At absolutely no point did he suggest he is concerned about the quality of the movie, in fact he said he doesn't believe it'll even be made, it was all about how it's existence frames TLoU.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
The Final Bosman Show
- Thread starter iNvid02
- Start date
yeah but all of that is likely the pre-cursor to thinking what he thinks. TLoU is a video game. it's a great video game. making it into a movie seems to dilute what made it great and that affects TLoU brand. I don't know if I'm explaining myself well enough. for some reason I'm awful at getting my thoughts out in coherent sentences haha
NullPointer
Member
Thinking a movie version will suck makes perfect sense, but I don't get the idea that a movie diminishes the game. Many gamers have wanted Halo movies for a long time now, and not in order to make the games relevant, but because it would be fucking cool.
That said, that early vidoc of 343 making Halo 4 and framing that entire development process as being "like a movie" fits everything Kyle was saying here to a tee. Even there its hard to say whether comparing games to movies was done to legitimize gaming or just to explain game development to a wider audience. Dunno, maybe it was a little of both.
That said, that early vidoc of 343 making Halo 4 and framing that entire development process as being "like a movie" fits everything Kyle was saying here to a tee. Even there its hard to say whether comparing games to movies was done to legitimize gaming or just to explain game development to a wider audience. Dunno, maybe it was a little of both.
Let's say the film gets made, and it's bad, how does that hurt the game? Look at the games that have had film adaptations, Mario, Dead or Alive, Max Payne, Silent Hill, Resident Evil, do people see those franchises as worse because of the films? Is Silent Hill 2 not a classic? Does SMB not come up in every best of list ever released? Do we not have a thread once a week derailed heavily by RE4 praise?
This is different in as much as the Creative Director of the game is writing the screenplay for the film, so it would be a direct impact on people's perceptions of him a screenwriter, but will it as a creative director? Is anyone going to skip TLoU2 because TLoU movie wasn't good? I seriously doubt it.
Bosman is right in that TLoU is a great game, but I don't see why that means it can't also be a movie, great or otherwise, because so far movie adaptations haven't reflected on the games at all. His whole point of 'this means a story was good' is patently false given the games which have had films so far. To use the literary example again, is a novel tarnished by a bad film? Does that author's future work face cooler critical reception because of it? No.
TLoU was a great game, the Remastered edition is even greater, and those things will not be impacted by a film, if the film is good or bad.
Dont think his point has anything to do with sales or quality. its more why in the first place, which for businesses is obviously money and its a business decision, but if you incorporate feels and stuff you can sort of see it as like an aspiration for a good movie to legitimise his hobby - which he feels isnt needed.
Remember, Kyle really likes games, culture and the community around it.
yeah in the long term none of this will matter. I'll give you that for sure. I think it's just all of these little things that add up in the short term that has me slightly annoyed. I'll say again that none of this really affects me in any meaningful way I just like the Final Bosman and this episode made me think about all of these things and this is my opinion on them. I don't know, everything you said makes perfect rational sense but then maybe our annoyances are irrational.
thechristoph
Sir!
I still have no idea what that has to do with Kyle Bosman's opinion. Two people apparently aren't allowed to have different opinions if they work at the same place in the Videogame World.
How is it an opinion? An opinion is a subjective view point, it isn't his opinion that Naughty Dog came up with the idea of the live performance, it's factually not true. You can say you believe video games are made by crafting a series of intricate markings on the inside of a piece of bamboo then submerging it in the Dead Sea, doesn't make it an opinion, it makes you wrong.
Shame on you, seriously.
Druckmann is invested in everything TLoU, in what way is that a negative? He wrote the game, the comic book, and the movie. It's absolutely disingenuous to imply that he automatically favors one medium over the other and honestly it's fairly offensive to suggest. His priority was to build a world through fiction, that's not lessened just because it takes shape in other mediums.
Sure, personally I'm not excited for a film adaptation myself and think what we have best encapsulates what TLoU is, that being said, he still wrote the game, we still got TLoU through his efforts. If he was embarrassed then I doubt he would have ever worked on Uncharted 2, let alone spearhead TLoU.
There has been this really toxic rhetoric as of late that casts anything "filmic" in negative light. Who gives a damn if laurels are used? Seriously. Something can exist as "Interactive Cinematic Entertainment" and still be very "filmic" in nature and maintain its interactivity. Cinematic is an adjective, it's how we describe something that is still playable. TLoU uses the best of both mediums. Truth be told, I'd rather take a game that respected its design and process, actors, themes, etc. If these elements are inherently exclusively limited to film than it seems you have a very low opinion of this medium in the first place.
I don't think it's a question of legitimization at all, I think it's a question of passion and seriousness.
See this is where I'm not exactly sure what's going on. I still feel like it's going to be a story he is finishing or tweaking as opposed to actually writing.
What does that even mean?
Well, I probably should have said 'contributed to writing', but he's at least going to be heavily invested in it.
I know what you mean though. I'd really like to know exactly how much of Amy's game remained when they took over. They'll have had almost two years, so I hope they just scrapped the entire thing writing wise, but who knows.
I remember coming across one of the interviews with Balestra and Wells where they implied they were there really just to finish the game as opposed to reboot it. I think it's still going to be very much a Hennig script and if this is the last one I think that is very fitting.
I doubt they would scrap it all and really wouldn't want them to.
I bet they completely gutted the game and she won't even get a credit. It's hard to say in terms of what the studio heads have said, every piece of bad news this year was quickly followed by 'there's no delay, everything's okay', but considering they never dated it, they could easily have been bending the truth.
Ultimately, they wouldn't have canned her if they were happy with her work, and I doubt Druckely are going to want to pick up and polish off her game.
We know they've completely binned Stashwick's performance, I imagine they've scrapped all performance capture, and the point of doing that is to incorporate rewrites really.
This is super off topic though.
You're under the assumption that they completely outed her and I don't think that's the case at all. I'm not going to speculate on that at all though.
We know that Uncharted 3 was criticized for having set-pieces designed before the story. They were aware of this and given that I would assume that the story would be much, much more integrated with the gameplay. They had been working on it for about 3 years, so to drastically change the nature of the story would drastically change the layout, design, etc.
They recast the villain, ok, but I doubt they would start from scratch. I would still assume it is 60-80% Hennig's game.
Well Silent Hill and Tomb Raider did feel the influence of the movie, especially Silent Hill.
Many visual design elements from the movie were directly transported into Homecoming, from the font, to the Pyramid Head, to the transition to the otherworld.
Not saying that will happen with Last of Us personally, though "cheapening the brand" is a real thing, it's not even my main concern.
It's more of a principle of not wanting to see cinema and games go so much hand in hand together because i think the relationship between the two, that has been going on since forever, has been deleterious for the AAA space for some time, in my opinion.
So i'm annoyed when i see a movie deal pop up so quickly before the game is even a year old, even if it makes financial sense.
And i'm annoyed when David Cage tries to imply a game has more value because people from the hollywood space are involved with his game, or when writers of movies get put upfront as savior of a game's writing (of course that has still to work out once, though).
I think it's an emotional response largely, but again, Bosman is all about emotional responses, like his tirade against putting "PreOrder Now!" at the end of a trailer, or his nitpicking on how to make us happy in an E3 conference.
It has always been emotionally charged nitpicking, but suddenly it ain't good no more?
i don't view video games as 'art' or needing to aspire to some higher level. i think video games should be appreciated for excellent design work as that is a different kind of intense thinking that is rarely rewarded, discussed, or given merit outside of designer circles.
i have a very low opinion on designers who try to pass off their work as art, as they demean both artists and other designers in doing so.
I have no problem with someone not wanting to see a TLoU film, I don't want to see one, nor do I care that it's being made. It's an interesting thing hypothetically, but I put the chances of it being good at approaching zero, and the chances of it being on par with Children of Men or The Road right at zero, and the chances of it making a meaningful contribution to film, as the game did to games, square in the negative numbers.
My issue was never that Bosman doesn't want there to be a film, it's that lots of the things he said were factually false.
As an aside, a point you raised about video games being too influenced by cinema, I think it's true, and has been since MGS1 really, that was the birth of the 'cinematic' game, and when people started thinking about storytelling and voice acting more seriously in the medium. However, while I think TLoU does that thing very well, better than any other game so far, it's actually not at all what's interesting about the storytelling in the game. It is at its most effective, for me at least, when the design is paired with the story, the game does really smart things with how the design compliments where the characters are in the story.
It's taken the things from cinema that cinema does better than any medium, framing, blocking, performance capture, etc, but it's absolutely used the tools only inherent to games to tell its story too. The same way film initially used theatre so heavily until it had developed it's on inherent story telling tools, such as cuts, camera angles, etc.
The game industry is young, it's finding itself, and it's borrowing heavily from cinema, as cinema did from theatre.
Seriously though, I dont "get" that rhetoric. Regardless that "art" is subjective, how can film or paintings ever be "art" if something from the interactive medium can't be? I simply dont understand how you can have one without the other.
I don't think games are art, then again nor do Miyamoto, Kojima or Ueda, so I'm comfortable with the company I keep.
I think the essential thing people don't get when others say they don't think games are art, is that isn't a criticism of the medium. Chess isn't art, it is however, an immaculately crafted work of design, and that itself is hugely worthy of praise.
I think the essential thing people don't get when others say they don't think games are art, is that isn't a criticism of the medium. Chess isn't art, it is however, an immaculately crafted work of design, and that itself is hugely worthy of praise.
this is exactly what i think. whenever i say video games aren't art, it immediately brings the fury of the gods down because it sounds like i view them as inferior to other art forms. i don't view it as art because it isn't art, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be as highly regarded.
the penny-arcade comic is dumb, and comes from a lack of understanding and probably a lack of appreciation of design. but to be fair, i don't think roger ebert was appreciating video games for what they do well. i think he honestly was looking down on them, but specifically for the elements that would be considered artful. in that sense he would probably be correct.
I don't understand why the similarity between videogames and games like Chess, would make the whole medium as not art.
I don't even think the word "art" is an exclusively good "qualifier", something being art doesn't mean something is deep, thoughtful or even good.
However Videogames can be art, without question, there is nothing preventing them to be.
Yes, some games are structured and designed mechanically to be essentially toys, for example Mario's design being exclusively a byproduct of graphical limitations, doesn't hold any artistic message to pass on, but that doesn't paint the whole medium, just like an instructional video about Fire Safety doesn't declare all film as a non artistic, pragmatically designed medium.
Games have to face design limitations, so do movies and so does any other medium.
Games can and have expressed more complex artistic concepts (maybe not wonderfully, but they have) and i really don't see how they don't qualify as art.
Again, i agree with you that not recognizing them as art doesn't say anything about their quality, but i still don't see how they don't qualify as art, if you think cinema and literature do.
What's the hold up on them? I could start making assumption, but it's quicker if you guys bring forward some argument as to why they aren't, first.
I don't even think the word "art" is an exclusively good "qualifier", something being art doesn't mean something is deep, thoughtful or even good.
However Videogames can be art, without question, there is nothing preventing them to be.
Yes, some games are structured and designed mechanically to be essentially toys, for example Mario's design being exclusively a byproduct of graphical limitations, doesn't hold any artistic message to pass on, but that doesn't paint the whole medium, just like an instructional video about Fire Safety doesn't declare all film as a non artistic, pragmatically designed medium.
Games have to face design limitations, so do movies and so does any other medium.
Games can and have expressed more complex artistic concepts (maybe not wonderfully, but they have) and i really don't see how they don't qualify as art.
Again, i agree with you that not recognizing them as art doesn't say anything about their quality, but i still don't see how they don't qualify as art, if you think cinema and literature do.
What's the hold up on them? I could start making assumption, but it's quicker if you guys bring forward some argument as to why they aren't, first.
FantasticMrFoxdie
Mumber
Good episode. Parts I agree with and parts I don't.
I think the most important thing about the whole Remastered thing and a 'movie' coming is getting new people to experience the game in general. Sure it may be beloved here on GAF and by the media, but out of the many gamers I know IRL I know only 3 people that have actually played it and that still bugs me. I'm surprised he didn't know Keighley is the one who proposed the idea of a TLoU Live Show considering he was in his office.
Also, fun seeing this argument live on. RIP Ebert.
I think the most important thing about the whole Remastered thing and a 'movie' coming is getting new people to experience the game in general. Sure it may be beloved here on GAF and by the media, but out of the many gamers I know IRL I know only 3 people that have actually played it and that still bugs me. I'm surprised he didn't know Keighley is the one who proposed the idea of a TLoU Live Show considering he was in his office.
Also, fun seeing this argument live on. RIP Ebert.
VIDEO Games are art.
Brad Grenz
Member
Actually it just sounds like you adhere to a preposterously narrow definition of art. Considering "what is art" remains one of the major branches in philosophy it is quite presumptive to exclude games without even attempting to present an argument supporting that position. No one here has any reason to simply defer to your authority on the matter.
All dem Japanese devs. They also dont put much stock in story either, kind of an antiquated mindset in my opinion.
I still don't understand how someone could exclude an entire medium from being "art" though. It's a visual medium first and foremost, in that sense the PA comic is right. Journey to The Last of Us differ dynamically visually but even from the most basic definition, what they produce visually is "art."
Recent games have begun exploring themes that impact and provoke it's audience. How can film be "art" if games aren't?
Pretty much this.
Are they saying that the movie will be a higher form of art? I don't see anyone except onlookers projecting that viewpoint onto the movie announcement. Why can't it simply be a successful IP being licensed to become a movie/happy meal toy/novelisation like many others?
I don't see why only videogames seem to need to be happy to just be videogames.
Because it was a number of things capped off by the recent movie announcement.
Not a general episode about the subject.
Kojima doesn't put much stock in story? MGS4 ends with a seventy minute cutscene.
Try harder.
In your zeal to troll ND, you've made some remarkably awful posts. I guess that's something.
I didn't see Kojima`s name originally, sorry about that. Stands for the others though. And truth be told, i don't think iwould use Kojima as an example of anything having to do with story . Ueda is an interesting case however, given that his games are usually the go to examples of art.
And yet any thread about games as art will feature him, and heavily Ueda.
Im not saying story=art at all.
But let me beg this question, putting aside visuals and intent thematically , brushwork in paintings often lend themselves to be beautiful and often a cornerstone of the artwork, how a film is shot often lends itself to its status of "art", and a poem is beautiful based on the words used. My question is, can't great design lend itself to something being a work of "art" as well?
But let me beg this question, putting aside visuals and intent thematically , brushwork in paintings often lend themselves to be beautiful and often a cornerstone of the artwork, how a film is shot often lends itself to its status of "art", and a poem is beautiful based on the words used. My question is, can't great design lend itself to something being a work of "art" as well?
Brad Grenz
Member
Exactly, gameplay has aesthetic qualities itself, whether it is the feel of how it controls, or the genius in how systems interact. That alone is sufficient to attain status as art, and it is what is unique about the medium in comparison to others.
I maintain that games are art, if it wasn't clear.
Design can be a tool devoted to art.
The tools and choices given to the player through design can form a narrative in and out of themselves, and can be art.
Having to make a gameplay choice is the design of a person that set said rules by which, he or she can convey an artistic message, just like a movie director can.
What's the point of movie techniques and conventions, what's the point of using one shot instead of another, if not to convey the artistic message beyond the film itself? By the same logic a game can use its tools and design choices, to guide the player through an artistic message.
You can have a movie like Shindler's List, or you can have a video game where, through game design choices, you're forced to make hard decisions in the same setting, even with no story at all; i don't see why one can be art and the other can't.
Is sex art? Are drugs? Is driving a car quickly? A rollarcoaster? A 4am walk along an empty beach?
I don't see how eliciting emotion means something is art.
iNvid02
Member
i'd categorize sex and drugs and admiring the beach as natural, i think the car and rollercaster (man made designs) can be considered art too though
well i did kind of go off on druckmann a little bit there and i don't blame people for getting offended on his behalf, but that second post is pretty harmless. leave the second post alone. it has a wife and kids and it retires from the force in two days. it's going to sail the world on a boat it just bought, the live4ever.
That reads as if it was more a technical move.
As in film CG was obviously hugely ahead of real-time PS2 spec rendering, and when they were going to be implementing richer graphics, more shaders, bump mapping, etc, they wanted to try using people who'd not been constrained by having to work in real-time.
Man-is-Obsolete
Member
Shame on them for trying something new back in 2005 or so. They thought by bringing in people from outside the game industry they could add something to the table, it didn't work.
The PlayStation division was originally run by many executives from the Music industry, which was surprisingly beneficial to the early success of the platform. Just because a studio enlists the help of people from the movie industry doesn't mean they want to make a movie.
Also this.
you'll have to take it up with other designers who don't consider their work to be art either. it really isn't an isolated thing.
the thinking is different. it's tough for people who've never designed anything to really understand design. it's super tough for them to understand that when someone says design isn't art that it's not an insult.
when i look at the last of us, i wouldn't praise the story by itself. i might praise the acting. i enjoy the world the game takes place in - and maybe i would really love the concept art it's based on and the music that plays in the background. those are all artful elements, but the best thing about the game is the integration of all those things with the gameplay. that's what makes the last of us a product of design. consider for instance the scavenging mechanic. this is a super super great design element that accomplishes several things: one, it gives the player resources to take down enemy combatants (meaning scavenging = good); two, it allows the player to find things about the game's world relating to the outbreak and other characters never seen and their stories, and to do it at their own pace and discretion, so that not all player experiences are the same; and three, it helps connect the player with joel by having them explore this post-apocalyptic world to help him and his people live, exposing them more and more to the world around them, and immersing them in it.
that's just one example of really good design in the last of us. but the thing about it is that you don't really know it's there. good design kind of exists in the background and communicates a clear message. another good example would be taking lessons from the uncharted series where wise guy nate drakeman sends an innocent man to his death because it's museum-robbing time (although it winds up being okay because the guard survived the murder attempt). the story of the last of us better convinces players who they are as they shoot up random people, that this is a guy who has grown hard and distant and does what he can to survive. it's integration with the frankly violent gameplay, but it's something that's very necessary and welcome.
so that's what i like most about the game. i was sort of marveling at a lot of those moments as i realized what was happening. i just wish other people would enjoy the same aspects too. i think it's what makes it more than the sums of its parts.
i know that there's a very vocal group that won't agree with me, but i hope that it's easier to see where i'm coming from.
And there can't be beauty in how well it's executed?