Jimquisition: Videogames Are Not Movies, Get Over It

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 . . . 30 NEXT
 

I'm sorry but we already have a fat guy who loves comic books and talks about "The Big Picture" along with an angry fellow who speaks of dicks with an English accent. Does the Escapist need something that combines the two?

I didn't mind the show, although I think the original premise of it was so obvious it appeared silly (of course video games aren't movies). The rest of it was fine though. Maybe with some better production values, this show'll fit in better.

I just noticed that his video files under the "douchebag" category... really no shit, douchebag is one of the tags... the troll has become self aware.

Let gaming's biggest douchebag explain to you how games aren't films, films aren't games, and David Cage will never be a moviemaker.

Why is this pile of shit on the Escapist again? Baffling.

Lot of new videos on the site recently. This one doesn't really do enough to justify itself for me, although the same content in a weekly column would be good, I think.

yeaahhhh I highly doubt im gonna become a regular viewer. oh well at least he tried to offend be on a weekly basis

Meh, nothing new or improved. I'll give next week's video a shot but if its not vastly improved I won't be watching more.

Edit: Captcha = Irrational isnit...somehow that seems fitting.

SageRuffin:

LiquidGrape:

SageRuffin:
Yay, another video series about how video games are supposed to have a deeper meaning other than just being fun. I understand that video games can have phenomenal narratives, writing, direction, etc, but must we constantly have this argument about the whole games as art" thing?

Go ahead, talk about how I have a lack of higher thought process or whatever. I'll be over here getting my kicks with Bulletstorm (pun not intended).

Actually, I think you'll find Sterling is on your side in that particular question.

Personally, I find his angle depressing and reductive.

"Mindless fun is the most artistic form of expression I can think of."
I honestly do not know how to respond to that.

I'm not quite sure what to say to that myself, but I don't mind stupid, senseless fun. Hell, that's the main reason why I'm so excited for the new Mortal Kombat and Duke Nukem: they're both just so delightfully cheesy. And if not, then shame on me for dropping $100 for them (I like special editions).

But all that's besides the point. I certainly know that games are not movies, and that's one of a few reasons why I won't touch games like Heavy Rain with a 29.5-foot pole (hell, I wouldn't touch it with a 30-foot pole). I could care less about the whole "games are art" argument; I - speaking purely as an individual - simply want some enjoyment, whether that be from pulling an infinite in a fighting game, shooting someone in the balls and laughing at their screams of agony, or hearing about how to factions of robots are on the verge of civil war due to a mathematically-engineered conflict of interest.

I don't mind stupid mindless fun, either; but I'd like to get pulled into a beautiful experience then do something that's the mirror the equivalent of playacting with a toy.

GloatingSwine:

Jumplion:
It proved that you don't need explosions, gunplay, or blood+guts everywhere to sell a game,

And meanwhile Wii Sports is the highest selling game of all time and is so "mature" your gran could play it.

David Cage, Ur Doin It Rong.

That...proves nothing and you are intentionally missing my point. One, it was sold with the Wii. Two, Wii Sports is still a shallow game; a good one, but still a shallow one (And I'm sure you'll argue that Heavy Rain is shallow aswell, but whatever).

You knew what I meant when I said that. Don't try to twist this.

GloatingSwine:
It isn't, however a very good one. It's not a type of game which moves the industry forward, it's a new Phantasmagoria, a shitty interactive movie that trades on this "mature" narrative but doesn't actually make a compelling play experience. And that is why it fails, it doesn't do what games do, it just retreads old mistakes that most of the rest of the industry grew out of along with digitised video.

That is entirely subjective. I thoroughly enjoyed Heavy Rain despite its flaws, and there is still plenty you can take from it.

Interactivity is the thing which seperates games from other media, it's the one thing that games can do that nothing else can. When you take that interactivity out you destroy what made the medium worth a damn in the first place.

...and? Is interactivity the only thing that games should evolve on? There are plenty of non-interactive aspects that games can, and should, evolve from. Just because it's what separates gaming from other mediums doesn't mean it should be the only thing we strive for. Heavy Rain goes for innovation (and it is innovation, good or bad depends on how you see it) in the story department with a branching story structure that can only be done through an interactive medium. It's just one thing out of many.

Heavy Rain might have a "mature" narrative, but as a game it isn't worth World 1-1 of Super Mario Bros.

Again, entirely subjective. I enjoyed Heavy Rain despite its flaws, and based on the concept alone I'm glad it sold as well as it did. It is far from a great game, more of a "good" one to me, but it's a game just as much as Super Mario Bros, Metal Gear Solid, or Half-Life is a game. It's just a different kind of game.

Woodsey:
"I think Cage just imagines the pedestal is there"

You've just put him on one.

I'm sorry, I don't quite get that. Could you elaborate?

And what's the point in looking at it in an optimistic light "just because"? We can use Minecraft to show how popular games can be without the need for violence. We can use Half Life and Portal for dialogue and storytelling. We can use Mafia and PoP: The Sands of Time for a strong leading character, for character development and chemistry.

And I would completely agree with you. I don't see why we would have to restrict ourselves to just Heavy Rain in that department, each of those games bring something to the table that is an evolution or an innovation in their respective aspects. Is it that hard to imagine that Heavy Rain, whether or not it's a good or bad, successful in it's vision or not, also does this?

David Cage is irrelevant. All those games did what he thinks he can do (they also fit in more than just the categories I put them in by the way, just using their best features), and they did it much better.

And I completely agree with you. David Cage is irrelevant. Doesn't mean Heavy Rain didn't contribute to the table as well.

I dunno, I'm just an optimistic guy I suppose.

Welcome to the escapist jim.

Yaaay more jimquisition :3

I like what he has to say; I'd like it more if he'd stop saying it as if he was presenting it to a hostile audience that doesn't want to hear it.

In other words: have some confidence that he doesn't have to shout anyone down and turn down the "douchebag". (I can say that because it was in the description, right?)

Rickyvantof:
What's the point of making a video if he just stands there. This could've been an audio file, like ZP or even better; an article. Him standing in front of a camera wearing a pair of hideous glasses and flapping his left hand about doesn't add any value whatsoever.

Agreed, it is visually boring and looks plain amateurish.

It might just be a slow start, but to be honest, all the elements in this show are done better by other shows on the Escapist, and it lacks anything to distinguish itself beside the tacky suit, sunglasses and accent.

hmm interesting but... He just was saying the same thing over and over again for 5minutes to fill the show... the amount that he talked about could have been done easily in 1-2minutes... That is if he could have stopped saying that video games are not movies and movies aren't video games... And if your going to say a statement like oh i don't know... "Video games are different then Movies because they started out differently." Great then explain how don't just say that and go off to something else only to then later make the statement again just to extend your rant.

I like Movie Bob's Yahtzee's and Extra Credit team a lot because they are able to not only talk about a topic but are able to explain in detail why they like it and not go over the same point again and again. Will see how next week goes but right now just really isn't anything special.

katsumoto03:
Because I needed another reason to hate Mondays...

This guy wins whole thread. No I didn't read all of the comments, and there is no way I'm going to.

I didn't enjoy this guy's video at all. Maybe he'll get better next week, but if this is any indication of what we are in for, then colour me unimpressed.

I guess an easy example would be horror.

Horror movies are held in low esteem in general, as opposed to horror games (a few years ago at least), which were held in high esteem.

It's easy to see how an interactive well made experience trumps any horror film out there for fear value; your active involvement is unprecedented in comparison to the movie category.

Ideally we'll see this ported over to other 'genres', perhaps even on to a 'drama genre' level.

his first minute was spot on. THen he becomes a tard.

The video itself: I found it a bit sparse. It basically this guy talking uninterrupted to the camera for 5 minutes. Unless they add something interesting to look at, this might as well be a podcast or something and would perhaps work better as one.
Also, I don't really think this guy comes across as "gamings biggest douchebag" like he imagines he does. Probably not necessarily a bad thing (theres a reason why "the game anti-thinker" is considered some of Bob's worst stuff), but I don't really see why its an ideal to be held up. Yahtzee comes off as much more harsh and apologetic than this guy.

His point:
While each medium has certain unique criteria to be assessed on there are also a bunch of criteria which are the same.
There are plenty of things which exist in games which it simply doesn't make sense to judge a film based on, a filmmaker doesn't ever have to think about the "skill level" of his audience for example (provide an easy mode, where all the subtext and metaphors are explained by big red text on the screen). Likewise a gamemaker won't need to care about shot composition if everything is seen though a first person camera.
On the other hand, if your game is telling a story (ie. pretty much every game excluding sports and sims), then there are plenty of criteria that are just as important in a game as they are in a film. Acting, plotting and scripting are just as important for making a good game as they are for making a good film, and we will judge them in exactly the same way. If a game requires you to care about the characters, then they get some knock-off writers and hammy voice actors, then it has clearly failed. You can assess a film's plot and dialog in exactly the same way as a books, you can assess its soundtrack in exactly the same way as a albums, you can judge the cinematography like photography. In fact, there are very few aspects to film which aren't also of some importance in games.
Now a game which completely fails in acting, plotting, scripting, cinematography etc. (or even lacks in it completely) and still has great gameplay can still be a fun game, whereas a film doesn't have anything much to fall back on if these are shit.

Even now, most game makers haven't really figured out how to combine interactivity and storytelling, so games still tell their stories in pretty much the same way as a movie. If you took out the gameplay sections and just left the cutscenes, most games would suffer very little in the story department. Its a rare thing that a game like Bioshock comes along, where you learn the story though aspects unique to games, like the level design, combat mechanics and how your actions influence the world.
So until they work out how to do this better, then the comparisons between games and films will be entirely justified.

[... I hope to god someone reads this.]

Jumplion:

GloatingSwine:

Jumplion:
It proved that you don't need explosions, gunplay, or blood+guts everywhere to sell a game,

And meanwhile Wii Sports is the highest selling game of all time and is so "mature" your gran could play it.

David Cage, Ur Doin It Rong.

That...proves nothing and you are intentionally missing my point. One, it was sold with the Wii. Two, Wii Sports is still a shallow game; a good one, but still a shallow one (And I'm sure you'll argue that Heavy Rain is shallow aswell, but whatever).

You knew what I meant when I said that. Don't try to twist this.

GloatingSwine:
It isn't, however a very good one. It's not a type of game which moves the industry forward, it's a new Phantasmagoria, a shitty interactive movie that trades on this "mature" narrative but doesn't actually make a compelling play experience. And that is why it fails, it doesn't do what games do, it just retreads old mistakes that most of the rest of the industry grew out of along with digitised video.

That is entirely subjective. I thoroughly enjoyed Heavy Rain despite its flaws, and there is still plenty you can take from it.

Interactivity is the thing which seperates games from other media, it's the one thing that games can do that nothing else can. When you take that interactivity out you destroy what made the medium worth a damn in the first place.

...and? Is interactivity the only thing that games should evolve on? There are plenty of non-interactive aspects that games can, and should, evolve from. Just because it's what separates gaming from other mediums doesn't mean it should be the only thing we strive for. Heavy Rain goes for innovation (and it is innovation, good or bad depends on how you see it) in the story department with a branching story structure that can only be done through an interactive medium. It's just one thing out of many.

Heavy Rain might have a "mature" narrative, but as a game it isn't worth World 1-1 of Super Mario Bros.

Again, entirely subjective. I enjoyed Heavy Rain despite its flaws, and based on the concept alone I'm glad it sold as well as it did. It is far from a great game, more of a "good" one to me, but it's a game just as much as Super Mario Bros, Metal Gear Solid, or Half-Life is a game. It's just a different kind of game.

Woodsey:
"I think Cage just imagines the pedestal is there"

You've just put him on one.

I'm sorry, I don't quite get that. Could you elaborate?

And what's the point in looking at it in an optimistic light "just because"? We can use Minecraft to show how popular games can be without the need for violence. We can use Half Life and Portal for dialogue and storytelling. We can use Mafia and PoP: The Sands of Time for a strong leading character, for character development and chemistry.

And I would completely agree with you. I don't see why we would have to restrict ourselves to just Heavy Rain in that department, each of those games bring something to the table that is an evolution or an innovation in their respective aspects. Is it that hard to imagine that Heavy Rain, whether or not it's a good or bad, successful in it's vision or not, also does this?

David Cage is irrelevant. All those games did what he thinks he can do (they also fit in more than just the categories I put them in by the way, just using their best features), and they did it much better.

And I completely agree with you. David Cage is irrelevant. Doesn't mean Heavy Rain didn't contribute to the table as well.

I dunno, I'm just an optimistic guy I suppose.

As in, you're putting him on a pedestal when he failed. I mean, his writing ability isn't anywhere near the top of what other games have.

"Is it that hard to imagine that Heavy Rain, whether or not it's a good or bad, successful in it's vision or not, also does this?"

Should we hold up Daikatana as an awesome experience because that's what the creator's vision for it was?

Hmm...

I agree with his point. I also think he's looking at it in a much more shallow way than he should.

For one, the comparison with film is not an inherently, constantly evil thing. I think looking at other mediums in order to further understand and develop ours is a perfectly good and helpful thing to do early on. That said, video games are past that stage and, as Jim said, we need to develop our own way. Games are not inferior to any other medium.

But there is a bigger issue at work here. Namely, games may not be inferior, but they are more diverse. Meaning that we can still say the storytelling in games still needs developing without saying it's "inferior to other mediums." Rather, there simply aren't enough games focusing on story (since, unlike other mediums, we also have competition and social games to offer), and there are so many different ways to tell stories in games that there is still a lot of exploration and innovation to be done.

Here's the thing; some of those ways may be similar to other mediums.

His bashing of Heavy Rain really got to me. First, he presented it in a similar way that Fox News presents video games; taking the bits that most drastically go against the cited standards and ignoring the bits that go along with it perfectly. He straight-up said he hates Heavy Rain, but that was just bad journalism, if such a term can even apply here.

Secondly, just because Heavy Rain strives to be movie-like does not mean it's wrong, or holding the industry back, or selling itself short; it means it's going for a cinematic experience, and there's nothing wrong with that goal. Should all games do this? Absolutely not. Should that style of gameplay be held as the holy grail of interactive storytelling? Of course not. But that does not mean the goal of making a movie-like interactive experience is somehow wrong. So many people just don't get this, despite how basic it is.

On a note more specific to the show itself, I get that this is supposed to just be a rant, but he presents himself like an angry fanboy. No credibility, no respectability, no indication he knows what he's talking about, just him ranting wildly about something he doesn't like. Regardless of what he says, that is a huge problem. Only time will tell if I dedicate my weekly time to this show, but it's not looking good.

Not one to mince words, is he?

Ugh, this guy is about as funny as the Nostalgia Critic (that isn't good).

...The box isn't amazing, it just covered with oragomi stuff but, I use it to store ALIENS comics...

I'm with you so far...

Interesting new voice on the site, curious to see how this turns out.

Weak video with a weak point delivered in a weak argument. No duh, a game is not a movie, but guess what, they both can be narratives. So using the three act structure in a game is not a bad idea. Using dynamic characters that change throughout the gameplay and develop is not a bad idea. Using antagonists with clear plot points with the protagonist is not a bad idea.

Bioware has been using that stuff to pump out game after game and it just so happens that the last game they made Dragon age 2, which is least like a movie, is the worst. Are games movies? No. Should games take some cues from movies to better deliver their messages? Yes.

This guy has no camera presence. This isn't a show, this is a VLog. This belongs on Youtube, not the Escapist.

This would be a lot better as just a forum post like what Yahtzee and Movie Bob does between movies. At least they as well as Extra Credits provides some entertaining pictures, I don't want to sit and listen to you rant when I could just easily read it, that way I can skip to the fucking point.

Jumplion:

...and? Is interactivity the only thing that games should evolve on? There are plenty of non-interactive aspects that games can, and should, evolve from. Just because it's what separates gaming from other mediums doesn't mean it should be the only thing we strive for. Heavy Rain goes for innovation (and it is innovation, good or bad depends on how you see it) in the story department with a branching story structure that can only be done through an interactive medium. It's just one thing out of many.

Quite frankly, yes. And I don't mean that all games should strive to be open world complete freedom types, but that games should not compromise the fact that they are games to try and emulate films. Which, shock motherfucking horror, was the point of this video.

There are other, better ways to blend narrative into games that do not sacrifice interactivity. The interrupt actions in Mass Effect 2, for instance, allow you to control cutscenes to better impose your version of Shepard onto the universe. The scene in Metal Gear Solid where Gray Fox is trapped against a wall by Metal Gear and although you can line up a shot Snake refuses to fire and kill Gray Fox along with Liquid, but you still have to pull the trigger.

That kind of interactivity with a narrative is what games can do that other media can't, and they do it without sacrificing the rest of the game.

If you pare the interaction down to the absolute minimum as in Heavy Rain and it's predecessors in the interactive movie sphere (because no, it's not innovative, the old Blade Runner game did branching narrative and was still more of a game. This stuff has been done before, it didn't catch on because it turns out it's not very good), you've lost all of what makes games worthwhile and interesting, and all you've done is made a crap movie with multiple endings.

cream:

katsumoto03:
Because I needed another reason to hate Mondays...

This guy wins whole thread. No I didn't read all of the comments, and there is no way I'm going to.

I didn't enjoy this guy's video at all. Maybe he'll get better next week, but if this is any indication of what we are in for, then colour me unimpressed.

This stupid damn git actually has a bunch of these videos on youtube; AND THEY ALL SUCK.
This guy personifies everything embarrassing about this medium.

Seriously, up until now (Lisa Foiles obviously excluded, sorry) I could trot each and every one of these people (regardless of how I felt about them) without feeling like a retard; but, Jesus Christ, this guy makes me hate gaming culture even more.

I go on fucking Escapist to see a view of gaming that doesn't make me want to curse the entire medium, yet, this moron gets trotted out? This is so disrespectful. He's an arrogant, opportunistic, fat, misogynistic idiot who deludes himself into thinking he's everything but. Did anyone hear something that they didn't already fucking know? I think more insightful thoughts and ideas while posting comments on this website.
I HATE THIS GUY.

This guy makes me want the industry to implode and crash; at least these dumbasses could get different jobs than ineffective, toothless, unstimulating pseudo-trolling. God, this guy wants to be a troll; I'm saying that his simple little thoughts can't even come up with something to ignite a emotional response. (As you can see, I'm getting pissed off and emotional because this guy is on the only site where I can see insightful thought about gaming; rather than because of his toothless opinions.)

Sorry, not all that impressed. Maybe it's because I don't like seeing the face of someone who does video game related content... or movies.

English moviebob? He's right though but the big problem is that they need something to guide them and there is a lack of creativity there and the extra credits guy said awhile back the writers for these games were often used to the book or the television or even the movie theatre as a medium rather than games.

TheSkaAssassin:
o...k...

I don't get it. Why do we need more videos people rambling into a microphone and calling it "commentary"? We have Yahtzee, Movie Bob (twice a week), and Extra Credits.

the extra credits team don't rant they are basically interesting lectures on the industry

Ehhh, not really a lot to keep my attention and it seems to be just a combination of Moviebob's style of ranting with Extra Credit's attempt to educate. Its a good idea, but it just bland when compared to what's already around. Not to mention that its on a topic I don't care for.

New video series? Let's try it out!
*Clicks.*
Oh, no. I've seen this guy before and he grates upon my soul.
*Close browser window.*

Sorry, nope. This is the third time I've seen this guy and the third time I couldn't sit through the entire video. He could be agreeing with me completely and I still couldn't stand him. Presentation no different than any other Youtube vlogger and yet more annoying.

Pass.

I would like him if it wasnt for all the dicks...

I'm not impressed.

It's five minutes of repetition. In the same time frame, things could have been fleshed out far better. And they really needed to be, because I presently disagree with a substantial amount of the stuff stated in the video. Even in the few cases where example was brought up, it was brought up with respect to arguments that couldn't really be helped by example-giving, and the example was usually nonrepresentative, such as using The Room as a representative for film storytelling.

Also, the low production value combined with the angry and vulgar tone made for a rather painful effect. Even if the argument was good, I think I would have very strongly disliked the video.

You know it's bad when I could walk in front of a camera and offer a more interesting view on this niche topic.

From now on when picking shows, I think the Escapist should follow this standard: If the video was presented by a nobody as an entry in their annual film festival, would it win? If the answer is no, then there is a serious problem. This would not have even made first pick status in the film festival. I'm really stressing to think of what the benefit of adding this to the lineup is.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 . . . 30 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here