Let me preface by stating outright that I am no expert, in anything really. I don't speak for any majority, I am no art expert nor am I a gaming expert, I just have a soap box and a voice.
What is it that makes art art? Why do we love it so? Why is it so controversial? Because it speaks. Through the years the voices of Shylock, of Van Gogh's Peasants, of Banksy have spoken to sooth and shake us. They reminded us of certain undeniable truths, of universal constants, they've taught us better than any school, inspired us to do more than any muse, and elicited powerful emotions within us. Art binds, art teaches, art is yada, yada, yada. Why, then, are people outside of the videogaming world so unwilling to let video games be called art? I think the simple answer is they aren't, yet.
Apart from very, very, very few examples (two of which I will go over) no game has achieved enough to be called art. Halo, Gears, Metal Gear, Lost Planet, God of War, Project Gotham, Mario, Sonic, and so on fail to achieve anything close to an undeniable truth, a universal constant. No game has ever reminded me of the finite nature of life, has ever eased my weary soul by saying it's okay to be me, or spoken to me on a deeper level than people who don't look like you are bad. Not having played every game in existence I am, of course, speaking only to the section of the market I have inhabited. I do, however, feel I have a comprehensive enough knowledge of popular games to be able to speak to what 90% of the population has experienced. But I've been wrong many times before.
Videogames wish they were movies. They want to be cinematic, they want to be exciting and adrenaline filled, and pretty, and well acted. The major problem with that line of thinking is that video games aren't movies. They are limited by the player sitting behind the controller. The creator cannot foresee what the player will. A player must be able to play the game, must feel in control, must be able to see everything going on around him. Visually, then, a game can't look like a movie because it can't use camera tricks, and editing guile, and can't be staged "just so," else the player won't be part of the action and will be left saying "gee that's looks like fun." Also, trying to incorporate a soundtrack into a game, one with any emotional force ends up being awkward and out of sync. Even if the music reacts to the players actions, those actions are, for the large part, unplanned and would end up being just as awkward, barring luck. The reason movie fights are so entertaining and potent is that they're carefully thought out and choreographed and augmented by sound and camera angle, and so on. To get that out of a game where the creator has no control over what the player is actually doing would be inconceivably difficult. Finally, movies are short. They last an hour or two whereas games last several hours. A game that lasts less than 5 hours is either too short to sell at full price or lampooned for its length. Books are much longer and arguably a more artistic media than film. Books, though, have the luxury of being able to delve deep into the mind and psychological state of a character (something which games, through inventive gameplay, could achieve given the right director). They also don't require constant activity to involve the reader.
I do, however, concede, especially after having played Bioshock, that as a storytelling medium games can work well. Playing through Bioshock excited me in ways a videogame never has before. I was fascinated by the story, wanted desperately to know more about Andrew Ryan and Rapture. The story wasn't childish, or overly angry, or even adolescent. It took on some pretty heady issues about the free market, and power, and choice, and all of that satisfied me in a way a videogame has never done before. The thing is, though, that, though it was visceral and well done, it didn't do it better than a book or even a movie could have. I learned more about the story reading about it on the internet than I did playing through it and playing through it again is a big investment (one which is worth it, but still makes me think twice before turning on the xbox). The thing that really captivated me about the game wasn't so much the intrigue and drama as it was the way they used the concession that every gamer makes, to give up free will, to further the plot. Using the gameplay as a major part of the story was, frankly, inspired. Now, I'm sure this wasn't the first game to do this, but that's beside the point, the point is they did it, and did it well. The fact that the game was well enough planned out to incorporate, or at least attempt to incorporate, the core gameplay into the story shows a dedication to the game which I haven't seen before.
Bioshock is by no means perfect. There were flaws in gameplay, like so many other games it ends up involving mass murder, though it never claims to not be an FPS. What it did do, however, was raise my standards. Games that break the fourth wall, that have childish (I'm being kind) storylines if any at all, or are just excuses to kill time will now be viewed with suspicion (despite all this I still enjoy sports games and Halo, though they provide me with little more than fun). This leads me (not so) neatly on to a shining beacon of gaming glory: Beautiful Katamri. A crazy game which, in case you missed it, requires you to push a giant ball of stuff in the hopes of snowballing it into a bigger ball. It's colourful and strange and fun, trust me. What makes this game so glorious and shiny, you may ask? The game, the whole of it, not just the story, not just a character, through and through is a critique of capitalism. A writer is asked to show, not tell, his readers how a character feels, how an action goes down. Metaphor; it's more powerful than explanation, actions speak louder than words. That's what this game does, it uses what it alone, as a game, has that no other medium has. The fact that you're using the ball to collect things to no other ends than collecting things, and that the ball doesn't exist except as a means to collect more stuff speaks to the horrors of capitalism in a way saying it, out loud, couldn't. That's art, that's what videogames should be. More than time sinks, the gameplay itself should be the point, the game and gameplay should involve more than killing (not that killing in and of itself is a bad subect, it just isn't the only one... and we should be presented with more interesting issues tied to it).
I'm not saying that fun is bad. Casual games are an important part of gaming, it's just that they're overrepresented and can't save the industry from the downward spiral it embarked upon with the Microsoft Wii and the Sony Wii unveiled at E3 this year. What we need is meaningful games that use everything at their disposal to speak like art does. How can game makers do this? By not pandering to us and giving us games with mature stories that are interesting, by using gameplay mechanics as more than a vehicle for murder and treasure hunting. Making games use the cadence and rhythm of gameplay to make music (like a sports game or any movement based game for instance not just for the simple purpose of making music). Using choice as a conduit for more interesting commentary than good vs. evil too would be fascinating. Gaming doesn't have to be mindless, it can speak, it can be art, it can be beautiful, it can be more.
No comments:
Post a Comment