Helios said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum And as we all know; 2+2=5 Further, can you accurately judge a games 'story' without playing it? As an inquiry into the field of ludology would tell you, it is an ontologically and fundamentally indefensible position. A game's story is created through performance - just like a play - and the players actions, the meaning behind them, is what makes games art. A game is not a narrative, it's an experience. As an addendum; 'is Heavy Rain a game to begin with?' is a perfectly valid question in the context of this thread. |
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?
