Slashdot Mirror
Game/Movie Comparisons Raise Art Question Again
Via Game|Life, an article on the Variety site that sees something rather novel: a film writer defending games. Unhappy reviews of the film 300 sometimes cite the film's 'game-like' nature as a measure of it's poor quality, and Variety writer Ben Fritz calls those authors out on their poor grasp of modern media. Ron Gilbert, at the Grumpy Gamer site, has a few words of commentary on this issue. Coincidentally Gamasutra chose today to post a discussion of games as art which begins with the phrase "here we go again".
...just make you want to slap a guy. "It looks too much like a game" so what? It sure looks to me like its selling and I thought it was an awsome movie when I finally got to see it(it was sold out all weekend).
Back to the point though, what aversion do these people have against video games? Is it because they were fun? Is it because they didn't get to play them when they were little? Or maybe its because whole teams of artists of different kinds actually work together to make something that a normal person would look at more than once.
I just don't get it, a baby could take a crap in a diaper and these people would call it art, but if that diaper moves when you push a button...
FTA:300 is a vacuous film filled with bad dialog, stiff acting, a pointless one-dimensional plot and interchangeable characters that hardly deserve to be named in the script. The film barely has a first act and does nothing but drive to a preposterous conclusion led along by a sequence of ridiculous events. The Visuals are nothing more than technical masturbation. Simply put, 300 is the best damn film I've seen all year. I haven't had this much fun watching a movie in a long time. It's nice to see Hollywood is finally striving to be more likes games.
Ok, so in short, gamers as he sees it are only interested in the technical masturbation portion of what games are. IF that's true, then consoles that emphasize game play wouldn't be doing as well as a certain little industry darling that does is. But even if that's only about -gameplay- (as Wii games don't exactly have the best acting/plot), some of the most loved games out there have some incredible characters and/or plot. (textual or otherwise).
He totally misses the point, this movie was one for people who are looking for eye candy and visuals, not plot or well developed characters and script. There are games like this as well. For example, the difference between the Monkey Island series (amusing, somewhat witty script) and Doom 3. Implying that all games in the popular market in somewhat recent memory are terrible in terms of things that a typical movie-goer would find important only demonstrates an ignorance of what the over-21 year old gamer market really is looking for.
Instead of using "game-like" in a deragatory manner you could say "Uwe Boll-Like"
Libertarian Leaning Political Discussion Forum.
..has nothing to do with it being based on a game. It's based on a comic book (rather mediocre one imho) and it does a great job bringing the pictures and the story to life. Thus it succeeds in its aim and the people mentioned had obviously no idea what they were talking about. Spider-man is also a good example of a movie in which you could freeze at almost any frame and have a beautiful picture that could have been just like that in the comic book - that's skill, that's art!
That being said it seems "300" itself gets misunderstood by quite a few people, ostensibly because it has no accurate disclaimer at the beginning and most people are ignorant about the story and Greek/Persian history in general. It should be clear from viewing the first few scenes, that it is hardly a realistic depiction, but rather a fantastic (obviously biased) and embellished story told by a proud Spartan war veteran. The comic-like style is actually essential in pointing out this very fact.
And when you gaze long enough into the code, the code will also gaze into you.
I believe that games would do better to become more 'movie-esque' than vice versa. It seems to me that there aren't many games that feature characteristics more closely associated with film or even literature, such as good characterisation or plot. Most mainstream games are all about plopping you straight into the action with little regard to back-story and expect you to be satisfied 1607 dead stormtroopers later. The oft-repeated mantra, common on Slashdot, that 'games should be fun' seems disingenuous to me. I mean, if the gamers among us want the industry to be legitimised as a 'proper art form' and move beyond the nerd kids in the bedroom stigma, why does there seem to be such a lack of 'adult' (not necessarily in the boobs and gore sense) titles, of intellectual titles, in the local game shop? Do we say that 'films should be fun'? Yes, while many are indeed fun, there are also many that are shocking, dark, depressing, thought-provoking. Where are the 'head scratcher' games - the ones you try and figure out with your friends at the pub like after the movie theatre? Where are the games in black and white?
Yes, there are obvious differences in format; movies are non-interactive and last a couple of hours, games are naturally controllable and generally last at least ten hours. I'd like to see more of a fusion between the two art forms. I'd like a game that was short by game standards, but was beautifully written, had a tight storyline and was populated by intelligent, deep and interesting characters. I'd like to see games where you have to put some thought into what you are doing and the decisions you make. I'd like a game where you hardly fire your gun. I want a game to make me cry.
I'm not saying that such games aren't to be found or that there should be no shallow, time-waster games. It just seems an under-represented niche.
Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
If the artist can intentionally provoke a specific emotional reaction in the viewer, it is art. The end.
+0 Meh
I think there tends to be a confusion regarding whether or not something qualifies as art. Just because something is artistic doesn't mean it's art. Just because something exudes style doesn't mean it's art. It's the same reason design isn't really art.
People like to refer to Shadow of Colossus as an example of art. It presents a novel concept, has a unique storyline twist and is certainly artistic in it's art style. But it isn't really art. Why wouldn't God of War, for example, be considered art. That game has plenty of style. It has a story that's arguably more immersive, even if it's a bit contrived.
To me, something can only qualify as art if the primary motivation behind the creative process was to create art. Certainly there are special conditions, for example when we look back on the work of ancient civilizations. But I think in that case we're so removed from the culture that work is being viewed out of its original context, with a sense of detachment. In that case we're free to create our own impressions.
However, with nearly all games and movies what is the overriding motivation for creation? Money, perhaps to tell a story, to provide an entertaining experience. The creation of art isn't the driving force. Artistic concepts and creative design are simply a part of that process.
There are the rare occasion where a movie or game could become art in it's own right. But that's due to the artistic passion behind the creative process but more importantly to the fact that the subject or presentation is so compelling it's transcended the medium. But that's exceedingly rare. It's not something that can be made to happen. I can think of one game that may qualify, Out of this World.
Interestingly, although the story for that game was interesting. I think it was a number of other factors that make it qualify as art. There seems to be this notion, however, that somehow for a game or movie to qualify as art it requires a deep, complex story. There are art movies out there that consist of nothing but random images. Hell, there is art out there based on little more than mathematical computations.
Perhaps some people believe that if games are taken more seriously they can attract a higher caliber of writers. The problem is that from a business standpoint it's irrelevant. The most important aspect of any game is gameplay. Second to that is probably immersion which is why graphics and audio are important. Story may enhance the game, but it isn't really important because in most cases once gameplay and story can't really coexist. Gameplay has to be interrupted to tell the story. Probably the only exception is adventure games, and to a lesser extent RPGs. Unfortunately not many developers seem interested in creating adventure games.
That's an important point. A quality story can sell a movie, and can sell a book even more effectively. A good story might help a game, but it isn't really crucial. So why would developers bother spending money that could be invested elsewhere. And the reality is that there really aren't that many good writers. Like anything else, the best ones are likely to go where the money is and where there's a greater chance of prominence. So inevitably, many game stories come off as amateurish.
That's all irrelevant anyway. Games are an important part of culture. Games serve their own function and I don't think what works for movies or books will ever work as effectively in games. It's a different medium with a completely different kind of involvement on the part of the person being entertained.
I haven't seen anyone mention this yet, but 300 is based on a graphic novel. Which in turn was based on a movie. Which in turn was based on embellished stories regarding a historical event. It's not that the movie is game-like at all. It's that it's a stylized, simplified comic-book like story.
When photography first began to emerge in the 19th century some artists criticized it as not being a true form of art. Critics said it could never compare to oil painting or sculptures.