Roll for Initiative.

kicksterflixter:

There are a lot of things I’ve agreed on Anthony Burch with, but this whole article felt like it was coming from a very biased point of view. Yeah, movies are trying to be like videogames, and videogames are trying to be like movies, but there’s only so much the two mediums can do before reaching their limits.

Anthony says that “All the Na’vi and Marines and lush, CG landscapes in the world simply cannot compete with allowing your audience the simple ability to move around in your world at their own pace, unrestrained by the demands of narrative pacing.”

If that’s true, then I guess all the Star Wars movies, Lord of the Rings movies, Matrix movies, and pretty much every movie in existence can’t compete with videogames.

I’ll just quote Destructoid user phantomile: “Movies need to focus on being movies; telling good stories and being fun to watch. Games exist to do the things that movies can’t; each should embrace what they do best, instead of trying to be like each other.”

^exactly. It’s two different forms of media. Two different forms of entertainment. However, the one thing that they share is that they can both be improved by making them look more real. I didn’t read the article (sorry xP) but I can say that it is justifiable to assume that if a movie can look as spanking good as Avatar. Then that means video games can expect similar technology to push them forward in that direction (better resolution and special effects) as well.