|
Post by jameseightbitstar on Sept 3, 2006 23:54:25 GMT -5
How can you enjoy levelling up for 10 hours or so to take on the Ruby weapon? I'd much rather watch 5 good movies ... You've got me beat there! Actually, when I played FF7, I skipped all the subquests.
|
|
|
Post by papersquadcontrol on Oct 5, 2006 14:23:43 GMT -5
I realize that this topic is a month old now, but it was interesting enough to warrant a response, and I would like to touch on a few comments in here made against movies as well.
Firstly, I view video games, in a way, like an elaborate puppet show, the game's protagonist being the puppet, and the controller being the strings which I, the puppet master, manipulate in order to accomplish whatever objective it is I need to accomplish. And like a puppet show, though I am directly responsible for how the puppet moves, acts, and behaves, there is never the feeling where I am the puppet. While I definitely feel some involvement in the gaming world (particularly for more atmospheric titles like the PSone Oddworld games or the Silent Hill series), this feeling never amounts to more than a spectator's viewpoint.
Of course I can say the same for books and films (as far as seeing everything from a spectator's standpoint), but since those two mediums tend to touch more on aspects of reality that games don't, whatever message put out by creations in those fields can hit a little closer to home.
About motion pictures:
Being something of a film lover myself, I find the attitude found in these comments, in all honesty, to be quite irksome. I suppose one could argue that video games and books are more challenging, since they require manual progression whereas movies, well, move by themselves, making them easier to absorb for the average person. But really, anyone can just sit in front of a movie and say they saw it - to actually think about what you saw (assuming the movie in question is worth thinking about) requires a fair bit of intellect on the viewer's part. Look at Michelangelo Antonioni's Blow-Up and the discussions that film has provoked. While there is an underlying "plot" to that film, it is secondary to the messages delivered through its striking and symbolic images (I won't give too much of it away, but there is a great sequence in particular involving a Yardbirds performance that comments, in the end, on how we place artificial value on inherently worthless objects). That old adage of a picture being worth a thousand words also applies here. Would a movie like Eraserhead be as effective as a written work? Maybe William S. Burroughs could have pulled it off, but I cannot see it working as anything other than the movie that it is. I believe that images leave a far more lasting impression than words, and thus I see film as being a more effective medium for getting a message across than any other medium that I can speak for.
Not that I'm slamming books, not at all, but I don't think films should be looked as books' subordinate (or books' bitch, to be crass and more to the point), since they, like video games as Discoalucard put it, operate in a different manner than books do. It's fine to have a preference, but I don't think any objective case can be made for the superiority of one medium over the other.
|
|
|
Post by Discoalucard on Oct 5, 2006 14:32:08 GMT -5
Ah, it appears my comments have been somewhat misinterpreted. Many movies do indeed require analyzation to fully understand them, but books require imagination to visualize the actions, and video games require thought to trigger reflexes, solve puzzles etc. They are both active experiences pretty much all the time, whereas movies are, compared to these, a relatively passive experience.
|
|
|
Post by jameseightbitstar on Oct 5, 2006 15:27:26 GMT -5
@papersquadpatrol Admittedly I was probably a little harsh on films originally--there are several I enjoy, but I often find them to be a "watch once, then put away until you forget it" ordeal (the only exception I've found recently being the original 1954 version of Gojira/Godzilla, which I watched five times before getting sick of it. As of now it's probably the only giant monster film I've enjoyed to such a degree). Books are on the same boat, except that they generally take longer to finish.
Generally, I find watching movies is my last choice, something I do when I'm too tired to play a video game and don't want to take the mental excercise of reading a book.
|
|
|
Post by MRSKELETON on Oct 5, 2006 16:57:56 GMT -5
My life will be complete if they make a PLAN NINE FROM OUTER SPACE GAME It'd be the ultimate movie to game crossover ever!
|
|
|
Post by necromaniac on Oct 5, 2006 17:43:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by YourAverageJoe on Oct 5, 2006 18:05:02 GMT -5
Curse my superior yet inferior Windows XP!
|
|
|
Post by papersquadcontrol on Oct 5, 2006 18:31:15 GMT -5
Yes, this is similar to what I said in the paragraph below the quotes, about how people could argue that books and video games are more challenging due to what you said. And true, in order to move forward in a game or a book, you HAVE to be mentally active, whereas with a movie being mentally active is only optional. Then again, I think this can in a way apply to books as well. People can very easily skim across the lines in a book without really bothering to absorb or comprehend the words written on them (a sometimes useful tactic employed in high school, which I've done myself for books I didn't enjoy, where I only looked out for the information I needed to study for a test or complete an assignment), much like someone can sit back and watch a movie without paying attention to what is happening onscreen. This is probably worse with movies, as you can at least make out some of what happens in a movie without giving it your full attention, but it can still be done to a certain extent with books. And so it boils down to this: no game, book, movie, music, painting, etc. of any worthwhile quality can truly be fully appreciated or enjoyed if you don't devote your time to its intricacies. Hence why you hear so much of people who talk about hating something upon their first experience, but repeat visits helped them appreciate it each time over. I guess you view movies more casually and less seriously than I do, which there's nothing wrong with. I'll admit that I have far, far less gaming experience than most, if not all, of the people who attend this website. This is partially due to how expensive a hobby video games are. This probably wouldn't be a problem if most of my money wasn't spent on music, movies, and books in addition to games, but hey, having additional hobbies of equal interest can make it hard to have a fulfilling gaming collection. Another reason is that there are very few systems that I don't own that have a gaming library interesting enough for me to want to go out and track down the system, most likely pricey and in questionable shape, just to play the one or two games for the system that I have some desire to play. My opportunity to own a Neo Geo, TurboDuo, and Saturn, among other systems, along with games like Pulstar, Magician Lord, Lords of Thunder, Dragon Force, Panzer Dragoon Saga, etc. was blown a long time ago, and finding any of these with all of the necessary peripherals in reasonable condition is so difficult and incredibly expensive (and yes, I know the Neo Geo and its titles were expensive back when it could be gotten brand new, but they don't look to have gotten cheaper used) that it's hard to know whether it's all even worth the effort to track down now. This is probably why my focus has shifted from my music and movie collection to games, due to the fact that games so often will have a few-month run before having the rug pulled from underneath them. Snooze and lose, as they say. Discovering HG101 has helped me in a way focus my attention toward the obscure, neglected games for the systems that I DO own (a brand new, $30 copy of Ninja Five-O was a recent acquisition of mine, thanks to ebay), so hopefully I won't make the same game-related mistakes I made in the past. And yes, this rant has completely shifted attention away from the original topic at hand. Sorry.
|
|
|
Post by jameseightbitstar on Oct 5, 2006 21:01:47 GMT -5
It depends. If a movie is good, I'll usually enjoy it and watch it again and again and maybe even analyze it (I was very nearly tempted to write a religion around Gojira, before I caught myself ^__^) But again, I tend to find most are just "watch it once" affairs.
This is especially true with newer movies that don't really leave a lot of room for interpretation, such as--to dig up one I saw recently--Arlington Road, where the movie was so controlled by its moral that it didn't really leave a lot open for discussion and interpretation.
And I'm not really a big fan of sitting down and doing nothing. Even if I AM analyzing a movie, I feel really tired afterward (if I didn't already).
|
|
|
Post by papersquadcontrol on Oct 5, 2006 21:40:19 GMT -5
I don't find myself impressed with today's films either. The last movie to come out that truly "wowed" me was The New World, and that was a diamond in a rough of braindead Hollywood flicks and blatant political propaganda representing the "independent" circuit of films. I'm sure there are a few other exceptions, but I can't think of what they are at this time (I have yet to see 2046 and Saraband, but I want to see In the Mood for Love and Scenes from a Marriage as pre-requesites first).
|
|
|
Post by The bag of sand on Oct 5, 2006 22:09:05 GMT -5
I remember seeing a thing on g4 (back when it first came out) and some dude was talking about how there were first storys then the storys turned to books and books turned to movies and movies turned to games and after games... who knows.
|
|
|
Post by jameseightbitstar on Oct 6, 2006 0:45:24 GMT -5
I remember seeing a thing on g4 (back when it first came out) and some dude was talking about how there were first storys then the storys turned to books and books turned to movies and movies turned to games and after games... who knows. The problem with that is that, IMO games should not be a storytelling medium (and yes, I'm counting RPGs and adventure games). The story is really only there to give a frame of context for the game and to define the player's ultimate goal. They're not really "telling" a story, they're providing a setting and context and letting you resolve the story yourself. That's a bit different from books and movies where the story is already written and has little input from the reader or viewer.
|
|
|
Post by Malroth on Oct 6, 2006 23:16:29 GMT -5
*scratches* I always just used Hades on Ruby Weapon, put him to sleep, and beat the snot out of him.
Anyway, I have to agree that when I read, I'm seeing the story from a third person perspective. I'm "in" the story, but more as an observer instead of an active participant. I've noticed that when I play videogames, I usually refer to the main character as "me" in my head. So it seems that videogames get me more involved than a book does.
That said, I won't say that videogames trump books. Both of them are seperate mediums, and should be compared differently. Personally, I think that if you like RPGs then you're also more likely to be a reader as well.
|
|