Jimquisition: Videogames Are Not Movies, Get Over It
- Thread starter Jimothy Sterling
- Start date
I'm sorry but we already have a fat guy who loves comic books and talks about "The Big Picture" along with an angry fellow who speaks of dicks with an English accent. Does the Escapist need something that combines the two?
I didn't mind the show, although I think the original premise of it was so obvious it appeared silly (of course video games aren't movies). The rest of it was fine though. Maybe with some better production values, this show'll fit in better.
I didn't mind the show, although I think the original premise of it was so obvious it appeared silly (of course video games aren't movies). The rest of it was fine though. Maybe with some better production values, this show'll fit in better.
Lot of new videos on the site recently. This one doesn't really do enough to justify itself for me, although the same content in a weekly column would be good, I think.
That...proves nothing and you are intentionally missing my point. One, it was sold with the Wii. Two, Wii Sports is still a shallow game; a good one, but still a shallow one (And I'm sure you'll argue that Heavy Rain is shallow aswell, but whatever).GloatingSwine said:
You knew what I meant when I said that. Don't try to twist this.
That is entirely subjective. I thoroughly enjoyed Heavy Rain despite its flaws, and there is still plenty you can take from it.GloatingSwine said:
...and? Is interactivity the only thing that games should evolve on? There are plenty of non-interactive aspects that games can, and should, evolve from. Just because it's what separates gaming from other mediums doesn't mean it should be the only thing we strive for. Heavy Rain goes for innovation (and it is innovation, good or bad depends on how you see it) in the story department with a branching story structure that can only be done through an interactive medium. It's just one thing out of many.
Again, entirely subjective. I enjoyed Heavy Rain despite its flaws, and based on the concept alone I'm glad it sold as well as it did. It is far from a great game, more of a "good" one to me, but it's a game just as much as Super Mario Bros, Metal Gear Solid, or Half-Life is a game. It's just a different kind of game.
I'm sorry, I don't quite get that. Could you elaborate?Woodsey said:
And I would completely agree with you. I don't see why we would have to restrict ourselves to just Heavy Rain in that department, each of those games bring something to the table that is an evolution or an innovation in their respective aspects. Is it that hard to imagine that Heavy Rain, whether or not it's a good or bad, successful in it's vision or not, also does this?
And I completely agree with you. David Cage is irrelevant. Doesn't mean Heavy Rain didn't contribute to the table as well.
I dunno, I'm just an optimistic guy I suppose.
I like what he has to say; I'd like it more if he'd stop saying it as if he was presenting it to a hostile audience that doesn't want to hear it.
In other words: have some confidence that he doesn't have to shout anyone down and turn down the "douchebag". (I can say that because it was in the description, right?)
In other words: have some confidence that he doesn't have to shout anyone down and turn down the "douchebag". (I can say that because it was in the description, right?)
Agreed, it is visually boring and looks plain amateurish.Rickyvantof said:
It might just be a slow start, but to be honest, all the elements in this show are done better by other shows on the Escapist, and it lacks anything to distinguish itself beside the tacky suit, sunglasses and accent.
hmm interesting but... He just was saying the same thing over and over again for 5minutes to fill the show... the amount that he talked about could have been done easily in 1-2minutes... That is if he could have stopped saying that video games are not movies and movies aren't video games... And if your going to say a statement like oh i don't know... "Video games are different then Movies because they started out differently." Great then explain how don't just say that and go off to something else only to then later make the statement again just to extend your rant.
I like Movie Bob's Yahtzee's and Extra Credit team a lot because they are able to not only talk about a topic but are able to explain in detail why they like it and not go over the same point again and again. Will see how next week goes but right now just really isn't anything special.
I like Movie Bob's Yahtzee's and Extra Credit team a lot because they are able to not only talk about a topic but are able to explain in detail why they like it and not go over the same point again and again. Will see how next week goes but right now just really isn't anything special.
This guy wins whole thread. No I didn't read all of the comments, and there is no way I'm going to.katsumoto03 said:
I didn't enjoy this guy's video at all. Maybe he'll get better next week, but if this is any indication of what we are in for, then colour me unimpressed.
I guess an easy example would be horror.
Horror movies are held in low esteem in general, as opposed to horror games (a few years ago at least), which were held in high esteem.
It's easy to see how an interactive well made experience trumps any horror film out there for fear value; your active involvement is unprecedented in comparison to the movie category.
Ideally we'll see this ported over to other 'genres', perhaps even on to a 'drama genre' level.
Horror movies are held in low esteem in general, as opposed to horror games (a few years ago at least), which were held in high esteem.
It's easy to see how an interactive well made experience trumps any horror film out there for fear value; your active involvement is unprecedented in comparison to the movie category.
Ideally we'll see this ported over to other 'genres', perhaps even on to a 'drama genre' level.
The video itself: I found it a bit sparse. It basically this guy talking uninterrupted to the camera for 5 minutes. Unless they add something interesting to look at, this might as well be a podcast or something and would perhaps work better as one.
Also, I don't really think this guy comes across as "gamings biggest douchebag" like he imagines he does. Probably not necessarily a bad thing (theres a reason why "the game anti-thinker" is considered some of Bob's worst stuff), but I don't really see why its an ideal to be held up. Yahtzee comes off as much more harsh and apologetic than this guy.
His point:
While each medium has certain unique criteria to be assessed on there are also a bunch of criteria which are the same.
There are plenty of things which exist in games which it simply doesn't make sense to judge a film based on, a filmmaker doesn't ever have to think about the "skill level" of his audience for example (provide an easy mode, where all the subtext and metaphors are explained by big red text on the screen). Likewise a gamemaker won't need to care about shot composition if everything is seen though a first person camera.
On the other hand, if your game is telling a story (ie. pretty much every game excluding sports and sims), then there are plenty of criteria that are just as important in a game as they are in a film. Acting, plotting and scripting are just as important for making a good game as they are for making a good film, and we will judge them in exactly the same way. If a game requires you to care about the characters, then they get some knock-off writers and hammy voice actors, then it has clearly failed. You can assess a film's plot and dialog in exactly the same way as a books, you can assess its soundtrack in exactly the same way as a albums, you can judge the cinematography like photography. In fact, there are very few aspects to film which aren't also of some importance in games.
Now a game which completely fails in acting, plotting, scripting, cinematography etc. (or even lacks in it completely) and still has great gameplay can still be a fun game, whereas a film doesn't have anything much to fall back on if these are shit.
Even now, most game makers haven't really figured out how to combine interactivity and storytelling, so games still tell their stories in pretty much the same way as a movie. If you took out the gameplay sections and just left the cutscenes, most games would suffer very little in the story department. Its a rare thing that a game like Bioshock comes along, where you learn the story though aspects unique to games, like the level design, combat mechanics and how your actions influence the world.
So until they work out how to do this better, then the comparisons between games and films will be entirely justified.
[... I hope to god someone reads this.]
Also, I don't really think this guy comes across as "gamings biggest douchebag" like he imagines he does. Probably not necessarily a bad thing (theres a reason why "the game anti-thinker" is considered some of Bob's worst stuff), but I don't really see why its an ideal to be held up. Yahtzee comes off as much more harsh and apologetic than this guy.
His point:
While each medium has certain unique criteria to be assessed on there are also a bunch of criteria which are the same.
There are plenty of things which exist in games which it simply doesn't make sense to judge a film based on, a filmmaker doesn't ever have to think about the "skill level" of his audience for example (provide an easy mode, where all the subtext and metaphors are explained by big red text on the screen). Likewise a gamemaker won't need to care about shot composition if everything is seen though a first person camera.
On the other hand, if your game is telling a story (ie. pretty much every game excluding sports and sims), then there are plenty of criteria that are just as important in a game as they are in a film. Acting, plotting and scripting are just as important for making a good game as they are for making a good film, and we will judge them in exactly the same way. If a game requires you to care about the characters, then they get some knock-off writers and hammy voice actors, then it has clearly failed. You can assess a film's plot and dialog in exactly the same way as a books, you can assess its soundtrack in exactly the same way as a albums, you can judge the cinematography like photography. In fact, there are very few aspects to film which aren't also of some importance in games.
Now a game which completely fails in acting, plotting, scripting, cinematography etc. (or even lacks in it completely) and still has great gameplay can still be a fun game, whereas a film doesn't have anything much to fall back on if these are shit.
Even now, most game makers haven't really figured out how to combine interactivity and storytelling, so games still tell their stories in pretty much the same way as a movie. If you took out the gameplay sections and just left the cutscenes, most games would suffer very little in the story department. Its a rare thing that a game like Bioshock comes along, where you learn the story though aspects unique to games, like the level design, combat mechanics and how your actions influence the world.
So until they work out how to do this better, then the comparisons between games and films will be entirely justified.
[... I hope to god someone reads this.]
As in, you're putting him on a pedestal when he failed. I mean, his writing ability isn't anywhere near the top of what other games have.Jumplion said:
"Is it that hard to imagine that Heavy Rain, whether or not it's a good or bad, successful in it's vision or not, also does this?"
Should we hold up Daikatana as an awesome experience because that's what the creator's vision for it was?
Hmm...
I agree with his point. I also think he's looking at it in a much more shallow way than he should.
For one, the comparison with film is not an inherently, constantly evil thing. I think looking at other mediums in order to further understand and develop ours is a perfectly good and helpful thing to do early on. That said, video games are past that stage and, as Jim said, we need to develop our own way. Games are not inferior to any other medium.
But there is a bigger issue at work here. Namely, games may not be inferior, but they are more diverse. Meaning that we can still say the storytelling in games still needs developing without saying it's "inferior to other mediums." Rather, there simply aren't enough games focusing on story (since, unlike other mediums, we also have competition and social games to offer), and there are so many different ways to tell stories in games that there is still a lot of exploration and innovation to be done.
Here's the thing; some of those ways may be similar to other mediums.
His bashing of Heavy Rain really got to me. First, he presented it in a similar way that Fox News presents video games; taking the bits that most drastically go against the cited standards and ignoring the bits that go along with it perfectly. He straight-up said he hates Heavy Rain, but that was just bad journalism, if such a term can even apply here.
Secondly, just because Heavy Rain strives to be movie-like does not mean it's wrong, or holding the industry back, or selling itself short; it means it's going for a cinematic experience, and there's nothing wrong with that goal. Should all games do this? Absolutely not. Should that style of gameplay be held as the holy grail of interactive storytelling? Of course not. But that does not mean the goal of making a movie-like interactive experience is somehow wrong. So many people just don't get this, despite how basic it is.
On a note more specific to the show itself, I get that this is supposed to just be a rant, but he presents himself like an angry fanboy. No credibility, no respectability, no indication he knows what he's talking about, just him ranting wildly about something he doesn't like. Regardless of what he says, that is a huge problem. Only time will tell if I dedicate my weekly time to this show, but it's not looking good.
I agree with his point. I also think he's looking at it in a much more shallow way than he should.
For one, the comparison with film is not an inherently, constantly evil thing. I think looking at other mediums in order to further understand and develop ours is a perfectly good and helpful thing to do early on. That said, video games are past that stage and, as Jim said, we need to develop our own way. Games are not inferior to any other medium.
But there is a bigger issue at work here. Namely, games may not be inferior, but they are more diverse. Meaning that we can still say the storytelling in games still needs developing without saying it's "inferior to other mediums." Rather, there simply aren't enough games focusing on story (since, unlike other mediums, we also have competition and social games to offer), and there are so many different ways to tell stories in games that there is still a lot of exploration and innovation to be done.
Here's the thing; some of those ways may be similar to other mediums.
His bashing of Heavy Rain really got to me. First, he presented it in a similar way that Fox News presents video games; taking the bits that most drastically go against the cited standards and ignoring the bits that go along with it perfectly. He straight-up said he hates Heavy Rain, but that was just bad journalism, if such a term can even apply here.
Secondly, just because Heavy Rain strives to be movie-like does not mean it's wrong, or holding the industry back, or selling itself short; it means it's going for a cinematic experience, and there's nothing wrong with that goal. Should all games do this? Absolutely not. Should that style of gameplay be held as the holy grail of interactive storytelling? Of course not. But that does not mean the goal of making a movie-like interactive experience is somehow wrong. So many people just don't get this, despite how basic it is.
On a note more specific to the show itself, I get that this is supposed to just be a rant, but he presents himself like an angry fanboy. No credibility, no respectability, no indication he knows what he's talking about, just him ranting wildly about something he doesn't like. Regardless of what he says, that is a huge problem. Only time will tell if I dedicate my weekly time to this show, but it's not looking good.
