Charlie Brooker: Gaming makes Hollywood look embarrassing.

Dog Lipstick

Quite an interesting article by Charlie Brooker. Good to see video games being taken more seriously.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/23/gaming-makes-hollywood-look-embarrassing

sink

Dog Lipstick wrote: »

Quite an interesting article by Charlie Brooker. Good to see video games being taken more seriously.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/23/gaming-makes-hollywood-look-embarrassing

Well Charlie Brooker started out as a games journalist writing for PC Zone back in the 90s, he's always taken his games pretty seriously.

Dog Lipstick

I didn't know that he had that much of a history in video game journalism, I guess I should rephrase it then and say that "It's good to see mainstream media taking video games more seriously"

Mr E

Good article, but one of the comments did make me smile:

to paraphrase -

'I've been playing video games all weekend and so had to knock this out in 20 minutes on Sunday evening.'

Duggy747

.....and then Duke Nukem Forever comes out and destroys his "games are intelligent" argument :P

Mr E

Duggy747 wrote: »

.....and then Duke Nukem Forever comes out and destroys his "games are intelligent" argument :P

Bulletstorm did that last month, tbf...

Just like cinema, there are lots of genres to suit lots of different tastes. Brooker was focusing on the more cerebral and story driven games. If he does an article next month about strippers, aliens and one-liners in games, I'm sure Duke will get a mention.

humanji

Mr E wrote: »

Good article, but one of the comments did make me smile:

I saw that and couldn't help smiling at it. I'm also following Brooker on Twitter and he pretty much had a review of LA Noire if you put all his Tweets together. It was hilarious trying to defend why he kept going on about it and filling up peoples update pages.

Dont be at yourself

The technology and design of LA Noire and Heavy Rain show that story-telling in videogames can rub shoulders with Hollywood (and Cannes). Unfortunately, it falls down in key areas, specifically in the quality of writing and acting.

I believe that the plots and dialogue of both of those games were largely written by game designers, not professional screenwriters, and it shows. The dialogue is often unnatural ("Your mother's dead. Do you mind if I ask you a few questions?"), and often errs towards melodrama.

The acting too, was not done by top-class actors. The main star of LA Noire's most famous role is a supporting character in a TV series. The Heavy Rain cast are virtually unkown, and it shows (Jason? Jason!?).

Retr0gamer

Think you're giving Heavy Rain too much credit. It's pretty badly written with plot holes, unexplained read herrings and deus ex machina everywhere.

Dont be at yourself

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Think you're giving Heavy Rain too much credit. It's pretty badly written with plot holes, unexplained read herrings and deus ex machina everywhere.

Yeah, I agree. But it's still held up as a current benchmark of videogame storytelling...which shows how much further we have to go.

Retr0gamer

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

Yeah, I agree. But it's still held up as a current benchmark of videogame storytelling...which shows how much further we have to go.

Yeah I agree. Not played LA Noire but seems it's a massive improvement. There's definitely far too many games with really bad writing from game designers that suddenly think they can write a script. I think there's far better games than Heavy Rain that should be held up as a benchmark for storytelling than heavy rain.

Burning Eclipse

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Yeah I agree. Not played LA Noire but seems it's a massive improvement. There's definitely far too many games with really bad writing from game designers that suddenly think they can write a script. I think there's far better games than Heavy Rain that should be held up as a benchmark for storytelling than heavy rain.

*cough* Deus Ex *cough* :pac:

I really like Charlie Brooker. That is all.

humanji

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Yeah I agree. Not played LA Noire but seems it's a massive improvement. There's definitely far too many games with really bad writing from game designers that suddenly think they can write a script. I think there's far better games than Heavy Rain that should be held up as a benchmark for storytelling than heavy rain.

In fairness, ignoring the plot of Heavy Rain, the way in which the story was told is pretty impressive. There's few games with that level of choices which have such a high impact in how the story unfolds. In that regard, I'd say it's a perfect benchmark for non-linear storytelling.

Mark Hamill

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

The acting too, was not done by top-class actors. The main star of LA Noire's most famous role is a supporting character in a TV series. The Heavy Rain cast are virtually unkown, and it shows (Jason? Jason!?).

I really like the acting in Enslaved: Odyssey to the West (the story too, even though it has an unnecessarily Hollywood-y ending, it was good and asks an interesting question at the end), but then again, it has Andy Serkis in it and he's a good actor.

In general, I think developers should use proper professional voice actors rather than regular actors who have little or no experience in voice acting, like Darksiders (Mark Hamill, Phil LaMarr, Fred Tatasciore, Liam O Brien etc). Good voice acting is integral to atmosphere in a game, just like in a movie, bad acting can take you out of the immersion.

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I think there's far better games than Heavy Rain that should be held up as a benchmark for storytelling than heavy rain.

Silent Hill 2

Grumpypants

I think people are too hard on Heavy Rain its far easier to write a screen play for a film that is 1 1/2 -2 hours long compared to writing a story that lasts up to 10 hours and had hundreds of different directions it could go in and to keep it all held together. That said it did have some very dodgy bits.

Also the vast majority of the plot holes i've seen discussed turned out to be people misremembering.

In games i'm also far more involved with the characters in games than in films so find even some of the cheesiest writing still emotional.

johnny_ultimate

Does gaming make Hollywood look embarrassing? Sometimes. Does LA Noire make Pirates of the Caribbean 4 look embarrassing? Probably. Does gaming make film in general look embarrassing? Hell no.

I think Brooker's enthusiasm of LA Noire is a little over-exaggerated. I like the game a lot, and love the gameplay innovations it brings to mainstream gaming (even if Phoenix Wright got there first :P), but it's also flawed and doesn't match up in terms of storytelling to the films that inspired it. There are very few games I think live up to Hollywood standards. Uncharted games were better written (barring the inconsistent morality) in many ways than Indiana Jones 4, for example. But for the most part games can't match up: the only games I'd hold up as stellar examples of storytelling are the likes of Half-Life, Shadow of the Colossus, Braid or even something like Flower that embrace the gameiness of, well, games as opposed to trying to emulate Hollywood.

That said, generic Hollywood blockbuster isn't the benchmark we should hold games up beside. It's good cinema we should be comparing it to - where's our Black Swan, Meek's Cutoff, 13 Assassins or Summer Wars (to name a few fantastic films released since the start of the year) of gaming. We're not there yet. Will LA Noire stand beside The Tree of Life (just awarded the Palme D'or in Cannes) in storytelling terms? Probably or perhaps definitely not, but we're crawling ever upwards.

Grumpypants

Plus you also have to consider the game actually gets in the way of the story, a film director can take you along the path that he decides but a game developer has to buff out the story with gameplay. No matter how great the story is if a game came in at 1 1/2 hours long it would be slaughtered.

johnny_ultimate

Grumpypants wrote: »

Plus you also have to consider the game actually gets in the way of the story, a film director can take you along the path that he decides but a game developer has to buff out the story with gameplay. No matter how great the story is if a game came in at 1 1/2 hours long it would be slaughtered.

That's an issue I thought was particularly obvious with Deadly Premonition. There's a fantastic story in there, full of peculiar and interesting characters. And yet marketing dictated that unwiedly and horrific action sequences had to be added at the last minute. It's a decision so unfortunate that it significantly impacts upon the flow of the narrative, and for the most part is pretty nonsensical (they do sort of explain the combat away near the end of the plot, but IMO I was still puzzled at the end why the **** I kept having to fight annoying enemies).

It's why a lot of the storytelling innovations are left to independent games - ultimately, the cost of making a game is too high and the gamer audience for 'mature' (read: not breasts and gore) storytelling isn't all that high. It's certainly a major problem, and one that will only be solved when there's a big market for thoughtful gaming the way there is for film.

NeoKubrick

The author doesn't understand any of the media industries referred to. The film industry is not synonymous with Hollywood: there are two different machines. A decade ago, series such as Doom, Quake, Half-Life, Halo, F.E.A.R. destroyed Hollywood's action films, which was Hollywood's main trade. So, that article is about a decade late and anyone claiming contrary is about a decade late and counting. Portal 2 is a good game with very high production values and naught more, but there is absolutely no comparison to 2001: A Space Odyssey which stands up today as a grand masterpiece with no equal of it (even though it is static in a lot of parts, BFI IMAX had a midnight screening of it ten days ago and it still had everyone in the audience enthralled by it).

The structure and composition of shots is where Film derives its power from, and games are inherently based upon player input which voids that process and when game developers futilely attempt to have that process (the 'cut-scene'), it does not compare to any Film. It does not compare because if a game developer's attempts were superior to current films, they would be working in the film, not the game, industry. The same is the case with writing. The dialogue in Films is generally inane, because Film is the producer/director's domain. TV is the writer's domain; therefore, if you want set a writing benchmark in digital media, you start with 'The Sopranos', 'Deadwood' or 'Seinfeld'.

The major problem with Games isn't its writing: it is its depiction of the human face. Words are relatively simple to decipher but the human face is relatively difficult. Great actors and actresses can show a great range of emotion through expressions and that is not easily replicated in-game. They understand the limitations of the industry in this area much more than the actual industry does and it is the reason that they phone-in performances for whenever they are offered a gig by a game developer; the limitations of the technology preclude them from demonstrating their talent. Valve, to my knowledge, are the only developers trying to solve this problem.


As an aside, the last great 'action' film from Hollywood was Inception. Ironically, the subject material of this film was directly related to Games: creating and designing worlds for people to inhabit.

Retr0gamer

He never said he was talking about Film, he expressly mentions Hollywood. Nobody is claim Charlie got there first with that article either although it's certainly not the first time he has championed videogames, I keep up with his work and he is going it all the time.

Not sure about saying gaming doesn't have anything to match something like 2001: A Space Odyssey. There's very few games up there with that films narrative magnificiece but I believe some games are on par if not close to it. Games such as System Shock 2, Earthbound, Mother 3, Silent Hill 2 (despite the ropey acting), Shadow of the Colossus and the overarching plot in Panzer Dragoon Saga and Orta I feel offer just as much narratively and in some cases visually as Space Odyssey's exploration of human development.

Got to agree that games really need to stop trying to ape movies. Videogames have player interaction to differentiate it from films and literature and this really should be utilised more. Games have the potential to be much more immersive but it's usually ruined by a non interactive cutscene. It's no surprise that most of the games listed above play to this strength and just wouldn't work outside the medium of games.

As for getting humans right, I think games should step out of the uncanny value and this race to be more realistic because I don't think it's acheiveable. I'm all for more stylised looks and think they can convey far more emotion than any weird looking plasticy lump of polygons vaguely resembling a human.

johnny_ultimate

Coming from the facial expression / uncanny valley side of things, it should be pointed out that the game that provoked this conversation has made significant artistic strides in that direction. Sure, you can still tell the characters are extremely digitised versions of the actors, but LA Noire is a good argument that games can integrate facial expressions into gameplay. Alas, LA Noire is quite removed emotionally - a definite failing of the game - but to have a game tied around identifying believable and realistic expressions is a great achievement. I'm all for stylised visuals (El Shaddai is eye meltingly purty) but LA Noire is the first game since maybe Half-Life 2 that suggests some level of realism can benefit the game.

The 2001 argument is an unfair comparison in many ways - especially with Portal 2, which is an astonishing game by all accounts, and great interactive storytelling, but hardly worthy of comparison with Kubrick. I'll stubbornly defend games, but being honest there's very, very little (if anything) gaming-wise that has had the impact of 2001. Even something like SotC - a rare example of a game whose strengths are atmosphere and ambiguity - lacks the considered, tightly controlled pacing of good cinema. There isn't a single game I can think of that matches the artistry or thematic depth of my favourite films. Yet I'm also happy to appreciate games on their own terms - it is an entirely different medium after all, sort of like comparing a painting and book. Gaming doesn't have its Kurosawa or Kubrick though - we have a tonne of good game makers (the Miyamotos or Mikamis), but no game director has been able to tell a story with the same artistry as the best cinema has to offer. And yet games offer an experience other mediums can't - sure, shooting down monsters with a spaceship on a 2D plane isn't life changing stuff, but it makes for great gaming.

NeoKubrick

Retr0gamer wrote: »

He never said he was talking about Film, he expressly mentions Hollywood.

I suggest you read the article rather than just the sensationalist headline:

Do you remember the days when you used to be able to head out to the cinema safe in the knowledge that even if the film you wanted to see had sold out, there'd be something else worth watching? I'm talking about 10,000 years ago, obviously, because here's what's on at your local multiplex

About once a month there's a film actually worth bothering with: either something with a quirky sensibility and a modest budget, or the occasional decent blockbuster the studios have made by mistake. There seems to be something missing from cinema: big budget dramas with panache, aimed at an adult audience. Where are they? They migrated to television. And – don't snort with derision here – to video games.

And let's not kid ourselves: no game has come close to 2001: A Space Odyssey in terms of visuals or narrative or both. There is no comparison: there's more of a comparison with a Sunday pub football team organized on the pitch based upon where they sit in the local to FC Barcelona.

Retr0gamer wrote: »

As for getting humans right, I think games should step out of the uncanny value and this race to be more realistic because I don't think it's acheiveable. I'm all for more stylised looks and think they can convey far more emotion than any weird looking plasticy lump of polygons vaguely resembling a human.

It's uncanny valley, Retr0gamer. And I disagree because as the hypothesis postulates, the uncanny valley is a stage of history in development that must be traversed through and climbed to achieve the same positive emotional response and empathy from human to human. It's a major problem for Games, but it is solvable if the game industry dedicates resources to solve it.


I haven't played L.A. Noire yet, johnny, but looking forward to playing it.

Retr0gamer

NeoKubrick wrote: »

I suggest you read the article rather than just the sensationalist headline:

I did read it. I think it's pretty obvious he is talking about Hollywoods output and not indie, small production or art house films.

NeoKubrick wrote: »

And let's not kid ourselves: no game has come close to 2001: A Space Odyssey in terms of visuals or narrative or both. There is no comparison: there's more of a comparison with a Sunday pub football team organized on the pitch based upon where they sit in the local to FC Barcelona.

I think there's an argument for it especially with what some indie studios are bringing out. Big budget games are lagging behind but every so often you get something comparable.

NeoKubrick wrote: »

It's uncanny valley, Retr0gamer. And I disagree because as the hypothesis postulates, the uncanny valley is a stage of history in development that must be traversed through and climbed to achieve the same positive emotional response and empathy from human to human. It's a major problem for Games, but it is solvable if the game industry dedicates resources to solve it.

Yawn, I made a typo, deal with it. I'm sceptical that videogame companies will reach that point where they can get out of the uncanny valley. With the budgets required to make games now really stretching publishers and developers and the fact that we are a very long way off I think there might be a plateau of visual quality coming up. Then there's the whole interaction thing where the player will do something unexpected and it will end up looking goofy and shatter the illusion. Maybe something like LA Noire and Heavy Rain which are highly linear might achieve it but they take away a lot of interaction. Something with a lot of freedom is always going to present problems. I think what ever does happen it's going to be interesting to see how far it can be pushed.

Grumpypants

What was a filmed game Mark Hamill was in on the PS1 i think it was.

Mr.Saturn

Grumpypants wrote: »

What was a filmed game Mark Hamill was in on the PS1 i think it was.

Wing Commander.

ghostchant

I don't think Brooker was directly comparing Portal 2 or LA Noire to 2001. He was saying that they're currently the gaming equivalent to films such as 2001, in relative terms. I thought his point was that big budget games need not be watered/dumbed down versions of superior but less successful output, as the success of those two games show, whereas in Hollywood, that is often the case.

As others have said, Brooker is hardly the first to point this out, but arguably (that is to say I don't know for sure) one of the first to point it out in mainstream media.

Mark Hamill

NeoKubrick wrote: »

The structure and composition of shots is where Film derives its power from, and games are inherently based upon player input which voids that process

With a good developer, player input shouldn't void their desire to compose shots. It does throw up certain game specific difficulties (how do I ensure the player sees this scene in a certain way without forcing them to stop playing in a cutscene) but it can be done, look at Shadow of the Colossus (camera position, lighting, environments all come together to direct players to see the scenes the developer wants them to see.

NeoKubrick wrote: »

when game developers futilely attempt to have that process (the 'cut-scene'), it does not compare to any Film.

Only when done badly, when done well (see the helicopter chase scene in Uncharted 2), it works as well as any movie action scene.

NeoKubrick wrote: »

It does not compare because if a game developer's attempts were superior to current films, they would be working in the film, not the game, industry.

Why? You assume that working in the two industries would involve exactly the same skills and conditions.

NeoKubrick wrote: »

The major problem with Games isn't its writing: it is its depiction of the human face. Words are relatively simple to decipher but the human face is relatively difficult. Great actors and actresses can show a great range of emotion through expressions and that is not easily replicated in-game. They understand the limitations of the industry in this area much more than the actual industry does and it is the reason that they phone-in performances for whenever they are offered a gig by a game developer; the limitations of the technology preclude them from demonstrating their talent. Valve, to my knowledge, are the only developers trying to solve this problem.

The biggest problem in the industry is developers trying to tell stories in the same way as the movie or tv industries tell stories, with overly long cutscenes with no player input. The industry should be aiming to perfect story telling through player interaction, storytelling the game is being played, instead of storytelling inbetween gaming sections, thus preserving the thing that makes it so different and special: immersion. Metal Gear Solid is probably the worst culprit for this.
The reason why Steam seems to do so well in storytelling is that they realise this, their games have very few cut scenes with no player interaction, but a lot of well dispersed dialogue and scripted action, so that you constantly feel like you are a part of whats going on. (It also helps that they seem to just put more effort into making their stories too).

Chairman Meow

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

Yeah, I agree. But it's still held up as a current benchmark of videogame storytelling...which shows how much further we have to go.

Only by people who have never read a story, or seen a film. There's much better examples of storytelling in games than Heavy Rain. Hell, games like Grim Fandango had better stories than Heavy Rain and that came out in 1998.

Im ony up as far as the white shoe slaying in Noire, but its acting and storytelling as already leagues ahead of Heavy Rain, which was at best nonsensical, and at worst, plain laughable.

Mark Hamill

NeoKubrick wrote: »

no game has come close to 2001: A Space Odyssey in terms of visuals or narrative or both.

Really? Why? What are games lacking in visuals or narrative that 2001 has?

Chairman Meow

Oh and for what its worth, i thought 2001 was a boring pile of ****e

Mark Hamill

Chairman Meow wrote: »

Only by people who have never read a story, or seen a film. There's much better examples of storytelling in games than Heavy Rain. Hell, games like Grim Fandango had better stories than Heavy Rain and that came out in 1998.

Im ony up as far as the white shoe slaying in Noire, but its acting and storytelling as already leagues ahead of Heavy Rain, which was at best nonsensical, and at worst, plain laughable.

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 ).

Retr0gamer

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.

Mark Hamill

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I'm not even sure the gameplay in Heavy Rain should be praised either. It was basically Dragons Lair with branching paths.

Some of it I did find needlessly awkward, but there where a few scenes where the gameplay came together with the story quite well (

the lizard? challenge, where the main character had to cut off his finger was well done, I was cringing the whole through, and each extra step or movement requirement to set up the cut added to the dread

)

Mensch Maschine

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

The technology and design of LA Noire and Heavy Rain show that story-telling in videogames can rub shoulders with Hollywood (and Cannes). Unfortunately, it falls down in key areas, specifically in the quality of writing and acting.

I believe that the plots and dialogue of both of those games were largely written by game designers, not professional screenwriters, and it shows......'

I've always thought this. Especially with GTA IV. They tried to write something that was original but it was out of their depth and reeked of them wanting to be taken seriously. They should stick to the more zaney writing of Vice City and San Andreas.

I'd love to see David Simon (The Wire) or David Chase (The Sopranos) write something for GTA or some game similar.

Retr0gamer

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.

Magill

Chairman Meow wrote: »

Oh and for what its worth, i thought 2001 was a boring pile of ****e

HAHA, me too... watched it a few years ago, nearly fell asleep..... I guess its an ole man thing.

Lord of the Rings would have been a much better example to use as its sort of comparable to alot of the great games that have been released over the last few years.

For me... there are far more games that just completely suck me in, compared to films. Hopefully The Last Guardian can take the story telling and emotional attachment to the next level in video games.

johnny_ultimate

Magill wrote: »

I guess its an ole man thing.

*raised eyebrow*

As someone who has adored 2001 since I first saw it in my teens, I'm always a bit bemused by the 2001 is boring comments - slow isn't necessary boring. I guess it's more of a film-lovers film though - its strengths of pacing, cinematography, music and narrative ambiguity I'll readily admit aren't what everyone looks for in a film. And yet I have had few cinema experiences as memorable as seeing the glories of 2001: A Space Odyssey on a big screen.

Oh, we're meant to be talking about games, right? Well, blame Mr. Brooker for bringing up what is - in my opinion as both a film and gaming fanatic - a quite frankly ludicrous comparison. Is Portal 2 the equivalent of 2001? Maybe: they both certainly have a mastery of their respective medium. Yet I still don't think there's any point in comparing the two - I still think we're lacking anything gamewise to equal the scope and themes of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Luckily, we have a number of games that are astonishingly accomplished in terms of gameplay to keep us going.

Retr0gamer

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.

Magill

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

*raised eyebrow*

As someone who has adored 2001 since I first saw it in my teens, I'm always a bit bemused by the 2001 is boring comments - slow isn't necessary boring. I guess it's more of a film-lovers film though - its strengths of pacing, cinematography, music and narrative ambiguity I'll readily admit aren't what everyone looks for in a film. And yet I have had few cinema experiences as memorable as seeing the glories of 2001: A Space Odyssey on a big screen.

Oh, we're meant to be talking about games, right? Well, blame Mr. Brooker for bringing up what is - in my opinion as both a film and gaming fanatic - a quite frankly ludicrous comparison. Is Portal 2 the equivalent of 2001? Maybe: they both certainly have a mastery of their respective medium. Yet I still don't think there's any point in comparing the two - I still think we're lacking anything gamewise to equal the scope and themes of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Luckily, we have a number of games that are astonishingly accomplished in terms of gameplay to keep us going.

I guess it depends what your comparing.. the whole package in a game like portal is, for me, a better experience than what any film can offer. It is pointless comparing the two because unlike film, there are just so many other aspects to gaming that you can't put on the big screen.

It was just hard for me to be impressed by 2001 since i only watched it a couple of years ago... It didn't have the WoW factor that maybe it would have had if i watched it 15 years ago.

johnny_ultimate

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

Retr0gamer

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:)

johnny_ultimate

The best thing about RDR was how it encouraged me to pick up a Sergio Leone boxset :P

Retr0gamer

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.

Magill

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

Retr0gamer

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

Skerries

games need more bewbs, no seriously!

Retr0gamer

Anyone that doesn't think the jiggly physics of the dead or alive games are less interesting than 2001 a space odyssey needs to examine their sexuality.

Randomer.

Magill wrote: »

Lord of the Rings would have been a much better example to use as its sort of comparable to alot of the great games that have been released over the last few years.

Maybe but the context was the pinnacle of cinema, something that 2001 is even if its not to some peoples taste or comprehension where as lord of the rings is not.

Don't get me wrong, I thought the LOTOR films were excellent and brooker would have done better to compare gaming story telling to those films as imo gaming is a long way away from reaching the levels of 2001 or Apocalypse now etc. But I feel its only a matter of time.

(I did enjoy the KOTOR series more than the new star wars movies that's for sure.)

I find it ironic though how he mentions the decline in cinema quality, hollywood etc The more expensive the movies become to make the less risk people are willing to take on something as bold as said films that would 'bore' the average joe soap. I say this because I'm seeing the same thing with gaming. The current gen consoles and so on. I'm enjoying LA Noire but its no where near how good it could be if these worries were not present and if it was released on PC instead for example, but that was never going to happen. It was a console game so it was only ever going to scratch at its full potential.

However I think it has opened the door to a lot of things and it is certainly a mile stone. Devs need to work out how to mix top gameplay with high quality writing that really can rival the greats, and take a risk if we're going to see any one big leap. But the way the industry works these days its all still baby steps.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Oh, we're meant to be talking about games, right? Well, blame Mr. Brooker for bringing up what is - in my opinion as both a film and gaming fanatic - a quite frankly ludicrous comparison. Is Portal 2 the equivalent of 2001? Maybe: they both certainly have a mastery of their respective medium. Yet I still don't think there's any point in comparing the two - I still think we're lacking anything gamewise to equal the scope and themes of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Luckily, we have a number of games that are astonishingly accomplished in terms of gameplay to keep us going.

Couldn't agree more.

Retr0gamer wrote: »

System Shock 2 explores the same themes of 2001 and is better because it has Shodan

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.

One of my biggest regrets in my time as a gamer was missing out on this game. In fact I ordered it with my 1st gaming pc (you had a choice of free games ) but it never came with it (was sold out) can't remember what ****ty game I got instead.

At the time ignorant me knew nothing of how excellent the game was supposed to be, was only about 6 years later I started to become aware of what I missed out on.

Skerries

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

jill_valentine

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.

Randomer.

Skerries wrote: »

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

Of course I agree. Gaming, or 'video gaming' can go anywhere from rivalling non virtual forms of entertainment such as boardgames, puzzle games, chess and the likes all the way up novels and big movies, hell even sport.

Something non gamers find hard to understand. As a form of entertainment, the term video games encompasses such a wide variety how it is we are entertained and challenged.