In the same way that you shouldn't compare a book to a film, unless it is an adaptation, I feel that games get unfairly compared to other storytelling mediums.
"Game X's story is good for a game, but shit in comparison to film or books." says critic.
Why should games feel the need to compare to other mediums? Films weren't made to supplant literature, and are now judged on their own merits. If we make the same rude comparisons that games get slapped with, then 90% of everything the film industry has made is total crap compare to books. Saying such a statement would have every film critic hurling examples of excellent films at you, just to point out how idiotic the comparison is.
Use the same scenario with games, and watch the game critics throw their examples. Instead of being cowed by this, the naysayers just proclaim that these "good" game stories are still mediocre by other mediums standards. So why bother judging games by uneven standards in the first place?
Games have proven to tell compelling narratives that admittedly can be seen as average in some ways in relation to books and films, but in other ways surpass other mediums completely. Novels are a literary medium, films are a visual medium. Games are an interactive medium. By playing to gaming's strengths, excellent stories can and have been told.
How ridiculous would it be to see someone complain about a film because it didn't feature enough of the protagonist wandering around looking at every random object for twenty minutes? Such an activity might be perfectly normal in an RPG or a point and click adventure game.
So, if it is so ridiculous to judge a film or book by game standards, why is it such a common practice to judge a game by novel or film standards?
"Game X's story is good for a game, but shit in comparison to film or books." says critic.
Why should games feel the need to compare to other mediums? Films weren't made to supplant literature, and are now judged on their own merits. If we make the same rude comparisons that games get slapped with, then 90% of everything the film industry has made is total crap compare to books. Saying such a statement would have every film critic hurling examples of excellent films at you, just to point out how idiotic the comparison is.
Use the same scenario with games, and watch the game critics throw their examples. Instead of being cowed by this, the naysayers just proclaim that these "good" game stories are still mediocre by other mediums standards. So why bother judging games by uneven standards in the first place?
Games have proven to tell compelling narratives that admittedly can be seen as average in some ways in relation to books and films, but in other ways surpass other mediums completely. Novels are a literary medium, films are a visual medium. Games are an interactive medium. By playing to gaming's strengths, excellent stories can and have been told.
How ridiculous would it be to see someone complain about a film because it didn't feature enough of the protagonist wandering around looking at every random object for twenty minutes? Such an activity might be perfectly normal in an RPG or a point and click adventure game.
So, if it is so ridiculous to judge a film or book by game standards, why is it such a common practice to judge a game by novel or film standards?
