Is this picture right Zig Forums?

Yes, a game wastes way more of the time you could have used to learn something useful
Movies are for smoothbrains
Books and music are for worthless maggots in the human fields
Gaming is for kids
Learn how to fix your houses zoomers

I don’t understand why books are considered deeper than film. A picture says more than a thousand words

Don't let games become films

I agree that games can be as deep as films and books, yeah. All three are just different formats of storytelling, each with their own advantages.
That being said the implication that films are somehow that much less "deep" than books is nonsense.
It's more challenging to add a lot of depth to one film than it is to add a lot of depth to one book, but that doesn't remotely mean its capacity for depth is lower. This image isn't much better than claims like "video games aren't art because it doesn't fit my personal definition of art" or shit like that.

this image is kind of a vague idea, but I will say watching a film is a very passive act while reading a book or playing a game needs a lot more of your engagement.

Kek what a fucking faggot

>a movie has more potential than a book
>a game has more potential than a movie
>books are better than movies, movies are better than games
well it surely shows that humans are pretty dumb

??
The word count in books is so much higher than film you can barely compare the two.

No it doesn't.

are you a fucking child?

that's really your defense there? a picture says more than a thousand words?
jesus fucking christ nigger

Attached: 1592757417145.jpg (400x363, 36.58K)

>It’s harder to add depth to film
Gonna be honest, I read a ton of books. And I don’t see THAT much subtext compared to fucking Pulp Fiction

Tip of the iceberg = a book/an original comic
Bottom of the iceberg = adapations in the form of video games/movies/TV shows
No one gave a single ounce of shit about Star Wars lore and it had no substance until Lucas made those 3 movies.

Nope, but this one is.

Attached: 1583232674121.png (1024x576, 521.96K)

It really does. Would you rather me tell you something or show it?

you gotta read sparknotes to find out the truth

Literature forms the base of any other medium, whether verbal or orally. The best writers are able to convey emotions, feelings, etc, with words and really engage you.

I don’t read sparknotes.
I read the book the whole way through. And to be perfectly honest, I found City of Thieves and 1984 to be less deep than fucking John Wick, of all things.

Because people who make images like this have never seen a movie that was actually worthwhile, they mostly just watch Marvel-tier crap.

That's exactly my point, Pulp Fiction is an extremely well-made movie- so it's easily capable of beating out most books in terms of depth.

Absolutely. Books can only get you so far. You can't replicate the emotions you feel by just staring at an interesting/detailed picture. Games can replicate that, but only the best of games.

The correct thing to say is games CAN be as deep as movies and books but only like 0.001% of them. What developer is going to waste millions on writers so talented they could be authors?

Attached: nge.png (1163x438, 1.19M)

Games have fucking terrible writing compared to books. The best storytelling in games comes from things like your actions, small readables, and the environments detailing the world you're in rather than the main plot itself.

That's cause you don't get what the book is about, at least if it's written by a superhuman like James Joyce or any of the brilliant meme authors on /lit/

Underage bait.

Yet the fact that they have to TELL you these things is just... Eh.
Would you rather I describe a pretty forest, or actually SHOW you a pretty forest and let you draw your own conclusions?
Middle school ruined reading for me

Name a single movie that was ever better than its book equivalent.

perhaps you should ask your teacher desu

Attached: 1592064398664.jpg (818x503, 163.13K)

Games can be as deep as books or movies, but they are different. Games are great because they give you a level of agency, a level of immersion into the action that books or movies can not.

Movies are great because they are an incredibly sensory medium, more so than games, and will convey the scenery and sensation of a story better than games or books.

Books are awesome because they give you a depth of character that movies or games can't. The level of understanding and empathy you get for a well written character can not be matched in games or movies.

With that said, there is no limit to how "deep" any of these mediums can go. A great game will be deeper than a lousy book, but a great book will be deeper than a lousy game. In the end it just boils down to what you enjoy: some people can taste 400 flavors in a good wine, other people can appreciate every undertone and hint in an opera. Some can see the mind of a painter in his works, and others can enjoy the fast paced development of a comic magazine. You like what you like.

Attached: faces-long-russian.png (594x443, 538.38K)

>watching a film is a very passive act
Watch better films, if you aren't pausing the film multiple times on your first viewing to think about the actions that have transpired and the meaning behind them then you are watching a movie or a flick at best.

Thoughts are the shadows of our feelings -- always darker, emptier and simpler.

Unpopular opinion but I think visual novels are the best form of storytelling. They have the perfect balance of images and narration to really pull you in.

>he gets his history from movies

Attached: 1593197091756.jpg (720x537, 39.45K)

The Godfather.

even the best games are below pulp tier books

I read 1984.
>Communism bad
>Humanity is an innately dominating and controlling species, regardless of how practical it is
>People don’t question what they’re told

that isn't an inherent limit of the medium though

No. Vidya is of the same depth as B-grade film and pop fiction.

based evaposter. All mediums have the potential for greatness and it is absurd to discount one just because of your pre-conceived notions.

The Thing.

Yu-Gi-Oh

lol

I read Animal Farm:
>pigs are abusive and that's why we make bacon of them

Each medium has its pros and cons which are really hard to define at the end of the day

Im a film major - let me tell you - the way people treat games now is the same way the movies were treated at the beggining of the century - tis nothing more than a parlor trick - like a ride in a carnival it will fall out of style - never it could replace books - oh how people were wrong back then

The videogames are still evolving as a medium and finding its optimum

All mediums are good for imagination, books maybe the most because so much is left up to the reader to imagine.
So every medium has its costs and benefits
But in art you could never say that lets say photography is higher art than painting - because artists are not stupid and know that there is no need for such conjecture - because every medium, from origami to fucking post modern nu dadaist art - one of the jobs of all of this mediums is to make you feel something - even anger or disappointment - because the ultimate job of art is to help humanity evolve and promote critical thinking - just like dreams are used as training while you sleep art is also a training in a sense - a training of thinking, feeling and sensing

Best post in this thread so far, well done.

Stfu parasite

Fuck yeah

The shining
Children of men
2001
Blade runner
Apocalypse now
Ran

It CAN be.
But I am glad as fuck that it isn't, at least in 100% of videoGAMES.

Honestly, people only say Books are deep because they feel obligated to do so.
Same with Chess.
People do this because they see braindead films like the Transformer films and Capeshit films, then compare them to actually good books.
They just forget about or pretend something like Harry Potter and Twilight started as novels and you can cherry pick as many bad books to compare them to good films.
Same with Video Games as well.

can the Trump Presidency be considered art?

What exactly is the picture asking? If it's
>Do typical video games combine the depths of cinema and literature?
Then the answer is bahahah holy fucking shit what is wrong with you
If it's something else, like
>Has any video game ever achieved this?
>Could any video game ever achieve this?
>Do you expect to see a video game achieve this in your lifetime?
Then my thoughts are more conflicted. I've played some very powerful video games that couldn't work in any other medium, and it feels like we're only scratching the surface of what's possible.
We still have a lot of growing up to do first. Right now, anything slightly challenging or unusual like TLOU2 is enough to make us throw a collective shitfit and send out copious death threats.

I assume by Ran you mean King Lear, and I'm torn on that one. Ran is one of my favorite movies of all time but KL is one of my favorite plays and has some of the best writing that Shakespeare ever did.
>How sharper than a serpent's tooth is it to have a thankless child.
That's one of the only lines of Shakespeare that I can quote but it's so great. It's hard to choose between them.

Attached: Ran Castle Seige.jpg (1568x849, 167.63K)

thats stupid

No.
Gaming is capable of something neither books or film are, providing a direct experience of an event. Unfortunately, the developers who WANT to try to go further with games, take cues from film rather than literature. As such, we get Summer Blockbuster Shlock as our "high" works.

the road
forrest gump
the terror (show)

Disregarding the 9gag watermark, I think this can be true to a certain extent. If we view the way one consumes media in dimensions then we have books, a purely visual medium (1 dimensional) then we have film, an audiovidual medium (2 dimensions) and then we have video games, an interactive audiovisual medium (3 dimensions). Video games are something that can elevate an entertainment experience to the next level by allowing the one being entertained to vicariously live through the player's representation in the game world, directly influencing their every move like you would your own. I think video games are also very good at tickling the imagination. Look at Goldeneye for example. A single background island spawned years of speculation and rumor as to its purpose and how to get there just by existing. Same could be said for just about any video game. They're deep experiences, but not in the same way as film or books. Video games are deeper than both because you actually need to try to experience them. Anyone can be good at watching films or reading books because staying still and paying attention is all that's really required. With a video game the player has to dictate what happens when. It's a far deeper experience because it's consumed 3 dimensionally.

Films are deeper than books. Books are basically film scripts.