Do Games Matter?
So our little industry has come under fire pretty constantly this year by politicians, journalists, and ambulance-chasers looking to win big fame and money in class-action lawsuits. They have made attacks against videogames that they'd never dare make against other, more "established" media. Some media, such as novels, survived similar attacks in the past. Others, like comic books / graphic novels, haven't fared so well.

One of the things that is missing in games' defense is the question of whether or not games are important, or have anything to "say" as a "serious medium." Are they worth defending, or are they simply a worthless distraction?

Cinema Parallels
Roger Ebert last year went on record as saying that he considered video games as being inherently inferior to movies, and that "... the nature of the medium prevents it from moving beyond craftsmanship to the stature of art." This is because the artist is not in control - the interactiveness of the medium which is the greatest strength of video games is a liability, according to Ebert.

I was at a GDC talk by Brian Moriarty several years ago where he talked about "Entrainment." Throughout his talk, he superimposed two clips. One was a clip from "The Great Train Robbery" - the final moment where the robber points his gun at the audience and fires. This was followed up by a short clip of a scene from Quake II where the player (looking down the barrel of his pistol) shoots and kills an enemy Strogg warrior. These two four-second clips replayed over and over throughout his talk, morphing into a hypnotic pattern over the course of the hour.

One of the many points he brought up was that early motion pictures originally leaned too heavily upon their spiritual ancestor, the stage. The camera was effectively placed in a single position (front and center) and simply followed the stage play. Effectively, movies were made into nothing more than a cheap imitation of real theater. "Inherently inferior to the stage," one might say.

Another point he brought up was that as movies evolved, they survived on spectacle. The final seconds of The Great Train Robbery were thrown in simply to shock the audience. The sight of someone pointing a pistol directly at them and firing was a thrill akin to hitting the loops in a roller coaster. Reportedly, it had audiences screaming in terror. Nowadays, of course, it's no big deal. Once the key thrill of the show, the same scene bores us today. As audiences became used to these sorts of spectacles, they had to grow in intensity to maintain the same thrill. This practice couldn't continue forever (though the device is still utilized to a smaller degree by the summer action blockbuster). And so were movies dragged kicking and screaming into evolution as an art form.

Also interestingly, movies were not considered an "art form" and thus subject to First Amendment protection until 1952, with the Supreme Court ruling on Joseph Burstyn, Inc v. Wilson. This was well into the history of American cinema, and even after cinema's "Golden Age."

It's hard not to see the parallels between the movie industry and the videogame industry, including our over-dependence on mimicking movies in our games, and our dependence upon increasingly expensive technical "spectacle" to thrill audiences (which seems to be failing, based on polls showing an increasing apathy towards the next generation of games).

What Kind of Game Would Shakespeare Have Designed?
When you discuss literary and dramatic masterpieces, the name that invariably comes up is William Shakespeare. One element of Shakespeare's brilliance was that he knew how and when to play to the "cheap seats" (the groundlings) with the cheap thrills, tawdry jokes, and violence. Yet even so he told a timeless human story that left the audience pondering and discussing it HUNDREDS of years later. It's a delicate juggling act, yet his mastery of it makes his stories more powerful to modern audiences than almost all modern creations (only time will tell if any of today's artists managed to equal or surpass him).

There's a great article by Jessica Mulligan called, "Just Give Me a Game, Please." In it, she contends that in his day, William Shakespeare was not considered one of the great artists of his day. He was not respected by "serious" critics. Mulligan goes so far as to call Shakespeare "the Aaron Spelling of his day." He was just a guy making a buck by writing simple entertainment designed to please the masses. It's only with a few centuries of hindsight that we now consider his creations high art.

Admittedly, most games haven't gone far beyond trying to appeal to the cheap seats. Those that demand the most real "thought" on the part of players are often doomed at the cash register. Modern designers haven't learned Shakespeare's balancing trick yet, I guess. But is it possible in games? Why not?

Are Stories Or Games Important?
Why do we have stories? Are they important? Well, a great deal of the world would say so, citing the stories of religious scripture (including many fictional 'parables') as the basis of the entire structure of their lives. Stories teach. Maybe they don't always teach the right things, but they do teach. Much of our childhood is full of cautionary tales (some of which evolve into 'urban legends' or simply 'fairie tales') which reinforce cultural patterns. Why don't you talk to strangers on your way to Granny's house in the deep dark woods?

Stories teach us. Stories let us celebrate being HUMAN. Stories let us connect with the rest of the human race. Popular stories give us a common experience with others in the human race, allowing us to connect and communicate. Just watch two perfect strangers who are also Star Wars geeks get into it. Sure, finding a cure for cancer would people to survive, but I argue it is in our art, entertainment, and communication of emotions with each other that allows us to LIVE. That is why we put such a value on Shakespeare and Mel Gibson and Bach and "Must See T.V."

Many videogames tell stories. In fact, some tell pretty dang linear stories. The player is in charge of running a gauntlet of challenges between storytelling points, and gets rewarded with a storytelling sequence. Some games allow you to tell your own story, and derive your own lessons from them. The quality and content of the lessons are very much rooted in the game designer's own vision. The stories are often pretty simple, with themes such as "Love Conquers All" or "Protect The Earth!" (Play the Final Fantasy series to get beaten over the head with that one). The lessons aren't always obvious, and rarely have clear parallels with reality. Video games are the among the first "games" that have been able to blend storytelling with play. While it's often a very turmoil-filled, rough marriage, it's there and sometimes even works.

We also learn and grow from play. Simulation is a long-recognized and respected training tool. I will never forget my first game of "Supremacy" and how much I learned about international politics from that single session that hadn't been drilled into my head after reading weekly issues of Time and Newsweek for years. The crude, simplistic boardgame simulation didn't teach me what I would need to be to be the leader of a real-world superpower, or how to best survive a limited nuclear war. Just as putting hundreds of hours into first-person shooters won't teach you how to handle a real-world gun.

No, what I instead came to 'grok' were more abstract concepts like the value of keeping forces in reserve. Or some basics of negotiation. Or just WHY researching a purely defensive technology would get an entity that honestly doesn't intend you any harm (probably) really really mad at you - as it robs them of their negotiating power and makes them feel very, very vulnerable.

Multiplayer games are shrinking the world and forming REAL relationships, communication, and understanding between people. I'll never forget a story I read back in the early days of multiplayer gaming where some flight sim enthusiasts from the UK decided to re-enact the Battle of Britain against some players in Germany. The twist was that the German players were playing the beleagered RAF, and the UK players got to hop into the attacking planes.

And there are countless stories of people making real friends online, finding future business associates or even spouses in multiplayer games. Sure, there are tons of stories of scary weirdos out there too (it's those important CAUTIONARY TALES, remember! They are there for a reason!), but there are real success stories as well. Playing together brings people together. That's a HUGE inherent advantage games have over movies --- though it might not make games "Art," I think it makes them important.

And can video games reduce the debilitating effect of age or Alzeimer's on the brain? I'd say that's pretty important.

I think games matter.

Personal Importance
And is MAKING games important? Sure! As important as, say, searching for a cure to AIDS or Cancer or fixing the ozone layer or helping feed children in third-world countries? I wouldn't think so. But everything's got its place.

When I was making games for a living, it was satisfying just to know that my efforts were helping feed my family. I could think of a lot worse ways to earn a living than programming the flight pattern of fictional swarm-missiles.

My last couple of job had me working on handling distribution of nutritional supplements. The one before that had me working on security software to help protect enterprises from malware and intruders. Both sound kind of "important." But I was so insulated from the people I was supposed to be helping that I didn't get that feeling of satisfaction for "doing good" that I thought I would. Almost the only time I heard from the end-users was when something had gone wrong.

Contrast that to the feeling of satisfaction I have received reading "fan mail" for some of the games I've worked on. It's not some earth-shatteringly great thing I've done for people. But I've helped add a little bit of extra joy and fun to their lives - enough that they felt compelled to write the game-makers and say "Thank You! I had a lot of fun playing your game!" - That is an awesome feeling.

And that matters to me.

Labels: Game Design, Politics

- posted by The Rampant Coyote @ 12:36 AM (Permalink)