard of Fahrenheit. Hell you can buy the North American version on steam http://store.steampowered.com/app/9740/

Indigo Prophecy is the exact same game as Fahrenheit but they censored it a bit making it a less superior version IMO.

Sure, just let me buy a frakin Ps3 first...NOT.
I wish this game was for Xbox or PC too...damn console wars

I haven't played Heavy Rain, and I plan to get it eventually, but I disagree with the notion of buying it just so the people take notice. The game should sell based on its own merits.

Heavy Rain is a slightly right slightly wrong step in a different direction that can branch off and coexist with existing games.

To me, a big problem with game games is that they focus on violence and destroying the enemy, even Mario, and that isn't a problem because I am against violence; it's a problem because of the lack of variety. There are casual games, but that's the point. All the mainstream games with epic meaningful stories are about destroying the enemy.

And that's partly because game games can only tell stories that can be made into a game. Not every story lends itself to gameplay. If a story doesn't lend itself to gameplay, it shouldn't be made a game game, but maybe a movie game like Heavy Rain. There's nothing wrong with choose your own adventure. It's a fun enjoyable medium.

To me, Ico, Shadow of the Colossus, and The Last Guardian are games that aren't pretending to be movies and are mature and convey emotion well. Not mature as in violence nudity drugs, mature as in actually mature.

I have this idea about a game that has a story which doesn't have game elements in it, but then just throws gameplay segments which aren't directly related to the story and aren't actually happening, but are tied to the story in its presentation or something. The story is seperated from the gameplay and the game doesn't cover that up; the story is a reward for overcoming challenges. Yahtzee complained in the Braid review that story and gameplay should be tightly linked, but I think not necessarily.

Can anyone explain to me how jason dies? Seriously i dont understand how he died and you come out of it completely fine.

I want to see more meaningful games, but I also want them to be, you know, games, not "interactive movies." I honestly never saw anything WRONG with the subject matter that games deal with and never felt like it precluded them from telling meaningful stories, certainly not from making connections with gamers. Game developers just need to learn to take the stories they tell seriously and try to find connections between the gameplay and the writing more often, try to make them complement one another emotionally.

Stuff like Heavy Rain, these "interactive movies," which, by the way, were HORRIBLE back when we tried them in the 90's, deride gameplay as being a hindrance to storytelling, but in doing so I feel that they waste a key element of the experience. An "interactive narrative" is just what's on the surface of a game when you get down to it. That's what ignorant eight-year-olds fantasize about when they think about being game designers when they grow up. To be more specific, that's saying "I push buttons and stuff happens accordingly," which is a lot like saying that the appeal of television is that "pictures on the screen move." It's part of it, but it's also a gross oversimplification. The quality and meaning of the interaction, much as with the narrative, has a lot to do with it too, and is an art all its own. It's not enough to just choose options or solve simple puzzles as barriers to progression in the story, or to perform quick onscreen prompts in the order the computer tells you to while a movie plays. You want to feel engaged. When you play a game, you want to feel like you're making meaningful choices and strategic trade-offs, maybe even throwing the dice every now and then.

That's the kind of satisfaction that a game, with rules, mechanics, goals, challenges, rewards, and penalties, can give you. Moreover, mechanics can reflect characterization and identity, goals can be meaningful story points, and challenges can be built to have a rhythm or flow to them that mirrors the current emotional tone of a narrative, and meanwhile all of these combined WITH the narrative give the player a chance to literally play with the themes of the story and come to understand them better. At least, ideally. Admittedly a lot of developers don't seem to understand this concept any better than Cage does, often choosing to overemphasize one element or other--the gameplay or the narrative--and seeing the side opposite it as some kind of inconvenience. Sometimes they don't understand either and just develop by superficial genre-based checklists. In any case, we have a lot of growing to do, but I sincerely doubt that Heavy Rain's going to be the miracle game that helps our industry grow.

From the article:

"The game's creator, David Cage, says as much. "It's about asking the market, are you interested in experiences that are for a mature audience based on storytelling and triggering more complex emotions?" Cage told Eurogamer. "If the game doesn't sell, it's going to close doors to everybody and for a long time... Do you want [games] to be just trolls and goblins and zombies? Then don't buy it."

With all due respect, Mr. Cage, you and I are at loggerheads over what a game should be. I do NOT want storytelling and emotion in my games. This is why I just bought Napoleon: Total War instead of buying your game. This is why the rest of my gaming purchases for the year are going to be games that do not have story and emotion (well, except Fallout: New Vegas, but I'm not interested in the story of that game, I'm interested in getting the Bloody Mess perk and making ample use of VATS to blow shit up.)

I don't give a flying crap about arty-farty shit in my games. I want to kill people and break things. Goblins, trolls, and zombies are FUN. Mature adult themes for mature adults are not, especially when thanks to the Uncanny Valley your game creeps me the fuck out.

Roger Ebert is still right. Games are not art. Full stop. And I, for one, will continue to buy games like Total War and Mount&Blade and Civilization and all those other games that are strictly about killing people and breaking (or building) stuff. The more you "games are art" types berate me about it, the more I'm going to think you guys are pricks and the more I'm going to criticize you.

Can anyone explain to me how jason dies? Seriously i dont understand how he died and you come out of it completely fine.

Actually the dad was in a coma for 6 months and now suffers from blackouts. You learn this info when he's at his therapy session.

It's too bad its not on PC. You would think there would be more money if they put it on every platform possible. Ya know.. because then.. sorta like, more people will buy them instead of less.

Probably, however I do pay special attention if a game is a PS3 exclusive and takes advantage of the capabilities of the PS3. That does count for something, for me. Demon's Souls is on order as we speak--holy crap it's been out six months and they haven't shaved a dime off the price.

But not Heavy Rain.


Can anyone explain to me how jason dies? Seriously i dont understand how he died and you come out of it completely fine.

Actually the dad was in a coma for 6 months and now suffers from blackouts. You learn this info when he's at his therapy session.

Ah ok, never got that far on my friends playstation though wouldnt that meant he would have crippleling back problems and unlikely to walk again? It looked like the father was between the kid and the car...am I going crazy?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
Register for a free account here