Topic: The Game Industry is destined to topple the Film Industry

[Khushrenada]

A fair question. That's why I'm asking how does one define a game.

I believe that what defines a game is having a set of objectives and having to complete or achieve them via the tools provided.

This definition should work within both traditional games like sports or board games to video games.

However, The Unagi is defining a game as "interactive entertainment that allows you to actively compare, compete in or manipulate an experience."

I think everyone is going to have their own definition of what makes a game. To me, what he is describing is something that is more than just games.

Let's take another title. I've never played it so I'm sure people will be quick to correct me if I'm wrong but the Endless Ocean games. From what I understand, it does give you some objectives. But if you want, you can just swim around and explore on your own and even make up your own game in the environment provided. Is this a game?

Under The Unagi's definition, it is. Under my definition, it isn't unless you are playing to complete the objectives given. If you're messing around the environment, I don't consider that a game anymore. That would just be virtual entertainment. But that's me,

That said, I still maintain that it will be harder for the games industry to topple the film industry anytime soon. (Although Hollywood definitely seems to be trying hard to let games overtake them with the amount of junk they are releasing these days but that's a different topic altogether.)

And now that I have a base of reference of where The Unagi is coming from and he understands where I'm coming from, I can get more into why I think games will still have a hard time surpassing movies.

[Stogi]

I don't want to bring this debate back up, but I guess I see games as toys. They can have objectives like Ball-in-a-Cup or simply something to be manipulated like Legos. They can be like Mario, where the point is to get to the end of the level, or like GTA, where you can do whatever you want. And I expect the platform that encompasses them to only broaden as time goes on.

[nickmitch]

If you could choose between watching a documentary about a country and travelling to that country, which one would you choose?

Obviously, one would most often choose to travel unless the country in question was war-torn or otherwise hostile. But the fact remains that travel takes time and money. When you're an adult with a family and other obligations, you gotta get the time off, find someone to take care of the kids, and save up for the tickets/lodging/food. It's also a decision not made on a whim unless you're a millionaire.

Active media might be better or more fun, but you're harshly discrediting passive media. People often are going to want to just kick back and relax. Even with a holodeck, a lot us will still just recreate a nice, warm beach to take a nap on. And even if I could travel the world, I'd probably rather just watch the documentary with the family and be able to go to work the next day.

[Stogi]

I love passive media. I love music and music is passive. I love art and art is passive. I love books and books are passive.

Does that mean I enjoy listening to music more than making music? Or looking at a painting rather than painting myself? Or reading a book rather than writing?

They go hand in hand, but AS TIME GOES ON (I really can't stress that enough) media will shift from a focus of listening or reading or watching to doing. It will become so hilariously fun to do that no one will prefer passive media. They may like it or even love it, but they won't prefer it.

People will get off work and be like "I really want to fly a jet a right now." Or "I really want to go scuba diving." Or "I really want to shoot a bunch of Zombies in the face." And the experience will be so visceral and so exciting that passive media will pale in comparison.

[UltimatePartyBear]

For some reason, after seeing this topic, I was reminded of the series Star Trek: Enterprise. This series was set before the invention of the holodeck. On the ship, crew members would have a movie night. But the wierd thing is, they never showed anyone playing video games. It's kind of odd that a show about the future would make no mention of it. Surely, games must have been on some kind of path towards the holodeck experience. If so, it's not mentioned. I just find that kind of funny. Regardless, this is just an off-topic point.

Not that far off-topic.  Star Trek may be set in the future, but it's still produced by old fuddy-duddies who, precisely because of the topic at hand, will never depict video games in a positive light.

I love passive media. I love music and music is passive. I love art and art is passive. I love books and books are passive.

Does that mean I enjoy listening to music more than making music? Or looking at a painting rather than painting myself? Or reading a book rather than writing?

They go hand in hand, but AS TIME GOES ON (I really can't stress that enough) media will shift from a focus of listening or reading or watching to doing. It will become so hilariously fun to do that no one will prefer passive media. They may like it or even love it, but they won't prefer it.

People will get off work and be like "I really want to fly a jet a right now." Or "I really want to go scuba diving." Or "I really want to shoot a bunch of Zombies in the face." And the experience will be so visceral and so exciting that passive media will pale in comparison.

I do believe you are projecting your own preferences onto the population at large.  Many people don't have that much energy after work, child raising, and all the other adult responsibilities take their toll.

I also think you're discounting the art aspect of cinema.  Speaking of...

Does that mean I enjoy listening to music more than making music? Or looking at a painting rather than painting myself? Or reading a book rather than writing?

Shouldn't the active counterpoint to watching a movie be filming your own, then, and not playing a holodeck video game?

[Stogi]

That counterpoint for film is unnecessary.

I may be projecting my preferences onto the population but I really see these games becoming so addictive that people will day dream about them at work and can't wait to get back to them. They'll be so fun that sitting back will seem like a waste of time.

[nickmitch]

People already do that. It's called World of Warcraft.

[UltimatePartyBear]

That counterpoint for film is unnecessary.

I think I was confused by how all the other counterpoints were creating vs. consuming.

I read some sci fi books earlier this year that showed a vision of future interactive entertainment.  They had both room filling holograms and personal brain-interactive headsets.  The main character in one killed time in what amounted to exploration puzzle games, something like today's point and click adventure games only in virtual reality, via a headset.  He later looked up reenactments of past events, which began by asking him if he'd rather be an observer or a participant.  In another, the (different) main character sat on her couch and watched a holographic movie, but had a character replaced with her own likeness.  Both seemed like likely entertainments of the future to me.

I think there would be problems with interactive entertainment that movies wouldn't have.  First of all, there's pacing.  If you were a participant in the story, moving from scene to scene without actually doing the things that logically must happen between them would be disconcerting.  I wouldn't want to sit through one of Indy's lengthy flights around the world with a cage full of chickens for company (an extreme example, I admit), but suddenly going from escaping from bad guys in a fast car to stepping off the airplane (or falling out of it) would just be weird.  Also, what about scenes in which your character is absent?  A movie can cut to a scene of the emperor gloating that everything is happening as he has foreseen, but a holodeck adventure can't.

I think the future is going to have plenty of both.

[Chozo Ghost]

Not that far off-topic.  Star Trek may be set in the future, but it's still produced by old fuddy-duddies who, precisely because of the topic at hand, will never depict video games in a positive light.

Beerman and Braga no longer have control over the franchise ever since Enterprise was cancelled.  The 2009 film reboot was the first thing made which was outside of their control, and it shows. From that point onwards Star Trek is now cool and no longer for nerds only. Maybe in a future movie or series we will see some video games being played in it.

[ThePerm]

i switched from a game nerd to a movie nerd a couple years ago, i prefer games to not have plotlines. Few cutscenes, just gameplay. I like to absorb plot the metroid way. Movies on the other hand, i like to not be burdened by giving my hands cramps, or having puzzle fatigue.

[UltimatePartyBear]

Not that far off-topic.  Star Trek may be set in the future, but it's still produced by old fuddy-duddies who, precisely because of the topic at hand, will never depict video games in a positive light.

Beerman and Braga no longer have control over the franchise ever since Enterprise was cancelled.  The 2009 film reboot was the first thing made which was outside of their control, and it shows. From that point onwards Star Trek is now cool and no longer for nerds only. Maybe in a future movie or series we will see some video games being played in it.

I meant TV and movie execs in general.  Video games are the enemy.  They compete with TV and movies for time in front of your eyeballs, and we're still a few decades away from the most influential people in the business actually understanding them.

[Chozo Ghost]

Not that far off-topic.  Star Trek may be set in the future, but it's still produced by old fuddy-duddies who, precisely because of the topic at hand, will never depict video games in a positive light.

Beerman and Braga no longer have control over the franchise ever since Enterprise was cancelled.  The 2009 film reboot was the first thing made which was outside of their control, and it shows. From that point onwards Star Trek is now cool and no longer for nerds only. Maybe in a future movie or series we will see some video games being played in it.

I meant TV and movie execs in general.  Video games are the enemy.  They compete with TV and movies for time in front of your eyeballs, and we're still a few decades away from the most influential people in the business actually understanding them.

Okay, I see what you're saying. I think our own dear Reggie doesn't really even understand video games for that matter. Didn't he start out at VH1 or making pizzas or something? He won't give us those RPGs we wanted and he expected Metroid Other M to be a multi million seller and he didn't understand why it failed. I think he's the same as those old "fuddy duddys" you were referring to.

[Ceric]

Pizza Hut and VH1.  Reggie could use a local Counter Weight now.

[FloY]

i prefer games to movies as well... you get much more immersed..BUT


not everyone can play games... it takes hand and eye coordination...yet everyone can watch movies... see?

[NWR_insanolord]

Not blind people.

[FloY]

Not blind people.

blind people cant play games either whats your point.  :

[Shaymin]

Not blind people.

They can still hear the dialogue.

[Chozo Ghost]

Video games killed the Video star.

[Stogi]

I want to resurrect this thread because it was very interesting.

That counterpoint for film is unnecessary.

I think I was confused by how all the other counterpoints were creating vs. consuming.

I read some sci fi books earlier this year that showed a vision of future interactive entertainment.  They had both room filling holograms and personal brain-interactive headsets.  The main character in one killed time in what amounted to exploration puzzle games, something like today's point and click adventure games only in virtual reality, via a headset.  He later looked up reenactments of past events, which began by asking him if he'd rather be an observer or a participant.  In another, the (different) main character sat on her couch and watched a holographic movie, but had a character replaced with her own likeness.  Both seemed like likely entertainments of the future to me.

I think there would be problems with interactive entertainment that movies wouldn't have.  First of all, there's pacing.  If you were a participant in the story, moving from scene to scene without actually doing the things that logically must happen between them would be disconcerting.  I wouldn't want to sit through one of Indy's lengthy flights around the world with a cage full of chickens for company (an extreme example, I admit), but suddenly going from escaping from bad guys in a fast car to stepping off the airplane (or falling out of it) would just be weird.  Also, what about scenes in which your character is absent?  A movie can cut to a scene of the emperor gloating that everything is happening as he has foreseen, but a holodeck adventure can't.

I think the future is going to have plenty of both.

I don't disagree with you there. There will be plenty of both, but to get back to the main point, isn't passively watching yourself in a movie still a form of interactivity? It may not be as extreme, but it is still interacting with the film. It's still an experience customized to you, whereas a truly passive medium wants nothing from you except for you to pay attention.

That hybrid I would say leans into interactivity, and again, tells me that truly passive medium will fall to the wayside as interactivity becomes dominant. It may be only a 51/49 split, but it is still dominant and more likely than not, inevitable.

[MrPhishfood]

I can't imagine a point in time where films will cease to exist. When a story needs to start, progress and end in a specific way then films would still need to be there for that.

[lolmonade]

How old are you?
 
I don't ask because i'm implying an immaturity gap, I ask because I want to know where you are at in your life where you want most of your experiences to be interactive.
 
My counterargument isn't that passive media (tv/movies) is better than interactive (video games), but instead that passive media may be more enjoyable/satisfying for a person based on what their lifestyle currently is.
 
When I was between the ages of 10-22, video games were nearly all of the media I consumed because I loved the idea of being part of the game, having my actions impact the outcome, and immersing myself in the story I was helping to shape.
 
Since i've gotten out of college, I've found a career, gotten married, and had a son.  That takes A LOT of time out of your day, and leaves you with very little free time to do whatever you want with.  As much as I love video games and appreciate the same things I used to love about them, I find it frustrating to get into a game for 10 minutes before my son needs a new diaper or I need to keep him from grabbing things.  Once he's asleep, I maybe have a few hours of free time at night, and I want to share time with my wife.
 
While I love playing games, sometimes it can be more frustrating getting into a game for a 1/2 hr - 1 hr before having to turn it off than even playing one.  I find myself appreciating tv and movies more because it takes no more effort than consuming it and determining whether or not I enjoy it, and I can easily get a story open and shut in that same time span, leaving me much more satisfied.
 
 

[Oblivion]

I've never felt that frustration from only playing a game for an hour at a time. Hell, if I could only play for a half an hour, that'd still be fine with me. I'm still getting enjoyment out of it, yes?

[Ian Sane]

I typically try to allocate a few hours for a gaming session.  For a classic game a half hour block is fine.  New games however might through some long cutscene that eats up a big chunk of that half hour.  Many new games also take forever to get going, so a quick play in the middle of the game is fine but to start the game you need a few hours.  And then if they involve save points you're at the mercy of their placement.

Videogame stories suck.  Right now the best writers stick to film and maybe television.  When that talent moves to videogames then we'll see a big shift.  But for now, no one wanting a good story goes to videogames.  They're on par with hack popcorn movies at best.

The big limiting factor of a videogame is that skill is required to proceed.  You can get stuck, which never happens in a movie.  The solution I suppose is to make the game stupidly easy or let you skip ahead if you get stuck.  However both ideas would severely compromise the gameplay.  The less you require from the player, the less you are making use of the videogame media.  So then it effectively becomes... a movie.  To really make the most of the storytelling possibilities of a game you need to make the player experience the story directly and to do that well you need to make the game less accomodating to unskilled players so you lose the mainstream appeal that would allow videogames to topple movies.

[lolmonade]

I've never felt that frustration from only playing a game for an hour at a time. Hell, if I could only play for a half an hour, that'd still be fine with me. I'm still getting enjoyment out of it, yes?

Maybe it's from the games I typically want to play.  I have a pile of RPGs I want to sink my teeth into, but the time isn't available to make significant progress in the game.  I've been playing a lot of NFL blitz, UFC Undisputed 3, and recently the Bloodrayne side scroller lately just because they can be played in pieces.  Its still enjoyable, but I look at my shelf and see a stack of games I'd rather be playing if I had enough time to make progress in the game/story.

[Louieturkey]

I've never felt that frustration from only playing a game for an hour at a time. Hell, if I could only play for a half an hour, that'd still be fine with me. I'm still getting enjoyment out of it, yes?

Maybe it's from the games I typically want to play.  I have a pile of RPGs I want to sink my teeth into, but the time isn't available to make significant progress in the game.  I've been playing a lot of NFL blitz, UFC Undisputed 3, and recently the Bloodrayne side scroller lately just because they can be played in pieces.  Its still enjoyable, but I look at my shelf and see a stack of games I'd rather be playing if I had enough time to make progress in the game/story.

Wow, you sound just like me.  I'm actually playing FFXIII-2 right now at the expense of my sleep.  Before it, I hadn't played a game in over a month that wasn't a quick play game.  I usually spend all my time with my wife and my son when I'm not at work.