Movies, Video Games, and Why The Two Are Such a Terrible Match

If you've ever seen a movie based on a video game that is actually good, then you've seen one more than I have. It's no secret that video game movies are typically bad. No one in the gaming community would deny that, nor would anyone in the film industry. They are, at best, mediocre films and, at worst, cheaply made cash cows, exploiting tax loopholes, licensing deals and sleazy accounting practices to turn an enormous profit (I'm looking at you, Uwe Boll).

Many people will say it's because the writers left the best parts out, or because the producers had more interest in marketing than actually remaining faithful to the source material. Sometimes you will hear gamers say that it's because of the game developers' lack of involvement. All of these are valid criticisms, but they fail to address the core of the problem. They are merely symptoms of a much greater issue.

The heart of the issue is one that can sound simple but is, in fact, far more complicated than it appears at first glance: a failure to understand the differences between the two mediums. Video games and movies, as well as books and television shows, are excellent mediums for telling a story, but they have fundamental differences that make them particularly suited to certain things. Each has their own advantages and disadvantages that lend themselves to telling very different stories. These can each be broken down into the following.

First, and perhaps most obvious, is audience interactivity. Video games, being an interactive medium, can draw the player into the story in ways no other medium can by having the player be an important part of the show. Indeed, the most important part, controlling the action, to some extent. Movies are fed to the audience, and the audience is disconnected from the movie, but video games require the audience to get involved and have a stake in the story itself. This creates whole new complexities because a), one the game requires the player to WANT to play and b), when the player does get involved on that level, they create a connection to the characters that you can rarely find in any other medium. While typical moviegoers can like a character in a film, gamers will often fall in love with the characters in their stories. Not in a sexual way, mind you, but in the way you would love a friend. Numerous times, playing a sequel to a game you enjoyed will feel like catching up with old friends. You don't get that experience in any other medium, not to the extent you would in a video game.

The second major difference between the two mediums is a little more banal: length. Movies, for all intents and purposes, require a much shorter attention span. This is not to offend fans of film; film simply is a medium designed around finishing a story in one sitting of a few hours (some exceptions apply, but this is still mostly accurate as a general rule). Video games require a much greater attention span. Whereas most films fall somewhere between one and three hours long, I have never played a mainstream game that took me less than six hours to complete in its entirety, and that was a particularly short game around fifteen years ago, in a time when most video games were not even as long as they are now. Many of the games I play these days require a minimum investment of twenty hours in order to complete the main story. Naturally, not all of that time is spent on narrative, but, even so, that is a considerable length of time to expect someone to spend on something purely for entertainment value. As such, a lot more can happen in a video game than you could ever find time to fit into a three-hour movie, so whenever one is adapted to the other, sacrifices must be made. For a video game to become a movie, an enormous amount of material must be cut from the story. On the other hand, for a movie to become a video game, an enormous amount of material must be ADDED to the story, or else a gamer will not feel they've gotten their money's worth.

Which brings me to the third major difference: cost. Last I checked, a ticket to see a movie cost somewhere in the realm of $10. A lot of people complain about that price, but none of them ever bother mentioning that the average mainstream video game today costs $60 at release. If you do the math, assuming a 90-minute movie and a 20-hour game, the movie is about $5.40 per hour versus the game's $3.00 per hour. That sounds like a bargain, at a glance, but there are large factors in place that make the cost of a game far more volatile than that of a movie. For one, consider that you're paying for many more hours right off the bat. If you see a movie and decide half an hour in that you don't like the movie, you spent $5.40 more than you otherwise would have. In a similar situation with a game, in which you spend an hour playing the game and decide you just can't stand the game (again, a major concern when you remember how much more personal involvement is required), you are out $57.00 that you likely will not be getting back. You might trade the game in at a store for store credit and get something else, but even then you don't get a 1:1 ratio on cash back, and you wind up spending the credit on another game that you may or may not actually enjoy. For this reason, gamers tend to be far more judicious with their money than moviegoers.

So, given all these major differences between films and video games, what can be done to make a good film adaptation of a video game? I have an answer to that, actually. Most video games with a decent story are incredibly rich in background content. It is entirely possible to tell an entirely new story in the same setting and draw in gamers who wish to get the full experience of the worlds they cherish. Perhaps major characters that the players love might not be in the movie at all, or only make small cameos, but if the story to be told is one that is significant to the universe itself, a major part of the history that is not told in any other medium, fans would be devoted to seeing it. Much in the same way that Wicked is a story about background characters from the Oz books, a movie could easily be written about background in video games. Maybe an Assassin's Creed movie need not focus on Altair or Ezio Auditore, but it could be just as exciting of a film if it were about Desmond Miles' parents in their youth. A Portal movie might not be about Chell attempting to survive GLaDOS's twisted tests, but instead about the rise of Aperture Labs, the ultimate declining health of Cave Johnson, and the challenges Caroline would face keeping the company alive in the face of tragedy.

Naturally, no one gives a damn about what I think, but I put this out there in the hopes that, one day, gamers can actually see a movie based on one of their favorite games that DOESN'T suck. In fact, with enough good work and skill in production, I believe it would be possible for such a film to win Oscars, but video games are rarely given that level of credibility among the public. I only hope that, as time goes on and more games are developed with excellent stories, people will begin to see the value of video games as an artistic medium.