Now first of all I should probably point out I haven't played HR but I have talked to a few people that have and read a lot about it, and even tho everyone I know who played it hated it and many of the principles and goals of the development of the game I disagree with, I still wan't to play the game.
Now I recently read this (Warning serious spoilers) http://ps3.gamezone.com/editorials/item/jim_sterlings_terrible_bucket_list_heavy_rain/ (Warning serious spoilers) article and from what I have heard about the game from friends and read in other place the game game has serious problems. Commonly raised include inconsistent graphics, terrible/inconsistent voice acting, bad dialogue, boring game play and plot holes. Now for a game that relies almost entirely on emulating movies and TV shows, to have plot holes as well as bad dialogue/voice acting sounds rather damning.
But on the other hand this game received a massive amount of praise from reviewers, gamers and developers the world over.
So the topic is how does the glowing praise (not unanimous obviously) heaped on the game reflect on us as gamers and the industry at large. If a game with poor gameplay and bad voice acting/writing is praised for it's writing and bringing a Hollywood style to gaming, that is as flawed in those areas as Heavy Rain reportedly?
If games are to match or exceed the experiences shouldn't we hold games to higher standards of story telling and acting? And is trying to make games more like movies/TV really what we want for gaming? Or should we focus on what truly makes gaming different as a medium?
@TheVoxelman on twitter
