Mike's Musings: Are Video Games Going Down the Same Road as Movies?

A few weeks ago, I read an article that bemoaned the trend of video games these days.  The author claimed that they were going down the same road as movies: all remakes/reboots and franchises.  I disagree.  In fact, I believe that we are in the Golden Age of video gaming.

When a big budget movie comes out, it's really almost a rehash of the first one, moreso with a remake (Christopher Nolan's movies being an exception).  When a big budget game comes out, it's substantially different in a number of ways.  The graphics are improved.  The story is different.  There are more weapons, options and locales to experience.  Take the "Halo" franchise for instance.  The original was widely hailed as a masterpiece, and a landmark in gaming history.  It raised the standard for first-person-shooters (FPSs) in a similar way that the N64 version of "GoldenEye" did.   When the sequel came out nearly three years later, the creators had improved the graphics and begun to go deeper into a story that they had only begun to reveal in the original (in this respect, it's like the "Star Wars" franchise.  The first is a self-contained story, but the sequels build upon it).  They took chances (you got to play as one of the enemies who became an ally), and there were new weapons, enemies and locations.  It felt like the first game, but it also had its own identity.  In short, it did exactly what every sequel should.

As for remakes, the same rule applies.  For example, when they remade "GoldenEye," they completely revamped the game to the extent that it was totally different.  The changes were unsuccessful in my opinion and they turned it into another generic shooter, but that's beside the point.  The point is that when they remake a game, they're improving upon it and experimenting to make it better.

Of course, there are games that are simply old games transferred to new systems.  This is a deliberate choice, and it fills a need that Hollywood is neglecting: nostalgia.  Often times, these games came out on systems that are 10 to 20 years old.  Finding a system and game that old, much less in working condition, is incredibly difficult (not to mention possibly expensive).  Adapting it for a new system gives older players a chance to relive their childhood memories and also give younger players the chance to have the same experience.  Usually the graphics and gameplay are improved, as well.

What also must be mentioned is that there are big games being produced that aren't franchises and don't automatically get sequels.  For example, the Xbox game "Bulletstorm."  It was very successful and doesn't have any sequels (although I wish it did).  "Rage" was proclaimed as the next big game.  It was an open world shooter, and it was clear that they spent a lot of money on it.  That was a stand-alone game too.

The difference, as I see it, between movies and video games in this regard is two-fold.  First, the video game industry is still growing.  It's constantly changing, and they're pushing the boundaries of what games can do.  They're experimenting with new ideas and adding qualities that keep the games fresh and alive with each new installment.  They tell new stories that engage the viewer (when I got my hands on "Halo 3," I raced through it as fast as possible to see what happened to the characters, despite the fact that I was going to get a copy of my own a month later for Christmas).  There are exceptions to this rule, but they mostly flop.  Movies, on the other hand, are simply throwing special effects at the screen and leaving out everything audiences like in order to be the jack-of-all trades.  Sure, aggressive marketing can earn the films a profit, but outside of Nolan's "Batman" movies and "The Avengers," when's the last time you heard someone truly rave about a movie?  Even "Avatar," the all-time box office king (inflation aside) has long since faded from public consciousness.

The second difference is that the gaming industry is in touch with its audience's desires.  They want sequels.  There are midnight releases for a huge number of big games.  Yes, there are midnight showings of new movies every week, but apart from "The Avengers" and "The Dark Knight Rises," when was the last time anyone was eagerly awaiting a movie?  Hollywood, on the other hand, is making sequels for one reason: the movie makes a profit.  It makes fiscal sense, but I mean, come on, is anyone really waiting with baited breath for "Captain America 2" or "Thor 2?"  Not every profitable game gets a sequel, but it seems that every movie that makes a dollar more than the budget gets one.

Will the gaming industry turn down the same road as Hollywood?  Time will tell.  Video games are becoming more expensive to produce ("Grand Theft Auto IV" cost $100 million, the same as many big budget movies), but the difference is that the game makers know that there's always room for improvement and more options.  As long as they keep pushing the limits and giving gamers more of what they want, I don't think it's going to matter.