Videogames: The Unfashionable Fine Art
musicandmythology.comCompare films made in the 1940's to those made in the 1910's, or earlier. Until the late 1910's, film was basically tech demo's. Brief shots of regular life, or maybe something a little titillating. No real plots or structure. By the 40's, most of the basics still in use today were established. Plot structure, as well as lots of little technical details, such as the 180 rule[1], were developed, and viewers instinctively rely on these even today.
However, film was not viewed as art in the 1940's. Stage was art. Film was just disposable mass entertainment. Studios churned out massive amounts of film and, in many cases, didn't bother to preserve anything. The idea that somebody would want to see Casablanca again in a few decades was alien. Even today, many films aren't seen as art. Somebody who says they're a lover of art films, especially Michael Bay's Transformer series, is going to be laughed at. However, nobody disputes the fact that films can be art today, thanks to classics like "Rashomon" or "Once Upon a Time in the West", and also thanks to more contemporary art films that challenge as much as they entertain, even if they may not prove to have lasting appeal.
Now take a look at the history of gaming. The early games of the 70's and 80's were, at first, basically tech demos. As the 80's wore on, game designers used challenging game mechanics to wring maximum engaged playtime out of extremely limited resources. Games like Pacman or Donkey Kong could certainly eat your time (and quarters), but they seldom provoked an emotional or intellectual response aside from frustration, not at all unlike a Michael Bay film.
We are entering an era in video gaming equivalent to film of the 1940's. The core mechanics are established and people know them. There now exist games that have appeal beyond the latest technology. If people are still playing Donkey Kong now, how long will games like the Stanley Parable hold up? Despite this, as for film in the 1940's, we still think of games as disposable and not as art. This is going to change, as it did for film, but slowly.
The important thing right now is for game producers to realize that their source code may be valuable in the future. Preserve that stuff!
[1]In many scenes with two participants, such as dialogue, duels in action scenes, etc., most film-makers avoid cutting back and forth between angles that exceed 180 degrees in difference. Breaking this rule usually confuses viewers, as it becomes unclear who is on which side.
Movie: 2 hours passive absorption. Must know how to speak the language. Creators have full control of the narrative.
Book: 8 hours intellectually engaged. Must know how to read. Creators have control of the narrative, but not the pacing at which it is consumed.
Video game: 30 hours actively participating. Must have skills specific to the medium, which often vary by genre. Creators have to allow for disruption and variation of the narrative, often in ways they cannot predict.
It's not that games can't be art in the modernist sense (where the intention is to either convey an idea or evoke an emotion). It's just that video games are a less accessible and more complex (and therefore harder to get right) medium. Want to do something only an interactive medium can do? Games are a good choice. Want to tell a story? Games are then an objectively inferior choice.
>Want to tell a story? Games are then an objectively inferior choice.
Not at all. First, lol at the presumptuousness of "objectively" when talking about subjective things. Second:
The example I always give is Spec Ops: the Line. I like it particularly because it has a well known and well regarded parallel in the medium most often compared when having the "games are art" discussion -- movies -- in Apocalypse Now, in that they're both reimaginations of the book Heart of Darkness.
I contend that the game is a much more powerful narrative experience precisely because its am interactive medium. You don't just see the characters perform their action and feel the consequences. You are the character. In the game (spoiler alert), you are the cocky soldier killing brown skinned enemies by the scores in what seems to be a run of the mill entertainment shooter. You quickly come across more sinister and depressing and horrifying sights. The situation devolves, and you are in control of the character the whole time. In one of the pivotal moments of the game, you (you, not someone else) pull the trigger on a white phosphorus bombing, to devastating consequences. You later walk the ruins of the area you just bombed and come across the horrifying sights of the consequences of your actions: horribly disfigured dead civilians. You experience and cause all these horrors, and the feelings and depressing reflections they cause are all the more intense, and their message all the more poignant, because you were in control the whole time. That's my 2c.
> Want to tell a story? Games are then an objectively inferior choice.
Absolutely incorrect. Games are simply a different way to tell a story, with different advantages and disadvantages. One particular advantage that might not be obvious initially is that non-interactive mediums such as video can (with rare exceptions) onlyt induce in the audience sympathetic emotions. Something tragic happens to an important character, you feel sad for them. Interactive storytelling can utilize direct emotions because you are the actor. Consider the tragic death of a character in a movie that makes you feel sad, yet you continue to watch. A similar tragedy happening to the player character (permadeath) in a video game may make you rage quit.
For a very discussion of these ideas about storytelling in an interactive media, I recommend watching at least the last (4th) episode[1] of Innuendo Studio's video essay "Story Beats"[2].
> Creators have full control of the narrative.
You (and anybody else interested in the theory of storytelling) should also watch "The Artist is Absent"[3] by the same person. It's technically an analysis of Davey Wreden's "The Beginner's Guide", but it's really an amazing 30 minute crash course in semiotics, death of the author, and enunciation theory as applied to The Beginner's Guide.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyhrKPLDCyY&index=4&list=PLJ...
[2] https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJA_jUddXvY4f8-eoY0mg...
edit: I somehow forgot to include this link
I don't know where this idea of games being a storytelling medium even comes from. I've never seen a game that tells a story. I've only seen games that are interrupted by story. Or maybe they're stories that are interrupted by gaming, if you want to look at it that way.
You're probably confusing where the story is.
> I've only seen games that are interrupted by story.
A common misconception is that "story" in a video game is like a movie or book. A video game may also contain storytelling in the style of a movie" or book, but that's not what I'm referring to. Interactive storytelling in a video game is the mechanics.
In addition to [1] in my post above, I strongly recommend watching this[4] Extra Credits video about narrative mechanics, which discusses the story of the classic game Missile Command. Maybe you don't like the story, or you think it's simplistic, but it's still a story. Missile Command is inherently a story about the futility of war. Video games are an interesting medium for storytelling because they get you, acting as an actor in that story, to realize some aspects of the plot on your own. Everybody that plays Missile Command realizes the futility of the situation without having to be told that directly; it comes from the mechanics directly.
For a very good example of a more detailed story that is told primarily through the mechanics, I highly recommend playing Undertale[5]. The story in Undertale cannot be told in a non-interactive medium. A movie or book telling the same story can tell part of the story, but it would be a different story that wouldn't have nearly the same impact.
[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQJA5YjvHDU
[5] DO NOT watch or read anything about the game first. I'd even recommend against even watching the trailer. Undertale has a serious problem with spoilers, and like a traditional "who did it" murder mystery, you should experience it as the author intended.
What about games like EVE Online where the players construct the story like the Battle of B-R5RB [1]. To me, it really emphasizes how games can tell stories in a way intrinsic to the medium and unreplicatable by any traditional medium.
That argument is true today, but over time, I think the gap will close.
A similar argument could be made in the mid-20th century against television. Back then, picture quality was low, screen size was small, and sound quality was terrible. Many writers said that the television would never be able to produce visuals better than your imagination.
Today, television is the best medium for telling a long form story with excellent fidelity. Computers are so advanced that the average viewer often can't see the difference between CG and practical effects.
Video games will eventually get there. Maybe the secret is VR, maybe it's something else. I just know that I stuck a Vive headset on my father-in-law and he was giggling and smiling the whole way through.
Not all art tells a story, and not all video games need to either.
l(a
le
af
fa
ll
s)
one
l
iness
-ee cummings
Art certainly, but no story told. Just an emotion, a brief moment of human connection and emotion evoked.
Now play this game, it will only take a moment or two I swear: http://www.necessarygames.com/my-games/loneliness/flash
Do you feel that same emotion? I certainly feel it does, beautifully, intensely, and simply. Perhaps more powerfully than the lovely poem above. Two evocations of the same things, two different mediums. Both art certainly.
> Want to tell a story? Games are then an objectively inferior choice.
Only with respect to time constraints, is what you mean, right?
I think the talent just isn't there also.
I respectfully disagree.
I love art, but I really dislike pretentiousness attached to art.
Gabe Newell wrote that he appreciated the art in Super Mario 64, and he was convinced by that game that video games could be art.
If we're going to talk about what's 'objectively better' or 'talent,' the fact is we can say something like this with certainty: Gabe Newell is objectively better than almost everyone at some things, including coding and creating and managing an innovative business that will bring an enormous number of hours of joy to billions of people. Can we say the art he likes is inferior to the art you like?
There are plenty of games that are much shorter, in the range of 1-3 hours. These are often from independent studios that aren't trying to pump out a blockbuster, and can be much more artistic and powerful than the common entry. Limbo[1] is perhaps my favorite in this category.
If you're not watching things in languages you don't speak, you're really missing out on some great stuff.