Separator
Video-Game Movies Fail Because of Games' Poor Narrative Quality
Summer_09_029
Monday, September 13, 2010
EDITOR'S NOTEfrom Rob Savillo

Gil's criticism of game-to-film adaptations highlights an area of concern in our favored medium's storytelling. But maybe movie studios just pick the worst games to bring to the cineplex. What if Guillermo del Toro brought Shadow of the Colossus to the silver screen? What if Quentin Tarantino gave Valkyria Chronicles the Inglourious Basterds treament?

The likelihood of ever watching a great video-game movie is -- in a word -- dismal. I don't solely base this pronouncement on pessimism but more on a regretful concession to one basic incompatibility of the two mediums.

Video games, whose evolution has skyrocketed at a pace unmatched by other forms of entertainment media, maintains one crippling flaw: poor -- often shameful -- narrative.

More of an experiential medium dependent on the physical and mental participation of its clientele, studios produce video games with meticulous attention placed on gameplay mechanics. This isn’t a bad thing, as any seasoned gamer (this one included) would likely testify to frustrating or uninspired gameplay as the culprit that kills virtual buzzes faster than the 5-0 at a frat party (see: The Force Unleashed or Dynasty Warriors 1-[insert number]).

After all, prudent video-game developers invest serious coin and time in testing upcoming titles.  They commission quality-assurance employees to scour virtual worlds for bugs and glitches that would otherwise become detrimental to a game’s success once released. But all these so-called “glitches” or “errors” red-flagged for urgent modification or removal pertain only to facets of design and computer coding, whereas the embarrassing use of narrative clichés, cheesy dialogue, or recycled plots are all green-lit for production long beforehand.

Unfortunately, a developer’s prolonged dedication to gameplay benefits Hollywood in no way.

 


Even a legendary game like Resident Evil 4 suffers from laughable narrative and dialogue.

Movies are a narrative medium with no secondary functions (e.g., addictive gameplay) to disguise elementary storytelling. When the plot is lacking, the film ultimately fails from a critical standpoint and bears little artistic value. So how is a narrative medium -- whose sole function is to present story -- expected to succeed when the source material is designed with nominal attention paid to quality? A poorly crafted story cannot fashion an exemplary movie. The equation itself becomes a glaring anomaly that questions the sanity of ever attempting a video-game adaptation.

Of course, exceptions abound. Companies like BioWare innovate game design with an emphasis on superior storytelling; we may be approaching a cinematic age in which video-game movies are no longer beleaguered by inherent limitations in narrative.

But until then, we should be wary of our expectations, otherwise we'll continue sulking in disappointment. Bread and cheese does not a perfectly grilled center cut make. So I’ll enjoy my grilled cheese for what it is and disparage any hope of transforming it into something it’s not.

 
4
GIL LAWRENCE DE LEON'S SPONSOR
Comments (17)
Default_picture
September 13, 2010


You have a good point, but I think there's also an element of movie folk not really knowing how to make a good movie from a video game license because no one's really done it yet. Personally I feel that it's possible, but you'd have to forget most things about the video game from which you bought the license and just make a compelling story in the same world. For one thing, most games that have a story worth telling are too long for a film.. consider that many good films that started in print began as a short story. Maybe next time Hollywood should look to XBLA and not Gamestop when looking for the breakthrough VG movie adaptation...


Default_picture
September 13, 2010


I think the main problem is that its often games that have very little story or poorly written story to begin with (resident evil) get chosen to become films simply because of name recognition and marketability.  If studios picked games with good narrative and wrote a film based on those games universes as apposed to their existing stories you'd have a higher chance of making something worth-while.  



People should check out GiantBomb.com's This Aint No Game series of film video reviews.  Very entertaining and interesting look at all the horrible and not so horrible game based and game-like films that have been made over the years.


Me
September 13, 2010


I think Rob nails it - it's not that games have poor narrative quality, it's that the titles chosen so far to adapt into movies have had poor narrative quality. Resident Evil isn't really much of a story, when you think about it...but how about BioShock, or Mass Effect? After a fashion, you retort your own argument towards the end, there.


Default_picture
September 13, 2010


I think the main problem with video game movies is we as gamers want to see the game we played exactly as it was on the silver screen. But I see a few problems with that.



1. Why go see the movie when you can play the exact same game, and be engaged more?



2. If FMV games have shown anything we as gamers don't like the concept of real world people being video game characters. Or really having cutscenes acted out with real people.


Snapshot_20100211_14
September 13, 2010


This is something that can be summed up pretty easily. How long are movies? How long are games?



 



While they are all different lengths, part of the problem with storytelling in games is that it's either drawn out in 5-10 hours for the adventure or shooter genres, or upwards of 40 hours in RPG's. It's not always so much that the narrative is lacking, which is a large oversight in your write up here. Most of the games we play probably only have about two hours of story, but they have to spread it out over so much gameplay that it really gets lost in translation.



 



Besides, video games are meant to be fun to be engaging. They don't move along like a movie to keep you entertained - so of course meaningless things take a backseat. For the most part this can even apply to story heavy games. Most RPG's are remembered not only for thier story, but for their gameplay mechanics that kept us hooked... it just helps if the story is at least decent enough to keep us entertained.



 



Games and movies should never be as one, nor should they ever be compared. Aside from being a form of media, they have generally nothing in common. A movie's intentions are completely different from a video games.



 



The other problem is that we as gamers demand they do the game justice, so most movie studios stick too much to the script of the game. Unfortunately, it's almost impossible to take a fun gameplay moment and turn it into a fun scene to watch. Most of the movies just become outrageous action popcorn flicks, because essentially that's what games are while you're playing them. Instead of expanding on game dialogue, the directers instead focus on recreating gameplay moments. It fails every time.



 



Edit** - I also really need to emphasize the fact that BioWare is not the saving grace, nor do they tell an epic story. It's just more of a focus than gameplay is for them - but not much better than anything else out there.


Me
September 13, 2010


Saying that video games and movies should never be compared is a little ridiculous as an absolute statement. That's like saying that internet news sites and print newspapers should never be compared. One springs from the other. All new media is just an amalgamation of old media forms with digital technologies.

 



Some video games have very much in common with movies in terms of their narrative arcs and the presentation of their cutscenes. Do you honestly believe that the positioning of the camera in video games doesn't stem straight from film and television? How about the way dialogue is written? In the best video games with narrative elements, the dialogue is virtually indistinguishable from what we might be handed from a movie.

 



To the rest of your comments, and the original piece, I honestly don't see where video game movies actually refer to the gameplay much at all. There's only one video game movie I can think of which really did this, and that's DOOM, in the first-person-perspective sequence towards the end. Otherwise, video game movies don't reflect the gameplay, I think. They just take the basic narrative and characters and adapt them into a screenplay, which is precisely the problem. Unless that video game has strong, well-defined characters and a solid, core narrative, there's not much to work with from the very beginning.

 



The first Mortal Kombat was a pretty good video game movie because there was a story there. DOOM wasn't bad, either, as a popcorn flick. This also raises the question of what people are expecting. If they want some serious dramatic work, that's going to be difficult to come by. If you're just looking for an action flick, there's lots of potential for good video game movies. The problem might be that Hollywood doesn't really know the game industry well enough to pick the cream of the crop as the focus of its attention.


Nick_hair
September 13, 2010


Games ain't movies, so I don't think we should hold them to the same storytelling-standards as films. A film's only focus is to provide an engaging narrative. Without that, a movie is dead. A video-game, however, has a few different goals, the biggest of which is to entertain the player with its gameplay. If a game is fun, we can overlook its shitty narrative.



 



That's not to say that I find cruddy stories in games acceptable -- a good story can greatly enhance a game, while a bad story can detract from it. But when it comes to video-games, gameplay is the primary focus. As such, a developer may not spend as much time crafting a compelling story.



 



Maybe my standards are too low, but I've never expected Oscar-caliber writing in video-games. I'm all for games with great stories, but it's gotta be fun to play, foremost.


Scott_pilgrim_avatar
September 13, 2010


I agree with Dennis, and his examples. I'd also add the first Resident Evil, while not an Oscar contender, is perfect for what it is--an action/zombie flick.



Also, I think the comparision of time between film and games is a pretty silly "reason" for why movie adaptations fail. Look at adaptations of books (which can take as long as some games to read) and the examples of excellent films based on them:



http://topics.dirwell.com/info/10-oscar-winning-movies-based-on-books.html



But yes, it does come down to audience expectations. You can't go to a movie expecting a game. One of the reasons I liked the RE movie was because it didn't try to retell the story of the first game, but instead told a (loosely) connected one. It satisfied my expectations by being a different view of a world I enjoyed.


Snapshot_20100211_14
September 13, 2010


@Dennis - No, you're first paragraph is not only wrong, but it's also a bad example. A print paper vs. an online paper is essentially the same. At the end of the day you're still just reading them. When it comes to movies and games - well, one you watch, and one you actively play and participate in. It changes the whole scope of how you are entertained by it.



 



Stories are really told the same whether it's a movie, book, or just a retelling by somebody you know. Some games tell stories the only way stories can be told, while some even better games don't even have them. Some of the best games of all time don't even have a story to be told. It's measured by how much fun we had with it while playing it. It makes this form of media a completely different beast - I 100% believe that the reason that game movies are so bad is because they are so dislike each other. The attempt to bring games into the movie realm just doesn't work, period. They are so far apart from each other that most of this conversation becomes a moot point.


Me
September 13, 2010


@ Nick - Only to a point can I overlook a crappy narrative anymore, because the bar has been set high by games like Mass Effect, and Dragon Age. Once someone proves that a thing can be done well, I personally find that my expectations rise accordingly. If someone does not provide me with a solid narrative in a game which has a narrative core, either the writers had no talent, or the designers just got lazy.

 



It really depends on the genre we're talking about. For an RPG, I think a solid narrative is a baseline requirement, not an "I'm happy if I get one" option. RPG's have evolved. They're drawing closer to their tabletop roots where storytelling is EVERYTHING, and the combat is just a mechanic meant to move that story along. If Dragon Age had a stupid story, I wouldn't care about the game mechanics. In fact, to be honest, I play the game on Normal because I'm more concerned with exploration and seeing where the story goes than the actual combat, which is the sort of thing I've done over and over again over three decades.

 



@ Shawn - No, a newspaper and a news website are not essentially the same. A newspaper doesn't have audio, video, web links, and other interactive features. A newspaper is a static document which, once printed, is set for the ages. A news website is a living document which can be changed and amended as the situation warrants.

 



If we're specifically referring to the narrative aspect of a video game, I don't think the experience of a video game and a movie are entirely dissimilar. When you are watching a cutscene in a video game, you're not actually doing anything. You may make a dialogue choice, but that's it. A single moment of interactivity and you're back to watching a movie. In essence, you really ARE watching a movie with a video game wrapped around it.

 



The borders are too fuzzy to make these sorts of declarative, absolute statements anymore about where the line is drawn when it comes to RPGs in particular...but a game like Red Dead Redemption relies extremely heavily on its narrative arc, and that's more of an action game than anything else (the formal genre is "open world," but really what you're doing most of the time is 3rd person action).



One half of the critical theory around video games is actually called "narrative theory." You should look it up. Interesting stuff. Although, from your comments, the ludological approach that I'm just starting to pay attention to now might be more up your alley for critical analysis purposes. :)


59583_467229896345_615671345_7027350_950079_n
September 13, 2010


@Shawn, stories are NOT told the same, regardless of medium. There's no one perfect formula for storytelling that works across all media. Game writing in particular is a very new art, and we're still struggling to find a way for it to work.



 



By your logic, something like Braid, that features a picture of the main character jumping in the background to teach you how to jump, would be better served with a long, texty paragraph on-screen explaining his first jump to the player. That's how a novel would cover it. A movie would cover it visually; some trepidation, then a leap. The game does it organically. Most game narrative is tacit, these days, and that's a move towards where it needs to be.



 



True, there are a lot of hackneyed plots out there, and I'll definitely back up everyone who is saying that BioWare's games aren't as epic as some might think. But the style of writing has to fit the medium, and right now, what we have is the best we've come up with for now. I have no doubt that we'll do better. I'm on the IGDA Writer's SIG mailing list, and every day I see and take part in intelligent discourse regarding where our craft has to go. The writing style we're seeing just doesn't translate into movies right now. Not even the cutscenes. Most cutscenes serve to inform the player of what has happened and give him/her some direction towards the next goal. They're functional. They just don't translate onto the big screen directly, and that's where you have to take liberties and rewrite things to fit. That will ALWAYS upset people.


Summer_09_029
September 13, 2010


My criticism of video game adaptations isn't based on the "impossibility" of a good film to someday hit theatres, which is why I was careful to refer to the chances of an exemplary  video game adaptation as "dismal" over impossible.  But can it really be denied that the trend of games with sub-par narrative overshadows the rare gems that prove the contrary?



 



@ Dennis - I don't retort my arugment with my mention of BioWare.  My argument is that video game movies are horrible because most video game narratives are horrible; thus, if the necessary improvements to story quality in games are made "we may be approaching a cinematic age in which video-game movies are no longer beleaguered by inherent limitations in narrative."  I explicitly mention that it isn't impossible to make video game stories great, but, lets face it, most aren't.  I specifically chose BioWare as  the silver lining in this anomaly because I believe their example could break this trend.  BUT, until this trend is ACTUALLY BROKEN and developers start placing as much attention to the quality of narrative in their titles as gameplay, I continue to expect one bad movie after another.  Just like most of you I hope this trend does, in fact, end.  However--just like most of you--I'm still waiting for that to happen.


Me
September 13, 2010


I think, Gil, the issue with your piece is that you attribute the current dismal crop of video game movies to the wrong source. It has absolutely nothing to do with incompatibilities between the mediums. If a game has a good narrative, that exists independently of the gameplay. It can plucked out of the video game and turned into a film quite easily. The problem isn't games' narrative weaknesses, but rather the specific games which Hollywood chooses to try and adapt, and how they adapt them.



 



BioShock could make a great movie because the narrative is very strong. Mass Effect could be an equally good film. Perhaps the reason why Hollwyood *doesn't* select games like these more often as fodder for adaptation is because they would require a lot of work to adapt. I used to be a screenwriter, and adaptation is an extremely challenging task. For a screenwriter to maintain the feel and characters from one medium to another is not easy...so if you're a Hollywood producer looking to make a quick buck, which video game are you going to choose to adapt? BioShock, which is loaded with subtleties, or Tekken, which is two people beating the crap out of each other?



 



From your comment, it sounds like you're waiting for some sort of sea change when almost all video games feature strong narrative...and that somehow that's going to lead to a better crop of video game movies...but the writers of those video game movies aren't the writers of the video games. One has almost nothing to do with the other. Ken Levine isn't writing the BioShock movie, he's just advising on it...so the screenwriter for that film could absolutely destroy the story and put out the crappiest video game movie ever made with BioShock, and are we going to blame that on the game?


Summer_09_029
September 13, 2010


You're really just saying the same thing I am, albiet in a different way.  I'm saying: poor video game narrative=crappy movie.  You're saying: good video game narrative=good movie.  The two are interchangeable.



 



And I never claimed that the two mediums were innately incompatible.  What's incompatible is the notion that someone can take poor game narrative and somehow make a great movie.  Bad=good?  Of course not.



 



Furthermore, in both the article and my reply to you I've conceded to the fact that there are games with impressive narrative quality out there and that I AM HOPING that those titles begin a trend of good movies because good=good, which, again, is what you're arguing.



 



Look, I agree with what you're saying, I truly do.  But your opinion really isn't much different from mine.


Photo_159
September 14, 2010


I always felt that game movies were bad because the writers and directors were much too self absorbed and often times discarded the most important characteristics of games in order to put in their own artistic interpratation of what they think is interesting.



 



I'd say in most cases a lot of the "decision makers" working on the a given game film are still grapling with how a game works let a lone how it is made. This is why you get people like Roger Ebert talking so much crap about games and then praising something like Avatar which uses the exact same 3D software.



 



The truth is, once Hollywood grabs that license they don't care what happens afterwards they have already estimated how much money they are going to make by cashing in on a familliar name instead of making their own.



Movies like Resident, Super Mario Brothers, and Chun Li, kind of prove my point. Speciffically, think about Jill Valentine in the RE games compared to the RE movies...They share no resemblence.



When those game-adaptations that have been blown out of context fail than other directors come along and try to copy games stitch for stitch...Look at that crappy Tekken film as an example.



 



For better game-movie adaptaions to exist I tihnk a good deal of Hollywood needs to get off their high horse and give games a little more respect.



 



Resident Evil 1 and 2 had a great story line. I would have loved to see reincarnations of those as films done well. When has the hero of any Resident Evil story ever been super human with psi powers?(well i dont know about 4). Even earlier I think plenty of Super NES games had great stories too. Not to mention all the great games that are out now.



 



True, a lot of games do have simple stories - but movie companies don't care. That's why someone bought the rights to Asteroids and I kid you not the film is in production. Once they have that license its just business as usual - look for the next big franchise to try and turn another quick buck. The movie industry sees games making money and they want a peice of the action without putting in the work. Clear and simple.



 



In my opinion thats why game movies suck.



 



Now things are a little more dier for them so they will try a little harder - for example the new prince of persia movie.


Me
September 14, 2010


I'm glad for the discussion, Gil, for the record. The discussion, for me, is everything.



 



We're not really in agreement, though. Here's my formula, if we want to write it out sans the proper mathematical symbols which I don't know how to reproduce in this comment window:



 



Quality of Game Narrative (does not equal) Quality of Game Adaptation Narrative



 



What I'm arguing is that these things have nothing to do with each other whatsoever. Someone *could* take a crappy video game narrative and turn it into a good film narrative, because that's precisely what a talented screenwriter does. Very often you'll get three or four screenwriters on a project, and the later writers take turds from earlier drafts and turn them into something good. It's part of how the business works.



 



Conversely, a studio could take a video game with the most brilliant narrative ever, like (insert your chosen title here), and turn it into Battlefield Earth or Plan 9 From Outer Space, and it has nothing to do with the fact that video games focus on gameplay, and therefore don't give enough attention to the narrative, which I believe was the thesis of your piece.



 



The credit, or blame, for the quality of a video game adaptation does not lie with the video game. It lies with the people who produce, write, direct, and edit the film. That's my argument, in a nutshell. :)



 



When someone is making a "video game movie," gameplay cannot, and should not, matter. Replicating gameplay on film is impossible. What *can* be replicated are the characters, and the story, albeit after passing through the necessary changes that adaptation requires.



 



Perhaps the conversation here is actually what we mean by "a video game movie." If we're looking for a movie to ever capture the experience of a video game outside an interpretation of the narrative, *that* would a limitation caused by incompatibilites of the media. :)


Summer_09_029
September 14, 2010


I understand what you're saying (and appreciate the discussion also); a lot could go wrong in the transition of a video game to film.  Just because a game's narrative is amazing doesn't guarantee an awesome movie, however, starting off with a lousy story only inhibits the process and drastically decreases the chances of a successful film.  That's what my analysis focuses on.  A film adaptation, I think, has a much higher chance of succeeding if its source material possesses excellent narrative.  If the foundation is strong, whatever is built on top has a much better chance of also being strong.



 



I get that nothing is ever guaranteed, but starting off on the wrong foot is never a good indication of things to come.


You must log in to post a comment. Please register or Connect with Facebook if you do not have an account yet.