Hollywood Blues: Is bringing in talent from the movie industry a good thing for gaming?

Duncan Heaney examines the ever-growing relationship between movie makers and game developers and asks whether or not it's a happy marriage.

There are few things more satisfying than a good story. We traditionally turn to books, television and the movies to get our fiction fix, but times are changing. With consoles enjoying more popularity than ever before, and more and more people becoming gamers, it seems quite possible to me that the next great work of fiction will be an interactive one. It will be a videogame.

Of course, I’m not going to argue that when it comes to delivering great tales, games have historically excelled. After all, the (game)play’s the thing. But as titles like Grim Fandango, Mass Effect 2 and Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney prove, games do have tremendous potential as a story-telling medium. And what’s more, Hollywood is taking notice.

The recent announcement of a new Tomb Raider movie indicates that the trend of converting games into film isn’t slowing down, but the people of Tinseltown are starting to see games as more than an opportunity to squeeze out another piece of cinematic sewage. Triple A titles feature music by Hollywood composers like Hans Zimmer, cast lists are filled with recognisable actors (as well as Nolan North and Steve Blum – it’s almost compulsory at this point).

Directors and producers are even getting directly involved themselves - Guillermo Del Toro is working with THQ and Jerry Bruckheimer has set up his own games company, for example. But is this Hollywood interest a good thing? Not everyone seems to think so.

Just last year, Ken Levine, creator of Bioshock, hit out at the idea of bringing in Hollywood talent to work on games. "Why would I want a film director to help me make a game, any more than they would want me to help out with their films?" he reportedly said. It's an interesting point – Bioshock was overtly 'gamey', relying on audio diaries, and environmental detail, rather than cut scenes, yet it told an interesting and engaging story. Would Hollywood talent make it better? Probably not. But it's ludicrous to suggest that there's one 'correct' way to make a game, and I don't believe for a second that's what Levine really meant.

Talent from other mediums used properly, be it film, television or literature, can enrich a title. Take Enslaved: Odyssey To The West for example. Here's a game that's not only in love with Hollywood – it’s married and having its kids. Andy Serkis (of Gollum fame) directed many of the cut scenes, and was involved in the motion capture, and Alex Garland (author of The Beach) wrote a great chunk of it too. And you know what – the game’s really good. The reason it works so well isn’t the rather simplistic gameplay - it’s the direction.

Enslaved may be the first game I ever played where the characters' body language and facial expressions can tell the story. A single look between the characters of Monkey and Trip tells the audience more than twenty minutes of dialogue could hope to. Characters can lie, and their expressions are good enough for us to read between the lines and see what they really mean. I wanted to know what would happen to Monkey and Trip because I actually cared about them. The interactive parts may drive the story forward, but the cut scenes deepen the characterisation. And much of this must be thanks to Serkis and Garland.

Of course, involving Hollywood talent is not a guarantee of success. Steven Spielberg's Boom Blox was a fun game, but it might as well have been called Spiffy Blunderbin's Blocky Boomathon for all the name mattered. Spielberg is a great storyteller and I can't see what his involvement brought to a narrative-free game like Boom Blox.

It seems to me that the key thing for games companies to remember is this: if you bring in talent from the movies, make sure bring over some of their skills. If they don’t, what's the point? There is plenty of evidence to suggest that bringing in talent from elsewhere is not something to be feared or rejected. Bioshock tells an interesting story without Hollywood involvement. Enslaved tells a great story with a lot. And though I hate to sit on the fence (eventually you have to move to a side, because your bum starts to hurt), both are completely valid approaches. Because ultimately, there are many ways to tell a tale. And there are few things as satisfying as a good story.

Words: Duncan Heaney

Please register or login to post comments