Blips: Filmic Layers

Source: What does it mean when we call videogames cinematic?
Author: Chris Priestman
Site: Kill Screen

The word "cinematic" is tossed around a lot with games, but what does that label really entail? Well, since it's often coming from a marketing department, "cinematic" is somewhat of an empty phrase in games, taking for granted that people like movies and hoping that they'll enjoy this other medium if it seems similar. I believe a lot of the use of "cinematic" in games writing is derivative of marketing speech too, which has been allowed to inform and shape the perception of the medium. If I look at the games that are called cinematic, I see a couple things: film-like cinematography (at least in the cutscenes shown in, you guessed it, commercials), realistic looking/sounding characters performance-captured by movie actors, and a 3-act narrative arc to the game's central plotline. Of course there's more to film than just these elements, so it's worth considering other games that offer cinematic experiences, but aren't generally considered as much.

That's the premise of a recent piece by Chris Priestman for Kill Screen wherein he argues that a game like Papers, Please uses cinematic split-screen visuals as a means of dividing player attention. In the end, no one medium stands totally alone, and as Priestman admits, even split-screen itself isn't born of film, and the visual style we typically associate with cinema in games often owes as much to painting, theater, and photography as its moving pictures cousin. And as far as I can tell, David Cage is already making "interactive movies" as much as something like that can exist, which is likely not wholly a game or a film, but something somewhere in between. Now he just needs to use that interesting middle-ground to tell an equally interesting story.

Blips: Gamer Chic

Source: Prêt-à-Jouer and Videogame Couture
Author: Nathan Altice
Site: Metopal

Video games and fashion might seem like oil and water, but they actually have a lot in common, especially when it comes to the cyclical nature in which they function as industries. This was the premise of Nathan Altice's presentation at this year's No Show Conference, and it's an idea that has a lot of merit. Games, and in turn games writing, focus on the cinematic elements of games, operating from the correlation of games as interactive moving pictures. It's true that games and movies have been sharing an increasingly common DNA since the advent of polygonal characters and environments, but these film-like touches tend to overshadow other correlations and dominate the conversation. Consider that both games and fashion operate on seasonal cycles based around 3 major press events, and both have a tenuous outsider status in the art world.

Altice even refuted the one argument I was going to make against his analogy toward the end of his piece: that there is no gaming couture. This is acknowledged though, and using personal games as a substitute does fit on a certain level (games not meant for wide distribution with the distinct traces of an individual auteurist (there's that film language again!) hand). However, framing games and fashion in respect to capital, it's worth noting that even the most technologically advanced new games rarely cost beyond $60 unless they come with accessories. Then again, you can't play games without a console or a PC, both of which are definitely in the range of luxury items, but then the metaphor starts to get a bit muddy.

While I think that speaking about games through the language of fashion sounds incredibly refreshing, it does require a certain level of familiarity with fashion to pull it off, one which I don't think most game designers and writers possess. Film is a much more natural parallel in this regard due to the high rate of nerd culture crossover. The exchange of ideas between film and games is obvious and explicit, and to read into fashion in games is to interpret subtexts. I'm not saying this can't change, because it certainly sounds cool, but it would definitely take a collective effort from a lot of different people.

This isn't entirely dissimilar from my approach to games through art. In fact, I use this angle to pitch myself as having a unique perspective on games at a time when we're seeing them pop up in museums more often. Few people in the video game industry seem to know the language of art, the history of art, or the contemporary dialogues of the art world, and if they do, they're not framing what they have to say through this context or other voices are drowning them out by hierarchy or sheer volume. I have to imagine it's a similar situation with fashion, and part of me thinks it just comes down to having a limited amount of time and energy to invest in different fields of interest. I might not ever be the person who writes about games from a fashion perspective, but I'd definitely love to hear from someone else who knows what they're talking about.

Blips: Press X to Rosebud

Source: Against Kane
Author: Matthew Burns
Site: Magical Wasteland

I kind of hate that "the Citizen Kane of video games" is still a phrase game critics are wrestling with, even those who are quite adept at ripping the analogy to shreds. It's an overused metaphor that is almost always implemented lazily. For someone looking to take criticism to heart, the label of Kane-ness is an empty gesture, essentially a buzzword. Your game should innovate. Your game should change the conversation. Your game should be both of its time and timeless. You should make the Citizen Kane of video games.

Matthew Burns offered up a welcome critique from the other side of the story, where Kane-like games have been produced for years and where the film might not be the best role model for games going forward anyway. The post is brief and to the point, so I won't rehash it all here except to say that I'm mostly in agreement with Burns, but I'm also hesitant to dismiss the technical prowess of Kane in pursuit of the film's purpose.

The first achievements that come to mind when I think of Citizen Kane are indeed technical: cinematography, lighting, editing, special effects, etc. Welles pushed the studio set in directions that were truly innovative at the time. I'm still amazed by the newspaper office set, particularly the ceiling. What looks like a solid surface is actually muslin, which allowed for hidden boom-mics and low-angle indoor shots. It's incredibly clever.

Categorizing technical achievements in film as separate from what a film is about is a fallacy though, the same as it would be in game design. What is the meaning of any film minus the expressiveness of key technical components? To remove the qualities of editing techniques is to remove adjectives from a sentence. Camera-centric technical aspects of film are as much a part of the language of film as acting, if not moreso to differentiate it as a medium from live theater.

If we want to compare the expressiveness of the procedural rhetoric of games to Citizen Kane or dismiss the comparison entirely, we best understand how the film conveys meaning in every frame. It's much more holistic than just acting, dialogue, and s twist ending.

That said, dear God, let's just put this analogy out of its misery.