"how do you undertand the story unless you play it."

How can you think the story wouldn't be understandable unless you have a controller in your hand? Story doesn't work that way.

This post tells me more about you than the actual movie.

Maybe. I thought the movie sucked. Nothing wrong with that. People don't like the same things.

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.

If Heavy Rain is anything like Indigo Prophecy then the player affects many events int he story. The agency invested by the consequence of a player's actionsn would necessarily affect the perception and quality of a story, if only because everything happening or not happening is your fault.

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.

It is an objective fact that there are an X number of people who believe Y. But no matter how many millions of people you get, kneeling and clasping their hands together, the universe remains constant. Quality standards, if you believe that either

1) The standards, the axioms, that the majority have are of "good quality"

2) Your axioms are in line with the "majority"

I personaly like to accept that there are subjective facts. No matter how many people may think sushi is gross, due to their standards, their axioms, knowing that can't change my standards, my axioms, the nature of my body and mind, and make me hate it. The best I can do is delude myself.

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.

You wouldn't judge a movie's writing, by just reading its script. You wouldn't judge a colored film, by watching a grey scaled version of it. The writing accomodates the medium. It's not the same experience watching certain parts of Heavy Rain, as when you grip the controller and follow allong with the game.

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?

You're going to have to clarify. Do you mean we should hold video games up to the same high standards of movies as in

1) Using the standards we judge video game writing, we shouldn't label a mediocre writing (according to the standards established) as good. Whether out of haste, joy, etc.

2) We need to change the very standards themselves, into the standards used for tv, movie, radio, etc. Which brings up the question of which medium.

I think you have touched on something here.  And this would answer Roger Ebert's comment that "games are not art".  It may be possible that games could end up being qualified as "art" under the category of performing art.  Say there is a series of activities that are scripted in some way, but allow flexibility.  You then involve the auidence to be involved with them, and their actions can create outcomes that are unexpected.  The experience would never be the same twice.  Now, is this experience art?  Heavy Rain would fall more under the scripted side, but how about something more open-ended (like LittleBigPlanet or a sandbox game)?  How about a game where you end up allow people to create content and it is reused and reinvented?  And, on a more meta-level, how about the case of forums like this were videoclips are used and reused to make points, and the end result is something that is a work.  Is all this art?  I would say there is a case that it can be.

On the gameplay front, I would say the gameplay is likely low, or lower than normal videogames, BUT it is still there.  The entire experience can be praised as great entertainment, and a fine work of art.  However, in this, maybe one can say also the gameplay (engagement in the mechanics of interaction) would be low, so it doesn't have great gameplay, but is a great experience.  And this could be acceptable.  Also, it could end up being not for everyone.  And I would say trying to produce too many Heavy Rains could possibly bankrupt the industry as they try to do something that is both a game and a movie (of sorts) and need to script and manage everything the player would go through, even if the player only sees a small percentage of it.

You're missing the point. Those events have to be planned out beforehand. Of course all game elements do (save for procedural generation). But it does mean that the quality of a story will not improve just because I chose the events when playing it. You're still going along branches of the story. If one branch is badly written and one is written well, they will still be no matter if I am playing or or watching videos of the scenario.

"I personaly like to accept that there are subjective facts. No matter how many people may think sushi is gross, due to their standards, their axioms, knowing that can't change my standards, my axioms, the nature of my body and mind, and make me hate it. The best I can do is delude myself."

"Gross" is an opinion, not a fact. That the think sushi is gross is a fact. There is a difference.

"You wouldn't judge a movie's writing, by just reading its script. (1) You wouldn't judge a colored film, by watching a grey scaled version of it. The writing accomodates the medium. It's not the same experience watching certain parts of Heavy Rain, as when you grip the controller and follow allong with the game.(2)"

1. What makes you think I'm reading the script? There are videos of the game all over youtube and other sites. That shows not just the writing, but the context of the scenes and how they work.

Bull. I've been playing the Disgaea games, and sometimes my family and roommates watch. We all find the stories silly, but fun. Is their opinion invalidated just because they don't have controllers in their hands? No. The story is not part of the gameplay. The only thing that does is make you more determined to see what happens next, not that what happens next will be any better or worse in quality if you are playing instead of watching.

"You're going to have to clarify. Do you mean we should hold video games up to the same high standards of movies as in

1) Using the standards we judge video game writing, we shouldn't label a mediocre writing (according to the standards established) as good. Whether out of haste, joy, etc.

2) We need to change the very standards themselves, into the standards used for tv, movie, radio, etc. Which brings up the question of which medium."

That is a legitimate question, so it might be best to go by the situation. If a game is about telling a story, then storytelling standards should be applied. So wanting something to have a truly great story means we insist a game has a truly great story, if nothing else than undeserved praise just encourages developers to throw lackluster stories. That's not a problem if the audiences don't mind about weak stories, but if the audience wants art, we have to encourage great stories.

The fact tat they're planned out beforehand doesn't change the experience that a player has in terms of perception of spontaneity.