All About Ryguy4738
I haven't been on "Gamespot" for what seems like ages, and randomly I happened upon the site once again. I haven't been for good reason; since I've been out renting/watching a lot of movies. So that's what's up these days.
Raise your hand if you want to know what movies I've been watching.
I enjoy playing video games for the most part. It's a fun way to relax, and possibly let go of the fact that for the most part, you are indeed promoting mindless entertainment. I don't consider myself a gamer because my parents don't spoil me rotten by randomly presenting me with a new console every Christmas. I've always been more of a movie person, because I found that to buy movies is more affordable, and there's definitely more depth and many, many worthwhile films. With video games, most of the time, it doesn't take skill to "pwn noobs" in COD, or even "Climb some Stairs" in LittleBigPlanet. Despite most of the actions done in a video game being fun, there's almost no intelligence involved. I see people all around me, very dumb, hollow people, who are great at "Call of Duty" and the like. So they think. For every Hardcore Game, I believe there are indeed skillful players who alone enjoy the game. However, ESPECIALLY with Call of Duty, most of the people playing it are playing it because everyone else does. There's nearly no preference in that. But fear not, there are games that could be called "art". For instance, Bioshock is a brilliant, twisted dystopian adventure which benefits from a psychologically thrilling plot as well as a creepy atmosphere. Yeah, the gameplay is fun, but games are always expected to be fun. And if they are, apparently that makes them amazing Games. Not to me. Bioshock expands beyond expectations, and nearly matches the quality of history's finest films. And to most "gamers", Bioshock will come and go. And it has. That's because playing games that are simply "fun" can often brainwash people into not seeing any of the true beauty within the game. I suppose it really depends what you're looking for in a game. Now movies, on the other hand, are different. They are cheaper. They are shorter. And they are typically more intelligent than any video game. Gamers think that games absolutely need gore to be amazing. With movies, that's not necesarilly true. Sure, a nice bloody romp can be fun, but with films such as "SAW" and "Hostel", that's when violence becomes all there is to the film. Then there's movies such as "How to Train Your Dragon", or any Pixar film, that don't need intense depictions of violence to be fun and intelligent. That's because, for Pixar especially, plot and charm come first, as well as presentation. And yet without the blood and guts, they are still quality films made and intended for adults. It's not a matter of age, unless it's a completely goofy experience (Step Brothers, Furry Vengeance). There are plenty of mature films out there. In fact, any good film is mature, and it's that very sense of maturity that makes them so great. So what I'm trying to say is, films, to me, generally are more intellectually satisfying than a video game. I am and always will have grown up without many video games to play, because you shouldn't have to pay anything for an experience that won't give you anything more than a couple of single thrills. Now read on, as I compare films to games.
Above are two explosion sequences, one of which is from the film "Children of Men" and the other from the popular Video Game "Call of Duty". Children of Men is a wonderful film which manages to thrill and excite, all while being as intelligent as any film can be. There's much more flare to the explosion scene in "Children of Men" than there is within any explosion sequence in "COD". Why? Because in Children of Men, it's more surprising, and the aftermath is all the more horrific and powerful. In Call of Duty, you blow up something, and that's it. There's not a second after that you think in-depth about what just happened. The silence after the sequence in "Children of Men" adds on to the intelligence and thrill of the event. Plus, you wouldn't expect that. In Call of Duty, there's much more explosions, because it is indeed fun to blow up things, and people seem to enjoy it. But none the less, you can pretty much revisit that again and again, and get the same mindless aftermath that you would any time. As for the plot of Children of Men and Call of Duty, Children of Men definitely has a better one. Call of Duty is an intense portrayal of men at war. So what? Every video game about war does the same thing, and a lot of times equally as good. Children of Men is an uncommon, intense portrayal of a dystopian world and the horrors that go on behind the scenes. It's an unstable world, and with the themes of infertility thrown in, Children of Men becomes a wholesomely powerful and entertaining package. Call of Duty is indeed entertainment, but unlike Children of Men, "COD" gets boring. Plus a new "COD" comes out every year.
Above are Richie Tenenbaum (The Royal Tenenbaums) and Pokemon Trainer (Pokemon Series). Richie is a semi-iconic character from the wonderful 2001 comedy, The Royal Tenenbaums. The Pokemon Trainer above is the most well known depiction of the little character that you play. They're both people, and they're both males. So.....how are they different? Well, what we are discussing here is character development. Richie, along with every other major character within "The Royal Tenenbaums", is given a solid amount of character development. His quirky and often emotionally deep characteristics make him all the more endearing. Now, the Pokemon trainer is much different. The game explains that he's about ten, and he dreams of becoming a Pokemon trainer. That's not a lot of "character", or development. Don't get me wrong, I like the Pokemon RPG series. And I'm not specifically picking on Pokemon regarding the matter. In fact, many video games lack character development or good characters at all. And them some do. Take GTA IV for example. Wonderful character development. Plot full of endearing characters who live up to the anticipated quirkiness. But this is only a rare occasion. Good movies often have great character development, especially widely successful comedies, although nearly every good movie contains great characters. There are some movies, however, that lack good character development. "Fear And Loathing in Las Vegas", is one great example of a film ultimately lacking good character development. Here's a still from the film:
Anywho, I suppose you get my point. Movies typically have better character development than video games do. It's just how it is, and it's probably how it's going to remain.
Pictured above are two quotes. One is from the film "The Big Lebowski". The other is from memorable video game, "Super Mario". Movies have some pretty awesome quotes. "The Dude Abides" is a well known quote from the hilarious comedy, "The Big Lebowski". A single film can have so many memorable, powerful, or hilarious quotes. Video Games have quite a few of them too. GTA has tons of funny quotes, and Bioshock has plenty of powerful ones. Mercenaries is a game full of memorable, comedic quotes. And then there's games, such as Mario, which contain quotes that get rather tiresome after a while. Movie quotes don't do that. Especially if you're really in to the world of film. Horrible films almost never have good quotes. And then there's decent films, such as "Fear and Loathing", which are full of hilarious quotes. I mean "We Can't Stop Here, this is Bat Country!" is one solidly funny quote. Video games often need funny quotes to be the slightest bit comedic. And when they are funny, it can ether be memorable or kinda forgettable. Stuff like, "It's-a-me, Mario!" can get pretty tiresome after, well, you know, a couple years of hearing the exact same words. And then quotes like "Would You Kindly" are so hauntingly beautiful that they stick with you for a good while, and for that, I can be somewhat thankful.
Music in both film and video games is important. At least if it's good music. Pictured above are the soundtrack for "The Host", and then the soundtrack album for the DS Game "The World Ends With You". Both are amazing soundtracks, although I prefer "The Host" any day over even such a spectacular soundtrack as the one for TWEWY. Some movies get along fine without beautiful, compelling music to go along with the overall pleasurable experience. Same goes for video games, although there aren't a lot of games out there with solid original scores. Games like "Fallout 3" and "Bioshock" have wonderful licensed soundtracks. The music often matches the mood. But then there's games like "COD" and "Medal of Honor", which have selected entries in the series with good music, and then others with familiar, decent tunes. All in all, there just aren't enough good games with good music out there to compare with the sheer beauty of the music in films. I mean, with movies, even a bad movie (The Village) can have an amazing original score, if that score is helmed by a musical master. With video games, it's just not the same.
To both movies and video games, there is a general level of intelligence. Pictured is one example from each subject, the film "A Clockwork Orange" and the PC game "Half Life 2". Both are very, very intelligent. ACO is a dystopian adventure which focuses on the themes of human psychology, and the things that people will do to understand it. The characters in "Clockwork" know no lord, king, nor government of any kind. They literally live off the misfortune of anybody who dare pass them while they're out looking for a little bit of the ol' "Ultra Violence". It's downright brilliant, and the film is both disturbing and thought provoking. Then there's Half Life 2, which is, from what I've come to understand, an overall intellectually satisfying experience. It involves a dystopian world, a physicist, and tons of other interesting ideas. I have never played through any of the Half Life games, although in many ways I intend to. To deny that some video games are intelligent would be undeniably foolish, although movies are genuinely smarter. Games are typically mindless entertainment that require no thinking whatsoever, while GOOD movies are usually the thought provoking, or flat out intelligent kind. That's because being fun is not the top priority of filmmaking.
Both movies and video games have the tendency to look beautiful. That's because technology is so evolved now, and we can do so much things with it. Pictured are Avatar's "Pandora" and Bioshock's "Rapture. Both the film and the game pictured are visually striking. Avatar is visually groundbreaking, and somewhat memorable. It creates a lush, colorful world full of strange, exotic vegetation and creatures. Then there's Bioshock, which creates a creepy, dystopian city which is given a complex, eerie feel and background, resulting in an entertaining and truly frightening environment. Films and Video Games are both typically visually impressive. And they both have the same eventual problems too. Some films, and some games, simply look uglier than most. Films such as "Signs" and "I Sell the Dead" are relatively low budget, yet visually lacking for the time. Games such as "Bionic Commando" and "Iron Man" have the same exact problem. They simply look ugly. Once in a while we all get a visual treat that's more impressive than the last, and there will always be visual failures and visual stunners. So in a number of ways, Films and Video Games are kinda the same in that department.
I compare the old woman in "Drag me to Hell" and the Splicer in "Bioshock" mainly because they are both apart of an intent to provoke true horror. Both, to most people, are disturbing humanoid beings who are how they are because history and time has a way of doing some pretty messed up things to you. I choose horror to compare because both characters are a part of horror stories, one a film and one a game. Both horror films and games can be scary. Drag me to Hell is pretty scary, and so is Bioshock. But Drag me to Hell is also hilarious. I can't exactly imagine a horror video game also being genuinely funny, mainly because it's a film, and it's easier to make things look fake without making them look ugly. But none the less, both games and films tend to deliver in whatever department that they want to deliver in. And it's very rare, especially for games, that they fail.
And finally, I compare story-telling in movies with that of games. Video Games require fun, not story-telling. Therefore they are mostly unintelligent yet fun works of (somewhat) art. Now, there are plenty of games (such as Bioshock, pictured above) which contain deep, complex, and involved story-lines that pack a thrill as well as an incredible amount of force. But then there's games like "COD", which claim to be unique, powerful portrayals of men at war, although I ultimately disagree. Movies, on the other hand, are definitely more likely to have better plots. Pan's Labyrinth (pictured) is one of the greatest original stories ever told. It's complex, compelling, and richly symbolic. What's not to like? I simply feel that movies are more intelligent because apparently it's much harder to write a compelling story than it is to make something that's simply fun. Ether way, both are art.
There is indeed a point to my words. I believe that art is to be taken seriously, and video games aren't the best form of art. I enjoy movies better, for they are without a doubt a more mature work of entertainment. Sure, there's no doubt that some games are intellectually satisfying, although most don't go above and beyond. Video Games are meant for relaxation, and maybe a bit of thinking. Movies, on the other hand, are always meant to provoke thought. That is if they're good, of course. None the less, I felt that I should express my opinion, and so thank you for reading me extremely complex views.
My Recent Reviews
Ryguy4738 does not have any recent activity. What a slacker! Maybe you should send Ryguy4738 a private message and ask, "Where are you hiding?"