Since the Manhunt 2 debacle, there's been a lot of discussion about the differences between graphic games and graphic films. Everyone seems to have a different opinion about which is worse. In fact, two recent articles were not only completely at odds with one another opinion-wise, but they used some of the same examples! However, they did focus on slightly different subjects. Seth Schiesel of the New York Times thought movies were far ahead of games on the gore factor, and he cited comparisons between Saw II and Manhunt 2. Since the most graphic moments in the latter were short, and of course, animated, Schiesel found the lengthy, almost loving shots of "torture porn" in Saw II to be much more disturbing.
Clive Thompson of Wired, however, thinks that games are much better than most recent films at creating a frightening atmosphere. Movies rely far too much on gore, he said -- citing Saw as both example and possible progenitor of this phenomenon -- while horror games can recreate the chilling, anxiety-inducing feelings of the best horror films the genre has ever offered, because (Roger Ebert would hate this reason) horror games take a very artistic approach to mood and atmosphere. While he talks mostly about BioShock, the principles can be applied to many other games; he mentions Silent Hill and Resident Evil as well.
So our question today is: where do you stand on this? Can games go further and do more, or are films still the benchmark for horror and intensity?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
9-13-2007 @ 10:03AM
ELIJAH said...
Most people try to link these two to violent activities but i have to say that the horror in movies trancends that of games because there will always be a mass audience with fewer guidelines compared to a small amount of gamers to appeal to(Who have a myriad of laws to abide by). And besides with production cost always rising products have to be a hit in order to break even or even acheive a marginal profit gain.
Reply
9-13-2007 @ 10:17AM
vidGuy said...
Hands down, movies offer more gore, violence, language, and all around nastiness. But, I think there is something to be said for the interactive nature of video games. Movies are almost always presented as characters - the viewer isn't the one committing the acts. Not so with video games. You play a character, but you make that character do the things he or she does. This is especially obvious with first person games.
This isn't to say that I think video game violence should be outlawed or censored. There's no real need until it is proven that media has an adverse affect on people who would otherwise not act in violent ways - which I honestly don't believe will ever happen.
Reply
9-13-2007 @ 10:32AM
ELIJAH said...
Quite true indeed. But the A.I. in video games has made violence only possible through self defense but then again if you dont play it's not a game right, and in all respect it becomes just a movie.
Reply
9-13-2007 @ 10:33AM
ELIJAH said...
@VIDGUY; Quite true indeed. But the A.I. in video games has made violence only possible through self defense but then again if you dont play it's not a game right, and in all respect it becomes just a movie.
Reply
9-13-2007 @ 10:38AM
ELIJAH said...
Sorry for double posting everybody.
Reply
9-13-2007 @ 10:43AM
Matt said...
As of right now, I would say movies offer a greater sense of anxiety, but not by much. The reason for this is obviously the interactivity of the momentum of the media. In a game, you control all the game. You hesitate when you see that flickering light, or hear that door creak. You decide whether to go outside where you are in the open, or back yourself into a corner and hope there will be enough of a zombie bottleneck to keep you alive.
I think the real problem is we're looking at them too similarly. If you look at most horror video games, you get a third-person perspective. You see the environment around your controlled character in such a way that you can do exactly that--control your character. In movies, creativity in camera angles can be used to their advantage in creating shocking moments with relative ease.
If we adjusted the video games to have a first person perspective, I'd say they have competitive potential. Now the closest things we get are movie cutscenes. When you see one of those, you sort of know something big is coming. In movies, you may have the same feeling, but because of the freedom to use these viewpoints at will, there is a certain deception that keeps people at ease during these scenes, only to be shocked.
Well...that applies to the less predictable ones, at least. Can't really discuss the range of the best and the worst in the same category for comparison. Best movie vs. worst game? Worst movie vs. best game? Not an easy parallel to draw, so I'll leave it at that...
Reply
9-13-2007 @ 10:59AM
hvnlysoldr (NDF - Wind Ring) said...
I'll eventually get over it if I want to complete RE4
Reply
9-13-2007 @ 11:11AM
J said...
"Can games go further and do more, or are films still the benchmark for horror and intensity?"
Movies are certainly the current benchmark, but video games, being interactive, hold far more untapped potential.
Reply
9-13-2007 @ 11:29AM
Archibold said...
I'm actually inclined to agree with both.
Let me begin by saying I'm a huge horror fan. I prefer older horror movies when they were more about creating an atmosphere than simply rely on the gore factor to scare people.
That said, I think both critics are right without being at odds at each other. I agree with the New York Times in saying that movies do have much more gore than video games. Along the same lines, I feel that "games are much better than most recent (emphasis on recent) films at creating a frightening atmosphere."
I happen to think these quotes almost compliment each other, saying that the majority of horror video games (Manhunt not included) do strive to create an atmosphere rather than feature mindless gore, as you pointed out, are in movies like Saw II.
Reply
9-13-2007 @ 12:06PM
Drew said...
Here's my take (for what it's worth).
It DOESN'T MATTER.
Children shouldn't be seeing either. Regardless of age.
The content is intended for adults, and Adults Only (pun intended).
Adults can make up their minds as to whether or not they want to partake of certain entertainment or not.
The issue is with several parties not willing to own up to their inherent responsibilities.
1) Retail needs to be held accountable for matching game ratings to the buyer. (Gamestop is rather good at this... Walmart? Not so much.)
2) Parents need to get involved in their kids lives and set the rules. Generally speaking, parenting has fallen -way- off in the past few generations. (For instance... Opening night of the new (and brutal) Halloween movie, there were no less than three children under the age of 10 in attendance. That's irresponsible parenting of the highest degree. I would go so far as to argue the case for abuse for subjecting your eight year old to that).
That's not Rob Zombie's fault, or the theatre's (in this case) - It's the parent's.
Because this idiot's kid could be scarred by the movie, should I not be able to see it?
I'm ranting. Sorry. Censorship is a HUGE deal to me.
Reply
9-13-2007 @ 5:45PM
Soiden said...
Games are scarier, movies are gorer, simple as that.
Horror is not equal to Gore. I find Gore somehow entertaining and even funny. Horror chills you out, and the only movie that did that to me was The Exorcist. In change, The REs and SHs are scarier to me.
Reply
9-14-2007 @ 4:20PM
James said...
@Drew: 100% right there with you -- on the one hand, I don't want some faceless rating board/government body deciding what I get to see, or for that matter what my kid gets to see. On the other hand, there are *so* many people that clearly can't be trusted to make sound judgments about what *their* kids get to see, that sometimes I feel like "somebody" should step in -- and of course, 9 times out of 10, "somebody" turns out to be the government, and they always make a right cock-up of things. It's a tough situation.
@Soiden: I find Gore funny too -- his movie was hilarious, he actually believes that crap ;-p
Reply