Games, films.

Videogames and films are probably compared more than any other artistic mediums. Sure, there are perhaps analogues in dance from music, or in literature and paintings. Yet, in these mediums, one rarely sees the type of cross-pollination that occurs between videogames and films.

The most obvious examples can be found in the preponderance of games based on films (movie tie-ins) and films based on games, which seems to be happening quite a bit more frequently now. These obvious examples are almost always derided, and on the surface, it's hard to see why. I mean, the basics for a critical celebration, at least in videogames, seem to be there – huge budgets (generally), great graphics, etc. The reality is that movie tie-ins are almost always rushed to completion – that's the nature of getting them out on the release date of the film.

But from a more artistic standpoint, the reason why these games fail is because movies should have the ability to convey far more than simply action scenes, the parts of the film that generally make it into the game as playable bits. You know, even as shitty as the last Transformers movie was, people hated the game even more, because all you got to do was participate in its absolutely atrocious action scenes. There's no attempt to integrate the non-action bits into playable form.

The argument that I made in my Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles: The Crystal Bearers review was that a major problem in Final Fantasy games up to this point is that they're barely interactive – you could be watching a film of the same thing. What to make of cutscenes, then? Are they a legitimate storytelling form in videogames? This is something that we debated at length in our most recent podcast which you should check out for the full debate. In my estimation, a good cutscene isn't as good as good gameplay. A great cutscene can make you forget that for a little bit, but the meat of a game should be found in its gameplay.

Games with a bevy of cutscenes sort of occupy a strange place in terms of what medium to classify them as. It's as if you went to the movie theatre and they hand you a controller. You sit and watch the movie for long stretches at a time, but then you have to take over whenever there's "action." This is an almost unavoidable syndrome of games, though, so are the cutscenes now a part of the videogame experience?

Nintendo offers some of the few "pure" videogame experiences around, but make no mistake: they fall victim to this as well. For every Metroid Prime or Super Mario Galaxy, where the videogame experience is what moulds its narrative, there's a Zelda or the upcoming Metroid Other M. These are also supremely satisfying game experiences, so it's hard to find fault with them.

Of more concern to me, as it seems to be somewhat ruining a large chunk of the filmgoing experience, is the influence of videogames on film. Using Transformers again as an example (or perhaps the more recent Avatar), what I'm finding is that movies are exhibiting signs of using the same rhythm of "cutscene" followed by "action" followed by "boss battle" (a quite literal boss battle in the case of Avatar). It's hard to say who copped what from whom, but what you're getting at a movie like this is the same amount of CGI, the same amount of inane dialogue, but without the added bonus of being able to have fun and have some element of control over the action bits.

While there have been videogame to movie adaptations before (like the godawful Mortal Kombat movies or anything by Uwe Boll), there now appears to be concerted efforts to make huge blockbuster films out of… huge blockbuster videogames. From the recently-scrapped Halo movie from District 9 director Neill Blomkamp, to what appears to be the apotheisis of the ludicrousness of videogaming in film form, The Prince of Persia. The lines are being blurred between the two forms.

I personally believe that the opposite needs to happen. We need videogames to stand on their own before they become subsumed by their "big brother" in film. Film has the added benefit of having gone through its growing phase – the silent films to the talkies, from three-hour epics to svelte 1 hour 45 minute Oscar contenders. It seems frustrating on first glance that videogames aren't there yet. But from a narrative and technological standpoint, videogames are advancing at a much more rapid pace than films; yet that same emotional and narrative maturity isn't quite present. I have the feeling that videogames are co-opting elements of film as a crutch, as a way of forwarding the medium without having first developed its own critical lexicon.

That's why a game like Heavy Rain gives me pause. It's supposed to be the "great hope" of videogaming, yet David Cage (the head of Quantic Dream, the development studio) has no qualms about calling it an "interactive film." This isn't the way to forward your medium. I think we just all need to be a little more patient. Games will develop, just like film developed – slowly, and not without growing pains.