Another "games are inferior to movies" comment

I just got a kick our of this review blurb I saw over at Rotten Tomatoes and thought I'd share. It was in a review for the Max Payne movie and is from Roger Moore with the Orlando Sentinel.

As good as a couple of its action beats are, Max still suffers from the heartlessness that makes games emotionally inferior to movies. Nobody ever shed a tear over a video-game character's death.

I love blanket statements. Will people ever stop comparing all movies to all video games? I've played some games that had better stories than 90% of the movies out there and I've seen movies that were far worse than most games out there.

Bioshock or Half life vs The Happening. Done.

You could fill Lake Superior with all the tears shed for Aerith.

Grenn wrote:

You could fill Lake Superior with all the tears shed for Aerith.

True that. And they weren't crying "Oh noez I jus lost my healer" either.

If you're gonna generalize abut gamers, maybe you should play one or two.

To these kind of people videogames probably still mean Space Invaders and Pac-Man. Eventually they'll be replaced by a new generation of writers.

Zelos wrote:

To these kind of people videogames probably still mean Space Invaders and Pac-Man. Eventually they'll be replaced by a new generation of writers.

Second that. Should be interesting the way views change on gaming over the next few years. Someday I'm sure we'll see that comment revirsed.

Quote:

Nobody ever shed a tear over a video-game character's death.

This is only true if millions of people count as nobody now.
That is a rather ridiculous statement.

Lufia (2) and Secret of Mana (Seiken Densetsu 2) made me cry ten years or so ago.

As good as a couple of its action beats are, Max still suffers from the heartlessness that makes games emotionally inferior to movies. Nobody ever shed a tear over a video-game character's death.

I seriously doubt this critic has even played Max Payne, let alone Bioshock or HL2. Max Payne was released originally in 2001, the top grossing movies for that year were:

317,557,891 Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001)
314,776,114 The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
267,652,016 Shrek (2001)
255,870,172 Monsters, Inc. (2001)
226,138,454 Rush Hour 2 (2001)
202,007,640 The Mummy Returns (2001)
198,539,855 Pearl Harbor (2001)
183,405,771 Ocean's Eleven (2001)
181,166,115 Jurassic Park III (2001)
180,011,740 Planet of the Apes (2001)

Let's take the top two off the list, because they're movies based on Books, and movies are obviously emotionally inferior to books.

Of the remaining 8 movies, the only two I would consider decent from an emotional standpoint were Shrek and Monsters Inc. Ironically, these were made with the same sort of technology that made Max Payne.

That leaves three mediocre sequels, two remakes (only one of which was worth the cellulose it was printed on), and one Ben Affleck movie.

That means Max Payne was superior, from a story perspective, to the majority of the top box office draws of the year it was released.

But you're right, Mr. Critic. Max Payne could never hope to be as emotionally satisfying as a remake of Planet of the Apes.

I wonder how many people have ever shed a tear over a movie review.

Switchbreak wrote:

I wonder how many people have ever shed a tear over a movie review.

I shed tears of laughter over the reviews of The Happening, does that count?

Lost Odyssey had plenty of emotional moments.

Kehama wrote:

Will people ever stop comparing all movies to all video games?

Hate to say it, but probably not anytime soon. Go go blanket statements!

Zelos wrote:
Switchbreak wrote:

I wonder how many people have ever shed a tear over a movie review.

I shed tears of laughter over the reviews of The Happening, does that count?

I watched that last week. I didn't realize Al Gore was writing for M Knight Sham-alam-alan. What a terribly terrible disappointment of a terrible movie that piece was.

The only reason to mention in a review that a movie was based on a video game is if you are comparing specific parts of the movie to the game. The same goes for movies based on books: there's no sense in bringing it up unless you're discussing how the two differ.

I mean, how many movie reviews mention how rich the characters are because they came from a book? None. It's a ludicrous statement. Truth is, these reviewers mentioning the video game are just being lazy. It's gives them something to fill the space, to take the blame. Talk about the movie on its own merits, jackass! It's its own entity. If the movie sucks, just say the movie sucks and tell us why the movie sucks.

All this comparing of different entertainment genres is quite pointless. I mean, you don't hear complaints that Wagner's Ring of the Nibelungs cycle simplifies the rich narratives of the old German saga and exchanges is for ornamental music and singing. Or that The Wizard of Oz is a bad movie because L. Frank Baum was thinking about different melodies when writing the book.

On the other hand, I sometimes compare movies (bad ones) to games myself. Maybe it's just me, but some movies recently have tendency to "game-ify" their narratives - break it down into smaller segments, missions if you will (as in: go to point A, meet with a guy, escort him to point B, then get briefed about next mission etc.). And I find it bad, beacuse that is not the language of the movie. Recent cases: Die Hard 4.0 and Eagle Eye.
The latter one even had a spherical computer on an artificial limb complete with female voice and IR "eye" in the middle of the sphere. The resemblance to GlaDOS was uncanny. But that's beside the point.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

I mean, how many movie reviews mention how rich the characters are because they came from a book? None. It's a ludicrous statement. Truth is, these reviewers mentioning the video game are just being lazy. It's gives them something to fill the space, to take the blame. Talk about the movie on its own merits, jackass! It's its own entity. If the movie sucks, just say the movie sucks and tell us why the movie sucks.

This being said, to Roger Moore's credit, he doesn't discuss the video game until the end of the review. Still, when he does so, he does it in a really stupid way.

Grenn wrote:

You could fill Lake Superior with all the tears shed for Aerith.

But wouldn't that make it Lake Inferior?

Quintin_Stone wrote:

This being said, to Roger Moore's credit, he doesn't discuss the video game until the end of the review. Still, when he does so, he does it in a really stupid way.

Wow, from playing Bond to the reviews section of the Orlando Sentinel. How the mighty have fallen.

ApplepieChamploo wrote:

Wow, from playing Bond to the reviews section of the Orlando Sentinel. How the mighty have fallen.

He writes his reviews with a pen that turns into a helicopter.

Quintin_Stone wrote:
ApplepieChamploo wrote:

Wow, from playing Bond to the reviews section of the Orlando Sentinel. How the mighty have fallen.

He writes his reviews with a pen that turns into a helicopter.

Wonder if this is where Judy Dench will end up...

If you have a vintage Kevin Garnett Timberwolves jersey, shoot me a PM. Preferably in black.

Blind_Evil wrote:

If you have a vintage Kevin Garnett Timberwolves jersey, shoot me a PM. Preferably in black.

Does it have to be genuine?

Is space an issue?

Does it have to be a jersey?

I have a youth large Jordan 23 somewhere. Good enough? It's red.

Aber an Delacy
Geosepie Casey
Thomas O'Malley
O'Malley the alley cat

Doh. Your quoting him activated his link. You may want to fix that.

Capitalist drivel

Qiongqiong! How many times have I told you the Internet is not for spreading capitalist dog propaganda! Bad Qiong!

You really need to tighten sh*t up, Chairman. This is getting out of hand.

Yeah, hey! We've got a line straight to the Communist HQ, don't we?

Chairman_Mao, if you'd shoot a few spammers, you'd do a lot more good than shooting all those capitalists, way back when.