6 replies to this topic

[Chibi]

As I was on my way to work today, something caught my eye on the side of a bus passing by. It wasn't an ad for the latest blockbuster movie, but for a video game - Max Payne 3. What's more, the ad for the game looked very much like a movie poster. This got me thinking about the two mediums and the situation they find themselves in. Video games are now outperforming the box office in revenue, and many AAA titles like Uncharted and Assassin's Creed are adopting more cinematic qualities.
So, I want to know your thoughts on this. Do you think video games are the new movies? Will video games and movies blend entirely together, or will the two continue to be separate entities? Should games just be games and not interactive movies? Can movies survive or will they die out and be replaced by games? There's a lot to be considered, so debate away folks!

[Ekaje]

Video games are just another form of media that's gradually becoming more popular and accepted. Hyped titles having been getting public ads for a bit now, I remember when I went to Chicago last year, I saw a billboard for Skyrim, as well as a sign on a taxi.

And while as they get more accepted games will become somewhat more appealing for good writers to go to, I don't think games will ever replace movies, since while some games try to go for an "interactive movie" approach, the two generally fill different roles.

Edited by Ekaje, 10 May 2012 - 11:54 PM.

[Gregzilla]

Movies generally have one role - to tell a story/entertain/give information to the audience in about 1.5-2.5 hours, give or take. Games are much more varied in this aspect, in both length and interaction. Some games, like Metal Gear Solid, take the route of giving a chunk of gameplay followed by a ton of cutscenes. Others, like Portal, take the (in my opinion, far superior) route of seamlessly infusing gameplay and story. Valve and Bethesda are great at creating a sense of immersion in the game world, and games similar to their's really make the gamer feel like part of the experience.

If more games take the route of infusing gameplay and story, rather than divide gameplay and cutscenes, then games will have much more unique storytelling and immersion that can't be replicated in movie form. Movies should tell a set story clearly, and games should allow the player to interact with the world and become part of the experience. In this aspect, I think movies and games will continue to be very different entities.

[King Sombrero]

Both entities have music, animation effects, etc and the music in them both have the potential to be memorable and award winning nowadays. I think the difference between the two is that video games require input and gameplay and gameplay is pretty much the most important aspect of any game. Because of that, a video game can have an award winning storyline but still suck because it has terrible gameplay. Movies on the other hand, suck if they have a terrible storyline. I think if all games strived for having a great plot, CGI scenes, and were lengthy enough to be considered a movie then it should be that, multiple endings and possibilities of story progression make the "movie" even better too since I'm in control. There are people though who would be turned off by having to play it just see it though and that's why I think the 2 cannot be merged. Not yet anyways... but if the story can be told while you're playing like in Red Dead Redemption just to name a title off the top of my head, where neither story nor gameplay impede each other I think that's a perfect blend right there. I'll also mention the side quests, you can choose whether John Marston kills a prohibition activist or just warns him to leave, the consequences of either action show.The day video games become the new movies is the day I become a happy man, you always hear everybody talking about the latest movie but you rarely hear anyone talking about the latest game unless it's call of duty. Gamers could be the new actors as well and I can just imagine Michael Bay's name on CoD 25 xD. Ihope video games do become as widely accepted as movies someday, because let's face it, the only ones that still really hate video games are soccer moms and ignorant politicians that blame game violence for all the wrong with youth in the world.

Also, this topic reminded me of this short film based on RDR a game that had great potential for a movie to begin with:

[Chibi]

Fabulous example Prince Solaris! I'd almost forgotten about Red Dead Redemption. I don't have the time to watch the whole video now, but I will some time over the weekend.
I do agree that video games and movies have different objectives. Movies are all about the story, whereas video games focus on gameplay. However, we're seeing the emergence of games like Red Dead Redemption and LA Noire that fuse both an involving story and good gameplay. It's these sorts of games that I would see overtaking movies as a main source of artistic expression.
The other aspect is acceptance. Movies are pretty much universally accepted in today's culture, whereas video games are still seen as a scapegoat for the world's ills. I hope that with the new cinematic style of video game, we can finally see video games being accepted as the harmless fun and art that they are. It may take a few years (Don't forget that movies were targeted by the Motion Picture Code of Conduct from the 30s to late 60s) but I really hope we get there.

[Metal Gear (sting)RAY]

I think video games are currently in their late adolescent stage; far beyond their years of freedom and whimsy, but coming to the point where they are questioning their identity and experimenting with their options. And in this metaphor, games that mimic movies, like Call of Duty or Uncharted, are the conformists. Cinema didn't become cinema by trying to be just like theater- if you want to make a movie, make a movie. It's not like games don't have anything to learn from movies, but this cinemication of games is kind of getting out of hand. The problem is that we now have the shackles of freedom. Now that our machines have enough horsepower to render large photorealistic environments in realtime and unprecedented budgets, developers no longer have real limitations; there is no longer a box to work within or think outside of. Perfect example: Silent Hill had to use fog to cover up for the game's inability to handle a good draw distance, and that fog became a core factor in its appeal as a horror game and its generally claustrophobic structure. But it's recent remake didn't have that problem, so the fog was cut and it isn't half as terrifying because of it. And then there's Portal; the game was experimental so Valve only put a small group of people and a tiny budget on the project to put it together, so the game was short, but because of that the team was pushed to make every test chamber matter as much as it could. Teams for games like Call of Duty don't have that problem, at least not to the same extent. These developers have enough money lined up to throw in anything they damn well please, so they end up with a formulaic "hollywood" experience because when given the freedom to incorporate a million assets and a ton o' maps, they become more interested in seeing how much stuff they can create rather than what delicately question what each piece adds to the holistic experience. So I don't think the industry is suffering from a lack of imagination, it's just too liberated to let it be tested.

Edited by SuperStingray, 11 May 2012 - 11:47 AM.

[Lennox]

To me, video games are an innovative, immersive and integrative form of entertainment born from the application of meticulous scientific theory on the beauty of storytelling and art.

But that doesn't mean that all video games are good; Sturgeon's Law can, should and will apply to all forms of media, including (but not limited to) storytelling, art and entertaiment. For those who don't know, Sturgeon's Law is a law denoting that the vast majority of items of a single category are crap, a few of them being diamonds in the rough. Good video games, however, then become subjective depending on the person's preferences, tastes and his affinities--adding to their opinion on what Sturgeon's Law is from their perspective. And of course, bad video games may be another person's AAA titles, such as how one person might love Final Fantasy XIII thanks to Command Synergy Battle and the Crystal Tools engine, while another calls it boring-ass, festival of hallways with automation everywhere.

I play video games for the same reasons why other people watch movies: to experience the stories, to be a first-hand witness to the events characters are put through, and to most of all, have fun. However, that doesn't take into consideration how I can manipulate things in video games to the favor of my characters and how I immerse myself into the aforementioned events that I can change. Some say that video games, whenever turned into movies, lose their distinction and flavor, and become little more than mangled stories told through a different medium. My reason for this is because they lose the immersive form of entertainment that players gain whenever they watch a video game-based movie, and as such, they lose so many qualities of what makes them deserving to be a video game.

The same thing can apply to video games that are marketed as interactive movies: they lose the necessary immersion and integration between the actions of the player and character to the point where you just act like an observer where you just 'help out' every so often. This is why games that have too many cutscenes, or have a very superficial story by a lack of dialogue or explanation often don't appeal to me: striking a balance or blurring the lines between story and gameplay can probably be the most effective way to perfect a game, which will create a great experience for gamers, be it hardcore or casual, and even non-gamers who just want to be entertained (unless that defines casual already). In short, in order to create a perfect experience for the medium, it should be a substantial balance between the gameplay and story (like everyone says).

Ughh, I'm not even sure what opinion I have. XD