Citizen Game

Chuck Palahniuk's 1996 Fight Club, which went on to become a popular film, is not only a best selling novel but a relevant deconstruction of the social emasculation of modern male culture. Radiohead's 1998 OK Computer which went on to award winning commercial success in the US and UK is also a unique and creative exploration of sound and atmosphere that has been recognized as one of the best albums of all time and compared to The Beatles. Meaningful and popular are not necessarily the antonyms often suggested by cynics of modern entertainment; it's just not the status quo. Nor should it be.

Outstanding creative works that are both popular and significant are, at this very moment, being produced; work imbued with meaning that stir the imagination while proving profitable still exist in all forms or artistic expression. All forms, that is, with the possible exception of video games, which is seen by many to not have produced a quintessential or meaningful work that transcends to some nebulous higher tier of quality.

It's become, I realize, something of a cliché to ask where is The Godfather, Romeo and Juliet or Citizen Kane of video games. It's the kind of whiny intellectualism that fails to simply be satisfied with the endless entertainment provided by our games, and is probably like wondering when roller coasters will become educational. Mostly, I'm like the average gamer and don't worry much anymore about when Half-Life will both involve the offing of headcrabs while driving me to deeper contemplative states on the human condition. I'm relatively content now to accept that Picard soliloquies to Data about being human will be far deeper explorations of metaphysical concepts than pretty much any video game.

Except Ken Levine in his comments in our Bioshock preview earlier this week, damn that man, has got me curious again with his talk of Objectivism and Ayn Rand. That's daring stuff to be talking about when trying to sell a video game. While he's certainly pragmatic about having to hide the philosophical stuff behind the "kick ass shooter", it's obviously on the man's mind. But, the more I think about it, the more I believe that, begging Levine's pardon, the reason we don't see video games with meaningful resonance, whatever that exactly means, is that for all practical purposes it can't be done.

There will never be a Citizen Kane, or Atlas Shrugged for that matter, of video gaming.

The mischaracterization of the tech entertainment industry as an under-sexed club of comic-book loving, man-boy nerds is as flawed as any stereotype. Looking around our own population here in this quiet corner we are a cross-section of society representing a variety of stages of life and sophistications. The industry, both its consumers and professionals, has amassed as talented and intelligent people in positions of power as film, publishing or television. So, there's simply no lack of creative or practical resources to have met the goal of creating a truly meaningful piece of art in game form, if such a beast is assumed to be possible.

There are smart people working hard to make exactly the games that are meant to have meaning, and time and again they seem thwarted not by lack of effort or talent, but apparently by the medium itself. If Ken Levine's Bioshock does not turn out to offer deep meditations on mankind as he seems to hope, I don't think the reason will be for lack of ability. The fault is not with the creator but the creation.

The structure of narrative in gaming itself is a big problem. So called meaningful works of art, particularly those like games that involve a story, usually measure progress not by an accumulation of accoutrements, be they weapons, powers, levels or stats, as games so often do. Growth in narrative can be married to loss, hopelessness and self-realization, where even the best games are about overcoming discreet goals to forward a story. It's not that video games couldn't do this as well. It's that we wouldn't want them to. Gamers, as a rule, don't like to have to lose in order to win, and this begins what could otherwise be a long discussion on why interactivity is less empathic than passivity.

It's counter-intuitive. One might expect that by investing a player into the part of the hero, the player would identify with that character and be more invested in the role. But my own highly unscientific and logically porous observation is that, instead, gamers become selfish about the character, infuse the game with their own frustrations that tend to make us mad rather than contemplative when disaster strikes. Loss and struggle are much easier to bear when we are passively sympathetic rather than actively involved. This is probably why people are a lot more likely to seek out meaning about the human condition by watching a fictional character experience true suffering rather than having to endure it ourselves.

So, when people talk about trying to move these common notions of artistic meaning onto gaming it feels artificial. Meaningful art takes many forms, and there's no question that from a perspective of pure aesthetics gaming has achieved numerous successes. Just not the same kinds as cinema, literature or music. When we ask where is the Citizen Kane of gaming, we are not asking about quality of product, but we seem to be asking when gaming will teach us something larger about our society, our philosophy, our mortality and ourselves.

In some ways, we already have that. Maybe it's just that we don't like what we see, don't care for the meaning of the dystopian futures we keep crafting to shoot aliens in, don't like the image in the mirror that violent video games show us, don't want to see that Civilization itself is bound up in the war, deceit and greed exemplified by the game of the same name. What we seem to really want is something that is both profound but more importantly affirming, the Picard nonsense about the value of humanity for humanity's sake. And, when our books and movies describe the failures of the human condition our refuge is in the passivity and inevitability of the narrative. Video gaming makes it personal. What gaming does that books, movies, music and no other form of art can is steal the certainty of fate. It puts free will back in our own hands, and like life itself sets us goals that we either achieve or fail.

If books and movies are a glimpse into broad statements about other people, video games are a mirror.

And, that has value too. Either way, I've stopped looking for Citizen Game, and while I look forward to Levine's Bioshock and its brave attempt to explore Objectivism, mostly I'm just in it for the kick ass shooter. What I've learned about myself is that I don't ride the rollercoaster for deep meditations on life.

Comments

Agree on Kane as an influencer, but I'm sure we can come up with a long list of "influential games" that had limited critical success.

As for primetime, I guess you missed my point. PT tv is 99.9 percent shlock. But it has the *potential* to reach much more broadly than, say, PBS on sunday at 2AM.

i'll vote for Ultima 7 and Silent Hill 2 as two games that not only hold up today gameplay and storywise but, also tackle meaningful subject matter and present it in a thought provoking way.

I've been following this site for a while, and had to register just to make a few comments. So, I apologize if I end up sounding extremely defensive and irate: I'm just trying to get my point across.

While an excellently written article I vehemently disagree with the concept of it all. While you at least admit to dropping the cliché of CK, I'm not quite exactly sure what you're looking for. I mean, games have been attempting to do this in one way or another for years now. Possibly in the most unexpected of places too.

Let's go back to RayForce (aka: Layer Section, Galactic Attack, and Gunlock) developed by Taito and released in 1994. Not only does the game have you reflect on the human condition and its extinction, but it's an extremely tragic story of the lone hero who, by winning, needs to sacrifice herself. The game is extremely subtle in many ways: mostly of exactly what's going on. Sure it has the skin of an "arcade vertical shooter," a genre generally associated with mindless (zen-esque) technique and twitch reflexes, but it aims to be more than that. The narrative that it tells is a subtle delve from outer reaches of space into the inner most depths of the Planet in which the ultimate sacrifice needs to be made in order for the small number of remaining humans to live. The end screen is your character, in space, dead.

Ok, not the deepest plot, or even the most original, but it's subtle and multi-faceted forcing you to absorb it over time and reflect on what is really going on and how it reflects onto the gameplay itself. The point of bringing this up is that there are many games which have dealt with themes of this magnitude in a very subtle way. The best way of describing this is that games most similarly resemble a form of theatre and the player is acting out the most important part. Most gamers just don't realize that they are performing in anything they think is important. The fact that current long form games force the player to stop participation and watch the actor be controlled by someone else during most cut scenes removes some of the significance of the story the game is trying to convey during those cut scenes. Arcade style games were best at this, and the silent antagonist with the silent-movie-esque title cards between levels was just too damn subtle for most people.

I'll ignore the Ico comments, because that seems to be covered, it and the critical response from it.

But I do want to hit on the most significant and most overlooked piece of gaming: Silent Hill 2. The following will have heavy plot spoilers and I recommend that if you're looking for something more meaningful from games that you just go and play it rather than read this. As the protagonist of Silent Hill 2 you're brought back to the town in which your wife died. In the town you will encounter the personification of your own sexual desires and murderous intent. You also uncover that you killed your own wife and you created Silent Hill as a way to torture and torment yourself. (though, the way in which you torment yourself in the town is different based on your inner torment. Another character in the game sees everything as being on fire and is attacked by a bed which will molest, or rather rape, her. It is supposed to be the characters Father). The end of the game (there are a couple of endings that the game keeps track of based on the players way of handling the game) is the main character leaving and dealing with things he now knows about himself and what he's done. Every enemy, location, and character in the game is significant to the main characters dilemma and the entire game is about a murderer dealing with his crime in an inner hell. While I hear the game frequently listed as people's favorite, most completely fail to acknowledge these more subtle items that the game handles (the game doesn't come out and say all of these things, only the more broad strokes are handed to you), I like to imagine that they see all this going on subconsciously and it appeals to them.

Next"… hell, ok, basically everything I'm going to write has huge spoilers, so just stop reading and skip paragraphs when I introduce the game.

Next is the exceptionally obvious Shadow of the Colossus. The ending of the game reveals that you've broken all the laws of your village, made a pact with the devil, and are attempting to undo god's will. If the player was paying attention at all through the game this ending shouldn't come as a shock or surprise. It's excellently crafted to make the player slowly question if what their doing is the right thing. Their body slowly deteriorates into an ashen gray color and the violence should seem more and more meaningless. After you've finished playing, the question of "was I was in the right for what I did, or in the wrong" should pop into your head for at least a brief moment. Is it ok to break the rules/law for someone you love? Is it worth your own life for that of another? Anyways, the game's practically a cliché for "games as art" but there's a damn good reason for it.

More abstractly there's Killer 7. It's a game about leading up to a simple choice that you don't even know you're making at the end of the game. The director and game present the player with a story from the characters point of view which the player is required to act on in a choice between your government and your beliefs. Throughout the rough trip the characters will come across and deal with people who they have killed in the past and how they now feel. On top of all that it presents you with a perverse question of what is reality, really. Is the only way to be the best killer in the world to be completely removed from reality?

Half-Life 2 is basically the perfect merging of story and game. There's more than enough straight action, gore, and violence to keep the most brain dead person happy, but underneath it all there's this beautifully dystopian society via 1984 that one can't ignore. Even if it's not the main question that the game attempts to deal with, it can't be ignored the parallels that the game draws and the reflections and conclusions one can draw from such a society being involved in the game.

I know it's not a whole lot of examples (I even left out quite a few), and that some of them have the questions as a side effect of the game itself, but they all work masterfully and have evoked questions on loss, struggle, society, and the human condition as well as any other visual medium have, if not better. Is it to the point where these kinds of game come out frequently? Hell no. But we're just starting out. It's there and it won't go away. It's just going to get better, and in retrospect, the last generation (PS2) was a huge step in the right direction.

If you don't want to look for it, it isn't there. Then again this is the same reason that films of equal caliber get independent releases and are shown in "art house" theatres or with only one showing a night. To say that the medium itself gets in the way of these questions and implications is just wrong and nearly ignorant.

I was actually going to bring up Shadow of the Colossus as well. Not only did I feel like I had to lose in order to win, I also felt the empathy and self-realization stemmed from the interactivity.

"Wait a minute. What am I doing here? This feels wrong."

And not only for the game's protagonist, but for me, the player.

"Why am I actually slaughtering these beasts? Because the game tells me so? Am I enjoying this??"

I was far more comtemplative than mad when I realized that I was losing more with each step towards winning.

kilroy0097 wrote:

Never have we had a game, that I can think of, where reflection and contemplation on what we have achieved in the game has resulted in our own self awareness of ourselves and/or our society

For me, SotC was that game.

Shapermc wrote:

To say that the medium itself gets in the way of these questions and implications is just wrong and nearly ignorant.

Yup.

I take it for granted that video games can be art even though most people are not yet ready to swallow that pill. Philosophers and critics way smarter than any of us have written exhaustively about the potential of art to be found in nearly every medium, that everything is a text, etc. It isn't really any of our place to disagree with that, lol.

I used to work at an art museum and people would come by the modern art wing and the predictable comments would follow, "This is art?" "My kids could do this."

We're talking about paintings that were completed in the 40s and 50s, long standing fixtures in the canon of modern art. When getting into debates about what art "is" and whether something is "it" it's easy to go astray based purely on elements of taste.

But no one denies that painting is an art form, just like no one should deny that video games are one as well. Where's the "Citizen Kane" of gaming? Not sure but when it comes hopefully we'll all be able to see it for what it is.

I am mostly in disagreement with the article. Let's keep in mind that

1) Telling a story within the FPS genre is always traditionally harder unless the gameplay mechanics are expanded to the point where the game is an FPRPG. Bioshock simply doesn't choose to go far enough in that direction.
2) Game writing in general is still worse than movie/TV writing by an order of magniture, mostly because developers fail to see the importance of hiring actual writers.
3) Games still suffer from "videogame stereotypes" that everyone is still taking for granted. While these limitations exist, emotionally involving the player will always be problematic:

a) Everything is represented by numbers. You have 93 health, your plasma rifle just did 92 damage to the Death Raider, your Cold Resistance is +15 with 3% chance to deflect.. your Blizzard spell does 230 damage over 11 seconds... Does it ever occur to you how STRANGE it is to know exactly how much health your enemy has, or even seeing a health bar over their head ? Such thorough exposure of the player to the inner workings of the game does not make it easy to keep being immersed.

b) Lack of distinction between individuals. In most games, entities of the same type look very much alike. As I was watching the HD version of the first Bioshock walkaround, Ken Levine's narration certainly was hyping me up, until I noticed that every one of those women in green skirts looks exactly the same, down to the ripped pantyhose on their leg. THIS game is going to be some sort of FPS breakthrough ? I don't think so. It's just going to be a great game, a spiritual successor to System Shock 2, but it's not going to be anything next-gen in regards to either gameplay or storytelling.

c) Lack of fuzzy behavior on the part of individuals. Lack of fuzzy behavior that is allowed for the player. When meeting bandits, you can either shoot or flee. They can either shoot you or chase you and then shoot you. That's all that ever happens.

In order to be truly next-gen, a lot of the existing game cliches, all of the BINARY limitations, many of which were invented 20 or more years ago for the sake of cutting down on system requirements, need to be disposed of once and for all.

...

One day I will be playing a game where I get the Talisman of Cold Magick (tm). Someone watching me play will ask - "How much damage does it do ?". And I'll answer "I don't exactly know. But doesn't it LOOK powerful ?". And that'll be enough.

Then I will get my character into his rusty car and head for the nearest city. On my way, I will be stopped by a gang of thieves. I will pull out a minigun and discharge it under their feet. They will flee - except for one guy, whom I accidentally shot in the gun arm. Still, I will drive him to the nearest doctor, and, after he's healed with a dermal regenerator, maybe, just maybe, he's not going to jump out of the bed and immediately try to shoot me "because his attack flag is triggered".

To me, that'd be the beginning of next-gen gaming.

rabbit wrote:

This creates -- like prime time TV -- an opportunity to deepen any dialogue across far more of society than CK did or does.

rabbit wrote:

As for primetime, I guess you missed my point. PT tv is 99.9 percent shlock. But it has the *potential* to reach much more broadly than, say, PBS on sunday at 2AM.

Gathered that; I was meaning to contest the "to deepen dialogue" bit. There are enough forces aligned against primetime ever airing anything thought-provoking (including the self-selecting audience) to, IMHO, negate said opportunity, despite TV's reach and ubiquity.

Meta-Timeout to say welcome to all the newcomers and a huge collective pat on the ass for articulate discourse that hasn't resorted to the crap we put up with on the rest of the internet.

This whole thing has made me realize:

1: I have way more interest and passion in this particular line of thinking than I thought I did. I was frankly tired and aloof of the whole thing until 3 days ago.

2: Why is it so rare that someplace like GWJ exists where I can actually participate in a discussion with articulate non-assholes about this stuff?

shihonage wrote:

A whole post of awesomeness.

Shapermc wrote:

To say that the medium itself gets in the way of these questions and implications is just wrong and nearly ignorant.

I disagree, and the examples you posted haven't really convinced me otherwise. HL2 for example: It was a fantastical piece with great atmosphere and great dialog but it really didn't do anything but scratch beneath the surface of the actual social issues involved in this alien conquest. I think to really meet the requirements that Elysium is talking about you have to provide a degree of depth that we haven't currently seen. The "questions on loss, struggle, society, and the human condition" are the same questions that we could find in any b-movie or fantasy novel, and your characterization of them as "masterful" is being quite generous IMO.

Call me ignorant if you want, but I think the medium has a lot to do with it. I WANTED to know more about the story behind HL2, I wanted to talk to the scientists and the rebels who followed me about their world, but such examinations were interrupted by the need for interactive gameplay. I didn't get to talk to the scientists because the action had to move forward. The rebel followers were meaningless Canon fodder. The game was fantastic, well-written, and enjoyable, but it was still that: a game.

Does it ever occur to you how STRANGE it is to know exactly how much health your enemy has, or even seeing a health bar over their head ? Such thorough exposure of the player to the inner workings of the game does not make it easy to keep being immersed.

That's a good point. Most, if not all RPGs have their roots in Dungeons and Dragons. In a typical D 'n' D campaign would the players know that the bugbear has 30 hit points? Will every bugbear have exactly 30 hit points or would a good DM mix things up to make it more immersive?

I do, however, think that we're getting our Citizen Kane's of videogames. Resident Evil 4 was a direct influence on Gears of War, just as 70s pulp movies were a direct influence for Grind House. As many people pointed out, movies weren't looked at as a piece of art until Le Cahier du Cinema started treating them as such. Up to that point most people just viewed them as entertainment and didn't think to critique them as pieces of art.

This article itself, along with the gamut of other "are games art?" articles are that same catalyst. Only a small number of us are looking at videogames and critiquing them as art pieces, just like Le Cahier du Cinema was only a small group of people critiquing films as art. But the kernel has been sowed and we will see more people critiquing games just like books and film. Just as "mise en scene" was coined as a tool to better describe a movie, we will see similar terms appear to describe and analyze videogames.

Just posting to plant myself on rabbit's side of the fence, point out that Elysium got called ignorant on his own site and didn't reply with a ban stick (that's awesome), and that shiho again proves that, even though it sometimes seems like he's contrarian just for the sake of it, he totally "gets it".

Dysplastic wrote:
Shapermc wrote:

HL2 for example: It was a fantastical piece with great atmosphere and great dialog but it really didn't do anything but scratch beneath the surface of the actual social issues involved in this alien conquest. I think to really meet the requirements that Elysium is talking about you have to provide a degree of depth that we haven't currently seen. The "questions on loss, struggle, society, and the human condition" are the same questions that we could find in any b-movie or fantasy novel, and your characterization of them as "masterful" is being quite generous IMO.

Call me ignorant if you want, but I think the medium has a lot to do with it. I WANTED to know more about the story behind HL2, I wanted to talk to the scientists and the rebels who followed me about their world, but such examinations were interrupted by the need for interactive gameplay. I didn't get to talk to the scientists because the action had to move forward. The rebel followers were meaningless Canon fodder. The game was fantastic, well-written, and enjoyable, but it was still that: a game.

I have to echo this about HL2 - though i haven't played the other games so i can't comment on those - but before i continue know that i am known to be biased against HL2...

The dystopian future you describe in HL2 has no real effect on the game at all. In all the game is it anything more than a resistance force fighting the occupation? Á la WWII France, there were those who fought and those who seemed helpless and vulnerable. Mossman was a co-operator (the only real kind of dilema or social commentary i can think of) in the belief that she was doing a greater good. Do these situations really speak of a dystopian future or are they just a sci-fi regurgitation of WWII drama?
They tried to reference 1984 with the propaganda tapes and the water comment but had none of the social interactions of a that regime. No one was brainwashed, everyone knew they were in trouble. As the liberator or rebel you were not the outcast of the people, just the establishment. No questions were raised or addressed. You fought, you liberated - like a WWII film.

First off, I didn't call him ignorant (nor is ignorant the worst thing to be called if taken from by definition). Second, HL2 is just one example, and not nearly the best on my short list. It is an example of how story telling and gameplay can merge perfectly, and how they do attempt to scratch the surface. The point is that the dystopian setting is impossible to ignore and the relevance of it is prevalent. Why else do you think that when people came out of the film "Children of Men" that they started to fill internet forums with comments like "It reminded me of HL2 man!"

It's a valid observation and point.

Duoae wrote:

The dystopian future you describe in HL2 has no real effect on the game at all.

Technically, no, and like I said "a side effect of the game itself." But would it really be the same game without it? I don't think so.

Good counter-point but i would submit that Defcon only really re-affirms that nucelear war - war in general - has no winners. It's on the way but not quite where we want it to be

How is that not a cultural and social message? It seems like this is precisely the example that rabbit is talking about.

Let's go back to uncomfortable messages for a minute though. Shadow of the Colossus was a critical and commercial success. And almost all the reactions I read from gamers talked about the contrast of the game's goals with your empathies for the Colossus. The game is pushing you to kill more and more of these beings, however you do not feel like you should be doing it. Yet you keep going, to beat the game and get what you want out of it. That shows a pretty uncomfortable side of human nature there, even ugly, and yet most people who played the game got the message just fine. Video gaming is not just a mirror, it's a funhouse mirror. The author's intent can be plainly seen in several games already mentioned by rabbit, and their message felt just as subtly or overtly as the author chooses. Anywhere from GTA to Planescape Torment.

I reject the notion that because you aren't looking for enlightenment in games that it's not there, or that the medium is incapable of it. 90% of the people who go to movies aren't looking for enlightenment there either, yet movies are widely regarded as art with a capital A. The difference is a long tradition of movies that are made simply to be art, to challenge the viewer and alter their perception of the world around them. The financial and business systems that support this kind of filmmaking in the movie industry simply have never existed in the gaming industry. So while a rare game like this does exist, I think explaining their relative absence doesn't take a leap to the conclusion "gaming is not art". It's simply the fact that the industry hasn't come up with the infrastructure to support this time of game development yet.

Seems like I was beaten on SotC, ah well.

Call me ignorant if you want, but I think the medium has a lot to do with it. I WANTED to know more about the story behind HL2, I wanted to talk to the scientists and the rebels who followed me about their world, but such examinations were interrupted by the need for interactive gameplay.

What if the interactive gameplay included actually talking to the rebels and scientists and actually exploring the story itself? This kind of stuff is possible, though nobody has attempted it yet without branching dialogue trees. If voice recognition, artificial speech and conversation AI gets advanced enough, you could truly hold a conversation with the game about the story. Would that be art? What if your virtual colleague started asking you questions about your actions previously in the game? What if you cross the line, shoot that kid when you think nobody's looking, and and the colleague finds out? Would you expect them to be horrified? Would you only feel horrified if you got caught? What if it turns out the colleague actually agrees with you? Is that more horrifying?

I don't think interactivity precludes the kind of self-realization that we're talking about here.

Shapermc wrote:

First off, I didn't call him ignorant

No one said you did - calm down.

The point is that the dystopian setting is impossible to ignore and the relevance of it is prevalent. Why else do you think that when people came out of the film "Children of Men" that they started to fill internet forums with comments like "It reminded me of HL2 man!"

Er, i never heard of people saying that about Children of men. In fact it didn't remind me of HL2 in any way except military control....
With regards to the dystopian future comment i made - i got myself confused between your comments about a 1984-like world and actual dystopia. Sorry for the confusion.

Pyroman wrote:

How is that not a cultural and social message? It seems like this is precisely the example that rabbit is talking about.

I was agreeing with him, i was just saying that it wasn't very deep. ie. the "It's on the way but not quite where we want it to be" comment.

PyromanFO wrote:

What if the interactive gameplay included actually talking to the rebels and scientists and actually exploring the story itself? This kind of stuff is possible, though nobody has attempted it yet without branching dialogue trees. If voice recognition, artificial speech and conversation AI gets advanced enough, you could truly hold a conversation with the game about the story. Would that be art? What if your virtual colleague started asking you questions about your actions previously in the game? What if you cross the line, shoot that kid when you think nobody's looking, and and the colleague finds out? Would you expect them to be horrified? Would you only feel horrified if you got caught? What if it turns out the colleague actually agrees with you? Is that more horrifying?

I don't think interactivity precludes the kind of self-realization that we're talking about here.

You're absolutely right: this kind of interactivity could work, however, such innovation would completely redefine the gaming genre.

I kind of alluded to this in my first post when I made reference to Facade, and I guess I should have clarified this more in my second. It's not interactivity itself which is precluding what we're talking about, it's interactivity as it is currently implemented in a rather limited, linear, shallow manner. The medium is the problem, but the medium is constantly changing also, moreso than any other artistic genre has. So the potential is there. I eagerly await Bioshock and the potential innovations it could bring in this direction, but I still think we have a ways to go.

The point is that the dystopian setting is impossible to ignore and the relevance of it is prevalent. Why else do you think that when people came out of the film "Children of Men" that they started to fill internet forums with comments like "It reminded me of HL2 man!"

Not to be rude, but those would be some pretty surface thin interpretations of the film. Visually I can see it, but that it takes place in a dim european future is about the beginning and end of comparisons. I mean, that's like saying that Saving Private Ryan reminds me of Medal of Honor.

No one said you did - calm down.

Actually someone did, but it was in jest, and either way I didn't really take umbrage with his response.

If voice recognition, artificial speech and conversation AI gets advanced enough, you could truly hold a conversation with the game about the story. Would that be art?

It would make it no more or less art, but it would be far more interesting. That's what I'm saying. Why does it have to be art, why does it have to touch something transcendent? Why can't what gaming is at its best be good enough?

Personally I find the simulation of complex systems to be very conducive to philosophical introspection, in a way that other media can not hope to reach. Little worlds with little rules that breed aggregate, unexpected behavior are often way more effective in eliciting a 'deep thought' because the behavior is unsolicited, genuine. The relationship that behavior has to the real world may not be one to one, but it is uncontrived. This is a level of enlightenment the other forms of media can just barely touch.

Each form of media brings its own strengths to the table. So far I wouldn't call gaming's ace in the hole interaction, since our ability to actually interact is so cumbersome. It's the ability to provide unscripted events to light.

As for Elysium's quandary over the necessity of sacrifice for the sake of drama, some of us are ready for sacrifice. Just yesterday I lost my warthog in a vehicle heavy level due to a convergence of tactical brilliance and the unscripted coincidence only games can provide. I'm left stranded in enemy territory, with miles to go because of some freak accident. Normally I'd just hit, "Revert to Last Checkpoint," but something stopped me.

This wasn't a bug. This was life. Sometimes you do the right thing, and sh*t happens anyway, and you don't revert to the last checkpoint. You hit the ground running and deal with it, so that's what I did. And that made all the difference. It's the difference between watching Black Hawk Down and being there, minus the actual fear of bodily harm. The situation is more authentic because it didn't have to happen. Just one foot to the left and that sticky grenade wouldn't have hurtled my otherwise indestructible warthog down a ravine.

Now, this isn't actually a case of empathy, but not because I can't handle the sacrifice in first person, but because I can't be empathetic in first person. It doesn't make sense to feel empathy for yourself, and that's who it's all happening to.

That doesn't mean games can't utilize empathy. I certainly felt a sense of awe and wonder through Alyx Vance inside the Citadel of Episode 1 in a situation where my gamer-jaded senses saw just another nifty, scifi sphere. Gordon Freeman wasn't impressed, but she was, so I was.

OK, I just want to add one thing.

"Are video games art?" is a question that comes purely from a misunderstanding of what "art" is.

Video games are art. Period. But so is Dude, Where's My Car?.

Art = "a form of human activity created primarily as an aesthetic expression".
Art = "the expression of creativity or imagination, or both."

The definition of art is NOT a statement of quality (it can't possibly be, quality is completely subjective). Art is a creative product that serves no other purpose besides being art. While automotive engineering may be a creative process, the end result is something that serves a utilitarian purpose.

Do not ask the question, "are games art?". The correct question is, "are games GOOD art?"

The kind of exclusionary way some people try to apply the term "art" (hello Mr. Ebert) is completely against the spirit of art.

Oh, and back on topic, like most Elysium articles, I respect but so strongly disagree with it that I can't bring myself to make the drawn-out case against it that it would require to respond. I do want to buy Elysium some Optimism Juice (tm) sometime, though.

Video games are art.

I don't actually disagree with you.

Oh, and back on topic, like most Elysium articles, I respect but so strongly disagree with it that I can't bring myself to make the drawn-out case against it that it would require to respond.

You're the yin and I'm the yang.

Yeah, I don't know if video games will ever evoke emotions or convey ideas the same way music, books or movies can. However, I personally have found myself very contemplative over portions of Shadows of the Colossus, Katamari Damacy and many other games.

Elysium wrote:
Video games are art.

I don't actually disagree with you.

I wasn't directing it at you, no worries. I just saw the question referenced (not necessarily asked) a couple of times in the comments and felt compelled to say it.

*Legion* wrote:

Oh, and back on topic, like most Elysium articles, I respect but so strongly disagree with it that I can't bring myself to make the drawn-out case against it that it would require to respond.

And his work here is done.

Part of gaming's issue in this regard is how they are judged, critiqued, compared and contrasted. When the majority of 'press' is in league with the publishers to pimp their product, not say disparaging words, talk about incremental game mechanic improvements as the holy grail and act as if a barely thin plot is worth salivating over it's tough to build an overall environment where games are judged as the art that I think they are.

Another thing working against games in the long run is that they are created by monolithic corporations that aren't exactly able to dodge and weave in a quick manner. Producing games is an investment of years, not just years writing the "˜story' but years of outputting the code, tweaking the interface and balancing the environment. Movies, books and music don't have this limitation. Sure some of them may take years to produce but not the amount of years that some games take. Movies may linger in the writing stage as long as games but the actual production of the movie aside from after effects is usually 6-10 weeks and the computer after-effects are just adding onto film or filling in blanks of a story already in the medium. Books too can take years to write but they are cheap labor-wise, only one person is working on them at a time (I'm simplifying but even with editing there is probably one editor for every 5-10 writers) a publishing house can have 200 writers on contract for a book each, pay them an advance and still make all of their money back if only one writes a best seller. Music is similar to movies in that the writing process can be long but the production is fairly quick depending on where the band is at in it's lifespan. Because time/money investment games cost a lot compared to other art and aren't as easy to access, music comes in second place, movies in third and books last on the price scale (A ticket to the local art museum puts that near the music price) so they aren't as mainstream as we'd like to think. So there's not exactly a grassroots group rattling sabers to get their art "˜recognized' (well maybe this is the start of it).

Also on what merits do we judge the game as art? The story? The UI? The mechanics? The amount of cheating the "˜computer' needs to do to play against a human opponent? A weird mixture of all of those and more? Or, none of the above games aren't art? This too is different from those other mediums there are many facets that create the "˜whole game' where in the other "˜arts' the interfaces are much easier you bring yourself, your sense of aesthetic and consult your inner critic after watching, listening, reading or staring at it.

I almost agree that there won't be a defining tome in gaming's art portfolio like there are Casablancas, Dillons, Beetles, Moby Dicks and Shakespeares in those other art genres. I say almost because even if we've seen one it hasn't been long enough for it to be considered a "˜defining asset' to be held to and compared/contrasted to. Sure there are games we do that with but it's more to make it easier to lay down 60$ to play it.

All we have right now is incremental growth in game types with some sort of background story tying together why we're killing the other guys.

rabbit wrote:

As for primetime, I guess you missed my point. PT tv is 99.9 percent shlock. But it has the *potential* to reach much more broadly than, say, PBS on sunday at 2AM.

You know what's sad about the truth of this, is that this nation's viewer public is so used to adolescent level TV programing that intelligent adult programing that is witty and clever just doesn't make it long. I think shows like Studio 60 which really brought controversial topics to the forefront in their show is just too hard for many to understand. It's really disappointing that I see great shows just go away due to the viewer public short attention span and inability to understand complex situations. The problem is we just don't raise the bar. Just like our school systems we make it easier instead of getting our children to rise to the occasion. In result we just get dumber as a nation. This might also carry over to video games.

kilroy0097 wrote:

The problem is we just don't have a bar.

There we go.

People always say that HL2 raised the bar for FPSs.... so i'm assuming that is the FPS bar for art?

When I was younger I remember watching an old black and white movie. I can't remember much about it, it might have been an old tv show.

The main character is in Hollywood. He makes comedies. And he wants to do something with meaning. He wants to do drama. As it ends up, a series of unfortunate events land the man in prison, convicted of his own murder.

The prison is an extremely unpleasant place, even by 1930's movie prison standards.

One day the prisoners are rounded up and marched into a church. They sit down and the lights go out. A projector crackles, and they suddenly find themselves watching cartoons and a nice little slapstick comedy. The prisoners howl and roar with laughter.

When the man makes it back to society he revisits his original question. And he realizes he can try to make movies that mean something – or he can make movies that will bring happiness, albeit brief, to the most lonely and miserable wretches society has to offer.

Game makers face a similar dilemma – do they try to make something meaningful, or do they try to make something that will bring happiness and joy to others?

Hopefully if you're making games professionally you are good at it. So you know if you are shooting for the audience enjoyment thing you're holding the right cards.

It's possible to make a meaningful game but it's also highly likely the game will fall flat. As ill-suited as movies, music, and literature are to polemic and innovation, games are even worse. It is, however, possible to make a meaningful game – but developers should be humble, and remember that the talents that allow them to make enjoyable games mean little when it comes to making meaningful games.

As for our Citizen Kane, I'd say it's World of Warcraft. Citizen Kane is all about innovation. WoW is not truly innovative in any major way, but the execution is astounding. But making great games is really about execution in a way that movies aren't. In this way I'd say game making is more like architecture than any of the other arts – a big idea is fantastic, but to be truly great you need to be functionally great, and that means having great execution. Fancy castles mean nothing if they're burning in a swamp.

One more thing:

Elysium wrote:

If books and movies are a glimpse into broad statements about other people, video games are a mirror.

Compare to:

Ghost in the Shell: Innocence wrote:

The mirror is an instrument of an illusion, not of an enlightement