It's funny that reading these articles, they give precisely the same advice in writing for games as the textbooks do when writing for film. What's interesting, however, is that in the case of games, the cinematic elements of the game (cinematography, editing, sound, mise en scene) are much more closely tied to the writing of the game.
In the case of films, of course, these elements are only specifically highlighted in the script if they play a very specific role, and are otherwise left to the people who run the respective departments. However, in games, these elements are al, to some degree, interactive, which means that they must be meticulously planned from the outset.
One thing I did find in the Luban/Meziane article though, is that despite highlighting a number of great game series', they did not include one of the most elaborate and highly detailed games series' ever, Grand Theft Auto. From Liberty City onwards, these games have been a benchmark for interactivity.
To highlight:
Cinematography: Players have full control of viewpoints, including 3rd and 1st person.
Editing: The games feature enough cut scenes to give information and provide entertainment, but not so many that the player feels bored or manipulated.
Sound: Dozens of catchphrases and cityscape sounds, as well as changeable radio stations in cars.
Mise en Scene: Virtually limitless possibilities as to what the character can interact with, from passers by to vehicles to objects lying around, nearly everything can be reacted with.
But, it did regularly cite Metal Gear Solid, the great love of my gaming life, so I will forgive it. It's interesting that Luban and Meziane highlight MGS for its cinematic qualities, as I've always felt my attachment to it and enjoyment of it come from those qualities. The games' stories are brilliantly told and the gameplay never contradicts or distracts from them. Furthermoe, the games ingulge in the excesses offered by the interactive experience by allowing the player to catch countless extras (Famously, Johnny, the ever-unfortunate guard), which makes the games equally fun upon replaying them.
But it's the basics mentioned by Alex Kriss that really make the difference. The really simple things like avoiding cliche; full, measured characterisation and well thought out backstories, that make the difference. However little varied gameplay there is - I spoke about Mortal Kombat in the Week 2 blog - these basic, common sense decisions lift individual games and whole brands to levels above the regular.
Articles referenced:
http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20010615/luban_01.shtml
http://www.gamedev.net/reference/articles/article1021.asp
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Wk 2. In-teractive, In-cinematic
So, what's the difference between the characters in video games, and the characters in movies? Well I guess that would depend on what kind of video games, and what kind of movies. After all, there is a booming market, I like to call the "Michael Bay Demographic", of people who don't want characters, complex stories or themes, they just want to see shit getting blown up. The fact is that the characters in a film like Transformers aren't a whole lot more fleshed out than those in your average first person shooter.
On the other hand, there are those games that offer little characterisation and story, but there are a great many more that offer depth and complexity to rival most movies. Even something as old as the Mortal Kombat fighting series offered character motivations, along with complex political situations built into the violence that was central to the series. Today, the complexity of the games far outstrips anything the film versions could ever recreate. In fact, I planned a movie version of MK once, and it was all so difficult that I had to expand it into a trilogy.
Similarly, adventure games like the Final Fantasy, God of War and Metal Gear Solid series' (to name a few) give players not just the game experience but, through cut-scenes and dialogue, offer a cinematic experience to rival even the best movies. After all, the amount of time spent playing the games is much longer than time spent watching a movie, and therefore the time given to characterisation can be greater.
So what's the difference? I think that in a purely theoretical world, there is no difference. I think that whatever difference is created is created by individual game and film producers, who choose whether the focus is on action or character.
As to the other question...I guess that characters are defined by those who create them, and the more there is to define them, the more opportunity there is to recreate oneself. For instance, the "Objectman" handle doesn't offer much by way of characterisation of the creator's virtual form, but a character on World of Warcraft or Second Life can be as deep and complex (and different to themselves) as the user wants it to be.
This has, of course, been the subject of much humour on TV, with episodes of How I Met Your Mother, American Dad! and, most prominently, South Park having centred on characters' online avatars. The South Park episode is particfularly interesting, as it shows the way that avatars are creatively manipulated by their creators. For instance, Cartman, usually considered the stupidest and least capable of the boys, has fashioned himself into somewhat of a general online, and the other characters do in fact treat him as such, while the main villain of the episode is considered a "total basass" by the boys, but is revealed to the audience to be a fat, balding loser.
On the other hand, there are those games that offer little characterisation and story, but there are a great many more that offer depth and complexity to rival most movies. Even something as old as the Mortal Kombat fighting series offered character motivations, along with complex political situations built into the violence that was central to the series. Today, the complexity of the games far outstrips anything the film versions could ever recreate. In fact, I planned a movie version of MK once, and it was all so difficult that I had to expand it into a trilogy.
Similarly, adventure games like the Final Fantasy, God of War and Metal Gear Solid series' (to name a few) give players not just the game experience but, through cut-scenes and dialogue, offer a cinematic experience to rival even the best movies. After all, the amount of time spent playing the games is much longer than time spent watching a movie, and therefore the time given to characterisation can be greater.
So what's the difference? I think that in a purely theoretical world, there is no difference. I think that whatever difference is created is created by individual game and film producers, who choose whether the focus is on action or character.
As to the other question...I guess that characters are defined by those who create them, and the more there is to define them, the more opportunity there is to recreate oneself. For instance, the "Objectman" handle doesn't offer much by way of characterisation of the creator's virtual form, but a character on World of Warcraft or Second Life can be as deep and complex (and different to themselves) as the user wants it to be.
This has, of course, been the subject of much humour on TV, with episodes of How I Met Your Mother, American Dad! and, most prominently, South Park having centred on characters' online avatars. The South Park episode is particfularly interesting, as it shows the way that avatars are creatively manipulated by their creators. For instance, Cartman, usually considered the stupidest and least capable of the boys, has fashioned himself into somewhat of a general online, and the other characters do in fact treat him as such, while the main villain of the episode is considered a "total basass" by the boys, but is revealed to the audience to be a fat, balding loser.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)