Get in the Game: The Worlds of Film and Gaming Collide at TIFF

i stole a few hours this afternoon to attend a panel at TIFF (the Toronto International Festival that has Films in it) on the convergence of film and video games. It was somewhat of a clash of the titans (except that it drew an audience, unlike Clash of the Titans).

Clash of the Titans Kraken

Uh, yeah – the name’s Phil. Phil McKraken.

The panel, moderated by former IGDA big cheese Jason Della-Rocca, was a two-parter. The first-half lineup included:

TIFF Games Meet Film Panel Initial Line-Up

  • Ian Kelso, head of industry association interactiveontario, who snuck away from io’s IN10 convergence conference which was presently taking place uptown at the Carlu
  • Mare Sheppard from Metanet, co-creator of N+ on XBLA
  • Alexandre Parizeau, a senior producer at Ubi Soft
  • Trevor Fencott, CEO of Bedlam Games

Indie Indeed

This first group was reasonably well-balanced. i was very thankful to see Mare on the panel representing indies, and Trevor, representing bigger-budget console game development. (i won’t say “triple-A”, because i worry the term is rather liberally applied in many circumstances). In one interesting exchange, Trevor drew a comparison between Bedlam and Metanet, calling both companies “indie”. i think Mare may have swallowed her gum at that point. Jason jumped in quickly to clarify that the “independent” label did indeed apply to companies like Metanet, Bedlam and the 400-employee strong A2M (Ass to Mouth) in Quebec, because regardless of size, none of these companies are owned and operated by a publisher. Contrastingly “indie” (and with that, Jason made air quotes) refers to an aesthetic or a cool, chic independent and off-the-grid philosophy of game-making.

The panelists sometimes struggled, but sometimes succeeded in defining the differences and similarities between films and games. One audience member asked whether games needed actors and script writers and production designers just like films did, and the unanimous answer was “yes”. i would have liked to have heard a more accurate “it depends” – it really depends on a game’s genre and its particular needs. Many Facebook games like Farmville involve writing, but no voice acting, and the discipline of writing game prompts is quite different from writing linear screenplay-style dialogues. A game like Bejeweled really has no writing to speak of, save for button labels and an instructions screen.


Our story begins in fairest Gemtopia …

I Was Asked to Be Nice, But …

Ian revealed his true stripes as more of a film guy than a game guy, which may be at the root of my growing dissatisfaction with interactiveontario’s offerings. i’m concerned that their conference content appeals almost exclusively to the convergence teevee crowd (a teevee company delivered the keynote at their recent kids’ interactive conference INPlay); video games and dyed-in-the-wool interactive shops are dramatically under-represented. As long as we’re throwing around air quotes, i’m wondering if i should start calling the association “interactive” ontario?


(see Correction!)

One important game-vs-film distinction that Trevor brought up was that while films are about stories, games are about worlds. He used the examples of Knights of the Old Republic, which takes place in the Star Wars universe, and World of Warcraft, which is light on story but heavy on interaction with other players. i thought his point was very well-made, but it was immediately one particular panelist in the second shift:

TIFF Games Meet Film Panel Initial Line-Up

  • Jade Raymond, Managing Director of Ubi Soft Toronto
  • Jon Landau, Producer of Titanic (the one with the boat) and Avatar (the one with the preaching)
  • Jordan Mechner – Author, screenwriter and video game creator behind the Prince of Persia Franchise

Jon immediately jumped in to refute Trevor’s claim that games are all about worlds. He contended that games were rather all about stories. (Once more, i think the more honest reasoning is that different types of games rely on different degrees of storytelling – from lots, all the way down to none.) Jason delicately asked Jon whether or not he recognized that Avatar was also very reliant on its fictional world. Jon huffed “People didn’t go see Avatar fourteen times because of its world – they did so because of its story.” It’s at precisely that point that i think i swallowed Mare’s gum.

Hollywood Boll

i asked the panel why they though that most movie-to-game adaptations stunk, and why most game-to-movie conversions were similarly horrible, invoking but not daring to name Uwe Boll in case he was in the audience and came over to punch the ever-loving shit out my my beautiful face. Jon nailed it here – it’s all about the time-to-market, and getting your game in development early enough. You can’t treat game development as solely another marketing/merchandising opportunity, like a T-shirt. He described how his production company and Ubi Soft were in lock-step development on the Avatar game, sharing set assets (which you’ll recall were mostly 3D models), and even going the opposite direction; the art team designed a vehicle that Ubi needed for the game, and Ubi’s resulting model made it into the movie. That’s obviously some great synergy, but i hope it’s obvious that it can’t happen with every movie.

Jon obviously subscribes to the George Lucas vision of future filmmaking, where actors roam around vast green screen sound stages wearing ping pong ball unitards and reacting to crudely-crafted Muppet heads on sticks where digital characters will eventually materialize. i doubt we’ll reach a point where most movies are made that way, which i thought was the biggest disservice the panel did to the discussion. Avatar is an extraordinary film, Ubi Soft is an extraordinary company, and their partnership is far outside the norm of over 99% of bread-and-butter film-to-game licensing deals. It might have been more beneficial to the audience to hear about more commonplace arrangements, but of course, commonplace doesn’t put bums in seats when it comes to festival content.

My Dinner with Andre

Shoot My Dinner with Andre on a sound stage? Inconthievable!

Through a Lens Darkly

On the subject of 3D (the 1960’s drive-in gimmick, not the computer-generated imagery), Jon foresaw a future where every home had a 3D teevee. He called Microsoft Windows a poor man’s 3D experience, due to all the flat layering of windows and icons. That was an interesting take, i thought. He said that Joe Average consumer usually can’t tell the difference between HD and SD – if he has a giant teevee, he automatically assumes it’s HD. Jon said that glasses were the biggest barrier to 3D gaining consumer acceptance, and wants to see the tech integrated into standard prescription glasses and sunglasses. People wear glasses to the beach, he said, and that’s not a barrier to them visiting. Jon expects the technology to make strides in one-man “personal” 3D (a la the upcoming Nintendo 3DS handheld) until they can sort out the glasses issue.

i thought to myself that the difference between the beach and 3D teevee is that glasses aren’t required for a visit to the beach. If i don’t wear my sunglasses, i don’t end up getting a headache and barfing all over my sand castle.

Bettie Page on the beach

Wow! Those beach features just … POP right out at you, don’t they Bruno? (with deference to Dr. Tongue)

Jade affirmed that Ubi is very much a supporter of 3D tech. She spared the audience the technical discussion of the problems of developing 3D games (apparently, you forfeit half of your processing power because you’re rendering two separate images at once), and instead made the more pop-cultural comment that she hopes this technology leads to the development of the Star Trek holodeck – controller-free and totally immersive.

Tears for Fears

When the panelists began talking about emotional engagement in games, Jon rather audaciously wondered whether we could make a game that could make players cry. Jason swooped in diplomatically (but defensively) and offered up a number of examples of games that already had made people cry. His examples were Ico and certain Final Fantasy games. i reject the inference that tears are the truest indicator of emotional engagement. Why don’t laughter, fear, exhilaration, excitement, hatred and envy also rank? Games have successfully invoked all of those emotions and then some.

Superman 64

Superman 64 made many gamers cry. Does that count?

Jordan gets my award for Smartest Guy in the Room. He clearly understands games, and has undoubtedly had more experience in film than most of his video game colleagues. He said that there was a distinctive (but hard to articulate) difference between crying while watching a movie, and crying while playing a game. There’s a peculiar pleasure in crying during a movie. You’re crying because of the events unfolding on the screen, and you’re powerless to change those events. Those things are happening to other people, and you have no control. In a game that makes you cry, you do have control. It’s a distinctly different peculiar pleasure. Jordan couldn’t quite put his finger on it, but it’s an interesting point he was trying to make.

Let’s Get Ready to Humble

The crowd was comprised of mostly film people. i noticed a difference in these folks, for whom this was perhaps their first window into the two similar-but-different worlds of film and games, which set them apart from the convergence teevee crowd that i fall in with at many local conferences and events. The difference (dare i say it? Oh yes, i dare) was humility. The people asking questions were freely and graciously admitting that they did not know very much about games, and seemed to be genuinely interested in learning more. Convergence teevee people tend to project a more haughty, we-know-what’s-best-for-our-industry attitude, which i worry is preventing a lot of great and innovative ideas from seeing the light of day. Teevee people would do well to acknowledge and to lean more heavily on the expertise of interactive studios. The projects during which i’ve enjoyed the most creative freedom have had noticeably better results.

There exists a cultural barrier between teevee and interactive, at least in Toronto, that i desperately hope does not develop between film and interactive. i see events like today’s panel as a refreshing, mutually-beneficial approach to respectfully pairing these two similar-but-different industries.

14 thoughts on “Get in the Game: The Worlds of Film and Gaming Collide at TIFF

  1. Facebook Indie Games

    Not only an insightful post, but once again a bikini shot on a site I can legitimately read for work. Keep it up Ryan.

    I hope that interactive and film stay in their separate camps. Today’s games are already too much live movies; the movies look too much like games.

  2. Mary Gibson

    I stopped, on my way to try and down load pcitures here in the computer room of 16 Yonge, to read your blog Ryan. You write well – great thoughts on the panel discussion – wit is a skill and you do have it. I continue to be a fan. I hope you branch out further.

    1. Ryan Henson Creighton

      Thanks, Mary! i attended that one panel, so i basically know all i need to know to turn one of my video games into a movie. Thanks, TIFF!

  3. Bwakathaboom

    The problem is that the industry subsists on a vocabulary of only 3 or 4 games. Any mainstream movie adaptation is going to be a first person shooter, a 3rd person shooter, a real time strategy game, or a platformer. That’s about it .

    That’s what happens when the producers think it’s about “story”, they tend to forget that it’s supposed to be a game. Sharing a brand, for sure, but otherwise an entirely unique and separate experience.

    So all that co-operation and free love couldn’t stop the Avatar games from sucking royally. They took a “revolutionary” movie experience and turned it into a retread of games we’ve already played. Games that, by Ubisoft’s own admission, failed to perform.

    I have to side with author Chris Crawford on this one – art is a passive experience, gaming is active. What would make a game “art” (linear storytelling) inherently make is less of a “game”.

      1. Bwakathaboom

        Viva Pinata was the other way around – game to TV show. Still, as such, it’s better than most.

        The question is does eliciting emotions only come from linear storytelling?

        And Jon Landau is dead wrong. People love Avatar for the world.

        Fans want to *lose themselves* in Pandora, not play out a linear story in a generic 3rd person shooter. An open sandbox where players could build, exist and live on Pandora would have been far better than what they ended up producing.

    1. Matt Rix

      “Any mainstream movie adaptation is going to be a first person shooter, a 3rd person shooter, a real time strategy game, or a platformer. That’s about it.”

      Really what you’re describing is camera types, rather than game types. If you think about it, those are such ridiculously broad categories that span multiple genres. Imagine someone complaining that “too many novels are written in first person or third person”. Movies are about people, and the ones with games are usually the movies with lots of action, so it only makes sense that games will be somewhat similar. There is no reason the Avatar game couldn’t have been great, they just made some dumb gameplay choices. That’s it. It’s not because they’re “unimaginative” or whatever.

      1. Bwakathaboom

        “First person” is a camera type and similar to “first person narrative” in that nothing of the game other than viewpoint is dictated. The end result could be Minecraft, Doom or Myst.

        “First person shooter” is a much narrower definition that I’d argue dictates 98% of the game’s design even before pen is put to paper.

  4. Pingback: Reality Panic » TIFF-tastic

  5. Pingback: TIFF-tastic | Jason Della Rocca

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.