The Great Dichotomy
Friedrich Kirshner has posted a thought-provoking write-up over at Free Pixel, based on his experiences at the recent Machinima Film Festival in Australia. Eddo Stern spent some time talking about “Outside In vs. Inside Out”, a concept I’ve dealt with before on this blog. It’s good for us to be talking about this. The issue is hard to discuss without volatility, as Friedrich hinted, but I’m gonna give it a try.
The dichotomy has been around since the very early days of game-based machinima; at the same time that Strange Company was doing Lovecraft, many were doing frag videos and “p1mp my clan” extravaganzas. So the phenomenon is nothing new. I am not extremely well versed on the early demoscene, but I’d venture to guess that a similar dichotomy - one between “tech demos” and “artistic pieces” - existed almost from its beginnings as well. And it wouldn’t surprise me if such distinctions couldn’t still be made today. (I’m speculating wildly here, but it seems plausible given what I have seen of it.)
I think what many expected is that Machinima, as a genre, would end up shedding the frag video skin and evolving to a more art-centered medium. Some feared it might be the other way around. The theory was that the two could not co-exist in the long term. Surely by now this would have happened, no?
But it hasn’t. In fact, Outside In and Inside Out are both thriving, and they do indeed exist in this weird kind of relationship which cannot precisely be termed “symbiotic” nor “antagonistic.” And it may indeed be time to examine if one word, one genre, is enough to adequately account for both Pierce Portocarrero and Edgeworks Entertainment. Or both Burnt Coffee and Myndflame. Works of quality, on either side of “the aisle,” but very different approaches each.
As Eddo alluded, the media has all but decided which of the two types gets the moniker “Machinima.” I can’t help but wonder if this is because Inside Out so dominates the number of films created that the Outside In stuff gets obscured during any casual glance at the genre as a whole (a thought which has worried many for years… the old “if we get them to look… what will they find?” question). Machinima.com has been tilting toward Inside Out for the past year; hungry for hits, it is only natural that they go where the people are. Halo and WoW, far and away the most popular machinima platforms, are mass production machines for Inside Out machinima by virtue of their difficult mod-ability and the huge fanbases of the games themselves. Even HTTG2 - an official academic look at machinima - is very much a sociological study of machinima as gamer expression - Inside Out.
Which makes it all the more interesting that last year’s stateside festival winners’ list was so heavily populated with Outside In machinima, if I understand the term correctly. And it may explain the pervasive post-festival silence in some circles, a feeling that the festival is not “in touch” with the overwhelming majority of what is called machinima.
It’s a tough subject, as pushing the issue of the dichotomy has as its logical endgame the displacement (orphaning?) of the Outside Inners. And what would machinima be, absent the Outside In influence? And where would they go?
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment... or, take it to the forum (click here)
I question whether there is any real value in distinguishing the two. What would anyone gain by doing so? Does it help when discussing machinima to separate these two categories and is further insight obtained? Or is this just another top down hierarchy about to be set in stone by the cultural gatekeepers?
Comment by bllius — March 19, 2007 @ 8:02 pm
bllius - If the difference is a contrived one, then there is no real value in discussing or or encouraging / discouraging it. But if it is a real phenomenon, what is to be gained by denying / ignoring its existence? And if I’m reading you right, I think that’s the very question you’re positing: is it real?
I suppose the same kind of question could be posed about music genres: are they real, or contrived? In that case, I’m inclined to say that, even though they are usually based on readily observable identifying traits, they are entirely contrived… but also have great utility for would-be “shoppers” of musical entertainment.
In any case, your same question would be relevant when it comes to music as well: does this use of genres help us understand music any better? Or does it, by the nature of its over-simplification, actually inhibit understanding?
Great thoughts, bllius, thank you.
Comment by Overman — March 19, 2007 @ 8:23 pm
Interesting subject. But I think another “Inside - out, outside - in” subject is very important and gives maybe different perspective. Your and Kirchner question is inside - out question, dichotomy that exist only among Machinima makers and Machinima community - whatever that is. People outside, viewers that have no clue what Machinima is, outside - in viewers, they dont notice or care about that difference. They watch Machinima movies and judge them with outside of Machinima criteria. For them, Machinima is just another tool or form, in best cases another genre. Of course, tool is never just a tool, but I am constantly teaching my self to care about this “outside - in” viewer more then “inside - in” viewer. Doing that, and noticing others doing that, I see better and better animated movies coming from some distant animated horizon. Are they Machinima based animations we will see only when they come very close, on very close look, but by then we will not care. I like this.
Comment by Awaken — March 20, 2007 @ 1:23 am
nice writing there overman. I think especially with regards to festivals and future technological developments, this question will gain importance. There were already lots of people that wondered why game companies would all of a sudden be pitched against independent filmmakers at the festival - now if there wouldn’t be any difference between the two approaches, we really would have a very different festival with the large gaming companies populating the awards with their cutscenes. That’s just one example. Another example is the fact that both LucasArts with their animation tool and EA (who also seem to be working on something with John Gaeta) as well as the “Avatar” project that James Cameron is working on all use the technology but wouldn’t necessarily call themselves machinima filmmakers.
I think it is necessary to discuss this difference in approach to realize how machinima is being perceived and to realise where its strengths and weaknesses are. You know, at some point it might make sense for a filmmaker to say he did a piece of animation instead of saying that it was machinima, simply because people will have a completely different set of expectations when watching his film then…
Comment by fiezi — March 20, 2007 @ 3:30 am
It may be real, but I suppose what I’m really getting at is whether it is useful or not? Perhaps we should ask Stern to discuss it since he started it? Awaken may be right in that it will have no meaning to those outside the community leaving only the makers and critics to throw these genre labels around.
About film festivals. Personally I think a better distinction would be between professional and amateur machinima (game makers and some guy sitting at his desk).
Comment by bllius — March 20, 2007 @ 8:38 pm
@bllius
So are you saying that you’d rather not be put on the same level as the “pros.” Is some guy sitting at his desk at any real disadvantage in the world of Machinima?
Well, I know what you’re saying, but I have to wonder what kind of festival would really be interested in showing crap slapped together by anyone, much less a guy sitting at his desk. If I were running a festival, I’d only want to show the best and most innovative within the limited time and budget I have to do so. The best judged without regard of the resources required to produce it.
Comment by Buddy_DoQ — March 21, 2007 @ 2:06 pm
Great post, Overman. I agree with a lot of what you’re saying here, and the questions you raise are ones that I’ve been asking myself recently too.
I have no objection to the presence of either type of machinima on the current scene. I can list examples from each category that I enjoy, and regularly show to people as an example of the kind of thing that machinima does well. As you’ve mentioned, journalistic coverage (at least from the non-technical, offline press) tends to swing towards one particular interpretation. That’s always been the case, just as they’ve never been able to understand why machinima doesn’t look like ‘Shrek’.
I only really start to get worried when I see one type begin to eclipse the other. Up until pretty recently, I was feeling increasingly disillusioned with the sheer number of bad Red vs Blue clones out there. At one point, there didn’t seem to be anything else being released. Thankfully, that’s changing for the better now. These things go in waves.
It’s not that I object to an RvB clone, if it’s done well, but so few of these pieces have decent cinematography, a genuinely funny script, or sound that wasn’t recorded on a $5 head mike over a 56k TeamSpeak server. I don’t know why the ratio of poor quality to high quality is so skewed for “inside-out” machinima, but that does seem to be the case.
I completely agree with Buddy_DoQ with regards to festivals (virtual or otherwise). Although the final arbitration for any festival will always be subjective, there has to be a way to judge a movie’s basic quality. If it doesn’t meet your established standards, don’t let it in.
I’d also like to add a general word of caution for those of us in the community who favour “outside-in”. Don’t be too quick to dismiss the efforts of new arrivals on the machinima scene as “inside-out” (and therefore less worthy of praise) just because they’re of a pretty poor quality. We were all newbies once. I can think of several machinima makers who’s first efforts I really didn’t care for, but who have gone on to produce some great stuff. I’m not meaning to be preachy or supercilious here, I’m just trying to avoid everyone being tarred with one of only two familiar brushes.
Thanks for the post, anyway. As usual, we can rely on Overman to provoke intelligent and interesting discussion within the community. What would we do without you?
Comment by Johnnie Ingram — March 21, 2007 @ 2:49 pm
Interesting post, and interesting comments.
1) It’s not a dichotomy so much as a spectrum, I’d say. Friedrich’s right out on the far edge of “Outside In” - you can’t even tell he’s using a game engine. BloodSpell is a bit further in than that - sure, it’s an original story, but we knew that NWN was based around extruded fantasy, and used that to make our production easier.
The Return is just a little further along the spectrum than that, tipping just past the mid-point: but honestly, the only difference in approach between BloodSpell and The Return is that Rufus Cubed set their story in an existing world. That’s not a huge deal for me.
Further along the spectrum still we’ve got our WoW Fair Trade video, which is definitely inside-out, but is concerned with more than just games. And finally, we’ve got things like Dementia Mindflame’s “Epic Flight Form” video, which makes no sense whatsoever to someone who doesn’t play WoW, nor is concerned with anything outside the WoW universe.
I think this is a more complex issue. And there are several elements of any piece to consider - its inception, sure, but also its production methodology, its use of the game’s aesthetic, and its use of game story elements. Edge of Remorse, say - outside-in from the story point of view, but very heavily influenced by and dependent on WoW’s visual aesthetic in many of its shots. Bill Et John - hugely composited and messed around with, but still essentially dealing with the subject matter of the game, and using a visual style that’s recognisable at least as being game-based. It’s a bit of a continuum.
Comment by Hugh "Nomad" Hancock — March 21, 2007 @ 2:57 pm
Excellent post, Overman, and an interesting discussion. I don’t have any particular insight into this topic, but I find the mix of ideas stimulating. Personally, I don’t use this distinction very much in thinking or criticizing machinima, but Eddo’s point (and Fiezi’s/Overman’s elaborations) are food for contemplation.
Comment by Ricky — March 21, 2007 @ 6:53 pm
So are you saying that you’d rather not be put on the same level as the “pros.†Is some guy sitting at his desk at any real disadvantage in the world of Machinima?
Actually, potentially yes. Unlike the real world where you can grab a script, a camera, some actors, and shoot a movie, a professional gaming company can have a significant technical advantage if they’re making the game that they are actually using to make machinima with (or in partnership with - when’s the last time you saw lip-syncing in WoW - when Southpark partnered with Blizzard).
I’m not saying that’s a bad thing, just bringing up two points: 1) this is another way you could slice and dice machinima, 2) it might skew (although this has not happened yet) festivals/contests towards more professionally produced films.
Comment by bllius — March 21, 2007 @ 8:13 pm
I don’t know, bllius, I’m totally tracking with you on your challenge as to the utility of IO / OI classification… but I disagree pretty strongly with the notion that the technical (i.e. budget) strengths of a professional gaming company should have any bearing on whether they are part of a festival measuring the best of the best. The premise of that exclusion would be to suppose that better budget or better technology is going to necessarily yield better machinima, and that premise is conclusively untrue.
Firstly, there is some top notch machinima made by professional teams, no question about it, but game companies are not making ALL of the best machinima - not by a long shot. Secondly, the low-cost and no-cost tools available (and forthcoming) make it possible for a savvy amateur to completely eliminate that technical advantage by matching it.
So really, the only genuine commodity that a pro budget provides that tends to be in extremely short supply for the amateur is TIME. And after seeing the Milk Scanner, I have every expectation that fiezi will be breaking the time travel barrier for us before too long anyway.
(There’s also the amateur advantage of complete creative control which trumps some of the pro advantages, mention of which didn’t seem to fit into the flow of above.)
Comment by overman — March 22, 2007 @ 12:01 pm
Yes, all true, just like Hollywood’s big budget summer blockbusters often don’t win best picture/director awards, although they do often win the technical achievememnt awards.
And you can never discount the most limited resource in the world, time!
But to throw this back at you, would you separate entries based on the outside-in inside-out dichotomy then?
And where is Stern’s comments? I blame him for all of this.
Comment by bllius — March 22, 2007 @ 10:03 pm
“Would you separate entries based on the outside-in inside-out dichotomy then?”
No, absolutely not, we’re in total agreement there, and I don’t think there’s any danger of a festival adopting that approach either. But I think what does remain to be seen is, the distinction (IO vs OI) being significant (in my opinion) - even if it’s on a continuum - can the two extremes cohabitate in the long term? Consensus in this comment thread appears to be that they can, and time will tell. Between the two poles, there is I think a fundamental difference of core values as far as approach to the material goes, and sometimes that can prove challenging for people to endure and the temptation exists for some kind of spin-off. Hypothetical example: Outside Inners deciding, “Hey, this isn’t us anymore, let’s call ourselves something else.”
I have a lot of inner conflict in pondering that hypothetical scenario. On the one hand, I think an exodus of this kind would be tragic for Machinima. On the other hand, I can’t point to anything flawed in the logic which would lead one in that direction. Other than the point Hugh brought up, which suggests that the dividing line would be very VERY difficult to draw.
Poor Eddo, lol. In fairness to him, he’s not the first to bring this up, just the most recent. And not everyone reads my blog. (Dammit!)
Comment by overman — March 23, 2007 @ 12:41 am
I think we will see more outside-in pieces starting to identify themselves as “film” or “animation” rather than “Machinima”. From a marketing standpoint, unless there’s a specific game-related hook to the film, it’s sometimes more beneficial to call yourself a universally-accepted term like “animation” rather than “Machinima” - as we found with BloodSpell.
However, I hope that said Machinima creators will still be involved in the community - I can’t see why they wouldn’t be. At the end of the day, if you’re, say, making a Machinima feature film, you’ll get more useful tips and feedback from Machinima creators than conventional 3D animators.
I think the deal here is that the IO/OI divison is entirely present at the viewing rather than the production end of Machinima. There’s little difference in the techniques used between Dementia Mindflame and Riot Films - but the marketing of the end result and the likely viewer profile is very different.
So you might see Jason, or Friedrich, or me playing down the “Machinima” aspect in press releases, but we’ll probably still be hanging around MPrem making nuisances of ourselves…
This actually kinda points to one wierd aspect of Machinima - that it’s a very distinct production technique that leaves no mark of its distinctness on the end product. A viewer can watch “Breen”, “Edge of Remorse”, and loads more films without having any idea how they’re made.
Comment by Hugh "Nomad" Hancock — March 23, 2007 @ 6:21 am
“I think the deal here is that the IO/OI divison is entirely present at the viewing rather than the production end of Machinima.”
And also at the very beginning, is it not? Some of the earliest production decisions, even writing decisions, are greatly influenced (and in some cases, entirely determined) by an IO vs. OI orientation.
But you’re right, that middle area, the meat and potatoes of production, has commonalities in all types of machinima. And it is generally in that production middle ground where our assistance to one another ends up being most helpful, and in general is what the makers’ community is built on and has been all along - sharing “how-to”, collaborating, writing articles and tutorials to improve learning curve for new filmmakers… This is an area where IO and OI have pooled interest.
Thank you all so much for some great discussion here!
Comment by overman — March 23, 2007 @ 9:04 am
I don’t think we need to blame Eddo for stating his personal opinion in a discussion amongst filmmakers (he is producing machinima, you know).
Machinima, to me, is a form of production and when i explain what i do i hardly use the term machinima, because people that see what i do are more confused than helped by the term.
“But where are the game characters?”
In my talks and screenings, i also most often don’t show the all-outside in works - like, for example Stolen Life - as i learned that people don’t see the machinima in them (did anyone actuyll notice that film? It’s amazing!).
The all-things-custom machinima approach seems strangely absent from community discussion lately - apart from the wonderful Machinima circus created in Motionbuilder.
Now i see a very very big difference in creating an animated film with your own characters and own way of animating things and your own textures and props - basically creating a world of your own - and borrowing all or most of these things from someone else - recontextualised and slightly modified or not.
Now I don’t say either one is better. But i see a very very clear difference.
While i don’t think that Machinima should scatter into gazillion little sub-subcultures, i feel that especially in regards to festivals and future development (something i personally don’t want to leave up to game companies) we need to discuss how to categorize things that are created in this field more specifically to prevent comparing apples to oranges.
As a sidenote, this comment thread would make an excellent starting point for a forum discussion on MPrem, complete with branching sub-discussions and whatnot. If Dxvid is following this, do you think there’s a way of getting this over to MPrem? Not that i want to steal traffic from overmans blog…
Comment by fiezi — March 23, 2007 @ 11:48 am
It’s an excellent suggestion. Let’s discontinue comments here and move things to this new thread on MPrem, where I’ve kicked things off with a response that would have been in this space.
http://www.mprem.com/e107/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?2062
Comment by Overman — March 23, 2007 @ 7:11 pm