RJ Layton

For one reason or another, the videogames and film industries are constantly compared. I suppose it’s a natural comparison to make, as the two industries are competing for consumer dollars. People argue that games are making more money than movies, or compare the budgets between the two. The most infuriating argument, however, are the ones that automatically assume that videogames are a somehow “inferior” art form (or not an art form at all!) compared to cinema. You can see these prejudices within the School of Cinematic Arts itself. Obviously film has been around for far longer than videogames, but that should hold no bearing on videogames as their own medium. I’m going to avoid the “what is art?” question here, but the point I am trying to make is that I am frustrated with the idea that we need to compare videogames to art as some sort of measuring stick, as some ridiculous way to validate videogames as a medium. This attitude diminishes videogames but sets the rules that film is something that videogames should aspire to.

Even so, as the games industry has grown we’ve seen increasing crossover between the industries. More games are coming out that are based on films, and more films are coming out that are based on games. Acclaimed director Steven Spielberg has teamed up with Electronic Arts to make three games. Clearly the trend is going to continue. The fact that companies are trying to spread their properties over many forms of media doesn’t bother me. What bothers me is that they usually turn out horribly. The reason for this is that at their core, film and videogames are not compatible.

Film is a passive medium, and videogames are an active one. In a film, the viewer is told the story, and they are along for the ride. In a good videogame, the player experiences the story in a unique way. Whereas in a film the viewer sees and hears exactly what the director wants them to see and hear, a videogame offers the designer no such control. The player may miss things the designer hoped for them to find, and may find things the designer had thought hidden. This may seem like videogames are at a disadvantage, but this is only so when you consider narrative in films as the gold standard. It isn’t.

I find it frustrating when I read a review and see a game described as “cinematic,” especially because it is always in the form of praise. When a game is “cinematic,” it doesn’t mean it’s fun, and it doesn’t mean it’s effective at engaging the player. More often than not it means the game features wide, sweeping camera movement, dramatic camera angles, and lots of non-interactive cutscenes or worse, full-motion video.

Hints at “cinematic games” have been around since Super Nintendo, but when it came time for CD-ROM and PlayStation, cinematics were primed to be abused in videogames. I don’t know that there has been a worse offender than Square or any other JRPG makers.

Let’s take a look at some commercials for Final Fantasy 7 and Final Fantasy 8. Look carefully for the gameplay footage. Can you see any?

Sorry, it was a trick question. There isn’t any gameplay footage in either of those commercials. Hell, the last one ends with “coming to a home theatre near you.”

It seems like videogames and designers are almost ashamed of videogames being just that – games. Maybe it’s a desire to feel justified in their profession. Maybe they’re failed film directors. But when I hear an auteur designer going on about the story of a game, or getting players invested “emotionally,” or otherwise focusing on the story they want to tell to the player, the following images come to mind: controllers with no player holding them, some pretty music, and a close-up of the a character’s face. In other words: great for a movie, boring for a game.

This mindset has become increasingly prevalent with the “movies as a reward” structure in many videogames, such as the aforementioned Final Fantasy games. How ridiculous is it that in many games the chief reward for playing the game is being able to watch a movie? As an even greater slap in the face to the player, oftentimes the “coolest” moments, the biggest ones, are selfishly taken away by the designer so that they can tell the story rather than let the player experience it. It’s the difference between a game like God of War and Shadow of the Colossus. In God of War, the player feels little accomplishment because they merely pressed some buttons in time to let what amounts to a pre-scripted, choreographed cutscene play out in front of them. In Shadow of the Colossus, the player is responsible for every action from climbing the monster to delivering the final blow. The fact that it’s real gameplay adds to the intensity of the experience. You know the effort it took to climb on top of the colossus, and you know that you could fall off at any moment, that you’re not kept safe from chaos by scripted events. In God of War, you’re safe, removed from the experience. If you got the button presses right, you know everything is going to go perfectly until the game needs you to press more buttons. The player gets to watch some cool stuff happen, instead of the player getting to do the cool stuff.

Why do designers feel the need to be greedy? Do they think they can tell the story better than the player can experience it? If so, why not make a film instead, and drop the pretense of making a game?

A lot of people seem to be looking for respect as videogame designers and for videogames in general. I think that the only way to accomplish that is for designers to respect videogames first. Instead of trying to make a videogame that accomplishes things that films do, why not make a videogame that accomplishes things films were never able to?

For example, no film has ever made me feel as triumphant as the moment when I finally knocked out Mike Tyson/Mr. Dream in the NES title Punchout!! Could any film match the intensity of my sheer desire and will to defeat that final opponent? What film could hope to communicate the feeling of accomplishment that I felt when I had finally won? Videogame history is full of moments that are just as impressive as the biggest moments in film, and they’re impressive in their own right, regardless of comparison to film. It’s the feeling you get when you first hear the roar of the boss monster in the Legend of Zelda or you finally manage to find the last dungeon. Or the feeling of pulling off that awesome riff in Guitar Hero that you’ve been working at for months. Or beating your old fastest time in F-Zero. Or watching your city grow in SimCity. Finally reaching the princess in Super Mario Bros..

The common thread? Not one of them involves a close-up of a character’s face. These moments happen because the games they are in are excellent in their own right. If the goal is to make the player connect with the main character, that’s fine – just remember that the main character is the player himself, not any on-screen avatar.

Videogames are not a lesser form of art than film. Videogames are a different form of art. And yes, in many ways, videogames are superior to film. Instead of trying to design videogames to be more cinematic and use the storytelling methods found in films, we should be using the interactive nature of videogames to craft experiences and create new narratives, ones that filmmakers could never tell.