I’ve discussed the incongruity of comparing videogames to movies here before, but the discussion about when gaming will receive its “Citizen Kane” has reached new heights, and they are ridiculous. It seems the King, or in this case Queen, has been crowned: Metroid Prime is, apparently, the Citizen Kane of games.
Michael Thomsen of ign.com went on national television to let everyone know. Thanks, Mike.
To take a quick stab at this: is the comparison between Citizen Kane and Metroid Prime really apt? The Metroid experience has been iterated several times over the years. Citizen Kane was the first and last film to feature Kane, and it seems many critics agreed it did so perfectly. Samus has had plenty of adventures before she appeared in the Prime series, and she’s had plenty since, with more to come. What if, down the road, there appears a more definitive version of Metroid than Prime? Whoops.
I could go on about why I don’t think Metroid Prime is a genre-defining candidate capable of speaking for the industry, but it would only belay my point that the comparison doesn’t matter in the first place.
The thing that really grinds my gears about this isn’t that it was Metroid Prime that was chosen to represent the entire medium of gaming; it’s more that I am becoming frustrated and disappointed in the games industry doggedly trying to get approval from people who don’t care about the artistic integrity of games because they simply do not care about games to begin with. The ‘other side’ we are trying to convince doesn’t have a stake in whether or not games are artistic. Proving artistic merit won’t convert some invisible group of would-be gamers that are just waiting for a cue from critics to adopt the hobby. It’s like expecting someone to love a painting on the basis that it is legitimate enough to be shown in an art gallery. Even if we prove that games can be art there will still be people that don’t like games. I wonder sometimes if this search for approval is actually just a desperate bid for validation so that gamers will finally have something to shoot back with when someone tells them “games are for kids.” We shouldn’t be striving to stick it to people that clearly don’t care enough about games to think outside of stereotypes.
Simply put, the search for the Citizen Kane of games is embarrassing. The Citizen Kane of games, when it arrives, won’t be known as “The Citizen Kane of Games” because it will be completely valid in its own right. Citizen Kane isn’t known as the Beowulf of film. The definitive game won’t need to be measured against Citizen Kane, or anything else for that matter. If it is truly the definitive realization of the maturation of games, it will be completely unique to gaming and necessarily incomparable to anything from another medium because what it does wouldn’t be possible in any other medium. It wouldn’t mimic the characteristics of an industry-defining movie, precisely because it would be a game and not a movie. The best point I’ve heard all week to this effect:
“Every now and then someone tries to sell a game by claiming it’s cinematic, meaning that it’s an interactive experience that apes a non-interactive medium. It’s the equivalent of a film consisting entirely of text scrolls in order to be more like a book.” – Ben Croshaw, Zero Punctuation
The validation of games will happen when it is no longer sought after. When we stop attempting to measure games against the successes of other mediums, we might be clear-thinking enough to realize that games aren’t justifiably comparable to other media. There is no one-to-one ratio for games to movies, comic books or anything else. That is why the industry has succeeded and failed in its own right, independent of
Posts
100% agreed. When i saw that Citizen Kane article I scoffed. And no offense to Metroid, but we've had better.
ReplyDeleteVery well said.
ReplyDeleteThat about sums it up. :)
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI've always wanted someone to make the "Plants vs. Zombies" of movies. I wonder what that would be like...
ReplyDeleteLike others before me, I agree with your position and how games shouldn’t need to try and prove themselves to an audience that simply didn’t care about them in the first place.
ReplyDeleteMy one gripe, is the fact that I do believe games should be able to be described with the word “cinematic”. This is because of the cinematic themes and experiences games have emulated, incorporated and evolved into the past few decades. Now I’m not saying that we should start comparing and judging games to past, present and future movies but the fact is that gaming is an ever changing form of media that yes is unique to itself entirely but also heavily influenced by other forms of media such as cinema.
With technology ever advancing it has allowed games to reach newer and greater heights every generation, and to go along with that is the detail to plot and character. Games are obtaining huge budgets to rival even movies themselves, and even actors are being sought out to lend their voice to games. The influence movies have on gaming I believe is profound and the only reason why we haven’t seen it before was because of the limits of technology back then. Yes there have been games in the past that have been heavy on story, but it was marginally text to fill the player in. Now presently, there is still text in games but most of the plot is found out by voice-overs, by cut-scenes, by emotional expressions seen on character’s faces. With all these new ways to tell and advance the story, what better way to showcase it then use the model of making a movie?
For example in Uncharted 2, they call it an “active Cinematic experience” and yes it’s unique to gaming because of the fact you can still play while sets are in motion and shit is going awry, but it is on par with what you would see and expect from a movie. There are other games in the same vein the MGS series, Gears of war, Resident Evil and so on and I would have to say part of their success is the fact there is a cinematic influence on them.
Once again I reiterate that yes games shouldn’t be judged on par with movies, because it is a different medium entirely but I do feel that games are influenced by movies and in return have given us better and deeper gaming experiences that I would say are, cinematic.
I agree that using elements from cinema can be beneficial to a game with narrative. I have a problem, though, with games that make that cinematic experience their top priority. The games you listed are all fantastic, but each was sold with the promise of an 'intense cinematic experience' being the paramount achievement of the game.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is see with this is that games like the Uncharted series are, in a lot of respects, *becoming* movies. This could stifle the development of truly unique, possible-only-in-gaming, games in favor of big budget summer blockbuster-style titles.
I love Uncharted, both games. But I would never call either of them a definitive gaming-only experience. If Uncharted were executed note-for-note as a movie, it would be exactly as intense and fun to watch, which I think is a testament to the story and action, not the gameplay.