Video game stuff

Introduce yourself to the community or chat with other users about whatever is on your mind
Ag0stoMesmer
Posts: 351
4943 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2012 10:23 am

Video game stuff

Post by Ag0stoMesmer »

Ocelot wrote:The Last of Us getting a movie adaptation...Times like these are when I miss Ebert.

I knew he was sceptical about games as 'art', but kinda retracted that. I can't see how adaptations from games are any worse -in principle- than adaptations from books, musicals etc. (in practice of course they're mostly shit). Got a link?

ShogunRua wrote:...studios greenlight these pictures is because it's an easy way to pander to the fanboys [...] and get a nice built-in audience regardless of the picture's quality.

I don't believe the vast majority of video games, even ones with creative premises and well-executed cutscenes, can add anything new to the story through a movie adaptation.

Amen.
I never finished bioshock - not much into shooters. It'd be hard to capture the look and randian-nightmare-ness of it but I'd -cautiously- welcome a try too.


Anyone got recommendations for good cinematic play-throughs or even games?

I've got a chapter left of walking dead to finish then I'm going to play Deadly Premonition, I'm a couple of hours into it and love it so far. It really is Twin Peaks-y and should tide me over 'till that new blu ray set comes down a bit.

hellboy76
Posts: 446
6339 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 1:53 am

Re: Video game stuff

Post by hellboy76 »

There is a large amount of video game movies coming out, with Assassin's Creed (and Michael Fassbender) probably being the biggest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_based_on_video_games

I really dig the Telltale Walking Dead stuff, having finished the latest chapter am on to Kentucky Route Zero, which is odd and confusing.

CMonster
Posts: 689
1444 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 12:22 am

Re: Video game stuff

Post by CMonster »

Ocelot wrote:Nobody is actually interested in video games getting film adaptations because there's any merit artistically; nerds just want the perceived legitimacy to validate their hobby.

I'm not all in with video games being made into movies, but to say only nerds want games to be considered art to legitimize a hobby seems pretty ignorant about games in general. I'm not gonna say every game is art or that even that most artistic ones are "good art," but at a certain point, if you know anything about games, you have to admit that the creative element that makes some games great is just as much of an art form as anything else. When I hear somebody say games can't be art, all I hear is an old man who heard the opening 15 seconds of a dubstep song and said music can't be made in a computer.

As for games being made into movies, there are none that I'm excited for. I find the building of solid tension is different between games and movie/books. In movies or books. Acknowledging there are exceptions on both sides, I find with movie and books I generally know the protagonist will succeed at least till the end of the books so tension is built a lot through characterization. With games, you are the character and there is generally less dialogue so tension is created by building up skills and putting them to the ultimate test in the context of the story with a real probability of failing.

Ocelot
Posts: 130
2307 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2009 10:14 pm

Re: Video game stuff

Post by Ocelot »

Games ARE art;. don't get me wrong. If that's the discussion at hand I'll be right there to take that side, holding up plenty of games as prominent examples: EarthBound, 999: 9 Hours, 9 Persons, 9 Doors, Deus Ex, Devil May Cry 3, Super Metroid and any number of other titles to prove I play video games. When I say there isn't any merit artistically, I'm not talking about video games in general -- my argument is that (most of) these games already accomplish themselves as successful works of art, and, as such, turning them into a movie is pointless artistically. The key is that movies carry a legitimacy that video games do not. There's no (significant) Oscar equivalent for video games, and it certainly isn't broadcast to billions of people. And considering the games being adapted -- Assassin's Creed, Uncharted, The Last of Us, Metal Gear Solid, etc -- are already designed to replicate a cinematic experience, putting them on the big screen is effectively the same as watching all the cut-scenes in Theater Mode. The difference is that a lot more people will see it and the story/property will be elevated to the "real" artistic medium that is film.

Ag0stoMesmer wrote:I knew he was sceptical about games as 'art', but kinda retracted that. I can't see how adaptations from games are any worse -in principle- than adaptations from books, musicals etc. (in practice of course they're mostly shit). Got a link?


Ebert was pretty much exactly who CMonster was talking about. He wrote a blog post on how video games aren't art with a boatload of stupid reasons, to say nothing of how stupid I think the distinction of what is "art" or not is in the the first place. Then, after he got called out for clearly not having a clue what he was talking about, he said he'd never really played video games because he hadn't found one worth his time -- which is reductive to a fault, and sounds more like a 15-year-old on a message board than the most respected film critic in the country. On a purely argumentative level, he was absolutely wrong.

But, as a problem at whole... why do people care? Why do people get so worked up that Roger Ebert doesn't appreciate video games as art? Again, it ties back to my point about "legitimacy." (quotations because of how stupid I find the concept, not the term) Ebert had his Great Movies section, and for people who see games as art, it would be nice for gaming to be at a point where there can be an Ebert of video games with a Great Games section that gives some realistic credibility to gaming as an artistic medium. And yet, at the same time, the gaming industry (speaking collectively, of course) doesn't seem to be willing to actually examine and develop the medium they constantly champion. As I said, there's no Ebert of video games -- there's also no Kael, Sarris, Bazin; whoever. The only person in the gaming industry I'm aware of who actually treats video games as works of art rather than just saying they are is Adam Sessler, and he's constantly given shit for it. Gamer culture desires video games to be held up as series discussion points without actually analyzing them beyond how to tighten up the graphics on Level 3. To sum it up in one image:

Image

As for why they're different from books/musicals as sources for adaptation, that's a super complicated discussion, albeit one I have thought about. To keep it short, they key difference is that plays and musicals are passive viewing experiences in the same way movies are, and the distinction is putting them behind a screen and giving the camera the ability to become part of the story. Video games are a completely active viewing experience, and in this way, I'd say they're actually closer to books than film -- both demand the player/reader to be an active participant in their completion; they can't just play in the background for you to tune in ever now and then. The key difference here is the element of control a video game gives you, and that element of control is a hugely important factor in how we experience and enjoy playing a game. Great gaming stories almost always taken advantage of this (BioShock, 999, Spec Ops: The Line, Metal Gear Solid 3) and the ones that don't, well, I'm not sure why you'd want to adapt them. It's something that gets completely lost in translation, and it's far more significant than when a book is adapted to a film and people complain that the characters don't look how they pictured them.

There's a lot to discuss here, and it's stuff I think is work discussing, but, basically, I'd like to see video games start treating themselves seriously instead of just demanding to be seen as such.

ShogunRua
Posts: 3449
0 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 3:18 am

Re: Video game stuff

Post by ShogunRua »

Ag0stoMesmer wrote:
Ocelot wrote:The Last of Us getting a movie adaptation...Times like these are when I miss Ebert.

I knew he was sceptical about games as 'art', but kinda retracted that. I can't see how adaptations from games are any worse -in principle- than adaptations from books, musicals etc. (in practice of course they're mostly shit). Got a link?


Books are intrinsically deeper as a medium than movies are. Being able to describe a character's thoughts and ideas through words as opposed to images is responsible for this.

Anyways, games are, by definition, interactive. That's from where they derive their unique appeal. Movies (and books) are both passive entertainment.

So that's why adapting a book into a movie makes more sense; it's transferring a deeper type of passive medium into a simpler passive medium. Games into movies is an interactive medium into a passive medium, with the former traditionally having few good stories, and relatively shallow ones at that.

AgostoMesmer wrote:Anyone got recommendations for good cinematic play-throughs or even games?


Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons is both, although I would really urge anyone not to spoiler themselves, but play the game instead.

hellboy76 wrote:There is a large amount of video game movies coming out, with Assassin's Creed (and Michael Fassbender) probably being the biggest.


Ugh. Probably the big-name game with the most disappointing story, too. Outside of the multiplayer, I don't care for the series at all.

Ocelot wrote:And considering the games being adapted -- Assassin's Creed, Uncharted, The Last of Us, Metal Gear Solid, etc -- are already designed to replicate a cinematic experience, putting them on the big screen is effectively the same as watching all the cut-scenes in Theater Mode. The difference is that a lot more people will see it and the story/property will be elevated to the "real" artistic medium that is film.


Indeed, well-said.

Ocelot wrote:The only person in the gaming industry I'm aware of who actually treats video games as works of art rather than just saying they are is Adam Sessler, and he's constantly given shit for it.


Sessler is a really unfortunate example to bring up. For starters, he gets shit for being a fucking idiot who cares little for the actual "game" portion of what he looks at, only the passive story.

On a second, related note, he is one of those video game critics (which we're seeing more and more of these days, sadly) that desperately wants to review movies or do sociopolitical advocacy, only he couldn't break through in either of those, but has found a successful niche in gaming.

He has a mindset very similar to those "I want gaming to be legitimized through movies" fanboys that you're talking about.

Ocelot wrote:There's a lot to discuss here, and it's stuff I think is work discussing, but, basically, I'd like to see video games start treating themselves seriously instead of just demanding to be seen as such.


I'm cool with the most video games not taking themselves seriously, just like the vast majority of movies don't. Not everything done in a medium can or should be a piece of art; it can just be very good mindless entertainment.

Ocelot
Posts: 130
2307 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2009 10:14 pm

Re: Video game stuff

Post by Ocelot »

I mean taking themselves seriously in the critical and self-examinatory sense, not necessarily in terms of content. One of the games I listed as an artistic example is Devil May Cry 3, and I'd go to bat for that as an artistic achievement over most things with "serious" and self-important stories.

As for Sessler, you're probably right. My exposure to him as dropped off a lot since I stopped watching G4, but I'd still take his brand of analysis over an IGN review which tells me nothing but "good graphics, cool story, game of the year 10/10".

mattorama12
Posts: 887
3086 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 3:05 am

Re: Video game stuff

Post by mattorama12 »

ShogunRua wrote:Anyways, games are, by definition, interactive. That's from where they derive their unique appeal. Movies (and books) are both passive entertainment.

So that's why adapting a book into a movie makes more sense; it's transferring a deeper type of passive medium into a simpler passive medium. Games into movies is an interactive medium into a passive medium, with the former traditionally having few good stories, and relatively shallow ones at that.


I'm still waiting for somebody to take advantage of the fact that tvs and dvd players could now properly adapt a -choose-your-own-adventure movie like those horrible books I loved as a kid.

I'm cool with the most video games not taking themselves seriously, just like the vast majority of movies don't. Not everything done in a medium can or should be a piece of art; it can just be very good mindless entertainment.


Here here.

paulofilmo
Posts: 2586
2428 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 3:40 pm

Re: Stuff you can install on your computer stuff

Post by paulofilmo »

Oh. Dear Esther. Watch that. So pretty.
Last edited by paulofilmo on Wed Jul 30, 2014 9:37 am, edited 1 time in total.

ShogunRua
Posts: 3449
0 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 3:18 am

Re: Video game stuff

Post by ShogunRua »

Ocelot wrote:I mean taking themselves seriously in the critical and self-examinatory sense, not necessarily in terms of content. One of the games I listed as an artistic example is Devil May Cry 3, and I'd go to bat for that as an artistic achievement over most things with "serious" and self-important stories.


Yeah, I really enjoyed DMC3, too. Another great example in that category is God Hand.

Ocelot wrote:As for Sessler, you're probably right. My exposure to him as dropped off a lot since I stopped watching G4, but I'd still take his brand of analysis over an IGN review which tells me nothing but "good graphics, cool story, game of the year 10/10".


IGN is terrible, too. In terms of sites, Eurogamer used to be the most competent and informative, (a little less so recently, after a frivolous lawsuit or two in the British courts made them skittish) although there are individual reviewers whose views I enjoy. TotalBiscuit on Youtube and Jim Sterling are both quite trustworthy.

mattorama12 wrote:I'm still waiting for somebody to take advantage of the fact that tvs and dvd players could now properly adapt a -choose-your-own-adventure movie like those horrible books I loved as a kid.


Well, Japanese visual novels and various Western FMV games have been around since the early 90s, and to this day we have similar attempts with something like David Cage games, which are all "choose your own adventure" style adventure movies, many in first person. Or did you mean something slightly different?

As for choose-your-own-adventure books, I remember my favorites being the GI Joe ones; I would draw out graphs of every single possible variation and ending as a kid.

paulofilmo wrote:Oh. Dear Esther. Watch that. So pretty.


It had better be pretty, considering it's not actually a game. (And as such, watching a Youtube video of the playthrough is exactly equivalent to "playing" through it) The aforementioned TotalBiscuit had a good take on it;


paulofilmo
Posts: 2586
2428 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 3:40 pm

Re: Video game stuff

Post by paulofilmo »

I edited my post. If anyone wants to recommend other cool inbetweeny things, then—oh heavens—you should.

There's another game(??) where you walk through this multicoloured world. simple shapes. I think the music changes with the weather like a trippy hike fully scored.

If that rings a bell with anyone, let me know.

It may have started with a 'P'. It also may'nt've.

ShogunRua wrote:The aforementioned TotalBiscuit had a good take on it

Oof, no, it's not for him.

Post Reply