Well the dialogue from GTA4 is already Oscar-worthy, so if this dialogue is better than that, what else are we supposed to call it?

GTAIV has a 1,000 page script.  Heavy Rain's comes nowhere close.  GTA wins by default. 

No, my quarrel with you is the same as Khuutra's. You claimed that an appeal to the masses forms the basis of an objective truth as pertaining to the artistic merit/quality of a product. This is patently false - to make that kind of logical leap is a fallacy.

The relevant passage is thus: "The argumentum ad populum can be a valid argument in inductive logic; for example, a poll of a sizeable population may find that 90% prefer a certain brand of product over another. A cogent (strong) argument can then be made that the next person to be considered will also prefer that brand, and the poll is valid evidence of that claim. However, it is unsuitable as an argument for deductive reasoning as proof, for instance to say that the poll proves that the preferred brand is superior to the competition in its composition or that everyone prefers that brand to the other."

But, as per his precedence, I wont push the matter as it is evident it will not lead to a productive discourse.

The dialogue, in parts, is dire, and the plot has more holes than swiss cheese.

It's certainly not a masterpiece of storytelling, like Avatar >_>

The thing is I'm not going by mere preference. People don't just prefer The Godfather to Batman & Robin.

But if we want to get into composition and the objectively determinable parts, see that article that The_Republic linked to.

I watched Slumdog Millionare. That movie was not worthy. If I watched that in theaters I probably would have asked for my money back.

I'm afraid, Mr. LOTK (and Mr Ebert and many others who think maybe one day video games could be an art form), that you missed the transition from video games being some sort of fun thing that a few kids do to being an art form about 2 (or maybe even 3 or more) generations ago. As soon as video game developers started using recognised artistic methods and techniques (story telling, music, voice acting (cut scenes), visual artistic design, etc etc), if it wasn't an art form before then, it certainly became one at that point.

That's objective, not subjective. Because it's based on an objective definition of what is art (dictionary) not some movie critic, or other pundit. In fact it is so blindingly obvious that video games are an art form that the desperation is, in fact, on the side of those who want to exclude it from the hallowed halls of artistry. From my perspective it's incredulity that people can't recognise the blindingly obvious and a desire to edify the ignorant that drives me to comment on the video game is art topic. That and the fact it's actually video game makers who want to be accepted as artists, not just gamer fans wanting to gain some sort of validation of their chosen leisure activity. Please note it was a game developer who spoke on TED against Ebert's obstinant attitude, or rather in favour of video games as art, not some rabid gamer fanboi foaming at the mouth over Ebert bagging his/her favourite activity. The desire for recognition comes from within the industry, not just its fan base.

This thread (on the wider matter of art) makes the fundamental error (like many other commentators) of categorising bad art as not being art. A bad painting is still art, though it may never see the light of day. So therefore it also makes the mistake of claiming that there is some form of quality standard that must be met before something can be granted the status of art. The state of being art is not something conferred by outside observers, especially not self appointed critics. Something is art because it exists within the sphere of an art form. The worth or merit (qualititative goodness or badness) of a given work of art is what the "audience" decides.

On Heavy Rain itself I haven't seen enough of it to make a judgement on the quality of the writing. If the script were to be taken as is (well with minor alterations as necessary to make the transition) and turned into a movie my guess is that it would not garner rave reviews. Actually the mere fact that you can judge Heavy Rain as being well scripted, or poorly scripted or somewhere in between is an admission in itself that video games are art. If you can judge the artistic merits of something then you are making a judgement based in the realm of the arts. Ergo what you are judging is art.

First of all, there is no "of" in my username, so the abbreviation is not LOTK.

Second of all, I'll bite games are already art. But it's still not a good idea to hold bad art up as a way to prove a medium is art.

HR had a very good story and was written well for a videogame.

considering how many shitty movies get Oscar nominations these days, surely I can't be offended by such claims.