Top
70°

The Quantum Break Conundrum: Games Don’t Need To Be Movies

Darkly Written posts: "One of the longest-running ‘dilemmas’ in the gaming world, if you will, is this whole drive of some mainstream developers to ‘be like Hollywood’ or achieve that ‘summer blockbuster’ game as they try their hardest to merge TV or film with the video game medium.

The Quantum Break conundrum. In a nutshell it would be the quest to walk the fine line between movie and video game."

Read Full Story >>
darklywritten.com
The story is too old to be commented.
Free_Fro607d ago

I haven't played the game so I can't say too much about it
But. . It's rare that we see AAA games take risks.

You haven't played it either so you don't know how well it works with QB.

That said, whilst divisive it still falls on the positive side of the spectrum and folks are buying it.

Two objectives accomplished:
Devs + Publishers are happy
Gamers are happy

Tody_ZA607d ago (Edited 607d ago )

I'm very happy it tried something different (which I mention in the piece - I have no qualms about games trying new things due to the vast freedom video games have creatively) and I've been a big fan of Remedy Entertainment since Max Payne, which means a decade of fandom.

While I haven't played the game, I'm not discussing the game's quality or gameplay mechanics, so I think it's okay. I'm merely talking about the 'idea' of integrating live-action TV episodes in, which I read about, watched Let's Plays on and reviews just to see how they work in the context of the game.

Very excited to play the game still, but this aspect of the game seems pretty straight-forward to understand.

The article mostly discusses the 'idea' itself and the game industry's drive to emulate Hollywood/Film in general.

jb227605d ago

I haven't played it either but I totally agree with your read on the situation.

To me, experiencing it is nearly irrelevant to the conversation. The show could be as great as Breaking Bad & I still wouldn't personally want it in my game. It'd be great as a supplement that you could consume at your leisure or as a prologue or epilogue to be taken in before or after your experience. The issue is the entire idea of a video game is based off of interactivity & input, so the more live action content you put on the disc, the less the product fits the idea of what a "game" even is. I'm all for risks within the game itself but we've seen video gaming as a whole come so far in the last generation towards telling compelling narratives that are unlike anything else you can experience, so jus throwing some tv between the acts feels like a step backwards. Devs should be working towards more interactivity, not less.

I think Naughty Dog's mantra sums narrative in gaming the best way possible...they tell themselves to "keep it on the stick", meaning that they are always pushing toward letting you inhabit those characters as those stories are being told, not being passive onlookers for a story that remains in motion w/ or w/o you.

ManonWire605d ago (Edited 605d ago )

A videogame can never be on par with a film.

Remedy should've known better.

Edit: The Last of Us can't hold a candle to No Country for old Men (the film which Naughty Dog cites as their influence for the game). Some people have suggested that The last of Us takes it's influence from Cormac McCarthy's "The Road". Wrong. It clearly takes it's influence from Alfonso Cuaron's masterpiece "Children of Men". I could name 100s of films which are far better than a "videogame" like The last of Us. I won't go there. People complain about "interactive movies". Those complaints sum up the fatal flaw of a videogame - it's interactive.

kraenk12605d ago

Except The Last Of Us, which is even better than a film could ever be.

kraenk12605d ago (Edited 605d ago )

@manonwire

Absolutely. There is no way any movie could ever be that intense...a series maybe. A movie..never!

StifflerK605d ago

No, TLOU was heavily inspired by Cormac McCarthy's The Road.
A lot of the key scenes - the memento, the scene with the animal, the cannibals , the look and the setting are very similar, even the ending.

But that doesn't make the game any less enjoyable.
But the thing is, writing in video games is good, but still has a long way to go to match the best movies.
I'd say it's harder for games because you have to account for interactivity and choice.

Also , I recommend watching the movie, or reading the book, I think you'll like it.
Here's the trailer https://www.youtube.com/wat...

605d ago Replies(3)
jb227605d ago (Edited 605d ago )

"People complain about "interactive movies". Those complaints sum up the fatal flaw of a videogame - it's interactive."

You realize that at one point in time people were saying the same thing in regards to the switch from paintings & photography to the motion pictures you mention? The interactivity is what makes this medium unique, and it's exactly what will set it apart from film in a few decades, then people like yourself will be saying that films could never measure up to gaming solely because they aren't interactive.

TLOU was another huge stride (among a large handful) towards artistic legitimacy for this medium and to claim that games could never measure up to films is just all kinds of wrong in my eyes. You can boil TLOU down to a Road ripoff or a Children of Men carbon copy, but stories are never that simple, and to do so would disregard any nuance within either work. The broad strokes may be the same but it's the details that truly sell any form of art. I absolutely love Children of Men & Cuaron is one of my favorite directors, but the reason many parts of the movie worked (the chase scene in particular) was down to the visceral nature of it, something that is even more dialed up when you are the one actually controlling the action. You are the cinematographer, calling the shots on the fly...that's how I play games like those. I frame my own shots to my personal eye, and it creates a much more impactful experience.

Also, I hear your claims & I realize you may be a film student, but as a student you must show your work. What exactly about gaming could never measure up or be as impactful as a film? From first hand experience some games I've played have left more of a mark on me than any film has, so I'd say if there is any others out there with the same experience, it completely destroys any argument you could make.

Film works as art, art is meant to be affecting & impactful. If games can also be affecting & impactful to even one person, how are they not art on the same level as film?

MasterCornholio605d ago

Like Joe said they could have used ingame assets instead of TV episodes. Even some of the action of those episodes (car chase scene) could have been converted into actual gameplay.

While the game itself is good many people despise the TV portion of it. Alan Wake didn't have any TV episodes in it but gamers still loved the game.

kraenk12605d ago

Sam Lake stated they didn't have the time and funds to do it in engine though.

jb227605d ago

That admission in & of itself speaks volumes really. It essentially means the live action aspect was a compromise, not a preference, at least to begin with.

My best guess is that MS asked them to do live action to coincide w/ the initial TV integration and once they did their reversal of policies, Remedy couldn't really go back & change the game to fit their initial vision on a feasible budget & schedule after the tv portion was written in so they had to settle & push forward with the live action.

If Sam Lake & Remedy was in on the live action portion the entire time, he wouldn't have even entertained the notion of traditional game play or given a response like that IMO.

MasterCornholio605d ago

They had plenty of time to develop the game.

As for funds that I'm not sure of.

StifflerK605d ago

Remedy has been heading this way for a while.
Alan wake did have it's own mini live action series 'Bright Falls', plus American Nightmare had live action cut-scenes.
Plus both had mini spoof live action TV shows viewable in game.
QB is like a mixture of all of the above.

gamer1138605d ago

I could generalise and say a lot of people enjoyed the TV portions. You can't be certain because you are not everybody.

MasterCornholio605d ago (Edited 605d ago )

I didn't exactly say "Since I don't like TV in video games and I'm a human being. Everyone who's a human being doesn't like TV in video games."

Many people liked what they did and many people didn't. That's the main reason why some reviews are extremely positive and others quite negative. Its the TV portion of the game that either people love or hate. As for the general consensus on the gameplay and story, most people loved it.