So Long Orson Welles

“Where is gaming’s Citizen Kane?” is a stupid question.

To me it is a question that reflects the endless insecurities that seem to plague our young media enterprise as we search for a sense of belonging among an old guard that considers us with jealous eyes and yellow teeth. As the burgeoning games industry clamors for a seat at the dusty table where the dying media empires scheme and connive, I suspect that we ought to be grateful for every second we are not counted on their ledgers.

With the toothless, worn out whore – the games as art debate – dragged again into the town square to be publicly flogged, I find myself driven to reject any response at all. To answer the question is to miss the point entirely, because any answer validates what I think is a fundamentally flawed concept, as though art were some quantifiable, describable thing. You might as well ask if games are love.

I say, in my most haughty voice possible, let high minded fools pass down their judgments on what is or is not allowed to be art. I didn’t really want to play the Mona Lisa anyway. I have a better question – Where is video gaming’s Chess?

I am not some kind of Chess snob. I enjoy the challenge of playing people who think about the game more as a passing fancy rather than as a life choice or a religion. I have no archaic knowledge of openings. I have never studied at length a king and pawn endgame. I can name at least 10 times more professional golfers than I could Chess Grandmasters.

And yet, I respect Chess in a way that I do no other game. I have no trouble recognizing the monumental genius of its construction, the staggering elegance of its craft. When I think about this game in the terms that I usually reserve for video games, I keep looking for the subtle flaw in its design that can ultimately be exploited and destroy the underlying fabric of its tenuous structure, and yet I realize that millions of man hours have been exhausted doing exactly the same with fruitless results.

That this game can be so simple — my six year old understands the rules without any difficulty — and yet so staggeringly complex at once is amazing to me. Certainly we have video games that amateurishly mimic this kind of “easy to play, impossible to master” mentality, but ultimately they require house rules, patches for refinement or the understanding that somehow one structure, one plan is slightly superior to all others if played correctly.

Chess does not appear to have any such flaw.

This isn’t an article about how awesome Chess is though. It’s more about how we perceive ourselves as gamers, and how we think about what our ideals are. I freely admit that I am at times absorbed into the siren’s song of cuddling with cinema, and when Uncharted 2 licks my eyeballs I am as seduced as the next gamer. No question there is a place for great visual storytelling in games, but when I think about the games that will last, that will be our grand paragons placed high on a gilded pedestal I find my love for games like Uncharted 2 may be much more superficial than I first suspect.

It is a date with a super model, a test drive in a Ferrari, an improptu hook-up with a visiting foreigner. It is a nice memory that is best not looked at too closely. What it is not is the game you will settle down with for years to come. And, hey I'm not denigrating the value of a flashy, if transitory, experience. If we're looking at games that way, who wants to sleep with a grumpy old man like Citizen Kane anyway? If we're going to make that the gold standard then the better question is "Where is our Avatar?"

But, when I think of the kinds of games that orbit in the distant penumbra of mastery demonstrated by Chess, that begin to approach this new vision for a perfect quality, I think games like Civilization 4, Rise of Nations, Team Fortress 2. These are games that continue to stand not only as great games for their times, but games that hold up years or potentially decades later. Cinematic experiences in games last only as long as the makeup and technology hold. I may love Wing Commander IV for what it accomplished at the time, but do I really want to go back and play it still? Does the game itself actually hold up?

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with having a broad spectrum of games that approach the medium from countless angles. That’s part of the flexibility of the platform, and a concept I champion, but I also think we lose too much time trying to be something we are not. The further I get from Heavy Rain, for example, the more I realize that much of what ultimately holds it back from being a good game are exactly the things for which it was so heavily lauded.

In the long run, it has always been the games that unapologetically embraced the idea of truly being a game that seemed to last. Maybe that tells us something.

Comments

Pages

With the toothless, worn out whore – the games as art debate – dragged again into the town square to be publicly flogged, I find myself driven to reject any response at all.

Worn-out whores recur more frequently in your writing than I am really comfortable with.

What is interpretive dance's Citizen Kane?
Who is beat poetry's Orson Welles?
What is the Citizen Kane of musicals?

All of these questions are equally as ludicrous. Perhaps a more valid question might be:

"Is Citizen Kane even relevant to the discussion anymore?"

How many of today's moviegoers have seen Citizen Kane? In fact, how many of the great unwashed cinema-going masses have even heard of Citizen Kane? It may have been a landmark piece of film, but it's ancient history, and outside of the niche of the 'hardcore' movie enthusiast, it's largely been forgotten.

Perhaps by that token, Pong is the Citizen Kane of videogames. How'd you like them apples, Ebert?

Love the pic of Kane from C&C! Great article, and it just points out why I play games. I always enjoy a gamey-game more. I cannot grasp why people obsess over realism in games so much.

This is one of my favorite articles of yours, and you're absolutely dead on about everything. (With the glaring exception of Heavy Rain, but that's a totally different discussion). Well done.

With the toothless, worn out whore – the games as art debate – dragged again into the town square to be publicly flogged, I find myself driven to reject any response at all. To answer the question is to miss the point entirely, because any answer validates what I think is a fundamentally flawed concept, as though art were some quantifiable, describable thing. You might as well ask if games are love.

This paragraph is a masterful response to the games as art debate and should end all discussion on the subject as far as I'm concerned. Fantastic.

Jonman wrote:

All of these questions are equally as ludicrous. Perhaps a more valid question might be:

"Is Citizen Kane even relevant to the discussion anymore?"

Broadly, yes, but it's become so muddled that yeah it's basically useless now. How did it even come about? I can't remember how or when, but if I had to defend its utility, I'd argue there are two reasons for asking the question, "What is the Citizen Kane of video games". First, Citizen Kane is probably constantly trotted about because (and naturally, I haven't seen CK) it's construed as a technical milestone in filmmaking: it displayed everything we expect of a modern movie, technically, and with a solid story. It was the complete package and the first film we'd recognize as being a proper film. So what's the CK of video games, in that respect? I'd say Half-Life. It took all the elements of gaming to that time, including the tired and shallow lone-gunman-against-the-invading-aliens Doom core, and fired them into the 21st century in a single game of integrated narrative and play, believable world, relatively believable architecture, subtle story-telling. Every video game since has HL as its foundation or lives in its shadow. (Half-Life 2 went even further with all of these things, and HL isn't quite as triumphant, but that's the nature of sequels/iteration—CK is probably no The Godfather anyway.) So there, question resolved: The Citizen Kane of video games is Half-Life.

Wait, I said there were two useful reasons for asking the CK question. So CK is also bandied about to allude to the mainstream acceptance of video games as a legitimate medium and artform, something that CK apparently did for movies. Whether or not CK did this is beside the point. As it must be clear by now (what up!) CK is practically a shibboleth rather than a discourse. But regardless. So what game launched video games into mainstream recognition and acceptance? Well, sorry boys, it's probably not something as coool as Half-Life. In this respect the Citizen Kane of video games is probably The Sims, or World of WarCraft. They have sales through the roof, broad demographic appeal, mainstream acceptance, enthusiast and mainstream critical acclaim, scholarly respect and attention. They just aren't "hardcore". Well, that's where asking questions gets you!

Oh no he di'int!

One comment on the 'Citizen Kane' argument and then I'm done with this forever:

what made that such a milestone was a perfect storm of ingredients:

1) One of Hollywood's most beloved and hailed artists at that time: Orson Welles
2) pioneering technical feats to create shots that had never been seen before (digging a 6 ft hole to fit a camera in to get the perfect upshot of Kane)
3) a gripping storyline told by a maverick lampooning the publishing world's most powerful person
3a) this is significant because Hearst was famous for making and breaking people in all industries with a simple article in one of his publications. Basically, if he didn't approve of what you were doing, you were totally f*@#ed. So it truly was a real-life David taking down Goliath Hollywood story.

I would highly recommend "RKO 281" - a great little HBO biopic about Orson Welles and the making of "Citizen Kane".

So basically, what I'm trying to say is, until Tim Schafer makes a satirical game with next-gen technology lampooning Bobby Kotick, we'll never have a Citizen Kane. And I'm totally fine with that.

ultimately they have [a flaw]...one plan is slightly superior to all others if played correctly.

The reason for this, though, is that Chess is deliberative, turn-based, and open. Both players can see everything and (in the variants you're most interested in) have ample time to consider implications. There ARE killer moves in Chess... but your opponent, if sufficiently skilled, can always see them coming and act appropriately. Higher order strategy is born only of seeing deeper and longer.

Video games, by their very nature, are not deliberative but immediate. That's one reason we like them: they're exciting, immersive, or just plain fast.

One could argue that several games of sophistication similar to Chess have been developed primarily of computer games. For instance, Conway's game of Life or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ataxx are candidates. And of course you can play chess with your computer. But these are not mainstream for gaming.

I think the 'chess' model is still not right.

Nathaniel wrote:

Video games, by their very nature, are not deliberative but immediate. That's one reason we like them: they're exciting, immersive, or just plain fast.

Doesn't that ignore entire categories of turn-based videogames though?

Video gaming's chess

This topic does have a lot in common with what the company I'm working for faces as an issue with starting a game delivery service. Movies are constantly moved up from format to format, whereas games, once played are often discarded and slowly forgotten. When was the last time you plugged in your gamecube for a game of monkeyball and enjoyed it?

Unfortunately games just don't seem to be as timeless as movies can be. Gameplay and technology in older games is often outdated and frustrating by today's standards, making them nothing more than occasional nostalgic diversions.

That said, I'm happy to see GOG doing such good business, as I do think there's a market to be served by remembering gaming's roots. While timeless videogames like Master of Magic, Rise of Nations and Civ4 way not quite be "chess", it's nice to know there will be effort made to allow gamers to enjoy them as media and technology formats change.

nel e nel wrote:

So basically, what I'm trying to say is, until Tim Schafer makes a satirical game with next-gen technology lampooning Bobby Kotick, we'll never have a Citizen Kane. And I'm totally fine with that.

Solid criteria, and thanks for the CK specifics too! Between your comment and mine, I'm also done with the CK yardstick as something to post about incessantly. I still think it's useful as an idea, as long as it's being hammered out like you did. That said, I'll still go with Half-Life or The Sims as the most Citizen Kane-y of games. Until, of course, EA Presents Citizen Kane.

Where is video gaming’s Chess?

Tetris.

Bozzley wrote:
Where is video gaming’s Chess?

Tetris.

Fresh off the heels of "Where is the Citizen Kane of video games", I now turn to "Where is the chess of video games". I nominate StarCraft.

Or Battle Chess.

Jonman wrote:

What is the Citizen Kane of musicals?

If we want importance and innovation for its time - Showboat

If we want breathtaking originality - Company

Gravey wrote:
Bozzley wrote:
Where is video gaming’s Chess?

Tetris.

Fresh off the heels of "Where is the Citizen Kane of video games", I now turn to "Where is the chess of video games". I nominate StarCraft.

Or Battle Chess.

I would vote chessmaster! As for Citizen Kane comments, if you have not seen the movie yet think it is silly and old bust out netflix and view it! It is TIMELESS.

Stylez wrote:

When was the last time you plugged in your gamecube for a game of monkeyball and enjoyed it?

Couple of months ago, except I don't need a gamecube because my Wii is back-compatible ;p

Bozzley wrote:

Where is video gaming’s Chess?

Tetris.

I thought the same thing. It's a game that couldn't really be replicated in a physical medium.

Um, it's obviously Metroid Prime. (NSFW!)

It seems to me that the key distinction between Elysium's chess-like games and non-chess-like games is whether they are multiplayer endeavors or not.

Chess is a simple game with simple rules; the complexity arises not from the rules themselves, but from the ways in which competing players respond within those rules. The reason there is no "weakness" in the rules themselves is that both players have equal access to all of the game's capabilities.

From that perspective, it seems as if any symmetrical competitive multiplayer game would pretty much fit the bill.

Troy Goodfellow wrote:
Jonman wrote:

What is the Citizen Kane of musicals?

If we want importance and innovation for its time - Showboat

If we want breathtaking originality - Company

Awesome.

gore wrote:

From that perspective, it seems as if any symmetrical competitive multiplayer game would pretty much fit the bill.

So, you agree with Jonman that Pong fits the bill.

gore wrote:

It seems to me that the key distinction between Elysium's chess-like games and non-chess-like games is whether they are multiplayer endeavors or not.

Chess is a simple game with simple rules; the complexity arises not from the rules themselves, but from the ways in which competing players respond within those rules. The reason there is no "weakness" in the rules themselves is that both players have equal access to all of the game's capabilities.

From that perspective, it seems as if any symmetrical competitive multiplayer game would pretty much fit the bill.

Huh? Not at all: the complexity of chess arises from how the simple rules interact. Obviously it takes players to enact those rules, but it's not the players, it's the system. Pong has even fewer, simpler rules, and therefore a much more limited possibility space. Throw all the players you want in there, but it's not going to get any more complex than paddle-go-up/paddle-go-down. More complex than tic-tac-toe maybe, but definitely not as complex as chess.

I want to know where gaming's The Third Man is.

I would argue that board games and video games are, in fact, one in the same medium.* So chess is gaming's chess.

* I would define game design as the composition of systems/ecologies.

Elysium wrote:

Stop talking about the Citizen Kane of videogames. It's pointless.

Everyone else wrote:

OMG it's Pong! No, Half Life! Don't forget about Shadow of the Colossus!

Huh.

gore wrote:

It seems to me that the key distinction between Elysium's chess-like games and non-chess-like games is whether they are multiplayer endeavors or not.

Chess is a simple game with simple rules; the complexity arises not from the rules themselves, but from the ways in which competing players respond within those rules. The reason there is no "weakness" in the rules themselves is that both players have equal access to all of the game's capabilities.

From that perspective, it seems as if any symmetrical competitive multiplayer game would pretty much fit the bill.

No. Tic-tac-toe has all of those characteristics, but tic-tac-toe is no chess. Chess rules are fairly simple, but not that simple. The complexity of chess comes from the fact that 1) there are always many possible moves, and 2) a given game will contain a lot of tough decision points, i.e., points at which there are several possible moves and no efficient way to eliminate alternatives.

The distinction between games of limited and of perfect information is a red herring here. Tic-tac-toe, a game of perfect information, is boring and stupid. Poker, a game of limited information, is deep and interesting.

EDIT: here is an interesting Slashdot story on games and computational complexity. I don't agree with the thesis, and certainly not every NP-hard problem is fun.

7inchsplit wrote:

I would argue that board games and video games are, in fact, one in the same medium.* So chess is gaming's chess.

* I would define game design as the composition of systems/ecologies.

I agree with you absolutely. But video games still sit somewhere between traditional games and audio-visual entertainment, which tends to muddy things up and speaks to exactly what Elysium is writing about. If we the audience, and designers can concentrate less on games as stories and more on games as games we and the form would all be better off.

grobstein wrote:

disagrees with gore, brings up tic-tac-toe

Grobstein, you are a man after my own heart.

Clemenstation wrote:
Elysium wrote:

Stop talking about the Citizen Kane of videogames. It's pointless.

Everyone else wrote:

OMG it's Pong! No, Half Life! Don't forget about Shadow of the Colossus!

Huh.

Hey c'mon, it's like telling us not to think about elephants.

Jonman wrote:

What is the Citizen Kane of musicals?

Canibal The Musical, say no more

Gravey wrote:
Jonman wrote:

All of these questions are equally as ludicrous. Perhaps a more valid question might be:

"Is Citizen Kane even relevant to the discussion anymore?"

Broadly, yes, but it's become so muddled that yeah it's basically useless now. How did it even come about? I can't remember how or when

The question was doomed from the start because it uses "Citizen Kane" as a signifier without a clear signified. The answer to the question depends entirely on one's view of what it means to be "gaming's Citizen Kane," which depends on what Citizen Kane meant. It meant huge box-office returns. It meant popular acceptance of a medium. It meant a milestone in terms of bringing arthouse innovations to big-budget production. It meant Orson Welles. It meant socio-political allegory. It meant worth-a-damn writing and a host of other things. But all the answers to the question really showed were which of those things the respondent focused on or otherwise understood Kane to mean.

One game I would posit as an equivalent - or sufficiently equivalent - to Citizen Kane status would be Shadow of the Colossus. Taking in consideration that the movie in question criticized something in real life (the publisher) and used technology/techniques in new ways, SotC does something similar in a more subtle way, perhaps. One could argue that it metaphorically alludes to the way humankind has murdered the land in order to achieve its goals. One could also argue that the way the game mechanics are used is something new, that the minimalist approach lends it a flair absent in all other games of its time. Likewise with Ico, come to think of it.

That said, I do believe that games, or any other medium, don't need to meet any particular requirements to be considered art save for the fact that they allow the authors to express themselves creatively.

Pages