Less than 24 hours since I posted my blog post on why movies suck, I find this. It’s an article by Seth Schiesel titled, “A New Video Game Hopes Expressive Characters Lead to Emotional Attachment.” The hidden subtitle is “Proving RJ’s point about why movies suck.” On the surface, it’s an article about the new PS3 videogame, Ratchet & Clank Future: Tools of Destruction. Looking deeper, it’s an article about how videogames are still struggling to catch up to its superiors in the film industry.
The entire article is incredibly condescending towards videogames while propping up film as the greatest thing to ever happen to storytelling. Scheisel writes, “The new Ratchet is a watershed for gaming because it provides the first interactive entertainment experience that truly feels like inhabiting a world-class animated film.”
How wonderful! Let me emphasize the insulting part: Scheisel is arguing that the game is amazing because it feels like it’s in a film. Not because it’s fun or for any reasons related to the gameplay. No, instead it’s because visually it looks like an animated film. Wow! But… couldn’t I just, you know, watch a film if I wanted that experience?
Scheisel continually props up Pixar and DreamWorks as the masters of visual expression, of achieving things videogames never could. Good for them. I enjoy a lot of films from those studios. However, could they make a good videogame? Why don’t we ask that question instead of the other way around? The reason why people like Shiesel don’t ask that question is because the answer to them is so obvious that it’s not even worth asking. Why, Pixar trying to emulate a videogame would be like taking a step back, or limiting itself. But for videogames to emulate film, well that’s a noble feat indeed!
Ugh.
Ignoring the ignorance about the PlayStation 3 having “more silicon horsepower” than the 360 or his insinuation that neither the Wii nor the 360 may ever “match Ratchet’s overall visual quality,” we move on to developer comments that sting as well. Brian Allgeier, creative director for Ratchet & Clank, comments:
“Ultimately we’re trying to create more emotional intimacy,” he said. “That’s one of the things that movies do really well with the close-up, where you can really see the emotions on the character’s face. But in games, so often you’re just seeing the action from a wide shot behind the character you’re controlling and you don’t have that emotional connection. So that’s what we’re going for.”
Sigh. If only… well, what if we could make games where the camera is locked onto a character’s face! Or… oh, I’ve got it! What if we had the character automatically move and do things, and we just had it so the camera watched his face or whatever we wanted! And we didn’t worry about what that bothersome player was doing, we just show whatever we want! It’ll be just like a film… or, actually, it is a film.
Sarcastic remarks aside, it seems clear that these guys really just want to make films. That’s cool, they should go do that. But if you think you need a close-up to get a player to emotionally connect with their avatar, you’re doing it wrong.
Schiesel finishes up with perhaps the worst comment of all, and one that neatly summarizes my frustration with the industry and perceptions in general:
“The biggest problem with Ratchet is that at times it is so lushly compelling that you find yourself just staring at the screen, as if it were a movie, rather than actually playing the game. And that, of course, is not a bad problem at all.”
Take note, game designers. When you’ve managed to get the player to stop playing your game and just watch the screen, you’ve succeeded. Congratulations.