Video Games' Own Prison

[Rolaoi]

This has been something I've wanted to talk about for a while, but I always end up not making the thread because I don't know how to present what I want to say. I would like to talk about how video games, and any attempt to make the medium an artistic one, is hampered by our own perceptions of what makes a video game. Frankly, it's horribly narrow. A lot of this has to do with the nature of the industry being geared towards entertainment, but also in its history.

When Thomas Goldsmith first messed around with radars, he was doing it for fun. And not much has really changed. We've added stories and cinematic elements, but the medium is ultimately still chained to that idea of it being that it should be a game first. This is a little like saying that a book isn't a book unless it's a choose-your-own-adventure, or that every book has to have pictures to color in. It's absurd, and easy to see how it might hamper the medium. For games, that problem exists.

I think we need to change this and broaden the ideas of what makes a game a game in order for the medium to truly advance. The only thing which really sets games apart is that element of interaction, and it's been rather neglected. The degree of expertise in execution has steadily advanced, but the disregard shown to the essence of the medium has resulted in a very shallow growth.

There's no maturity to the growth, resulting in this thing which is so large and clumsy. It can't explore its own limitations because it has to include our expectations of what makes it what it is for us to even acknowledge it's legitimacy as a video game. We shouldn't do away with the notion that games can be fun and entertaining, but I think we've put a little too much faith in the idea that all games should be fun and entertaining.

 

[PainInTheAssInternet]

I'd say there's a similar problem with our perception of what an art game is. It seems endemic to most mediums, but it seems that it's only accepted as art if it's stuck impossibly up its own ass.

When a game is not interactive first, it is frequently criticized for it such as Spec Ops or the entirety of David Cage's output. David Cage's games have been criticized as being nothing more than marginally interactive movies while Spec Ops was criticized for weakening its message by not giving the player the choice to commit those atrocities.

 

[Zhukov]

I'm generally not one to wax lyrical about "maturing the medium", but I do wish people wouldn't get so snooty over arbitrary definitions of what is or isn't a game.

If you don't like the look of some whacky new construct that may or may not be a Real Game then by all means do not buy/play it, but there's no need to get all hostile over what is essentially just a matter of semantics. None of the people who enjoy whatever it is are going to care that it does not fit your idea of a video game.

 

[shrekfan246]

None of the people who enjoy whatever it is are going to care that it does not fit your idea of a video game.

Well, I'm not so sure about that...

If the internet has proven anything, it's that people care disproportionately much about very insignificant things.

OT: Personally, I even consider Mountain to be a video game. The degree to which I'll say they're good or adequately achieve what they set out to do depends entirely on the game itself, but in my mind as long as there's some form of direct player input which has an impact on what the person is experiencing, then why shouldn't I call it a game?

It is hilarious to see people try rationalizing how Journey "has no gameplay" though.

 

[Someone Depressing]

I think it's because, unlike film, radio or literature has, video games aren't trying to establish themselves.

An art game will always be "artsy", with a whimsical or unique art style and be loaded with so much symbolism that the entire thing just becomes incomprehensible. This is because true art is gritty and incomprehensible and anything that does not to comform to such is considered childish and worthless by snobby pricks.

So, in order to be "proper art", Tale of Tales and the LIMBO devs try their hardest to be just like art in other mediums.

For example...

Spoiler: Not art.

The themes in these games aren't too complex, and the art styles are vivid, cartoony with a pinch of realism and are intended for a fairly large audience. Tell me, would you consider Final Fantasy X-II: Heard You Like Lesbians, Here Are Lesbians an "art game"? No, probably not.

Spoiler: Art.

You don't really need to play these games to get an idea of why they've considered art games.

Rule of Rose I actually quite like. It's considered an art game because the whole thing makes no fucking sense in any sense of the word "sense", and it's eerily sexual in subtle ways, while being presented in an art style inspired by fairy tales and childlike innocence. (hint: This games contains no childhood innocence. All the children are rapists and/or murderers.)

The Path... where to even start with The Path. It's genuinely pretentious, having little interesting about it other than a slightly interesting metaphor for life, death and the lingering minds of young girls. Other than that, the game is a very prime example of why people dislike these games so much.

The LIMBO is about losing your childlike innocence in a massive, scary monochrome world that forces you to commit horrible crimes and sins in order to survive. And then you die at the end because fuck you, real life is shit and we're Dutch.

Obviously, looking at those examples pretty much tells you that gaming has worked its way into a corner here. Unless it's using the definition of art that most artists scoff at - mostly because the idea that all art has to have a big, dark message is ridiculous - but also because it seems like only these games that conform to that stupid idea seem to get attention as "art games".

It is quite horrible, because it's not exactly defending us from real life strawmen accusing our culture of nurturing and training soon to be murderers, rapists and arsons.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I don't care for labeling certain games as "art" games because all games (movies, books, paintings, music, etc.) are art. Most of it, regardless of medium, is bad art but it's art nonetheless.

The one big thing video games need to improve on across the board for the medium to grow is better writing. Also, we need a lot more games that aren't focused on combat and killing, there's more to gaming than that and that's almost all we get.

 

[zen5887]

I don't care for labeling certain games as "art" games because all games (movies, books, paintings, music, etc.) are art. Most of it, regardless of medium, is bad art but it's art nonetheless.

Eeeeeehhhhhhhhhhhhh there are a lot of games that have no interest in being art and that's totally fine. Sports games, simulation games, strategy games for example. Obviously there are exceptions but these games want to recreate an experience and be as realistic as possible and it's hard to present an "idea" when that's your focus.

I think the "prison" of games (I really like that term by the way) is it's focus on a really narrow aspect of "fun". I feel like so many games, especially AAA games, are only like genre fiction or action blockbusters or pop kitch. Where is the gaming Bell Jar or the gaming Kind Of Blue? I want a game to make me feel something other than a power fantasy. I want a game to make me feel shitty and weak.

I do know these games exist and thats awesome, but I feel like the majority of them are in the indie scene. Damn I'd love for EA to just say "fuck it" and put out some kind of "Fear and loathing in Las Vegas" type game.

And I know comparing games to other mediums like that isn't very productive but I only did it to try to get some frame of reference.

 

[Racecarlock]

Hey, I have preferences. Sorry. If a game is good enough, it doesn't necessarily have to be fun to engage me, but I do have to give a shit, which is where david cage games lose me. Making the characters cry a lot isn't going to engage me, and getting sadder consistently isn't going to make me care about a kidnapped child.

If I'm not enjoying myself, I need to at least be thinking about something. The Stanley Parable did this perfectly, and I haven't even played it yet. I spoiled the whole thing and I still want to play it. Now that's gotta be a good game.

David Cage games and art games in general don't make me think about shit. Oh, they play up about how they're about the human condition and shit, but I don't end up thinking about the human condition. And spec ops the line is just lazy. Violence is bad? No shit. And then it goes one step further and tries to guilt trip me because I enjoyed call of duty once and how dare I commit such a sin against innocent AI programming.

The stanley parable was an actual mindfuck. I actually cared. It also helps that parts of it are fun even though they don't have explosions. It still makes you think like hell and on top of everything else it's witty as fuck.

Also, I've seen this argument before, and this may just be paranoia, but it sounds like the people making it usually also want to do away entirely with fun games. With the exception of the Extra Credits crew, everyone making this argument really seems pissed off that fun games that don't make you think are made at all, and would rather every game become journey and the walking dead. But really, every game being journey and the walking dead wouldn't improve things, it would just be a different version of the COD oversaturation that people claim holds too much over the market today. I don't see how that would be better.

 

[carnex]

-snip-

I don't exactly agree with you. What you say is 100% true for high budget games. The Last of Us, for example, has a touching story and some of most realistic characters in video game ever but it's still a video game first.

But on the side ow lower budget products things are quite different. Journey is still clearly a video game but it's more of a social experiment for me. I would love to see people playing together without knowing each other and than those same people plying knowing each other and having strong feelings of love or hate towards each other and see how it would end up.

Gone home is an experiment in partially non-linear story telling. But then there are true experiments like Dear Ester and Prometheus, and Loneliness (flash game) that can hardly be considered games. There are no states to it, there is no challenge. There is not a thing that we use to define what a video game is. And yet video game is a best way to describe it, there is no term that is established that is closer to what those products are. Is minecraft, especially in free world building mode a game? Are digital novels games? Even those with no alternative paths?

But until there is a reassuring way to monetize those games, we will rarely if ever see those games get big budget. Until than other mediums also go and seek ways to infiltrate this medium with their own ideas of interactivity. I have already seen interactive paintings and movies etc.

Next period is who knows how long but it will define that games as art form or art medium are.

 

[Racecarlock]

I get the call for more variety and shit, but what's wrong about any specific game choosing to focus on fun?

 

[MirenBainesUSMC]

I believe the prison derives from the power of the purse and that purse puts pressure on the AAA game houses to make what sells. If the shooter you create doesn't have a trace of COD in it, then thus, it will either be seen as a rip-off or something that isn't good. 2K gave us a break with the Bio Shock series, but more or less, the casual aspect of COD has bled into the other genres of gamedom.

In the case of the complaint concerning violence/blood. Well the sum of any game or story is of course conflict and what easy way to make a conflict through the use of some form of violence. It is indeed lazy writing in many ways. Consider this though, even such titles like Heavy Rain in which there were periods of nothing more than brushing one's teeth or taking out the trash couldn't continue until the gritty parts began. Link began in Legend of Zelda with a sword and bombs. Mario squashed mushrooms and fought Bowser...so on so fourth. Kind of hard to make a playable game with out something to that affect. Too much of it? I Would agree. Way too much and the more gruesome and detailed, the more the game industry gets unwanted attention from the rights & Freedom gestapo.

In my own opinion, as I am glad that female characters are getting more depth, its also attempting to add the female character into the butchery and barbarism the male characters have been participating in as well.... this begins that slippery slope. Can a player whose male now feel justified to break an enemy, who is a woman's jaw out in a melee attack? I mean these are some of the more social quandaries that get to be analyzed as we go through through such evolutions. In Metro: Last Light --- the main character has to hear the signs of rape and attack at times while going through the dark tunnels of the Metro. In the last of us, Ellie confronts a molester/killer and if you should make the wrong move or mess up, the guys do a varying degree of violence to her in death sequences. This didn't sit well for me because I don't believe anything that involves a child and violence or using rape upon female characters is entertainment --- unless its Law and Order SVU or it has a context that is part of the story rather than some side dish to make controversy. The same thing with sex and sex appeal --- if a love scene isn't required, why put it there? Mass Effect was tasteful. Dragon Age was tasteful. Blazon raunchiness is simply lazy entertainment.

The risk of a different story and game play or the lack thereof is the prison. Most large developers can't risk a bad loss but end up loosing anyway because their last hit then becomes ho-hum because its been overdone. EA and the other big guys want $$$ entities. This kills the art. If I can't button mash, run, hop, skip, and plug bullets into over the top bad guys = lame game. That is the current mantra.

Last but not least..... awful writing. I don't know what goes on in these dev meetings with their writers but their is a severe lack in this area of gaming.

 

[Gennadios]

I'm mostly an RPG/sandbox/emergent gameplay player, and for a period a few years ago it seemed like there wasn't anything left for me. Now I can at least find some decent games like Kenshi and Spacebase DF-9 to keep my interest on Steam. Granted I had to wade through a ton of shit to find the games that fit me.

Gaming's prison? It's not new. AAA gaming being all style over substance is nothing new.

In 1983, 'real' games were Star Wars and Spy Hunter, but someone realized they can make a game that looked a decade more advanced by overutilizing canned animations and relying on barely interactive FMV sequences. People wouldn't shut up about that game even after Star Wars was long forgotten. That game was Dragon's Lair, it managed to end up on Steam Greenlight for $10 this year.

In 1993, 'real' games were X-Wing, Syndicate, Sam & Max, but someone realize that they could make a game look a decade more advanced by overutilizing canned animations and relying on barely interactive FMV sequences. People wouldn't shut up about that game even after the much better games were long forgotten. To this day, PC Gamer magazine apologizes for giving it a score of 99 during every single 'best of all time' article. That game was Myst.

I guess my point is that as much as the general public likes to pretend that substance matters over style, history has shown a different story. Because of the nature of the medium, more impressive graphics all but require a disproportionate oversimplification of gameplay, but graphics are what the layperson recognizes. Even people that never played Dragon's Lair back in the day will see it, remember that it was the amazing graphics game back in the day, and waste $10 for that POS on Steam. Hell, I'm sure the Iconic Watch Dogs hat will be more memorable than people give it credit for.

Anyway, graphics technology does have a bit of a trickle down effect. Indies can now make games with graphics that would have been amazing 10 years ago, and games that are actually way more advanced gameplay wise than they were 10 years ago, and that's where the experimentation happens. AAA is just the same lumbering dinosaur that it's always been, and you shouldn't expect too much from it.