Heavy Rain: New Screenshots and development footage*

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ground breaking ? What for ?

It's already unique enough. More important for the game to be genuinely fun or emotional.
 
If it's emotionally involving as a movie is, I'd say it was groundbreaking. If players instead notice and get frustrated by the controls, it'll just be a gimmicky game. The latest GT trailer in the mall looks both a mix of spectacular and hideous. It's a convincing setting with a daring abstraction of human responses into available choices (the ideas swirl around so it's not clear what your options are, to simulate a confused state of mind), yet the boy and dad struck me as unconvincing while the acting and animation were completely off. If I could switch off to the technical shortcomings, it may have an emotional hold, but I dare say the visuals would be too jarring for me to settle into the experience, instead floating on its surface as a curious spectator.
 
The problem is it's not a well-defined term. Different people will have different expectation and taste. We know Heavy Rain is unique. If it's fun and makes me cry/laugh, all the better !
 
its had a couple of 9 today. Bodes well. Anyone trying to break away from the norm should be applauded.
 
Shifty Geezer said:
If it's emotionally involving as a movie is, I'd say it was groundbreaking. If players instead notice and get frustrated by the controls, it'll just be a gimmicky game. The latest GT trailer in the mall looks both a mix of spectacular and hideous. It's a convincing setting with a daring abstraction of human responses into available choices (the ideas swirl around so it's not clear what your options are, to simulate a confused state of mind), yet the boy and dad struck me as unconvincing while the acting and animation were completely off. If I could switch off to the technical shortcomings, it may have an emotional hold, but I dare say the visuals would be too jarring for me to settle into the experience, instead floating on its surface as a curious spectator.
Click to expand...

I have played plenty of other games where they're stories had me emotionally attached and HR wouldn't be the first game to do that too me.
 
It's a different format. ^_^
I am led to believe very few games use this format (can count with one hand ?).

If it's fun to play or an emotional trip, it would add new expressions to gaming. Whether other games are emotional is not entirely relevant to Heavy Rain.
 
patsu said:
It's a different format. ^_^
I am led to believe very few games use this format (can count with one hand ?).

If it's fun to play or an emotional trip, it would add new expressions to gaming. Whether other games are emotional is not entirely relevant to Heavy Rain.
Click to expand...

I agree that if the game is fun then its a game worth playing..Im not able to purchase HR on day 1 but I will buy it 2 or 3 weeks after its released..
 
Hey ! I posted links to all those reviews up there :) You didn't have to go look at GAF for it :p !

I think, American reviewers do not have the sensibility to review something void of aggression. OTOH, I can't stand meaningless aggression in the new games. Why are the protagonists foul mouthed? Why are they drug addicts/drunkards? Why am I being pushed to do bad stuff and then asked to rejoice about it ? I just don't find it normal at all :rolleyes:. Feels more like u r trying to make me be a sicko and show me that thats the way to enjoy life ! I prefer paying stuff that has some kind of thought in it, If not, then just focus on fun gameplay and spare me ur wisdom about life which u most importantly don't posses !
There's an inherrent beauty in human life, freedom doesn't mean being a "badass", freedom means doing what makes you happy, but atleast give a thought to what makes you happy, explore the world, before you go out and decide to make the world living hell for the fun of it.
All modern games preach dissatisfaction as a virtue. I am very pleased to know that characters like Nathan Drake still exist, as they bring sanity into this nonsense the gaming world is diving into.
 
It should be alright for games involving marines/soldiers/military personnel to have foul talking characters since thats how it goes in military. For others I don't see the point of having them.
 
RenegadeRocks said:
I think, American reviewers do not have the sensibility to review something void of aggression.
Click to expand...

I think that's a generalisation too far for me. Games such as Braid, Little Big Planet, Flower, Portal, Trials HD, Viva Pinata and even the Guitar/Rock Band type games have all been as well reviewed by American reviewers as elsewhere. Even the precurser to Heavy Rain, Farenheit (or Indigo Prophecy) got both good and medicore reviews from outlets from American and non-American sites.

OTOH, I can't stand meaningless aggression in the new games. Why are the protagonists foul mouthed? Why are they drug addicts/drunkards? Why am I being pushed to do bad stuff and then asked to rejoice about it ? I just don't find it normal at all :rolleyes:. Feels more like u r trying to make me be a sicko and show me that thats the way to enjoy life ! I prefer paying stuff that has some kind of thought in it, If not, then just focus on fun gameplay and spare me ur wisdom about life which u most importantly don't posses !
Click to expand...

It's funny you bring up Nathan Drake later in the post (I didn't want to quote the whole post), which I'll get on to in a moment.

For me though, it's about context in how I would define "meaningless aggression". Gears of War titles are filled with foul-mouthed meatheads, but the aggression displayed by the player is to save humankind, therefore allowing the player to fulfill the role of "Good" in a perennial "Good vs Evil" tale. Modern Warfare titles are similar, with the exception that the baddies are now humans (terrorists) but a moral compass has been set.

Now, whether or not one feels that the good guys are actually good can make a difference to how you view titles such as those above, along with Killzone, Halo, Resistance, WWII titles, Fallout 3, Ghost Recon, Rainbow Six, etc, etc.

But those kind of "good vs evil" stories have formed the very basis of human storytelling since we first learned how to communicate with one another, and they usually include some kind of behaviour that could be considered abhorrent if looked at in isolation. It even permeats our religious texts, such as the Israelites going to war against the Philistines, the Prophet Muhammed conquering Arabia, Shree Krishna leading the armies in the Mahubharata War (which, if I recall correctly, was the result of a dispute over a game of dice). In all of those battles, they were on the side of good because they were supported by God (on some days anyway, he was fickle in his views of the Isrealites), Allah and Lord Vishnu.

Then you have titles such as GTA4, Assassins Creed, Bioshock and probably even Mass Effect, where the moral position hasn't been quite so clearly defined by the developer. In Assassins Creed you are exactly that, an Assassin, and the game goes to great lengths to ensure you are never quite sure if what you are doing is right. Bioshock has a "reveal" which makes you question what you already believed. GTA4 is probably the most interesting example because it asks you to do things that are clearly outside the law and that are morally dubious, but its strength is that it doesn't pretend to place you on a moral high ground.

Then you have titles that fit (in my opinion) with your title of "meaningless aggression". A recent example I can think of is 50 Cent - Blood on the Sand. In that game, you slaughter hundreds of NPC's in the search for a crystal skull that was stolen off you. It's all about "respect" and regaining what is rightfully yours, but that's a very thin moral thread. Yes, the game tries to let you know that it is kind of a parody of the genre, but even this is only vaguely defined.

Which brings me onto Uncharted 2 and Nathan Drake. It is a fine game indeed, but at the end of a game I had killed close to a thousand human NPC's, blown up numerous vehicles and effectively destroyed a historical village. And why did I do this? To protect mankind? To ward off an alien or human invasion? To save the world? Nope, I did it in the persuit of a trinket, a piece of treasure that I desired for my own personal reasons. And I did it while making wisecracks, viewing human life as having less importance than a rock.

So that, as I see it, is where your argument falls down. You complain about meaningless aggression and being pushed to do bad stuff and rejoice, yet the very character you choose to look at as a virtuous role model against that type of gameplay is very much the worst proponent of it.

Maybe, because Nathan Drake is not covered in scars and heavy armour and the world the game inhabits is so vibrant and colourful, you just don't realise it.
 
Actually, in UC2
you do have to save the world
and not just work on your personal gain. But the moral uncertainty is there.
 
You are right in what u r saying Rotmm. No arguments with that. I am wrong about American Reviewers, maybe what I had in mind was average teen demographic of american gamers.
I found Nathan Drake better than the others cos he is not Drug addict/drunkard/sex addict/smoking weed or asking me to do it. He fills the boots of a clean guy. The whole game beams out happiness and goodwill, even if Nathan is a petty thief in the end, it still celebrates life in a way one can feel it :) !
I know I won't be able to provide scenarios to prove it, but we know it is there. It is not a meaninglessly aggressive game.
Its not about armour and scars, its about behaviour and what actions are rewarded by a game.
You can't disagree that Gears is just a testosterone fueled aggression let loose. I got bored after 25 mins into the game as there wasn't much to do, but to just tear apart enemies in more and more destructive way. It was missing the FUN of gaming ! I know its all subjective, millions like Gears, but then give drugs to a child and he will obviously like it, doesn't really mean drugs are good for him.

I see a big Hammer of mods coming my way, so I'll stop, as I was thrown out of the COD thread as I raised a discussion about killing people at the airport.
Rotmm, I don't disagree with what u r saying, But its all in the presentation. I didn't mind killing aliens in Resistance 1, but when in Resistance 2 guts started falling out of them, it felt meaningless as it did not add anything to the gameplay, it was there just to be more aggressive like Others.
Aggression sells as it boosts self esteem, makes people feel they r important. Doesn't necessarily mean aggression is good, its just an ego booster.
Happiness is what I like, maybe others prefer big egos. I think we all know what we want in life ! I just like to play games which give me what I want and they are decreasing everyday with mindless aggression taking over, which does not leave one satisfied but empty. And on top of that games are selling Discontentment as a virtue of Heroes too. No hero , except for Nathan, maybe, has a smile on his face ever. Can you tell me why? There ought to be at-least something that brings contentment to these Heroes fighting for their home/motherland/people/mankind. They showcase aggression+Disregard+discontentment+foul-mouthing as a quality in our games, which is something I don't like to bring home when I buy a game. I want good Old fun and laughter, the way it was always in gaming :) !
Maybe this doesn't belong in a gaming thread, but since when did gaming happen outside life.
 
Rotmm said:
Which brings me onto Uncharted 2 and Nathan Drake. It is a fine game indeed, but at the end of a game I had killed close to a thousand human NPC's, blown up numerous vehicles and effectively destroyed a historical village. And why did I do this? To protect mankind? To ward off an alien or human invasion? To save the world? Nope, I did it in the persuit of a trinket, a piece of treasure that I desired for my own personal reasons. And I did it while making wisecracks, viewing human life as having less importance than a rock.
Click to expand...

I doubt there are a thousand human NPCs in U2. Your characterization is also not quite accurate. The only inconsistencies are 2 melee moves that kill the enemy (neck breaking, and pulling people off high grounds) ... and, well, shooting. It's most inappropriate in the museum where he may end up killing the guards without the player's specific control. Otherwise, the stealth gameplay is a welcomed addition.

For the rest of the games, if he didn't kill the enemies, they would have killed him, or the villagers. Both Uncharted games have at least one point where Nathan wanted to go home (coz "It's not worth it !"), but was obliged to continue.

In the first game, it was to save
Elena and later, Sully
after the treasure hunt went wrong (Their plane was shot down). Elena wanted her TV show to succeed and encouraged Nate to carry on.

In the second game, it was made complicated by his ties with
Chloe and the other guy
, then he had to save themselves from the private army, and then save the villagers, followed by the world, and
finally, Elena
.

It is not a simple case of going for the treasures, although the story did start with the premise.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Babel-17
Hands On: Dreamfall Chapters
Replies
6
Views
4K
Babel-17
Babel-17
BRiT
Sony Playstation E3 2013 Events
53 54 55
Replies
1K
Views
116K
RenegadeRocks
R
P
Heavy Rain [PS3]
21 22 23
Replies
440
Views
55K
Nesh
N
A
  • Locked
News & Rumors: Xbox One (codename Durango)
613 614 615
Replies
12K
Views
2M
BRiT
BRiT
T
  • Locked
Heavy Rain Screenshots
2
Replies
26
Views
6K
AlNom
A
Back
Top