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.

This is a title?

Bored. Yup. The formerly exclusive Grand Theft Auto IV dlc is finally being released on the PS3 and PC.  This is good news for me and other ps3 only gamers or pc only gamers. It should be anyway. If you comb through some forums or comments posted on this story you'll see that this news along with all other gaming news gets turned into a fanboy flamewar waged by the most moronic of our sect. Its really pitiful. I liked gta4. I don't care that IGN scored it a 10/10. There was a lot of backlash over that score, and I didn't really understand it. It offended some because it was the first 10 IGN has given to a game since Orcarina of Time. A great game by the way. I get how some people can get so attached to a game or system that they feel the need to defend its non existent honor, but that defense is irrational.  Many gamers were bothered that this new iteration in the gta franchise lacked more of the superfluous activities they had become accustomed to having, such as base jumping, the rampage challenges, character customization and other mini games. These activities were enjoyable, and for many, including myself, helped extend the game play. GTA: San Andreas in particular was loaded with these features, so naturally fans assumed the next gta would include even more bing a next gen title. It did not. And they were angry. Mostly. As I said previously I liked gta4. Really liked it in fact. I appreciated how Rockstar narrowed the focus of the game, concentrating on crafting a strong story, and a living city to coincide with this story. It was very character driven. GTA has always been a mature game, but this time around it was more to do with plot elements than shooting hookers. This was lost on younger gamers who shouldn't be playing the game anyway. That's not to  say all who were disappointed with gta4 were immature, but upon reading the arguments brought forth by those who were disappointed, its clear many are. There is also the ps3 fanboy. So many ps3 gamers felt betrayed by Rockstar for giving the xbox360 the dlc exclusively that they wanted the game to fail, or were determined to downplay the quality of the downloadable episodes. And that's what we're seeing now. Or that's what I'm seeing. So many saying they never finished gta4. So many saying they have no interest and that Rockstar are wasting their time. And so many mocking Microsoft fro paying 50 million for excusive content that is no longer exclusive. Not that 360 fanboys are any better. Perhaps I should just stay away from N4G. None of my recent posts seem to have a cohesive point. Oh well. Hey guys, want some taffy?

Leno is a demon

Yes. Yes he is. I am watching his hideous song and dance on Oprah right now and it is causing violent reactions within me. I think I blacked out once, and I've vomited at least four times. I should be taping this in order to pick apart the bullshit spewing from both their mouths but I am not. This interview is a joke because Oprah and Jay are friends and she has taken his side. She basically just said as much in the interview. She didn't understand why so many fans have turned on Leno. She said she doesn't understand why people believe Leno stole the show from Conan when it "wasn't yours (Jay's) to steal. It was NBC's". That's right bitch. Generally people don't steal shit that belongs to them. Leno did steal the show. Before I continue proving this I need to touch on some thing Jay just said for the third time. Jay believes Conan's ratings are to blame for him being removed from the Tonight Show. Conan didn't have the ratings, so he shouldn't be the host. Jay Leno didn't have the ratings at 10pm, so he should get a better show and time slot back? Really?? That's logic.

Anyway, moving on. I was away unbeknownst to you, the reader. I posted something on Oprah's site. She had a poll before her interview in which 96% of people were in support of Conan. After the interview, 49%. So you can imagine how the interview went. I suppose Oprah is patting herself on the back. After reading some of the comments left by her viewers my eyes shriveled to raisin like proportions and then imploded. Oprah's kool-aid is quite the concoction. It's clear most people have not read this. It's an interview from November '09. when asked whether or not he would go back to 11:35 time slot,  Jay says "If that's what they wanted to do, sure. That would be fine if they wanted to." Actually, Jay asks himself a question then answers it. He does it constantly throughout the interview. Would i do this? Am I feeling this? Do i wear pants? It's annoying. It makes him seem disingenuous, which i suppose, he is. Jay was hoping this exact debacle would happen. Instead of actually retiring, he decided to hang around the network and do a crappy show. He also says in the interview that it takes time to build an audience. He says this in reference to Conan. But he's apparently changed his mind because in the interview with Oprah he thinks Conan couldn't cut it. Fuck. Y'know, I don't really feel like I'm proving anything. I don't think I can. I don't hate Leno. Well, I kind of do now. But I don't think I can prove him to be an evil demon. That's just my opinion. He should of stepped away, and gone out with class, instead of this. He's snatching away opportunity from a younger generation. Bah! I'm done. This is not what I want to be writing about. My trophy card is updating again. I'm going to go play Uncharted 2. J.D. Salinger is dead. I'll end this by pasting the comment I left on Oprahs site.
No one expected Conan to do Jay's numbers coming in. But the abysmal ratings of the Jay Leno show at 10pm affected the affiliates news ratings which affected the Tonight Show. Jay seems to want us to believe that since Conan didn't pull the ratings, he shouldn't host. Why should Jay be essentially rewarded for failing at 10pm? When Leno took over the Tonight Show in '93 he was losing in the ratings to Letterman until '97 when Hugh Grant appeared amidst his prostitute scandal. That one show gave Leno a huge amount of exposure and led to his ratings dominance. Conan's show never had the opportunity to garner such support. Not Until the end. Conan killed in the ratings the final week. I'm against Jay because back in '93 the same things were being reported about Jay. Talk of his backroom deals and backstabbing manipulation in order to take over the Tonight show. Back then it was decided that most of the blame should fall on the network. But here we are 17 years later. How can the same guy, be involved in the same scandal twice, and not be to blame? I think its insulting when Jay and Oprah say that we, the audience don't understand how television works. They seem afflicted with the cynicism that Conan hates. I know how television works. I'm aware how a lot of crappy industries work. But I'd rather watch and support an artist who bucks those trends, who defies that cynicism, and decides to go against the flow of sludge that plagues said industry. That's why I'm with Coco.