-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
The Final Bosman Show
- Thread starter iNvid02
- Start date
Haha I love how Kyle criticizes something related to Last of Us and everyone hates the episode, but if he makes fun of Microsoft or Nintendo he's hilarious.
I thought "Lester Fuss" was funny and the main point of the video, which is wanting games to be happy just being games, is one I agree with.
I thought "Lester Fuss" was funny and the main point of the video, which is wanting games to be happy just being games, is one I agree with.
mullet2000
Member
Regardless of whether or not you agree with some of his specific individual points, I think "Why can't The Last of Us just be happy being video game" is a pretty apt thing to point out. Not even just about The Last of Us really, but about any game. There's very often a movie announcement (that inevitably falls through) after a game becomes successful, as if it's a huge validation that the game "actually was good guys!" "We're making a movie, this game really made it!"
I don't think that's necessary at all. A fantastic game that tells its story well as a game can "just" be a game. And in a perfect world Naughty Dog should be completely satisfied with it being a successful/praised game. If this was a one-case thing with The Last of Us it would be one thing, but it's an industry-wide thing, and has been for years. Being "good enough" for a movie isn't growing up; realizing that your medium is special and doesn't need validation from the film world is growing up.
That's the core of what Kyle's saying.
I don't think that's necessary at all. A fantastic game that tells its story well as a game can "just" be a game. And in a perfect world Naughty Dog should be completely satisfied with it being a successful/praised game. If this was a one-case thing with The Last of Us it would be one thing, but it's an industry-wide thing, and has been for years. Being "good enough" for a movie isn't growing up; realizing that your medium is special and doesn't need validation from the film world is growing up.
That's the core of what Kyle's saying.
Rats Off To Ya
Banned
Precisely. This episode wasn't about The Last of Us as a game or even about anything exclusively pertaining to The Last of Us. It was about the pervasive feeling in this industry that video games can't be a legitimate art form unless they get "permission" from another medium.
Why film? What about TLoU comic book? Was that a desperate cry out for legitimacy?
What about novels for games?
All of those things are just in addition to the source. TLoU is a game, it has no intentions or wants, it's creators do, and they seems very bold about their chosen medium.
What about novels for games?
All of those things are just in addition to the source. TLoU is a game, it has no intentions or wants, it's creators do, and they seems very bold about their chosen medium.
Brad Grenz
Member
Why can't Princess Bride be happy as a book? Why can't Buffy the Vampire Slayer be happy as a film? Why can't LEGO be happy as a toy? Why can't Avengers be happy as a comic? Why can't Pirates of the Caribbean be happy as a ride? These are all stupid questions just like asking the same about a game. If there is an opportunity to reach another audience and make more money it will be explored. This debate says more about gamers being insecure than it does about the medium of games or their creators.
mullet2000
Member
The difference is The Princess Bride being made into a book isn't used in a "Hey guys look, we made it!" kind of way. Likewise with Legos before The Lego Movie or any of your other examples.
Yet time and time again that is how the elusive "film deal" is used in the videogame industry.
Says who? Do you have a quote from ND staff saying anything suggesting the film adds legitimacy to TLoU as a game?
DidntKnowJack
Member
I have to say, I wouldn't have hesitated to tell my friend that TLOU was coming to the PS4.
mullet2000
Member
I'm making a general point, and explaining how I perceive Bosman's point, not a specific point about The Last of Us.
That's the tone I've always gotten from Videogame-Movie deals. It always comes off as "Guys we're making a..."
Assassin's Creed MOVIE! See these games really are good!
Need for Speed MOVIE! Because the action/races in our games are worthy of the big screen!
Metal Gear Solid MOVIE! Because our stories are as good as any movie!
Shadow of the Colossus MOVIE! Our games are artistic enough to be a great artistic film!
It's just the vibe I get from this type of thing. The fact that they almost always quickly fall-through also comes off to me as the announcement - telling people "hey look guys we're good enough to be a movie" - being worth way more to people in these deals than actually making the movies in question. Because they almost never actually get made.
I'm not talking about direct quotes and for the most part I don't think Bosman is either. It's about how this thing has come off in this industry for years.
Neuromancer
Member
It's a Christmas miracle!
Yeah, I wasn't really sure what the point was to that. Granted, there were children running around yelling while I was watching the episode, so maybe I misheard, but if his friend specifically chose TLoU as his only reason for getting a PS3 over a PS4 I can't imagine he'd be very happy to find out there's a way better version coming out two weeks later.
Rickenslacker
Banned
I'm telling on you Kyle.
sums up my thoughts on the last of us and my thoughts on druckmann's attitude towards games rather aptly.
that right there sounds negative but it isn't. the last of us was the first purely enjoyable naughty dog game for me since the first jak and daxter. i just think druckmann's embarrassed to be making video games and that makes me embarrassed for him.
that right there sounds negative but it isn't. the last of us was the first purely enjoyable naughty dog game for me since the first jak and daxter. i just think druckmann's embarrassed to be making video games and that makes me embarrassed for him.
The ps3 was a gift from his wife if I understand correctly and the friend was excited because he assumed that was the only console TLoU was on, pointing out that mistake and thereby insulting the wife's gift at their wedding would of been a pretty low class thing to do.
Man-is-Obsolete
Member
The only person that should be embarrassed is you and others that feel this way. Who are you to decide how anyone else feels about their craft? Is Martin embarrassed to be writing fantasy novels because Game of Thrones is now a TV show? But yes the person who helped make two of the best games of last gen is embarrassed to be making videogames. Give me a break.
of the two mediums, writing is definitely seen as more artistic than television. i think a lot of it has to do with the age of the two, and partly who makes up the audience for each. with games and movies, games are the inferior 'art'form and movies are superior. doing stuff like saying you want video games to become experiences comes across more as wanting to impress dad than celebrate the medium.
I've brought this up before, but it comes back to this idea that movies are more legitimate.
A game reviewer says a game is "cinematic" as praise. A movie critic says a movie is "like a video game" as an insult.
It's why the thing with the laurels is so dumb. They're trying to make you associate TLOU with the type of movie you'd see coming out of Cannes or some other film festival.
A game reviewer says a game is "cinematic" as praise. A movie critic says a movie is "like a video game" as an insult.
It's why the thing with the laurels is so dumb. They're trying to make you associate TLOU with the type of movie you'd see coming out of Cannes or some other film festival.
Man-is-Obsolete
Member
You can do both. To many The Last of Us is still a fantastic game even removing the story elements and experience. The MP being proof of that.
So are game developers not allowed to legitimize the medium as effective in telling a story or creating an experience? Last of Us is an absolute celebration of the medium. It's story won't translate well to a movie for the same reason a book rarely translates as well. It is a story and experience only possible because of the medium it was made. The game isn't a two hour interactive cut scene, there are some really impactful gameplay segments, not possible in any other medium. It has sold over 7 million copies not because it tried to be a movie to impress dad, but because it was unashamed in being a video game and provided a top tier story and experience in addition that reinforced the gameplay.
NullPointer
Member
In the world of gaming that'd be an appropriate association. The laurels are there to denote critical acclaim, which TLOU has earned in spades.
Or is there a better way to impart that sense, immediately, in a way known to everybody, that's more game-ish?
Similar to using the word remastered, which describes exactly what this version of TLOU is - a remaster. Or is there a better, more game oriented word for it? Its not a direct port nor is it emulated on new hardware. It was redone on a technical level to be re-optimized for the PS4 at 1080p and 60fps.
I hate the games-want-to-be-movies thing too, but I don't get holding up these particular things that directly communicate something clearly. I don't think its borrowing from movies as much as using what works best.
I'm definitely one of those many, and in the case of TLOU I have a hard time separating the story and the gameplay because they reinforce each other so well. That's part of why I don't enjoy the multiplayer - the mechanics and violence without the full context feels wrong to me, just as watching a YouTube of nothing but cinematics would leave out too much punch and anxiety and danger that you directly experience in the gameplay scenarios. That and that a lot of character and world moments are intermingled directly into the environments and scavenging that take place outside of the cinematics.
Man-is-Obsolete
Member
Exactly. Like if they were to use gun shots as the denotes that would have been more acceptable or something, because videogames right? Lol. Why do people care they used laurels? It is a symbol of achievement going back to ancient Greek Olympians, where the phrase don't rest on your laurels originated. Which we could read further into it by saying those laurels are symbolic of Naughty Dog not wanting to rest on their laurels, and want to make UC4 and future games better than the last.
OH, oh, okay, that makes sense. Yeah, I'd do the same then.
and that's why it's so confusing to see a stage adaptation of the cutscenes and that the movie being written is going to follow the game's story. because that runs counter to everything to that idea that the last of us is a celebration of video games.
i think it's a really well designed game. trust me, i was extremely surprised at the thought that went into the design decisions. i could almost see how deliberate and careful they were in the decision process. it's really really really good. it doesn't need to be anything what it already is because it already does what it does pretty damn well. so when i see druckmann making a movie, putting on a stage adaptation, and naughty dog putting laurels around the oscar awards their experience received, i can't help but feel like they kind of feel they're condescending to the rest of the medium. it's truly bizarre, and yes, embarrassing.
Man-is-Obsolete
Member
Well we are just going have to disagree then. The movie was going to happen regardless, by the way. It's Neil's baby so of course he wants to be a part of it. Also a movie adaptation, if successful, could catch many more people's attention about videogames, that otherwise may have written them off completely.
and here's where i really hate this idea. video games should be celebrated for being video games. this idea that movies are inherently a higher standard above video games is toxic to game development.
Not saying you're wrong, but can you give some examples? Gameplay and story seemed largely separate to me. At best, I would say they don't contrast with one another, but I don't remember ever thinking the gameplay enhanced the story.
Brad Grenz
Member
It may shock you to learn many books and comics are explicitly written for the purpose of selling film rights down the line and the film industry is so desperate for bankable "properties" they will make a movie based on just about any brand. The only strange thing here is a mentality that games should somehow be exempted from this activity based on some latent inferiority complex.
You sound like you've never played the game. Here are a few vague examples: Switching companions. Escaping the college. Hunting for deer. Saving yourself.
More generally, it's a game about scavenging and survival. Searching for supplies, crafting tools and weapons, picking your way through dangerous situations, having to improvise when your plans go to shit, choosing between saving a shiv for clickers or opening a locked door where you might find bullets or health. The game is full of interlocking systems, interesting choices and refined mechanics, all designed in support of the central themes of survivalism and co-dependence. More generally, just the fact that it sets you off on what can be a grueling 20 hour crucible engenders a strong identification with the characters and the stress of their plight to a degree that would never be possible in a 2 hour movie.
That's why a comicbook tie-in isn't seen in the same way.
Comicbook are, possibly, below or on par with videogames.
Comics have to live some of that themselves anyway, since there's a good chunk of authors always looking up at literature for approval, which was cause of endless discussion at my school, years back.
-
There is not one single event that spawned this mentality, it's been a build up, for at least the past two generations.
I don't think that Druckmann or whoever at ND, secretly thinks games are shitty things for dorks or anything like that, but it's all the little things with the Last of Us trying to distance itself from games and get closer to movies, that irk me.
It's probably just a marketing maneuver from the marketing team, to broaden the audience and make Last of Us more appealing to who does see games as nerd power fantasies, to make them consider the medium as something a bit more thoughtful.
Things that Bosman pointed out and that only make sense when put all together, so of course you can look at them individually and go "what's so wrong with this?".
And yes, it is nitpicking, but that's more or less what Bosman has been always doing: Express his feelings about a situation and try to explain why they annoy him, and it's sometimes more nitpicky stuff than the bigger problems gaming faces (that get discussed often on GAF, like diversity, representation etc).
Even if this conjunction of gaming and cinema doesn't bother you, i don't get why suddenly the nitpicking is not ok anymore.
Again, this argument exists for comics, too.
Moreover, a Last of Us movie following the shenanigans of Joel and Ellie, feels far more useless than a videogame about Batman following an original story.
And it's not like Batman doesn't have a billion issues that express no problem about being a comicbook already out.
It's not simply about franchises transcending mediums.
Officerrob
Banned
Batman was around as a comic for decades, developing the character and universe before it crossed over out of comics. Even after expanding out of comics, the Batman comics continued. TLOU is one video game story that came out last year, and the expansion out of the video game universe is a retelling of the same story. Not exactly the same thing
This really is a horrible post.
Why do you think he's embarrassed exactly? He wrote TLoU, then Left Behind, now Uncharted 4, and he's already teasing TLoU2. If he wanted out, he'd leave.
Speculating about how specific people feel, and using that speculation as a reflection of a game is absurd. It's baseless, and it's valueless.
Noisepurge
Member
atleast he did the voiceover for the Live show.
Jakoozie89
Neo Member
Kyle's point is valid, as always. But I think he did a poor job explaining it. My main problem is that the game is very cinematic already, with enough cut scenes to easily make up a full movie. So making a film, with the same plot and characters seems kind of unneccessary and silly. We already have a Joel and Ellie, we don't need another take on it.
It would have been better if it was a movie made in the same spirit, or in the same setting.
It would have been better if it was a movie made in the same spirit, or in the same setting.
Before this key point was made I really didn't understand why anyone had an issue with movie tie-ins because making books, toys or game tie-ins for other media is common.
But I forgot that all these things are usually planned in advance; while with original games this rarely happens.
Would these things really be not possible in another medium though? Like I said, the gameplay and story don't clash at all. For such a story focused action game, that's actually a pretty big accomplishment these days. But, I feel like these moments would only be slightly less impactful as cutscenes. When I think of games whose stories are enhanced by gameplay, I think of Ico and SotC. For example, in Ico you
climb back up to the castle and find Yorda turned to stone. You have to kill the shadow creatures in the room and as you do, you slowly start to realize that the monsters you've been killing the whole time are the other horned children who have been imprisoned/sacrificed. I don't think the shadow creatures even really attack you here, so killing them is totally up to the player. Removal of control plays an important role at the end, too.
when you become Dormin, no matter what you do, you can't stop the men from escaping. When you revert back to Wander, you try to fight being pulled into the water, but you can't. You can even grab onto the stairs just in front of the pool, but eventually you have to decide to let go. Or you can wait until your stamina runs out, in which case you can "feel" when you are about to lose grip.
The many things that make Last of Us special are unique to videogames, the way they exploit player and AI interaction withing the character and narrative arc, for example.
As a movie, i can only see it become a sort of ok post apocalyptic drama and have people unfamiliar with the game go "oh, ok".
Which is why i'm not exactly excited for a movie adaptation, though in and out of itself it's easy to ignore, like it's easy to ignore all those useless shot for shot remakes of foreign films, made for people who can't bother reading a subtitle.
Still worth to point out in a Final Bosman, though.
Brad Grenz
Member
A movie can never create the sense of responsibility, ownership, fatigue, anxiety, frustration, elation, improvisation, or triumph a game delivers. Maybe you didn't connect with the game. That's fine. No work can be expected to connect with everyone, but the active engagement of literal participation in these dramatic events is something movies cannot achieve. I disagree with your examples which imply successful integration of gameplay and story hinges a M Night style ending twist (although TLoU arguably delivers something akin to that). To me the story is heightened greatly by the various struggles and challenges I myself experienced in the course of playing.
Maybe I worded it poorly, but the twist is not the point. It's the knowledge of what you're doing and the decision to continue to do it. I agree with your first sentence, but simply controlling a character in a world is not enough to enhance a story for me. I guess that's where we differ and that's cool.
wow, I've never seen this much heated debate over a Bosman show before.
I've got to say, I agree with most of Bosman said. that also includes the recognition that I'm being nit-picky. I think most of you guys are glossing over that part. for me I can't really control what annoys me, and a stage show and TLoU movie annoys me, but I can admit that I'm being a bit nit-picky with my annoyances.
I do believe that games can be art but I'd rather that recognition come unforced and organically. I've never played Journey before but to me its praise seemed more genuine. the Mario Galaxy games make no qualms about what they are yet they are both masterpieces for the medium worthy of being celebrated.
TLoU came off to me as pandering. please don't construe this as me saying it's a bad game or that it's anything less than what the praise suggests. in fact, I've never played it so take that into consideration as well. I can't really put into words why, which I'm sure I can be criticized for, but that's how I feel. it just seemed like an attempt to be seen as legitimate and things that are overly obvious kind of annoy me. also the gaming media's reception kind of annoyed me as well. not that they were praising a great game, that most were so quick to lay on the hyperbolic comments about a great number of things. making comparisons to film, calling it gaming's Citizen Kane moment, talking about its place in history immediately after release. it just seemed like the gaming industry as a whole swarmed on the opportunity to point out how mature and legitimate the medium is now. it was a "hey! look at me!" moment and that made me a bit cynical, probably more than anything else.
I'll say again, because I'm sure this won't sit well with everyone, that I am easily annoyed. sometimes irrationally annoyed. I understand that for sure but that's still my take on it. perhaps not worded well but I'm sure most of you can comprehend what I'm saying. then on top of all that there's a remaster released 1 year after the original release, the stage show, and the movie. it just seems like they're laying it on a bit too thick. you made a great game. just let it be great. no need to force it.
I've got to say, I agree with most of Bosman said. that also includes the recognition that I'm being nit-picky. I think most of you guys are glossing over that part. for me I can't really control what annoys me, and a stage show and TLoU movie annoys me, but I can admit that I'm being a bit nit-picky with my annoyances.
I do believe that games can be art but I'd rather that recognition come unforced and organically. I've never played Journey before but to me its praise seemed more genuine. the Mario Galaxy games make no qualms about what they are yet they are both masterpieces for the medium worthy of being celebrated.
TLoU came off to me as pandering. please don't construe this as me saying it's a bad game or that it's anything less than what the praise suggests. in fact, I've never played it so take that into consideration as well. I can't really put into words why, which I'm sure I can be criticized for, but that's how I feel. it just seemed like an attempt to be seen as legitimate and things that are overly obvious kind of annoy me. also the gaming media's reception kind of annoyed me as well. not that they were praising a great game, that most were so quick to lay on the hyperbolic comments about a great number of things. making comparisons to film, calling it gaming's Citizen Kane moment, talking about its place in history immediately after release. it just seemed like the gaming industry as a whole swarmed on the opportunity to point out how mature and legitimate the medium is now. it was a "hey! look at me!" moment and that made me a bit cynical, probably more than anything else.
I'll say again, because I'm sure this won't sit well with everyone, that I am easily annoyed. sometimes irrationally annoyed. I understand that for sure but that's still my take on it. perhaps not worded well but I'm sure most of you can comprehend what I'm saying. then on top of all that there's a remaster released 1 year after the original release, the stage show, and the movie. it just seems like they're laying it on a bit too thick. you made a great game. just let it be great. no need to force it.
i actually don't think he's embarrassed and i'm not actually embarrassed for him, but i do think the attitude sucks, even if the games are good.
The Lamonster
Member
I think Bosman was right on the money.
God forbid he trashes minor things about the beloved TLOU. I think the people saying he's "reaching" are blinded by their TLOU love, which is fine...I'm just saying try to take a step back and look at it objectively.
God forbid he trashes minor things about the beloved TLOU. I think the people saying he's "reaching" are blinded by their TLOU love, which is fine...I'm just saying try to take a step back and look at it objectively.
The Lamonster
Member
The atmosphere of the show is a lot less upbeat now. It's sad
That is a good point...it's been kind of depressing since E3. It's now a rant show.
Devilgunman
Member
The atmosphere of the show is a lot less upbeat now. It's sad
Can't really blame him. Most people he knows on GT are gone. Even Pachter is gone. If I were him it will be very hard for me to enjoy doing my job over there.
If you are objective, his points are completely absurd.
- The Last of Us took the subtitle Remastered from film.
Wrong. Sony labelled their last-gen ports as 'HD Remasters'.
- Laurels on the cover.
I would doubt Naughty Dog decided this, Sony is more likely, but either way, this one is okay as an absurdly nitpicky complaint.
- The spawn of the live performance was 'to say look how legitimate our story was'.
Wrong. The spawn was from Geoff Keighley.
- The Last of Us is better than a movie, so it's upsetting people would want to make a film of it.
This is obviously a personal perspective, but is he saying TLoU is better than any film ever made? Moreover, is he saying no novel was ever better than it's resulting film, or if it is, the film is thereby 'dumb'?
Without the films adapted from Cormac McCarthy novels, TLoU game wouldn't even exist.
- It doesn't seem like TLoU is happy to be a video game.
This is literally nonsensical. Video games don't have intent, they don't have wants, they don't have satisfaction and an understanding of their placement within popular culture. TLoU doesn't want anything. If we just take the leap that he meant to say Naughty Dog aren't happy to make video games, then we have very clear and direct evidence to the contrary.
for the first point I think he's just nit-picking the term, even if it's been used before. like his example in the music industry, when an album is remastered that's what is actually happening. they are quite literally "remastering" the album because it's already been mastered. I realize earlier in the thread someone pointed out that a final build of a game is referred to as a "gold master" but the most common term for what TLoU Remastered is is probably an enhanced port. obviously they can't put that on the box so I don't really have an alternate solution but that's where he seems to be coming from.
for the movie point, he's saying that TLoU is at its best as a video game. it is effective because of that. he's not saying that it's better than every movie or anything like that he's saying TLoU was great because it was a video game. by making it into a movie they are taking away some of the key elements of what made it great in the first place. to me it just seems that he's skeptical something will get lost in translation, and without ever playing the game I agree. a movie will take a story that is much longer than 2 hours and somehow shorten it and also takes away the interactive aspect of it. now it could end up being a fine movie but right now I think he's just expressing concern. basically I don't think he believes that a movie will come anywhere close to what the game accomplished.
More like Last of Us is good because it's not a movie.
If i picture in my head a movie about Last of Us, following more or less closely the narrative of the game, i can't see anything that isn't more or less a mediocre survival serious zombie drama.