Heavy Rain not on the PC
- Thread starter Ertis
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Both bits of Fahrenheit are amazing. You have your wonderfully gritty psychological thriller with supernatural elements, and then you have the gleefully over the top manic action. Both bits are awesome. They just don't fit together. They barely even belong in the same genre, let alone the same game. It's like combining Silent Hill and No More Heroes.john_alexander said:
Jumplion said:
I agree with you on this. Like i said before, Heavy Rain doesn't look good to me. It looks rather boring but if you pc gamers are annoyed that it won't be for the PC either Deal with it or Buy the system. It's an exclusive for a reason ya know. It annoys me to see "gamers" annoyed that the game they want isn't available for there platform. I know times are tough but save up and buy the system and the game that you want. And who knows, maybe you'll like the other games too. Best example is with the Recent news of the No More Heroes port to the PS3 and 360. The "Gamers" that were saying, "I want this game but I hate the Wii" or "This game sucks" are now jumping with joy that is it being ported on there console. That made me mad due to the massive hypocritical people hating on the game or the system it's on.
Which would be most of them, considering the graphic threshold.JaymesFogarty said:
If I remember right, Mass Effect 2 will have >20 gigabytes of space requirement, and there aren't many PC players complaining about it. If anything, memory is less of an issue for PCs considering that hard disk space is about $50 per terabyte with an easy (although time consuming) installation.
While not trying to pick a fight (it is Chrismtas), and I agree that Heavy Rain looks good (well more so, I'm a Fahrenheit fanboy so...), if you start your sentence with "Actually, PC graphics aren't all that wow any more", I am convinced that this is a fight you will lose, especially considering the PS3 is a closed system.Mazty said:
You see, that seems like a rather bold claim to make, especially when you consider that the only one who has played it is the previewer who's opinion of the game is what I based my first comment on. I still disagree that this game will create a character within a character by exercising the butterfly effect with every choice, because personally, I just don't see that as being the outcome.Jumplion said:
I actually believe that this game is going to cause you to feel more like the character isn't you when you are presented with a limited number of choices in a very mundane situation. Maybe I don't want to give my kind apples or chips, maybe I want them to have bananas or nothing at all, let the little bastard go hungry. What if I don't give a shit about the kid, then when he is kidnapped my character is still going to chase after him. Why? That's not what I would do. I'd call the police and chill because I don't care about the little shit. Maybe I don't feel like brushing my teeth in the morning and just want to gargle some mouthwash instead. If what they are really trying to do is get you to feel as though you are the character, they are going to fail, because in the end all of these choices are the likely choices that the character in the game would make, not necessarily what the actions the player would make.
Not to mention what you propose here is that this is a different way of getting the player to care about the character. We know a way that works already and is interesting. So to me it seems like it was a choice between a way of character identification that we know works and is interesting and fun for the player, or a way of character identification that we don't know will work, but that we do know involves the player doing extremely mundane tasks under the guise that it will help you connect with the character. They have to know that the morning routine and feeding your kids isn't fun, it's just necessary. I can't really support them if they went with the latter choice, as it makes no sense to me. It would seem they are trying to connect you to the character by boring you to death with the first act. I'm sorry if it seems like I'm "Holding the industry back" but that just isn't the direction I want to see it head.
like I said in my first post, I'm going off of the preview I heard about on a podcast over at dtoid. I'm making the statement that it isn't fun based on the description provided by someone who has played it. Though, I would be amazed if they could magically make the brushing your teeth or feeding your kids section fun. They could do it, but I doubt it.
I find the difference to be pretty simple. In a game, you can fail. You can loose. In a movie you can't, the story continues even if the main character in the story dies, and they play it off like it was all part of the story. What was one of the main features of Heavy Rain again...Oh yeah, being able to switch to the perspective of another character if yours happens to die(which ruins any sort of connection you have with the main character, btw. Which makes me wonder why they would make you waste time in the begging of the game trying to connect with the character through menial tasks when they pretty much stated that him dieing is A-OK).
I have a question for you. What is heavy rain going to provide me that it couldn't if the story was transferred to a choose your own adventure book? If I loose nothing, then why is it a game and not a choose your own adventure book?
And I could be totally wrong too and it could be great. When I play it I will keep an open mind, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to observe it's progress and find the things about it that are being released that I may not like and then forming a light opinion on it, not one that is going to automatically condemn the game, just one that starts it off at a bit of a disadvantage for seeming so damn boring(which could actually work to it's advantage by creating a shell shock of "Oh wow!" if it really isn't boring and is great fun). Also, I never said everyone has to be against it because you brush your teeth in it, where did you get that idea. I never told everyone to just skip the game, I just made my view on what I've seen so far known.
Bleh, I was going to go on a counter-rant against you, but for the life of me I'm too lazy right now. I'll spare you for nowjboking said:
We'll agree to disagree and whatnot, I don't feel like debating now.EDIT: But I will say this one your "why is this a game and not a 'choose your own adventure book'" and to that I say, why not?
People make the excuse of "If I wanted story, I'd go read a book!" or "if I wanted action, I'd watch a movie!", but why can't a game branch out into this "choose your own adventure" kid of media? Please point to me a game that truly gives you choice and lets you implement them how you want, and not just some crappy "Save the grandmother.....OR EAT HER BRAINS!!!".
And even if you find some, look at how many there are in comparison to the games that are overwhelmingly abundant compared to those "choose your own adventure games".
Heavy Rain is just one step to further interactivity within games and choices that have impact in games. If it fails, it fails, but if it succeeds, then it can pave the way for new ways to implement choices and maturity within games.
I've been looking forward to this game. To be honest it is best suited for the PS3. A good title.
Haha, to be honest I understand where your coming from. I had to fight to answer the last one.Jumplion said:Bleh, I was going to go on a counter-rant against you, but for the life of me I'm too lazy right now. I'll spare you for nowjboking said:
The question should never be why not. Action should have purpose. The first burden should always be to answer why.
That is completely valid, but it seems you didn't answer the question. What would I loose if I read this as a choose your own adventure book? You see, video games always provide you with a level of freedom to just screw around for a bit as opposed to progressing with the story. It gives you the ability to just shoot stuff or drive recklessly around town for a few hours.
Also, I couldn't point you to a game that truly lets you implement and decide your choices off the top of my head(though I'm sure there is some indie game out there that has tried) and that includes Heavy Rain.
A choose your own adventure book is not what you just described. You are not given the option to act the actions out how you would want, how each action occurs and the response to it is always predetermined, and that is what worries me about Heavy Rain. The illusion of choice situation.
Here's the thing. The gaming industry already understands how to implement choices and maturity within games. I can show you one example of a choice that provides you a choice that is neither baby eating or mother Teresa and actually causes you to think.
Towards the end of Fallout 3: The Pitt you are given a choice. You stand in the house of an oppressive king. In the house is the cure to a terrible disease, however, the cure is a small child(the oppressive kings daughter). The resistance wants you to kidnap the kid and bring it back to them where they will try to get the cure to spread to everyone. The choice seems pretty clear there doesn't it? Hold on though, because while talking to the king you get a different view of who he is. The king fully intends to use his daughter to create the cure and give it to everyone, however, he wants to do the tests himself(well, let his wife do it, but that's beside the point) to ensure the childs safety. The king tells you that after the people are cured and things start turning for the better he will stop oppressing and make all of the citizens of the Pitt equal in an attempt to try and make the Pitt back into the great city it once was.
So along comes the conundrum. Neither choice is morally wrong, and how you go about implementing the choice is completely up to you, you can even avoid the choice all together and just run away. The Fallout series has numerous instances of this kind of action(that's the entire fallout series, so we knew how to do this in 1997. I think what you should really be asking is why developers don't want to constantly do this, maybe it's too hard or daunting on the player.)
So along comes the conundrum. Neither choice is morally wrong, and how you go about implementing the choice is completely up to you, you can even avoid the choice all together and just run away. The Fallout series has numerous instances of this kind of action(that's the entire fallout series, so we knew how to do this in 1997. I think what you should really be asking is why developers don't want to constantly do this, maybe it's too hard or daunting on the player.)
I understand that all of these choices are measured and very "(A, B, or C) + after effects" styled, but that's all I can imagine Heavy Rain will do anyway.
To throw something out there, I'm likely going to buy this game(timing of it's release and exclusivity makes me want it) I'm just taking a look at the more boring aspects of the game so I'm ready for them when they hit.
I must say, this, of all games, is one that I would really expect to be on PC.
S.T.A.L.K.E.R rules!Sebenko said:
You would lose a whole level of interactivity, simple as that. Some games give you the interactivity level of running over grandmothers and parachuting down from a plane to fall on top of grandmothers. There are a bunch of different levels of interactivity and where it takes place, from gameplay to environment interaction to character interaction. Heavy Rain is just doing a different kind of interaction.jboking said:
Well, then we get to the whole "destinEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!" stuff, but I won't dwell on that.
The thing about most choices in many games is that you always know what the consequence will be, or at least what part of it is going to be. If you save the grandmother, you're a hero and everyone loves you for the rest of the game. Kill her and everyone hates you, but if you fart the national anthem suddenly you're just a cheeky lil' bugger.
With Heavy Rain, each action has a consequence, but they're not necessarily "good" or "bad". In one level, where you invade someone's home, you can choose to bring a gun, sneak around the house slowly or run around toppling everything, and when the home owner comes along you can hold them hostage, call the police, or try to sneak out (to name only a few actions). None of those choices are "right" or "wrong" and none of them have a foreseeable consequence, which is the main thing in choices.
Let me ask you, what karma bonus did you get in either situation? If you gave the child to the resistance/let the king experiment on her, did you get good or negative karma? That's a huge part that I think you're missing out, since regardless of what you do you will be judged positively or negatively, indicating that there is somehow a "right" answer when there really shouldn't be. And really, was it a tough moral choice because you cared what the resistance wanted? Or was it hard to choose because you didn't know exactly what you were getting at the end? I find that once you go on the fallout Wiki, those choices become so much easier
And for every example you give me, I can give 10 counter-examples (okay, exaggeration, but you get what I mean.) To be perfectly honest, that is a classic example of those cheap "save the girl, or DON'T!" situations that aren't good situations for "choices". InFamous has a Karma bar, touting choice to help morph the city into what you want, but it hardly did anything except add a red tone to the sky when you're bad (it was a great game overall, just commenting on the karma system). You never really connected with the citizens of Empire City as regardless you got experience for however you wanted to play.
Similarly, I was playing Far Cry 2, and I suddenly got a mission where I could go to Mike's Bar to save my friends in crime or go to the Pala church and save the minister. There was nothing to show that the event was leading up, just a badly voice-acted guy who talked too fast saying "The enemy is at Mike's Bar, lining your friends up to shoot them, but also at the church in Pala, I suppose it is your choice of what you want to do, good luck, I need to get the hell out of here, it is not safe here," in the most monotone voice ever...yeah, I really care what happens to anyone now...
Though I suppose I'm trailing off, what I'm mostly talking about now is poor implementation of characters and whatnot, though hopefully I'm getting my point across.