Heavy Rain sounds like a fantastic Choose Your Own Adventure Book.  That or Law of the West which was available for the Commodore 64. 

I came up with this conclusion without actually playing the game.

I have to disagree with this. There are several games series out there that you need to understand because they set expectations for the game. For Example Metal Gear Solid. MGS has some of the stupidest story elements of all time and if you walked into MGS wihout knowing its story history..it would be garbage, but because game and understand expectations for the story segments they become less stupid and more natural

I also noticed positive impressions of the story without playing it didn't get criticized, so the hypocricy of that annoyed me far more than anything about the game.

Plus I'd still like an answer about how a plot hole can not be a plot hole, or even vice versa, whether I'm playing a game or not.

This sounds kinda robotic too...

I think your sentence flow is a bit off. I'm having trouble making out the last part.

But I should add I played MGS1, and the story still seemed like that even when I played the game. But more importantly, you can still know the story history by looking it up. You don't have to play all the games.

wait what?... a plot hole is a plot hole period, playing or not playing the game is not gonna change that.( unless the player missed something)

no..looking something up and experiencing it first hand is to different things.

better example:

Spoiler!!!!!!

In MGS4 and man is brought to life with pieces of others characters body parts and nanomachines. That is absolutely dumb... to the uninformed MGS player. Becasue the ive played the rest of there series and and learnt what to expect from there stories andits plot elements it becomes less dumb and more naural.

What they should have done is make all of Heavy Rain into one gigantic plot hole since it was an artsy game.  The entire story could have looked like an indecipherable mess, but later the developers would say that it was open to interpretation.  Fellini, Lynch, and several other film directors would have been proud.  Ebert would have eaten his words sooner.  Who says that games cannot be art?

yeah i agree with Xxain its different if you experience it first hand through playing it.

That's not an uncommon thing in soft science fiction, so it doesn't seem that dumb. It only seems dumb if you think MGS is a series about total realism, and even that can be explained without playing the game.