Originally Posted by RandomRob
All these influences contribute to an OVERALL dumbed down set of aesthetics. In both mediums.
The successful mainstream/popcorn area was always "dumb"? It should be dumb, simple, so it can be art for everyone
Very much like the simple Finnish, the Selkokieli, which is getting popular there, as i read recently. Everyone should understand it. Understanding news, and hence also political knowledge and hence involvement, is and should be important for everyone.
Do Lady Gaga/ Guetta/ whatever prevent Adele/ David Garrett from succeeding? Currently two CDs are in the Austrian charts sung by a monk choir and the other one by a group of three priests. Even catholic church has entered the music industry.
The certainly more successful Immortals or Johnny English didn't prevent Karl Markovics to make his debut movie Atmen (Breathing). Also Melancholia had a short appearance in the top-10, as had Cowboys and Aliens, climbing not much higher. Action filled spectacles are made as are others, more silent, thoughtful movies and they also fail quite often as does good arthouse cinema.
Many things do coexist, so i don't see any case were successful CEO-darlings can prevent any media from delivering anything from high arts to fast food fun.
Call of Duty = war shooters (or GTA = open world, or WoW = MMORPG) might appear dominant at the moment but as with movies there will always be products for gamephils or whatever the equivalent to cinéasts will be called in gaming, as long as there is demand for it- and it can be financed. AAA-experiments like Brutal Legend or Mirrors Edge won't become the rule, especially since they do quite often not very well.
Experimenting with game design is not good for (the success of) games.
(...in the short term.) And the only meaningful factual measurement of good is in the end if people, the target audience, enjoyed it.
Austrian cinema currently suffers badly from wanting to be too much arthouse, and no one wants to see it, so especially the "ultra-art" productions have to be funded by the public. They get payed for something no one wants to pay for. Absurd.
I don't see the main problem in the desire for cinematic, but rather in the lack of really really good writers and game directors.
David Cage might not be the best writer ever, and many think he ought to do movies if he aims at making movie like games, but people following his example are imo an very important part of gaming future. Especially the people grown up in a time where gaming is no niche anymore will be the ones leading it in its future- since it's also well payed, you can do a movie in games if that's your wish- and they know both worlds, film and games, and might find new and better ways to intervene both.
We need more cinematic games so we unavoidably come to more great cinematic games.
I think game levels designed as action sequences where you do the correct moves or die trying should have been left in the laserdisc games of the 80s.
As long as Crysis 3 gets back to were Crysis 1 already was, there is still hope for you. And maybe one day they get a decent story together.
Though i have nothing against super tight linearity.
To clarify some backgrounds.
I believe in determinism.
So some vague idea of choice especially within a per default limited virtual reality is really hardly something i can be impressed with.
If i get a prompt saying press A or an implied prompt by seeing three paths, choose left into a forest or right into a swamp or go straight ahead to a castle, it is really not much of a difference to me since all causes just an reaction according to my "programming".
Originally Posted by Li-Ion
For telling a story nothing beats a book
I don't know if it does any media justice when someone tries to compare them to one another.
Books, graphic novels, movies and games let us experience and unfold stories in completely different ways.