There's yet another article, this one by The New Statesman, about movies based on games; I'm just about through with
this same story being trotted out ad nauseum. That somehow the quality of these films is always blamed on
gamers, and not on the avarice of the studios that produce them is a mystery to me. This article, by one rabble-rousing
Mr. John Lyttle, begins with the byline "Forget acting - cinema-going gamers just want violence." Incorrect:
some cinema-going gamers just want violence, and by the looks of the box-office receipts for the vast majority
of these films, this group of cinema-going gamers is small. Smaller yet considering that he (incorrectly) trumpets
"there are more gamers now than movie-goers."
Just because someone plays videogames, what makes him think they are incapable of appreciating other forms of
art/entertainment that don't mimic games? I wonder if any gamers read books or like fine art? He baits, "This ought to
be where the better informed raise the statistical fact that most video games revolve around construction and
co-operation, and point out how regular practice improves hand/eye co-ordination in teenagers." Correct, and to
paraphrase Steven Johnson, saying that videogames improve hand/eye coordination might be true, but that's like saying
reading Shakespeare improves your spelling. You're missing the point.
Videogames aren't movies, and you probably couldn't find a more vociferous anti-game-to-movie group than gamers
themselves. One need only look to Uwe Boll, a common cause for contempt amongst gamers, for creating such attrocious
movies and for propagating this concept: that we, as gamers, are to blame for these movies.
[Via Cathode Tan]
