The Game Industry is destined to topple the Film Industry

[Edjamakated]

I haven't posted here in a loooooooong time. It's good to be back!

 

So I was thinking about writing some huge long article filled with past and theoretical examples, anecdotes, and charts, but I actually think this debate is pretty straight forward. Why? Because it hinges on one thing: Innovation.

 

The Film Industry is destined to meet a point where innovation will cease to exist. Despite how we may watch Film, there's no denying that it will always be a form of passive entertainment. Smell-o-vision, taste-o-vision, feel-o-vision, holograms, the highest fidelity sound and video, CGI actors that past the uncanny valley, a system where emotions and images are piped into our brains; these are all passive forms of entertainment and there will be a point where we reach the limit of passive entertainment. No amount of new technology will make it exceedingly better.

 

Now let me put a disclaimer and say that I am not talking about communications, but simply a story that we passively take part in. There is no denying that innovation will be harder and harder to come by as time goes on. At some point in the distant future, we will reach a moment where it will be as good as it gets or at least, come to a crawl.

 

Still, these Films will in fact be amazing. They will be unlike anything you can imagine, but a story can only be told so well.

 

To pivot, the Game Industry provides interactive entertainment. And it is because of this interactivity that it is destined to continue innovating for as long as the human race will live. The way we interact with the world, with computers, with others will always change and progress. There will never be a point where we stop at a level of interaction. Things will always get more precise, more robust, and more advanced in what we can control.

 

It is because of innovation that the Game Industry will topple the Film Industry and provide the more awe-inspiring moments we attribute to film today. There is no uncertainty about it.

 

People will forever love film. The passive nature of it will always fit a part of our lives. This is similar to how the value of listening to music will never diminish because we play it. But if Film's destiny is to have emotions, scenes and images transferred directly to our brains, then Game's destiny is dreaming; actively interacting with and changing a world all your own.

 

Games are going to provide the more visceral experiences in the future. They may not be the best medium or account for the greatest stories ever told, but the experiences they do garner will be more memorable, more tangible and simply put, more addicting than any other. There WILL be a point where games will feel like dreams and nightmares and nothing will beat that.

Edited September 21, 2011 by Edjamakated

[Daft]

You're assuming the two won't merge at some point.

 

You're also overlooking the fact that films require very little cultural capital to enjoy whereas games require a foreknowledge of their grammar. Not to mention a willingness to actually engage in.

 

Also, it's quite likely that films will be defined by their 'limitations'. Opera didn't suddenly stop because film made it obsolete. Plus, the social aspect of watching a film is quite different from playing a game with friends.

[flameboy]

If you look at the amount of money the gaming industry now makes and the sheer number of people playing games on a weekly basis. If you count all the people who access things such as facebook games or the odd game of words with friends on iphone etc...people are consuming games at a higher rate of hours per weeks that movies, its whether we are that tiping point where the majority of people are doing so.

[Paj!]

Cinema/film is also an artform. I don't see games as one (yet).

 

There're pretty games, interesting visually and how they tell a story, but it's only ever really relative to other games, surely? I fail to see how a game could replicate the experience and artistry of, say, Blue Valentine. Because it doesn't translate into a game. It's meant to reflect back at us, and we're left with a mix of emotions/feelings, maybe thinking about our own lives. It's passive for a reason.

 

You're probably talking money though/industry terms.

[EEVILMURRAY]

I fail to see how a game could replicate the experience and artistry of, say, Blue Valentine.

You don't believe a story of a game can make you feel the same emotions as a film might? I'm not going to say copy Blue Valentine, since I haven't seen it yet.

[Paj!]

I used that as an example for a reason, that tupe of film.

 

Action films = Action games = same feeling I'm sure.

 

I don't think there are many games that can match films on an emotional/experiential level in much other than pure spectacle. I've been out of games for a few years though.

[EEVILMURRAY]

I don't think there are many games that can match films on an emotional/experiential level in much other than pure spectacle. I've been out of games for a few years though.

I agree, but as you said there are exceptions. I'm sure I remember something about how loads of people cried when that lass got killed off in Final Vantasy VII [?]

[MoogleViper]

I think it's naive and ignorant to assume that innovations will cease to exist. It's completely short sighted. You have no idea where the film industry/technology is headed. Each new innovation opens up the possibilities for more innovations. Take 3D TV. That would have been possible 100 years ago, because tv didn't exist. The invention of television allowed for so many new innovations. Just because you can only visualise innovations up to a certain point, that doesn't mean that they can't exist beyond that.

 

"Everything that can be invented has been invented." ~Charles H. Duell, 1899.

 

(Whether he actually said that or not isn't important, it's the idea behind it that's relevant. In case anybody fancied being a smartypants.)

 

I agree, but as you said there are exceptions. I'm sure I remember something about how loads of people cried when that lass got killed off in Final Vantasy VII [?]

 

OH MY GOD, FUCKING SPOILERS!!!!!!

[EddieColeslaw]

I still think that film is more accessible than games.

 

If you look at the amount of money the gaming industry now makes and the sheer number of people playing games on a weekly basis. If you count all the people who access things such as facebook games or the odd game of words with friends on iphone etc...people are consuming games at a higher rate of hours per weeks that movies, its whether we are that tiping point where the majority of people are doing so.

 

Facebook games = addiction, not appreciation - at least, in my opinion. And what about demographics? Who are "people" (in terms of how much money they can spend to support the industry etc.) - everyone?

 

But if Film's destiny is to have emotions, scenes and images transferred directly to our brains, then Game's destiny is dreaming; actively interacting with and changing a world all your own.

 

But does any game really make that fully possible yet? *cough*invisible walls/other limitations*cough* Besides, in some situations that just too much effort. I don't want to have to interact and create my own world, I want to experience worlds in movies - again, I think that passive entertainment (specifically film) will persist instead of being destined to be "toppled".

 

To clarify: I like games. I also like film. I just think that they're different, and one can't replace the other.

[ReZourceman]

Welcome back.

[Emasher]

You're assuming the two won't merge at some point.

 

You're also overlooking the fact that films require very little cultural capital to enjoy whereas games require a foreknowledge of their grammar. Not to mention a willingness to actually engage in.

 

Also, it's quite likely that films will be defined by their 'limitations'. Opera didn't suddenly stop because film made it obsolete. Plus, the social aspect of watching a film is quite different from playing a game with friends.

 

I was going to write out something similar, but I think this post sums up exactly what I was going to say.

 

People like to be able to sit and do something without thinking about it much. And at the same time, the type of story that can be told in a game is dramatically different from the type of story that can be told in a movie or other form of passive media. You have to include some sort of activity for the player to take part in in a game, downtime is boring, etc. In a movie, you don't have that problem.

 

There's also the issue of the actual production of a game vs that of a movie, as well as the price.

[Edjamakated]

I think you guys are misunderstanding me.

 

Films will persist. I thought my music metaphor was adequate in describing why. My point is the Game Industry will be more popular than film universally. People will prefer to enjoy a game rather than enjoy a Film more often than not.

 

Again, Film's are almost guaranteed to have better stories simply because of what the medium is.

 

But I digress....Whoever said I was ignorant when saying that there will be no innovations because I can't imagine it isn't getting my point.

 

It's all about Passive vs. Interactive. As time moves on, innovations will help interactive more than passivity. Maybe it was wrong to say one will stop, but there is no arguing my last point. Simply look at the last decade. The Film industry's greatest achievement are CGI, motion capture, and IMAX 3D. While the Game Industry's is CGI, motion capture, HD, motion controllers, microphones, cameras, online, voice chat, touchscreens and 3D.

 

So once again, innovations are more inclined to help interactivity vs. passivity. It is because of that point that people will prefer them. And thus game's will topple film's in money, in time spent, in prefer-ability.

Edited September 21, 2011 by Edjamakated

[Oxigen_Waste]

That will never ever happen. Passive entertainment is always much more popular (no to mention better) than interactive entertainment.

[Edjamakated]

Passive Entertainment is a Story. Interactive Entertainment is the Holodeck. Which one do you think will be more popular?

 

We are not there yet people. That is why I said "Destined".

[Hamishmash]

I think you're forgetting that innovations aren't really what makes cinema great, and why it's lasted so long. The fact we can enjoy HD, 3D movies doesn't stop us enjoying Nosferatu or something. Story, acting and direction all come before technical abilities. In many ways, cinema as remained the same for decades now. People just enjoy watching good films.

 

Games on the other hand have totally changed. Yes, we can still enjoy pong or pacman but it's a totally different kind of enjoyment and interaction as Wii Sports.

 

Innovation isn't really the thing people go to the cinema for.

[Oxigen_Waste]

Passive Entertainment is a Story. Interactive Entertainment is the Holodeck. Which one do you think will be more popular?

 

We are not there yet people. That is why I said "Destined".

 

Story. By far. Everything that isn't passive will never be as dominant as something that is. Interactivity ruins any serious attempt at weaving a solid story that isn't abstract. And everybody knows the masses hate abstractness.

 

You sound like one of the characters on Garth Marenghi, really. All this "welcome to the future" jargon of yours is entertaining, but that's about it.

[Edjamakated]

What are your most memorable memories?

 

Where you doing something or watching something?

 

What did you enjoy doing more as a child? Watching cartoons or playing with your friends?

 

Which one would you rather do? Watch a documentary on a country or visit that country?

 

Which one would you rather do? Watch porn or have sex?

 

Passive vs. Interactive. Something you experience vs. an experience you make.

Edited September 21, 2011 by Edjamakated

[Wesley]

i dont agree cause you guys are forgetting that movies are on really big screens in cinemas and thats more involving and interactive with your eyes and much more funn to watch.

[Jonnas]

While interactivity makes for a better experience and better memories, it is still the option that is more difficult to appeal to the masses.

 

Films and TV programs are shorter, cheaper, easier to digest, overall more accessible. Videogames appeal to the demographic that is willing to learn how to play games, that is willing to spend a few hours experiencing them. You can't stumble onto a random videogame the same way you can stumble into a random movie. This is why films will always be more popular than videogames.

 

Now, if we're talking about artistic value, and limiting the discussion to a group of people who appreciate a medium more thoroughly, I suppose movies and videogames could eventually be seen as equally valuable mediums, though in different regards. Even among this crowd, videogames won't replace films by their very nature: Passive vs. Interactive, a work can be conveyed in either of these ways, but one won't replace the other. They are simply different.

[Edjamakated]

The point I'm getting at is simply this....In the future, more people will say "I can't wait to play ____" more than "I can't wait to see ___"

 

Jonnas, your argument was refuted by the Wii. Many people were able to understand Wii Sports in an instant. That understanding will only grow shorter and shorter. The more innovations there are, the more transparency there will be.

[Emasher]

The point I'm getting at is simply this....In the future, more people will say "I can't wait to play ____" more than "I can't wait to see ___"

 

Jonnas, your argument was refuted by the Wii. Many people were able to understand Wii Sports in an instant. That understanding will only grow shorter and shorter. The more innovations there are, the more transparency there will be.

 

Except Wii sports was essentially a technical demo. It wasn't representative of video games in general at all really. Yes it was accessible, but a game that presents much more complicated ideas cannot be simplified enough that it can both be enjoyed by the masses as well as contains a good enough balance between the story and the game play to replace movies. What are you expecting, people will play rail shooter versions of movies and be able to enjoy the story without the game play itself becoming tedious? Additionally, how do you deal with the player failing? If you have a "game over" type scenario, the story is no longer continuous. If you do not penalize the player for failure, you no longer have a game.

[Edjamakated]

The thing is, I'm not talking about story. Film's will always dominate story lines because that is all they focus on.

 

Instead, what I am saying is the games will be more popular with people than film. Games will take over as the number one way to use up your free time. When people go out, more often than not they will go play games and not watch a movie.

 

Again, this is a ways away but there are already signs that this is true. In the UK from 9/08 to 9/09 more money was spent on video games. That maybe because they are more expensive, but the difference was over 500 million pounds. That is considerable.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/video-games/6852383/Video-games-bigger-than-film.html

 

Again, I am not talking story wise. I am merely talking about experiences. People will always watch the next big film in IMAXVRHD5D or wait for it to watch it at home, but they will play games much more often than they watch film.

[Oxigen_Waste]

What are your most memorable memories?

 

Where you doing something or watching something?

 

What did you enjoy doing more as a child? Watching cartoons or playing with your friends?

 

Which one would you rather do? Watch a documentary on a country or visit that country?

 

Which one would you rather do? Watch porn or have sex?

 

Passive vs. Interactive. Something you experience vs. an experience you make.

 

 

That's actually reality vs fiction you're discussing there.

 

No matter how interactive it is, fiction will always be fiction, my friend.

 

To simplify, the best game I've ever played comes nowhere near any of my favourite 100 movies or books because while interactivity actually fleshes out a product more, it automatically reduces the dramatic/emotional impact of any possible narrative, because once interactivity is added to the mix, everything you can do has to be thrown in the mix as a possibilty, thus obliterating any eventual narrative's tightness, resulting in a much less cohesive end product.

 

Which is why it's so hard for games to be accepted as an art form, since they mostly do not qualify.

[ipaul]

 

Which is why it's so hard for games to be accepted as an art form, since they mostly do not qualify.

 

Which games do you think would qualify?

 

The only one that springs to my mind....Bioshock? Maybe Half Life 2?

[Oxigen_Waste]

Which games do you think would qualify?

 

The only one that springs to my mind....Bioshock? Maybe Half Life 2?

 

Me? A lot of them. Those two are among them, yeah(would you kindly moment in particular). Shadow Of The Colossus too, Braid is a great example (with a fantastic story, once you realise what just happened by the end).

 

I was just mentioning the fact that it's always such a heated and usually dead-end discussion, wether or not games can be art.