I've spent tonight looking up PS3 games I might like to buy, and spent most of the evening watching videos and reading about Heavy Rain. It looks incredible, and will hopefully expand on what Fahrenheit did years ago. Anyone else excited about this game? Makes a change from FPS and racing games, anyway.
//
Assault Andy Administrator
I make other people create vaporware
Registered 29/07/2002
Points 5686
21st December, 2009 at 05:11:11 -
That was a really engaging video. I haven't heard of that game before but it looks pretty cool. I need to get a PS3
I didn't actually watch that video before I posted it. Hope it was a good one and not a Heavy Rain Tribute music video made by a 7 year old. Yeah, the game is really intriguing. If a character dies, the story from that point changes - but still continues and the other characters deal with the loss of their father/mother/friend/child.
Very excited about this game - it won't be everyone's cup of tea, but if you liked Fahrenheit then you'll probably love this. The video you posted is an early demo I believe.
You can see various gameplay videos there - you can also see how your decisions affect how things turn out in the scenarios. But I'm really interested in how your decisions affect things later on in the game too.
that trailer is almost 4 years old. At that time, I thought something different could come out of that, but the last trailers I saw make it look like a generic Silent Hill clone. I really hope I'm wrong, as usual.
There was a pretty in depth video showing off a scene and a few different playthroughs or it. It really is an interesting game. I'm not totally sure if i'll enjoy playing it though.
Originally Posted by Flava Very excited about this game - it won't be everyone's cup of tea, but if you liked Fahrenheit then you'll probably love this. The video you posted is an early demo I believe.
It also has ta-tas and a scene where the player can be raped, so don't cross your finger for it being released overseas too uncensored (if at all, depending on country- sorry but Australia has virtually no chance)
Originally Posted by Pixelthief It also has ta-tas and a scene where the player can be raped, so don't cross your finger for it being released overseas too uncensored (if at all, depending on country- sorry but Australia has virtually no chance)
I just downloaded some videos on the PS3 here and the Japanese trailer for Heavy Rain is much better than any of the others I've seen. They also seem to have made some changes to the game just for the Japanese release (he cuts off his finger at the end of the trailer because he promised his son that he would never leave him alone - in Japan kids "lock fingers" to make a promise)
Originally Posted by alastair john jack Hilarious attempt at a game.
I wouldn't go that far but I understand why you'd say that. The chances of it failing are far higher than it succeeding, so you could easily come back here next month and say "Hah, I told you so!" and look all cool and stuff. Even if it gets favourable reviews, it could still be a commercial wipe out unless they get some really convincing advertising going. Fahrenheit/Indigo Prophecy wasn't a terrible nor hilarious attempt at a game. Its main fault was that the plot went crazy towards the end. I'm still interested in Heavy Rain and unless it completely bombs I'll be checking it out.
Its basically a massive highlight of what's wrong with games at the moment - Games continually trying to become as close as possible to films.
For those who understand what games are and capable of, it's hilarious. For the masses, sure it's amazing.
I personally think the problem is not with "movie games", but rather games emulating movies while pretending to be games. Take FF13. From everything we've heard about it, its little more than "Press X and cutscene" gameplay, hailed as the next great RPG. Total bullocks, for two reasons: A) Judged as a game, it would be terrible for pathetically uninspired ultralinear gameplay and B) Judged as a movie, its just horrid.
The real problem is that game producers make what are effectively just bad movies, and give them a little interaction and expect people to judge them on the same scale as games. MGS4 had great graphics for a "game", right? But its dozens of hours of cutscenes, and how can you compare those graphics to say Avatar 3D? It is not even close. Release most of this uninspired games as the movies they are underneath, and they'd flop hard. Nobody would watch that crud.
Heavy Rain, however, I believe shows a little promise for the simple reason that it *embraces* the fact it is merely an interactive movie. And I like that, its honesty in design and opens a lot of room for them to have less ostentatious gameplay and mechanics. I'd much rather play an interactive movie than an interactive movie pretending to be a game. Sure, its the kind of thing that could flop hard, but its also the sort of thing that can score big.
But just remember NOT to judge it on the same scale as a video game...
Check out the latest trailer (Mall) on Gametrailers.com. This game looks better the more I see of it. There are also a couple of review scores on Metacritic already (92% and 90%) but these are early days. Looks promising, though.
I don't think this is your kind of game. Assuming you watched the Mall and Store trailers, do you really think that this game doesn't look interesting at least?
I like games like this, love the creativity and choice behind them. Obviously though you can only play it a few times before you start getting bored of the story though, as you know what will happen. Looking forward to the release
4 reviews up on Metacritic now (average 95%) Albeit two of them are official Playstation magaines.. but still.
I wish the person playing these demo videos wasn't so good, so that we can see how the game reacts and adapts to missing a quicktime event, or losing a fight/argument. The shop robbery demo was good because it showed you several different angles on the same scene. This is THE selling point of the game so I'm surprised that they haven't released more like that. I'm also curious to see how they've managed save games here. If one of my characters dies and I can just load up a previous saved game then it's going to spoil some of the realism.
I only played the demo, but it honestly feels like a crappy FMV-game from the Sega CD days. For all the creativity they have put into the intense presentation, they've taken the same amount away from the gameplay and mechanics. I'm sure it'll be an interesting story, if they avoid fucking it up like they did with Fahrenheit, but that still won't really cut it for me, when it's basically just an interactive movie filled with pointless QTE sections.
because within the game industry they appreciate well made games even when they are of a more artistic nature.
individuals tend to rate games based on how much fun they had, not if the game itself was good and well made. and i would assume the average person would be a bit bored playing the game.
All the big gaming websites and magazines are fuelled by money, the companies pay them to talk about it and give it a good score. Not only that, but these so called "reviewers" are not experts nor are they capable of writing a good review, let alone analyse it properly.
Originally Posted by alastair john jack All the big gaming websites and magazines are fuelled by money, the companies pay them to talk about it and give it a good score. Not only that, but these so called "reviewers" are not experts nor are they capable of writing a good review, let alone analyse it properly.
how little do you know about the gaming industry? companies dont "bribe" their way to good reviews with money. its even to the point where most reviewers dont even get swag from a game company of which they are reviewing a game for. the only sway a game company has is WHO can review their game. if theyve gotten bad reviews in the past, and are dicks about it, they arent obligated to send out a review copy. and even then, all that means is that whoever wasnt sent a review copy has to wait until the commercial release. some if not most of these so called "big gaming websites and magazines" have made it very clear that games get the review and score that they deserve, however high or low. 1up in particular. even game informer has its "second and third opinion reviews" which are right next to the main review. sometimes the contrast is heavy. a game that "officially" recieved a 9 to a 10 out of 10 sometimes gets a second opinion of 8.5 or 7.5 or even below. dont give me that "oh they pay them to give good reviews" shit.
"Not only that, but these so called "reviewers" are not experts nor are they capable of writing a good review, let alone analyse it properly. "
most of the people in the games industry that i listen to are MORE that capable of analysing and writing excellent reviews about a game. this is their JOB after all. and what about independant reviewers, freelancers, etc. area5, the geekbox, and rebelfm all have little to gain by giving a game a positive review (they dont score either, its pure review). they do it because its their passion.
It was just an observation, most reviews I've seen (from sites such as gamespot etc. etc.) offer very basic/shallow criticism and consist mostly of facts like a wikipedia article rather than a critical analysis.
I just have high standards though.
Hmm. Don't take this as trolling, as I only just learned that there's some kind of Alan Wake vs. Heavy Rain fan rivalry, but after reading this I was going to mention Alan Wake as an alternative for those who want more of an actual game and less of a movie (in a sense; it looks like it'll be a very cinematic game).
It recently became 360-exclusive, though, so I guess most of those who won't be buying Heavy Rain probably won't be able to get AW either...
Anyway, that's my two cents. They both look cool, but I'd definitely go with Alan Wake. I loved Max Payne and I didn't even get to play it (only watched my brother playing it on occasion).
Originally Posted by alastair john jack All the big gaming websites and magazines are fuelled by money, the companies pay them to talk about it and give it a good score. Not only that, but these so called "reviewers" are not experts nor are they capable of writing a good review, let alone analyse it properly.
how little do you know about the gaming industry? companies dont "bribe" their way to good reviews with money. its even to the point where most reviewers dont even get swag from a game company of which they are reviewing a game for. the only sway a game company has is WHO can review their game. if theyve gotten bad reviews in the past, and are dicks about it, they arent obligated to send out a review copy. and even then, all that means is that whoever wasnt sent a review copy has to wait until the commercial release. some if not most of these so called "big gaming websites and magazines" have made it very clear that games get the review and score that they deserve, however high or low. 1up in particular. even game informer has its "second and third opinion reviews" which are right next to the main review. sometimes the contrast is heavy. a game that "officially" recieved a 9 to a 10 out of 10 sometimes gets a second opinion of 8.5 or 7.5 or even below. dont give me that "oh they pay them to give good reviews" shit.
"Not only that, but these so called "reviewers" are not experts nor are they capable of writing a good review, let alone analyse it properly. "
most of the people in the games industry that i listen to are MORE that capable of analysing and writing excellent reviews about a game. this is their JOB after all. and what about independant reviewers, freelancers, etc. area5, the geekbox, and rebelfm all have little to gain by giving a game a positive review (they dont score either, its pure review). they do it because its their passion.
I'd actually agree with Alastair here, there is a degree of reviewer cowardice; I wouldn't go as far as saying the game companies pay money to get good reviews, but there are definitely incentives for the big game sites to give games good scores - if you give Company A's new game a shit review, they're going to withhold the review copy of their next game, which obviously dents visits to the review site and the advertising revenue that goes with it.
Your independent, not-for-profits though pretty much can be trusted to give an honest review, even if it isn't always a good one.
Of course companies don't throw vast wads of cash at review sites to get good reviews, They just threaten to pull advertising, if they've actually paid for ads that is.
There was a lot of talk about game reviews here when Jeff Gerstman got fired from Gamespot after the Kane & Lynch fiasco. In that thread I cited a story on Joystiq about journalists being sent.. various incentives to boost the scores of certain games.
Metacritic isn't perfect but since I don't put much trust in any one particular website, it's useful to see an average of all reviews scores. I tend to ignore the top few, which are invariably always Official [Console Name] Magazine Monthly.
It's possible that a publisher could have sent money to every single reviewer on the Metacritic list, but I don't think Sony has that much money to be throwing around anymore, and I don't think they'd spend it on such a niche game anyway.
Personally I find only the reviews on TDC to be trustworthy. Scores of 0, 1, 9 or 10 FTW.
They actually made some good points for someone who just picked up the game and didn't know what to expect. I'd imagine that many other people will feel the same way if they rent Heavy Rain "just to see what all the fuss is about", then get frustrated because it's not Mass Effect 2.
On the other hand, this is not the attitude any reviewer should have upon playing a game. It's a terrible review. Things that take getting used to, like the game's controls and pacing, are instantly labelled as game-breaking problems "within seconds". Also, notice that there was no mention of the main feature of the game, which is that your choices affect the story and have consequences. I wonder if the reviewer even knows. I'm surprised it even got a 4 if he treated it like a linear game with quicktime events.
I'd encourage everyone to read the reviews - plural.
http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/ps3/heavyrain
Even after factoring in this score, the average is 88%. Teletext's Gamecentral looks like the spoiled kid sitting at the bottom of the list.
I have to say the reviewers in Edge and Gamecentral (teletext post, above), for me, tend to be the most accurate to my own tastes. However i've not played the game myself so haven't actually judged it.
Interesting though that the 2 reviewers i tend to listen to were the lowest scorers on Metacritic for Heavy Rain.
I also find it interesting that many of the reviewers on Metacritic gave a game based upon "quick time events" perfect 100 scores; a little dubious, i think. Also of note, many of the reviewers who scored it 95+ said that it wasn't actually a game as such or was more like an interactive movie (ImpulseGamer, Everyeye.it, Game Informer), which might explain the low GameCentral score if they were rating the gameplay experience as most important.
I have to say the graphics and apparent storyline interest me. Alas, i don't actually own a PS3 so will maybe never play it
I just got this game at the weekend and I'm pretty blown away by it. I thought the demo was pretty meh. You really need time to get to know the characters. That first hour is perfectly paced and not at all unnecessary.
I wouldn't recommend it to anyone, but if you enjoy dramas (24, Prison Break) and don't mind playing a different sort of game then you'll probably get into this. I have a ton of respect for Quantic Dream for trying something that no one else had the balls to try, and making such a fine job of it. In a lot of ways it feels like an indie game with commercial quality production values.
Originally Posted by Marko I also find it interesting that many of the reviewers on Metacritic gave a game based upon "quick time events" perfect 100 scores; a little dubious, i think.
It's not "based upon" quicktime events; it's based upon decision making and telling a story that's affected by those decisions. Also, and this is a loose point, but even within some quicktime segments you have choices to make (this way or that; escape or fight)
I'm not seeing what the big deal is with quicktime events anyway. What are games, if not dressed up reaction and decision making tests?
Has anyone else played it? I'd like to hear what you think of it, although I probably won't check back here until I've completed the game.
For the record, i HATE quick time events in games. Also for the record, i think Heavy Rain looks great and if i had a PS3 i'd buy it. As a 360 owner i do plan to buy Alan Wake (if it ever comes out) and i hope it's as good as i hear Heavy Rain is.
Also, my mate bought Heavy Rain and he said it was boring, where you do nothing but "press a button here and there". But then again he used to go on and on about Terminator 3: the Redemption on the PS2, and i played it and thought it was pretty bog-standardly average.
I finished the game last night - great experience! I want to play through it again to catch a few different endings. I won't say anything about the story
Advertisement
Post Reply
Didnt realise it was to do with the PS3. Reminds me of the Cell block tango from the musical Chicago.
.
Edited by alastair john jack
