By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Anyone else a bit offended at claims Heavy Rain's writing is Oscar Worthy?

richardhutnik on 17 May 2010
LordTheNightKnight said:
Helios said:

Succinctly put, my friend. I would agree with just about everything you said. The act of playing a game is indeed a form of performance art where an emergent story (that is guided by the plot) is created based on player actions. "Did the player walk up the ridge? If so, what does that mean? Does it symbolize anything? Is an event-state changed as a result of this exercize of player agency? If so, what is changed? How will the player react to this? etc." Improvisional theater (and, to a degree, any kind of role-playing) similarly creates it's story through performances, often based around a central concept or theme.

I have not played Heavy Rain so I'm not a good judge if it qualifies as a game or not. If it is not a game, what is it then? Interactive fiction/drama? I think if the game has gameplay - that is, the game progresses as a result of the input of a player acting as an agent in a goal-oriented system - then I would consider it a game. The question is thus, does the 'ineractive events' of Heavy Rain count as gameplay?

The thing is that a game's story cannot change like AI to react to a player. It all has to be scripted and recorded beforehand, and the game merely triggers them. So regardless of the player's actions, the story will happen the way it was written and then programmed into the game. So you can judge the quality of a scene by watching it (best with knowing context, like many stories), since that scene will only change in a way that is also scripted and triggered.

I believe the videogame industry will end up bankrupt if it attempts to create movie-like experience and have to script EVERY SINGLE response to what players do, and do it on a production level seen as a movie.  This is a recipe for unexpected bugs or bad cost overruns.  Of course, an approach to be able to end up managing this would be to go the sandbox route, and end up creating a game world that is a system that interacts, and player responses cna be dynamic and the world manages it.  This way, you don't script things, just set up the behaviors for the actors in the world, and manage them.  You could then end up scripting main story arch in it, but you don't try to end up scripting it all.  Of course, you can go the MMO route also and have players as actors in this world.



Around the Network
LordTheNightKnight on 17 May 2010
richardhutnik said:
Helios said:
richardhutnik said:
 

I was going to chime in here to see if anyone happened to of found a someone who claimed that Heavy Rain was "oscar worthy".  It is possible that you read a bunch of positive regard for something and then you think you read someone who directly said something, but they didn't.  "Killzone is a Halo Killer" is one that has been hinted at, but very rarely said.  However, people say things that make that someone did say them.  I will stand by what I wrote earlier regarding people wanting a game like Heavy Rain to maybe be considered for an Oscar, because it would make videogames be taken more seriously.

Anyhow, on what you wrote Helios, let's look at this for a second.  I would have to question whether or not the game side of a videogame actually has a story.  Or, should we consider the story side as part of something else?  This would then have to make people ask if Heavy Rain is a game, if the narrative side ends up being so huge, that people can get the feeling for what it is like, by not playing.  How much of a game is a game if you don't need to play it to get the story down?  Does something like live action roleplaying, or even improvisational theater, actually have a story, or is the story written by the actors/players in a play? 

Succinctly put, my friend. I would agree with just about everything you said. The act of playing a game is indeed a form of performance art where an emergent story (that is guided by the plot) is created based on player actions. "Did the player walk up the ridge? If so, what does that mean? Does it symbolize anything? Is an event-state changed as a result of this exercize of player agency? If so, what is changed? How will the player react to this? etc." Improvisional theater (and, to a degree, any kind of role-playing) similarly creates it's story through performances, often based around a central concept or theme.

I have not played Heavy Rain so I'm not a good judge if it qualifies as a game or not. If it is not a game, what is it then? Interactive fiction/drama? I think if the game has gameplay - that is, the game progresses as a result of the input of a player acting as an agent in a goal-oriented system - then I would consider it a game. The question is thus, does the 'ineractive events' of Heavy Rain count as gameplay?

I think you have touched on something here.  And this would answer Roger Ebert's comment that "games are not art".  It may be possible that games could end up being qualified as "art" under the category of performing art.  Say there is a series of activities that are scripted in some way, but allow flexibility.  You then involve the auidence to be involved with them, and their actions can create outcomes that are unexpected.  The experience would never be the same twice.  Now, is this experience art?  Heavy Rain would fall more under the scripted side, but how about something more open-ended (like LittleBigPlanet or a sandbox game)?  How about a game where you end up allow people to create content and it is reused and reinvented?  And, on a more meta-level, how about the case of forums like this were videoclips are used and reused to make points, and the end result is something that is a work.  Is all this art?  I would say there is a case that it can be.

On the gameplay front, I would say the gameplay is likely low, or lower than normal videogames, BUT it is still there.  The entire experience can be praised as great entertainment, and a fine work of art.  However, in this, maybe one can say also the gameplay (engagement in the mechanics of interaction) would be low, so it doesn't have great gameplay, but is a great experience.  And this could be acceptable.  Also, it could end up being not for everyone.  And I would say trying to produce too many Heavy Rains could possibly bankrupt the industry as they try to do something that is both a game and a movie (of sorts) and need to script and manage everything the player would go through, even if the player only sees a small percentage of it.

I would say that developers are often trying to make at least their own Heavy Rain, and that is what is actually causing a lot of the industry problems (even Nintendo with some of their franchises). But that's another thread article I plan to take up.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

richardhutnik on 17 May 2010
LordTheNightKnight said:
richardhutnik said:

I think you have touched on something here.  And this would answer Roger Ebert's comment that "games are not art".  It may be possible that games could end up being qualified as "art" under the category of performing art.  Say there is a series of activities that are scripted in some way, but allow flexibility.  You then involve the auidence to be involved with them, and their actions can create outcomes that are unexpected.  The experience would never be the same twice.  Now, is this experience art?  Heavy Rain would fall more under the scripted side, but how about something more open-ended (like LittleBigPlanet or a sandbox game)?  How about a game where you end up allow people to create content and it is reused and reinvented?  And, on a more meta-level, how about the case of forums like this were videoclips are used and reused to make points, and the end result is something that is a work.  Is all this art?  I would say there is a case that it can be.

On the gameplay front, I would say the gameplay is likely low, or lower than normal videogames, BUT it is still there.  The entire experience can be praised as great entertainment, and a fine work of art.  However, in this, maybe one can say also the gameplay (engagement in the mechanics of interaction) would be low, so it doesn't have great gameplay, but is a great experience.  And this could be acceptable.  Also, it could end up being not for everyone.  And I would say trying to produce too many Heavy Rains could possibly bankrupt the industry as they try to do something that is both a game and a movie (of sorts) and need to script and manage everything the player would go through, even if the player only sees a small percentage of it.

I would say that developers are often trying to make at least their own Heavy Rain, and that is what is actually causing a lot of the industry problems (even Nintendo with some of their franchises). But that's another thread article I plan to take up.

An attempt to make a videogame into a movie, and not only have gameplay in there, but a full movie-like experience WITH an ability for a player to feel they are in some control, is a recipe to produce things that won't recover their costs, and will drive a production studio under.  The industry sees how these attempts generate a LOT of money, so they keep thinking that they all need to do it.  My eyes end up rolling in the back of my head whenever I see people demanding they get more and more movie-like experiences on here, and put that above fun with play mechanics.  

By the way, when you do post the thread on here, please put a link in response here, so this topic can be taken up in another thread.



Huya on 17 May 2010

I watched some of the endings of youtube, it made me sad:(

Are there games that have an oscar worthy story btw?



LordTheNightKnight on 17 May 2010
Khuutra said:
The fact tat they're planned out beforehand doesn't change the experience that a player has in terms of perception of spontaneity.

I don't know if I made it clear, but I'm not addressing how the player feels. I'm just discussing the quality of the writing. Even mediocre writing can get you personally invested. See the Resident Evil games. The point is there is a problem when one tries to claim it's up there with the best writing, regardless of how you feel when playing.

richardhutnik said:
LordTheNightKnight said:

The thing is that a game's story cannot change like AI to react to a player. It all has to be scripted and recorded beforehand, and the game merely triggers them. So regardless of the player's actions, the story will happen the way it was written and then programmed into the game. So you can judge the quality of a scene by watching it (best with knowing context, like many stories), since that scene will only change in a way that is also scripted and triggered.

I believe the videogame industry will end up bankrupt if it attempts to create movie-like experience and have to script EVERY SINGLE response to what players do, and do it on a production level seen as a movie.  This is a recipe for unexpected bugs or bad cost overruns.  Of course, an approach to be able to end up managing this would be to go the sandbox route, and end up creating a game world that is a system that interacts, and player responses cna be dynamic and the world manages it.  This way, you don't script things, just set up the behaviors for the actors in the world, and manage them.  You could then end up scripting main story arch in it, but you don't try to end up scripting it all.  Of course, you can go the MMO route also and have players as actors in this world.

 I'm not suggesting we actually try something like that. I was just pointing out that the system as it is means it doesn't have the same context requirement as gameplay. You need to know the quality of the controls and level design by playing the game, for the most part. Some exceptions are games that are so bad you can see the problems in the video (such as the wonky reticule in 50 Cent Bulletproof), or when gameplay is very close a game you are already familiar with (I find Battlefield Bad Company and Modern Warfare 2 have very close controls, so if I didn't know one beforehand, I would know by knowing the control of the other game). With a story, if there are three options for what a guy says, those three options will not change, so you can judge each line by watching them.

Let's say the first Resident Evil had a choice of scenes where you get the lockpick. One is the infamous "the master of unlocking", and the other is a scene with good writing. The former scene would still be so bad it's good, even if how you play the game determines if you see the scene.

And I should have put that in the OP. I just forgot.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

Around the Network
Dgc1808 on 17 May 2010

What ever helps you sleep at night. This thread feels so pointless. I'm certain I can count the amount of people calling the game Oscar worthy with half a hand.



4 ≈ One

richardhutnik on 17 May 2010
LordTheNightKnight said:
Khuutra said:
The fact tat they're planned out beforehand doesn't change the experience that a player has in terms of perception of spontaneity.

I don't know if I made it clear, but I'm not addressing how the player feels. I'm just discussing the quality of the writing. Even mediocre writing can get you personally invested. See the Resident Evil games. The point is there is a problem when one tries to claim it's up there with the best writing, regardless of how you feel when playing.

richardhutnik said:
LordTheNightKnight said:

The thing is that a game's story cannot change like AI to react to a player. It all has to be scripted and recorded beforehand, and the game merely triggers them. So regardless of the player's actions, the story will happen the way it was written and then programmed into the game. So you can judge the quality of a scene by watching it (best with knowing context, like many stories), since that scene will only change in a way that is also scripted and triggered.

I believe the videogame industry will end up bankrupt if it attempts to create movie-like experience and have to script EVERY SINGLE response to what players do, and do it on a production level seen as a movie.  This is a recipe for unexpected bugs or bad cost overruns.  Of course, an approach to be able to end up managing this would be to go the sandbox route, and end up creating a game world that is a system that interacts, and player responses cna be dynamic and the world manages it.  This way, you don't script things, just set up the behaviors for the actors in the world, and manage them.  You could then end up scripting main story arch in it, but you don't try to end up scripting it all.  Of course, you can go the MMO route also and have players as actors in this world.

 I'm not suggesting we actually try something like that. I was just pointing out that the system as it is means it doesn't have the same context requirement as gameplay. You need to know the quality of the controls and level design by playing the game, for the most part. Some exceptions are games that are so bad you can see the problems in the video (such as the wonky reticule in 50 Cent Bulletproof), or when gameplay is very close a game you are already familiar with (I find Battlefield Bad Company and Modern Warfare 2 have very close controls, so if I didn't know one beforehand, I would know by knowing the control of the other game). With a story, if there are three options for what a guy says, those three options will not change, so you can judge each line by watching them.

Let's say the first Resident Evil had a choice of scenes where you get the lockpick. One is the infamous "the master of unlocking", and the other is a scene with good writing. The former scene would still be so bad it's good, even if how you play the game determines if you see the scene.

And I should have put that in the OP. I just forgot.

What I am saying is if the industry decides to focus more on trying to provide fun and innovative games from a gameplay perspective, and less on trying to produce top movie-like experiences, it stands a better chance of lasting longer term.  And it should try to do it, by appealing to those who don't play as much, going at things in a Blue Ocean manner, rather than say, "Wow, that market is large for that game, let's out production quality the competition in that area, hire top actors, top writers, and outspend them, and out market them, and BLAMMO, the money will roll in".  Attempts to produce X (Halo, Gran Turismo, etc...) killers is a recipe for bankruptcy.  Now, if the industry decides to do what you saw with Borderlands, by producting a quality game that sits between FPS and RPG, or Puzzle Quests (add RPG to puzzle games) and create new genres, without the monster production costs but able to generate a following, then you stand a better chance of success.  And that is how the industry can prosper.  The same with doing what Nintendo did with the Wii in use of motion control, and bringing new players in. 

They key should be on new gameplay styles that captivate, rather than trying to do what the movie industry does.  You then add a bunch of production value, and MAYBE try to get some good voice acting and a decent script in... if it doesn't bankrupt things.

 



perpride on 17 May 2010
Wagram said:
dobby985 said:
Wagram said:
I watched Slumdog Millionare. That movie was not worthy. If I watched that in theaters I probably would have asked for my money back.

This post tells me more about you than the actual movie.

Maybe. I thought the movie sucked. Nothing wrong with that. People don't like the same things.

It was one of the greatest movies of all time IMO. I'm not sure how it made it's way into this thread because if there is one time the oscars got it right, it was giving SDM Best Picture.

 

OP - Offended? Dude have you seen half the movies that get nominated for oscarsw nowadays? Nevermind, have you seen half the movies that have actually won oscars?

The Hurt Locker is the most propoganda fillled piece of garbage I've ever seen. If that's the best Picture, then Heavy Rain deserves it's own category.



ROBOTECHHEAVEN on 17 May 2010

@kenryoku_maxis, i agree with everything u said, except about avatar being forgotten in a year when the next cgi hit comes out. unless that next cgi movie breaks avatar's 2.7 billion in worldwide gross, then not gonna happen. besides i would imagine late next year we will most likely be getting our 1st trailer for avatar 2.



GAMERTAG IS ANIMEHEAVEN X23

PSN ID IS : ANIMEREALM 

PROUD MEMBER OF THE RPG FAN CLUB THREAD

ALL-TIME FAVORITE JRPG IS : LOST ODYSSEY

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=52882&page=1

LordTheNightKnight on 17 May 2010
Dgc1808 said:
What ever helps you sleep at night. This thread feels so pointless. I'm certain I can count the amount of people calling the game Oscar worthy with half a hand.

First of all, if you are assuming I only meant those exact words, and not a general notion of gushing about the wrting, I would ask if you read the OP or are just responding to the title.

Second of all, if they did then, but they aren't now, then they really did either jump on the bandwagon or were viral marketers to inflate the game's reputation.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs