First of all, the reason I'm putting this up now is hopefully the "Must shut down all criticism of the game to prove games are art!" wave has died down (and I'll get to the art thing shortly).

Second of all, this isn't about the game itself. It's not about people who like the game. It's not about people who find the plot compelling. It's about those who claim the writing, story, and voice acting (didn't have enough space in the title) are Oscar worthy*, or that it's as good or better than any TV show or movie.

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.

Technically, Leonard Part 6 and Batman and Robin failed to meet a hell of a lot of people's subjective opinions, but those films still failed to meet them. On the other end, we have Blade Runner and The Godfather. Now honestly, those aren't part of my top movies list, but because they meet the quality standards, I still say those are really good movies. So this is not bias that makes me say Heavy Rain doesn't hold a candle to those movies. I would be championing it myself if it was. The quality of the writing isn't Resident Evil levels of stupidity, but we aren't claiming those games are up their with masterpieces like The Godfather. That doesn't make Heay Rain written well.

The emperor has no clothes, and it's offensive to claim it's our fault for not seeing any clothes.

Some of you might ask if I had actually played it. That's a false question, because that assumes you can't tell how good the writing is unless you have a controller in your hand. How would that change the quality of the story? The only way that requirement would make sense is if the writing had different quality if you were playing it or not. It doesn't work that way. It would be a good idea to watch some gameplay first to get context for each line of the story, but that still just requires watching video  of the gameplay as well as the cut scenes and writing.

Now why is this important? Why should you at least consider what I am writing? It's because if you really want games to be art (regardless of what Roger Ebert thinks), then you have to actually hold games like this to the standards of art, not commend it for meeting those standards when it doesn't. The medium of gaming can't grow when we pretend any game with supposedly mature themes is automatically good. That line of thinking smacks of desperation for games to be art. It's like you so want for there to be a Watchmen for video games, you kept any good critical analysis of the writing out ina corner, as if the writing will then become good from that. Who do you think you were fooling with that?

* If you're not familiar with that term, it doesn't have to do with what actually wins Oscars. It has to do with something that is supposedly so good, it should win an Oscar, even if it's something that couldn't (due to medium). And many films that actually get Oscars are said to be not Oscar worthy.

Oscar Worthy - no
A well written thrilling story that deserves praise - yes

As if "Oscar Worthy" means anything aftar Avatar was nominated and Slumdog Millionaire won eight prizes.

Thrilling? Maybe.

Well written? Did you even read the OP? It's not well written. It's not poorly written, but not well written.

"Worthy" in that context isn't related to what actually gets Oscars and nominations.

I'm with RageBot. The Oscars aren't that special.

There is a desperate need for videogames fans to feel their form of entertainment is as serious and worthy of praise artistically, as people who follow other genres, like movies. So, anything that is good for a videogame, will get elevated to "bestest eva" of all forms of arts. Videogame stories are felt to have to compete with the best of movies and books, for the interest in these games to be taken seriously. Even MGS4 was subject to this, with people saying it was better than the best of movies, from a storytelling perspective. I am sure Bioshock also gets this to. And I do think it is real good, but I personally thought the ending of the original Bioshock was borderline corny, and a bit of a cop out. It went well as a critique of objectivism, and then they jump into the standard corny appeal as the top argument against it (family), which I have seen in overabundance on TV. Good and evil go WAY beyond this. It would be good if videogame writers would do this to.  By the way, I say this feeling that Bioshock was one of the most engaging videogames I ever played (the original, not the sequel).

I would also like to comment regarding the standard videogames (and games in general) need to be held to, as art.  I do NOT believe the measure of greatness of a GAME as art is in how well you have a script for it, or how awesome the plot is.  I believe you measure it for the gameplay, and how well it engages a player to it, and they get something out of it.  This is the base level you evaluate the quality of a game.  Beyond this, you then look to the quality of the game world, and how well it lends to immersion on the part of the player and their ability to suspend current reality to feel they are in it through a character they control.  After this, if you want to have games to to even a higher level, you then look towards what players get out of it after they are done.  Did they learn something?  Does the experience stay with them, and they remember it.   I believe the original Bioshock, by the way the world was done, does definitely touch on this.  Civilization does also.  However, this measure is NOT the same as in a a movie.  A game can be lacking in what makes movies great, and still be a great game.  That is because a game is not a movie, just like a movie is not a book, and a book is not a painting.  All are art, but all are different.

When you consider that the story had multiple outcomes, each being Unique and some, were well, f'd up and depressing. Nonetheless you have to give credit to the writers for keeping you on the edge of your seat throughout the whole game.

Past games were put into this category. Frankly, I still stand by my opinion that writing in a video game comes second to gameplay, unlike mediums such as film or printed word (such as books) where the writing is the core of the work. So these people (the creators of the games) that want to somehow force cinematography and 'plot' to be the focus of a game instead of gameplay are already in the wrong line of work.

You can make a game that looks and acts like a movie. In the end, you're just going to make something that isn't as good of a game or a movie, or appreciated as much by both crowds. And this includes Heavy Rain. It has some fans, but the majority of people out there aren't claiming its the title that will change gaming. Just like Avatar will be forgotten in a year when the next CGI monstrosity comes out.

"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."

I dont wholy agree with this, though there is an objective way to determine if something is well written or not.

Also, I dont remember people saying this is Oscar worthy(not that it means much) and I would like to get examples of how badly written the game is.