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

[LordTheNightKnight]

Helios said:

richardhutnik said:

Helios said:

LordTheNightKnight said:

Some of you might say "but isn't quality subjective?". Yes and no. There are subjective opinions, but when enough gather, the fact that a lot of people have those opinions is an objective fact. So those turn into quality standards. When it comes to the middle, there is some disagreement (such as the notion of a "critic proof" film), but at both ends of the bell curve, the standards are clear.

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? 

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.