I’d like to discuss something that I’ve been thinking a lot about recently.
May I expand? Do you have a choice?
Well, you do, but let us both pretend that you hold some enthusiasm for what I am about to propose to you.
Films. Movies. Moving pictures. Whatever you decide to name this form of entertainment, they are here to stay. They have been around for rather a long time, and it brings in a whole lot of money to people.
It also spawned the sort of people you cannot trust anymore – actors. You can’t really tell if they are lying to you or not. And before you say anything, I know that it didn’t create actors. I’m not a complete idiot. Well, not much of one anyway.
Though, I think I can trump the film industry with a (relatively) new genre of entertainment, if people actually consider them as “genres”.
Video games. Yes, you’re reading correctly. I am about to propose to you, my dear reader, that video games are far superior to their technical mother, the film industry. Are you ready for it?
I only possess two points, but they are relatively important. Well, I’d say so anyway.
The first point could be a mute point, but it seems legit to me. Money. The cost of creating the thing in question. Let me take the most expensive game and film respectively. After much googling around on the internet, I have discovered that Pirates Of The Caribbean: At World’s End and Grand Theft Auto IV hold the title for “most expensive to make” in their respective fields.
Rockstar’s most recent release in the Grand Theft Auto franchise has reportedly cost $100 million to create, although it does not say if that is just for that release, or if that cost represents the whole trilogy (with The Lost And Damned and Ballad Of Gay Tony as downloadable content). That said, that price tag is dwarfed when it comes to the total production budget of the third Pirates Of The Caribbean cost about $300 million, three times the amount of GTA4. Woof.
I know what you are thinking. The average price of a new game is roughly £38. The price for a cinema ticket will probably depend on the cinema, but the average cost of a cinema ticket in 2010 was just a shade under £6 (plus more if you decide to purchase some stuff while watching a certain film), while the DVD release is possibly £15. So, roughly it costs about £21 if you really like it, and only £6 if you don’t (and nothing if you just wait a few years and watch it on television).
At a guess, the average length of a film is around the two hour mark (and feel free to correct me, I know I could be wrong on this), so you’ll be spending £6 on two hours. The average for a video game? Without considering multiplayer and side quests and all that malarkey? I’d roughly guess fifteen hours. With multiplayer and side quests? Who knows. Not adding re-playability to the equation. Moving on now.
How about the production side of it? There’s a lot to think about while creating a film. Well, I assume so if it cost Harry Potter at least £150 million to film (one film, that is). The script, the performance, the design and the production value of it too. Video game developers have all of that, plus the added need of gameplay and re-playability.
Films only require you to do (at most) three things – sit, watch and take in what’s happening. Video games, on the other hand, require you to think, plan for what’s to come. There’s a bigger risk when it comes to video games, I’d say, as the game has to be both intriguing in story and entertaining in gameplay. Films only have to concentrate on the story part.
And that’s it. That’s my two points on why I think video games are better than films. I know, dear World, that I’ve probably aroused some sort of defense in some people’s hearts and minds, hoping to defend the honour of the film industry from my ill-founded opinions. Ah well, life’s just a game, right?
I thank ye, World.
Other Dear World Articles:
Drink & Drugs
Facebook’s NSPCC Campaign
X Factor And The Christmas Number One
PSN And Hackers
Eisteddfod Yr Urdd