I finished Heavy Rain last week. Despite director David Cage’s insistence to the contrary, Heavy Rain isn’t really a horror game. It’s a thriller, or maybe mystery-suspense; if it were a film, it would live in an adjacent, but clearly separate section from the horror flicks. So, being a not-horror game, I’m not going to include it in the database here. It is, however, quite good, and like Quantic Dream’s earlier effort, Indigo Prophesy, readers of this site will probably find a lot to enjoy.
Heavy Rain is a pretty high-profile game, so I’m going to skip the paragraph where I tell you what the game is about and how it works. You already know that it’s a cinematic narrative that plays out from multiple perspectives and features a branching story line and a whole crapload of endings. And I’m sure that you’re aware that the control scheme is a mixture of Type C controls and Quick Timer Events. And the plot is about a guy trying to save his son from a serial killer called the Origami Killer. You know all this already, so consider this paragraph skipped.
I really enjoyed Heavy Rain, but I was also somewhat disappointed with it. It’s everything that I expected it to be, and yet, somehow, it felt a tad flat. I mean, the game itself really works: the art and graphics are phenomenal, the acting is good (I played in French with English subtitles, which was neat), the story is interesting, the branching gives the game decisions real weight, and the quick timer events actually work pretty well. There are some problems (some of the QTEs are pretty much impossible to pull off with a time limit, the movement controls lack a lot of precision, and the plot has some major gaping holes), but none of them really damage the experience. I think my problem with the game is that it represents such a huge effort to create an interactive story, and while it succeeds in so many ways, the actual story itself was somewhat predictable. It’s like the game graduated from all the pedestrian implementation flaws that drag other games down and ran instead into the much more complex problem of actually having competent plot.
I think that where Heavy Rain is most successful is in its use of camera work and character development to make game play decisions feel like they really matter. Knowing that if I mess up a branch I cannot go back, and also getting to know the characters enough that I want to play them in character had a huge impact on the value of the plot. This is also something that other genres have a really hard time with because they have to balance “story parts” with “game parts.” In Heavy Rain, it’s all the same mode.
So really, I have nothing too negative to say about this game. The few missteps are more than forgivable; this game design takes so much risk and pulls it off so well that a few misses here and there are hardly important. You should go run out and get this game right now.
Though the game itself is interesting, I also find it fascinating to see how other gamers respond to it. A lot of folks I know had a very negative response to the early part of the game, in which nothing particularly exciting happens. This section exists to define the main character and make his motivations for the later parts of the game seem plausible, and I personally had no problem with it at all, but some people I’ve spoken feel that any time spent playing a game in which exciting, extraordinary things are not happening is time wasted. They see the game as an action game waiting to happen, a constant tease that leads you on, promising to become a thrilling, button-mashing experience, and then just never does. “And when they get to the combat,” one friend laments, “it’s all goddamn QTEs!”
Me, I see this game as the ultimate evolution of the Adventure genre. Back when it was the Text Adventure genre, we had paragraphs of text to explain the situation, and then a passive blinking cursor to input commands. The major game play mode was exploration; look at this, examine that, try going over here. The genre graduated into the Graphic Adventure sometime in the late 1980s, and in those games there was still a lot of text, and still a lot of exploration, though mostly performed though point and click. We dropped the prefixes sometime in the ’90s, and Adventure games split into a couple of different groups (including a branch that eventually became Survival Horror), but the common traits have remained the same: heavy focus on plot and exploration of the environment. In Heavy Rain, plot is communicated via cinematography and spoken dialog. Exploration is still a major part of the experience, though the method involves hot spots littered throughout the environment and some QTEs. So to me, this is sort of a mid-90’s Adventure game with all the dials turned to 11 and cinematography and branching content sort of grafted on the top. And as Adventure games go, this one is one of the most action-packed I’ve ever played.
Part of the reason people are drawn to horror games, I think, is that they require some sort of narrative focus to effectively build tension. I think a lot of horror gamers, myself included, might be more interested in games with good, well-told stories than games that happen to feature ghosts and demons and flesh bag monsters. If you feel like you’re in that camp, give Heavy Rain a try.
I think my problem with the game is that it represents such a huge effort to create an interactive story, and while it succeeds in so many ways, the actual story itself was somewhat predictable.
How can it succeed in terms of an interactive story? The game offers no choices: either you succeed at making an omelette, catching a suspect or whatever else, or you fail… and none of these things affect the story in any relevant way, except maybe change a single line of text or the character shows up bruised in the next scene. The only exception are in the final scenes, where the heroes can either live to catch the culprit, die, or just get lost. So it’s either win or lose, only they gave every variant of “game over” their own cutscene.
So I guess Zodiac would have been game of the year if you had to push random buttons while watching it. I have to admit I’ve had some mild amusement by mashing buttons during cutscenes, but it didn’t trick me into thinking that Heavy Rain was anything other than a nice-looking CG movie with extra gimmicks.
It’s like the game graduated from all the pedestrian implementation flaws that drag other games down and ran instead into the much more complex problem of actually having competent plot.
It didn’t graduate from anything, it just left school. It’s an adventure game without puzzles and an action game without action (Nah, QTEs are not action). It’s easy to be freed of implementation flaws if you don’t implement anything, isn’t it?
All there is left is a 10-hour crime story that, while not terrible, is barely above average.
Me, I see this game as the ultimate evolution of the Adventure genre
It’s an evolution, alright, I just don’t think it’s a good one… but I guess my comments made that pretty clear 😉
I really enjoyed Heavy Rain as well. It was what it was, and even though I’m disappointed that the killer is always the same(which seems like a dumb move all together). There still are the downloadable episodes that add on to the story and I look forward to them.
> Garamoth
First: I have quote tags. Like this:
Yep, you made your distaste for the game pretty clear. I didn’t really get a sense of why you didn’t like the game, though. You apparently played it all the way to the end, grumbling the entire time I suppose.
I don’t think you appreciate the amount of branching in this game. Read some more about it online, or try playing again. The general outline of the plot is fairly static but my particular play through was very different than many of my friends’. How many other games can you name in which a leading character can die midway through the game without the game ending?
Oh boy hyperbole! My beef with this sentiment is
a) There are plenty of puzzles. The entire game is a puzzle. Just because it doesn’t involve finding key cards or moving books around in a bookshelf doesn’t mean that there are no puzzles. I think it’s a little lighter on puzzles than a traditional adventure game, but the meta puzzle in each scene is “what combination of events will lead to the outcome I desire.”
b) What’s the difference between a QTE and any context-sensitive action game (say, like, Devil May Cry), other than the QTEs often have an on-screen icon? The common argument against quick timer events is that when they are implemented poorly, a single missed input can lead to instant failure, which is frustrating. Heavy Rain goes out of its way to avoid that problem. I can’t see any reasonable argument for context-sensitive button presses in an action sequence somehow being “not action” though.
c) Give the game some credit for all the risk it’s taking. Do you understand how much these things cost to build? Nobody in their right mind makes games like this anymore; they make space marine shooters which are cheaper to build and more guaranteed (they think) to sell to adolescent boys who will play anything with giant guns in it. Though Heavy Rain isn’t always successful, you have to give the developers props for going out on such a limb. I think they did a fantastic job.
So, in summary, your post makes it clear that you didn’t like the game, but your reasoning seems to be “because I didn’t like it.” That’s cool–it’s all subjective anyway. Next time you could just post something like “It wasn’t for me,” that and be done with it. If you want to talk about successes and failures of specific mechanics, then let’s talk about that; don’t just dismiss the game for being crap without telling us why (and, when making an argument like this, “because I say so” isn’t a very convincing rationale).
I think I’ve made my reasons pretty clear and that you are the one that could have saved some time by just asking for precisions. I just didn’t want to go into specifics and spoilers, buy hey, what I just said might be my death sentence here. So for what it’s worth, here goes:
!SPOILERS!
Your early choices really do not affect anything except dialogue or the character’s appearance. Here are some examples:
– If you don’t help Lauren, she’ll show up just the same with the letter, only with a bruise on her face.
– Kill the “Jesus-freak” suspect or don’t, it doesn’t matter, you’ll just get a slightly different conversation in the car in the next scene. No jail, no inquiry, no disciplinary hearing, no nothing.
– Shelby can’t get killed in the convenience store: the worst that can happen is that a bullet will graze him. In fact, you can try not doing a damn thing during most action sequences and notice the consequences, or absence thereof… it’s surprising how little they matter.
– At most, getting Ethan arrested after the third trial will add an extra scene so he can escape.
– You can screw up one or two of Ethan’s trials, and he’ll still get an extremely obvious chance to guess his son’s location. Even if you screw every single trial up, Madison can still tell him where he is.
The only part where things really start to matter is in the final scenes. There is no possible way to die or miss anything of importance until “Doctor’s house”, which is about two thirds through the game, and by then each character only has a few more scenes to go.
The worst part is that none of these things are presented as actual “choices” (except maybe forgive/don’t forgive Madison). All of the options are presented as tests in which you either “fail/do not fail”… so you can’t really choose anything other than by screwing up on purpose. The fact that the requirements for succeeding any of these tests are so absurdly low really doesn’t help at all… you have to screw up a lot of button presses to lose, even on the hardest level… and you are often given extra events as second chances and you can change the difficulty level on the fly.
As for your argument in b), the difference between “regular action” and “QTE action” is not one of nature but one of complexity.
Devil May Cry requires you to navigate three-dimensional space, adapt to the patterns of different types of enemies, usually tracking more than one at a time on screen, predict their attacks, find openings and manage more than one weapon to find the most effective. Even Resident Evil asks you to manage your bullets and healing items.
Quick-time events are Simon Says with a controller. It’s the most dumbed down you can possibly take things without throwing out the whole thing out altogether. The fact that you can sit there while not pushing any buttons whatsoever and still move on without any tangible consequences sure doesn’t help either. So while technically they are still action, Heavy Rain’s QTEs are on the lowest possible end of the spectrum.
The problem of puzzles is mostly the same. Nothing more is asked of you other than “go pick up an item that is a few steps away from you that someone told you to get or needs”, “mess around with fridge doors and showers until you find the right trigger” or just “do nothing until something happens”.
Since the game is set up in scenes and every area is very small, there are never more than a dozen objects that can be interacted with. Nor do you have an inventory or complex Myst-like devices to figure out. I’m not sure it’s even possible to get lost.
Even Jayden’s police segments require no more than to look at all the objects in the room. No need for any deductions, just press “analyze” and all the work will be done for you.
All in all, this paints a portrait of a game that requires so little relevant input on the part of the player that it can barely be considered as such. As I said, it is a CG movie with gimmicks added in.
Dude, please use the spoiler tags. I fixed it for you this time but next time I’ll just erase the post.
So let me see if I can sum up your arguments:
a) Branching doesn’t lead to enough story diversity.
b) I don’t like QTEs in general.
c) The puzzles aren’t like puzzles in another game I like.
Do I have that right?
Sounds like more like this style of game is not up your alley. If you dislike the primary interface and the puzzle mode so much, why did you bother to play the whole game through? Why bother to research all of the branch points you have listed above?
It’s ok to not like a game, you know. Not liking it because it’s just not for you is ok; there’s no need to try to contort it into an argument about the game being fundamentally broken. I mean, it’s like everything else: if you don’t like a band, don’t buy their CDs; it’s not necessary to try to justify your opinion by arguing that the band is talentless.
You seem to not like the game play in this game. If that’s the case, I think that maybe you should play something else.
Now, as for your specific complains, I (obviously) disagree. The branching is significantly deeper than most other modern games, and the reason that it works (even when it has no specific influence on the actual outcome of the game) is that it changes the way we feel about the characters. I chose to fail a specific trial (I didn’t kill the dealer) because the way I had played Ethan up until that point suggested that that’s how he’d act in that situation. The game could have screwed me at this point, but instead it gave me a puzzle later to solve to make up for the failure. Some of my friends played Jayden as a total drug fiend and their impression of his character and how he would react to different situations differed dramatically from mine (I played him as a guy trying to go cold turkey). So even if, at a technical level, the branch points eventually converge (as they must considering the cost of content creation), the path that the player takes to that convergence point is highly relevant and has a big impact on the overall impact of the story. Would it be harder to believe that Ethan loves his son if he refused to cut his finger off?
As for QTEs, I think you’re mistaking the presentation for the play mode. What’s the difference between a dragon punch and a QTE sequence, other than in the QTE sequence, the buttons are shown on the screen? Sure, in Devil May Cry there’s strategy about combos and movement, but in the end you’re still just iterating strings of buttons in a linear series of rooms. I don’t think there’s really any major difference here except that the modes look different and have slightly different strengths (e.g. moment-to-moment context sensitivity).
For the record, my beef with the QTEs in Heavy Rain are that they were sometimes slightly disconnected from the action that they invoke. I wanted my key presses (especially in action scenes) to result in an immediate response, since that’s how I’ve been trained to expect games to respond. I sometimes waited too long to execute the QTE because I wanted to “time it right.”
And as for puzzles, I’m sorry, but your argument seems to be “I like my sequences of required action in one format but not another.” That’s fine, but like I said above, it’s more about you than about the game.
After I re-adjusted my perspective on what the game was, I enjoyed it. I want to see more with the characters — that’s successful character development, which a loooot of games lack.
Not sure if having to re-adjust my perspective means it’s a bad “game”, though.
If you approach it like an interactive movie experience, it’s utterly fascinating. If you approach it like a modern game, then you’ll be disappointed.
Despite wanting more by the end of the game (some great tragic endings!), the mini-events like cooking your son’s meal in a microwave were painful. Unless of course the reality of menial tasks helped to elevate the reality and brutality of the serial killer (try motion cutting your finger off several times and hearing the pain to get all trophies, haha)
Try out the DLC “Taxidermist” chapter. It’s not very long, though. It’ll take 30 minutes to explore it, but only 5 minutes to repeat it. It’s more in the “Survival Horror” genre!
One sticking point I keep reading about is the killer’s motivations. Reading the few forums I trust, most people universally say the wtf??? when you find out why the killer is doing what he is doing?
Sorry that I didn’t read other comments (the lecturer is kinda interferes with the process of reading), but there is a one thing that I don’t understand.
I’ve finished the game and I’ve enjoyed it, but I don’t see ANY difference from the “Indigo Prophecy”, except better graphics. Maybe, the plot is little more logical, but thats it.
People says that “Heavy Rain” is an evolution of the gameplay, etc. I don’t think so.
http://creativewillstudios.com
I think it’d be more accurate to say that the genre *diverged* into the Graphic Adventure. After all, graphic adventure games are not inherently superior to text games, which are are alive and well (if niche) today.
In fact, the best horror game I played all year was an Interactive Fiction called Anchorhead–it’s Lovecraftian, it’s free.
Of course I love all genres equally (well, maybe not you, Sports. But whatever.).
But maybe some of what you’re looking for–great plot, meaningful interaction, different endings–are more often found in modern IF than in some of the mainstream commercial graphic-based games we get nowadays.
Let’s me start off by saying that I LOVED Indigo Prophecy (Fahrenheit) in spite of how ridiculous it became about two-thirds in and I HATED Heavy Rain in spite of how consistent it was.
P.S.
Chris hit the nail on the head when he described why some are drawn to the survival horror genre.
I certainly fall into this category. I consistently seek out horror titles because I…
Gotta run. I’ll try to finish this thought later.
So I don’t need to buy a PS3 … 😛
I kind of like what Heavy Rain represents as far as game play evolution is concerned. It’s like a combination of old school adventure games, QTEs, and machinema. Outside of a few silly games on the Wii, games with clear roots in the classic adventure games really aren’t represented in this current generation of consols. From the amount of press and marketing this game generated it gives me a strong impression that the industry wants to bring adventure games back into the mainstream. I think this will be a boon to the bedroom programers, who now have a fairly simple design to work off from.
Haven’t finished it yet, but damn is the branching impressive. When I played the demo, I beat that one guy up in the apartment, as the detective, but when I got the full game, I messed up and lost, and got a different scene. I’ve also manage to get one of my four characters killed, the one I like the most too. Damn. He had such cool gadgets, impossible gadgets (well not in the game, cause I think it was in the future). Plus, I think it’s a lot of fun, with the ton of interactivity it really has. Especially in the early parts, before anything bad had happened. Those were the best parts, so much story build up.
I really wanted to like Heavy Rain. I had been drooling over the game since the day it was first announced since I liked Indigo Prophecy so much (and also enjoyed Omikron). While I think the graphics in the game are absolutely amazing, the main reason I was playing it was for the story.
Unfortunately, the story is where the game fails the most. There are just too many plotholes and leaps in logic for me to stomach. Here’s a decent list of the biggest ones: http://www.gamesradar.com/ps3/f/heavy-rains-big-plot-holes/a-20100224105436979020/g-2006051716470918010
If this game were a movie (which it will be soon, sadly) it would have gotten a 2% rating on rottentomatoes. Ignoring the fact that the story is basically just a bad rendition of Seven, it’s not even written well.
As for QTEs, I don’t actually mind them as long as I have sufficient warning time (I’m look at you, RE4!). In this, Heavy Rain is fine. What I *didn’t* like about the QTEs–or maybe more accurately “interactive cinemas”–were some of the more inane ones. I mean, cooking eggs? Changing baby diapers? WTF? That’s what really got to me about those.
As for the game engine and evolution of adventure games, I think the game is amazing. I just want a better story next time. But that’s just my two cents.