The new Quantum of Solace trailer, plus Junot Diaz on GTA IV as art, and the NY Times on MGS 4 being as much movie as game.

Despite its questionable title, the next James Bond film, Quantum of Solace, now has a trailer at their official site.

It’s fair to say the last Bond movie was the best installment in the last decade or two, taking the series to a tougher, more emotionally mature level while retaining the mystique of the classic secret agent. The sequel breaks further ground by finally acknowledging the existence of a prior Bond story, and specifically a past love interest, instead of getting to start over each time with another guaranteed victory and a fresh vixen to celebrate with. Going from a narrative vacuum to actual continuity could help create the tension that some of the cartoonier installments of the past have lacked, or it could become too much weight for the series to bear. What’s better, a grittier, more real Bond, or a Bond that sticks to the classic formula? Either way, it’s an exciting new era for 007. We’ll find out November 7th.

……….

This week also brought out some serious game criticism from a few unlikely sources.

First, from the winner of the Pulitzer Prize for his novel The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao, of all people — Junot Diaz takes on Grand Theft Auto IV. And in the Wall Street Journal of all places.

His criticism revolves around the argument that the game is not art the way Scarface or The Godfather are art, or at least ‘high art’. He makes a strong case and calls for a game that does more to expose the human condition in order to earn its place among great works of art.

Successful art tears away the veil and allows you to see the world with lapidary clarity; successful art pulls you apart and puts you back together again, often against your will, and in the process reminds you in a visceral way of your limitations, your vulnerabilities, makes you in effect more human. Does GTA IV do that? Not for me it doesn’t, and heck, I love this damn game.

Also paying extra attention to the game’s failure to live up to great examples of the immigrant story — as is his book, though he doesn’t compare the two directly.

Though it’s hard to counter his points, the article begs the question: Is Grand Theft Auto trying to be The Godfather in the first place? Or is any game? When Michael confronts Fredo over his betrayal, it’s one of the most famously moving scenes in film history, and in the aftermath we see how power led Michael to betray his humanity. It’s potent storytelling.

But when watching a movie, you’re never faced with a choice between pulling the trigger on a heroin-addicted criminal or his crooked cop brother, both of whom you’ve performed contract killings for in the preceding days. Though the game moment doesn’t offer the ‘lapidary clarity’ of the film, it may do the opposite by raising ambiguities we couldn’t imagine facing otherwise. Is that not a form of art in its own right?

……….

Continuing the game vs. film debate, the New York Times’ Seth Schiesel calls out Metal Gear Solid 4 as more of an interactive movie than a video game.

Oddly enough, he still praises it for having sequences better than a lot of action movies, despite lacking the level of interaction that would make it truly great as a game.

This comparison is a little more fair. Speaking in terms of visceral action instead of dramatic narrative, games are definitely in a position to match or even outdo their film counterparts. However, taking control away from the player neglects a game’s biggest advantage in that race. So if MGS4’s purely non-interactive sections can hold up against a film of equal merit, they’re further painting in the grey area between the two and expanding the bounds of what a game can be. That alone seems like a job well done, even if 30 minute cut scenes aren’t your cup of tea.