You Got My Movie In Your Video Game!

Books are books. Music is music. Film is film. Those mediums seem to understand what they are and fulfill their purpose accordingly. Video games, however, seem a little confused nowadays. It seems to be a growing trend for video games to act like movies.

I don't point this out as a bad thing necessarily, but just as a strange thing. This occurrence doesn't happen with other forms of media. As my favorite video game critic pointed out, you never see films try to be more like books and display written words on the big screen for 90 minutes. You do, however, see video games containing 90 minutes of cut scenes such as the new "Uncharted 2." And in rare instances you can find video games with a solid 90-minute cut scene, such as in "Metal Gear Solid 4." That's the duration of a feature length film. Shoot, the theatrical release of "Crank" was only 87 minutes. But what does this mean as far as video games are concerned?

Films and video games are closely related in terms of how they work on their audience. Films use both sight and sound in order to convey meaning to the viewer. This way a variety of messages can be sent on both conscious and subconscious levels. Video games use this tactic, too, but there is one main difference: the action of the player. See, with films the audience is passive. Their only role is to simply digest what they see and hear. With video games the player is the cause of action. He or she is an active participant in the messages being conveyed. Forcing the viewer into this type of role-playing adds an entirely different, and I would argue stronger, level of persuasion.

So, when I see video games wear film's clothing, it confuses me. By adding in cinematic cut scenes, the developers are actually watering down their message. I get why they do it on a logistical level. There are limitations to game play, and the developers probably want to send some messages in specific ways. So, the easiest way to do that is by manufacturing a cut scene where they have control. The hybrid result is actually pretty effective, but I still believe that there is a more efficient way to deliver messages in a pure video game format. 

Of course, what I'm imagining is still way beyond the horizon. To draw another parallel between film and video games, I think the development of both mediums is similar. The first film came by way of nickelodeon machines around 1905. These were short films that lacked any real narrative but provided entertainment. Then in 1915, the first feature length film and blockbuster was released (regrettably, the film was "The Birth of a Nation," but that's a side point). Twelve years later "The Jazz Singer" debuted as the first talkie. Other advancements and achievements have been attained since then, but even today the medium is still changing, albeit less drastically. 

I'm declaring that the first video game was released in 1971 with "Computer Space." Since then only 38 years have passed. Film has had over 100 years to find its groove, and it's still working on it. What chance do video games have to find its place in just a few decades? Trends have come and gone such as the side-scroller phase of the late 80s and early 90s much like how film noir was a craze during 40s and 50s. The biggest difference between the growth of these mediums is that video games seem to be evolving at a faster rate. I predict that video games will be as settled as film is now in about 30 years. 

But, in the mean time, I suppose cinematic video games will stay popular, at least for a little bit longer. "Metal Gear Solid 4" won multiple game of the year awards when it was released, and "Uncharted 2" seems to be paving a similar road. The French installment of the Playstation 3 Magazine awarded "Uncharted 2" 21/20. And while that rating is a gross hyperbole, it does speak volumes about the game's success. I, on the other hand, will be waiting for video games to embrace themselves and stop trying to live the Hollywood life.