Charlie Brooker: Gaming makes Hollywood look embarrassing

[Telperion]

Do you agree that cinema is on the out?

Hardly. I'm looking forward to seeing Trollhunter ASAP.

And is gaming close to claiming the entertainment crown?

Highly unlikely, seeing as how the majority of the world doesn't play games. They do watch movies, but they don't play games.

Is it even right to compare the two?

* shrugs * I don't think it's very fruitful. You can draw all sorts of conclusions out of thin air, but ultimately these are two very different mediums of entertainment. Not a lot of overlap to be seen since most movie-turned-games are somewhere between crap and utter crap.

Are Portal 2 and LA Noire as bloody marvellous as Charlie suggests?

I don't really know anything about LA Noire, but Portal 2 is pretty good. Not awesome by any stretch of the imagination, but pretty darn good.

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

Honestly: I don't think so. A lovingly crafted 'reaction shooter' can be just as entertaining as anything Portal 2 threw at me. I think the first game is better than the sequel, but that doesn't really change anything.

And is it actually a good thing that gaming is being pulled into the mainstream?

Sure, why not. There are plenty of indie games out there to enjoy when I don't feel like doing a faceplant into yet another generic triple-A FPS or RPG. I do want my ME 3, though.

 

[EvilPicnic]

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.

I agree. But a difficulty is that Charlie Brooker does have history with the Escapist, in that he asked them to allow Yahtzee to appear on Gameswipe, and they said... no.

He's also been doing lots of televisiony things recently.

 

[MasterV]

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?

My opinion, in order.

1)I agree that Hollywood is declining. On the out? No. Everything in nature tends to go beyond expectations when push comes to shove.

2)It would be if it wasn't trying to be Hollywood and being more like gaming instead.

3)Sure. Both are entertainment industries. It is natural to consider them as opposing forces.

4)No. They're good games BUT Portal has no replay value (It's puzzles. Only one solution and once you solved them once the challenge is gone) and L.A. Noire...well I haven't played that one yet.

5)No. I'll use the most recent example. Portal 2 sales constantly lagging behind Mortal Kombat corroborate that. MK (like it or hate it, I dont't care, I don't play it) is a fighting game. Which means it demands combining both mind and thumbs for the player to be sucessful. All the most loved games combine these two, not favour one over the other. And a game can't be loved by the public if it is "poor" in any way is it?

6)Yes. Yes it is.

 

[joemegson94]

Fast and Furious 5, Gnomeo and Juliet, and Insidious. These all look crap.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

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

But a movie studio didn't greenlight Superman 64.
OP: Gaming caught up to movies in the last two years, both in revenue and popularity. And the industry continues to grow. Hollywood should be afraid of the competition.

 

[tigermilk]

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

I don't think gaming is making more. Huge amounts of attention was placed upon GTA IV's $100 million production costs and speculation as to whether it would make it back.

Conversely within a similar time frame Avatar has made almost $2.3 billion just from box office reciepts* and it is quite common for films to cost $200-$300 million to produce I think it will be a long time (if ever) that we see a game with $300 million production costs (I very much doubt it will be this gen even with the increased production costs.

http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/ [Avatar profit margin source].

 

[Casual Shinji]

As you said, this article is mainly aimed at the non-gaming audience, but I can't help but feel like Mr. Brooker ignores a few major points.

First of all, the gaming industry is just as filled with gimmicky cash-grabs as the movies. Maybe even more so.

Secondly, most if not all of the big budget games are largely based on classic movies. Aliens, Saving Private Ryan, Indiana Jones. The article itself even mentions that L.A. Noire borrows a lot of it's aesthetics from L.A. Confidential. There's only a very few games that have their own original setting, not based on classic cinema.

And lastly, the reason both these games are succesful has more to do with the infamous studios behind them (mainly Rockstar) than with gamers' high class taste.

This whole article feels a bit forced. Gaming is no better or worse of an artistic industry than Hollywood.

As for L.A. Noire. I'm on vice now, and I have to say that I'm quickly getting bored out of my skull. Plus, Cole Phelps has as much character as a dead fish.

 

[Durananrananrananran]

I won't say cinema is completely devoid of all prospect. Source Code was a really great movie.

But you'd be a fool to think that gaming wasn't clearly better than cinema. I mean, jut look at the metacritic ratings that seperate videogames and movies.

http://www.halolz.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/halolz-dot-com-movies-vs-videogames-reviewscores.jpg

I think that has more to do with the PR behind game reviewing (compared to movie reviewing) causing consumers to have different expectations, rather than intrinsic differences in quality between the two art forms.

Still, it's a nice graphic.

 

[Meggiepants]

Well, I don't really think either can say they have a spotless record. For as many Pirates sequels Disney is going to shovel out, I can think of more than a few video games made simply to get a buck. Hell, most of the 2nd party Wii games are total garbage.

On the other hand, I do think people, like myself, who are more interested in an interactive experience are more likely to pick up a game than watch TV or a movie. But there are certainly other people I know who don't feel this way.