TV, films and games, and their influence on SFF writing

[HareBrain]

Game storylines shouldn't be judged independent of gameplay, I think. The reason the stories seem deep and immersive (when they do) is because the player is deeply immersed through hours and hours of being active within the game-world. Even the best game storylines would look mediocre if ripped out of the game. As a case in point, the much-lauded The Last of Us. I haven't played it, but I have watched a "movie" version someone made from cut-scenes and some of the action. (Dear God, why was I ever allowed the internet?) I could see the story would have been very involving if I'd sunk myself in its world for forty hours, but as a passive viewing experience, it was just about OK. (Which actually makes it a triumph by comparison.)

 

[Warren_Paul]

What I find sad is the mindset that all videogames are for kids. That isn't even remotely true and infact, most serious gamers are adults. Sure, there are games for kids, but there are also plenty targeted at older audiences.

When it comes to stories in games, there are games that are made for the action and gameplay, like the strategy games already mentioned in this thread, and then there are games that are made for the story. The Last of Us does have a good story, but there are also games out there that have even better ones. Final Fantasy X and Grandia II for instance had phenomenal stories that I personally enjoyed just as much as any novel I've read, if not more so.

HareBrain is right though about the gameplay content adding to the story. It immerses us in the world. It's the games version of book narrative that describes what the character sees, it's part of the world building. The only difference with games is that we have to go looking for that description ourselves where books the reader gets given it.

There is also plenty of story content that isn't part of game cutscenes. Many RPGs have books stashed around the world which the player can read at will. In those books are history tales and narratives about the world. Once again, in a book you'd be given all that in the character's narrative at an appropriate time where in the game you have to search it out yourself, but when you do, it can often be quite rewarding.

Anyway, getting back to the original point of the topic. It has become my belief that younger reader expectations if anything are what's being influenced by visual media. We can see it in the fact that the leisurely scenes which take a stroll around the world, giving us nice vivid description and beautiful world building, that used to be popular back in the day, now appear to be discouraged because many readers want us to get right to the point. They want action first, description later, if at all. Open with a whiz bang fast pace, like they do in the movies.

It seems to me that modern visual media has made new generations of readers impatient.

 

[tinkerdan]

I think we make too much of the influence of TV and Movies on novels while failing to acknowledge the influence of the written word on all medium.

Some of the best movies are plays that were taken to the movie and the better ones were those that would have worked on the stage as well as in film-sans the special effects. One of my favorites is The Front Page(Play) and particularly His Girl Friday(movie). It largely worked as dialogue and timing of delivery and it was thoroughly entertaining. It didn't need to be a film to work.

Yes somewhere down the line the films broke away from that; and they never had as much luck bringing the written word novels to the screen which might indicate the difference that plays take in being closer to script. Yet I have read a few people who have experience largely out of theater who have written novels and there are some of those who have done quite well. I'll grant that few if any are writing SFF but the point is that there have always been influence and cross influences throughout and when trying to discuss writing that looks like movies you need to step back and look at what parts of the film industry were largely influence by writing and then try once more to step back in and separate out which part is clearly film and which part might be epic fiction that you recognize as film because that's what you are more familiar with.

I once read a novel that was made from a movie script (a movie that had not yet been released). It was well written and I enjoyed and and throughout it I was saying this is going to be a great movie. It was: it was a blockbuster.

I think there is a place for this type of writing and discouraging it should be tempered with the understanding that it isn't working. If I had read that book and not felt that movie was going to be any good and it turned out (as it did) that it was faithful to the movie then I would have to agree that that would be bad.

I think the only influence of either TV or Movies that might be considered bad would be where the person writing doesn't notice that there are elements necessary to the story that don't show up in the cinematic effects they are describing. In essence if they are describing what the camera is seeing and how it pans across the vast battlefield or whatever and they miss facial expressions and other important cues that have been occasionally zoomed into to grab the viewer's emotions there might be a need for some guidance. But using those same effects and putting good writing into the mix has worked in novels I've read. Even if you get the sense that it's like a film; you don't get the sense that the author was only trying to make it like a film.(Or accidentally making it like a film.)

Beyond all of that media cross influencing each other doesn't have to be a bad thing and just like anything else in writing the author just has to find the right way to do it. And they also need to be able to recognize when it's not working. Much the same as when it might have helped film makers to understand what it was about their rendition of a novel that wasn't quite making the correct impact in the film.