Video Games: The Movie (2014) Reviews

• A 2-hour long commercial for the video game industry

  mecandes2014-07-23

  Calling this "The Movie" is a little ostentatious; it's actually a TV- style documentary — and I have to say I was quite disappointed. In short, it felt like a 2-hour long commercial for the video game industry. Funded through Kickstarter and making close to double what it was asking, their pitch claimed this would be "the first ever in depth feature length documentary about the video game industry & the culture it's created," a claim which is demonstrably false... but one of the reasons they said they should be backed is because they would "tell the whole story... not just part of it." In this regard, the finished documentary completely fails. It's not hard to see why they needed to use Kickstarter to drum up funding; better and more professionally made feature length documentaries already exist, and this one apes most of their style while adding little to the subject. One of the tricks that "Video Games: The Movie" has up its sleeves is this: it's constantly tickling your nostalgia bone through frequent fast montages of video games of yore. You'll see an obscure game you forgot you loved and think "Wow! I remember that one!" It's like the book "Ready Player One" in that regard; by merely mentioning something nostalgic, it's able to somewhat piggy-back on the feelings that memory brings... rather than inspire feelings on its own merits. These documentaries always need talking heads, and what puts this one straight into the lower level of "television documentary" is the inability to give voice to actual industry veterans and people of importance to the gaming industry. These lesser documentaries always seem to fall back on using famous (or more attractive) people more than they use people of actual import to the topic, and that's definitely the case here. Wil Wheaton, Alison Haislip, Chris Hardwick, Chloe Dykstra... these are all fine entertainers to be sure, but you'll find little or no relationship with the games industry in any of their Wikipedia articles. Now, having famous actors talk about the influence of video games on their lives is fine — more interesting than any Joe Blow off the street, I'm sure — but these people are given way too much screen time, far more than the actual people from the industry. Much more valuable is hearing what Nolan Bushnell, Ed Fries, David Crane, Hideo Jokima, and the likes have to say about the industry. They're there, but edited down to small sound bites. And correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not sure they actually included interviews with ANY women at all who actually work(ed) in the games industry? Early on, they inform you that 47% of gamers are women, but ironically the documentary then itself immediately pushes women aside... leaving the representation of women confined to the couple of talking- head actresses and visuals of all of the deplorable imagery of the tropes Anita Sarkeesian has been pointing out. (I daresay you'll learn more eye-opening facts about video game history from Anita's Kickstarter project than this one...) Where are Amy Hennig, Jade Raymond, Robin Hunicke, Jane McGonigal, Kim Swift, Rhianna Pratchett, and all the rest...? So much for telling "the whole story." Another major problem with this documentary is that it clearly comes from the angle that home video game consoles are the only really important story in the history of video games. It skips pretty quickly over arcade games, and with the exception of mentioning Doom, it completely ignores the home computer revolution that changed video games in huge ways. Apple II, Commodore 64, Atari ST, Amiga... IBM PCs and the advent of dedicated 3D video cards... none of this gets so much as a mention... and yet arguably the biggest game of modern times, World of Warcraft, owes everything to the Ultima series that began on home computers, the risks Richard Garriott took with Ultima Online, and the development of PC gaming technology. Again, so much for telling "the whole story." Other mishaps had the effect of pulling me out of the narrative; just a couple of examples: while someone speaks about the influence of the Atari 2600 version of Space Invaders, they show footage of the arcade version instead (there's a big difference). When the PS3 is introduced, it's done with the iconic music of the Halo franchise playing in the background — which was exclusive to Xbox. These inconsistencies happen throughout. On a positive note, I have to say, one of the best things they did with their Kickstarter money was invest in the creation of an animated visual time-line. It becomes absolutely essential to the documentary, because the narrative ends up meandering all over the place. Prepare to watch the time-line fly forward, and then backward, and then forward, and then backward, making it possible to understand where you are in the disjointed story. All that said, you're not going to watch this documentary and hate it... it's enjoyable enough... but you won't really learn anything, and you won't remember it for long. Alas, this is yet another example of a Kickstarter project that greatly overstated what it would ultimately deliver. Unfortunately, the world really could still use the documentary that they originally pitched to backers. Hopefully one day we'll get one. In the mean time, if you're looking for more than what "Video Games: The Movie" has to offer, see if you can find "Video Game Invasion: A History of a Global Obsession" from 2004, or the Discovery Channel's 5-part "Rise of the Video Game" documentary series from 2007. Neither are perfect — the later seems a bit obsessed with a connection between video games and war, for example — but both have more to offer, I think.

  More

• Quite the disappointment.

  Ryan_MYeah2014-12-09

  On the one hand, I love the film's concepts fine. Video games are an incredible medium (one that outshines even cinema) with such fascinating history behind them, and the evolution of the gaming business and community on screen is quite wonderful. It says something about what a great artform it is that it brings so many people from different walks of life together, and even goes so far as to create lasting friendships and marriages. We may not realize, but sometimes, those seemingly insignificant connections we have create all the difference in the world. However, that's the extant of the film's great qualities, and the overall film is not as interesting, or too engaging to the uninitiated. The film is built firmly on nostalgia and fond recognizability, especially during frequent and awkward montages, and something like that can't sustain an entire film. It wants to show us a comprehensive history of video gaming culture, but suffers from disjointed time jumps, and the fact that the film constantly throws interesting facts at us, yet seldom does it ever expand on them. It practically rushes through the crash of 1983 in maybe three minutes, and glosses over evolutions like the early rise of third-party developers and the indie gaming scene (Although, Indie Game: The Movie provides a much more expansive detailing of that very subject). There's so much potential in this film that it sadly never realizes. I realize there has to be a point where you have to make tough choices of what to show, but it really does just fall into an "Aren't video games great" showcase. If you're looking for a nostalgic kickback, you should enjoy yourself fine, but if you want a much more comprehensive rundown of video gaming history, you'd be better suited reading various books, or watching Machinima's "All Your History Are Belong To Us" series of YouTube videos.

  More

• Terrible and extremely bias.

  rickqsanchez2014-10-29

  They utilize a timeline to go through the history of gaming but quite literally skip over consoles/years that weren't Sony or Nintendo. For someone who is passionate about gaming and grew up during this timeline, it is really disheartening to know this is the documentary we as gamers are given. Once they skipped over Dreamcast I was tempted to turn it off but i trudged through it. Dreamcast was revolutionary in it's own way. The online gaming, web browser and VMU were pioneering future gaming. But that's never mentioned. Then they skipped over XBOX to go through a PS3 montage that showed Gears of War. It's incredible how poorly educated the creators of this documentary were. The entire documentary is snippets of interviews and montages. You can find better production on Youtube videos. Honestly, do yourself a favor and skip over this.

  More

• Boring and disjointed

  mantanz2014-08-14

  If you knew nothing about video games before watching this, particularly the history of gaming, you'd arguably come out the end of this "movie" knowing even less. The film goes into stuff like the politics around gaming, the social aspects, how stories now make up a big part of the gaming experience... basically all stuff you already knew because it was completely obvious, or didn't want to know, because it's too boring. There is no in-depth information on any of the systems at all. It started out withe a brief history of the 2600 but pretty much every other machine is ignored, as are the games. The Sega Genesis was mentioned once and every one of their other consoles were completely left out. Hell, even Sonic the Hedgehog was completely absent! I was expecting an in depth history of gaming, not a bunch of AAA execs sitting around talking about how the industry has changed and celebrities talking about what gaming means to them. On top of that, when games were mentioned, they never showed the bloody things and the endless montages were totally useless, as again, you didn't know what games you were looking at bar ones you're already familiar with. It had promise. They had a really cool 3D time line... if only they'd used it better and gone in depth into the different systems, key games, designers. There was no mention of the "console wars". As I mentioned earlier, Sega was completely left out of the film, as were Commodore, in fact, home computers were completely ignored, bar PC gamers with a few nods to Doom and WoW. How can they completely leave out the era of bedroom coders? Where was the info on how Atari died with the Jaguar? Where were the early CD-based consoles? WHERE WERE THE GAMES?!?!?! I am a gamer and a game developer and I feel completely let down by this "documentary".

  More

• Shallow review with gaping holes

  jsijpkes2015-03-29

  I have to agree with some of the other reviewer, the whole documentary is very much biased towards the view of certain industry leaders. So starting with Pong somehow appeals to all, but from there, there are really gaping holes in the story, using a flashy timeline or not. Would have expected that the gaming started with text based games like Startrek or Zork. None of that. Early network games like Snipe. ? Role and development of AI and how it affects the games. Why do the ghosts in pacman move the way they do? It only mentions some detail about graphics, which are important, but game-play and AI being much more important to get just that brittle mix of defeat and victory that makes games addictive. What about the rise and fall of the home computers? Commodore 64 / ZX Spectrum / Acorn. Dare I say Amiga which at the time was ahead of all consoles. Also, their influence on the game industry. I think that most of the current game designers spent their youth with one of those. PC gaming: Leisure Suite Larry / and Kings/Police Quest, Tetris, Rayman, Prince of Persia and so on. All in all I found it to be disappointing and a waste of time. Kept viewing till the end in the hope that it would somehow get better... it didn't. Not sure for which audience it was made. It's omissions are too obvious and irritating for old-skool gamers like me, and people who know nothing about video-games ( aliens?) are presented with very incomplete and biased story.

  More