People seem afraid to just say that Heavy Rain was a good game without caveats that they would leave out of other game criticisms. It's a trope, a bit like saying a game has tight controls, or comes together well. These criticisms don't appear to have much to do with Heavy Rain, and more to do with trying to justify a negative reaction to a game being just different enough to most games that it stands out. For example, the people who incessantly complained about the think French accents in the game only to discover that the accents were mostly English thus demonstrating how good at telling accents apart they are. The point is, yes, it's very easy to point out the bad in Heavy Rain - it seems very difficult to do so convincingly. The article linked to from the asterisk has both of these problems. In exactly the same way that people say the story is bad, or the characters aren't developed and then utterly fail to explain how. Even then, arguably, the game does have one or two plot-holes, but it seems when people are talking about plot-holes, they mean loose ends. I always think it's bizarre how people talk about holes, assume there are holes, but never actually tell you what these plot holes are, and generally, when you push them, give you an unresolved plot-point, a loose end that doesn't get tied up. It is quite similar to the "understanding between player and game" problem, as achievements has a high risk of going against the player's intentions (and does not really help gain anything). Having gone through a scene and then getting a sort of grade, really removes the ability to make up your own mind of what just took place.