Should We Enter The Era Of The Game Noir?
Steve Gaynor's Fullbright blog has some of the most interesting essays on gaming I've seen recently, and the F.E.A.R. expansion level designer's latest post is simply called 'Noir', and compares a stage in the history of movies to a stage he feels games should be reaching... around now.
He particularly notes - and this is the central point of his thesis - that film noir worked because it ended up "...focusing on flawed, unpredictable characters living out street-level conflicts between individuals in the mundane, modern-day urban world." His suggestion, then: "The noir approach promises games wherein the player isn't saving the kingdom, world or galaxy; wherein the ubermensch doesn't mow down a thousand men; wherein we can experience familiar settings in a new way, and infuse the everyday with the extraordinary."
Continuing: "Games that take film noir as a cue shouldn't emulate the surface-- trench coats, cigarettes, femme fatales and old LA. Games should emulate the structural and emotional underpinnings that made noir work as an experience. We can do this with readily-available, inexpensive tech; we can leverage older 3D engines and simpler lighting & shader models in the same way noir filmmakers used location shooting and expressionistic cinematography."
He concludes, triumphantly: "We already have our Gone with the Winds and Wizards of Oz, and a dozen Busby Berkley spectaculars to fill in the gaps; we need our Asphalt Jungles, our Kiss Me Deadlies, our Gun Crazies and Double Indemnities and Out of the Pasts. We've proven we can do big. Noir shows us how to take the small road, explore its every twist and turn, and connect with our audience in new ways." Yum.
[Oh, and then Gaynor caps it all in the next blog post by analyzing Kane & Lynch, suggesting the controversial, nasty, arguably morally bankrupt title might be just that noir game he's yearning for. That's set the cat among the pigeons, huh?]









Comments
i found myself starting to write a comment on his blog but i aborted it -- because kane and lynch just has a stink of unpalatability to me. looking at the characters, reading synopses, reading/watching jeff G's edited/pulled reviews on it confirmed my worst suspicions: loathesome characters. is that really a great advancement? we go from marcus fenix to actual psychopaths?
i guess what i'm saying is: maybe there's more to this game than i surmised, and if so, great. but if we're going to leap from power armored supermen to loathesome antiheroes, is the leap even worth making in the first place? i'd rather take something naive and stupid almost.
but i am making a lot of assumptions about what i'd think about K&L. and i know i sure as hell won't be playing it, so i guess i have to leave off there.
Posted by: ferricide | December 10, 2007 2:45 PM
"flawed, unpredictable characters living out street-level conflicts between individuals in the mundane, modern-day urban world"
This is basically a description of Counter-Strike. (though not on the Iceworld maps)
Posted by: Capt_Poco | December 10, 2007 8:58 PM
If you're basing your views of Kane & Lynch on Gerstmann's review and the sensationalist digg-fawning backlash then of course you're going to look at it negatively. That it confirms your worst suspicions seems to me like you'd already made up your mind.
But Gerstmann's review was tripe, inept and so utterly subjective that no reader/viewer could glean anything of value. He is the only reviewer I've seen complaining over the Fword, the only reviewer who has dismissed the characterisation in the game. Does that mean Edge, GamesTM et al. are paid off by Eidos?
Posted by: hahnchen | December 11, 2007 4:25 AM