Video Games versus film

[Mareon]

If 1972's 'Pong' is to Video Games what 1898's 'Arrival of a Train' is to Movies then we should be doing Video Games 'Gone With the Wind', 'Citizen Kane' and 'Casablanca' by now. So where are they?

 

[DoPo]

Faulty premise leads to a faulty conclusion culminates with a faulty question. I'll echo Jim Sterling who said it better than me and quite a while ago: why do we need "The Citizen Kane of video games"? Do movies have "The War and Peace of movies"? No, they don't. They are defined in terms of themselves, not in terms of other art forms - that's why they have "Citizen Kane".

If you're searching for something to define video games by, I suggest, trying video games. We have them. We can do it. Can we search for the Doom of movies? Or how about the Half-Life of books? Nobody is asking for those, because it's a stupid thing to ask for.

 

[Saelune]

What does that even mean? And whats the measurement cause technology improves exponentially. Plus who is to say we haven't had these games already.

And Citizen Kane is overrated. Its whole premise is based on magically knowing what a dead guy said alone with no one around.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Well, where's the Shadow of the Colossus or Portal of movies? If movies are so great, why isn't there a movie equivalent of those games?

See how stupid that question becomes when you flip it.

 

[Chimpzy_v1legacy]

Video games by far.

video games and movies carter towards different audience. the thing is everyone can watch movies but not everyone can play video games. especially if its very deep and complex game.

sadly trend of cinematic games and hollywoodization of gaming (like uncharted and tomb raider) really ruined industry.

That's not what the OP asked.

'Pong' and 'Arrival Of A Train' are often mentioned as some the earliest commercial products in their respective media[footnote]But not the first, which are by my knowledge 'Computer Space' and 'La Sortie de l'Usine Lumi?re ? Lyon', respectively[/footnote]. 'Casablanca', 'Gone With The Wind' and 'Citizen Kane' however, are often cited as some of the earliest movies to prove mainstream cinema can also produce great works of art.

The OP wants to know whether or not there are video games that are the equivalent to these movies. He didn't ask which is the 'superior' medium between video games and movies, which I'm interpreting your post as.

Also, just like there are games that are too mechanically complicated for the average gamer to wrap their head around, there are movies that have narratives, themes, symbolism and whatnot that are too nuanced and complex for the average movie-goer to really understand. Each medium has its strong and weak points, none of which make any of them objectively better or worse than another. It's all up to personal preference.

 

[Aerosteam]

Movies have Gone With the Wind.
Video games have Portal.
Movies have Citizen Kane.
Video games have BioShock.
Movies have Casablanca
Video games have Okami.

Trying to find equivalents is pointless. Movies are movies, video games are video games. Can we stop trying to compare them with each other?

 

[Fox12]

If 1972's 'Pong' is to Video Games what 1898's 'Arrival of a Train' is to Movies then we should be doing Video Games 'Gone With the Wind', 'Citizen Kane' and 'Casablanca' by now. So where are they?

They're called "Dark Soul's" and "Silent Hill 2."

But on a more serious note, it's not a fair comparison. Art doesn't have set bench marks, especially when the culture has changed. I could make the same comparison between books and film, and the comparison wouldn't be flattering.

Edit: come to think of it, if I were to compare the listed films to those games, I would say that video games are actually further ahead. Significantly ahead.

 

[Vanilla ISIS]

If 1972's 'Pong' is to Video Games what 1898's 'Arrival of a Train' is to Movies then we should be doing Video Games 'Gone With the Wind', 'Citizen Kane' and 'Casablanca' by now. So where are they?

You can argue that games like Tetris are already that.
That game is perfect for what it is (clear graphics that don't really need updating, tight solid gameplay, music is 8-bit and dated by modern standards but you can say the same thing about Casablanca having bad sound quality, it's just the limitations of the hardware at the time).
It made an impact on the medium and pushed it forward.

So yeah.

 

[Darth Rosenberg]

I'm not even sure I understand the question/point. As others have mentioned; they're two mediums which do things very differently, for different reasons, at different times.

Games have never done 'a Seven Samurai' or 'a Blade Runner', nor have films or TV done a Half-Life 2 or a Dark Souls [1].

The interactive medium is also hugely defined by hardware - both the tech that creates products, and the myriad platforms that people play on. So looking at the two mediums history requires methods and perspectives unique to each (the parameters of what a film 'is' have been defined for absolutely decades).

Trying to find equivalents is pointless. Movies are movies, video games are video games. Can we stop trying to compare them with each other?

Generally I very much agree, but modern games share a fair bit with modern cinema, so I don't think looking at the ways they differ and overlap is a bad thing. I adore something like Red Dead Redemption, but the fact remains is that it - and countless other games of all kinds of genres - ultimately flip-flops between game/interactive and film/passive. I think it's fair for some to wonder, for example, whether that's a fundamental failure of design or not (I don't mind cutscenes, but they are an inelegant narrative tool in a videogame).

And I don't think it's wrong to describe some games as 'cinematic', either.

Edit: come to think of it, if I were to compare the listed films to those games, I would say that video games are actually further ahead. Significantly ahead.

How do you come to that conclusion? That's not a challenge, btw, I'm just curious as to your reasoning.

 

[Fox12]

double post

 

[Fox12]

I'm not even sure I understand the question/point. As others have mentioned; they're two mediums which do things very differently, for different reasons, at different times.

Games have never done 'a Seven Samurai' or 'a Blade Runner', nor have films or TV done a Half-Life 2 or a Dark Souls [1].

The interactive medium is also hugely defined by hardware - both the tech that creates products, and the myriad platforms that people play on. So looking at the two mediums history requires methods and perspectives unique to each (the parameters of what a film 'is' have been defined for absolutely decades).

Trying to find equivalents is pointless. Movies are movies, video games are video games. Can we stop trying to compare them with each other?

Generally I very much agree, but modern games share a fair bit with modern cinema, so I don't think looking at the ways they differ and overlap is a bad thing. I adore something like Red Dead Redemption, but the fact remains is that it - and countless other games of all kinds of genres - ultimately flip-flops between game/interactive and film/passive. I think it's fair for some to wonder, for example, whether that's a fundamental failure of design or not (I don't mind cutscenes, but they are an inelegant narrative tool in a videogame).

And I don't think it's wrong to describe some games as 'cinematic', either.

Edit: come to think of it, if I were to compare the listed films to those games, I would say that video games are actually further ahead. Significantly ahead.

How do you come to that conclusion? That's not a challenge, btw, I'm just curious as to your reasoning.

I should probably mention that I love all of the movies that were mentioned. That said, I think there are two things to consider. The first thing you have to consider is the impact the story had on the medium. The other is the overall quality in itself.

I liked Casablanca and Gone With the Wind, but they're not really that complex. Casablanca is pretty straight forward story wise, but it's important for the history of film. Gone With the Wind benefits from being a big sweeping epic, like Lord of the Rings, but it definitely has some... romanticized views. The story feels somewhat insincere in its delivery, as the film makers gloss over troubling historical events. The story is pretty straight forward, and sometimes a bit melodramatic. There's a little bit of symbolism, but not anything overly complex. I like these movies, but there are plenty of films, and frankly games, that are better.

Citizen Kane is a masterpiece. It changed the way films are made on a technical level, but more importantly it holds up as an actual work of art. The story is not straightforward, often jumping back and forth in time, the narrator's aren't always reliable, and there's a great deal of visual symbolism. It actually requires something from the audiance, and presents itself as a puzzle. I would compare it to Watchmen in that sense.

By comparison, lets look at Dark Soul's. It explores the themes of existentialism and nihilism through the game play and story. Everything about the game is built around the themes. When you die, you come back to life. If you hold onto your will to live, then you can find meaning and maintain your sanity. Everyone has to find their own reason to live. This reflects the philosophy of existentialism, and it's explored through the characters. If you lose that will, then you go hollow, which reflects the view of nihilism. The game is not straight forward. It uses unreliable narrator's and a great deal of symbolism to deliver its story. It creates foils between character's, like the mortal Seethe and the immortal undead, each of which want what the other have. More importantly, though, it also deconstructs game design and fantasy tropes. We're conditioned to do what we're told in games. If you only do what you're told in Dark Soul's then you will never know the truth, and you will probably be manipulated by more powerful beings. The game explores its themes in a non-linear way, and in a way that only games can do.

The same could be said for Silent Hill 2. Everything you do has meaning. The entire town acts as a psychic mirror that reflects the main characters psyche. They actually characterize the protagonist through level design. The enemies represent unhealthy aspects of his psyche. For instance, they're all women. When the player beats them, they're reenacting James's treatment of his wife. All of the narrator's and characters are unreliable. There's a great deal of visual symbolism that reinforces the theme of the story.

In terms of complexity, I would say that these games are at least equal to Citizen Kane, and are certainly more complex then Casablanca and Gone With the Wind. I'm not saying games are better, of course, but they are at least equal. Games already had their "Citizen Kane" moment a long time ago. The best games just haven't been studied much yet. Most people don't realize that Citizen Kane wasn't that well received when it came out, and that it was forgotten until scholars revitalized interest in it. If you read the work of Jane Austen, one of the earliest novelists, she often criticizes people for not respecting books as an art form. Indeed, she wasn't very successful during her life time. It was only with time that people saw how creative she was. The same will prove true for games, I think.

 

[hermes]

Video games by far.

video games and movies carter towards different audience. the thing is everyone can watch movies but not everyone can play video games. especially if its very deep and complex game.

sadly trend of cinematic games and hollywoodization of gaming (like uncharted and tomb raider) really ruined industry.

That's not what the OP asked.

'Pong' and 'Arrival Of A Train' are often mentioned as some the earliest commercial products in their respective media[footnote]But not the first, which are by my knowledge 'Computer Space' and 'La Sortie de l'Usine Lumi?re ? Lyon', respectively[/footnote]. 'Casablanca', 'Gone With The Wind' and 'Citizen Kane' however, are often cited as some of the earliest movies to prove mainstream cinema can also produce great works of art.

The OP wants to know whether or not there are video games that are the equivalent to these movies. He didn't ask which is the 'superior' medium between video games and movies, which I'm interpreting your post as.

Citizen Kane in particular is often cited as an example of movies that aspire to be more than technological marvels and gimmicky tricks like trains moving toward the camera, but being complex enough to include symbolism and complex narratives.

So, yes, in that sense, videogames has crossed that barrier years ago. While earlier games like Tetris or Pacman were all about mechanics, rules and technologies, there was a serious undertake on giving meaning and complexity to a lot of content in videogames for the last decades. Maybe it is Half Life, Deus Ex or even Ninja Gaiden... it is more gradual and hard to find a point in history were it stopped being just about winning conditions, but we are indubitably way past it; one might argue about the quality of narratives, but it is clear that they have one (in the end, every discussion about quality of artistic expression is merely subjective). As others have said, there are a lot of historical references as to new artistic forms being relegated to 'entertainment for the uneducated' until it gains acceptance and notoriety in hindsight: it happened to movies before Orwell, it happened to theater before Shakespeare, it happened to literature in "vulgar" language before Alighieri; the content doesn't change afterwards, only the perception.

So, if you are asking for an specific example, it is too hard to pinpoint. If you are looking for a trend toward more elaborate content, we are already there.

 

[CaitSeith]

It would be a good idea for the OP to be more clear in his question, as people seems to be interpreting the question in different ways. When I hear something like "The Godfather" of videogames, I think on games that we all can agree are excellent in production, gameplay and story; even years after the hype has died out, and no matter if we personally like the game in question or not. IMO the videogame industry doesn't have (and never had) the proper conditions to produce something like that.

 

[Hawki]

Can we search for the Doom of movies? Or how about the Half-Life of books? Nobody is asking for those, because it's a stupid thing to ask for.

I'd actually like some Half-Life books. If Valve isn't going to expand the story, then stories set within the universe as an EU would be something I'd get onboard.

But to the question. Few things, by my own perception:

-Are video games art? As a medium, yes.

-Have videogames produced works akin to what's considered classics in film or novels? Former, probably, latter, probably not.

-Are games different from other medias in regards to how they're perceived? Yes. And I'll use secondary school English as an example. Every work I studied was almost entirely either a novel, poetry, stageplay (not just Shakespeare), and a few exceptions. Those exceptions included a few films (I recall Blade Runner, Witness, and Apocalypse Now, which was meant to complament Heart of Darkness), and one comic (Maus). No games though. Can you honestly say you're surprised? It doesn't help that games have a high barrier of entry - how does one write a thesis on Dark Souls if they can't beat the damn thing?

-Does Sturgeon's Law apply? Yeah, probably. If we assume that Sturgeon's Law applies equally to all forms of media, then novels and stage plays will always have more classics than other forms of media because they've been around longer. Perception of games as a lesser medium isn't going to change, because comics and even film are sometimes regarded as a lesser medium than novels. Which is fine with me on a personal level (novels are probably my favorite medium), but outside that? Well, that's the way the cookie crumbles. I think it's great that games can and have told amazing stories, but perception change is always going to be slow and gradual, because that slow rate of change has applied to other mediums as well.

Oh, and a minor point, if games want to take inspiration from film...so what? Films took inspiration from stage plays, comics have taken inspiration from novels, writing as a concept pre-dates novels as well. Now we have films like Hardcore Henry which, far as I can tell, is shot like a FPS, and has a plot about as banal as early FPS games. Not exactly the best legacy in the world, but media influences each other. I don't think films have to be singled out, especially since games have taken inspiration from their tabletop counterparts (e.g. WRPGs = tabletop, JRPGs = visual novels, etc.)

 

[RedDeadFred]

I don't think you can draw these kinds of comparisons between the two. They're too different. Films always seek to tell a story, while games offer a much broader range of entertainment. You could argue that certain games helped revolutionize or show near perfection in their specific genre, but Citizen Kane is important on a more fundamental level (like on the level of the actual coding done in video games).

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

I'm gonna say it because nobody else will - Arrival of a Train is from 1895, not 1898.

 

[Darth Rosenberg]

This is a bit wordy... but sod it, it's an interesting topic.

I should probably mention that I love all of the movies that were mentioned. That said, I think there are two things to consider. The first thing you have to consider is the impact the story had on the medium. The other is the overall quality in itself.

I think that second criteria is a little problematic when comparing games to other games, which makes any passing comparison to films almost impossible.

I'd agree with everything you said about Dark Souls, and those themes are one of the main reasons I rate it so highly, and why it made such an impact on me; the player begins with no real meaning to their existence or task, and no matter how many enemies - other than bosses and some specials - you slay, once you die and return, so do all the enemies. You never have a long lasting effect on the game world, so it feels indifferent, and your actions can appear to be futile (even the way enemies shamble back to their spot after killing you reinforces the idea that you're barely more than a momentary intrusion into an empty, dead world).

And the arcs of the NPC's tend to pivot on a search for something, and when they have attained it that's when ruination sets in - which to me always underlines a kind of zen approach to existentialism; focus on the destination and the inherent worth of the journey (the now, as opposed to the past or future) is lost.

However, how is a game's overall quality really defined? Isn't fps an aspect of quality? Or patterns of boss designs? Because on console the framerate was almost broken in some areas in DS, and I'd argue the vast majority of boss encounters are quite poor (not as art designs, btw). DS has a variable, adaptive diff, sure. But most bosses in DS can be cheesed or breezed past, and they are rarely ever a real challenge for an experienced player. I see that as a weakness, and a failing.

Other criticisms that could be leveled are the covenant system, and the upgrade paths. I adore DS's 'let the community suss it out' approach, but the upgrade paths in particular are needlessly obtuse and can only really be dug into on further runs (or a first run with plenty of stops at the wiki's for exact locations of items and NPC's).

I liked Casablanca and Gone With the Wind, but they're not really that complex.

I've actually not seen either, but then again nor have I played Silent Hill 2 beyond its demo when it first came out, I think.

I think the choices of films and games are highly problematic, though. DS is a niche--- er, I'm not sure what to call it... The game that popularised Soulsian design, I suppose. Its short term impact is indisputable, and I feel it's generated some of the very best journalism and critique I've ever come across with this mediu,; VaatiVidya's pieces on DS lore are an incredible example of whatever the hell 'emergent media' is now called, as well as being a wonderful testimony to DS's interpretative qualities. George/Super Bunnyhop's mini documentary on DS is superb, and there's a Kill Screen article whose title I can't quite recall right now (I'm sure I have it bookmarked somewhere) which was a great piece on DS's world design and potential legacy.

Silent Hill 2 was - by all accounts - a subgenre classic.

I can't speak for Casablanca as far as tone goes, but Gone With The Wind was a huge, sweeping mainstream epic, and the intent of both works was vastly different as far as single pieces of culture go to the two games. Quality is not a purely objective thing, and it is surely relative per genre in both film and games - and then per viewer and player (I could tolerate DS's risible fps and at times overly obtuse/convoluted design, others might find it utterly unplayable for either reason, and mine and their experiences would both be utterly true).

As for Citizen Kane? It doesn't really matter whether or not I subjectively agree it still stands up today, but yeah, I'd agree. I'd say in terms of popular consciousness, its technical legacy is what stands out the most. I'd struggle to think of any element that it can be compared to DS or Silent Hill 2, though, other than to say 'they're all quite good'...

I like these movies, but there are plenty of films, and frankly games, that are better.

I don't think that's fair or overly productive, given every single piece of art/entertainment needs to be seen in its own context.

I could say I like DJ Shadow's Endtroducing [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endtroducing.....] far more than, I dunno, Shaun Of The Dead. But only one's a zomb-com-romance/zombromcom and only one's a masterpiece of sampled music; both are utterly shite at doing what the other does well. ;-)

Citizen Kane is a masterpiece. It changed the way films are made on a technical level, but more importantly it holds up as an actual work of art. The story is not straightforward, often jumping back and forth in time, the narrator's aren't always reliable, and there's a great deal of visual symbolism. It actually requires something from the audiance, and presents itself as a puzzle.

Aren't you essentially equating complexity to merit/value? And how relevant is that to is cultural footprint? It can't be said that Citizen Kane somehow created complexity in film.

Also, I'm not sure how you'd justify the underlined. "More importantly" just seems subjective, and I'm not sure what "an actual work of art" really means.

In terms of complexity, I would say that these games are at least equal to Citizen Kane, and are certainly more complex then Casablanca and Gone With the Wind.

As above; I'm not sure how valuable a qualifier that is.

Is Journey a "complex" work? Is Street Fighter IV? The former exists as a more personal, experiential work, and the latter is almost purely a mechanic work of brilliance which depends on essentially very simple systems. To briefly hop into another medium: is a Rothko painting complex? Is a Caspar David Friedrich [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caspar_David_Friedrich] (whilst playing DS1 and 2 I was reminded of some of his stuff a few times, funnily enough)? The latter is densely symbolic, but that's not required for appreciation of basic technique or composition.

I know you didn't say complexity is the defining attribute/qualifier of landmark art, but you seem to put a lot of importance on the idea.

If you read the work of Jane Austen, one of the earliest novelists, she often criticizes people for not respecting books as an art form. Indeed, she wasn't very successful during her life time. It was only with time that people saw how creative she was. The same will prove true for games, I think.

Compare Rashomon technically and experientially to a contemporary film, then compare the then-and-now technical aspects and experiential scope of games. I'd argue cinema became what it 'is' far sooner, and has stayed the same, whilst the interactive medium is more or less still in a process of becoming.

It might even need something like AR or VR to really bleed into daily life for games to be accepted and far better understood. As a medium it's uniquely technological (to create, and to consume), and so the generations increasingly native to digital spaces and interfaces will have fewer to no barriers to the medium when compared to older generations.

 

[Chanticoblues]

Gone With the Wind and Casablanca I'd argue aren't the high points of film up to or at that point, but I'd say that gaming has had games that are as equally important to their medium and the culture surrounding it so far.

Also they're a bit too different to really compare and both had wildly different cultural births. I mean the first couple decades of film had modernism, the first world war, the rise of new global powers, and all sorts of nutty stuff---and film played a role in a lot of this stuff too.

 

[Fox12]

Aren't you essentially equating complexity to merit/value? And how relevant is that to is cultural footprint? It can't be said that Citizen Kane somehow created complexity in film.

Also, I'm not sure how you'd justify the underlined. "More importantly" just seems subjective, and I'm not sure what "an actual work of art" really means.

The problem with discussing art is that, eventually, art is so subjective that any attempt to discuss it at all becomes somewhat moot. I think this could be said for reality as well. I try to avoid value judgments, but if there is one thing that I personally consider important, it is complexity. Of course, you can poke holes in any attempt to define value in art. Some old school academics tried to stop this by creating terms like "high art," but in the end I think their influence is fading. It's senseless, really. Something can be more complex, and better made on a technical level, and still fade into obscurity. Something can be mediocre, and last a thousand years. In the end there really aren't any standards at all, making the discussion an exercise in futility.

But I like talking about this stuff, so I'll do it anyway : P

I think certain techniques are more advanced then others, and I appreciate when they are used. When a story uses symbolism, unreliable narrators, non-linear storytelling, and other techniques to clearly express their ideas, then I tend to applaud those stories. Now, it's not required to use all or any of those techniques in your art. They're just tools, after all. But, when we're trying to discuss whether or not video games qualify as art, those are the kinds of things I look for. I also look for things that are unique to game design as a medium. When someone touts out a list of classic films as an excuse to argue that films are more sophisticated then games, then pointing out complex games is a useful way to refute the argument. At the very least it gives us something to point to, first by examining what the two mediums have in common, and then what makes them different. That's all I was really trying to do.

Other then that, though, there's no real way of deciding how artistically valuable something is. It's as valuable as you think it is.

P.S. Thanks for dropping the name of that painter. I liked his stuff quite a lot.

 

[FalloutJack]

Beg pardon, but if I haven't actually seen Gone With the Wind, why should I even care? Movies and games are there for our entertainment. They compete for our sales, not to emulate one another. Because if they do, they do it for our money, not because there is that extra need to be deep unless it happened to work with the story.