Google+

Topics

E3

We Recommend

42 comments

  • samsneeze - June 4, 2012 6:50 p.m.

    David Cage is man trying to see if he can trick people into buying a bad sixty dollar movie again. I think people are crazy enough to do it. I mean, that video had absolutely no player interaction and yet people are excited for it. Why?
  • christian-shaffer - June 4, 2012 9:15 p.m.

    Heavy Rain was innovative in a couple different aspects. Firstly, it showed emotion on a level that had never been done before. Show me a game prior to Heavy Rain that portrayed human emotion merely through facial expression before it. There aren't any. Second of all, it was the first game to be comprised of mostly QTE's. Yes, God of War and others are full of QTE's but not to the extent that HR was. It allowed you to take control of the most minuscule maneuvers, such as opening a car door. The game was the first big step to being able to play a movie with a controller. Some people want to be able to control a character in an arguably, completely realistic setting and be able to decide the ending. I'm not saying you have to like the game, but it was definitely innovative. Innovation doesn't come solely from gameplay in story. It can come from things like facial expressions and tiny details as well.
  • samsneeze - June 4, 2012 10:09 p.m.

    "Firstly, it showed emotion on a level that had never been done before." It tried to show emotion. What I got was a bunch of awkwardly speaking voice actors reading a questionable at best first draft script and animations that felt oddly robotic at times. Even then, you don't need high end CG or anything really to show emotions, just decent writing, direction, and delivery. "Second of all, it was the first game to be comprised of mostly QTE's. Yes, God of War and others are full of QTE's but not to the extent that HR was." That's just laziness. Like, seriously. It's innovative to be lazy? What. The. Hell. "The game was the first big step to being able to play a movie with a controller." How is that even remotely a good thing? Movies and games are not the same thing and shouldn't really be treated as such. I don't want to play an interactive movie, I want to play a game. It is by no means impossible to tell a story that makes a player feel all kinds of emotions, while still maintaining solid gameplay features to fall back on. "It can come from things like facial expressions and tiny details as well." I see where you arc coming from, but Heavy Rain really wasn't innovative in any of the presented things you're trying to convince me it did.
  • Tjwoods18 - June 5, 2012 5:43 a.m.

    Every time I read your post, sam, I feel like you are describing La Noire. Also, it stands to argue by itself that it cost way much more to make a movie than it does a video game. So, why are we paying 60 plus dollars vs $20 or less for a standard DVDfrom retailers?
  • BladedFalcon - June 5, 2012 9:02 p.m.

    Because it looked interesting, the acting was great, and it felt atmospheric. Sure, it didn't show anything in terms of gameplay, but it still looked interesting enough. And I have no shame in saying that I really enjoyed heavy Rain. Was the story the best ever? nope, did it have plot holes and stupid cliches? Sure, but it was fun and entertaining enough even if you can consider it a slightly interactive movie at best. This one looks even better, and better acted. And even if is too similar to heavy Rain, it's still not a kind of game done enough to feel oversaturate.

Showing 41-42 of 42 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000

OR…

Connect with Facebook

Log in using Facebook to share comments, games, status update and other activity easily with your Facebook feed.