Dear Destructoid, I disagree. Question mark.

Destructoid has an article up. It attempts to discuss whether or not Heavy Rain is " doing videogames a disservice". I say attempts because the author, Jim Sterling, is clearly arguing that it does. Jim adding a question mark to the end of a headline he's already answered is his first mistake. The article is well written though.

Jim has a problem with two points of promotion included with the review copy of Heavy Rain he received. They are:

"Film Quality Narrative -- Heavy Rain brings a high quality story filled with tension, emotion, intrigue, and dramatic sequences"
"Hollywood Production Values -- from the length of the script, to the musical score, to the number of hours of motion capture, Heavy Rain is a vast and ambitious project that delivers a true film noir feel as well as production values that rival a cinematic experience"

He then contends that Quantic Dream (the games developers) are in the games business and not the movie business, and they "should be comparing itself to the best of its industry". I understand his argument, but its flawed. Mr. Sterling forgets that other games in the industry of ten compare themselves to their real world counterparts. Madden NFL touts its football realism. Many shooters gush over their realistic shooting mechanics. If a developers videogame mimics a medium that exists in our not so virtual world, it will undoubtedly compare itself to it.

And there is nothing wrong with that. It also seems unreasonable to compare Heavy Rain to other games within the industry, as no other similar game exists to my knowledge. Other than Indigo Prophecy(Farenheit in Europe), also developed by Quantic Dream. Actually, that game was ultimately damaged by it use of traditionally game like story elements towards the end.

Jim Sterling continues:

"It's a disservice to videogames to claim that your title is good because it's as entertaining as a movie. That essentially discredits the hard work of game writers and directors, who have a hard enough job as it is in trying to convince people that games are a legitimate work of creative entertainment. The last thing they need are having members of their own industry implying that credibility comes from a direct comparison to other mediums." 

 I see what he's trying to say, and I agree whole heartedly that videogames are a legitimate work of creative entertainment. But for them to deserve that label, these types of games must exist. It being comparable to film does not change the fact that within the gaming industry, it is unique. And for games industry to remain creative, it must have games that branch out beyond the perceived confines of Super Mario Bros. and Modern First person Alien Shooter 7: now with cover system. Which brings me to his next point.

Sterling contends:

"There's a real problem in the games business of people latching onto more established forms of entertainment instead of trying to establish gaming itself. It all goes back to that ludicrous Citizen Kane argument. People need to stop asking when gaming will get its Citizen Kane. They need to ask when gaming will get another Super Mario Bros. They need to ask when gaming will get another Shadow of the Colossus. Videogames should be compared to videogames, because they are an artistic and creative medium in their own right, and deserve to be treated as such." 

Citizen Kane is used within the film industry as the film by which all others are measured. I've never seen it. I'm only familiar with Orson Welles as the voice of Unicron, in the only real Transformers movie. I'm also not sure I've ever heard or read anyone asking when gaming will get its Citizen Kane, but I don't believe its meant to invoke a need for more cinematic games, but rather a game by which all other games are measured. It could be argued that Super Mario Bros. is that game. But there is no need to ask when gaming will get another SMB. It gets them.

There is no need to ask when gaming will get another Shadow of the Colossus. If you've played any game with a boss battle since 2005, you've seen the influence that game has had on the industry. And there is the contradiction in Sterling's/Destructoid's argument. For the gaming industry to be an artistic and creative medium, it needs games that are not so easily compared to other games. Games like Shadow of the Colossus. Games like Heavy Rain. There is nothing artistic about SMB. Funfactor high. Artisism nada.

Its clear that Jim Sterling is passionate about the gaming industry, and I applaud him for that. It's a passion I share. Which is why I'm disappointed by his narrow viewpoint on this particular subject. Heavy Rain, while comparable to film, and perhaps even driven to be as film like as possible, is at its heart a game. You, the gamer, control the characters. You drive the story forward and affect the outcome with your in game actions. As a passionate gamer, I will always welcome games that try to draw the player into the experience emotionally, as well as viscerally. Games like Heavy Rain, Alan Wake, Uncharted, Metal Gear or Mass Effect would not exist as they are now if it weren't for influences outside of the gaming industry. Game developers, like most humans, have access to other entertainment mediums, and often they are influenced creatively by these. And there is nothing wrong with that.