Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Charlie Brooker: Gaming makes Hollywood look embarrassing.
Options
Comments
-
Join Date:Posts: 50634
Mark Hamill wrote: »I think when most people praise Heavy Rains storytelling, they dont actually mean the story itself (which, while interesting, had some serious loopholes) or the acting, they mean the way the story was presented in a gaming context, the way that so many aspects of the story could be interacted with and effect the ending, that despite being 4 or 5 times longer than a movie, you could be kept involved in the story to the same extent as if it where only 100 mins long. It showed that level of storytelling could be achieved in video games (now all we need is better stories to tell
).
I'm not even sure the gameplay in Heavy Rain should be praised either. It was basically Dragons Lair with branching paths.
0 -
-
-
Join Date:Posts: 50634
Yeah GTA4 stunk of someone trying too hard and just didn't have the talent. However playing Red Dead Redemption at the moment and while not perfect is far better than GTA4 in the writing stakes. However I think that's more to the credit of the other 2 writers and not Dan Houser.
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
Join Date:Posts: 50634
System Shock 2 explores the same themes of 2001 and is better because it has Shodan
I love 2001 myself although I don't think there's as much going on in it as some people think. I suppose it's the way those themes are presented and discussed and the visuals used that make it special. Still I think there's a few games out there with that depth. Silent Hill 2 being one although, I'm not sure it's a good example since a lot of what it presents doesn't really use the videogame medium. What I'm trying to say is that it would probably work just as well on film.
I think earthbound offers a lot of depth and the exploration of a complex theme. It also does so visually and aurally. Earthbound isn't a game you can really get until you beat it and wouldn't work outside of the videogame medium.
As for System Shock 2 well that was a joke. It owes far far too much to 2001 to really be comparable. Still I think it adds it's own themes to the narrative and again utilises the medium ofvideogames very well.
Anyway that's all up for argument and it's hard to compare two very different mediums. Anyway it took a long time for cinema to create a masterpiece like 2001 and even in cinema there's maybe a handful of films of that calibre. Videogames have a lot further to go and to give to their audience.
As for Hollywood. I watched Knight and Day the other night and I can say with my hand to my heart that I would much rather have been playing red dead redemption that watching that ****e.
0 -
-
Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,479 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 28190
Retr0gamer wrote: »I love 2001 myself although I don't think there's as much going on in it as some people think. I suppose it's the way those themes are presented and discussed and the visuals used that make it special. Still I think there's a few games out there with that depth. Silent Hill 2 being one although, I'm not sure it's a good example since a lot of what it presents doesn't really use the videogame medium. What I'm trying to say is that it would probably work just as well on film.
Well Silent Hill is a good example in one way - they have made a film that did a pretty damn good job of emulating the atmosphere of the game. However, it also had a much weaker story, so yes there are plenty of stories better suited to games.
As for 2001, it's only been used as an example because Mr. Brooker brought it up in the first place. It's a brilliant film, but hardly the first to achieve something uniquely and beautifully cinematic: you had Eisenstein, Lang, Welles, Bergman, Ozu, Kurosawa, Wilder and many many others who had made ageless cinema before Kubrick (hell, 2001 wasn't even Kubrick's first masterpiece!). I'd say there's more than a handful that have achieved something equally special - hell, there's a small tonne out there. But they're all arbitrary comparisons, although I think the point that very few games have tackled big themes with anywhere near the confidence of cinema is worth calling out. Speaking of arbitrary comparisons...As for Hollywood. I watched Knight and Day the other night and I can say with my hand to my heart that I would much rather have been playing red dead redemption that watching that ****e.
That's like comparing a bag of dog **** to a delicious bowl of ramen (not the same thing, contrary to popular belief) :pac: And yet RDR's messy narrative (barring the excellent ending) shows that in storytelling terms the Leone Westerns or the Coens' True Grit are considerably ahead of gaming. That RDR, though, often has an atmosphere and world to match those stellar examples is something Rockstar can most certainly be proud of.Magill wrote:It was just hard for me to be impressed by 2001 since i only watched it a couple of years ago
Well I'm only in my early twenties so can't agree with that argument :pac: I accept you don't like it though, you're hardly alone. And I agree Portal 2 offers an astonishingly unique experience, and wouldn't trade it for anything. Still, when I find a game with the emotional punch and depth of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind I'll be a happy camper 0 -
Join Date:Posts: 50634
OK I agree with most of that.
I think a big problem for games is that if you want to be clever and present interesting themes and do something different prepare to sell 10,000 copies and ruin the developer. Nobody wants to take chances and neither does Hollywood. It's why I think that the most interesting stuff we see will be in the PC indie games with the very odd game like Silent Hill 2 or Shadow of the Colossus slipping through the cracks. Another problem is that most lead game designers really aren't storytellers and there's only a rare few thatcan pull off both. Maybe someday videogames will attract some genuinely good writers and not good but not exceptional hollywood writers and things will change. Until we'll have to rely on the few thatcan pull it off like Ken Levine. As far as I know I have no Mouth but I Must Scream and the Mother/Earthbound games are the only two that spring to mind that actually had some truly genius writers attracted to making a game and in the case of Mother/earthbound was instigated by the writer wanting to do a game.
As for my last comment, well it was a bit tongue in cheek. And playing RDR really does make me want to watch some better westerns:)
0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Join Date:Posts: 50634
I'm doing some treasure hunting missions and it makes me want to watch Treasure of Sierra Madre again. Now there's a deep western How Humphrey Bogart didn't get an Oscar for that is beyond me.
0 -
johnny_ultimate wrote: »Well I'm only in my early twenties so can't agree with that argument :pac: I accept you don't like it though, you're hardly alone. And I agree Portal 2 offers an astonishingly unique experience, and wouldn't trade it for anything. Still, when I find a game with the emotional punch and depth of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind I'll be a happy camper
Oh god
0 -
Join Date:Posts: 50634
johnny_ultimate wrote: »Still, when I find a game with the emotional punch and depth of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind I'll be a happy camper
Play earthbound and mother 3 :P
0 -
-
-
-
every game doesn't have to be up there with Shakespeare but there is a slow progression to what we do see up on the big screen
take the different genres, we have the Uncharted games which can stand up against the Indiana Jones films (especially surpass no.4)
The Bioshock/System Shock games are great stories which Hollywood hasn't really touched on too much maybe except perhaps 2001
The Max Payne games are a great nod back to the film noir genre
and Donkey Kong was a great romanctic adventure where plumber meets Princess, plumber falls in love with Princess, Princess capured by giant gorilla, Plumber jumps over barrels and eventually defeats the gorilla in order save his love
it's the classic story on a par with Casablanca
0 -
johnny_ultimate wrote: »when I find a game with the emotional punch and depth of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind I'll be a happy camper
I think Limbo might come awful close to the former, at least.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Join Date:Posts: 50634
NeoKubrick wrote: »Player input voids the process of composition and structure of shots, because the developer cannot predict the actions of the player and therefore cannot create a linear sequence of shots (i.e. structure, composition). What you are referring to are events in the environment which Valve has used to great effect in the Half-Life 2 games, but they are not cut-scenes and there is no process of composition or structure of the shots by the developer; in fact, the player, not the developer, is the editor and cinematographer and it is effective because it encourages player input, not coerces it.
Have you played through the developers commentaries for Left 4 Dead yet? If you haven't it might be interesting to you. There's parts were the developer talks about the use of colour and lighting in a scene to draw the players attention to it what the devleoper wants the player to see and to guide them through a level subconciously. You've still got the randomness factor of the player but it is quite an effective step in rectifying this.
0 -
NeoKubrick wrote: »Player input voids the process of composition and structure of shots, because the developer cannot predict the actions of the player and therefore cannot create a linear sequence of shots (i.e. structure, composition). What you are referring to are events in the environment which Valve has used to great effect in the Half-Life 2 games, but they are not cut-scenes and there is no process of composition or structure of the shots by the developer; in fact, the player, not the developer, is the editor and cinematographer and it is effective because it encourages player input, not coerces it.
But thats my point, in games you shouldn't try to create specific shots and force players to watch them in cut scenes too much as it breaks the immersion. Good developers realise this and so create the shots ingame and direct the player to watch the action themselves, they get to create composed shots but without losing immersion for the player. The thing that games have that most differentiates them from any other media is immersion, everything a developer does should be done with that in mind.NeoKubrick wrote: »You're confusing a problem for an error. It's an error developers continually make by attempting to copy film, not a problem. It would be a problem if there was no alternative to copying film, which as you and I agree there is an alternative (i.e. Half-Life 2).
Needless distinction. Its a problem that in the games industry more and more developers are aiming for cinematic games, as this fundamentally ignores the uniqueness of the media they are working in (imagine a developer making a literature game, where players would play by reading massive blocks of prose, nobody would play it, as what would be the point), but that doesn't mean that problem doesn't have a solution.NeoKubrick wrote: »If you have to ask the question as to why no game can compare to 2001: A Space Odyssey, then, by definition, you demonstrate that you don't understand film or that specific film (Michael Chion's book about the film is a great starting point if you're interested, though).
This is probably one of the most patronising pieces of crap I've ever heard. Asking why you think no game can be compared to a film, by definition, means I dont understand film? Your subjective opinion of a movie is not an objective truth. Why do you think no game can compare to 2001?
NeoKubrick wrote: »The Game industry is relatively young. It's still in the balance what purpose computer games will serve: they can either be elevated to film or literature or knocked down to comic books, toys and boardgames and that's still in balance. So, it's comparable to a midget knocking out a five year old and his promoters asking David Haye for a shot at the WBA Heavyweight belt by comparing any game to 2001: A Space Odyssey. To compare games to that film the Game industry, much like any boxer wanting to fight David Haye, has to earn it and the Game industry hasn't even earned the status film and literature have in the mainstream.
This is not an answer, its an inflated opinion. You put down comic books, as if one of the most profitable films ever made wasn't adapted from a comic book. You objectively declare the importance of certain forms of entertainment over others, because of what subjectively interests you. This is not a prize fight, its a simple question: I can either watch 2001 for the first time tonight, or I can play "insert game here" for the first time tonight, which should i do and why?NeoKubrick wrote: »Hyperbolic statements serve no purpose. I mean, you can claim that games match 2001: A Space Odyssey to draw attention to the great advances in games over the past two decades but you're only liable to have people react negatively to the naivety of the Game industry and its gamers. 2001: A Space Odyssey was the product of decades of work by an industry to get to a point where it was possible to create that film, intellectually and technologically. Where did I claim that games match 2001? I merely asked you, without agreeing or disagreeing, what makes you think it cant be matched, in visuals or narrative, by games.
Do you have any reasoning beyond snotty derision of games? Can you describe specific aspects of 2001 that make it so unapproachable by the games industry in terms of visuals or narratives.0 -
-
-
-
NeoKubrick wrote: »I doubt that I suffer from the same error, because my first post in this thread established that I was aware of the error before even your first reference to it in this thread. You cannot even distinguish between what is an error and what is a problem ("needless semantics" it is not) and you still have not understood the terms used in this discussion or the discussion itself. Read: "a linear unbroken sequence of shots is a cut-scene and within this structure, a director or editor can control the pace and meaning of the sequence. This is not possible with player input, because the player is controlling the pace, not the director or editor".
Your semantic nitpicking is exasperating. Not to mention your point is just plain wrong. The player only controls the pace of the character they control, a director can still dictate the pace of any scenes that play out on screen, regardless of whether or not the player can run around in circles while the story is playing out. A player cant stop a scene, have one npc change his dialogue or deliver it in a way that the director doesn't want them to.NeoKubrick wrote: »The process of composition and structure of shots by the developer is not possible with player input, because the player is composing and structuring the shots, not the developer. Therefore any pace or meaning the developer indicated with the process of composition and structure of a linear unbroken sequence of shots is lost if the player breaks it. Player input voids the process. Like confusing form for content and asserting the irrelevant fact that because an intellectual property originated from one medium and successfully applied to another, it indicated something of the medium it originated from, you confuse an event in an environment or the environment itself for a cut-scene. The former encourages player input and consequently voids the process of composition and structure of shots and the latter, voids player input and consequently enables the process of composition and structure of shots.
Just plain wrong. Players only control the direction of the camera, they cannot have a scene play out in a way that the director doesn't allow for, as, very simply, the scenes are pre-programmed according to the directors wishes. The director does have to ensure that the player is looking at the right place, but the player cant interfere with a scene playing out in ways the director doesn't want them to. Directors can use light and colour to direct players attention, they can structure levels so that they enter scenes from certain angles and can only view things the way the director wants. Look at the old Resident evil games (before 4 or the shooters), they were games made up entirely of linear sequences of shots as the camera was fixed in each room and would only show you the scene the director wanted in the way he wanted (you could backtrack, but you could still only see the scripted sequences in the order and manner the director desires
NeoKubrick wrote: »You have an unsurprising habit of using words that you do not understand ('problem', 'subjective', 'contradict' et cetera). You claimed that 'I' put down comic books: 'I' is a personal pronoun. Nowhere in your quote is there reference to comic books in the personal first-person singular. That quote is based upon the observable fact found in the media and literature and mainstream society who have established a hierarchy of media with film and literature near the top, not based upon my personal 'subjective' opinion; otherwise I would have used the first-person singular. A monkey can "point" to the moon, but it doesn't mean he understands it. The contradictions exist only within your own noggin'.
If someone thinks that blowing up houses is a medium worthy of consideration as the same status as film or literature, then the onus is on that someone to establish by work and effort and prove that it is worthy of consideration. The ultimate decision of whether that medium is considered the same as film or literature is by the society in which that someone lives. Fundamentally, you don't understand that if a medium is relegated to a toy, a comic book or a boardgame, it is relegated for the reason that it does not offer intellectually-satisfying form or content for the adult and mature society it is sold for and therefore, the medium has to downmarket to create an economy for the industry to survive.
You really love to talk BS dont you? All you are offering is an argumentum ad populum (along with a bizarre attempt to redefine some words ) which, if taken to its logical conclusion, implies that the Transformers movie has more purpose than 2001, as it made more money (more people chose to watch it), a ludicrous notion, I'm sure you will agree. The general populations ability to appreciate the purpose or value of something is not actually a measure of the purpose or value of that thing.
NeoKubrick wrote: »You should start. You've answered your own question. On the contrary, you have to make it worthwhile for me to waste my time explaining to you which, based upon your inability to understand simple concepts such as 'subjective', 'contradict', 'problem', 'error', 'process', 'composition', 'shots', 'structure', 'I' et cetera, would be a full-time job and should be remunerated.
Baseless insults now? Really, making a claim and then pointing to somewhere else to support it without any input of your own, trying to redefine simple terms to get out of the hole your illogical arguments have put you in, insulting someone instead of actually responding to their points, these are the games that trolls and creationists play. Cut it out, quit stalling and answer the question "what is it that 2001 has in narrative and visuals that, up to now, games haven't matched"? If you believe that there is an actual answer, and actually comprehend it, rather than hold to it because you think it makes you sound smarter to agree with snotty film critics, then actually explain it.NeoKubrick wrote: »And, if you're going to debate with me, learn how to respond by not quote-retarding my post. If you cannot construct a response in sizeable blocks of text without confusing yourself, then you shouldn't bother composing a response at all. I cant even tell what you are complaining about here (more games is it?) Is it that I split up your posts too much when I respond? Is that too much for you to handle or something? 0 -
Advertisement
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psocOySFePA
Advertisement