Talk:Heavy Rain/Archive 1

PhysX does NOT require a PPU

The article erroneously assumes that a "separate" version of the game would be necessary to run on computers with a physics processing unit. However, NVIDIA's/AGEIA's PhysX SDK includes a full software solution that runs without the appropiate PPU. The only necessary "extra" version would be one with reduced numbers of physics objects, although this would probably only apply to games with a high amount of those. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.127.104.236 (talk) 21:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the paragraph talking about PhysX is a complete mess. It also mentions AGEIA technology in a way that makes it sounds like it's different from NVIDIA/PhysX, but they're the same thing (AGEIA was the company that originally made PhysX, and is now fully owned by NVIDIA). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.127.105.85 (talk) 12:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant sections

I've moved talk sections that are outdated and thus irrelevant to the newer versions of the article. --Szajd 19:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Title

It's called Heavy Rain not Heavy Rain: The Casting or Heavy Rain: Virtual Actor Demo. The article is about the game that is coming, not the tech demo they showed. Allthough they are most likely the same thing in the long run. Havok (T/C/c) 20:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Tech demo?

Looks like it's just a video to me. The article shoudl probably be changed to reflect that Artw 14:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

POV

In the response section "Because this title is in its very early stages of development, there is a good chance its tech will improve dramatically." ??? can't you say that on all technology demos ?

I changed it slightly so that it'll sound less biased. I don't know if it should be removed completely, though

Camera

I work with Sony cameras pretty much every day and am sure that the camera graphics used are based on a Sony HVR-Z1 HDV camcorder, does anyone think this is worthy of comment in the main article? Kejoxen 23:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Unless it's confirmed by Quantic Dream, it shouldn't be added. Zomegad (talk) 18:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Made a complete overhaul

I just made a complete overhaul of the article [1], adding lots of details, all referenced. The only thing I largely kept was the plot of the tech demo -- it was quite well done, although I think it could be shortened a bit.

I deleted the "Response" section, and didn't add anything in place of it. Maybe I'll do it one day, but someone should go around and collect real responses and impressions referenced.

Please read through it, correct any mistakes I made (sorry if my English isn't 100% perfect), and discuss here any issues you find.

Thanks,

--Szajd 22:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Quantic Dream website still under construction

Not really relating to the article, but might be important for information about the game.

As you may know, the Quantic Dream website is "under renovation" since January 2007. Up until now, the page said "We shall be back in shape on June 28th 2007." (See this Google cache page [2], from June 12, 2007). They've suddenly changed this sentence to "We shall be back in shape on July 25, 2007." (But still at the January 24th news article.)

I thought (completely my speculation), that we would get to know some more information about the game through the site from June 28th.

Just a heads up.

--Szajd 22:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Is not under construction anymore... So I erased the part where says [under construction]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.240.30.194 (talk) 21:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Platforms

Is there any confirmation that the games is going to appear on other platforms besides the PS3?

Yeah it is, but the video you saw or pics you have seen is just a tech demo for the ps3. But Heavy Rain is a game itself, for all consoles, except for Wii.

Is there a link somewhere that says that Heavy Rain is definitely a multiplatform title? Because I can't find anything that says it is.

http://www.quanticdream.com/downloads/news/HR_PR1_050706.pdf%7C

"Heavy Rain is a new video game franchise, designed for next generation consoles and PC systems..." McDonaldsGuy 02:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

. I removed mentions of 360 and PC. I have yet to see 100% clear proof. --Plankton5005 04:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia editors,

Please refrain from declaring the game as a Playstation 3 exclusive, unless you can provide cited proof from a TRUSTED source. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

I have carefully edited the "Gaming platforms" section of the article, so it lists all relevant information, but doesn't judge by non-reliable sources.

Here are some of the paragraphs I cut out:

An extract from a gaming magazine, lists "Sony" as the publisher of the game.

In an interview, it was confirmed that Heavy Rain will be PlayStation 3 exclusive.

Sony Computer Entertainment of America announced on July 02, 2007 that they would be fully funding and publishing the Quantic Dream project. The game is announced as a Playstation 3 only title by Quantic Dream. ("REFERENCE": "Heavy Rain confirmed Playstation 3 Exclusive". Gamers-Creed. 2007-07-02. Retrieved 2007-07-02. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); External link in |publisher= (help)

--Szajd 19:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The Details section mentions the PC platform in relation to PhysX, but this seems like a meaningless aside about the nature of PhysX in general, seeing as it is not quite clear yet if this game is coming to the PC at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.157.33 (talk) 06:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that part about PhysX on the PC was mentioned in connection with Heavy Rain, by David Cage himself in 2006 (check out the reference). I put this in the article before everyone starting reverting back the article to say that it will only come out to the PS3. (Although nobody was able to show any valid reference about that [i.e. that the game Heavy Rain will only be out for the PS3.]) Anyway, it seems like this part was left in the article. If you really want to remove it, I say remove it; although I'd first like you to check the reference, and check out whether there are trustworty claims that the game will not be released for the PC. --Szajd (talk) 20:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this the mythical "BBC game"?

Increasing speculation on the internet that this is the mythical game shown to a BBC journalist which blew him away. Anyone know if any of the speculation is from "reliable" sources?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/technology/2008/02/playstation_bounces_back.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/technology/2008/07/is_the_mystery_game_revealed.html

86.17.211.191 (talk) 11:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe not.......

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/technology/2008/07/is_the_mystery_game_revealed.html

See comment from blog author. 86.17.211.191 (talk) 00:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Should the article mention that this is reliant on Quick Time Event

I had to lookup what a Quick Time Event is while investigating the very different nature of the game. Seems this would be a benefit to those coming to wiki Heavy Rain. Rudolpma (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Release Date

I just listened watched a live interview on GameSpot in which a developer stated that the game will be released early next year. I don't know how to reference this, but it's straight from a developer. The page currently says Q4 this year.

--Nextil - (talk) 00:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like someone changed it anyway.

--Nextil - (talk) 00:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Pre-release demo

Do you think it should be added that a demo will be released to the public via the PSN? http://playstation.joystiq.com/2008/08/21/quantic-dream-president-talks-about-heavy-rain-demo-and-dlc/ It's been on other sites as well. Zomegad (talk) 02:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Cover art?

On the Gamestop site, you can preorder this game; the cover is straight text on a white background.

The movie poster isn't the cover on the preorder picture, so shouldn't it be changed? Alpha Protocol was modified for the pre-release cover as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.118.123.8 (talk) 03:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

If the cover art on Gamestop is official placeholder box art then yes, it should. But if it's just something Gamestop or a fan has made then the poster should stay for now. The guidance for the infobox says "Ideally, an English-language cover or a promotional flier". Chimpanzee - User | Talk | Contribs 08:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a mess.

Just skimming this article makes it obvious that several sentences, even paragraphs are in the wrong places, and in several cases are repeating information already stated previously. This article isn't that long, there's no need to be repeating information that's already been presented. I'm going to clean it up as much as possible. 68.51.227.45 (talk) 07:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

There we go, I hope we can all agree that this is an improvement. Most of the changes I made involved moving things from the "Development" section to the "Gameplay" section where they belong, such as a whole paragraph (half of which was repeating things already mentioned) describing the control scheme. I rephrased a couple sentences, but nothing big, and I was sure to keep all the references so as not to lose any information. I also deleted a couple bits that were, again, just repeats of things that had already been said - this article isn't big enough to warrant repeating things. 68.51.227.45 (talk) 07:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Gamestop Release Date??

I saw a thread on GameFAQS about a release date on Gamestop. I checked it out, and found this.. http://www.gamestop.com/browse/search.aspx?N=0&Ntk=TitleKeyword&Ntx=mode+matchallpartial&Ntt=heavy%20rain

It says 2/19/2010.. should we wait until we hear from Quantic Dream to add this in the article, or should we add it now, but say it's not official? PS: Let's hope some release date is officially announced at TGS.. Zomegad (talk) 00:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Best leave it as early 2010 since that comes straight from the developers. No sense in using what is essentially speculation by a 3rd party when we're trying to write the facts here. They could be right, but we have no way of knowing that until Quantic Dreams formally announces something. Bswenso2 (talk) 03:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

That release date could be correct. The Japanese release date might be 2/18/10. http://www.n4g.com/ps3/News-435641.aspx. UK and/or NA release date 2/26/10. http://connectedconsoles.com/ps3-Retailers-list-Heavy-Rain-for-February-26-release.cfm UltimateSin01 (talk) 18:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The source of those articles eventually lead back to a website that is quoting a date from Amazon as gospel. Using dates from shop sites goes against WP:VG guidelines so I've removed the Japanese date from the article and changed it back to a generic 2010. - X201 (talk) 11:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to back it up Sony say release date is still undecided. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/sony-wont-confirm-heavy-rain-date - X201 (talk) 11:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

http://www.pushsquare.com/9923/heavy-rain-dated-in-the-us-hitting-february-16th/ This one says Feb 16th. http://blog.us.playstation.com/2010/01/heavy-rain-officially-releasing-on-february-23/ This one says Feb 23rd. JUST TELL US! UltimateSin01 (talk) 16:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Nudity in HR

I was browsing through the Heavy Rain GameFAQS forum, and found this: http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/genmessage.php?board=933123&topic=51420806 The video has since been removed from YouTube, but do you think that there should be a section on this, just to say that the rumors were true, and stuff like that (i.e, this scene has caused people to speculate that more scenes like this will appear in the game))

Unless it gets some sort of coverage, it would fall under trivia. So no, it probably shouldn't be added.--Megaman en m (talk) 08:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Is it that notable anyway, Farenheit (sp?) had at least two sex scenes (that i was able to get to anyway) and I'm sure both involved pushing the analogue stick at the correct time and included nudity. I think if there is a uproar about it it would be more notable. Dark verdant (talk) 14:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please remove the spoilers from the article!!!! Thanks

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 57.92.117.193 (talk)

I agree. We came onto this page to find general information about this game and the characters therein, and have had the entire plot ruined. --Soda.seymour (talk) 07:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I clipped it out myself. Firstly, the information was put in the wrong section. Information relating to the unfolding storyline should logically be placed in a Plot section. Secondly, it was unverified (to the best of my knowledge and some googling) and without any references. --Soda.seymour (talk) 07:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, removed the pointless spoilers being listed back here as if this was a discussion forum. Someone should lock this article if the vandalism is going to continue, and somethign should be done about the unsigned commentors leaving more spoilers.214.3.138.234 (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)Steve

Removed it again. 24.9.211.226 (talk) 09:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:SPOILER. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 18:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

So far, from what I've seen, nobody putting 'spoiler' information into this article has obeyed the WP:SPOILER policy. If they want to write who the killer is, then that's all well and good, but they need to have the common decency to put it under a "Plot" or "Ending" section, and maintain the encyclopedic nature of the article. --Soda.seymour (talk) 20:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that is true. Yes it is alright for "spoilers", ie important plot information, to be included in plot sections and only elsewhere if necessary. But I just want to be sure that those not familiar with Wikipedia or IP editors know about the policy. That's all. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 00:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I know about the policy. The elsewhere that it was placed was not necessary.24.9.211.226 (talk) 03:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Wtf people? For a game that focuses so much on story, what is the point of spoiling the game for other people. U fucking idiots. I was reading about the characters and now u just spoiled the game for me u fuckers. I mean, what is your IQ?80.202.79.122 (talk) 23:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

As a long standing and active editor, I would usually disagree with your harsh tone... but since this page (which I was hoping to work on after my current article of focus) has now spoiled the game for me a day before it's UK release, I can only agree. Plot information is fine but not outside of PLOT. Stabby Joe (talk) 01:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate what Wikipedia's policy is on spoilers but I didn't realise this when reading the article. I read the article just after buying the game and it totally ruined it for me when I read the last paragraph. Menwith (talk) 18:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Even not knowing the policy, reading the entire plot section of an article on a game that is ALL PLOT is like reading the full article on a book before you start reading it, or reading the forum of imdb before watching a film. You're going to get spoiled that way... The issue that was taken with this article was people writing "#### #### IS THE KILLER" in the info box, the first line of the article, and other random areas of the article itself, basically just vadalizing the article with a major spoiler. You wouldn't read the plot section of "The Half-Blood Prince" then complain that it gave away the major death at the end of the book/film, but you wouldn't expect to drop down to the release date section only to have that same plot point appear in bold text in the middle of the contents list. 214.3.138.234 (talk) 20:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Steve

Mmm, actually, Steve, yeah, I would. Wikipedia contains articles, but it is not an article, if that makes sense. Reading all about "Canada" for example doesn't "spoil" anything for me, and nor does reading about maple syrup. But what if I wanted to read about maple syrup, and also was challenging myself to make maple syrup from scratch? And then I accidentally/inadvertently read about its creation on Wikipedia? Where non-fiction is concerned, people usually expect things to be spelled out - for example, "Germany lost the Second World War" or "maple syrup is made from a reduction of maple sap." But where fiction is concerned, especially given that WP:SPOILER says you should use common sense, people expect, somewhat reasonably, to have their hand held - this is because they would do the same for anyone else. They value the happiness and enjoyment of others. The only reason you know about WP:SPOILER is because you're a longstanding Wiki user. Joe Blow High School-Dropout Sixpack-Illiterate might not even know what the word "encyclopedia" means and only know that he goes to Wikipedia to get the latest and greatest news about what games're coming out through Portal:Gaming (or whatever it's called). Folding your arms, jerking your head meaningfully in the direction of WP:SPOILER, winking and declaring "too bad" while smirking - that's just not on, and that's effectively what you're doing. "Oh, it's an encyclopedia, people should know what they're getting into-" no, they shouldn't. 4chan has age and content warnings, and so do adult websites. This is because they recognize a social responsibility. Wiki's social responsibility is somewhat less grave; I don't think we're worried about corrupting minors or anything, but... Anyway, plenty of other online libraries are riddled with spoiler warnings throughout. I accuse y'all herein of base laziness, damn it. 92.20.197.131 (talk) 05:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Like Steve said (mad props to him). The spoiler was outside of plot. Therefore, who in the blue hell would expect the big spoiler outside of plot. Everything OUTSIDE OF PLOT that is related to the story should only be the premise and something that the developers have said. 195.0.206.160 (talk) 21:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

No, the problem is, what is a spoiler? I'm sure 99% of us would agree the identity of who the Killer is would be a classical spoiler, but where does that end? Knowing Jaygen is addicted to a drug, or that Madison is a journalist, may be considered spoilers. Some may even say that the death of Jason at the start of the game is a spoiler. Once you start catering to those that want to avoid spoilers, you basically have to neuter the entire article. (And then this starts to propagate to other fiction works, with the laughable but likely result that we have to spoil works like Hamlet or Canterbury Tales.

The best was can do is isolate the deep spoilers into a "Plot" or similarly titled section and make sure that we don't place obvious spoilers in the lede or other preliminary sections before this point so that if the reader clicks to the article, they can understand enough and click away if they want to avoid spoilers. Note that if, say, part of this game's reception is about a specific aspect of the game (one that I've seen is the scene with Madison and the creepy doctor), we're going to have to talk about it, and can't ignore it. Because of these reasons, that's why our general content disclaimer states that WP contains spoilers; you get spoiled more than once, shame on you. --MASEM (t) 05:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Surely people aren't this stupid? The fact that at the start of the article the contents listed are, 'Plot - synopsis', and, 'ending' rings alarms if you don't want the game to be spoiled. Screw your heads on will you - it's bloody obvious there are spoilers, dipsticks! As it happens, I was interested in the various other plot-lines I hadn't discovered when playing the game and found the article very useful and well written. Ta! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.38.93 (talk) 07:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't you just put a (contains spoilers) beside the ending? because when I went looking up information on a game I was about to buy, I didn't want it ruined, which happened anyway when I read that Scott Shelby was the Origami Killer. I would appreciate having other people who are looking up information not having the game spoiled for them. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cxxflame (talk • contribs) 15:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

No, we don't use spoiler warnings here on Wikipedia. If you look at a section called 'Plot', or even more specifically, 'Ending', what exactly do you think you will find? If people don't want the ending spoiled, they shouldn't be looking it up in an encyclopaedia. Geoff B (talk) 15:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Look. I happened to just be here to skim the article, scrolling down a bit quickly-- and lo and behold, my eye caught the "Ending" part. Guess what? I naturally skimmed the first sentence by accident. C'MON now. It might as WELL have a big ass banner that says, "SHELBY'S THE KILLER, YOU IDIOTS! LULS!". Only thing that separates the SPOILER warning from the Spoilt is one measly header (That draws WAY more attention to it!) Really evil guys. It's BS to defend that. I'm not all TOO pissed, and I'd still love to play the game. I just really see no reason to POINT OUT THE ENDING via 'convenient' "ENDING" header. Just stick the ending in there with the REST of the friggin' plot. 99.9% of other Wiki articles survive (Ahem, Harry Potter and 'Da Orduh of Dat Dere Phoenix doesn't have a "LOSS OF MAJOR CHARACTER" header in the middle of it) Way less obvious!--208.22.79.251 (talk) 04:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a good suggestion to me, but then I think it was probably created precisely to stop people browsing it when looking at the plot section. But seeing as we have another satisfied customer perhaps we should think about getting rid of the subsection, and just having a plot section? Geoff B (talk) 22:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Any way we describe who the killer is is going to be yelled at for having spoilers; we can't avoid that. But I think having the break is the best way to tell people "HEY LAST CHANCE TO LOOK AWAY". The above poster is the type of behavior we can't predict, because to me, if I wanted to remain unspoiled, I'd completely avoid reading the Ending section. Removing that would give people no chance to stop reading before the spoiler comes into play. --MASEM (t) 22:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Fine by me!  :-) Geoff B (talk) 23:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The anon wrote that he naturally skimmed the first sentence by accident. The ending header was made to try to lower the chance of being spoiled, but I would agree that the sentence may be in a bad location, relative to that header. - Zero1328 _Talk? 00:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I can rewrite this to explain that one actually plays as the Killer in a flashback, and then make the connection later, but someone double check if the Killer was named the same as a child? (I thought he changed names to hide this...) --MASEM (t) 00:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

IIRC, 'Sheppard' or 'Shepherd' was Scott's real surname. Geoff B (talk) 00:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The synopsis

I think it's important that the synopsis isn't too specific. The reason why is in the note at the top:

the actual results of each chapter can highly diverge and affect the outcome of the ending. This synopsis outlines the story in the case that none of the main characters die and/or critically fail in their investigations.

Because of the divergence, I tried to write it so as that only the major facts are written. I believe the best, objective ending to be that the characters don't die, and they are all present at the finale. A lot of stuff can still vary. I also have no idea whether the details written by someone else is correct. The game was made to be divergent, so it's hard to confirm at this point.

For example, Masem wrote that Madison's motive to go to the motel was because she was following Ethan. I have no idea if that's true. My game had Madison simply go for her insomnia. Either way, she still goes to the motel. Another one is Madison's relationship with Ethan. I didn't go that route, and the "best" choice seems to be subjective.

- Zero1328 _Talk? 21:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that it should be left pretty vague... You really can't change the main story besides what you do within the scene itself and who dies, so a straight forward plot summary is possible, but most things like the characters motivations are left completely up in the air. The only expressed motivation for Madison to be at the motel is the insomnia explanation she gives, but it is during a conversation where she lies about her job, leading many to believe she is being misleading. This isn't really the place for speculation, so just saying this is a thriller about a private investigator, an FBI profiler, an investigative journalist, and a father whose son has gone missing, and their interacitons with the case of a serial killer. When it's revealed that the missing son has in fact been taken by the killer, the father is made to undergo a series of "trials" to receive clues to save his son. The player controls the four characters as they play their part in the investigation. The current plot synopsis is far too in depth.214.3.138.234 (talk) 14:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)Steve

Taking these points, I've done a bit of rewriting. We want to establish the background (ethan lost Jason, has blackout, loses shaun; know OK's motives and time frame), and the general actions of what occurs in the game (ethan goes on trials, madison hunts for clues, jayden follows evidence, etc.) but since what happens after the first few scenes can vary drastically, it's almost better to gloss over the finer details of the plot. To that, I've moved the statement about the variation in story to the end (including the fact characters can die), along with a description of the "Best" ending that was used before, but dropping a lot of the details like Gordi, the clock-salesmen death, etc. --MASEM (t) 16:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. I've fixed up the last few paragraphs to that end. I moved the poison mention up, since I'm not sure if that's a requirement in the ending. I took it myself, but I also managed to figure out the address with only 3/5 fragments. Are you sure it's an open sewer? I just think it's some sort of pipe. It's hard to tell. - Zero1328 _Talk? 21:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm 99% sure Scott (young), his mom, or Charles said "sewer". But if it's not clear, open hole filling with water is fine. --MASEM (t) 21:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought Scott says something like "a pipe collapsed" to his father, but I chalked that up to nervous rambling, since it's not like he saw it happen or anything, either. It could be a numebr of things, but could well be one of the concrete conduits lowered into place but busted open with water flowing through (for some reason) despite the building being incomplete. Much of the story (and the summarry) works better left vague, since there are some inconsistencies in the script itself. 214.3.138.234 (talk) 19:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Steve

Is it possible to re-write the synopsis to leave out the major spoiler, that way someone who has not played the game won't have the ending ruined for them? I'm sure it's quite possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.83.212.160 (talk) 03:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:SPOILER - Wikipedia does not avoid spoilers , or warning about spoilers. --MASEM (t) 06:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Having the first sentence reveal the killer is epic fail. Everyone reads the sentence below the one you are reading. That is the way your mind works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.202.201.4 (talk) 10:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

It says [...] location where, after 6 inches of rainfall, their bodies [...]. Shouldn't the text say 6 feet? Makes more sense. But I don't know: I played the game in German and can't remember what the game said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.230.234.247 (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I remember it as 6 inches. 6 feet is a lot of rain, even annually. Geoff B (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It is definitely inches of rainfall as normally associate with tools like Rain gauge. Six inches is a lot of rain (of course, here over 72hrs it has time to disappate), but like hurricanes dump easily 3 to 10 inches in a short period of time (see Hurricane Irene (1999) for example). Note this has nothing to do with the depth of the pit that the OKiller put the child into. --MASEM (t) 21:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Nor do we know how it's being fed water. It could be collecting water from several tanks for all we know. --Golbez (talk) 12:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Shelby's age/other time snafus

I was just about to post about Shelby's inconsistent age: the book says he's 48, he was born in 1967 and the game is taking place in either 2011 or 2012 (in the "death" endings for a couple characters, the year is listed as 2011, but the calendar and clock in the hotel say it's Oct 5 2012 when Madison checks in), and events in game would indicate he was 40... best to just leave any set timeline discussions off of the article. I see that his age has currently been redacted, but didn't see any talk about it, so thought I'd mention it now while I look through for any of the other errors. 214.3.138.234 (talk) 14:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)Steve

Engine: PhysX replaced by Havok

{{editsemiprotected}} The final version of the game does not use PhysX. PhysX was used in "The Casting" demo in 2006 but was subsequently replaced by Havok Physics (game physics) and Havok Cloth (cloth and hair simulation) for the final release of the game.

See http://www.havok.com/index.php?page=available-games

The InfoBox and the Development sections should be updated accordingly, replacing "PhysX" by "Havok Physics and Havok Cloth" and "nVidia" by "Havok", leaving the PhysX reference in "The Casting" section, using the past tense.

Audaces (talk) 15:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done Spitfire^Tally-ho! 20:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Spoilers

Isn't Madison's true profession also a pretty big spoiler? I mean, it's not as crucial to the plot as the identity of the killer (which, by the way, wtf?), but the scene in Ethan's motel room when he uncovers her PDA and notepad is pretty emotionally charged and seems like it's meant to be a major point in the story. Since I had read the lead of this article before I got to that point in the game, it was pretty much lost on me. And it *is* the first time her profession is clearly stated (at least, it was in my playthrough) in the game. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 06:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Her profession and her sleep condition are clearly laid out in various promotional materials for the game and in the game booklet itself. I was actually suprised at Ethan's suprise at that point, since everything I'd seen about the game specified "Her's Maddison, another character and potential love interest. She's an investigative reporter with insomnia..." There are a million things you could call "spoilers" if you wrote them about the game, but the fact is that this is Wikipedia... the article for Se7en tells you about Kevin Spacey, Half-Blood Prince tells you what happens to Dumbledore, you know that Captain America is back from the dead if you read the Marvel comics articles... If you're here reading articles about the plot of different works, you have to realize you're going to spoil stuff for yourself. There is no "no spoilers" policy, the spoiler discussion is about vandalism to the article listing the killer's ID in places like the info box and the contents list. 214.3.138.234 (talk) 20:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Steve

OK, I wasn't aware it had been explicitly said elsewhere. Thanks. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 00:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Disagree with Steve - the fact she's an investigative (photo-)journalist is not revealed in the game until Ethan discovers it, and it's not in any of the promotional material I've seen. She's described as a "photographer" (I think she says she photographs furniture for catalogues), and we're supposed to believe her "insomnia" excuse for being in the motel, and are left wondering why she's hanging around, and even following Ethan. When Ethan finds out, and we have to choose to forgive or reject her, it's supposed to be a possible surprise for the player (how much of a surprise depends on how nosey we've seen her be - her reaction to finding the box on the desk is interesting).

I've seen her real profession referenced in reviews, but that was a spoiler. The Heavy Rain web site says:

Madison Paige is a young photographer, living alone in the city. Suffering from crippling insomnia and nightmares, she often finds herself checking into local motels for the night - seemingly the only place she can rest and relax.

Though she has no apparent connection with the Origami Killer case, she will soon find herself unexpectedly drawn into the investigation; when she does, she will show courage and commitment, placing herself in great danger to find out the truth.

Indeed, Madison's ending "Heroine" is modified if Ethan doesn't find out she's a journalist, to remove her interview that reveals it. So they don't even want to spoil it at the end of the game. It's a very intentional secret, albeit a not massive one. The only place I've seen it "spoiled" by the developers is in the Taxidermist add-on story, where she is said to be investigating the Origami Killer. But that's separate from the main game, and not necessarily intended to be played first.

I'd prefer that the lead section quietly avoided the subject, even though Wikipedia policy permits spoilers. --KJBracey (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Odd... I knew she was an investigative journalist months before the game came out, but I have to say I honestly don't recall the first place I heard it. I was a little surprised with the way the game handled it, as in not addressing it, it made for a few glaring plot holes, but I'm indifferent to whether or not it's referenced here-- I only checked back to see if any of the DLC had turned out worthwhile. 214.3.138.234 (talk) 18:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)Steve

Read above: Wikipedia doesn't remove spoilers due to encyclopaedic licence. ★Ffgamera★ - My page! · Talk to me!· Contribs 08:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

"Interactive fiction"

It may be interactive fiction by a very broad definition of IF, but it's still misleading (and unnecessary) to describe this game as interactive fiction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Killy mcgee (talk • contribs) 08:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Restricting the term "interactive fiction" to simply text-based entries is the misleading part. IF may be synonymous with Zork and those games, but limiting to that restricts any other "interactive" work of fiction in other mediums from being called the same. --MASEM (t) 14:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

By that argument, a "killer whale" should mean any whale that kills something. But it's not, because that phrase has a specific meaning, and it's misleading to use it to mean something else, even if the individual words are applicable. Especially since the article begins with a link to "interactive fiction" which describes text adventures. killy mcgee (talk) 19:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

No, you're presuming that the "specific meaning" is text-based stuff; it's not, the specific meaning is "fiction that can be experienced interactively". It has come to usually be associated with text-based adventures, but the fact that several websites and the game's director, David Cage, have called it "interactive fiction" (see [3]) means that it is appropriate to call it as such. --MASEM (t) 19:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Well OK, it can certainly say that in the article, but if you call it interactive fiction with no qualification, that gives a false impression to people familiar with the common use of interactive fiction; i.e. the use indicated by the first 10 results from googling "interactive fiction". killy mcgee (talk) 19:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The official promotional material calls it Interactive Drama, replacing the literary psuedo-genre "fiction" with the film-esque genre Drama to indicate that it's more like a film than a book. Could that be a compromise? User:Kuronue

Yes, that makes sense to me, though the link to interactive fiction is still there, being misleading. killy mcgee (talk) 22:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to delink "interactive drama" in this article from the page for "interactive fiction" unless there's a good reason not to. killy mcgee (talk) 20:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Tech Problems

Why has no one added a section on the widely reported tech glitches as reported at www.heavyrainisfalling.com and other places (including the playstation message boards)? - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Otherland71 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

In short, messageboards and fan sites are not considered reliable sources (WP:VERIFY. - X201 (talk) 09:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

No, but I think there were sites such as Joystiq that reported crashing issues. 212.225.98.16 (talk) 17:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Reception

There should probably be brief mention of the few reviews that didn't score the game as highly as those mentioned in the Reception section; Metacritic can point out which they are. 212.225.98.16 (talk) 17:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

There tend to be a number of games on here like that... This game actually received a number of 4s and 6s; citing the overlooked plot and technical issues, poor voice acting, and the misleading amount of actual 'interactivity', but there seems to be an effort to avoid negatives in game articles these days. If this site were meant to help with purchasing decisions, I'd be more concerned, but if the feedback is more positive than negative, there isn't a real need to find the negative reviews... obviously, if the game has an 88 on the aggregates, but the only referenced reviews are 90-100s, then it can be assumed that they got some <70s, too. 214.3.138.234 (talk) 18:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)Steve

The article fails to mention that the game is considered controversial. In addition to some wildly varying reviews that should be mentioned, some question it's lack of true interactivity, sometimes refusing to even call it a game. http://www.usatoday.com/life/lifestyle/2010-03-23-heavyrain23_ST_N.htm -zaphodava —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.80.123.50 (talk) 17:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Nobody in that source says why it is controversial, and nobody in that source says it's not a game. Geoff B (talk) 18:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

David Cage, one of the game's creators himself says it isn't a game. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/96957-Heavy-Rain-Is-Not-a-Game Focus on story and plot means you need to deliver. http://www.gamearena.com.au/ps3/games/title/heavy-rain/reviews.php?id=5062444 http://www.gamesradar.com/ps3/heavy-rain/review/heavy-rain/a-2010021011352557014/g-2006051716470918010 Even in positive reviews, they mention control problems, and that it isn't really a game. http://buttonmashing.com/2010/03/08/when-it-rains-it-pours-heavy-rain-review/ It would be wrong for the article on the game to make judgement calls that the game is good or bad, but the controversy is real. The game polarizes people, and that should be represented. -zaphodava —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.80.123.50 (talk) 00:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Ending: "Best" possible ending?

"Best" according to whom? Reference? Although I appreciate the need to reduce complexity of the synposis, if you're going to choose one path and call it best, I think you need a citation.

Naively it may seem better for all 3 characters to reach the warehouse - after all, that is what they've been trying to do up to that point - but:

1. you only need 2 characters, or just Madison or Norman, to reach the warehouse to save Shaun;
2. if only Madison and Ethan reach the warehouse, they confront the killer together, Madison fights the killer, and as she is about to be killed, Ethan saves her life. This seems more emotionally satisfying than leaving Norman to fight the killer, reducing Madison to the role of evading police who won't listen to her to warn Ethan that they're their. And it segues in nicely to their "A New Life" scene.
3. if Norman lives but fails to reach the warehouse, he resigns and announces a return to the "real world" - a better ending for him overall than staying on at the FBI, where despite public acclaim, his ARI/triptocaine hallucinations are continuing. The "Resignation" ending is actually quite up-beat; Norman is in better shape than in the other ending, and clearly in control of his life. You could say it's his "A New Life" ending...

So, I suggest the optimum ending is "A New Life", "Resignation" and "Origami's Grave".

Of course, getting a citation for that is going to be tricky; I'd lay money that David Cage would deny that he viewed any ending as being the "best". --KJBracey (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, best may be subjective; it is impossible to outline all endings. But I think this is the case where every character (sans the killer) is successfully at their goal: Ethan in saving Shaun, Madison at saving Ethan, and Norman at stopping the killer. All the other cases you describe are likely more emotionally satisfying but imply failure but not death of one character or more. I'm going to do a touch of rewriting to take out "Best" but explain where the present ending came from. --MASEM (t) 15:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

"Resignation" isn't the best ending. When he concludes the files in Washington D.C., that's Norman's "best" ending. Resignation only occurs if he fails to catch the killer and he remains unaddicted to the drugs. That's what I thought anyway. ★Ffgamera★ - My page! · Talk to me!· Contribs 07:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

explaining even the best ending is original research unless the creators tell us which one is the best. instead we should explain the diferentiation between the endings, what is the most common change between the endings?Bread Ninja (talk) 08:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)