Which is the point of the game, I thought. Experiencing this character's life. And the ending choices aren't any different from virtually all games marketed as featuring choices. Admittedly, 'Heavy Rain's ending differed depending on who lived or died, but that was basically it.

Okay, that probably is odd. I wouldn't know as I haven't experienced it, but it's a valid criticism if true.

Here again, I can't really speak to this issue. I love Quantic Dream and decided I was going to buy this game day one as soon as I read the announcement. So I didn't want to potentially spoil anything by even watching the trailers.

because it makes sure your awake due to interactive qte

Alright, after doing a little reading there are basically 5 endings to choose from. Only 1 ending isn't an option if a certain character dies during your playthrough. Hence, it doesn't matter how you interact with people, as long as they are alive you can have an ending with them.

No, not really. The biggest decisions seem to be who I'm fucking at the end.

Also, why do I have to choose between Zoey and Ryan? I can't visit Zoey? Maybe call and say what's up? This game is a mess.

Actually, yes, really. If I understand the original question correctly, what's being asked is whether or not there are lots of decisions to make that DON'T affect the ending. If so, then those definitely are plentiful.

And I don't think it's fair to say that the game is a mess because it gives players a very different, very definitive ending depending on their choice. Surely Jodie could keep tabs on everybody, but I prefer the choice of whom I wish to focus on, because I know who meant the most to me in my first playthru.

Hogwash as usual. The main problem with 'games' like Beyond: Two Souls is that it's using elements from videogames to tell a story. This is very much a case of using the wrong tools for a job. Videogames thrive on interaction, stories (at least good ones) thrive on structure. It is simply not possible to construct a great story and also have it be interactive. It breaks with the most fundamental aspects of story telling. To even get close, you have to severly restrict how much impact the interactive elements have on the story, or create a sort of "Choose Your Own Adventure" video game.

Anyone who remembers the Choose Your Own Adventure books will also remember that the stories in those book were (still are? if they are still being made) absolute garbage. It's the same with interactive story video games. The story either becomes completely useless (compared to a well formed story in a book or a movie for example) or the game element becomes irrelevant to where the interaction devolves into picking meaningless actions that have no or very limited impact on the actual story. There is no way of bridging this gap. It's like trying to create something that both is and is not at the same time. It is impossible.

To try to pretend that the story in Beyond: Two Souls is better than what could be ever told in a movie because you get to decide when the character brushes their teeth is a sign of not being able to identify a good story in the first place. I don't understand the obsession with trying to justify these so called interactive story games or whatever. It is what it is. If people enjoy pressing buttons to progress through a series of movie clips, great! Do it all day long. Just don't pretend that it is somehow advancing either video games or story telling. It will forever be a medium trapped between two very different forms of entertainment, and it will by it's very nature never be able to create excellent games or excellent stories. But it doesn't have to. Chose Your Own Adventure books still sell to people who get into that stuff. People who love good stories will laugh at it, and people who love great video game design will look down on it, but who cares? If it's something you enjoy, then enjoy it.

I just love when people let you know that you're wrong, but they'll deign to allow you to be wrong.

I enjoy the game. I love it. I want more like it because it does more for me than most traditional formats of storytelling. Why can that not be an advancement for my tastes? Because it isn't for you?

Beyond might be a great game, but it simply cannot compare to a movie in terms of storytelling. No game can.

I'm not saying games are incapable of deep, involving, moving stories -- of course they are -- but they operate in a way totally different from movies. Games have rules, boundaries, objectives, and can be won. Movies can only be watched and experienced.

So while I'm confident that Beyond the game is more enjoyable than a lot of movies out there, I absolutely reject the notion that a video game could ever beat a movie at its own game, so to speak :P

The Last of Us broke that for me, otherwise: sure.

I just love it when people act as if there are not standards to jude by because tastes are different.

In the real world, there are criteria for story telling, there are criteria for a game. David Cage doesn't like that people actually try to use words within their agreed meaning, but that doesn't make him right.

The criteria for telling good stories are in direct conflict with the criteria for making a game. That is why the merger of story telling and video games will forever be held back as it needs to compromise either game play or story or in the case of Beyond : Two Souls and similar games: both. This is not my opinion, it's a basic fact and failure to akcnowledge that fact comes from failure to understand exactly what constitutes a game and a story (or a good story I should say).

Again, there is nothing wrong with enjoying what I call interactive stories. If that floats your boat, excellent! Enjoy that experience all day long. If you like it better than movies, HURRAH! I am exhalted on your behalf. That doesn't change the basic fact that the story by necessity will have to be compromised from a pure story telling point of view. And that is my beef with the BS from the OP: Adding interactivity to a story does not improve on the story telling, it detracts from it by nature.