Games and films and films of games

Avatar image for jamesm
JamesM

371

Forum Posts

49

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#1  Edited By JamesM

I consider a lot of the music I listen to to be rather cinematic. For a while I thought that it would make great film soundtrack music. After a little thought, I decided that perhaps this was not the case. The reason the music is so cinematic, I reasoned, is that in its way it also fulfils the roll of the film; were it to be put into a film, it would seem like the two elements were competing for attention, rather than complementing one another. That's not to say that it's impossible to use it, but generally that would require some sort of compromise to be struck, and even if it didn't, the thing which made the music cinematic would not be the thing that made it suitable for use in a film.

On further consideration, I'm not entirely confident in this theory, but it did make me think that perhaps similar reasoning could be applied to the relationship between games and films. Some people seem to be eager to see their favourite franchises transplanted from one medium to another, but I'm not sure that this is always a good idea. We all know that in practice this can be disastrous, but generally this is chalked up to inferior execution rather than an underlying discordance. It's the Uwe Bolls and Paul W. S. Andersons who are ruining these franchises, we say. Now, I don't want to get into a discussion about these directors' merits, or the chasmic lack thereof (suffice it to say that my confidence in them is limited); rather, I'm interested in whether there's an inherent difficulty in translating one medium to another.

Perhaps it's obvious. Games do things that films can't. Apart from that comical sequence in the Doom movie, it's pretty impractical and jarring to have extended first-person sequences in films, yet it's common in games. In games you can influence proceedings, whereas films have to follow a static path. Games are generally much freer. On the other hand, this freedom comes with its own narrative limitations: pacing is hard to control with anything like the precision of films (if the player wants to run around shooting corpses in their groins and stacking boxes in a corner for an hour, they're generally allowed to), all the character-building in the world can be undone by a player who wants to act like a superhuman sociopath (indeed, to generate sufficient gameplay it's generally necessary for the player to repeat actions for much longer than would be acceptable in other media -- most game protagonists exceed the body count of pretty much all films), and a carefully constructed mood or emotional investment can become somewhat irrelevant when the player is restraining himself from committing acts of obscene real-world violence after dying on the same section for the twentieth time, and is instead making do with increasingly profane outbursts.

The point, I suppose, is that the things that make a good game good tend to be at least partially dependent on its being a game. This isn't necessarily a universal rule (you could have an OK game with a fantastic story, for example), but I think it probably applies to the majority. And, to a certain extent, the same is true of films. Theoretically, you can import elements from a film into a game more than you can the elements of a game into a film (as an audio-visual experience, a game can include anything a film can, whilst films, being non-interactive, cannot provide that aspect of gaming), but after a point it just becomes a film with some game around it (even the Metal Gear Solid series is unlike films, in that it has extended interactive periods). But whilst some cross-over is possible, in general the best of either form will have been specifically tailored for that format.

Perhaps it would be helpful to take an example. Half-Life (2) is a popular game, and I think quite a few people are or would be excited about the prospect of it being made into a film. And I think it's quite understandable: it's good, and it has a reasonable degree of focus on its story, something which is generally helpful in films. But, for me at least, the reason that experience is so memorable is the way you're dropped into this world, initially being told nothing about your past, and learning very little about it along the way. The silent protagonist may be a cliché, but in this instance I think it's a tool used to good effect. Knowing more about your character would only act to distance you from him; as it stands, there's an interesting tension between immersion and alienation. On the occasions that you are confronted by the G-man, you are reminded of how little you understand the world, and how alien you are to it. I suppose it's a rather post-modern device, in that it acknowledges the position of the player, although rather than breaking the fourth wall, it incorporates it into the game's fiction (incidentally, I seem to remember some of the on-screen text in the first game being more explicit about this than that in the second -- wasn't there something about assessment being terminated when you died, and so on?). Anyway, this is all a little tangential. My point is that things like the first person perspective and the silent protagonist are important contributing factors to the audience's experience. If, for example, it were in the third person, it would just be some man running around in a certain situation; in the first person, however, it's you being put in the situation, and unexplained things become that much more intriguing. If a film were to be made of Half-Life, it would become a much more standard experience. If it followed the game too closely, it would just be a dystopian science fiction action movie. Fleshing out Gordon Freeman's character would pretty much defeat the point.

So what are we left with? As far as I can see, it's the world the game is set in. It would be quite possible to accommodate the particular needs of films in this fictional world, and those of most other games. It's a pretty broad framework to work with, but that's pretty much what the scriptwriters need, otherwise you have two hours of "and then the man shoots another zombie". The problem is that games are, on the whole, very influenced by films, so what you're often left with is a fairly standard set-up. Resident Evil becomes zombies-and-corporation-conspiracy, which, incidentally, isn't a million miles from monster-and-corporation-conspiracy, which is what Alien was all about, although I wouldn't say the two are treading on one another's toes in any significant way.

Of course, you could say this about films in general. How many truly new ideas do you see these days? But if that's the case, what's the point of using the licence at all? I guess it gives you access to particular set pieces. Half-Life's Citadel, for example. It's not an entirely original concept, but it's a pretty cool execution. A lot of these little details just end up as knowing nudges to gamers, who are probably too annoyed at how much the film has deviated from the source material. Which is a problem, since it's necessary to deviate from the source in order to make a film, rather than just make an entirely linear version of the game which someone else plays for you. And the general public may well be put off, either thinking that games are "not for them", or that the film won't make sense to someone who hasn't played the game.

Returning to my theory about filmic music, another example I'd like to consider is Shadow of the Colossus. I thought it was a particularly cinematic experience, but one which would probably make a pretty lousy film. There's barely any dialogue in the game, and much of the action involves riding around on a horse. If shot well, it could be a beautiful film, but it would require real skill on the film-makers' part to keep the audience interested. People approach games in a different way than films, and this allows them to explore different areas. Even something which may seem particularly film-like, such as Metal Gear Solid 4, operates in a different way. What film could devote an hour to the ending? I don't remember how much The Lord of the Rings had after the climactic scene, but even that seemed jarring, and was obviously the result of it being based on a series of novels. Even with the extra space afforded to a television series, it's generally impractical to devote that long to wrapping up. Of course, MGS is pretty self-indulgent, and as such an unusual case, but I think that games are much more flexible in these terms than most media, other than novels.

What about Portal? It's a great experience, but I think what makes it great is, at least in part, the relationship between you and GLaDOS. If this became the relationship between a third party and GLaDOS, you would be kind of entering HAL territory. Which is fine, but, well, it's been done. There is something uniquely exciting about you being the one finding your way through the story, and, if you were lucky enough to come to it with minimal prior information, expect one thing, then gradually uncover something quite different. The way in which that's a fantastic interactive experience doesn't fully translate into a passive experience.

A classic example of the opposite transformation is GoldenEye. When the quality of film-to-game conversions comes up in conversation, I generally give that as an example of a rare success (indeed, a Rare success). But whilst some elements are very accurate reconstructions of sets in the film, I feel that the James Bond veneer is pretty much incidental, and the game would have been just as good without the film licence. The way to make a good game out of a film, apparently, is to make a good game, then populate it with assets from the film. I couldn't tell you whether that's how it worked in this case, but the point is that the game needn't have been a James Bond one.

I'm not saying that films based on games can never be successful, but I think that in order to be successful, they have to take some pretty heavy liberties, and have to understand the fundamental differences between the two formats. And I think we should think twice before declaring that every game we like should be made into a film. Perhaps it's a game for good reason.

Of course, I may be overplaying the distinction. Maybe the examples I picked were unusual. I'd be interested to hear others' thoughts on the subject. As tends to be the way with these things, this all seems much less certain and concrete than it did in my head, so I'm sure there are plenty of things to pick apart.

Finally, I hope this isn't all sounding negative. I don't think that it's a bad thing. I don't mean this to be some sort of hopes-dashing exercise. If anything, I think it's an affirmation of the uniqueness and validity of gaming as an activity in its own right. And whilst I don't want to make any bold proclamations, I think that if gaming can offer interesting experiences that can't easily be directly replicated in other media, it's capable of at least a certain degree of artistry. I used to baulk at the whole "games as art" thing, but a friend pointed out that whilst games might not bear any comparison to what some might call "high art", neither do most of the films that we see. Perhaps it's not Art with a capital A, but it's .  .  . well, it's something. Something other than an imitation.

Sorry, that was a rather long post.

Avatar image for ultimate_pwr_rngr
Ultimate_pwr_rngr

763

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2  Edited By Ultimate_pwr_rngr

james....Marsters? SPIKE!?

Avatar image for mattyftm
MattyFTM

14913

Forum Posts

67415

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 11

#3  Edited By MattyFTM  Moderator

You have waaaaaaaaaaaaay too much free time!!!

Avatar image for jamesm
JamesM

371

Forum Posts

49

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#4  Edited By JamesM
Ultimate_pwr_rngr said:
james....Marsters? SPIKE!?
Sorry, no.

MattyFTM said:
You have waaaaaaaaaaaaay too much free time!!!
Perhaps, but are eight posts with substance really any worse than the hundreds of one-sentence posts that make up the majority of this messageboard (and most others)? I'd rather hold a discussion about a subject I'm interested in than post for the sake of posting. I hope that doesn't sound too pompous.

I'm also going to have to point out that I have a job, and find it hard to understand how people manage to frequent however many messageboards and find time to actually play any of the games they're talking about.
Avatar image for hongkongph0oey
HoNgKoNgPh0oEy

1476

Forum Posts

32

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 2

#5  Edited By HoNgKoNgPh0oEy

Too long of a post to read but wanted vid game looks good and bourne game was ok . Max payne movie, bioshock , and gears  movie make game movies stand a chance.

Avatar image for blu_magic
Blu_Magic

2026

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6  Edited By Blu_Magic

That was way too long to read for me. I managed to get through the first paragraph though.

Avatar image for l
L

1761

Forum Posts

3440

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

#7  Edited By L

Well, I like the idea of games since you can go in your own direction, where as in movies you're all following the same path (well, except for some like Final Desination 3 DVD where YOU CHOOSE fate!!). :O

Avatar image for systech
Systech

4156

Forum Posts

2448

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#8  Edited By Systech

Maybe you should put this in your blog, then I will have motivation to read it.

Avatar image for jamesm
JamesM

371

Forum Posts

49

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#9  Edited By JamesM

Well I was hoping it would provoke some sort of conversation, which, as I see it, blogs are not ideally suited for. Besides, I haven't exactly made a name for myself around here, and I don't want to annoy people by trying to advertise my blog, so I thought I'd annoy them by posting a great big essay in the forum, instead.

Still, I think people are a little too averse to reading long posts. Sure, it's pushing two thousand words, but it's hardly dense, and shouldn't take much longer than five minutes to read (and that's coming from a fairly slow reader). I don't suppose people have much reason to trust me with their time, but a policy of automatically skipping anything longer than a couple of lines long is rather limiting. If anything, I seek out longer posts. They have a better chance of containing something interesting. Of course, they could be utter tripe, too, but you can generally tell before too long.

Anyway, I'll copy it to my blog. I'm not sure why that would influence your motivation, but who am I to question the claim?

Thanks to whoever up-rated my first post, by the way. I appreciate it.

Avatar image for yit
Yit

938

Forum Posts

420

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#10  Edited By Yit

tl;dr

Avatar image for bulldog19892
Bulldog19892

1835

Forum Posts

16

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

#11  Edited By Bulldog19892

That was a great post. However, it shouldn't be a post. That should be an article. Save that, and send to Giant Bomb or someone, because you have professional editorial material right there. I would send that to anyone who would read it.

Avatar image for jamesm
JamesM

371

Forum Posts

49

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#12  Edited By JamesM

That's very kind. Too kind, in fact. Really, it's pretty sloppy in places, and I don't really develop my ideas enough (not that it being longer would help). But thanks anyway.

EDIT: I just realized that this should probably be in the General forum. Oops.

Avatar image for whysoserious
WhySoSerious

646

Forum Posts

36

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#13  Edited By WhySoSerious
Yit said:
"tl;dr"
Avatar image for meowayne
Meowayne

6168

Forum Posts

223

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 12

#14  Edited By Meowayne

Apart from agreeing with most anything you said, I only want to say that you shouldn't feel discouraged by the ones talking about how they didn't read your post because its too long. Every board needs more people with ideas, time and patience to write posts longer than 3 lines. (I would, and I do in other forums, when I don't have to use the english language). However, it was too long. Half of it should make for a good, solid post many people would take time to read. A post that long is an article, and could do with some images or headlines.

It's true though that you have a habit of spreading quite simple ideas and thoughts over more words than is needed.

Your preferences in video games seem to correspond with mine. You also think that it's a shame that with all the shiny technology video games these days work with, there isn't really much done in terms of "original, interactive storytelling"? In 80% of cases, its "Show things in a cutscene, then have the player control the action scenes, which ultimately are what the "story" is about, anyway?
Avatar image for jamesm
JamesM

371

Forum Posts

49

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#15  Edited By JamesM

I was going to post something about the difficulty of having actual gameplay be anything other than comparatively trivial and narratively irrelevant tests of skill, when I listened to this week's GFW Radio, in which they discussed gameplay actually being used as a tool to convey some sort of information, and gave some examples of indie games that experimented in the area in some quite interesting ways. I think this is a really exciting subject, and look forward to it being integrated into more major games. I don't have a problem with less meaningful gameplay, but it would be great if the gap between cutscenes and the main game could be bridged more effectively. I'm afraid I wasn't too impressed by the button mashing segment toward the end of MGS4; if anything, I thought it detracted from the mood set by what was happening on-screen. Hammering on X just seems a little daft, really. I can't say I envy the job of those trying to achieve greater unification, though. The amount of work required to avoid the player feeling like they're being forced down a certain path would presumably be huge. And the fact that the range of our interaction with the world is comparatively impoverished due to the necessarily limited number of control inputs can't help.

There's definitely a balance to be struck, and quite where that falls must depend on the game in question. If anything, I think giving the player the illusion of interaction can be pretty cheap, and in certain circumstances may even be worse than explicitly taking control away; in other cases, there's definitely a purity to giving the player constant and complete control over his character (other than when the character is constrained by some element in the game's fiction).

Anyway, those are my current thoughts on the matter.