By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony Discussion - Heavy Rain cost €16.7 million to make and made Sony "more than €100 million"

maximrace said:
Having well known topnotch franchises pays off more...


Profiting for pushing gaming pays off for the industry as well as your pocket. Sony does that in spades. If you truly believe in creativity you will nurture it.



Around the Network
maximrace said:
Having well known topnotch franchises pays off more...


Did you just suggest that gaming would be better with only a bunch of copy-paste, COD-esque franchises ?

I can understand showing some zeal in supporting your favourite company but putting their needs on top of gaming itself ?

#losingfaithingamers



DigitalDevilSummoner said:
maximrace said:
Having well known topnotch franchises pays off more...


Did you just suggest that gaming would be better with only a bunch of copy-paste, COD-esque franchises ?

I can understand showing some zeal in supporting your favourite company but putting their needs on top of gaming itself ?

#losingfaithingamers

Copy and paste gaming aka Microsoft business gaming style. Dont push gaming just make what you think will sell. Smart but not for true gamers in the long run.



curl-6 said:
veritaz said:

It's a blend of both, which is why i said it's a different experience. I think it succeded in what it was setting out to do and it shows in the fans, profit, reviews.

But the problem with playing both sides of the field is that ultimately you have to succeed as one or both. Heavy Rain wouldn't pass the standards expected of good movies, and because it reduces gameplay to a series of QTEs it doesn't win out as a game either. The erosion of gameplay quality in favour of story and visuals, the Hollywoodization of gaming, is already a grave threat to the medium, and Heavy Rain is a game that exemplifies this trend.


Really ?

There are so many other games that exemplifies this "Hollywoodization of gaming" better than Heavy Rain.  COD and Metal Gear being the ones that come to my mind instantly, when I think about this.

Games filled with loads of CGI scenes, where you only go from point A to point B and watch another scene are considered "True games".

While games that keep players in full control of the characters(More than one in HR) through QTEs, aren't.  What kind of thinking is this ?



man, that was one of the saddest responses i've ever seen

trying to balance actual creativity with profits for selling the same thing over and over again that make no difference for the gamer whatsoever !

how on earth is this guy as a consumer, as a person who invested his hard earned cash on an xbox enjoying MS's profits ?

has the xbox become a machine that allows you to enjoy stocks going up ?



Around the Network
TrevDaRev said:
Heavy Rain. Those words will always bring out a few 'experts' to educate us on what a 'real' game is like.

even if it's not a "real" game i don't really care, as long as i have fun with something like that people can call it whatever they want because it doesn't make it a worse experience.

the walking dead was one of the best thing in the last years for me and if it's a game or whatever else is pretty irrelevant.



DigitalDevilSummoner said:
man, that was one of the saddest responses i've ever seen

trying to balance actual creativity with profits for selling the same thing over and over again that make no difference for the gamer whatsoever !

how on earth is this guy as a consumer, as a person who invested his hard earned cash on an xbox enjoying MS's profits ?

has the xbox become a machine that allows you to enjoy stocks going up ?

thats what i never really understood on this site, i would be talking about a game with somebody then he goes says "ha that game sold more than the one you like!" its like when im playing a game i go and say "wow this game sold really well its so fun because of that"



curl-6 said:
veritaz said:

It's a blend of both, which is why i said it's a different experience. I think it succeded in what it was setting out to do and it shows in the fans, profit, reviews.

But the problem with playing both sides of the field is that ultimately you have to succeed as one or both. Heavy Rain wouldn't pass the standards expected of good movies, and because it reduces gameplay to a series of QTEs it doesn't win out as a game either. The erosion of gameplay quality in favour of story and visuals, the Hollywoodization of gaming, is already a grave threat to the medium, and Heavy Rain is a game that exemplifies this trend.


Who cares what the standards are the hollywood movies? The game is a push in the right direction to get games to be more interactve and give control over an story and make it your own. Not every game is the same and the variety is what makes its personal value seem. Games have proven themselves to become a medium which has always strived to become the point between films and life, in which you control the outcomes of situations and go into actual worlds. Games were always mean to evolve and technology allows that to happen. Games can still be games, but it also depends on how good you've become at gaming. Casual games are still games, story driven games are still games, you have to finish it, as simple as that. 



S.T.A.G.E. said:
curl-6 said:
veritaz said:

It's a blend of both, which is why i said it's a different experience. I think it succeded in what it was setting out to do and it shows in the fans, profit, reviews.

But the problem with playing both sides of the field is that ultimately you have to succeed as one or both. Heavy Rain wouldn't pass the standards expected of good movies, and because it reduces gameplay to a series of QTEs it doesn't win out as a game either. The erosion of gameplay quality in favour of story and visuals, the Hollywoodization of gaming, is already a grave threat to the medium, and Heavy Rain is a game that exemplifies this trend.


Who cares what the standards are the hollywood movies? The game is a push in the right direction to get games to be more interactve and give control over an story and make it your own. Not every game is the same and the variety is what makes its personal value seem. Games have proven themselves to become a medium which has always strived to become the point between films and life, in which you control the outcomes of situations and go into actual worlds. Games were always mean to evolve and technology allows that to happen. Games can still be games, but it also depends on how good you've become at gaming. Casual games are still games, story driven games are still games, you have to finish it, as simple as that. 

By moving towards films though, games move away from their own identity as a unique art form and therefore lessening the medium's greatest strength. I have no problem with games giving the player control over a story's outcome, but when QTEs take the place of what could and should be playable scenes, and when story is prioritised above gameplay, it's like a car trying to be a boat and ending up as a weird hybrid that works on neither land nor water.



curl-6 said:

By moving towards films though, games move away from their own identity as a unique art form and therefore lessening the medium's greatest strength. I have no problem with games giving the player control over a story's outcome, but when QTEs take the place of what could and should be playable scenes, and when story is prioritised above gameplay, it's like a car trying to be a boat and ending up as a weird hybrid that works on neither land nor water.

Please. The only thing that would lessen gaming's strength as an art form would be people like yourself placing limits on what gets made based on individual opinions of what a game should or should not be.