Stuck in the Middle of Games and Films
By Nil Kural

Noah Falstein is a designer and producer of video games. He has witnessed the development in the industry since he was in the business in the 1980's. He worked on many games adapted from films so he knows the two mediums and their intersections. After the Campus discussion titled "Virtual Cinema", I got the chance to talk to him about video games and their relationship with cinema.

What do you think is the relationship between cinema and video games?

Noah Falstein: It is a complex one. I worked on eight games based on films. In adaptation, you have to take what is exciting or compelling in one medium and translate it to a way that works in the new medium. "Indiana Jones", which I worked on two of the games, is a good example. He is a wonderful choice because he is an intensely interactive character. A cerebral character for example would be a bad choice to adapt into a video game. Often you have to look at the intersection of circles of cinema and games to know where it is going to work.

A few years ago, films were adapted to video games, now it is turning the other way around with the Silent Hill for example. What caused that change?

Noah Falstein: It is simply a commercial thing. Now there are enough people who grew up playing video games. So they create a significant audience. That means millions of viewers. There were failures like Super Mario Bros. because there were not enough moviegoers familiar with the game. We have to thank Angelina Jolie for turning Lara Croft character into a film image. People who knew nothing about the game went to see it. So it opened the gates a little bit wider.

Kees Kasander said during the discussion, "The games have more freedom than cinema". Do you agree to that statement?

Noah Falstein: I agree regarding the interactive entertainment which games are a part of. We can theoretically do anything you can do in a film. You can create an entire film as a part of game but this is impossible the other way around. But in practice you run into considerations like cost. So in that sense there is still a lot of room that films can do that cannot be done with games.

In cinema, some films force the viewer to identify with the main character. This identification is common also in video games. What is the difference between the two mediums regarding identification?

Noah Falstein: In video games, since you make the choices for the character that you are controlling, there is a very strong degree of identification. Often when people talk about their experiences in a video game, they say, "I did this" rather than "The character did this". You would not go to a movie and say, "I was running through the woods and the Nazis started shooting at me".

In the discussion, you mentioned that some emotions are hard to create in games. Could you explain this, comparing games with cinema?

Noah Falstein: Films and games have different emotional ranges I think. A friend of mine studies this. One of her insights is that films are better than games at getting you to empathize with the character and getting you to cry over their fate. Partly because it is not you but it is someone else you are seeing on the screen. Games are better at getting you to feel personal triumph. Lots of times, people playing games throw down the controller and shout out of relief when they accomplish something. It is hard to imagine people jumping out of their seats and raising their fists in the air in a movie.

Nil Kural

top