Blog: Pixel Blur – Cinematic Games or Interactive Movies?
Mark Botright looks at the changing face of cinema and games…
As is the case with most AV enthusiasts, I have whiled away many an hour tweaking and fiddling with equipment in order to wring out every last ounce of enjoyment from my kit. This is borne from many different agendas; it can be partly attributed to the sort of geekdom that is demonstrated in the instances when I long to dismantle something just for the sake of it, as well as a hereditary tight-fistedness that sees me intent on getting every last penny’s worth of performance from the gadgetry I have before I can finally allow myself to succumb to upgrade-itis.
Another factor that rears its ugly head and one which is perhaps often overlooked is that of the multi-functionality needed from an entertainment set-up these days. Long ago perhaps two speakers and one display would suffice but we are now living in an information age where dedicated kit is recommended for almost every purpose that our listening and viewing needs dictate. With gaming being a priority for me, I saw the early plasmas and baulked at what I perceived as dim screens unable to reproduce the eye scorching candy colours I had grown accustomed to during sun drenched daylight hours. I was also put off by tales of purple snakes and image retention. Similarly, the LCDs seemed unable to reproduce the black levels and proved unforgiving when viewing films as well as lacking the response time to eradicate motion drag for sports and gaming. Luckily, as time has passed the technology has improved and we are now seeing the benefits of display technology fit for all purposes (that technology is plasma btw – I’m a convert). However, in recent years there’s been an increasing amount of focus on the fact that the very media themselves that we are displaying may be becoming as uniform in nature. So, now that I’m finally happy with a set up for both films and games, I look at my disc collections and have to ask, am I satisfied because my equipment is capable of displaying both media in an accomplished manner, or is there something else that needs to be considered? Are these two forms of entertainment converging in a way that makes them artistically and visually similar? I turn from one AV input and go from a dark and moody room on a Blu-ray movie, to another on a Blu-ray game disc – was it always like this? If not, where did the lines begin to blur, and where might it lead?
For those who have a keen interest in videogames it may not be an entirely (or even vaguely come to think of it) new topic to broach – the continued cries of an industry desperate to be considered as relevant as any other that offers a narrative or moving experience – the subject raises its head every few years. Unfortunately, this usually coincides with a long running debate by the mainstream press about the depiction of violence in this medium; one that all too frequently traces its roots back to a Daily Mail headline on a slow news day and is seemingly always linking the question with one of narrator responsibility due to a particularly brutal and unrepresentative example of a typical videogame hitting the shelves (though it’s worth noting the many ways in which developers themselves use this furore to knowingly publicise their wares nowadays). For film fans this level of outrage has long since been an afterthought, having been consigned to the annals of history in boxes marked “A Clockwork Orange and Straw Dogs controversy”, only rarely surfacing when phrases such as “torture porn” are created by what I expect was a quick thinking ad executive. But I digress, my point is that my increasing awareness of the visual similarity of games to their more established brethren could be seen as indicative of a systematic divergence of the art forms (certainly from one direction – that of games). Is it my imagination, wishful thinking as a film fan or is there merely a stylistic similarity borne out of the want of the consumer, as the age of the average gamer increases, to show more mature stories?
It is hardly surprising that industry trends cause the artistic shifting of those who develop the products. For example, during 2008, for the first time it was reported (by market research bods Media Control Gfk International) that videogames sales outstripped those of both DVDs and Blu-rays, creeping up from a market share of 47 percent in 2007 to a whopping 53 percent of total packaged sales. Even the wealth of other merchandise available via digital distribution isn’t expected to halt this trend over time, as the game market share is assumed to be in the ascendancy. The fly in this ointment? Well once you factor in the high price point of even budget games available as downloads, then it is perhaps not too surprising that their sales account for such a large slice of the pie. All this though could still be seen as evidence that the growth of the gaming sector is a snowball effect, but does it accidentally coincide with, or is it as an effect of the increasing amount of mature titles in that medium? Have a quick gander at the top titles of the past year and it may bring you to an almost entirely different conclusion. With Nintendo absolutely throttling the charts with such mainstream titles such as WiiFit, WiiSports and the latest in the long running Pokemon franchise it looks like business as usual, with games easily swept aside as a pastime based around fun frolics and neon visuals. These examples bear little in common with critically acclaimed outings on the silver screen that most of us probably use our home cinema set-ups to view. However, a glance at the biggest box office hits of the past year shows us that maturity and success don’t always go hand in hand as the list is populated with (amongst others) Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen and the latest Harry Potter and Ice Age money makers. Thus I ask you not to write off the notion of gaming as an increasingly cinematic narrative style simply due to the indication that the mainstream success of Nintendo (and wonderful renaissance that I wholeheartedly praise – I’m not sneering here), which might paint videogames as artistically stunted.
Colours and general content are one thing, and both games and movies will always have their more vibrant types shining in the faces of eager viewers. They will also both have more well crafted examples that are hidden away and not oft discovered by the majority of their potential market. The silver screen at least has an allure that allows it to be considered televisually worthy and will gain accreditation for these gems somewhere along the line. The problem for the argument that games are moving in the same direction as novels, cinema etc is also one of a lack of penetration into the consciousness of the general populace. A bare minimum of shows are available for those who crave button pressing thrills and they are usually pushed backed to an hour that is only really sociable for shift workers and serial killers – neither of which describe the average gamer no matter what the tabloids may tell you. The Daily Mail controversy was in fact one of the few ways for several games, such as Carmageddon and others which fell into the equivalent of the video nasty category, to gain widespread attention and in line with the theory that games are increasingly influenced by cinema, the aforementioned driving splatathon by Stainless Games, was in fact inspired by the 1975 cult sci-fi starring David Carradine – Death Race 2000. As with its source of inspiration, it was widely derided by those who peered into the goldfish bowl of gaming culture, yet the jet black humour infused into its production was lost on those unable to get to grips with bright colours and swathes of blood and carnage. Both source material and following creation suffered the fate of being labelled low brow exploitation fare and it was this stamp which also brought with it their success. Perhaps if there is a correlation to be made between the two mediums, its seeds for success are to be found in this parallel.
We all know that a potential divergence or the evolution of gaming to emulate the maturity of cinematic vision is possible. The fundamentals of placing violence on screen are well documented. Be it plastic light guns blasting pixellated ducks or the rampages of going Postal, this was never likely to be the main hurdle. If indeed there is a case to be made for videogames to be considered a mature medium, it must surely be in the progression, or perhaps lack of it, in the narrative. For an interactive pastime, the emphasis of emotional story telling and character progression has not always been at the forefront of a game’s success. Indeed, it still arguably isn’t, with Nintendo recently unearthing the veritable goldmine of untapped money that is family gamers. For these button bashing participants, the move towards emotive tales being told in an interactive manner is not of paramount importance, as they are essentially children new to the delights of the scene as a whole and through clever marketing have been drawn down the rabbit hole of joypad japery and enjoyment. For many of us though, we represent a market that is harder to satisfy with the repackaging and continuation of supposedly simple concepts such as “fun”. No, a generation of once young men (and a few girls) who grew up practicing every version of the fundamental building blocks of reaction and repetition, a more meaningful shift in emphasis was necessary. Many new dawns have come and gone for the latest epoch that is purported in the ever moving goalposts of “interactive story telling” and more than a few consoles have died on the back of claims hyped up and never truly fulfilled. Yet only in recent months have such figures as Mad Max director George Miller emerged to liken the medium to that of the novel, stating “Games were the poor cousin to feature films when it came to story telling but I think it’s flipping. Games allow you to be much more like a novelist”. Now perhaps this can be taken with a hefty pinch of salt. I’m sure some will see the man’s lack of production in his first chosen field as a reason for his championing of another, akin to a footballer who fails to cut it at a club and later claims to have always been a fan of wherever he is being shifted onto. But there are moves afoot that may make such bold cries of evolution seem not quite so far fetched.
Primary evidence of the continued creep towards cinemisation (I’ve made that one up, but to hell with Microsoft Word’s red squiggle, I like it!) is the evolution of the once humble cut-scene. Often originally utilised as nothing more than a simple respite for the gamer to catch his breath, it served merely as a peremptory pause between bookends of interactivity. Little thought truly went into the style it should take as in days gone by it merely looked exactly the same as any other section, but with the added boredom of the fact that you could not control what was going on. The screen perhaps lost the health bar or HUD but the viewpoint remained and you watched on helplessly as your on screen persona walked about, talked to a few people, maybe got in a scrape or two and then you were handed control back. It mattered little why you were headed to a castle, or shooting at someone or something, all that was necessary was for it to point you in a given direction then let you take over again. A bridge that connected two destinations and nothing more. I won’t bore you with the gradual progression or the mammoth shifts that helped move these stilted sessions of text reading into craved instances of potential insight into key characters. Suffice to say that for many the advent of full motion video and Square Enix’s Final Fantasy VII played a major part. It was one of the first examples of creative direction in these segments that not only drew the viewer’s gaze in subtle ways but also sought to enrich the fundamentals of game playing by making the gamer actually invest genuine emotion into the role they played.
Whether this cross pollination is entirely one way traffic is a matter that is somewhat muddy. The ranks of cinephiles eager to bemoan what they see as a continued trend of summer blockbusters that contain little more than bubble gum for the brain (an aside levelled numerous times at the videogame industry) appears to grow with each passing year. As does the list of games turned into films, but this in itself shouldn’t be taken as anything more than the rush for marketable source material. That the end product often resembles the average mess that is a videogame’s storyline and contains all the brash characterisation and absurdities is not a signal of influence past that of the want to ride on the coat tails of something that is already within the consciousness of an important demographic. Ever since Jaws first hit the screens back in 1975 the film industry has been ever eager to produce bigger spectacles, with many commentators arguing that the chasm that started to fracture the creative film making community started there or thereabouts. This would continue to widen leaving greater distance between the blockbuster cash cows and the award show darlings, with each major studio looking to find the balance between the two and retain credibility as well as stuffing its wallets. The dumbing down of present summer blockbusters is frightening but even the most ardent gamer would be hard pushed to make a case for their hobby having had even a passing influence on Hollywood. Instead it is far more plausible that the MTV generation as a whole has dictated the type of television, games and movies that are produced, with more emphasis placed on concept, flashy design and the sheer thrill of the ride rather than the craft of the product itself. This likeness to the average rollercoaster videogame is therefore coincidental or perhaps parallel due to a shared market and certainly not a sign of inspiration.
So if the direction of influence is only one way between games and films, where does this leave consoles gaming and the push for interactivity of some kind in story telling? Will we ever have an example that truly pulls together the best of both worlds? It may sound crazy but I don’t think it is quite as far fetched a concept as it may initially sound. Consider recent examples of both. James Cameron’s Avatar has been much discussed the world over for its use of 3D but in depth analysis of its plot points and general moral preaching is thin on the ground, perhaps because the material is similarly thin. The argument could be made that in this film we have the first specimen of the experience truly trumping the art. It is easy to make cinema goers jump in their seats at basic noise shock tactics but to envelop them in something that happens as if they were inside the narrative in some way is altogether harder, but surely this is what intelligent (spot the keyword there) videogame developers have always been striving for? It seems to me that there are factions within the two industries (not the whole industries mind, as with any art form there are distinct branches and nothing can be generalised in such an easy manner for the sake of my measly brain burp article) that are coming at the conundrum of thrill ride story telling from differing ends of the spectrum. Those whose audience have a controller in their hands find themselves struggling to place greater importance upon the narrative and try to add depth to their characters. Whilst at the same time those whose audiences are purely passive passengers seek to find a way to engender a feeling of being physicality to the two dimensions the screen has to offer. We’ve had the advent of surround sound which can be seen as an attempt to place viewers in an audible bubble, and now with 3D technology there are moves afoot to make the visual presentation have a similar impact. It is also not unheard of that tactile responses are employed within what may seem a passive movie going event. Consider if you will the matter of the “.1” in your film encounters. Much more than a mere extra channel, when utilised by the correct equipment a poor man’s boomy bass that annoys the neighbours, rightly becomes actual pressure within the viewing environment that is felt rather than heard by the ears. I’ll admit it’s still a long way from Smell-O-Vision, three hundred and sixty degree screens and virtual reality pods but it is still a tangible push into the realms of active responses that brings with it a level of physicality and interaction and is already available to all with the right kit. We all see films being continually linked with the world of literature by many style and review magazines, but does this link really exist beyond the pages of such articles? With cinema you already have a continuing trend to find more and more ways in which to raise the blood pressure and trick the brain than the introspective world of the readers’ imaginations that has stayed the book for millennia. Not withstanding the odd novel (no pun intended) example such as Mark Z. Danielewski’s House of Leaves or perhaps that age old refuge of geekdom the dice-rolling fantasy book, pages remain read in one way. The link between videogames and cinema is there, if only in their mutual progression of attempts to gain greater viewer response and sensory domination. It is hard to imagine even the starkest, most uncommercial tale, filmed in black and white, by an unheard of auteur not to carry some form of surround sound.
I’m not trying to make a case that the intelligent string pulling God sims of Peter Molyneux or the bum numbing length of cut scenes favoured by Hideo Kojima, or even James Cameron’s thrilling but still somewhat unconvincing 3D attempt Avatar hold the key to unlocking the door to finding a totally new experience, but I can’t help but feel that in modern times it is looking more and more likely that we will eventually have a point of reference that will fall somewhere between what have sometimes been depicted as the opposing spheres of cinema seat with popcorn and couch with joypad, in the gulf that lies between passivity and interactivity, that will be able to tell a story, be emotive and place the audience within the experience in a convincing manner. So far neither industry has proved truly effective in this goal, but the strides towards 3D cinema, and the continued push to employ credited writers for games development may indicate that there may be an answer somewhere in between two pastimes I hugely enjoy and from it something genuinely new may raise its head. It shouldn’t mean the dilution of either art form, as every time the subject of new technology being utilised in mediums that people love tends to engender fear, disparagement and dismissal from those who want things to remain the same. Bergman’s films won’t metamorphose into absurd creations, with a 3D head of Death looming out at you while you scratch your bum or viewers able to equip Mary Poppins with a flame thrower via a controller. Similarly the finger twitching response-heavy medium of game playing will likely not descend into pot boilers teaching us lessons about domestic violence and kestrels. I suppose I was just wondering, given that at one point the idea of taking 3D cinema seriously was a hilarious proposition, is it possible that there is space between the two mediums for something genuinely new to arise, or will the elasticity of these novel new directions both appear to have teetered into wear out soon, only to snap each back to their original positions? In the end, will it be 2D and/or button mashing forever? If not, what next?
