[Scott]

Stumbled on this upcoming PS3 game through Penny Arcade.  Watch this video interview with the CEO, including in-game footage.  He's trying to create a game for adults (no, really) where there is no "game over" situation.  Watch it, it's really innovative stuff.

[Oscar]

Jason! Jason!

Now, seriously, I'm intrigued about how the story progresses with the different failures. I doubt we will see entirely different situations, though.

[Gambler]

I've read some reviews, and they say non-linearity in the game is mostly superficial. Also, I really disliked the idea of heavy button meshing required to "advance" the storyline in Fahrenheit.

(I was looking forward to Heavy Rain until I've learned it's a PS3 only title.)

[Gregorus Prime]

From what I've seen and heard of the game, it's almost exactly like Fahrenheit/Indigo Prophecy, which is a very bad thing. The characters all look like creepy robots, the script and voice acting is terrible, and from what I hear the plot sucks as well, with an ending full of holes. The same people who say that the game aspires to be a movie are also excusing these major flaws by saying it's just a video game.

After being thoroughly disappointed by and disgusted with Indigo Prophecy I wouldn't buy this game even if I had a PS3. The concept is sound, it's just an adventure game after all, but Quantic Dream utterly failed in execution in every way they could with their first game. Every bit of footage I see has all the same hallmarks and I don't see why people let their standards drop just because the game is "cinematic."

[MaximB]

I dislike it when companies make "exclusive" games for one platform only.
Even if the company behind the platform pays them for the "exclusive" part, all the fans who don't own the platform won't enjoy the game - not to mention they will lose costumers.

[Anonxeuix]

I'm sure when some games are exclusive for a platform the company has an advantage in some way or another. No company would agree to such a deal if not for present or future gain.

[Gambler]

Less coding/debugging and easier support, I suppose.

The same people who say that the game aspires to be a movie are also excusing these major flaws by saying it's just a video game.

Sure thing. Fanboy logic 101. Being "like a (Hollywood) movie" isn't really good a thing for computer games anyway. I appreciate quality animations and life-like environments, but games aren't movies, they are interactive, and should be built around interactivity. (Otherwise, what's the point? If you're not using interactivity, just make a CGI cartoon and spare me the button mashing.

[Gregorus Prime]

Well, that's a debate for another thread. Regardless, my reasons for being inclined to dislike it have nothing to do with the fact that it wants to be an interactive movie or whatever, that's enjoyable for some people. Hell, a number of "interactive movie" games have come out and I've enjoyed many of them, such as Shenmue. It's just that I remember a time when everyone was shitting their pants over Indigo Prophecy (I wasn't sure why, since it looked like a first-gen PS2 game) and I played it and it started out pretty cool but then spiraled downwards into a pile of flaming shit. All the little things that bugged me from IP still seem to be there (e.g. creepy robot sex) and the visuals were once again, well, not that special really. It confounds me that there are people praising Heavy Rain's graphics and saying Aliens vs Predator's are bad when the former has some ugly textures around while the latter almost perfectly recreates the iconic characters of the franchises it's based upon.

To summarize: It's not the idea of the game I object to, but the terrible execution.

[Gambler]

You can't divorce idea from the execution so easily in this case. If Fahrenheit wasn't chasing Hollywood looks and instead concentrated on telling a coherent and meaningful story, it could be a much better game. A matter of priorities. Developers had some interesting ideas, but didn't take those anywhere. And having non-linearity in Fahrenheit is almost like having a machine gun in a game where there is nothing to shoot. Yeah, it's cool, but what's the point?

It confounds me that there are people praising Heavy Rain's graphics and saying Aliens vs Predator's are bad when the former has some ugly textures around while the latter almost perfectly recreates the iconic characters of the franchises it's based upon.

Probably because Heavy Rain has very good animations and tries to recreate realistic environments. Drawing some freaky alien space ship is easier than drawing a living room, because no one ever seen a freaky alien spaceship.

[Gregorus Prime]

Now I take offense to those comments, good sir. Recreating a movie set in a video game but making modifications to it that facilitate play within the environment is a bit more high-concept than taking pictures of one of the crew's living room and modeling it in Maya.

And of course we know what it looks like:

[Gareth]

creepy robot sex

I'm going to have to find a copy of IP.

Drawing some freaky alien space ship is easier than drawing a living room, because no one ever seen a freaky alien spaceship.

As someone who dabbles in drawing, that is incorrect btw. Drawing something you have a lot of references for is a lot easier than creating a completely made-up thing that still looks convincing to people.

[Gambler]

Recreating a movie set in a video game but making modifications to it that facilitate play within the environment is a bit more high-concept than taking pictures of one of the crew's living room and modeling it in Maya.

I guess that's why there are so many games with normal modern-day cities and people, and so precious few with space monsters and space ships. Reality is just too damn easy to do.

Besides, I was speaking about graphics only.

[Gregorus Prime]

Recreating a movie set in a video game but making modifications to it that facilitate play within the environment is a bit more high-concept than taking pictures of one of the crew's living room and modeling it in Maya.

I guess that's why there are so many games with normal modern-day cities and people, and so precious few with space monsters and space ships. Reality is just too damn easy to do.

Besides, I was speaking about graphics only.

Is there some sort of total logical disconnect that you're spackling the gaps in your thought process with that I'm missing here? You proclaim that it's "hard" to get somebody's fucking living room right when inspiration is found in IKEA catalogs in the mail, and I argue that it's difficult to create a level that is evocative of a movie set to the point that it feels a great deal like the source material while still being an arena that provides lots of competitive opportunity in multiplayer.

But oh, you were speaking about graphics only. I've seen them, nothing fucking special, certainly has nothing on titles like Uncharted 2 or MGS4. If you'll remember, though, my consternation was with the fact that AvP's graphics were at worst comparable to Heavy Rain and yet it gets lambasted for its graphical quality while Heavy Rain is showered with praise.

[Gambler]

You proclaim that it's "hard" to get somebody's fucking living room right

Because it will be judged based on much higher standards. It will be compared with something people see every day. But when it lives up to those standards, people are rightfully impressed.

I argue that it's difficult to create a level that is evocative of a movie set to the point that it feels a great deal like the source material

...which was fake to begin with and was initially done with the whooping technology of the eighties (late seventies in case of Alien).

AvP's graphics were at worst comparable to Heavy Rain and yet it gets lambasted for its graphical quality while Heavy Rain is showered with praise.

At the very least they're doing something different.

[Gregorus Prime]

Are we seriously doing this? Fine then:

Aliens vs. Predator (comparison)


Crysis on medium settings, if we want to talk impressiveness.


You cannot say that Heavy Rain puts AvP's graphics to shame. You cannot tell me that the graphics even look better than Crysis does. If you do, you're a liar. That was the point I was making. Not that AvP's are better, but that Heavy Rain's are nothing special.

You proclaim that it's "hard" to get somebody's fucking living room right

Because it will be judged based on much higher standards. It will be compared with something people see every day. But when it lives up to those standards, people are rightfully impressed...

...which was fake to begin with and was initially done with the whooping technology of the eighties (late seventies in case of Alien).

Right, it's quite clear that you think I'm a fucking retard with shit taste in sci-fi ("He watched James Cameron's Aliens! How droll! How jejune!") but that does not change my point, which is that you're wrong. It's not hard at all. You're just recreating a room that already exists in a digital format. It's very easy to go and look at your reference and, with a fucking ruler if necessary, confirm the proper placement and lighting of everything. It's more difficult to create a set from scratch and bring it to life since you're mimicking nothing (or some minutes of footage from a well-known film, as is the case here) and thus have the additional challenge of making somebody believe that it's real.  Your comment about "technology of the eighties" makes me think you have odd ideas about age and quality of art. Like, do you think that Macbeth is terrible because it wasn't even written on a typewriter? How barbarous!

At the very least they're doing something different.

And you know what, I think that this is what actually pisses me off about Heavy Rain. No, they're fucking not. They're doing the same shit they did five years ago in Indigo Prophecy, which even then just wrote a shitty adventure game and laid a new kind of control scheme over it. Shit, I'd argue that Shenmue already did a whole bunch of the stuff Heavy Rain does and I challenge you to prove me wrong.