games and film

[Beages]

What is the differences in storytelling told in films and games?

other than one being more interactive than the other.

Whats the differences

 

[Stall]

There is no real difference. People who say so otherwise are just kidding themselves, and high on the absolute pretension of the concept of a "HURR DURR INTERACTIVE MEDIUM HURR". Absolute silliness.

Few, if none, games have ever utilized the so-called 'interactivity' in such a way to further a story. Out of all the games that people consider to have great stories, I can think of none that would be hurt in the slightest by being transplanted to film. Hell, they probably would be even better, since "good" video game writing is about equivalent to mediocre film writing.

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

Games have the potential to be much, much longer than films. Imagine if a film tried to do justice to the story of, say, Deus Ex. It would have to either go on for about 12 hours, which nobody is going to want to go and see, or it will be rushed and dumbed-down, in order to compress it into 2 hours.

Some games (like Mass Effect or Deus Ex again) give you the power to dictate your characters speech and actions through the game, something that a film can never do. So if I went to see a Mass Effect film on the basis that I'm a huge fan of the games, I think I'd feel somewhat 'left out' of the experience, which would be disappointing.

 

[Zhukov]

What do you mean, "other than one being more interactive than the other"?

That is the major difference.

Although, come to think of it, films definitely have the advantage of not being crippled by the need to put the story on hold for long periods of time so the protagonist can murder hordes of inconsequential mooks.

 

[Thaliur]

What is the differences in storytelling told in films and games?

other than one being more interactive than the other.

Whats the differences

So far, the average visuals in movies are usually better than in games, but games are gaining on them fast. It's mostly a matter of processing power and available time, after all (When TRON was made, it was OK to have a computer cluster render a few minutes of lightcycle or tank scenes for weeks, but a game has to deliver its graphics pretty much immediately).
Also, as Stall said, video games as a medium are more challenging for the creative workers. Not just storywriters, designers and programmers too. Programmers probably more than the others, because of the speed/time limitation. They have to create an environment for the designers to work in that can handle whatever they put in there, handle any physics calculations, calculate lighting, texture deformation, project everything from a 3D space onto a 2D surface (by correcting the perspective from straight to angled and sorting everything according to distance from the camera), take distances into account (DoF effects), add shaders and bump maps, correct surface shadows and send it to the screen. Within 50ms. Not a trivial task, I would say.

 

[Zach of Fables]

Film can certainly tell a tighter narrative than a game. Short films can be less than ten minutes long. Games can't do that.

 

[AD-Stu]

Avoiding the interactivity debate...

Game storytelling can be spread out over several hours and it has the option of breaking the fourth wall at will to fill in story gaps or provide background information via messages addressed directly to the player.

Film storytelling, on the other hand, is restricted to a linear story that's got to have everything done and dusted in a couple of hours at most.

It's one of the things that's really got me wondering about the proposed Mass Effect movie - if you skip all the side missions there's still probably 10+ hours of story in the game, and even then it relies heavily on the Codex system to provide all the necessary background information. Loads of stuff will need to be cut to make a coherent movie that fits the time frame.

 

[Stall]

Imagine if a film tried to do justice to the story of, say, Deus Ex. It would have to either go on for about 12 hours, which nobody is going to want to go and see, or it will be rushed and dumbed-down, in order to compress it into 2 hours.

No. No it wouldn't. If such logic were true, then why are there so many films based around books that are incredibly long? There is a lot of fat on video game stories. They don't NEED that 12 plus hours to tell that story: they NEED that 12 hours because people expect video games to be exceptionally long, or else the consumer feels they don't get their moneys worth.

You could easily trim down most games into a 2 hour movie without "dumbing it down".

What do you mean, "other than one being more interactive than the other"?

That is the difference.

And it's a trivial difference 9 times out of 10.

 

[Chromanin]

The difference is games are not a great storytelling medium. We accept things like Aeris only dying when the plot says so or the Prince in Prince of Persia saying "No, that's not how it happened" and starting over because it's a game. Trying that stuff in a movie would make for a clunky and inconsistent narrative.

 

[DasDestroyer]

No. No it wouldn't. If such logic were true, then why are there so many films based around books that are incredibly long?

Now tell me, when was the last time you've seen a movie based on a book after watching which you thought to yourself "Wow, this movie was better than the book"?

 

[Zack Alklazaris]

The fact that you can have long dragged out sequences where a character walks around opening doors in search of a certain goal. Everything is more cut, cut, cut. Unfortunately, many games rely on this submersion where you begin to feel as if your in its world. You just don't get that as easily with tricky camera moves and the inability to control anything within the story.

I have yet to see a satisfying game to movie. There have been somewhat decent video games movies (I liked Hitman) but mostly, it just feels like "Awww man why didn't they turn it into a video game?"

 

[Axolotl]

There is no real difference. People who say so otherwise are just kidding themselves, and high on the absolute pretension of the concept of a "HURR DURR INTERACTIVE MEDIUM HURR". Absolute silliness.

What a well reasoned and logical arguement.

Few, if none, games have ever utilized the so-called 'interactivity' in such a way to further a story. Out of all the games that people consider to have great stories, I can think of none that would be hurt in the slightest by being transplanted to film. Hell, they probably would be even better, since "good" video game writing is about equivalent to mediocre film writing.

You're wrong. On so very many levels. Firstly games that allow player choices to determine the story, for example Fallout: New Vegas the whole endgame plot is decided by the player (from a number of set options yes but that doesn't change the fact that film cannot do this). Secondly controling a character even if you don't control the plot fundementally changes the perpective of a story and as such how the story needs to be told, for example Half-Life while having a generic plot tells it's stry superbly, translating that into film would just leave a generic plot. Thirdly, when the player drives the plot of a game (even if they can't control it) is a storytelling method that would not work as a film, take most RPGs but I'll use Planescape as a more specific example since it has the best story of the bunch. In Planescape the player has to actively pursue the plot to tell the story, simply watching The Namless One try to find out his past would not be anywhere near as effective. Planescape Torment would not work as a film, even with it's huge reliance on text it wouldn't work as a book either (and I prove that) the interactivity and the player driving the plot instead of simply passively watching it are key what makes it so good. And this is without getting into games that tell their story entirely via gameplay.

So no, film storytelling and game storytelling are fundementally different on several levels.

 

[Phishfood]

Games have the potential to be much, much longer than films. Imagine if a film tried to do justice to the story of, say, Deus Ex. It would have to either go on for about 12 hours, which nobody is going to want to go and see, or it will be rushed and dumbed-down, in order to compress it into 2 hours.

Some games (like Mass Effect or Deus Ex again) give you the power to dictate your characters speech and actions through the game, something that a film can never do. So if I went to see a Mass Effect film on the basis that I'm a huge fan of the games, I think I'd feel somewhat 'left out' of the experience, which would be disappointing.

I disagree some. I imagine they would be long films, but I think 12 hours would be a gross exageration.

A large part of deus ex is crawling through vents and shadows etc, things that in a film would be compressed down to a few minutes. Same way in CSI a lab test is completed in seconds where in real life it would take hours. With mass effect they would never show the hours of planet scanning you have to do, maybe just a 2 minute mining montage.

The main difference is that a film has to be fun to watch where a game has to be fun to do. You will never see a film where the main characters have to get the blue key to go to the bathroom, its just not right. Keys exist in games to force your pathway and make sure you experience all the content rather than skipping ahead. These are important mechanics where a player is in control but in a film they are not needed and indeed would waste viewers time and probably suspension of disbelief.

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

Imagine if a film tried to do justice to the story of, say, Deus Ex. It would have to either go on for about 12 hours, which nobody is going to want to go and see, or it will be rushed and dumbed-down, in order to compress it into 2 hours.

No. No it wouldn't. If such logic were true, then why are there so many films based around books that are incredibly long? There is a lot of fat on video game stories. They don't NEED that 12 plus hours to tell that story: they NEED that 12 hours because people expect video games to be exceptionally long, or else the consumer feels they don't get their moneys worth.

You could easily trim down most games into a 2 hour movie without "dumbing it down".

You're right, there are a lot of films based on incredibly long books, and they are almost always sub-par when compared to the books they are based on, either that or they take more than 1 film to cover the book, as in the 7th Harry Potter book. So films based on games would have the same problem. They could work if they went down the 'multiple films per game' route, but few studio's are going to green light something like that unless they're pretty much guaranteed a profit, which is rare.

 

[Shymer]

There are plenty of differences. Interactivity is a big one, but not the only one. For example, films don't have to wrestle with whether to go with a voiceless protagonist and don't worry about leaving a 'blank slate' character. Dialogue in films is used in a completely different way to dialogue in games. Also a screenwriter is in complete control of the narrative end-to-end at all times, rather than only having 'choke-point' cut-scenes to use, or having to be limited by the character capabilities that can be expressed in the attached game engine.

The screenwriting range is much greater than computer games. Dramatic tension in games is often expressed through direct external conflict (fighting and shooting) with narrative as a counterpoint. Films don't have this kind of restriction/influence.

There are many areas where story is told using similar mechanisms and restrictions between films and games. The two mediums are more similar than films and novels, for example. But as a writer, you must be aware of the medium.

 

[Marter]

Firstly games that allow player choices to determine the story, for example Fallout: New Vegas the whole endgame plot is decided by the player (from a number of set options yes but that doesn't change the fact that film cannot do this).

Final Destination 3 allows you to change the plot as you watch it. I'm sure there are others as well.

However, I'll agree with your other arguments.

 

[Stall]

Now tell me, when was the last time you've seen a movie based on a book after watching which you thought to yourself "Wow, this movie was better than the book"?

And when was the last time you played a game based on a movie, and said it was really good?, Games aren't a shining bastions of complexity that there is no way for a movie to ever hope to tap into. Games are very simple.

Books are well written. Video games aren't.

You're wrong. On so very many levels. Firstly games that allow player choices to determine the story, for example Fallout: New Vegas the whole endgame plot is decided by the player (from a number of set options yes but that doesn't change the fact that film cannot do this). Secondly controling a character even if you don't control the plot fundementally changes the perpective of a story and as such how the story needs to be told, for example Half-Life while having a generic plot tells it's stry superbly, translating that into film would just leave a generic plot. Thirdly, when the player drives the plot of a game (even if they can't control it) is a storytelling method that would not work as a film, take most RPGs but I'll use Planescape as a more specific example since it has the best story of the bunch. In Planescape the player has to actively pursue the plot to tell the story, simply watching The Namless One try to find out his past would not be anywhere near as effective. Planescape Torment would not work as a film, even with it's huge reliance on text it wouldn't work as a book either (and I prove that) the interactivity and the player driving the plot instead of simply passively watching it are key what makes it so good. And this is without getting into games that tell their story entirely via gameplay.

So no, film storytelling and game storytelling are fundementally different on several levels.

No, you're wrong on so many levels.

First, the player choice in most games are trivial and add nothing to the overall story. In FO:NV, what do your choices amount to in the end? A little voice over in the slideshow? You don't decide the plot in FO:NV. Everything is already set. You just decide the order in which, and what you will, actually do. It's all very static. The choice adds nothing at the end of the day.

Second, no it doesn't. That's just pretentious trash that people spew when they are trying to justify video games "as an artistic medium". And no, Half-Life would translate perfectly to a film, sorry. The different perspective doesn't add that much in the end of the day, nor is it that difficult to film a movie in such a way where it is told through the explicit perspective of a certain character. That's not something exclusive to video games. Do you just not watch movies?

AndPlanescape: Torment would translate to film as well, sorry. Player driven plot is a figment of your imagination: it's nothing beyond the developer forcing you along a crafted path, giving you the ILLUSION of that driving feeling. Again, it is nothing that cannot be replicated in the hands of a decent filmmaker.

So no, film and video game storytelling is mostly the same, and thinking so otherwise is just reeks of pretentious and the desperate need to justify gaming as a hobby. Games aren't good storytelling mediums. In a matter of fact, they're probably one of the worst.

 

[DasDestroyer]

Now tell me, when was the last time you've seen a movie based on a book after watching which you thought to yourself "Wow, this movie was better than the book"?

And when was the last time you played a game based on a movie, and said it was really good?, Games aren't a shining bastions of complexity that there is no way for a movie to ever hope to tap into. Games are very simple.

Books are well written. Video games aren't.

Well, for starters games aren't based on movies as often as movies are on books, and when they are they're a half-assed product pushed to be released at the same time as the movie. But I thoroughly enjoyed the Lego Star Wars series and some Lord of the Rings games, like Tactics.

And I'd love to see someone try to make a movie out of New Vegas. It wouldn't work because of the amount of things that you can do in New Vegas. Each side quest is a short, but separate storyline, so are the DLCs, and if you tried to stick everything in a linear movie, you'd have a jumbled up mess. If on the other hand if you don't include so many parts that you get a coherent movie, you'll be missing a huge part of the plot and the experience.

 

[Halo Fanboy]

Game designers don't wrie the plot they design the rules and the player is the one who creates the "story" with his skills & choices. I still agree with Stall in a general sense though because most games are filled with tons movies and hugely unmutable events. Games like Mass Effect don't subvert this either, their simplistic conversation system is the same that still allowed VNs to be overshadowed by their adaptions. Look at actual roleplaying if you want to see how games can be more player driven.

The whole player creates the plot isn't exclusive to to RPGs either. Think of the "plot" to Missile Command or Nethack. You could create movies of those but they wouldn't be even remoteley the same in feel to actualy playing 'em.

 

[Axolotl]

Books are well written. Video games aren't.

Please compare [http://www.amazon.com/Planescape-Torment-Ray-Vallese/dp/0786915277] and contrast [http://www.amazon.com/Planescape-Torment-Pc/dp/B00002EPZ2/ref=pd_sim_b3].

You're wrong. On so very many levels. Firstly games that allow player choices to determine the story, for example Fallout: New Vegas the whole endgame plot is decided by the player (from a number of set options yes but that doesn't change the fact that film cannot do this). Secondly controling a character even if you don't control the plot fundementally changes the perpective of a story and as such how the story needs to be told, for example Half-Life while having a generic plot tells it's stry superbly, translating that into film would just leave a generic plot. Thirdly, when the player drives the plot of a game (even if they can't control it) is a storytelling method that would not work as a film, take most RPGs but I'll use Planescape as a more specific example since it has the best story of the bunch. In Planescape the player has to actively pursue the plot to tell the story, simply watching The Namless One try to find out his past would not be anywhere near as effective. Planescape Torment would not work as a film, even with it's huge reliance on text it wouldn't work as a book either (and I prove that) the interactivity and the player driving the plot instead of simply passively watching it are key what makes it so good. And this is without getting into games that tell their story entirely via gameplay.

So no, film storytelling and game storytelling are fundementally different on several levels.

No, you're wrong on so many levels.

First, the player choice in most games are trivial and add nothing to the overall story. In FO:NV, what do your choices amount to in the end? A little voice over in the slideshow? You don't decide the plot in FO:NV. Everything is already set. You just decide the order in which, and what you will, actually do. It's all very static. The choice adds nothing at the end of the day.

You choose who wins the war that the whole plot is revolves around. That's a pretty fucking big difference from a story perspective. If the Good the Bad and the Ugly had ended with Angel Eyes killing Blondie and Tuco people would admit it was a big difference, if Saving Private Ryan had ended with a German counter invasion of the US people would say it was a big difference. Similarly choosing between the NCR and the Legion is a big difference plotwise.

Second, no it doesn't. That's just pretentious trash that people spew when they are trying to justify video games "as an artistic medium". And no, Half-Life would translate perfectly to a film, sorry. The different perspective doesn't add that much in the end of the day, nor is it that difficult to film a movie in such a way where it is told through the explicit perspective of a certain character. That's not something exclusive to video games. Do you just not watch movies?

No you don't watch from the perspective of a character (even for first person films lie Enter the Void you're still viewing it through their eyes rather than as them). For a good example of this play Doom 3 for five minutes then go and watch the first person sequence from the Doom film. These are fundementally different experiences. And perspective plays a huge role in storytelling, to use an example from video games take Thief, the games are set in a largely typical fantasy setting however they don't feel cliched because it's seen from an atypical perspective. To go back to Half-Life the game constantly builds an atmosphere of threat and danger, it does this not only with the ocasional background scene but also by filling the game with things that can easily kill the payer. Even if a filmmaker were to try and cature that atmospere they couldn't u8se the same methods because Gordon Freeman dying every so often and being forced to retry would not translate into film.

AndPlanescape: Torment would translate to film as well, sorry. Player driven plot is a figment of your imagination: it's nothing beyond the developer forcing you along a crafted path, giving you the ILLUSION of that driving feeling. Again, it is nothing that cannot be replicated in the hands of a decent filmmaker.

Except I am driving the plot, if I have The Nameless One run around the modron maze for 3 hours then the plot stops moving. In a film if I get bored and leave it continues on without me just fine. In Planescape my action is needed to progress films, TV, books all only require the most passive of actions and never require input from the person experiencing it.

So no, film and video game storytelling is mostly the same,

Any Hollywood hack can tell you that even film and television require different techniques, why the fuck would games have the same techniques as film if TV doesn't?

and thinking so otherwise is just reeks of pretentious and the desperate need to justify gaming as a hobby.

Why would people storytelling potential to justify a hobby?

Games aren't good storytelling mediums. In a matter of fact, they're probably one of the worst.

You can't even stay consistent can you? If games need the same storytelling methods as film then how can it be a worse medium for storytelling?

Also there are games which use game mechanics as key aparts of the story, take MGS 2 and Bioshock for example. The plot twists in those games would lose all meaning and impact if taken out of an interactive enviroment.