The Comparison to Film

Film and interactive media have an interesting relationship.  Film has often been a reference point for video games as they have developed as a medium, both in understanding and inspiration.  But this is a different medium, one that is still coming into its own and learning to use its unique capabilities: capabilities film, and any other medium, simply do not have.  So what place does film have in understanding video games?

"Cinematic" qualities in games became more valued as hardware developed to allow more visual style in cutscenes and gameplay.  Now that games are coming into their own, however, this comparison is being viewed very negatively, saying games should not constrain themselves by basing this interactive medium on an older, non-interactive one.

We all know what happens to
things with bad foundations...

I do not disagree with that last point.  It's been endorsed by game critics from Yahtzee to Jim Sterling to tons of random vloggers on Youtube, and it definitely has validity.  It makes sense that we would not want the foundation of a new medium, especially one as unique as this, to be based on the development of an older medium that entirely lacks this new medium's defining quality (in this case, interactivity). That said, I think it's important that we not discard the benefits that can be had by studying the two side-by-side.

On a simple level, the comparison is useful in preliminary understandings of how video games tell their stories because, while film and interactive media are definitely not the same thing (main difference being interactivity, of course), they are closer to each other than any other storytelling mediums.  If you tried to explain to someone who had never played games since the Atari that video games are a narrative art now, they would likely have a tough time understanding it.  If you tried explaining it entirely from scratch, as though they know nothing about how they work, it would be difficult to give them a good understanding because they have no frame of reference.  But say, "It's like a movie, but you're part of it," and it instantly makes sense.  It's hardly comprehensive, and someone who's really interested would still have plenty of questions to ask, but by referencing something similar of which they have a clear understanding, the concept is much easier to understand.

I know I wasn't the only one
that loved this game, but enjoyed
watching it almost as much.

As for applications to gaming beyond that basic level, as much as the idea of "cinematic" gaming is scoffed at sometimes now that it's commonplace, we owe a lot to it for making our games more visually interesting. There was once a time when cutscenes were valued because they simply looked cooler than gameplay; that time has passed, and the idea of cinematic style is largely to thank for that.  Creative in-game camera work and more flair in character movement has made some games almost as much fun to watch as they are to play, from Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time to the Uncharted series.  The early effects of games trying to be "cinematic" are largely responsible for the visual style that we now take for granted.

When it comes down to it, all we are doing when comparing video games to film is trying to learn from another medium.  It happens regularly in all other artistic fields, and hopefully it will continue to happen.  Other mediums, with their strengths, weaknesses, and unique abilities, have a lot to offer one who studies them for application in another medium.  Closing yourself off from other mediums to exclusively study one cuts you off from a lot of great influence and out-of-the-box ideas, and can cause a developing medium to become stagnant and monolithic.

But I think we can generally agree that just because an artistic medium is different does not mean it doesn't have something to offer other mediums, and maybe even that there is value in learning from more established and developed mediums.  But when does this concept go too far?  The common answer I've seen when it comes to this issue is, "When the game is trying harder to be a movie than it is to be a game."

The commonly-cited example as of late is Heavy Rain, a game that is essentially a movie that lets you determine the events through story choices and quicktime events.  And here I use the term "game" for lack of a more fitting word; many have argued that Heavy Rain is not actually a game, something I might agree with if not for the fact that these arguments usually paint that fact as a bad thing.

I'll just admit it right now: I loved this game.

The express goal of Heavy Rain was to be an interactive movie; thus, the criticism.  I believe the term coined by David Cage, director of the project, is "interactive drama."  It was not simply adopting cinematic principles into a game, it was basing the presentation of the game entirely around them, with gameplay reduced to generalized button presses related to the action onscreen.  The negative reaction many gamers had to this was that Heavy Rain was trying to be a movie instead of a game, and since games are their own thing and shouldn't define themselves based on older and simpler mediums, this was a bad thing.

It should be noted, however, that despite Heavy Rain's simplified gameplay, it took more full advantage of player choice and story consequences than all but a few games I've ever played.  Most other games that could be dubbed "interactive movies" are similar in nature; in the relatively few examples of this within the medium, interactivity is never abandoned.  Perhaps gameplay is, to some extent, but the storytelling is more dependent on interactivity than the vast majority of shooters or action titles.  The uniqueness of video games is still heavily present, just not in the same way as your average game.

I don't mean for this article to turn into a defense of Heavy Rain, but I do want to use the game as an example to make a point.  If all games started being like Heavy Rain, focusing on being as much like a movie as possible, we would have a problem.  But if all games started doing any one thing at all, we would have the same problem.  Innovation and experimentation is always inspired by something, and in the case of some games, that something is film.  In others it's poetry.  In others it's music.  And in others it's simply cool ways to make some guy's head asplode.

Bulletstorm's skill kills are probably the best recent
example of that latter inspiration.

My point is simply that there are many things that can inspire one to create art. That art may take on characteristics of many things, and this experimentation and blending is important to the artistic exploration of all art forms, genres, and mediums involved.  Should we base all our interactive art theory on another medium like film? Absolutely not.  But that definitely does not mean we should condemn the games that try to blend the two mediums.