Director of Prince of Persia says Video Games Cannot do Drama

J7.

J7.

CAGiversary!
Feedback
6 (100%)
How little this man knows about video games is appalling especially when he gets the job of directing a film based on a game. Anyone who has sat and played a quality game with a story knows games can do drama and do it even better than movies at times because you're interacting within that drama, you feel it even more than you do within a movie sometimes. Even the fact that games can do cutscenes or even live action as part of it proves him completely wrong.

Here is what Mike Newell said:

"Well, here we are, talking about the God damn games again. The answer is yes, of course they can become a threat to Hollywood. But [they cannot] do so with drama in any real sense.

When people watch 24, they're watching for the surprise, you know - when is the great big bad surprise going to step out from behind the palm tree. When they watch The Wire, they're watching the human drama of it. You can't do it without the human drama.

And the video game cannot do that. The video game can do all sorts of face-pulling, all sorts of: 'I am a bad man, I have a mean jagged sword,' but it can't do any more than that."


Read more: http://g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/706594/Director-Mike-Newell-Games-Cant-Do-Drama.html#ixzz0vF5ZUW1N
 
It's annoying to hear these kind of comments, and I think this whole situation about games only being able to prove themselves by becoming movies is BS.

Books will always shine the brightest as books, and games will always be best experienced as games. Both can make for great films, but first people need to understand the original medium before transferring it over to a different one. These directors and critics are all old fashioned. They talk about the beauty of Shakespeare (hi, Ebert) while dismissing video games as mindless entertainment, even though Shakespeare was acknowledged the same way during his time.

Maybe when were all dead someone will dust off Shadow of the Colossus and be like, "oh, I get it now."
 
Dramatic narrative:
Xenosaga, Final Fantasy Tactics, Final Fantasy VII, Chrono Trigger, Starcraft, Warcraft, Bioshock, GTA, etc

Then there's drama I believe is created from being in the types of situations you can find yourself, that I would call internal drama:
Silent Hill, Resident Evil, Call of Duty, Prey, Condemned, etc

Then there are games that blend this such as in Chrono Trigger dealing with Lucca's mother's situation and the fact that
you could've prevented it from happening.
 
[quote name='Chacrana']Well that's funny... as it turns out, Mike Newell can't do drama either.[/QUOTE]

:lol: It's too bad he can't see that for himself.
 
[quote name='Chacrana']Well that's funny... as it turns out, Mike Newell can't do drama either.[/QUOTE]

Mike Newell has directed...

Four Weddings and a Funeral
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
Mona Lisa Smile
Pushing Tin
Donnie Brasco
Enchanted April
Young Indiana Jones Chronicles

This is to say nothing of his long track record of work in England I am less familiar with. Prince of Persia had its problems, but he is hardly an unqualified director. More likely Prince of Persia had a bad script from the beginning and intruding producers. Not to mention the poor lead casting choice.

And, of course, he's right. I've played every heralded "art" video game and yet to find one as dramatic as a really good film. Heavy Rain comes the closest maybe, but even it is more like a bad straight-to-DVD film.
 
Those films are hardly all-time classics. He may not be an unqualified director, but in the realm of video games he has no idea what he is talking about.
 
Instead of using this thread to talk about why videogames can have drama, why don't we just talk about how HORRIBLE Prince of Persia was?
 
[quote name='elwood731']Mike Newell has directed...

Four Weddings and a Funeral
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
Mona Lisa Smile
Pushing Tin
Donnie Brasco
Enchanted April
Young Indiana Jones Chronicles

This is to say nothing of his long track record of work in England I am less familiar with. Prince of Persia had its problems, but he is hardly an unqualified director. More likely Prince of Persia had a bad script from the beginning and intruding producers. Not to mention the poor lead casting choice.

And, of course, he's right. I've played every heralded "art" video game and yet to find one as dramatic as a really good film. Heavy Rain comes the closest maybe, but even it is more like a bad straight-to-DVD film.[/QUOTE]

Metal Gear Solid series, mostly MGS3 though.
 
[quote name='elwood731']Mike Newell has directed...

Four Weddings and a Funeral
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
Mona Lisa Smile
Pushing Tin
Donnie Brasco
Enchanted April
Young Indiana Jones Chronicles

This is to say nothing of his long track record of work in England I am less familiar with. Prince of Persia had its problems, but he is hardly an unqualified director. More likely Prince of Persia had a bad script from the beginning and intruding producers. Not to mention the poor lead casting choice.

And, of course, he's right. I've played every heralded "art" video game and yet to find one as dramatic as a really good film. Heavy Rain comes the closest maybe, but even it is more like a bad straight-to-DVD film.[/QUOTE]

I find it funny the only game that comes close to you is one that is designed most like a film.

Every game is a piece of art, albeit 95% are trash (just like in every medium). If games don't personally hit that "dramatic" spot for you, that doesn't mean they don't affect others. Are movies better at being "dramatic?" well that's largely up to personal taste.

I still don't understand or give a shit about Picasso paintings for example, but it conveys something to people, so it's art. Bottom line, you can't use the same standards of one medium to judge another.

Videogames are interactive, you know... So why are we just looking at plots and metaphors?
 
[quote name='panzerfaust']I find it funny the only game that comes close to you is one that is designed most like a film.[/quote]
There's likely something to be learned there. I love Ico as a game, but it's not nearly as dramatic as even an average film. Compare it to say, Junebug, and one is real art while the other is a very good video game with a lot of excellent artistic elements, and a sort of juvenile story.

Every game is a piece of art, albeit 95% are trash (just like in every medium). If games don't personally hit that "dramatic" spot for you, that doesn't mean they don't affect others. Are movies better at being "dramatic?" well that's largely up to personal taste.
Click to expand...
No. Every game is not art. Every film is not art. Every song is not art. They may contain artistic elements (such as images, music, stories, etc.) but that does not make them art.

And it is not "personal taste." This is a misnomer largely of recent years that supposes everyone's opinion is of equal weight. This is not true. My opinion does not carry the same weight as a critic trained in fine art, nor should it. This is why Thomas Kinkade may make pretty pictures, but he is not considered art.

I still don't understand or give a shit about Picasso paintings for example, but it conveys something to people, so it's art. Bottom line, you can't use the same standards of one medium to judge another.
Click to expand...
Actually, yes you can. Art in film, paintings, music, literature, etc. share some of the same qualities. Picasso may not be your favorite painter, but if you knew much about art you would care about his work. Again, it doesn't have to be your favorite, but you do learn to respect it for what it is. That's why an artist like Mike Newell's opinion generally counts more than some random person playing video games.

Videogames are interactive, you know... So why are we just looking at plots and metaphors?
Click to expand...
Because if you focus on only the interactive bits, you move dangerously away from anything resembling art and to essentially games or sport. No one confuses football for art, and the only thing that separates Call of Duty from football, really, is the story. This is not true of all games, but most.
 
[quote name='elwood731']Mike Newell has directed...

Four Weddings and a Funeral
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
Mona Lisa Smile
Pushing Tin
Donnie Brasco
Enchanted April
Young Indiana Jones Chronicles

This is to say nothing of his long track record of work in England I am less familiar with. Prince of Persia had its problems, but he is hardly an unqualified director. More likely Prince of Persia had a bad script from the beginning and intruding producers. Not to mention the poor lead casting choice.

And, of course, he's right. I've played every heralded "art" video game and yet to find one as dramatic as a really good film. Heavy Rain comes the closest maybe, but even it is more like a bad straight-to-DVD film.[/QUOTE]


youre not really listing goblet of fire as a positive to his career are you ? that film was shit every film after the second one has gotten progressively shittier outside of finding out that the chick who played fluer did a topless scene in another flick there were no pisitives in that movie. especially the way they gimped down the finale challenge of the tri wizard cup.

the movie industry has been jealous of the gaming industry or a whle now and its comments like this that show it.
 
[quote name='elwood731']There's likely something to be learned there. I love Ico as a game, but it's not nearly as dramatic as even an average film. Compare it to say, Junebug, and one is real art while the other is a very good video game with a lot of excellent artistic elements, and a sort of juvenile story.[/QUOTE]

If were going to keep using the word, "dramatic," I'd be curious as to what were defining it as. Because I'd agree Ico isn't exactly built to be a dramatic experience. It can convey other emotions to players, but dramatic isn't the word I'd use for them.

No. Every game is not art. Every film is not art. Every song is not art. They may contain artistic elements (such as images, music, stories, etc.) but that does not make them art.
Click to expand...
I just really disagree with this. A kindergartner's macaroni sculpture is art to me, no matter how low quality art it may be, it contains something. Critics will argue that other art pieces are higher in quality and like you, I'd agree with them.

And it is not "personal taste." This is a misnomer largely of recent years that supposes everyone's opinion is of equal weight. This is not true. My opinion does not carry the same weight as a critic trained in fine art, nor should it. This is why Thomas Kinkade may make pretty pictures, but he is not considered art.
Click to expand...
If the definition of art is only made by people who claim to understand it, well that's just an awfully ambiguous situation. Like you,I tend to trust in people who are cultured experts in that particular field. Ebert seems to get movies, he doesn't seem to get games, just as I don't get Picasso.

Although to be honest, most gaming critics these days don't "get" games either.

Actually, yes you can. Art in film, paintings, music, literature, etc. share some of the same qualities. Picasso may not be your favorite painter, but if you knew much about art you would care about his work. Again, it doesn't have to be your favorite, but you do learn to respect it for what it is. That's why an artist like Mike Newell's opinion generally counts more than some random person playing video games.


Because if you focus on only the interactive bits, you move dangerously away from anything resembling art and to essentially games or sport. No one confuses football for art, and the only thing that separates Call of Duty from football, really, is the story. This is not true of all games, but most.
Click to expand...
Videogames contain aspects of all other art forms, you're right. I was just saying that it's interactivity that separates the medium as whole, so you can't just look at say, the plot and dialogue of a game like Shadow of the Colossus and say it lacks depth -- when the most powerful emotions of that game are conveyed through the design of the game itself.
 
[quote name='lokizz']youre not really listing goblet of fire as a positive to his career are you ? that film was shit every film after the second one has gotten progressively shittier outside of finding out that the chick who played fluer did a topless scene in another flick there were no pisitives in that movie. especially the way they gimped down the finale challenge of the tri wizard cup.

the movie industry has been jealous of the gaming industry or a whle now and its comments like this that show it.[/QUOTE]

I would say you're in the vat minority in thinking the Potter films have gotten worse as they went along.
 
[quote name='panzerfaust']If were going to keep using the word, "dramatic," I'd be curious as to what were defining it as. Because I'd agree Ico isn't exactly built to be a dramatic experience. It can convey other emotions to players, but dramatic isn't the word I'd use for them. [/quote]

Let's use a basic definition:
–noun
1.
a composition in prose or verse presenting in dialogue or pantomime a story involving conflict or contrast of character, esp. one intended to be acted on the stage; a play.
2.
the branch of literature having such compositions as its subject; dramatic art or representation.
3.
the art dealing with the writing and production of plays.
4.
any situation or series of events having vivid, emotional, conflicting, or striking interest or results: the drama of a murder trial.
5.
the quality of being dramatic.
Click to expand...

Of those, probably definition 4 is most useful for our purposes, though I would argue it's still a bit more complicated than that. Having said that, I find few video game stories to be real drama. Many are melodramatic, and that's fine. But, for example, when people brag to me about the great story in Halo, all I can think is how boring it is compared to a movie like District 9, which itself is not exactly a great movie.

I just really disagree with this. A kindergartner's macaroni sculpture is art to me, no matter how low quality art it may be, it contains something. Critics will argue that other art pieces are higher in quality and like you, I'd agree with them.
Click to expand...

Again, I'll take a general definition:

–noun
1.
the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.
Click to expand...
A child's artwork does not rise above ordinary significance to me. It's cute, and we may encourage it and even adore it as a parent, but it isn't art. But that can be an issue of semantics.

If the definition of art is only made by people who claim to understand it, well that's just an awfully ambiguous situation. Like you,I tend to trust in people who are cultured experts in that particular field. Ebert seems to get movies, he doesn't seem to get games, just as I don't get Picasso.

Although to be honest, most gaming critics these days don't "get" games either.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's as simple as those who claim to understand it, but someone who has some authority over the form. I would grant a lot more significance to Will Wright about games or film than I would the average person on the street. For Mike Newell, an award winning filmmaker, I will grant him he knows a thing or two about art. He might eventually be shown to be wrong, but I'd agree that no game has gotten close to a good film yet. To bad films? Sure.

Videogames contain aspects of all other art forms, you're right. I was just saying that it's interactivity that separates the medium as whole, so you can't just look at say, the plot and dialogue of a game like Shadow of the Colossus and say it lacks depth -- when the most powerful emotions of that game are conveyed through the design of the game itself.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but what emotions are conveyed through the game design? Gameplay is based on me pressing buttons in order to get audio and visual cues in response. The actual pressing of buttons returns little in emotional response. It's the audio and visual cues that convey all the emotion. If there's no plot, then I'm simply running around attacking things. For example, look at Tetris. Is it art? It's a wonderful game, but what separates it from Scrabble or Monopoly? Are either of those art? Or football? So it has to be the added elements that make games even worthy of being considered art or having a dramatic impact.
 
[quote name='elwood731']I would say you're in the vat minority in thinking the Potter films have gotten worse as they went along.[/QUOTE]

just becaue the movies sell well doesnt mean theyre great or quality films. harry potter has a rabid audience that will go to any film ragardless of how bad they are much like those people who keep seeing tranformers movies.

do a poll on cag im sure many people here would agree with me.
 
Spoilers of SOTC ahead

Interactivity (pressing buttons) is exactly what makes a game like Shadow of the Colossus emotionally powerful. Since you're actually the one controlling the protagonist (
or antagonist, one could argue in SOTC's case
) -- it makes the whole experience more personal.

When you release your finger from the final charged strike on a colossus, you're not only letting go of the button but a bunch of pent up emotions (relief, sadness, pity, different people have felt a wide variety). Are there gamers out there who will simply be like, "big deal, now where's my trophy?" -- sure. Just as there are those people you see great movies with who walk out saying, "That movie was dumb, way too much talking."

Could a movie achieve a similar feeling? Perhaps. But just as a LOTR movie can never approach the depth of the books without boring the audience, a movie of Shadow of the Colossus will never be able to convey the feeling of despair when you press the O button to call for Agro, knowing he's never going to come back.
You could watch that cutscene where the horse falls from the bridge. But it's never going to equal the experience of knowing that you were the one who chose to take that jump in the first place, making you aware of the selfishness of the act and both the amazing bond the character shares with his horse, as well as the undying determination in bringing back a loved one back to life.

Visuals and audio both help these dramatic sequences, sure, but a game can do things other mediums cannot. A book can immerse you with details and description, a movie must do so with visuals, transferring either to each other would result in a different experience.

I'm not going to sit here and talk about every game to make a case though. And honestly, if videogames truly aren't "art," well that doesn't make them any less capable in conveying powerful messages.

It's like telling someone baseball isn't a sport because reason X, as if it's going to change the intensity and skill of the game itself.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Is there no drama in returning back to your village to find it being burnt to the ground and you're family killed or captured while you were gone? Isn't there more drama because you theoretically could've gone back there during the game by your own actions due to it being a game, and that it is now upon your shoulders to seek a resolution to all of this?

Notice that you were not able to go back during the game to prevent it (but the allusion is there) so those who claim it is nullified by the option of choice are misinformed. On your way to seeking the solution you are filled with the drama of why this all occurred, uncovering it little by little, and little by little why you're involved and what is happening to those you love.

Anyways, here is Ebert's latest posting regarding the situation of games as art. http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/07/okay_kids_play_on_my_lawn.html

[quote name='panzerfaust']Spoilers of SOTC ahead

.[/QUOTE]

Can you please spoiler tag them because I'd like to read your point.
 
[quote name='panzerfaust']Visuals and audio both help these dramatic sequences, sure, but a game can do things other mediums cannot. A book can immerse you with details and description, a movie must do so with visuals, transferring either to each other would result in a different experience.[/quote]
Agreed, which is why the process of adaptation is so difficult. Which is why I imagine our friend above thnks the first two Harry Potters are the best films, because they are the closest adaptations (literally almost scene for scene). They also happen to be the least interesting as films.

I'm not going to sit here and talk about every game to make a case though. And honestly, if videogames truly aren't "art," well that doesn't make them any less capable in conveying powerful messages.
Click to expand...
I agree. I think video games might be able to convey powerful messages and emotions. I think so far, with the games I've played (and I've been playing since the Atari days), no game has ever matched the dramatic punch of a good film or novel. That being said, I obviously get quite a bit of enjoyment out of the medium. And I'm fascinated by how much it has evolved in just the last twenty years. But right now no Final Fantasy (even 6 which I love) or other game has gripped me the way the best of the other mediums have. That doesn't make them a useless form, however.

It's like telling someone baseball isn't a sport because reason X, as if it's going to change the intensity and skill of the game itself.
Click to expand...
A good example might be cheerleading, which was recently legally ruled not a sport. Is it? Apparently not, but that doesn't lessen what the young men and women doing it have put into it. Or at least it shouldn't. No one is saying video game players or developers should be ashamed, just that they should be realistic about the evolution of the medium and not quite view it as high art yet.
 
I'm glad we can compromise here but I still feel as if you're dismissing the experiences of others simply because they aren't famous critics/game developers.

I'm not a 13 year old kid telling you how much I cried when Aeris died. There are legitimate gaming experiences that I've found to be more engrossing than highly praised films and books. To say a game is better then a movie or vice versa, obviously makes no sense -- but I don't think the final debate has to be put on hold simply because certain people haven't persoanlly been impressed yet.

As said before, Shakespeare was trash to "art" critics in that era as well. They weren't hit powerfully by those writings or performances back then, but now it's a mandatory staple in studies around the world. This goes the same for a lot of famous musical compositions as well.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='panzerfaust']I'm glad we can compromise here but I still feel as if you're dismissing the experiences of others simply because they aren't famous critics/game developers.[/quote]
Not really. I'm just saying when it comes to any discussion, I'll put more stock in those than the average person. The average person thinks the Transformers movies are good. Or Twilight Or a whole host of other things. Even the Price of Persia film did decent at the box office. I don't give equal weight to everyone's opinions.

I'm not a 13 year old kid telling you how much I cried when Aeris died. There are legitimate gaming experiences that I've found to be more engrossing than highly praised films and books. To say a game is better then a movie or vice versa, obviously makes no sense -- but I don't think the final debate has to be put on hold simply because certain people haven't persoanlly been impressed yet.
Click to expand...
Then I would suggest you read more and watch better films. Sure, lots of people hate Citizen Kane as a film. They're, of course, not wrong in their personal taste, but they do probably lack an appreciation for the film. Any student of film can tell you why it's better than any video game, even if they personally don't love the film.

As said before, Shakespeare was trash to "art" critics in that era as well. They weren't hit powerfully by those writings or performances back then, but now it's a mandatory staple in studies around the world. This goes the same for a lot of famous musical compositions as well.
Click to expand...
I think you're overstating this a bit. Shakespeare was more akin to a Spielberg of his day, having both critical and commercial success. It's why his high art is filled with low-brow humor.
 
I'm a bit taken aback at what you're getting at here.

You haven't taken a heavily dramatic experience from a game so games still have a way to go in catching up to movies. I've experienced some strong messages from games that have impacted me more than great films, but that simply means I should "watch better films."

That's pretty blatant elitism.

If you're argument is that I'm "average" compared to you, and I can't possibly reach an understanding of whatever amazing movie you have floating around in your head right now -- then I guess were back to square one. I understand arguments made for great films and respect them for it, and simply because I enjoyed a game more doesn't make that movie lesser in quality. You literally cannot compare across mediums in that way.

I'd love to end this with the possibility that we may just have different preferences in entertainment, but apparently this is delving down into who's a better human being.
 
There is plenty of drama in video games. Hell, RPGs, namely JRPGs are built off of it. I remember playing Final Fantasy X multiple times getting emotionally attached to some characters and witness the the drama that was ALL over that game. Same with Mass Effect 2. Do all games do it? No. Do more movies do it? Yes.

I would really like to see if this guy has played a video game. I'm wonder if his biased is based on mainstream games that casual gamers play such as Madden. It's also funny because Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time is one of the best games ever made with plenty of drama. It's a very beautiful game too.
 
[quote name='panzerfaust']IThat's pretty blatant elitism.[/quote]
Yes, it is. That's the nature of art. This is why we review movies, games, music, etc. Some is worthwhile, and some is not. I have no qualms with saying I'm an elitist when it comes to art. Who wouldn't want to be? There's too much garbage to not be one.

Now, if you mean that as a general put down, you're wrong. Being an elitist about art means you don't waste your time with movies like Swordfish, but instead focus on quality action films like Terminator 2, Aliens, Die Hard, etc. Most everyone on this board is an elitist about games.

I'd love to end this with the possibility that we may just have different preferences in entertainment, but apparently this is delving down into who's a better human being.
Click to expand...
It has nothing to do with being a better human being. I suggest if you think video games are equal in dramatic power to films and novels that you expand your horizons in film and literature. I have no idea what your background in either field is, but I can assure you that none of the games mentioned here touches the best in either medium. It's not even close. And just about every title here I've played and enjoyed--even been in awe at times of what they managed with it.
 
One of my favorite books is The Godfather. For me it was the most "dramatic" novel I've ever read -- I think it even made my hands sweat at times just reading it. I'm not terribly well cultured in literature, and as result I'm sure there are layers of that book that I still can't fully appreciate. I have however, felt even more drawn in with a certain few video games.

To you, it seems, that would make me a culturally dumb person. Not because you claim to be an elitist in terms of thinking books and movies are superior, but because you can't fathom someone being engaged in a game more so than you were, or at least to levels equal to your list of great movies. That type of elitist nature is nothing to be proud of. That is precisely the same thing as denouncing a great movie simply because it didn't resonate with you. It can't be great if I didn't think so, right?

If the movie elitist in you just wants to dismiss others as not fully understanding great works, then I'd suggest that you remain open to the possibility that you don't fully understand game design.

You are the one, after all, who legitimately asked how the design of Shadow of the Colossus helped convey its emotional experience.

I think that alone is enough to set us a part on this argument, and respectfully disagree with each other from this point on.
 
Elwood why don't you come up with some examples of specific movies that are more dramatic than specific games?

[quote name='GhostShark']There is plenty of drama in video games. Hell, RPGs, namely JRPGs are built off of it. I remember playing Final Fantasy X multiple times getting emotionally attached to some characters and witness the the drama that was ALL over that game. Same with Mass Effect 2. Do all games do it? No. Do more movies do it? Yes.

I would really like to see if this guy has played a video game. I'm wonder if his biased is based on mainstream games that casual gamers play such as Madden. It's also funny because Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time is one of the best games ever made with plenty of drama. It's a very beautiful game too.[/QUOTE]

I'm pretty sure Mike Newell has barely played any games if any. He had to watch someone else play Prince of Persia to make the film based of it. As for Ebert, he refuses to play any games even when people set up the system and game for them or basically hand him the controller. It is one thing to experience a medium, meaning you play more than 1 game or watch more than 1 film and you do it enough until you "get it" and experience it for what it really is, than to make accusations and claims against it without even giving yourself a genuine experience of it.
 
[quote name='J7.']Elwood why don't you come up with some examples of specific movies that are more dramatic than specific games?[/quote]

That's not the type of argument that's being made here, or that you want to make for that matter.
 
I haven't played a game that can convey the subtlies of great acting with its characters as some films do. With that said, I have certainly played games that have given me a sense of drama.
 
[quote name='panzerfaust']To you, it seems, that would make me a culturally dumb person. Not because you claim to be an elitist in terms of thinking books and movies are superior, but because you can't fathom someone being engaged in a game more so than you were, or at least to levels equal to your list of great movies. That type of elitist nature is nothing to be proud of. That is precisely the same thing as denouncing a great movie simply because it didn't resonate with you. It can't be great if I didn't think so, right?[/quote]
Well, yes, to some degree. How do you determine a great game? By your opinion, right? But is the opinion of your five-year-old brother, cousin, neighbor, etc. as valid as yours? I doubt you think so, because they are likely spending most of their time playing Toy Story games. Of course, there's nothing wrong with that, and when they tell you it's the best game ever you might try to push them in the direction of better, deeper experiences.

Now, you're obviously not five, nor do I think of you in that position, but yes, generally anyone who tells me that a video game has the same dramatic impact as the best films, novels, plays, etc. I will think is inexperienced to some degree. The Godfather is an excellent example that is both a great film and book, and a decent video game. Does it come close to either other format? Nope.

But I think Newell made an excellent example with 24. It's hardly high art, but I've never played a video game that even came close to its emotional impact. Some maybe with twists that surprised me, but never to the human emotional impact.

If the movie elitist in you just wants to dismiss others as not fully understanding great works, then I'd suggest that you remain open to the possibility that you don't fully understand game design.

You are the one, after all, who legitimately asked how the design of Shadow of the Colossus helped convey its emotional experience.

I think that alone is enough to set us a part on this argument, and respectfully disagree with each other from this point on.
Click to expand...
I asked a question for you to explain your perspective. That doesn't make me ignorant of the possible explanations, just giving you an opportunity. Nothing I've heard makes me reconsider Team Ico's games. While fun, they hardly compare to great art yet.

I could be wrong, but the stories are emotional impact of those games is on the level of children's films, not great art. I mean, you might be able to make a comparison to something like The Neverending Story, but that's hardly a great film (fun and entertaining, but not high drama).

As for not understanding game design, I have no desire to get into an Internet pissing match on credentials. I will say that I have a pretty decent understanding, and I have yet to play a game that made me go, "Wow, this blows away Tolstoy, Ford, etc." I think you're barking up the wrong tree with the gameplay angle. That's the least artistic aspect of games.

But if you want an excellent example of a game approaching art, I have one for you--World of Warcraft. That probably sounds silly, and in truth I don't even play the game, but it comes close to being performance art with millions of people worldwide essentially creating a shadow civilization that mimics and yet differs from ours. Creating storylines to play through and character back stories to enhance them. That's close to theatrical drama, and actually very interesting in this discussion. But that has little to nothing to do with the gameplay mechanics. Those are no more interesting than pressing play on a DVD player.
 
Your whole argument about WoW is based off player interactivity within the game world. It has everything to do with gameplay mechanics -- they are the foundation that "civilization" is built upon.

Simple things to you like, "hey, press this button when my health gets low" is a socially bonding experience to millions of gamers who do it every day within guilds, trusting each other in each of their roles to overcome great obstacles. I know very well that WoW is a very unique experience, I played the game for 4 years. Just as you would scoff at my comments about The Godfather, I too find your comments on games to be a little naive.

You can sit here and go game to game anyalzing an aspect you think is key in movies while dismissing interactivity as the "least artisitic aspect" in games. But you couldn't more wrong when saying so. Perhaps if I took the plot, script, and corny dialogue of FFXIII and compared it to that of The Godfather movie you'd suggest that your point is clearly made. But it's the interactivity of that game that makes all those cutscenes and dialogue powerful (and no I'm not trying to make an argument for either of those titles being "better' than another, such an endeavor would rip a hole in space and time).

You can't seperate a game into cutscenes and call it laughable compared to a movie without letting the interactive portion complement it. I would hardly think it fair to remove an orchestral piece from a movie's battle scene and judge it on the music alone.

Gameplay mechanics are far more interesting than "pressing play on a DVD player," which again is a reason why I think this debate should be finished. I think we both have things to learn here.
 
[quote name='panzerfaust']Your whole argument about WoW is based off player interactivity within the game world. It has everything to do with gameplay mechanics -- they are the foundation that "civilization" is built upon.[/quote]
But eh gameplay mechanics aren't at all interesting in WOW. They're a means to an end, in this case the role playing the game allows.

Simple things to you like, "hey, press this button when my health gets low" is a socially bonding experience to millions of gamers who do it every day within guilds, trusting each other in each of their roles to overcome great obstacles. I know very well that WoW is a very unique experience, I played the game for 4 years. Just as you would scoff at my comments about The Godfather, I too find your comments on games to be a little naive.
Click to expand...
Again, the pushing of the button is not artistic. The elements within the game, such as the guilds you mentioned, are what are interesting. Think of it this way--strip everything away froma film except the score. Could that still be interesting? Sure. Cinematography? Sure. Now do it with a game. Score? Sure. Cut scenes? Sure. Gameplay? Not really. It's a mechanic to build everything else off of. This is pretty basic.

Now, can the gameplay be fun? Sure. But gameplay is a game, or sport, and alone is not art or dramatic. Is it part of the final product as a whole? Sure. Does it tie all those elements together? Sure. But it's more mechanical than artistic. Now, the game design (rules of the way the world works) are much more interesting.

You can sit here and go game to game anyalzing an aspect you think is key in movies while dismissing interactivity as the "least artisitic aspect" in games. But you couldn't more wrong when saying so. Perhaps if I took the plot, script, and corny dialogue of FFXIII and compared it to that of The Godfather movie you'd suggest that your point is clearly made. But it's the interactivity of that game that makes all those cutscenes and dialogue powerful (and no I'm not trying to make an argument for either of those titles being "better' than another, such an endeavor would rip a hole in space and time).
Click to expand...
Granted, the interactivity does add something to the package, but it isn't exactly an artistic quality. It's a mechanic. No more than "swing bat, hit ball" is art.

You can't seperate a game into cutscenes and call it laughable compared to a movie without letting the interactive portion complement it. I would hardly think it fair to remove an orchestral piece from a movie's battle scene and judge it on the music alone.
Click to expand...
Addressed above. But I don't think I am suggesting to remove the gameplay, simply suggesting that the gameplay doesn't really add much artistic merit to the game. I think you give to much credit of the emotional impact of a game to your own actions, and not the fundamental design of the game from the creators.

Gameplay mechanics are far more interesting than "pressing play on a DVD player," which again is a reason why I think this debate should be finished. I think we both have things to learn here.
Click to expand...
Interesting? Maybe. Artistic? Not really. They're a means to an end. That's why likely the most interesting game design in recent years has come from the seasoned veterans trying to strip away conventions. Go back to Ocarina of Time when they removed the jump button. People threw a fit at the time, but the point was that the control aspect didn't matter. The puzzles, story, design of Hyrule, etc. all mattered a million times more.

If anything, gameplay gets in the way of most games with convoluted control schemes that drag down interactivity and the experience of the game. And as I noted, if gameplay were art, then Tetris would be art. It's the purest, probably best gameplay ever designed. But it isn't art--it's a game. There's nothing dramatic about it in the conventional sense.
 
[quote name='J7.']Elwood why don't you come up with some examples of specific movies that are more dramatic than specific games? [/QUOTE]

I would say anything off the AFI Top 100 list beats any game, pretty much. I haven't looked over that list in a while, but that's a fair bet.

Same with literature. Anything on the AP English exam list would work well. I haven't seen that list in years, but it's generally fairly sound.

But to give a more specific example, space games are extremely popular in video games. And from System Shock 2 to Halo to whatever else, there's been some fantastic titles. But none of these compare artistically or dramatically to 2001: A Space Odyssey. That is not to say they aren't dramatic in some sense, but they lack the real human development, emotion, and scope of the film.

That's fine. Video games may very likely get there someday, but they just aren't there yet. Video games right now mostly remind me of early silent films. Very raw and sort of unsophisticated in drama. Games like Knights of the Old Republic are making stabs at adding dramatic weight to the gameplay with their morality system, but they're not quite there yet.

Do I think they will? Likely someday. Likely someday in the next couple of decades, but even then they have decades or centuries to catch up on other mediums. Part of the problem is the fundamental constraints of the medium. Much like how film is more fairly compared to short stories than novels.
 
we know this medium is art, and old people don't. this is how it always is. It doesn't matter what old people think. They will be dead soon. The only thing we can do is learn to not become close-minded as we get older.
 
I honestly can't quite wrap my head around your side of this now, to be honest. I think we are so far apart now in how we interpret things that I can't really understand how you come to these statements.

You've blown my mind, so perhaps I'll try to do the same for you. Gameplay is art, and the example you so often like to fall back on, Tetris, is art as well. What exactly does Tetris have to convey to us beyond cleanly stacking blocks upon one another with twitches of a finger? Well, as I said before all along, different messages for different people.

I actually found a fun article about this and the different meanings behind Tetris have apparently been discussed by many different people before, some which being:

These comparisons highlight some crucial elements of Tetris's structure.

  • The theme of unbridled ambition is conceived from Tetris's gradual and consistent increase in difficulty.

  • The theme of God's magnificence is conceived from Tetris's infinite field of play, which lacks an ending boundary.

  • There is also a theme of randomness as an obstacle, conceived from Tetris's randomization.
Click to expand...
If someone were to take those elements seriously from the game's experience, would you call them uncultured, naive, or perhaps mistake them for a 5 year old? It's just Tetris, after all.

And if you then want to go back to the "dramatic" argument, well I'll persoanlly chime in and say that Tetris can get pretty intense depending on the player ;)
 
[quote name='panzerfaust']If someone were to take those elements seriously from the game's experience, would you call them uncultured, naive, or perhaps mistake them for a 5 year old? It's just Tetris, after all.[/quote]
Actually, I would say that person has no idea what they're talking about. No such themes exist in Tetris. No more than Hungry Hungry Hippos is a commentary on American consumption. You can make up whatever you want, but there has to be evidence to support it. This is basic analysis taught in any high school English course.

So no, Tetris is not art because it's a game--nothing more and nothing less.

And if you then want to go back to the "dramatic" argument, well I'll persoanlly chime in and say that Tetris can get pretty intense depending on the player ;)
Click to expand...
Again, you're misunderstanding drama in the way that both Newell and I are using it. We're speaking of dramatic art, not the equivalent of whether or not Taco Bell gets your order right in the drive-through window.
 
Yeah I wasn't totally board sick of this stupid, tired, repetitive, pointless fucking discussion (film industry people saying disparaging things about the vidya) after the Ebert thing (or even before). Let's just keep repeating it forever!


Pretentious drama/art snobs who just strongarm state that videogames simply aren't dramatique like films, period
- VS -
Drooling dopes who think that the plots of GTA4 or Shadow of the Colossus are high art and that old people just don't "get it"

Round 2, FIGHT!​
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The last bit about drama was a kind of a joke =/

Anyways, you also learn in any high school English course that works of art are often up to individual interpretation, and that's often what you write papers on trying to support your argument with "evidence."

"What themes does this book portray?"

Well, the author has been dead a long time now, and his book went by largely unnoticed when he was alive -- anything I interpret is only what I can personally draw from the writing (or from what sparknotes drew from it). If you were the teacher and simply said "No" to my paper -- well art would be a lot less interesting of a subject. It's meant to be discussed, and for people to share their experiences.

--

And as for the poster above me, discussions involving the endless and cheesy praise of ICO games and such annoy me too, sorry I had to use it =D
 
[quote name='panzerfaust']Anyways, you also learn in any high school English course that works of art are often up to individual interpretation, and that's often what you write papers on trying to support your argument with "evidence."[/quote]

Right, evidence. My point about Tetris. No evidence.

Well, the author has been dead a long time now, and his book went by largely unnoticed when he was alive -- anything I interpret is only what I can personally draw from the writing (or from what sparknotes drew from it). If you were the teacher and simply said "No" to my paper -- well art would be a lot less interesting of a subject. It's meant to be discussed, and for people to share their experiences.
Click to expand...
Any English teacher who told you art is up to individual interpretation and that all views were worthwhile was a horrible English teacher. This could not be further from the truth. unfortunately, this is often how classes get taught, especially due to current education theories that state all views are valid. They're not.

Watch John Ford's The Searchers and you could make an argument that the film is pro-racism. Except, you'd be wrong. The film is very much anti-racism. The film layers it on scene after scene. You'd have no evidence for your view, and making any argument for it would show poor thought and understanding of the film. A teacher should reward a paper like this a generous D, or more rightly an F. They should scribble a big NO across it. This person did not understand the film.

True, some art is open to interpretation. Short stories such as The Lady or the Tiger, and Shiloh are meant to be debated and interpreted. But even with them you can't very well argue that he chose the door with Medusa behind it, or that she runs off to rob banks. There's no evidence to support either of these.

So yes, you can think Call of Duty 4 has the most dramatic storyline ever. You're always entitled to an opinion. Just, in this case, you'd be wrong.
 
For anyone who doesn't actually want to read the rest of this thread, here's what it's going to be like for the next 5 pages, if it lasts that long:

Poster 1:
Pssht, even (Game X)'s plot, for all the praise it gets, still isn't as good as The Seventh Seal, in fact IT ISN'T EVEN AS GOOD AS MARMADUKE YOU DRIVELING CLODS, BWAHAHAHA.
Click to expand...
Poster 2:
No, Game X was very moving and it taught me a lot about life and thus, it's art, and that's JUST MY OPINION because ART IS PERSONAL and you can't deny that.
Click to expand...
Poster 1:
Look, you'd better stop arguing with me because I don't want to turn this into a credentials grudge match but I'll go there if I need to to prove that I'm right. (*took intro film appreciation class at community college, dropped out mid-semester, but still remembers some of the terminology*)
Click to expand...
Poster 2:
Hey I have some credentials too so yeah we'd better not even go there or it'll get ugly (*once watched 2001: A Space Odyssey while stoned*)
Click to expand...
Poster 1:
Look I took Serious Business Drama 101 at a prestigious university so I think I know what I'm talking about, and I learned there that videogames aren't art, not even close, that's a fact, you can put that on Wikipedia. You opinion is wrong. ARGUMENT OVER. :cool:
Click to expand...
Poster 2:
IT'S MY OPINION OKAY. AND HEY, WHAT ABOUT GAME Y, THAT WAS EVEN MORE DRAMATIC THAN GAME X. :bomb:
Click to expand...
Poster 1:
No, that was dumb compared to Wild Strawberries, too.
Click to expand...
:argue: :argue: :argue:

Rinse, repeat, ad nauseam.
 
cagdrama.jpg
 
[quote name='panzerfaust']That's not the type of argument that's being made here, or that you want to make for that matter.[/QUOTE]
Why, because movies on average have much better stories and dialogue than games? The interactivity of gaming allows for games to be more dramatic despite having inferior stories and dialogue. That is similar to making the argument that a person experiences more drama by doing nothing but reading incredible stories versus someone who lives an average life. The person living an average life is going to experience much more dramatic situations than the person who does nothing but read the best stories.

I believe some games already have much more dramatic moments within them than any movies I've watched. Maybe the entire game may not though. However, I'm willing to bet a few have. While the potential is there for gaming to blow away movies in terms of drama due to it being interactive. Gaming is in its infancy as we speak.

[quote name='CoffeeEdge']For anyone who doesn't actually want to read the rest of this thread, here's what it's going to be like for the next 5 pages, if it lasts that long.[/QUOTE]
Please refrain from trying to destroy the thread for those that do want to talk about this in terms beyond what you stated.
 
Video games have an opportunity that movies don't have. They give you the chance to spend hours upon hours learning about the world and characters in the game. They don't have a time limit in which they must squeeze all of this in. Some video games reach 80 hours just to complete the story, which allows them to build intricate and complex stories that intertwine and twist. Mainly RPGs have used this to their advantage since they are basically built on story, but I think we will soon be seeing other genres building equally well-written stories. Video games give us the opportunity to become emotionally attached on a whole new level because we are the characters and we play through their choices and thoughts as if they were our own.
 
[quote name='momouchi']Some video games reach 80 hours just to complete the story,[/QUOTE]

Some games might take 80 hours to tell the story, but they certainly don't actually have 80 hours of story content in them. Only a small fraction of that playtime is spent relaying the plot. The entire plot of, say, Final Fantasy VII could be condensed to just a few hours, without losing much.
 
[quote name='CoffeeEdge']For anyone who doesn't actually want to read the rest of this thread, here's what it's going to be like for the next 5 pages, if it lasts that long:[/QUOTE]
I find it interesting that you come into a topic where you have nothing to add to the actual conversation and attack those who are attacking. Why is that?

Is it because you feel left out? You're always welcome to join in. We're an inclusive lot.

Is it because you don't understand? I'm sure someone would be happy to explain the conversation to you.

Is it because you're angry? What makes you feel mad? Is it something we said?

Is it because you're not sure how to relate to others? They have classes for you. Happy, warm, inviting classes.

I am sure your response will be more anger, but are you sure it's not CoffeeEdge you're really angry about? Something to think about my little friend. Something to think about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top