Oh, and I forgot to say:

The reason film was held back by theater was that they both relied heavily on acting (outside of experimental film), but gaming doesn't rely heavily on anything film has to offer. So while Griffith was held back by his theater roots, I see no reason for people to think cinematic games are the wave of the future. Kojima didn't have roots in cinema and simply chose to make cinematic games. If they end up more cinema than game, that's his own fault and not a result of the young medium growing up and distancing itself from its relatives.

Those are some interesting ideas, Ghost, especially this part:

"I think Pajitnov, Miyamoto, and Wright have each developed a language of gaming that doesn't rely on film or even storytelling at all, and they are all different languages, one of fast-paced puzzle solving, one of character movement, and one of world-creating. I think these are all very valid and very important to gaming, and I'd say they're all more important than storytelling in games whatsoever."

I think you bring up great examples that truly showcase what the videogames are capable of as a medium. However, it seems you think storytelling and gaming don't mix. You seem to be leaning in the direction that gaming shouldn't be borrowing from cinema. The problem is that I think you're leaving out a huge segment of what videogames are. It has become such a diverse medium that has so many more "languages" than that. However, some manifestations of gaming are less mature than others.

One of the advantages Sim City had in its development was that there really wasn't a model in another medium Wright could look to in order to borrow from. Therefore, Wright wasn't shackled to that hypothetical medium. Kojima, on the other hand, was trying to create a game that tells a story. What better model is there to look to than film? That's the medium that most would agree is one of the best for telling stories. So Kojima (and all other game designers in his vane) are all heavily influenced and therefore shackled to cinema just as Griffith was shackled to theater. That's what the Brainy Gamer is getting at. It's not that storytelling is not a part of the "language" of gaming. Kojima's Metal Gear games have ensured that story and games will forever be intertwined. It's just that story-telling in games is an immature mechanic (or "language") that hasn't quite broken free from cinema because of that medium's high degree of influence. 

Read his next blog if you want to get some perspective on how diverse gaming actually is. It's not anything we shouldn't already know, but the way he writes it it's still so eye-opening.

http://www.brainygamer.com/the_brainy_gamer/2008/06/its-a-good-day.html

Oh I'm not saying that games and storytelling don't mix. I'm just saying they don't have to. When games use narrative to push you along, I think it can be done right, and I think that's easier when you keep it short or in-game. I'm even fine with big cutscenes at the ends of chapters, kind of like a big prize, getting to see the enemy base explode or whatever, but I think they shouldn't constantly happen in the middle of the action, interrupting the gameplay rather than moving it forward, which seems to be the common complaint with MGS4.

I read that other blog. I love the way this guy writes.

Oh, and have you played Hotel Dusk for the DS? That game is 95% storytelling, and 5% gameplay. And it's not cinematic at all. In fact, I wouldn't call anything in that game a cutscene. It's almost entirely text. It's inspired by noir novels. And I think that game was amazing, at least the first time through. Definitely no replay value at all. So cinema isn't the only branch of storytelling that's inspiring narrative games.

I think the next big jump is gonna be games with "cinematic gameplay" that is somehow both at once, rather than today's often jarring back-and-forth. I'm not sure how it will work yet, but it's not my job to find out. Damn I wish it was...

CoD4 had cinematic gameplay, and I'd argue MGS4 does as well.

Also, I agree games don't have to have storytelling, but some do, and MGS4 is great.

The fact that you cite Trip to the Moon in relation to the work of Griffith suggest that you don't really appreciate Griffith's significance to the evolution of film grammar. Griffith's film are hardly acclaimed for their "highly gestural theater acting", and neither are those of Melies. Melies contribution to the medium is in the field of trick photography and pioneering f/x work, while Griffith's contribution is in firmly establishing the grammar of the shot, pioneering techniques that gave purpose and meaning to the unique aspects of filmic construction. He may not have been the first to employ all of the techniques that he used, but he was the first to standardise them as part of a coherent system.

Also, your summation that videogames do not have to rely on film the way film relied on theatre completely ignores the fact that all (temporal) forms of artistic expression tend towards narrative, and that there are universal techniques involved in storytelling that can be applied to any medium. It is also worth pointing out that Griffith's work owes as much of a debt to other artforms as it does to theatre; in particular, his magnum opus, Intolerance, is as indebted to musical fugue as MGS is to cinema. Given that Intolerance is widely regarded as the pinnacle of cinematic achievement of the time, it is clear that Griffith was not hamstrung by his deference to other media. Neither is Kojima.

I also have to question some of your gaming examples. I can understand why you would cite SimCity, as it was a groundbreaking and original game (don't mention Utopia) that introduced numerous gameplay elements that would become genre standards, and Will Wright deserves his place as one of the few genuine legends of game design, but Tetris and Super Mario Bros? I'm as big a fan of Tetris as the next man, but neither it nor SMB originated any gameplay mechanics that could rightfully be considered to have advanced videogames as a medium (Pacman would probably have been a better example as it innovated numerous techniques that are still standards in modern gaming). Did you really mean to say that SMB developed a language of "character movement"!?! Or that Tetris developed a language of "fast-paced puzzle solving"!?! It doesn't even involve any puzzle solving!!! In any case, none of these games introduced or ossified anything even approximating a universal standard of game design (as The Birth of a Nation had done for film). In fact, I am not sure that such a thing will ever exist. There is certainly nothing at present that could be considered a gaming "language". That is one of the many reasons gaming is still so far away from being taken seriously as a legitimate form of artistic expression.

@ SlorgNet
Top marks. Go to the top of the class.

OT: Excellent article and interesting blog. On the article, it is perhaps worth noting that Gance, Lubitsch and Eisenstein all came from a theatrical tradition and were heavily influenced by the work of Griffith. That said, I can't really fault the author's arguments. I also urge people to read his previous article about comparing MGS4 (or any other game) to Citizen Kane. It sums up my feelings on the matter perfectly.

Good read, i agree with almost everything.

Hideo is indeed a perfectionist. It astounded me that he was not satisfied with

the graphics in MGS4.

... Now i feel kinda embaressed that my post is not nearly as long as all the

other posts, and have to Make it double spaced to make it seem long.

oh

well.

If I wanted to see a movie I would just Pop an HDDVD in my 360 elite once I fix the RROD. Ya we want GAMES! We Want to PLAY ok? I feel like they should give me a 50 cent discount for every cutscene they make me watch.