Charlie Brooker: Gaming makes Hollywood look embarrassing

[EvilPicnic]

Yes! Once again Charlie Brooker, the video-game world's biggest proponent and champion in the UK print media continues to push gaming into the mainstream spotlight.

In an article currently on the homepage of the Guardian website (and also probably in today's newspaper) entitled, 'Hollywood shuns intelligent entertainment. The games industry doesn't. Guess who's winning? [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/23/gaming-makes-hollywood-look-embarrassing]' Charlie lavishes praise on Portal 2 and LA Noire, contrasting their awesomeness (and great sales) with the dire crap that's in the cinema at the moment, and draws conclusions about which industry is flagging and which is gaining speed (take a guess...).

The article is obviously not aimed at us, the gaming community, but at a more mainstream audience with hopes to entice some people into picking up controller to two. But it was still a great read, and anything that furthers the gaming cause is right in my book!

So, escapist...

Do you agree that cinema is on the out?
And is gaming close to claiming the entertainment crown?
Is it even right to compare the two?
Are Portal 2 and LA Noire as bloody marvellous as Charlie suggests?
And is he right to suggest that 'challenging the mind instead of the thumbs' is 'richer' than finger-twitching Space Invaders-style?
And is it actually a good thing that gaming is being pulled into the mainstream?


Here's another link to the article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/23/gaming-makes-hollywood-look-embarrassing


[sub]p.s.[/sub]

[sub]Charlie. If you're not too busy we would like another episode of Gameswipe please [/sub]

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Charlie Brooker is one of gaming's greatest champions. The Escapist should get an article from him.

 

[Jim From Accounting]

I don't think that gaming is going tom take the crown as entertainment king but it will be on par with the movie industry, and it's not that cinema industry is on the out it just that is cheeper to go strait to DVD/ blu ray because it's becoming to expensive to go to the movies.

 

[Gamer_152]

Do you agree that cinema is on the out? No. I don't really see it being anything less than a rather huge entertainment medium in the foreseeable future.

And is gaming close to claiming the entertainment crown? It's certainly speeding in that direction but we must remember that there are still a considerable number of people who don't even recognise games as a proper entertainment medium. If gaming is to claim the entertainment crown it's gonna take a bit, even with the current success of the industry.

Is it even right to compare the two? In some regards, yes.

Are Portal 2 and LA Noire as bloody marvellous as Charlie suggests? I haven't played L.A. Noire but I'm still reeling from Portal 2, I think that game is an absolute masterpiece in every regard.

And is he right to suggest that 'challenging the mind instead of the thumbs' is 'richer' than finger-twitching Space Invaders-style? In some ways, but 'richer' can mean a lot of things, I don't think it's quite the word that should be used to describe it.

And is it actually a good thing that gaming is being pulled into the mainstream? Overall, yes. More people get to experience the pleasure of gaming and we get to see the industry grow and diversify.

 

[PettingZOOPONY]

Gaming took the crown for money making from movies years ago.

 

[Zhukov]

Someone get that man a beer, stat.

 

[Frybird]

Gaming took the crown for money making from movies years ago.

Not really.
While gaming makes a lot of money, it seems to be much harder to actually make millions in the game industry, due to the comparably smaller share developers and publishers get from the games, and the higher risk that is involved when putting a game on the market. At least that's what i am aware of.

Back to Topic.

It feels like the article is much hype but few substance.
It picks out two specific examples for great games, while bashing on the usual hollywood fare.
The truth however is that the film industry still puts out more intelligent movies than the VG-Industry does with games. Of course, with movies we're talking a much larger quantity, but i'd bet when taken on a level of averages and percentages, the movie industry would still win, abeit maybe just slightly.

What can be said however, is that in gaming, Hype is being but much more where it is deserved. As much as the game industry has it's large share of generic games, the market(ing) seems to still favor the things that promise to be groundbreaking in one way or another, while mainstream film is more in favor of "Here's more of the thing you liked two/twenty years ago" or "Here's that actor you like".
And even as much as one would like to already bash the likes of Gears of War 3 or Modern Warfare 3 to be dull and just "more of the same", when compared to the likes of Hangover 2 or even (and shamefully) Cars 2, these games suddenly don't seem so generic and samey anymore.

In the end, i don't think games will ever surpass or replace movies, for a lot more reasons than stated here, but articles like this do show a strength in gaming that movies don't seem to have as much, and that is something that does and further can make gaming into it's own mainstream juggernaut: In gaming, people do actually crave the weird, new, and "unsafe" things. Not nearly as often as i like, but much more than a regular moviegoer.

 

[Vault101]

do you mean cinema as in goign to the cinema? thats a whole seperate thing and has ntohing to do with games

as for movies, they are here to stay for a while yet

 

[thiosk]

Well, I cannot believe that the fast and the furious has had 4 sequels, each more successful than the last. Those movies sum up pretty much everything I hate about modern cinema.

Lets look at tv now: three smart sci fi shows that have had, or are having trouble: firefly, stargate universe, fringe. Shows that don't have trouble: jersey shore is getting a european spin off.

There is not much smart media out there. Lets see whats on the history channel tonight: swamp people. oh joy, aligator hunter\farmers who have one of them airboats.

Joy.

 

[Frotality]

a tad more sarcastic than it probably needed to be, but huge props for putting 2 great games in the spotlight for mainstream audiences to get interested in.

games wont really surpass film; not any time soon at least, and i kind of prefer it that way. frankly both are shoveling out the crap right now, but it says alot that even call of duty sequel #134 is more innovative than the average hollywood retread. the intelligent mental challenges we all love are only possible because gaming is still small enough that companies dont have to assume that any demographic small enough to not include children and morons (or whoever executives assume are morons) isnt viable. the bigger it gets, the more money publishers put in, the more money they expect back, the wider the audience has to be to get that money, and thus the dumber the game has to be to appeal to such a wide range of people. we have 2 examples of engaging art out of a sea of mediocrity; if gaming surpasses movies, that ratio will only get more extreme.

gaming is fine were it is with what it produces; as much as i complain how crappy games are right now, it is very comforting to remember that we still get more truly good and great games than hollywood makes movies of equal calibur. what makes this article great is that charlie is enticing people with the GOOD games, explaining what to expect and why theyre awesome. i would certainly welcome more fans of games like LA noire and portal than i would more fans of brown FPS #31852.

 

[badgersprite]

Well, he certainly has a point. I mean, it wasn't any gaming dev who greenlighted Little Fockers or Showgirls.

 

[KaiusCormere]

Gaming already is making more money. Not that it has more sales, but that gamers spend $60 a game, it ends up making more.

 

[EvilPicnic]

Well, he certainly has a point. I mean, it wasn't any gaming dev who greenlighted Little Fockers or Showgirls.

But a gaming dev did greenlight this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leisure_Suit_Larry:_Box_Office_Bust

 

[badgersprite]

Well, he certainly has a point. I mean, it wasn't any gaming dev who greenlighted Little Fockers or Showgirls.

But a gaming dev did greenlight this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leisure_Suit_Larry:_Box_Office_Bust

Touché. I would also have accepted Mask Of Eternity or Daikatana as a rebuttal.

 

[LittleBlondeGoth]

a tad more sarcastic than it probably needed to be

You've not read / seen much Charlie Brooker, have you? Compared to some of his stuff, this article is tame.

But in all honesty, I can't remember the last time I went to the cinema. It was probably about 2 years ago, and I've got a terrible feeling it was to see something dire like Transformers. Obviously I've got no desire to really repeat that experience. Start to factor in things like costs - parking at the cinema is usually a couple of quid, then around £10 each for a ticket to see the film, another £5 for a sodding drink and nibbles, plus I have to endure cinema seats for a couple of hours in the presence of other people.

Why would I do this, when I have a bloody nice sofa at home with a 50" plasma on the wall in front of it and access to the internet? Plus at least I can grab something cold out of the fridge, sit around in my pants and no-one's going to bat an eyelid (apart from the window cleaner that one time, but that's another story).

To put it in perspective, I'm not at all bothered about seeing the latest Pirates film, no matter how good the first one was. However, I'm practically bouncing in my seat to pay my £40 to pick up Mass Effect 3.

 

[vviki]

Charlie Brooker is one of gaming's greatest champions. The Escapist should get an article from him.

Seconded. Charlie Brooker is awesome and the Escapist should consider getting him.

 

[Sixties Spidey]

[blockquote]Do you agree that cinema is on the out?[/blockquote]

Not necessarily. It'll always be around, but there has to be more of a reliance on creating actual quality rather than a spectacle.


[blockquote]And is gaming close to claiming the entertainment crown?[/blockquote]

It's already claimed the art crown. Why wouldn't it claim something that it was designed for to begin with? If games like Call of Duty and Halo smash records of Hollywood openings, then it would be ridiculous to suggest that it isn't worthy of the entertainment crown.



[blockquote]Is it even right to compare the two?[/blockquote]

Absolutely not. Both tell stories in different ways. It's like trying to compare ice cream with a grapefruit.


[blockquote]Are Portal 2 and LA Noire as bloody marvellous as Charlie suggests?[/blockquote]

Hell yes. While I do speak from a personal opinion, I've played and I love both games, and to me, the both of them stick out in my mind as sterling examples of games as art.


[blockquote]And is he right to suggest that 'challenging the mind instead of the thumbs' is 'richer' than finger-twitching Space Invaders-style?[/blockquote]

I get where he's coming from. He's trying to suggest that a game like Portal 2 is more enriching to say.... Call of Duty. To me, the best games are the ones that can combine both. Zelda springs eagerly to mind.


[blockquote]And is it actually a good thing that gaming is being pulled into the mainstream?
[/blockquote]

That depends on interpretation. There are a lot of people I know of whom the second I mention "Mainstream" to, they think "Call of Duty" and either dismiss or approve of it. There's a fifty fifty chance of saturating the living hell out of the market, but a fifty fifty chance of communicating gameplay mechanics that change the way how we communicate stories within a game.

L.A. Noire is one of those games, and if I'm not mistaken, that game is being critically acclaimed like nothing before and it's selling really well. So there is room for innovation in a mainstream market. Difference is that we're more willing to take risks in the games industry than the film industry, and that's what makes them two totally different forms of media.

 

[Torrasque]

Do you agree that cinema is on the out? Nope, I will still go to the theatre for movies.
And is gaming close to claiming the entertainment crown? I don't think it ever will, that is not the nature of gaming imo.
Is it even right to compare the two? No it is not. Cinema is sitting there and being entertained; whether you enjoy the movie or not is based on your likes and dislikes, and how much you pay attention. Gaming is engaging and you may sit there and be entertained, but you have to engage your brainz to play the game. Yes, some games more than others, but you still have to think "ok, what do I do now?" for any video game ever.
Are Portal 2 and LA Noire as bloody marvellous as Charlie suggests? Portal more than Portal 2. I'm not saying Portal 2 sucked, but Portal 1 was definitely better in my eyes. LA Noire is fantastic; its like I am stuck in a 1930s movie about gangsters, and I have to play my way out.
And is he right to suggest that 'challenging the mind instead of the thumbs' is 'richer' than finger-twitching Space Invaders-style? Yes it is richer, but I enjoy the mindless entertainment that games like Space Invaders offers (sometimes). As much as I enjoy Fire Emblem, Advanced Wars, and most strategy games, it is really draining to play a really challenging level. I can play MW2 for hours on end, but the harder Fire Emblem levels really take it out of me, sometimes I have to take a break between levels. So basically, mindless entertainment is not as "rich" as entertainment that makes you think, but it is still entertainment.
And is it actually a good thing that gaming is being pulled into the mainstream? Eh. I don't really care, since I could care less about what is mainstream and what is not. I just hope big corporations don't get their claws in the game franchises that I like and TRY to make them more popular.