Are games better than movies ?

they can be. but they take a lot of time

>>211403951 (OP)
Movie has to tell a story in 2 hrs or its "too long. Waaaaaah"
Game can take 100hrs to tell a story.
More if it wants.

A tv show can take all the time they let it.

Some movies are too short and im tired of acting like they aren't.

Some stories take time. Some characters take time.

>>211404022
The fact that it seems a game takes 5 years at minimum to make anymore is so insane to me as a 35 year old boomer.

>>211404119
whats so insane about it ?

>>211404105
>Movie has to tell a story in 2 hrs or its "too long. Waaaaaah"
No one's gonna sit in the theater for longer than 2 hours, bro. Most people aren't nerds.

some are

>>211403951 (OP)
One does one thing better, the other does it worse.
Videogames trying to be "artsy" or "themetically deep" is almost always offputting. Retarded, but still well made games are my favorites. There's exceptions to this but they are still good despite the efforts to be brainy rather than because of it. Fun and looking cool just simply matter way more than the developer's intent
With movies I tend to dislike schlock, even (and especially) the 2000s shlock this board is apologistic for. I like stupid movies, but they have to still be interesting stupid movies (I saw Repo Man recently and that is a good example of what I'm talking about).

I think they can be. Metro 2033 the game was better than the book, although I might only think that because I played the game first