I bought Heavy Rain, played and completed it over 3 days, and promptly returned it. But that is not an indication of the quality of the game. Rather, it was because I considered my experience with it complete. And holding onto it would be akin to trying to grasp onto the last wisps of a dream. And letting it go was probably the best thing for us all.
But I'm hoping to be able to quantify my experience with it, and where I think the game truly resonated with me. And I hope that sharing my perspective will enable other games to hopefully enjoy it as much as I did.
*Spoilers Spoilers Spoilers Spoilers Spoilers Spoilers*
Scott Shelby is the Origami Killer.
This is an important development in the game, and not just in the narrative. It seems that for some players, this particular revelation reveals several inherent flaws in the game, and thus tainted the overall experience.
And the criticisms leveled against Heavy Rain's red herrings, and logical gaps in the narrative are fair and deserved. And the criticism against the mixed performance by the voice actors are also fair. These are lessons that should be accounted for if a sequel or successor emerges.
But the problems listed above should not be a deterrent to enjoying the game. And I believe that the game challenges our understanding of our role in the game, and this challenge may have left some gamers cold.
It seem that most players engage the game with the thought that we are the primary actor. We control Ethan, Madison, Norman and Scott. We are in control of the characters' actions, thoughts and impact in the game world. This is a commonly understood language of games, where the player is the sole determinant.
However, in Heavy Rain, we have to understand that we are not the primary actor. We are not even the director. Our role is not to determine their progression for them. They have already done that for themselves through their own independent actions. Our role in this world is far less involved, serving only as observers, as flies on the wall. And the game serves only as a window into which we glance briefly into the lives of these characters. And these characters, who exist completely independent from us, do not conform to our understanding of the world. If we were to extend the film-making analogy, we would be more akin to that of a post-production editor. We can affect the pacing of the narrative, and pick out one scene over a selection of alternatives. But ultimately, our impact is minimal.
And because we are placed in this unfamiliar position, various story elements may seem out of step with our understanding of the game. And we ask whether the reveal, or any other plot point made any sense to us. That, I believe, is the wrong question to ask. The question should instead be, "Did it make sense to them?".
Was the character of Scott Shelby internally consistent, within the confines of the world he lives in? Yes, it was.
Did Ethan truly believe that he was the killer? Yes, he did.
Did the peripheral characters also believe that Ethan was the killer? Yes, they did.
Ultimately, there are fair criticisms that can be laid against the game. But we should not diminish the game's challenge to our commonly understood role as a gamer. It may seem
disempowering that we have no impact within the game. It's like picking up a snow-globe that won't work whenever we shake it. But I believe that this challenge could change our perspectives of our roles as gamers, and our expected interactions with a piece of interactive creative work.
