Truthfully there have only been a few movies that have done the "camcorder footage" thing, despite hundreds of imitators of those scant full successes. Truthfully I am surprised that the gaming industry has been trying to do the same thing.
With movies that do a "shaky cam" in a few select scenes, as opposed to for a "faus documentary" effect I refer to it as the "Aliens Syndrome" that is to say that they shoot the scene in the dark anytime anything happens and have the camera jump around to conveinently miss anything that would require a big-budget "money scene". In some cases (like Aliens) it works, in others it seemes like what it is: cutting corners for the FX budget.
Oddly though there isn't even any money to be saved by doing things this way.
-
As far as "God Of War" goes, I tend to think of games of that sort as "Brawlers" being the descendants of games like "Final Fight" and "River City Ransom", rather than calling them "Hack and Slash", as I don't think they are differant enough to really deserve a seperate designation. On the other hand your (Yahtzee) "Spectacle Fighter" designation does make a certain degree of sense in the case of games where a goodly portion of the enemies provide no signifigant threat whatsoever, compared to say "Double Dragon" or "Final Fight" or whatever where a couple of bad moves and you can get pummeled horrendously (those games having been designed to devour quarters).
As far as the meaning behind the protaganists, the fact that they are escapist empowerment fantasies goes without saying. After all that is what video games and other media are for.
I think that the dark turn that everything has taken is due to the simple fact that people have become increasingly cynical, and anything that is too straightforward in the "goodness triumphs" or in portraying anyone as being a straightforward hero is too sappy. Everything has to be dark, gritty, and anti-heroic for people to take it seriously or achieve suspension of disbelief.
Add to the fact that for whatever reason the gaming community is extremely liberal, and you run into problems with the entire "violence solves problems" mentality that drives an action game of this sort. By the logic of a goodly portion of the consumers, someone would have to be fairly twisted to take this kind of approach to conflict. What's more, I think a lot of the elements being recycled like monsters and fighting against some equivilent of The Devil is because it's considered "wrong" to have anything short of that be brutalized that way. The more realistic the opposition, the more outcry a game gets. Look at "Resident Evil 5" as an example when the most unrealistic thing about it was inserting so many white people to try and be politically correct. The days of being able to have some action hero pound a bunch of russians, or even gang-bangers, are gone, or at least for a goodly portion of the people who play games.... today you make a game about how a few clean cut white guys get a friend/daughter/girlfriend kidnapped and head into the ghetto to rescue her from the evil gang bangers, and if somehow they avoid racial criticisms, you had better prepare yourself for it on a social level. While it wasn't as vocal, think about some of the reactions games like "Condemned" got from the portrayal of the homeless and beating them to death.
-
As far as "Trickle Down Economics" I actually agree with the theory, I think one of the big problems was that it was a long term plan and didn't start to come into it's own until the Clinton days, at which point the economic strategy changed as the people in charge couldn't (or wouldn't) maintain what was going on. It was a long time ago, but I pretty much feel that Clinton had the country at one of it's most prosperous times largely because he happened to be President when Reagan's policies were seeing results, but he wasn't Reagan, and his people weren't Reagan's people and the philsophies were very differant which lead to management changes that didn't turn out well in the long run.
Such are my thoughts, but it's not really a place for this kin dof arguement. I only give my opinion on it because it was mentioned, and figured that for balance I'd point out that not everyone thinks it's a bad thing (all jokes aside).
With movies that do a "shaky cam" in a few select scenes, as opposed to for a "faus documentary" effect I refer to it as the "Aliens Syndrome" that is to say that they shoot the scene in the dark anytime anything happens and have the camera jump around to conveinently miss anything that would require a big-budget "money scene". In some cases (like Aliens) it works, in others it seemes like what it is: cutting corners for the FX budget.
Oddly though there isn't even any money to be saved by doing things this way.
-
As far as "God Of War" goes, I tend to think of games of that sort as "Brawlers" being the descendants of games like "Final Fight" and "River City Ransom", rather than calling them "Hack and Slash", as I don't think they are differant enough to really deserve a seperate designation. On the other hand your (Yahtzee) "Spectacle Fighter" designation does make a certain degree of sense in the case of games where a goodly portion of the enemies provide no signifigant threat whatsoever, compared to say "Double Dragon" or "Final Fight" or whatever where a couple of bad moves and you can get pummeled horrendously (those games having been designed to devour quarters).
As far as the meaning behind the protaganists, the fact that they are escapist empowerment fantasies goes without saying. After all that is what video games and other media are for.
I think that the dark turn that everything has taken is due to the simple fact that people have become increasingly cynical, and anything that is too straightforward in the "goodness triumphs" or in portraying anyone as being a straightforward hero is too sappy. Everything has to be dark, gritty, and anti-heroic for people to take it seriously or achieve suspension of disbelief.
Add to the fact that for whatever reason the gaming community is extremely liberal, and you run into problems with the entire "violence solves problems" mentality that drives an action game of this sort. By the logic of a goodly portion of the consumers, someone would have to be fairly twisted to take this kind of approach to conflict. What's more, I think a lot of the elements being recycled like monsters and fighting against some equivilent of The Devil is because it's considered "wrong" to have anything short of that be brutalized that way. The more realistic the opposition, the more outcry a game gets. Look at "Resident Evil 5" as an example when the most unrealistic thing about it was inserting so many white people to try and be politically correct. The days of being able to have some action hero pound a bunch of russians, or even gang-bangers, are gone, or at least for a goodly portion of the people who play games.... today you make a game about how a few clean cut white guys get a friend/daughter/girlfriend kidnapped and head into the ghetto to rescue her from the evil gang bangers, and if somehow they avoid racial criticisms, you had better prepare yourself for it on a social level. While it wasn't as vocal, think about some of the reactions games like "Condemned" got from the portrayal of the homeless and beating them to death.
-
As far as "Trickle Down Economics" I actually agree with the theory, I think one of the big problems was that it was a long term plan and didn't start to come into it's own until the Clinton days, at which point the economic strategy changed as the people in charge couldn't (or wouldn't) maintain what was going on. It was a long time ago, but I pretty much feel that Clinton had the country at one of it's most prosperous times largely because he happened to be President when Reagan's policies were seeing results, but he wasn't Reagan, and his people weren't Reagan's people and the philsophies were very differant which lead to management changes that didn't turn out well in the long run.
Such are my thoughts, but it's not really a place for this kin dof arguement. I only give my opinion on it because it was mentioned, and figured that for balance I'd point out that not everyone thinks it's a bad thing (all jokes aside).
