BioShock Boss Says Game Industry is Too "Star-Struck" by Movies

[Blind Sight]

Says the guy who takes most of his video game inspiration from Rand's Atlas Shrugged (Bioshock), as well as Gibson's Neuromancer and Johnny Mneumonic(System Shock 1 and 2). The difference, however, is that he takes that literature's aspects and attempts to apply them to a video game setting, rather then most designers with movies, who just plain take ideas. I guess I could sum it up as 'Ken Levine turns literature into video games, while other designers take video games and try and make them like movies.'

 

[Prof. Monkeypox]

Oh, lay off del Toro (he cares about video games, even if he's never actually made one), give him a chance.

I do agree with him though, any attempts for games to mimic cinema will cripple the medium, because the two work on very different wave-lengths. Perhaps a bit of media mixing would be nice as an experiment, but for now it seems to be the rule, and that's just the wrong idea.

Also, I can't find much criticism for the man who made Bioshock...

 

[estoria-etnia]

Movies and films are two very different mediums and what works in one wouldn't necessarily work for the other. But... I think what he's saying is that there's this assumption about video games that they're basically just 'interactive movies', so obviously what works for a movie will work in a game setting too. Which it doesn't. Movies are only usually, at most, about two hours long while games need hours of gameplay or else it doesn't feel like a game.

And he does have a point about it being a little one-sided in term of the talent flow. You don't see a lot of game developers going in and making a movie, whereas you hear quite a few directors have turned to developing games.

 

[Cousin_IT]

If nothing else, movie directors might be able to take cutscenes most games still rely on to give any context & sense of progression to a game beyond the level of too bad for daytime TV.

 

[Jared]

I think games need to gain more recognition as entertainment, alot of people still hold the stigma, and, really in te modern day its kinda sad

 

[RTR]

Makes a bit too much sense

 

[Wolfram23]

Well certainly makes sense.

However, I would like to see more actors/actresses in games. Whether it's voice acting or even full on digitizing them (Uncharted 2 cutscenes were far more epic for this)... that's a good thing. Would be awesome to play a game with Jessica Alba... lol

 

[cynicalsaint1]

I have to agree really. Film and video games are two completely different media. There's a reason why video game based movies tend to suck - there's a huge component to games that movies lack - interactivity.

A movie can never give you the same feeling you get from playing a game, because of this. Really the problem is people need to start giving video games a chance as a serious media.

 

[PunkRex]

As much as I agree with Levine in theory, everything I've read about Guillermo del Toro indicates that he "gets" what makes a good, engaging game. Now whether or not he can handle the day to day challenges of leading a design team is a different matter, but I don't think that's really what Levine was referring to.

I get his frustration at being expected to be "honored" to work with a film director, but if he put his own insecurities aside I think a collaboration like that could be beneficial to the industry.

In such a situation you do the logical thing and dispose of your ego, then both work together for the good of the project.

Although I agree with him, I also agree with you. I think it was less ego and more taking a stand. I mean dont forget the big deal people made about that Block game Speilburg made. That did not really go anywhere even if it did get a sequel. I also heard it won awards but WAAAAAGH. However when really creative people get together it can lead to something great.

I think that if he thinks he knows better he should demonstrate it to the Movie crowd instead of just writing them off as, after all, is that not what their doing most of the time.

So Speilberg's game made lots of money, was hailed by critics and players alike, and won a few awards. Yeah, it definitely sounds like that game "didn't go anywhere". /sarcasm

Dude I did not mean successful in an artistic way. Yeah it won awards and from what people tell me it may have been fun but how many people played it? I know alot of gamers and I can say with 99% assurance that none of them played it. The reason it got a sequel ,I think, was because it got a couple of awards and (it seemed to be) cheap to make. The sequel came out quite quickly after all, I think it was within a year. I suppose I should rephrase.

It did alright but compare it to his movies. Thats what I mean.

 

[boholikeu]

Dude I did not mean successful in an artistic way. Yeah it won awards and from what people tell me it may have been fun but how many people played it? I know alot of gamers and I can say with 99% assurance that none of them played it. The reason it got a sequel ,I think, was because it got a couple of awards and (it seemed to be) cheap to make. The sequel came out quite quickly after all, I think it was within a year. I suppose I should rephrase.

It did alright but compare it to his movies. Thats what I mean.

Bloom Blox sold 600,000 copies in the first couple of months and it continues to sell well even a few years after its release. Maybe that's not as good as Spielberg's movies, but it was also a budget WiiWare title and his first foray into game design. All things considered the game was pretty successful.

Also, just because none of your friends played it doesn't mean it didn't sell well. None of the gamers I know play Halo, but I wouldn't try to argue that Halo "hasn't gone anywhere".

 

[Canid117]

Hasn't Yahtzee said this a few times before? As I recall he used a metaphor about giving a pig a blowjob.

EDIT: Found it!

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/811-Ghostbusters-The-Video-Game

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

Moe like they are star struck over cheap, shallow designs and or mechanics.....

 

[WrongSprite]

Man, that guy has some seriously awesome credits.

Plus he's right on the money!

 

[PunkRex]

Dude I did not mean successful in an artistic way. Yeah it won awards and from what people tell me it may have been fun but how many people played it? I know alot of gamers and I can say with 99% assurance that none of them played it. The reason it got a sequel ,I think, was because it got a couple of awards and (it seemed to be) cheap to make. The sequel came out quite quickly after all, I think it was within a year. I suppose I should rephrase.

It did alright but compare it to his movies. Thats what I mean.

Bloom Blox sold 600,000 copies in the first couple of months and it continues to sell well even a few years after its release. Maybe that's not as good as Spielberg's movies, but it was also a budget WiiWare title and his first foray into game design. All things considered the game was pretty successful.

Also, just because none of your friends played it doesn't mean it didn't sell well. None of the gamers I know play Halo, but I wouldn't try to argue that Halo "hasn't gone anywhere".

Fare enough but would you really concider it a "classic" or whatever word you prefer?

From what people have told me, you included, it sounds like a decent game that did well but the main point im trying to make here is that just because the guy made loads of legendary films does not mean he's going to make a legendary game. I mean even given what you have said about it would you consider it in your top 10 or even top 30 games. Even if the game did fairly well its by no means on the level the investers, producers or what not, proberly hoped. Although I do think one of those investers was Speilberg himself, not to sure there.
I suppose your right in saying for his first game it was quite successful but I still dont really see the francise going anywhere.

Still he could make another game which is absolutly amazing and completly smash my argument to dust, only time will tell on that one. Final note just because he made unbelievably good films (whatever your oppinions be on his new stuff) does not mean hes going to make a brilliant game and investers should stop looking down on the gaming industry in that way. I suppose this was a bad example to use as the game seemed quite cheap to make and sounds quite fun.

 

[boholikeu]

Dude I did not mean successful in an artistic way. Yeah it won awards and from what people tell me it may have been fun but how many people played it? I know alot of gamers and I can say with 99% assurance that none of them played it. The reason it got a sequel ,I think, was because it got a couple of awards and (it seemed to be) cheap to make. The sequel came out quite quickly after all, I think it was within a year. I suppose I should rephrase.

It did alright but compare it to his movies. Thats what I mean.

Bloom Blox sold 600,000 copies in the first couple of months and it continues to sell well even a few years after its release. Maybe that's not as good as Spielberg's movies, but it was also a budget WiiWare title and his first foray into game design. All things considered the game was pretty successful.

Also, just because none of your friends played it doesn't mean it didn't sell well. None of the gamers I know play Halo, but I wouldn't try to argue that Halo "hasn't gone anywhere".

Fare enough but would you really concider it a "classic" or whatever word you prefer?

From what people have told me, you included, it sounds like a decent game that did well but the main point im trying to make here is that just because the guy made loads of legendary films does not mean he's going to make a legendary game. I mean even given what you have said about it would you consider it in your top 10 or even top 30 games. Even if the game did fairly well its by no means on the level the investers, producers or what not, proberly hoped. Although I do think one of those investers was Speilberg himself, not to sure there.
I suppose your right in saying for his first game it was quite successful but I still dont really see the francise going anywhere.

Still he could make another game which is absolutly amazing and completly smash my argument to dust, only time will tell on that one. Final note just because he made unbelievably good films (whatever your oppinions be on his new stuff) does not mean hes going to make a brilliant game and investers should stop looking down on the gaming industry in that way. I suppose this was a bad example to use as the game seemed quite cheap to make and sounds quite fun.

It's not a classic, but again it's his first game. How many great developers can claim to have had hit with their first release. Many don't even get to head a game until they've been in the business for 15-20 years, and then they still end up turning out a turd.

To be fair, I agree with you that investors shouldn't look at Hollywood directors as sure-fire bets, but I don't think people in the video game industry should dismiss them either as Ken Levine seems to be doing. I honestly think Guillermo del Toro has a pretty good chance of putting out a good game.

 

[PunkRex]

Dude I did not mean successful in an artistic way. Yeah it won awards and from what people tell me it may have been fun but how many people played it? I know alot of gamers and I can say with 99% assurance that none of them played it. The reason it got a sequel ,I think, was because it got a couple of awards and (it seemed to be) cheap to make. The sequel came out quite quickly after all, I think it was within a year. I suppose I should rephrase.

It did alright but compare it to his movies. Thats what I mean.

Bloom Blox sold 600,000 copies in the first couple of months and it continues to sell well even a few years after its release. Maybe that's not as good as Spielberg's movies, but it was also a budget WiiWare title and his first foray into game design. All things considered the game was pretty successful.

Also, just because none of your friends played it doesn't mean it didn't sell well. None of the gamers I know play Halo, but I wouldn't try to argue that Halo "hasn't gone anywhere".

Fare enough but would you really concider it a "classic" or whatever word you prefer?

From what people have told me, you included, it sounds like a decent game that did well but the main point im trying to make here is that just because the guy made loads of legendary films does not mean he's going to make a legendary game. I mean even given what you have said about it would you consider it in your top 10 or even top 30 games. Even if the game did fairly well its by no means on the level the investers, producers or what not, proberly hoped. Although I do think one of those investers was Speilberg himself, not to sure there.
I suppose your right in saying for his first game it was quite successful but I still dont really see the francise going anywhere.

Still he could make another game which is absolutly amazing and completly smash my argument to dust, only time will tell on that one. Final note just because he made unbelievably good films (whatever your oppinions be on his new stuff) does not mean hes going to make a brilliant game and investers should stop looking down on the gaming industry in that way. I suppose this was a bad example to use as the game seemed quite cheap to make and sounds quite fun.

It's not a classic, but again it's his first game. How many great developers can claim to have had hit with their first release. Many don't even get to head a game until they've been in the business for 15-20 years, and then they still end up turning out a turd.

To be fair, I agree with you that investors shouldn't look at Hollywood directors as sure-fire bets, but I don't think people in the video game industry should dismiss them either as Ken Levine seems to be doing. I honestly think Guillermo del Toro has a pretty good chance of putting out a good game.

Well I agree, I would love to see this dude make a movie with the sort of atomosphere Bioshock had. He really should just stop being so hard line and just go for it, it could have really good results. I mean hard liners are just fanatics and no one likes a fanatic.

By the way, have you seen the people currently involved with the Bioshock movie? Im still worried about that.

 

[boholikeu]

It's not a classic, but again it's his first game. How many great developers can claim to have had hit with their first release. Many don't even get to head a game until they've been in the business for 15-20 years, and then they still end up turning out a turd.

To be fair, I agree with you that investors shouldn't look at Hollywood directors as sure-fire bets, but I don't think people in the video game industry should dismiss them either as Ken Levine seems to be doing. I honestly think Guillermo del Toro has a pretty good chance of putting out a good game.

Well I agree, I would love to see this dude make a movie with the sort of atomosphere Bioshock had. He really should just stop being so hard line and just go for it, it could have really good results. I mean hard liners are just fanatics and no one likes a fanatic.

By the way, have you seen the people currently involved with the Bioshock movie? Im still worried about that.

Actually that's something I'm more concerned about than Guillermo del Toro making a game. Bioshock would make a horrible movie because half of the plot was only possible because the game is interactive. Take that element away and it'll totally ruin the story.

 

[Asuka Soryu]

I swear I've heard something like this in Extra Credits somewhere. Maybe Ken Levine should make a guest appearence on the show.

I think you're reffering to his review of Ghostbuster's the game.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

I wnat to see a game designer make a movie, that wouldbe cool

Go grab yourself a copy of the Wing Commander movie and then we'll see if you think it would still be cool.