#1 Posted by RedCream (777 posts) -

What do you think video games elicit or exhibit better than any medium of entertainment like books, movies etc.?

I think it is the atmosphere. So what's your opinion?

#3 Posted by Bell_End (1234 posts) -

i can't 'play' books or movies.

#4 Posted by EVO (4018 posts) -

A sense of accomplishment. No film or book has made me raise my fist in the air like I did when I beat Super Meat Boy.

#5 Posted by Grillbar (1945 posts) -

@Bell_End said:

i can't 'play' books or movies.

if you cant play movies how do you watch em' then. and you can play audio books.

Just saying

#6 Posted by mandude (2670 posts) -

Greater emotional attachment to the story's characters.

#7 Posted by imsh_pl (3447 posts) -

Story choices and attachment to characters.

#8 Posted by Bell_End (1234 posts) -

@Grillbar said:

@Bell_End said:

i can't 'play' books or movies.

if you cant play movies how do you watch em' then. and you can play audio books.

Just saying

i watch films and read books. i play games.

i do get what you mean though. the word play could be used for pressing play on the DVD player. and if i can't 'play' them then how do i watch them

#9 Posted by CosmicBatman (322 posts) -

I enjoy games that are open and let you explore and discover the world. You can't achieve this in a book or movie in the same way.

#10 Posted by Ares42 (2928 posts) -

Engagement. I've never played a game that's been better than a movie at telling a story, immersing me in a setting or creating interesting characters (sure, a good game might be better at these things than a bad movie, but that's an unfair comparison). However I have never ever been at the end of a movie and felt like I actually accomplished something, or even better, felt like I was in the middle of a project and had something to look forward to and plan for. Games allow you to take part and control and manipulate something. They allow you to "grow" and explore.

I like the way Gearbox have been describing it, as a hobby. A game is more than entertainment, it's an activity. It's something I can focus on over a long period of time and that can become part of my life and something I can share with friends. And while this all sounds sorta crazy and fanatic (and obviously doesn't ring true with a lot of modern games), it's the one thing that truely seperates videogames from passive entertainment.

Online
#11 Posted by RPGee (775 posts) -

A sense of engagement and agency is more prevalent in games, even though it could be argued that the agency is imaginary in linear games. It's part of why I don't watch TV much anymore, because I don't feel as much engagement as I feel I should.

And also I don't watch TV because most stuff on it is terrible.

#12 Posted by theodacourt (582 posts) -

The interactivity of the medium requires more attention of you than a book/film/tv. This interactivity increases the sense of engagement that other people have mentioned. Eventually games will be able to achieve the same things as other mediums do now, only better, but it will take time.

Pretty much everything anyone says that makes games better than other mediums for them is probably caused by the interactive nature increasing the users perception of the work.

If it's pure game play like SMB or a sport game then competition is again something you can't find anywhere else, and competition can only be achieved with interactivity.

#13 Posted by dungbootle (2501 posts) -

I don't think video games are better than anything else. I think every form of media can be just as enjoyable and hit the same emotional notes as any other if it is good enough.

#14 Posted by JoeyRavn (5109 posts) -

@theodacourt said:

The interactivity of the medium requires more attention of you than a book/film/tv.

That really depends on the game and book/film/TV show, though.

#15 Posted by Fallen189 (5298 posts) -

They're probably the lowest form of entertainment. That's not to say I don't enjoy them, because I like videogames, but in terms of engagement, production values and story, they're dead last.

#16 Posted by Daneian (1306 posts) -

I like the sense of being able to explore worlds. I still fondly think of Super Mario 64, Banjo-Kazooie and Mega Man Legends and how I could run around their environments and just find stuff.

#17 Posted by nutter (138 posts) -
@GenocidalKitten

Horror is exactly my thought as well. I played Silent Hill 2 in my studio about a decade back with my wife. Reaching into holes or descending into dark depths was just horrifying.

I wasn't watching James do these things and feeling a sense of exhileration. I was doing them and feeling an odd sense of intense dread.
#18 Posted by theodacourt (582 posts) -

@JoeyRavn said:

@theodacourt said:

The interactivity of the medium requires more attention of you than a book/film/tv.

That really depends on the game and book/film/TV show, though.

I wasn't saying that other mediums don't earn and deserve attention (most often more so than games), but a film/tv show will carry on without your attention if it's poor and I often find myself re-reading paragraphs of average books because I'm distracted by its mediocrity. Even a bad game requires quite a focused mind to continue. It's like Patrick said about Amnesia, being forced to turn a corner yourself heightens the experience compared to a film where it would happen anyway where you can disconnect yourself from the experience if you want. With games you can't disconnect. I truly think that games can use this to their benefit in ways other than horror in the future but it will take a long time to get there and create more engaging stories one day.

I can sit through a bad film but I couldn't sit through a bad game because it demands so much of my attention on that base level of interactivity.

#19 Posted by MikeGosot (3235 posts) -
@GenocidalKitten said:

I think that games could do horror the best if they did it right, because in movies, books and TV shows, you just watch or read about someone in a horror situation but, in games you are that person.

No. You're not James Sunderland, or Alan Wake, or Chris Redfield, or Isaac Clarke. You're directing them, and i think that's the main problem of horror games: You are the director of the horror, while in movies or books, you are a victim of it.
#21 Edited by MikeGosot (3235 posts) -
@GenocidalKitten said:

@MikeGosot said:

@GenocidalKitten said:

I think that games could do horror the best if they did it right, because in movies, books and TV shows, you just watch or read about someone in a horror situation but, in games you are that person.

No. You're not James Sunderland, or Alan Wake, or Chris Redfield, or Isaac Clarke. You're directing them, and i think that's the main problem of horror games: You are the director of the horror, while in movies or books, you are a victim of it.

I'm sure there's been games that have made you the main character, it would be a super easy problem to get around.

And how are you the "victim" of horror in movies or books, you read or watch someone be the victim of horror while you yourself are pretty separated from the experience.

Even if the character doesn't have a name, it still isn't you. It's a character in a videogame. A character that you controls, but still just a character. You're still the director of the horror. You can ruin the pacing because you're the player. This happens all the time: You die in a climatic scene, and has to do that all over again. The scene loses it's impact.
In a movie or book, you're the victim because you can't ruin the pacing. "You" are trapped into a situation. It's already written, and you can't change shit.
#22 Posted by Dagbiker (7022 posts) -

@GenocidalKitten said:

I think that games could do horror the best if they did it right, because in movies, books and TV shows, you just watch or read about someone in a horror situation but, in games you are that person.

TLDR: Egoraptor ( I didn't want to like him ether, but he really dose know his stuff ), explains that one of the reasons why Megaman X was so good was because they didn't show you through cut-scene, or through text that you couldn't beat the boss. But you experience the helplessness, the struggle your self, by playing the game.

#23 Posted by Jay444111 (2640 posts) -

@Fallen189 said:

They're probably the lowest form of entertainment. That's not to say I don't enjoy them, because I like videogames, but in terms of engagement, production values and story, they're dead last.

No, your thinking of movies and comic books. Stories in those two mediums are dead last in terms of intellect. With video games, you get a lot of great talent in it.

Video games are better than movies and film, comic books as well. They are about equal to books at this point. Why should I respect a medium because it is older when it can't do anything right like video games have been doing? I am mainly talking about movies.

I would rather respect a brand new medium that has great stories on a constant basis than a medium with only a good movie every two years at least.

#24 Edited by Encephalon (1364 posts) -

Interaction, I guess, though that is unique to the medium, and few games take advantage of it in a way that I find meaningful. I can't think of anything else video games in general do better than, say, novels.

#26 Posted by MikeGosot (3235 posts) -
@GenocidalKitten: I don't like Amnesia, so i guess that in the end, what we're debating come down to opinions, huh? Also, you're afraid of dying in a videogame? Don't play Dark Souls.
#28 Edited by CrossTheAtlantic (1154 posts) -

@Jay444111 said:

@Fallen189 said:

They're probably the lowest form of entertainment. That's not to say I don't enjoy them, because I like videogames, but in terms of engagement, production values and story, they're dead last.

No, your thinking of movies and comic books. Stories in those two mediums are dead last in terms of intellect. With video games, you get a lot of great talent in it.

Video games are better than movies and film, comic books as well. They are about equal to books at this point. Why should I respect a medium because it is older when it can't do anything right like video games have been doing? I am mainly talking about movies.

I would rather respect a brand new medium that has great stories on a constant basis than a medium with only a good movie every two years at least.

Uh, what? I love video games but movies are streets ahead in terms of intellectual storytelling and, much like books, are capable of intelligently grappling with complex themes and narratives that video games, at best, deal with only passingly or as dressing to the larger spectacle--even worse, sometimes sacrificing them for the sake of game play. Stories are the main problem with video games in that they're too often developed separately from one another, so one is made to fit the other too late in development. Every once in awhile, you have one that does it right, but not at a rate any higher than other mediums. As @Dagbiker points out, there's a sense of agency, immersion, and (most importantly) emergence that can arise in games that other mediums can't pull off. I'd argue that video games has the incredible potential to cull strengths from multiple mediums and it really is starting to grow, though it hasn't supplanted anything except, arguably, the blockbuster style of film.

#29 Edited by MikkaQ (10296 posts) -

It's pretty much just the ability to interact and explore, I don't think there's anything else there that other media haven't offered before. Competition, I guess, but I hate competing.

@GenocidalKitten said:

@MikeGosot said:

@GenocidalKitten said:

I think that games could do horror the best if they did it right, because in movies, books and TV shows, you just watch or read about someone in a horror situation but, in games you are that person.

No. You're not James Sunderland, or Alan Wake, or Chris Redfield, or Isaac Clarke. You're directing them, and i think that's the main problem of horror games: You are the director of the horror, while in movies or books, you are a victim of it.

I'm sure there's been games that have made you the main character, it would be a super easy problem to get around.

And how are you the "victim" of horror in movies or books, you read or watch someone be the victim of horror while you yourself are pretty separated from the experience.

Because you can't control the actions of the protagonist or what is being done to the protagonist, it's like things are happening without any of your input or control and you're helpless to do anything but witness the horror. You are a victim in that sense. A lot of horror games these days tend to give you too much power over the character which lets you not make the stupid mistakes they would in a movie or book and you just kinda plow thorough all the scary shit with your gun.

#30 Posted by Lunar_Aura (2824 posts) -

Honestly, I think gaming has a really long way to go if they want to catch up with other mediums. So many games are extremely juvenile and cookie cutter, even the supposed "mature" games.

#31 Posted by Fallen189 (5298 posts) -
@Jay444111 said:

@Fallen189 said:

They're probably the lowest form of entertainment. That's not to say I don't enjoy them, because I like videogames, but in terms of engagement, production values and story, they're dead last.

No, your thinking of movies and comic books. Stories in those two mediums are dead last in terms of intellect. With video games, you get a lot of great talent in it.

Video games are better than movies and film, comic books as well. They are about equal to books at this point. Why should I respect a medium because it is older when it can't do anything right like video games have been doing? I am mainly talking about movies.

I would rather respect a brand new medium that has great stories on a constant basis than a medium with only a good movie every two years at least.

No, I'm not, I'm thinking of videogames. I'm not sure by what right you're been given the objective decision to decide what quantifies "Quality" on a scale, but it's not one that I subscribe to. I feel video games are a poor way to tell a story in comparison towards movies or books, because by their definition, they should not be inherently focused on a narrative, more so gameplay. Sure, some video games tell good stories, I can think of quite a lot. 
 
But personally, I think that movies and literature tell a much more fascinating story than videogames ever could, simply due to the restrictive nature of videogames as a medium. 
 
Furthermore, if you think that a good movie comes out "Every 2 years", you clearly don't watch enough movies to have your opinion taken seriously in this discussion. I'm not trying to diminish your input into the discussion, or demean you in any way, but it just seems that you're not qualified to discuss this kind of thing.
#32 Edited by moywar700 (198 posts) -

Entirely different mediums...Each of them have their own strength and weaknesses and this is like comparing apples and oranges. Video games biggest strength is interaction but its weakness is storytelling.

Comic's weakness is that they are sometimes limited to superheros.

Movie's weakness is that they have to cater to the general audience.

I don't think it's right to compare the mediums because it's like comparing apples and oranges like I said before. A person may point out the medium's strength and weakness though.

#33 Posted by Jay444111 (2640 posts) -

@CrossTheAtlantic said:

@Jay444111 said:

@Fallen189 said:

They're probably the lowest form of entertainment. That's not to say I don't enjoy them, because I like videogames, but in terms of engagement, production values and story, they're dead last.

No, your thinking of movies and comic books. Stories in those two mediums are dead last in terms of intellect. With video games, you get a lot of great talent in it.

Video games are better than movies and film, comic books as well. They are about equal to books at this point. Why should I respect a medium because it is older when it can't do anything right like video games have been doing? I am mainly talking about movies.

I would rather respect a brand new medium that has great stories on a constant basis than a medium with only a good movie every two years at least.

Uh, what? I love video games but movies are streets ahead in terms of intellectual storytelling and, much like books, are capable of intelligently grappling with complex themes and narratives that video games, at best, deal with only passingly or as dressing to the larger spectacle--even worse, sometimes sacrificing them for the sake of game play. Stories are the main problem with video games in that they're too often developed separately from one another, so one is made to fit the other too late in development. Every once in awhile, you have one that does it right, but not at a rate any higher than other mediums. As @Dagbiker points out, there's a sense of agency, immersion, and (most importantly) emergence that can arise in games that other mediums can't pull off. I'd argue that video games has the incredible potential to cull strengths from multiple mediums and it really is starting to grow, though it hasn't supplanted anything except, arguably, the blockbuster style of film.

Fragile Dreams... the story in that game deals with a SHITTON of depth. I can count countless games that do that. COUNTLESS. Movies... 2 maybe 3 out of the 1000 movies I own. The only real reason I keep them is that people keep giving them to me so I have to keep them so I don't hurt their feelings when I would sell them all... fuckers... they know I like video games more but keep saying shit like "Transformers is awesome!" It pisses me off greatly.

Video games are AUTOMATICALLY better than movies and comic books by default of not BEING them. That is how bad those two mediums have gotten. When I can find greater writing in Gears of War 3 than ANY action movie in the past 5 years. Your medium is fucked, completely. No amount of classic movies will ever hold up the fact that the medium of movies is now shit and knows it's shit. Fuck, when a damn game like Resident Evil 1 has greater storytelling capability than most movies. Or movies based on the video game alone. That makes video games better.

Besides, It is an insult to call them lesser. I would compare video games to books FAR more than any other medium.

@Fallen189 said:

@Jay444111 said:

@Fallen189 said:

They're probably the lowest form of entertainment. That's not to say I don't enjoy them, because I like videogames, but in terms of engagement, production values and story, they're dead last.

No, your thinking of movies and comic books. Stories in those two mediums are dead last in terms of intellect. With video games, you get a lot of great talent in it.

Video games are better than movies and film, comic books as well. They are about equal to books at this point. Why should I respect a medium because it is older when it can't do anything right like video games have been doing? I am mainly talking about movies.

I would rather respect a brand new medium that has great stories on a constant basis than a medium with only a good movie every two years at least.

No, I'm not, I'm thinking of videogames. I'm not sure by what right you're been given the objective decision to decide what quantifies "Quality" on a scale, but it's not one that I subscribe to. I feel video games are a poor way to tell a story in comparison towards movies or books, because by their definition, they should not be inherently focused on a narrative, more so gameplay. Sure, some video games tell good stories, I can think of quite a lot. But personally, I think that movies and literature tell a much more fascinating story than videogames ever could, simply due to the restrictive nature of videogames as a medium. Furthermore, if you think that a good movie comes out "Every 2 years", you clearly don't watch enough movies to have your opinion taken seriously in this discussion. I'm not trying to diminish your input into the discussion, or demean you in any way, but it just seems that you're not qualified to discuss this kind of thing.

Again. Movies and comic book quality is horrible. I already stated why video games are better than movies. They are also better than comic books mainly because video games don't DEMAND that everything is super hero related and is FORCED to have other characters to appear from other comic books, then retconning it once they figure out why it's horrible.

Video games are just plain better than those two mediums. there is really no denying it when you see things like Bioshock Infinite come out constantly, where movies have BATTLEFUCKINGSHIP!!! Any industry that makes a fucking movie of battleship deserves literally zero to no respect in any circle. They only deserve to go out of business due to sheer crap quality.

Besides, story=gameplay anymore. Just look at the Mass Effect 3 ending anger. If it had a good well written ending. The entire series would have been called video games greats. But thanks to such shit. Many people now know what shit really is. People are finally taking video games so damn seriously. I mean, I never heard the anger for The Matrix movies. or any other movie or comic book out there. This just proves video games are far more interesting than movies as a whole to everyone out there.

Besides. I can only count on one hand the movies I love out of a 1000. I have to get a list out for the amount of video game stories I love out of the 500 I have owned before.

#34 Posted by Sackmanjones (5141 posts) -

Video games is definitely the most interactive of any entertainment. Movies you simple watch the story unfold and the same with reading but....not...we watch... You get the point. For video games especially now, you are making the plot unfold and in games like mass effect that's the best part

#35 Edited by moywar700 (198 posts) -

Again. Movies and comic book quality is horrible. I already stated why video games are better than movies. They are also better than comic books mainly because video games don't DEMAND that everything is super hero related and is FORCED to have other characters to appear from other comic books, then retconning it once they figure out why it's horrible.

Video games are just plain better than those two mediums. there is really no denying it when you see things like Bioshock Infinite come out constantly, where movies have BATTLEFUCKINGSHIP!!! Any industry that makes a fucking movie of battleship deserves literally zero to no respect in any circle. They only deserve to go out of business due to sheer crap quality.

Besides, story=gameplay anymore. Just look at the Mass Effect 3 ending anger. If it had a good well written ending. The entire series would have been called video games greats. But thanks to such shit. Many people now know what shit really is. People are finally taking video games so damn seriously. I mean, I never heard the anger for The Matrix movies. or any other movie or comic book out there. This just proves video games are far more interesting than movies as a whole to everyone out there.

Besides. I can only count on one hand the movies I love out of a 1000. I have to get a list out for the amount of video game stories I love out of the 500 I have owned before.

These statements about comics show how little you know about them. When you have characters with decades of continuity, your gonna have to do some retconning.Battleship(the movie) is horrible but video-games like every medium had bad stuff too.Battleship doesn't represent the whole movie industry.Should video games lose respect because they made superman 64(the worst game ever?) No they shouldn't.

By your other statements, you claim video games are better... because people complain about the bad stuff more?People have always been complaining about bad movies.books, and such.People complain about the lousy twilight books or the star wars prequels.

#36 Posted by Jimbo (10150 posts) -

Agency and a sense of responsibility (good or bad).
 
Games can't tell a better passive story than passive media can, but by virtue of actively involving the player, they can achieve things that passive media can't.  It's unfortunate that the industry has (d)evolved to a point where it's mostly concerned with playing to the weaknesses of the media, rather than to the strengths. 'Look at how cinematic our game is!!' Yes, you know what's even better at being cinematic? Fucking cinema.

#37 Posted by Dagbiker (7022 posts) -

@Jay444111 said:

@CrossTheAtlantic said:

@Jay444111 said:

@Fallen189 said:

They're probably the lowest form of entertainment. That's not to say I don't enjoy them, because I like videogames, but in terms of engagement, production values and story, they're dead last.

No, your thinking of movies and comic books. Stories in those two mediums are dead last in terms of intellect. With video games, you get a lot of great talent in it.

Video games are better than movies and film, comic books as well. They are about equal to books at this point. Why should I respect a medium because it is older when it can't do anything right like video games have been doing? I am mainly talking about movies.

I would rather respect a brand new medium that has great stories on a constant basis than a medium with only a good movie every two years at least.

Uh, what? I love video games but movies are streets ahead in terms of intellectual storytelling and, much like books, are capable of intelligently grappling with complex themes and narratives that video games, at best, deal with only passingly or as dressing to the larger spectacle--even worse, sometimes sacrificing them for the sake of game play. Stories are the main problem with video games in that they're too often developed separately from one another, so one is made to fit the other too late in development. Every once in awhile, you have one that does it right, but not at a rate any higher than other mediums. As @Dagbiker points out, there's a sense of agency, immersion, and (most importantly) emergence that can arise in games that other mediums can't pull off. I'd argue that video games has the incredible potential to cull strengths from multiple mediums and it really is starting to grow, though it hasn't supplanted anything except, arguably, the blockbuster style of film.

Fragile Dreams... the story in that game deals with a SHITTON of depth. I can count countless games that do that. COUNTLESS. Movies... 2 maybe 3 out of the 1000 movies I own. The only real reason I keep them is that people keep giving them to me so I have to keep them so I don't hurt their feelings when I would sell them all... fuckers... they know I like video games more but keep saying shit like "Transformers is awesome!" It pisses me off greatly.

Video games are AUTOMATICALLY better than movies and comic books by default of not BEING them. That is how bad those two mediums have gotten. When I can find greater writing in Gears of War 3 than ANY action movie in the past 5 years. Your medium is fucked, completely. No amount of classic movies will ever hold up the fact that the medium of movies is now shit and knows it's shit. Fuck, when a damn game like Resident Evil 1 has greater storytelling capability than most movies. Or movies based on the video game alone. That makes video games better.

Besides, It is an insult to call them lesser. I would compare video games to books FAR more than any other medium.

@Fallen189 said:

@Jay444111 said:

@Fallen189 said:

They're probably the lowest form of entertainment. That's not to say I don't enjoy them, because I like videogames, but in terms of engagement, production values and story, they're dead last.

No, your thinking of movies and comic books. Stories in those two mediums are dead last in terms of intellect. With video games, you get a lot of great talent in it.

Video games are better than movies and film, comic books as well. They are about equal to books at this point. Why should I respect a medium because it is older when it can't do anything right like video games have been doing? I am mainly talking about movies.

I would rather respect a brand new medium that has great stories on a constant basis than a medium with only a good movie every two years at least.

No, I'm not, I'm thinking of videogames. I'm not sure by what right you're been given the objective decision to decide what quantifies "Quality" on a scale, but it's not one that I subscribe to. I feel video games are a poor way to tell a story in comparison towards movies or books, because by their definition, they should not be inherently focused on a narrative, more so gameplay. Sure, some video games tell good stories, I can think of quite a lot. But personally, I think that movies and literature tell a much more fascinating story than videogames ever could, simply due to the restrictive nature of videogames as a medium. Furthermore, if you think that a good movie comes out "Every 2 years", you clearly don't watch enough movies to have your opinion taken seriously in this discussion. I'm not trying to diminish your input into the discussion, or demean you in any way, but it just seems that you're not qualified to discuss this kind of thing.

Again. Movies and comic book quality is horrible. I already stated why video games are better than movies. They are also better than comic books mainly because video games don't DEMAND that everything is super hero related and is FORCED to have other characters to appear from other comic books, then retconning it once they figure out why it's horrible.

Video games are just plain better than those two mediums. there is really no denying it when you see things like Bioshock Infinite come out constantly, where movies have BATTLEFUCKINGSHIP!!! Any industry that makes a fucking movie of battleship deserves literally zero to no respect in any circle. They only deserve to go out of business due to sheer crap quality.

Besides, story=gameplay anymore. Just look at the Mass Effect 3 ending anger. If it had a good well written ending. The entire series would have been called video games greats. But thanks to such shit. Many people now know what shit really is. People are finally taking video games so damn seriously. I mean, I never heard the anger for The Matrix movies. or any other movie or comic book out there. This just proves video games are far more interesting than movies as a whole to everyone out there.

Besides. I can only count on one hand the movies I love out of a 1000. I have to get a list out for the amount of video game stories I love out of the 500 I have owned before.

Opinions are not proof.

#38 Posted by PenguinDust (12730 posts) -

Immersion and inclusion within a story or setting. Movies, books, plays, etc...are all passive entertainment. Games are active and require participation to unfold. Yes, you can identify with a character from a movie, but within a game setting you can "be" that character and act as you think they would or how they should.

#39 Posted by Jay444111 (2640 posts) -

@moywar700 said:

Again. Movies and comic book quality is horrible. I already stated why video games are better than movies. They are also better than comic books mainly because video games don't DEMAND that everything is super hero related and is FORCED to have other characters to appear from other comic books, then retconning it once they figure out why it's horrible.

Video games are just plain better than those two mediums. there is really no denying it when you see things like Bioshock Infinite come out constantly, where movies have BATTLEFUCKINGSHIP!!! Any industry that makes a fucking movie of battleship deserves literally zero to no respect in any circle. They only deserve to go out of business due to sheer crap quality.

Besides, story=gameplay anymore. Just look at the Mass Effect 3 ending anger. If it had a good well written ending. The entire series would have been called video games greats. But thanks to such shit. Many people now know what shit really is. People are finally taking video games so damn seriously. I mean, I never heard the anger for The Matrix movies. or any other movie or comic book out there. This just proves video games are far more interesting than movies as a whole to everyone out there.

Besides. I can only count on one hand the movies I love out of a 1000. I have to get a list out for the amount of video game stories I love out of the 500 I have owned before.

These statements about comics show how little you know about them. When you have characters with decades of continuity, your gonna have to do some retconning.Battleship(the movie) is horrible but video-games like every medium had bad stuff too.Battleship doesn't represent the whole movie industry.Should video games lose respect because they made superman 64(the worst game ever?) No they shouldn't.

By your other statements, you claim video games are better... because people complain about the bad stuff more?People have always been complaining about bad movies.books, and such.People complain about the lousy twilight books or the star wars prequels.

Dude... comics literally retcon themselves by the week anymore. With all the decades of characters, there are SO many that you could honestly retcon with even a passing mention of another character. It is that level of bad.

Also, the worst video game of all time will never be as bad as the worst movies to the worst books of all time. Seriously. A bad game is one which is unplayable and could in fact, crash easily thus you never actually play it. with the worst movie, you CAN still watch it, with a book, you can still read it. At least you would never have to play the bad game due to it being unplayable.

Also, I am mainly talking about how people cared so damn deeply about mass effect 3. They hated it because it got rid of their favorite characters and shit on the story that this series had. People are pissed to the point where no other science fiction media will ever GET as outraged. It has gone that deep into anger. it shows exactly how important story is to people and story in video games as a whole. Make a fucking horrible ending, prepare to get burned within the video game industry. In the movie industry you are basically encouraged to make bad endings for people to make things up. Comic books however, they just end for no apparent reason other than the sane fact that it is unpopular.

Just being honest.

#40 Edited by JoeyRavn (5109 posts) -

@theodacourt said:

@JoeyRavn said:

@theodacourt said:

The interactivity of the medium requires more attention of you than a book/film/tv.

That really depends on the game and book/film/TV show, though.

I wasn't saying that other mediums don't earn and deserve attention (most often more so than games), but a film/tv show will carry on without your attention if it's poor and I often find myself re-reading paragraphs of average books because I'm distracted by its mediocrity. Even a bad game requires quite a focused mind to continue. It's like Patrick said about Amnesia, being forced to turn a corner yourself heightens the experience compared to a film where it would happen anyway where you can disconnect yourself from the experience if you want. With games you can't disconnect. I truly think that games can use this to their benefit in ways other than horror in the future but it will take a long time to get there and create more engaging stories one day.

I can sit through a bad film but I couldn't sit through a bad game because it demands so much of my attention on that base level of interactivity.

Yes, I get what you're saying, and that does apply to TV series and films, mostly, but in terms of "spacing out" it's generally easier to play a game without paying attention than reading a book. Grinding in an RPG, going through the campaign of a shooter like CoD or playing a puzzle game are things I usually do without paying much attention, because they are extremely mechanical and repetitive. Of course, the more complex and involved the game, the more attention it will demand from you, but the moment you lose track of what you're reading, you lose the thread of the plot and you'll probably have to read the paragraph again.

So, yeah, I do believe that you can't generalize and say that the high level of interactivity instantly begets a high level of attention from the user. It depends on the game.

@Jay444111 said:

No, your thinking of movies and comic books. Stories in those two mediums are dead last in terms of intellect.

Are you serious? Go outside the mainstream, you'll be fucking amazed by what you find. You know next to nothing about comic books, right?

#41 Posted by Halos_god (207 posts) -

@Bell_End said:

i can't 'play' books or movies

Exactly

#42 Posted by Red (6146 posts) -

Video games have the greatest potential of any medium, but also the most hurdles.

#43 Posted by IkariNoTekken (993 posts) -

Music beats all.

#44 Posted by CrossTheAtlantic (1154 posts) -

@IkariNoTekken said:

Music beats all.

Clever girl.

#45 Posted by CaLe (4174 posts) -

I can't be skilled at watching a movie, reading a book, or listening to music.

#46 Posted by believer258 (12597 posts) -

@MikeGosot said:

@GenocidalKitten said:

I think that games could do horror the best if they did it right, because in movies, books and TV shows, you just watch or read about someone in a horror situation but, in games you are that person.

No. You're not James Sunderland, or Alan Wake, or Chris Redfield, or Isaac Clarke. You're directing them, and i think that's the main problem of horror games: You are the director of the horror, while in movies or books, you are a victim of it.

I'm afraid I don't quite follow your logic on this one; wouldn't a person who's playing as those characters be more the victim of horror than a person who was simply watching those characters go through their motions?

You're directing their movement and actions in the same way that you would be directing your own movement and actions if you were somehow in those situations (albeit a real-life Dead Space would be a good bit scarier than video game Dead Space). You're not directing the movements of the creatures that are causing the horror - that would be more along the lines of The Darkness.

#47 Posted by MordeaniisChaos (5904 posts) -

Atmosphere, immersion. Books are good at transporting you to a different world, but I rarely feel like I'm in that world as the character is, more of an out of body experience, if that makes sense. And movies I'm generally completely removed from. Games though can really nail the immersion and that's pretty great.

#48 Posted by MikeGosot (3235 posts) -
@believer258: When you play an horror game, you dictate the pacing of the horror, and that can ruin the horror aspect. In Shattered Memories, i got lost in one of the levels, and that ruined the pacing of the story, and the horror. Or in Dead Space, when you're better at cutting enemies, they're simply not scary anymore. You determine what happens, and that much control can "destroy" the horror.
When you watch a movie, the pacing will always be the same, and something out of your control is going to happen. You don't have any control of the situation, you just have to endure the horror.
#49 Posted by BeachThunder (12991 posts) -

@CaLe said:

I can't be skilled at watching a movie, reading a book, or listening to music.

Well, not with that kind of attitude!

#50 Posted by theodacourt (582 posts) -

@JoeyRavn: I think these complaints are more about the quality of the game rather than the nature of gaming. Those are all parts of games that have no emotional involvement/story, or a game with a terrible story.

I didn't mean to say a high level of interactivity begets a high level of attention, just that some interactivity begets some level of attention and you're right that games aren't equal in achieving this. How games can use this effectively in combination with other techniques, such as a good story, could elevate games above other mediums as a more immersive experience and have a more direct and successful time at achieving an emotional response from a player.