Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies Media Entertainment Games

Games Industry Echoes Of Hollywood's Golden Age? 26

Posted by simoniker from the lorne-lanning-is-charlie-chaplin dept.
Zack Young writes "I just read an article over at TweakTown Gamer that has an interesting comparison between the movie industry and the gaming industry. It mentions many of the similarities between the relatively young gaming industry and the film industry of the 1920's, including the introduction of new technologies and how they shaped and are shaping the artistic direction the formats take." The article also suggests: "The overall structure of gaming companies... resembles the studio system of the 'Golden Age of Hollywood' rather than the fragmented independent layout of today. The movie studios such as MGM, Paramount or Warner Brothers had their own stock of actors, writers and directors from which the crew of a particular movie was comprised."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Games Industry Echoes Of Hollywood's Golden Age? More

Games Industry Echoes Of Hollywood's Golden Age?

Comments Filter:

  • It's gonna be more evolution than revolution (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Toxygen ( 738180 ) on Tuesday January 06, 2004 @11:33PM (#7899563) Journal
    The article makes mention of the advent of "talkies" being a revolution in the film industry and what the comparable revolution would be in the gaming industry, but didn't movies just use an announcer or a narrator, or even just a piano playing in the beginning? That's still sound for the movie, regardless of the source, and different implementations of the same idea is just evolution.

    • The silent movies would have dialogue by pausing for a card to be put on the screen. Music was done by distributing sheet music with the film to be played in the theatre; that was even a later development, because for many years, the theatre was responsible for performing its own music for the film.

    • Re:It's gonna be more evolution than revolution (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Jerf ( 17166 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @12:27AM (#7899956) Journal
      "Quality" and "quantity" are two points on a continuum, not binary absolutes.

      A sufficient change in quantity becomes a change in quality.

      Having a generalized sound track is so different from having "a human voice not of your choosing and a piano" that the two are hardly comparable, even if technically both are sources of sound.

      The litmus test is, "Will my understanding of one contribute significantly to my understanding of the other?" In this case, the answer is no; understanding what is possible with "a guy and a piano" will only give you the barest hint of what is possible with a full soundtrack.

      I'd say it justifies "revolutionary" as a term.

      (That said, at this point the only true "revolution" left for gaming is significantly more physical interaction, or direct neural connections giving the impression of more direct physical interaction. "(Distributed) Multiplayer", massive and otherwise, was the last "revolution" in gaming and I doubt there will be any more for a while.

      ("But you can't predict the future! Maybe something awesome will happen!" No, but I can make a structural argument: We've tapped all the senses that can reasonably be tapped (taste and smell are irrelevant, touch in non-trivial modes is essentially what my "physical interaction" point is about and is very hard), and we've tapped human interaction via multiplayer. There's nowhere for a true "revolution" to come from anymore, just a whole lot of incremental evolution that may add up in totality to a revolution, but with no one true "revolution" point.)

      OK, this rambled a bit, but hey, this is Slashdot, right?
      • understanding what is possible with "a guy and a piano" will only give you the barest hint of what is possible with a full soundtrack.

        What was revolutionary was dialog, voices. The music involved was under more studio control as a result of soundtracks, but that's a tradeoff.

        Music for silent movies was a significant artistic "industry." House bands were pros, working many hours a day, and they had to really know their stuff. Studios might specify a theme for certain parts of a movie, and if the theater

        • You're reinforcing my point; I'm not sure if you know that and are posting to amplify my point or trying to disagree with it. Sorry.

          A soundtrack is very, very different from a live musical performance. The idea that all revolutions are superior to all old methods is quite wrong; probably the clearest comes out of science fiction and the idea that all technologies are totally superior to old ones [stardestroyer.net], but this is just a specific instance of the general misconception. That soundtracks are a revolution doesn't me
          • Would anyone on Slashdot respond just to "score points" for the edification of some imagined third party? Heck, not me.

            We'd agree that live music played as a part of a performance, with silent movies, is a different animal than recorded soundtracks including voices -- and that the change was a "revolution" in the sense you mean. What I was reacting to was just that characterization of silent movie music:

            "a human voice not of your choosing and a piano"

            That isn't what happened at silent movies. It's a

            • "Qualitative" and "quantitative" are well established words [google.com] not of my choosing. They are often portrayed as opposites [sdsu.edu] but they are not.

              In my case, while I confess to using a stereotype it turns out to not affect my point ;-), so I'm glad you clarified the history. (Often, when the details don't matter to me I don't go look them up, since they have no affect on my point.)

  • Golden Age (Score:3, Funny)

    by saramakos ( 693903 ) on Tuesday January 06, 2004 @11:43PM (#7899649)
    I thought the TRUE golden age would start when Duke Nukem Forever finally comes out?!?

  • Definitely (Score:1, Flamebait)

    by superpulpsicle ( 533373 )
    From the span of like 1992 to 1996, there was hardly any decent games out in the market. I remember how revolutionary mortal kombat was. Cause there was hardly any decent competition. Today I am many years older.... yet my game wish-list is 10 miles longer. Every game seem to have so much more playability with online capability and so much more depth.
    • " I remember how revolutionary mortal kombat was."

      What was revolutionary about Mortal Kombat? The only real thing that was unprecedented about it was the amount of media frenzy over it. (Thank you Mr. Joe Liberman.) Maybe one could call the photographic elements of the game revolutionary, except it had been done before in other genres.

      I'd like for you to clarify. The game was alright, lots and lots of people had fun with it, I just wonder where 'revolutionary' came from.

    • Re:Definitely (Score:5, Insightful)

      by sofakingl ( 690140 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @12:27AM (#7899960)
      Hardly any decent games? This is the SNES and Genesis era you are talking about, an era that many gamers think of as the real gaming golden age. There were so many good games on both of those systems that are looked apon as being classics. Super Mario World, Sonic the Hedgehog, the SNES Final Fantasy games, Chrono Trigger, Street Fighter 2, Phantasy Star 4, Castlevania 4, and several others were released in that era, and are cherished by many gamers.

  • More like the 80's? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by NanoGator ( 522640 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @12:13AM (#7899869) Homepage Journal
    Just struck me as a little odd that the state of gaming was compared to the 20's instead of the 80's. It seems like in the mid-to-late 80's is when we saw the the start of convincing effects. The result of this was fewer compromises in making a movie with a vision. It wasn't perfect, things still looked fake, but man it just got better and better.

    You'll have to pardon me, I just watched the Back to the Future trilogy. Cannot help but be reminded at how refreshing I found those movies when I was a kid. Seems to me that gaming's in that state right now. The graphics are quite sophisticated, the renderings are very close to what the artists intended, but there's still quite a leap to go before we get to 'convining'.

    Maybe I'm just focusing on the wrong aspect, though.
    • The difference between the 20's and the 80's was that actors would sign to be exclusive to a particular studio. They could not go anywhere else to make a movie. Period. Thats kind of like when Squaresoft decided to only work with Sony. You used to see a lot mroe loalty with video game companies and the designers. However, i'm amazed at all the cross-console licesing that is going on. you can pretty much buy the same game for any system these days. Go to a video store and look at what games are not on
      • It goes a little further than that, though. You don't just have development companies that will sign exclusives with certain manufacturers. You also have each development house keeping all of it's own developers, artists, and designers in-house. If you want Carmack to work on your engine, you either have to be id Software or you have to license the engine from him. If you want Square's composer, you either have to be at Square, or setup a deal with Square to license music from him. The only other way you ca
      • It's pretty common in the porno biz for actors to sign these sorts of exclusive studio contracts. For example, to be in 12 Vivid films in 2 years.
  • Yes, game developers (actors) are also worked to death, and make much less money than the publishers (studios) in the Golden Age did.

    I think that the rate of technological advancement is part of why game productions are still relatively (well, compared to a movie) small. If you have processors doubling in power every 18 months, video resolutions climbing, and an even faster rate of improvement on video chipsets, and unforseen standard-of-gameplay improvements increasing you simply cannot afford to spend a

  • A little late! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Allen Varney ( 449382 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @12:40AM (#7900055) Homepage

    I pointed out these similarities in an article for Amazing Stories [allenvarney.com] back in 1998, and I was nowhere near the first to make the observation.

  • Programmers like actors? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by R33MSpec ( 631206 ) * on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @12:42AM (#7900067) Homepage
    "..The movie studios such as MGM, Paramount or Warner Brothers had their own stock of actors, writers and directors from which the crew of a particular movie was comprised.."

    On another train of thought - I wonder if programmers who gain 'status' for creating outstanding games may be well known enough (e.g John Carmack) to be exactly like an actor, in the way:

    Programmers will have a personal manager and be able to almost freelance between game companies for particular game projects - like an actor is offered movie roles, a programmer would be offered contracts by gaming studios for a particular game.

    Games would highlight even more so the fact that a particular programmer worked on a previous 'hit' game - like any new movie will highlight any A-list actors it may have in it.

    • Why on earth would a player be concerned with programmers?

      An actor gets famous for the following reasons,

      1. Sufficient skill
      2. Good/Uniqe apparance
      3. Charming charateristics
      4. Exposure in good films

      none of these should be apparent in a game.

      A good programmer produces bug free code.
      Bug free code is not noticed by the player.
      Thus: Good programmers are note noticed by players.
      • True, but game developing companies are made famous by a combination of very similar attributes!

        1. Sufficient handling/tilt/gameplay consistency (many console games lack this)
        2. Good/Unique A/V features demonstrated(graphics and soundtrack)
        3. Charming characteristics (Rockstar Games produces a game - expectations of its characteristics?)
        4. Exposure in media and of course word of mouth
    • I think the actor-programmer analogy is less applicable than the director/game designer. You pick up a game designed by Sid Meier you know what you are going to get.

      This seems to have been in decline in recent years (or am I getting old?) being replaced by the studio, probabley a function of game project becoming bigger and more expensive
    • Programmers are nothing like actors - game characters are like actors. As in, I liked Mario's earlier, funnier work.

      The superstar programmers are more like the auteurs of old, doing script, direction, cinematography and editing - but not acting - and even in gaming they are the exception not the rule.

      Its possible that soon actors will be like actors - games already contain their mocap'd, scanned, and sampled avatars. How long will it be before having an actor in a game guarantees an opening weekend?
    • You mean John Romero, don't you?

  • Sound Revelution? How about GTAIII? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by FouRPlaY ( 513642 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @01:43PM (#7904067)
    It seems to me that Grand Theft Auto III might just be the sound revelution.

    Not only does it tell a story, but it is the free-form, non-linear, go-at-your-own-pace, any order, video game ideal. The user is complete control of the progression of the story.

    Not to mention its commercial success.

    Sounds like a candidate to me! ^_^

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close