Chris Hecker's talk

Chris Hecker's talk may have been the highlight of the Leadership Forum.  (http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=26077)  Both entertaining and thought provoking, and in some ways I have to admit he's right - if we want games to be the top art form of the next century, the way movies were for the last, then we have a long way to go.

That said:  do we want that?  I also attended Scott Crabtree's talk on happiness in the workplace, where he, quoting someone else, said something along the lines of "don't compare yourselves to others, because you'll be both bitter and vain - bitter because you're worse than some and vain because you're better than others."  We could get swollen heads because we've overtaken amusement park rides in our artness and at the same time lament that we're not movies.  Best not to think such thoughts if we want to be happy.

But I suppose artists aren't known for happiness.  If we do want to kick film's ass, Chris isn't the only one who has said what makes games special is the interactivity, and so interactivity is where our art must lie.  Wait a minute - what makes movies special, and is that where their art lies?  What if movies didn't exist, and Casablanca was made instead as a play...?  It would still be great art, wouldn't it?  I'll admit Citizen Kane had to be a movie (I never did appreciate Citizen Kane) but Casablanca?  Thought experiment: what if you make a game (or a theme park ride) that has a linear narrative that is as meaningful and important and resonant as Casablanca...?

I'll talk more about other conference stuff later.

Comments

[Hugh Hancock]

What makes film/TV special (heretical, I know, that I don't believe there's that much difference) is that a) it's a primarily visual medium composed of moving images and b) it's possible to move the point of view of the audience. As someone who started in theatre and had to retrain himself to film, I'm always keenly aware of those differences whilst writing and directing.

It's been a while since I saw Casablanca, but a) I'm not sure it would work as a play (too many scene changes, and reliance on close-ups, for starters), and b) it was written before film writing and direction had really thoroughly differentiated itself from theatre, although it was one of the major stepping stones in that. (IMO).

For a real example of the difference between film and theatre, look at Baz Luhrman's adaption of Romeo and Juliet, or indeed Moulin Rouge. You just couldn't do that in the theatre - no ability to cut, no visual effects, no moving cameras, no close-ups.

One thing I found very interesting whilst I was retraining - take a play script, say something by Arthur Millar, and a film or TV script. Even better, take a script for a play by Aaron Sorkin and a script from the West Wing. They're written in very different ways to accomodate the different technologies available.

[John]

Where is this Chris Hecker talk you allude to but do not describe? I am LOST AND CONFUSED.