^ Those are there to crate an atmosphere, and make the "immersion" (hate to use the word after it's been whored so many times) in the story and environment better. So it's not meaningless. Of course, it's not virtual reality or anything, but it's as close as it can get. I also don't see why you say there HAS to be a challenge in every action performed, etc. I mean, is putting on socks in the morning a challenge for you, or is scratching your back or not a decision of a lifetime? There doesn't have to be a consequence for everything. So what decides what counts for a "filler" and what for valid gameplay elements? Perhaps some people will say that long dialogue lines in games like PS:T are nothing but filler, because removing a lot of the options and changing the responses to one-liners would not affect gameplay in any way (albeit would make the games feel more empty and stale, compare FO1/2 and FO3). We've discussed the fringe nature of the genre and how it doesn't necessarily rely on the same things that say, a shooter does to provide entertainment. It would be foolish to expect otherwise, and frankly that's exactly what you're doing. That's why I can't consider that a valid argument. It's akin to FO3 fans "trolling" here by saying FO1/2 is boring becaue the TB is too slow, you can't directly attack people, and nothing cool is happening. I mean, have you ever played a visual novel? "The gameplay sucks, all I do is scroll through text!". Worse yet, tried a kinetic novel? Interactive movies work by the same principle, except that they cross movies and not books with a computer game. From what I've seen, Heavy Rain has gotten the atmosphere right, seems to have some mechanics issues, but I haven't heard much of the story so I can't speak in defence of the game. I can only speak in defence of the genre, and call bullshit on your argument.