This comes from some discussions I and others have had about games like Heavy Rain. Now the merits of those stories are for other threads. This is about the claim that you can't judge a story of a game unless you've played it. This is to explain why that is not a valid claim.

In a nutshell:

Parts of a game that are not interactive do not need to be judged in an interactive manner.

And to the first likely response*: "Heavy Rain has an interactive story", that's wrong.

The triggers for the scenes are interactive, but the story is not.

Same with any video game until AI can actually interact in terms of a story.

To the next likely response: "Experience of playing a game changing how you feel about it".

How you feel about a story does not make the writing in the story better or worse simply because you are playing it.

Control does apply this way because something that looks good or bad on paper or video can actually seem comfortable or annoying in your hand when you are actually playing it. Lair looked good on paper and videos, but once both official and user reviews came in, the controls just didn't work. Conversely having six buttons on Street Fighter II was a huge leap compared to typical arcade games before, and might have looked intimidating, but once playing the game it works.*

The story of a game doesn't work that way. How?

If a line is badly written when we watch it on a video, are we somehow going to find it's written well when playing the level that triggered the scene?

It doesn't work that way. Same with the inverse.

A great line will still be great no matter if we are playing a game or just watching a capture of the scene on youtube. Or if there is a plot hole, it's still going to be a plot hole no matter what.

Playing the game isn't going to fill it in. Context might fill in an apprent plot hole, but that can still be explained without playing the game in question.

Let's look at Resident Evil. I haven't played the original version of the first game. I've just played the remake. But when I look at videos of the cut scenes, from the live action to in-game, I see they are just as cheesy and poorly written as 2, which I have played. So because I haven't played the original RE1, I'm not entitled to find those scenes laughibly bad, even though so many, who have actually played it, think the same way?

Or take a game I'm playing right now, Sajura Wars V. The story is dumb and cheesy, but it's the kind you might like if you're into heroic or harem anime. Am I going to begrudge someone for juding the story to be silly and cheesy just because they haven't played it (which my roommates do when they watch me play some parts)? I'm not. Because the story is not somehow going to stop being cheesy just because you're playing it.

Plus Sakura Wars is part of the dating sim genre, sub genre to the visual novel. Those game are just as plot heavy as (pardon the pun) Heavy Rain. So if those games can be judged on their stories without directly having a controller in your hand, why should Heavy Rain be exempt? It shouldn't.

But to the next likely response: "Playing the game gives you a greater emotional investment because you are making the choices", that's still wrong, because even watching a movie can give you more of an emotional if you are into it enough. That still doesn't make the story better. I like (most) Michael Bay movies, and can get into them. But while I will call on the claim his films are impossible to follow, I will not defend the stories of the films. I'm like The Nostalgia Critic with the movie Commando: "God bless you, you stupid, stupid movie."

So even if you feel more invested in Heavy Rain by playing it, and even I might be, that doesn't mean the police are going to be any less stupid for not asking the families of the victims if they have any clues***, or any less stupid for not surrounding a building that a murder suspect is in and just letting someone into that building, or any less stupid for why they think Ethan is a suspect, or any less... let's just say the police are idiots.

In conclusion, this is to the likely response: "Well I still like the game and its story", go ahead and like it. I'm not calling on people for liking it, just on people who won't allow criticism of the game's story (even from those who have played it). As in, don't tell me I can't find Jason too old to be wandering off carelesslike like that, just because I haven't played it, since Jason is still going to be too old to act like that when I am playing the game. I would bet money on it.

EDIT: I've made some of the pertinent points stand out.

* These are to things I've actually gotten in the aforementioned discussions.

** Incidentally, this does mean I might even find the control for Heavy Rain to work when actually playing it, even though I'm not impressed by the control at the moment.

*** Norman outright says that the police have no leads and no clues. It's there in the videos, so unless he's going to magically say something different when I have a controller in my hand, it's still a plot hole. So don't even try to defend it. It would be like trying to defend Peach never getting good security for herself or her castle. It's of course to move the plot, but it's still a plot hole.

This wouldn't happen to have anything to do with the recent debates over Other M in the Malstrom thread, would it?

You raised, but did not defeat, the idea that interactivity can lead to greater investment in a story, thereby making the story "feel" better.  It does not matter that the story, objectively, remains the same, because all stories inherently resonate differently according to the audience; there is no such thing as the objective quality of any story.

Sometimes in Heavy Rain, you gotta make choices (like clicking on X or O) that will directly change the story.

So I disagree.

And what made you think I was trying to defeat that? In fact, you missed the part where I agreed with that point.

So this comment imagines I was trying to do something I was not.

Wait, you brought that as though I claimed that wasn't the case in the game? Did you even read the OP?

"But to the next likely response: "Playing the game gives you a greater emotional investment because you are making the choices", that's still wrong, because even watching a movie can give you more of an emotional if you are into it enough. That still doesn't make the story better."

"feel" better is different than things like badly written lines and plot holes. The former I addressed in another point. Even if you feel better about a story, that's not going to make some illogical actions in any story stop being illogical.

That is what I mean.

Yes I read most of the OP. I'm commenting on the title of thread because you didn't ask a question in the OP.

What made you think I was asking one in the title? I was stating a point and giving reasons why.

And if you think that's still an answer to the title, then you need to read the OP again.