To be fair, there is an increasing number of
parallels between games and movies; blame that on all those doohickeys in them
newfangled PSBoxes and Wiistations. And
to be fair, the increase in the number of gamers and the following mainstream
emergence of a formerly elite hobby makes for an audience with different needs
and desires -- and of course, expectations.
So how well do the two mediums mesh? Can we think of games as an extension of
movies? Or should the two be kept on
opposite sides of a fence? A fence
separated by attack dogs, a moat filled with piranhas, and spike pits straight
out of Mega Man’s worst nightmares?
Let’s have a look at our options.
The Case For
If reports are to be believed, God of War III -- as I’ve mentioned
before -- cost about 44 million dollars to make -- a sizable sum, considering
that there are a number of games this generation that cost ten to twenty
million. In contrast, some movies can
break into the triple digits when it comes to both production and marketing
(Hello, Avatar, you 280
million-dollar baby). The end result of
these exorbitant prices? Games and
movies with top-notch visuals, almost to the point of obnoxiousness -- and
therefore, a real feast for audiences no matter what the medium.
All things considered, video games have been
trying to recreate movie magic for years (the most egregious example being a
do-it-yourself simulation by the name of The
Movies). Cutscenes go back for ages --
my most memorable experience being a choice few from Gunstar Heroes -- as both a way to advance the plot and to showcase
a game’s processing power. The FMVs of Final Fantasy VII were much touted, for
example, making Aerith’s death that much more painful; in the same vein, the
Sega CD game Night Trap did its best
to tie in live-action sequences…and also proceeded to provide a different sort
of pain.
It’s not just graphics and cut scenes that
provide a proper parallel, either. The
action is moving closer and closer to the Hollywood template, thanks in part to
developers aiming to “streamline the experience” or provide “blockbuster
thrills”. Stuff exploding, breaking
apart, or collapsing underfoot, leaving our heroes dangling above a cliff, or
pinned down by enemy fire -- with the inspiration stemming from movies, and the
technology coming closer to providing digital recreations, it’s only natural
for the two to come together.
So it’s safe to say that video games are
indeed becoming more movie-like, and to great effect -- at least if Uncharted 3 is any indicator. And with a game like that as a part of the
gaming world’s collective resume, then it follows that other games will try to
do the same (they may stumble in the process, but hey, at least they
tried). It could become a group effort --
or alternatively, a pissing contest of unprecedented scale -- to fully capture
the cinematic flair that movies have enjoyed for years. The game, or developer, that consistently
delivers may secure their future and reputation for ages to come -- and I’d say
that Naughty Dog has a pretty big head start.
Starring Nolan North as Rugged White Protagonist #18.
Beyond that, there may be even higher
ramifications. You know those casual
gamers everybody seems to hate? You
know, the ones that have you taking care of ponies, or racing with M&Ms, or
fighting with ninja gingerbread men?
This may be wishful thinking, but if they get one look at a cinematic
game like Uncharted, then it may
serve as their indoctrination into high-class titles. It could change the way people look at video
games -- not just as prostitute-killing simulations, but a serious medium with
lots of potential. It could even change
the way we look at video games:
seeing the qualities of a game in the same, or at least a similar, light as
movies. Plot, characters, setting,
themes -- we might take a more critical look at games, yet have the combined
knowledge and expertise to know that gameplay is as critical as any love scene. Because as well all know, men won’t pay
attention to anything without the promise of female body parts dangled in front
of our faces like carrots on sticks.
Pants: optional for elite ninjas.
The Case
Against
If there’s one thing that I constantly have
to remind my brother, it’s that graphics aren’t everything. There are a lot of other, more important
factors at play behind games: gameplay of course, but control, camera work,
longevity, presentation, and more (my favorite of these being the “impact”,
i.e. how meaty each hit or action feels when performed). Because of it, we can’t think of games as
just interactive movies; too many forces are at play to reduce everything to
just how good it looks, even though a fancy-pants graphics engine certainly
helps.
Video games -- as others before me have
furiously stated -- are active experiences, as opposed to the passive nature of
movies. The most interactivity I’ve
gotten from a movie is from Avatar,
if only because I saw the 3D version and I subconsciously brushed at the air
when I thought an ember was flying in front of my face. We aren’t in control of anything as viewers (yet), which means whatever moronic
mistakes the heroes on-screen perform, we’re destined to watch it unfold like
some special level of hell. Case in
point: Jumper. The teleporting hero, despite knowing all too
well that he can and will be tracked down by a secret organization, decides not
only to hide away in his hometown, but also get his would-be girlfriend
thoroughly involved in his problems.
Why? Arguably, so she could get
kidnapped vis-à-vis the plot. Granted,
plenty of games have probably got the same moronic developments, but at least
some of them also have the decency to let you choose your path. And for better or worse, that ability to
choose your path -- even if that choice is limited to the light or dark side of
the Force, for example -- is a key component that movies don’t have.
Have you tried not sucking, young Padawan?
Let’s not forget how many options movies take
away, either. You can’t select your
character, that’s for sure; if I may use Avatar
as my whipping boy a bit longer, then let me lay out an interesting
scenario: rather than watching as the hero of the Jarhead tribe, Jake, protects
Pandora, how many of you would prefer to see a movie starring Colonel Quaritch --
and actually have him prevail over the Pandoran natives? But no -- you’ll never get something as
tantalizing as that, seeing as how that would absolutely obliterate the entire
moral of the movie (though to be fair, there is a tie-in game…that probably
sucks). Your character, your path, your
play style, everything is pre-determined in a movie. Although this same predetermined nature
exists in games, it’s much more covert about it: you can only play as Dante or
Nero in Devil May Cry 4 and not a
player-generated demon slayer, but in exchange you get plenty of combat
options, from mix-and-matching weapons with Dante to coordinated attack
patterns with Nero. The choices the
player makes not only have an impact, but an impact that resonates with said
player. The name of the game is control,
and movies just don’t provide that.
There's still plenty of phallic imagery in both, though.
On top of that, the plot conventions of a
movie are radically different from that of a game. For one thing, when was the last time you saw
a movie that lasted for eight hours? The
longest that I know of right off the top of my head is an old version of Pride and Prejudice that my high school
English class watched -- and that clocked in at around five. If I remember correctly, that’s about the
same time it takes to finish Mirror’s
Edge, which if I also remember
correctly was slammed for being that short.
A good length for an action game is twelve to fifteen hours (if that;
lately, the norm seems to be six to eight, making a Friday night marathon run a
possibility); adventure games, twenty or so.
Role-playing games, meanwhile, get slammed if there’s any less than
thirty hours of content. And that excludes
post-game content; if it doesn’t, then based on my experience with Star Ocean: Till the End of Time, it’s
perfectly acceptable to have a hundred-thirty hour game. There’s much more time and much more room for
a game plot to stretch its legs, and branch out the development of its story
and characters. The Tales of series is a prime example -- you can decide whether the
hero sticks with his obvious future girlfriend, or delves deeper into the pasts
and motivations of his teammates until he decides to travel with him (or her!)
instead. To squeeze that into a movie --
or, conversely, expect a game to conform to those standards -- is a surefire
way to fail.
There are even greater problems lurking in
the shadows. Movies have pretty rigid
guidelines -- that is, the ones that succeed have certain qualities and trends
that appeal to the masses. The
well-defined genres of the silver screen leave only so much to the imagination,
meaning that you’d never see, say, a romantic comedy with the eclectic tastes
of Michael Bay thrown in for good measure (wouldn’t that be crazy,
though?). If games were to become as easily
classifiable as movies, then that would mean that certain genres, by nature of
not appealing to homogenized tastes, would be in trouble. Genres that rely heavily on gameplay, or are
otherwise in their own special niche -- fighting games, strategy games, Japanese
role-playing games, especially -- could get jeopardized by nature of not
appealing to Hollywood-honed sensibilities.
Some games just aren’t meant to be thought of as movies, either; how
much of the meaning or impact of games like Portal
or Katamari Damacy would hold if
re-made as movies? Or for that matter,
re-designed to be in the style of movies?
It’s already started, to some extent: realistic, cinematic games are on
the rise, while unique titles that don’t fit the format either become niche
items or out-of-print failures destined for the bargain bin. And if I may throw some salt into the wound,
need I remind everyone of what happens when Street
Fighter tries to become more movie-like?
You get the worst of both worlds: characters who are nothing like their
video game counterparts, but barely even quantifiable as movie clichés. To paraphrase Chris Klein’s portrayal of
Charlie Nash, if video games get too movie-like, then they’ll just inherit a
big problem. UGH, just saying that line
makes me want to claw my esophagus out.
Monster thighs = quality. Remember that equation; it could save your life.
The Climax:
We can all agree that movies and games, for
the most part, do what they do quite well.
Call it specialization of powers; they succeed at certain productions,
but may be lacking in another area by virtue of the medium’s
characteristics. Sure, the gap may be
closing, and sure, there are some similarities, but they need to remain
separate -- and be judged on their own merits, not how well they conform to
another medium’s standards.
Choice.
Control. Freedom. Interactivity. That’s what video games offer, just as they
have since the decades where a game’s memory was less than the amount of bytes
used to make this document. Though we
can all appreciate the influence movies have had, and will continue to have --
and likewise, inspire new plots and developments for our future heroes --
there’s a reason that they’re divided. So for the time being, I propose we keep it
that way.
No comments:
Post a Comment