06-04-2009, 03:45 AM
Quote:What I read in Spielburg's statements and why I think he is correct:
You raise some very good points, I just want to address a few things about Spielberg's views and opinions first though.
Spielberg's view on some subjects IMO absolutely deserves a good listen to. The man who overcame the technical limitation of a rubber shark and can make a weird little alien with a glowing finger sympathetic, certainly has my ear on say, how to tell a story cinematically etc.
The barrier of technology, cost, and interface is still a relatively fluid thing at the moment. I've read that there's 2 things that defines a videogame as a videogame. One is interactivity. That's the one that gets the most press. The second usually not as much, and that's complexity. Not just the tech side, but the elements that might be in it. Anything from text, music, sound, and animation\movies. A person with far more experience said combining those elements wasn't additive, but multiplicative in complexities.
So while I think Spielberg is mostly right when he uses the analogy of development in film tech and video game tech, I personally think video games are not even in it's infancy yet. IMO it's still at the embryonic stage. Maybe not zygotic, and the rate of development is arguably one of the fastest when compared to other media in history.
But it's still a very very early age for video games, at least in my views. Spielberg mentions things like Cinemascope and Imax, while I think video games despite it's fast advancement rate, is still more along the lines of a late stage Magic Lantern and possibly kinetiscopes. At least compared to the possibilities that has so far can only be portrayed in movies and tv. By that I mean if we have a FForward button, video games in the far far future might be something along the lines of 2 things, The Holodeck, and or The Matrix.
The Holodeck may not be possible like, ever. The Matrix style or something similar without the jack in the back of the head is probably still technologically far away, but it might be an easier sell. Say, the Sony Dream Machine 4000 TM (future patent still pending) that puts you in a very vivid dream state. Now with less seizures than the Sony DM 3000.
In other subjects, he's IMO, only half right at best and mostly airing out his own personal bias. Again with the crying thing. Maybe it's just me, but since when are tears the only metric of validation worth measuring in a story, or all stories?
If all Spielberg wants is to make me cry, well the last time he did that was when he and pal George Lucas raped Indiana Jones.
http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/late...-lucas-protest/
/snarky mode on
Seriously Mr. Spielberg. If your benchmark is to make me cry, just spritz some cayenne on my eyeballs. It'd be faster for everyone involved. Make sure it comes out of a walkie talkie though, don't want it to be too violent like coming out of a water GUN. Don't want to scare the youngins.
And while Mr Spielberg is certainly entitled to his opinions re: videogames, wheres the tears?!. I wonder if this could be something as simple as not seeing a different media as valid unless it produces someone that mirrors him and\or his own views. Ie:, video games are not a real media unless it produces a Spielberg of it's own, at least in the eyes of Spielberg.
While I always will give credit to the talent, skill, and hardwork of people like Spielberg and Lucas. I also pray everyday that one day soon, hopefully in their lifetimes, a defining person(s) will come out with their work that marks a moment where the medium can proudly and with no apology, claim it's uniqueness. It doesn't have to claim and proclaim we have found a Spielberg of VideoGames, anymore than say architecture needs to find a Spielberg equivalent in order to be taken as a valid thing. It can instead say with no idle boast but with honesty, it is Video Games's (insert name of future great person here).
Maybe that day, just maybe, Spielberg can S. T. F. U. At least when it comes to video games lacking tears and therefore not very valid.
/snark off
That aside. Very meaty and interesting points you've raised Chesspiece.
This one especially:
Quote:It can allow people that aren't totally adept at the control complexities to play games which would generally be relegated to the "hardcore." And thus increase the gap between Cost of Entry and Metagaming, allowing a much wider swathe in which games can effect a players emotional experience.
I've seen the point above mentioned and discussed in various places ie: gamasutra, but the paragaraph above basically said it in one of the clearer I've read so far.