On Game Criticism Part Three – Videogames VS TV & Film

This is the third post in a series which I have be doing over the last few weeks. Each one will look at a portion of the current situation and challenge of video-game criticism.

The videogame community has trouble realizing just how young it is these days. We now exist in a place where a full generation of gamers have never played Pong and got their start not on the NES or Atari 2600, but instead on a Playstation. It’s often perceived that since there are actual generational paradigm shifts in the community, the medium has matured. This perception is mistaken. Videogames, like comics, are a new media despite having a growing history all their own. Since we’re dealing with a new media we are quick to try and relate videogames to other mediums such as television or film (or perhaps even comics). It’s this relationship I want to examine today.

There are two reasons why the community seeks to tie videogames to these other mediums. They are as follows:
1) Seeking legitimacy. Not necessarily our proudest moment, but it’s true. Videogames have yet to become legitimate. A medium cannot become legitimate so long as it remains thought of as the product of a niche group. Many would point to the Nintendo Wii sales figures as the disintegration of that distinction, but that’s getting ahead of ourselves. My grandmother owns a TV and watches movies, but has not concept or understanding of videogames. Our newspaper has a weekly schedule for the local cable network and a listing of movie times at local theatres, but the space allocated to videogames is the same that would be dedicated to niche interests such as local jazz enthusiasts. We, the community, seem to think that if we can convince society that videogames are like interactive movies we will then get the opportunity to treat games as “legitimate” art.

2) Seeking language. It’s strange to think about it, especially given exactly how much the videogame community writes on blogs, forums, and message boards, but we don’t really know how to talk about videogames. I’m of course talking about language in a critical sense. I’ll again point to that other new media of comic books. Having written academic papers on comics before, I know that any analysis of comics has to start with Will Eisner’s Comics and Sequential Art and Scott McCloud’s Understanding Comics. These texts are still relatively young, critically speaking, and they exist as canon because there has been such limited effort to expand on them. Comics, like videogames, have a few departments in niche colleges or universities, but they pale in comparison to the popularity of departments such as film studies. This brings the point back to something I mentioned in my first post, and will discuss next time, and that is the need for serious critical discussion to establish what can, and cannot, be borrowed from these other mediums.

There’s a third point I think lots of people would include, which is that videogames are similar to television or film. However, I think that’s a mistake. Videogames have more in common with Monopoly than they do with an episode of Friends. I will admit that many videogames have narrative qualities similar to those of films or even books, but a videogame is not a videogame because of narrative and a film is. Every film, every TV show, every book has to have a meaning. Even Seinfeld, the canonical “show about nothing”, provided us with a view into segments of the characters’ lives. Now think of Pong. There’s no narrative here. There’s an objective, rules of play, conditions for victory and loss, but no narrative. To build a relationship between videogames and film is therefore a mistake. In fact, I think it’s this mistake that’s holding videogames back.

There is no doubt that, going back to my second reason for attachment, a lot of what we use to evaluate, critique, and interact with film and television can be brought to the table when dealing with videogames. However, we need to be more discerning when separating the proverbial wheat from the chaff. When people first started approaching comics they attempted to use tools that had already been used for textual narratives, such as books, or they borrowed from the school of visual arts. What they discovered was that neither perspective did the media justice. It’s not enough to just blend the two either. Rather, we need to create our own critical, and cultural, discourse for videogames. Perhaps the best place to start, rather than audio-visual art, would be the various theories on the subject of play. Modern literary criticism incorporates a great deal from psychology, economics, philosophy, biology, and a myriad of other artistic influences. I think it’s time we did the same for videogames.

There is no disputing that certain videogames have a great deal in common with television or film, but the time of those instinctual connections has passed. We now need to move on and discuss, and present, videogames as they are: a unique medium all their own.

Next week I hope to wrap this whole thing up. Until next time kittlings…

On Game Criticism Part Two – Videogame Journalism

This post is the second of a few which I will be doing over the following weeks. Each one will look at a portion of the current situation and challenge of video-game criticism.

In today’s post I would like to take a moment to look at game journalism. I am not talking about reviews (that’ll come later), but rather the media industry which exists in peripheral to gaming as a support mechanism. I would also like to point out that I’m not talking about niche journalism such as developer journals or the like, but rather the mainstream print and web media which seeks to appeal to every console or PC owner they can attract with fancy cover art.

I think a lot of people, both journalists and readers, who sometimes forget that while journalism has every right to provide negative feedback, it is ultimately there to build up the industry. Wait a second. Let’s not go crazy here. The ultimate reason for the existence of videogame journalism is to make a profit. Period. The catch is that in order to make that profit the videogame industry needs to be supported.

This statement is not to say that journalism ought to “bend over backwards” and/or outright lie to favour the developers and publishers, but I think it’s fair to say that sometimes they get a little carried away with tearing things down. I think this goes back to something that was mentioned in Shawn Elliot’s Symposium about Reviews (Part 1 and Part 2): that gaming journalism used to be the proverbial Gate Keepers when it came to gaming info. As such, I believe that many journalists felt it was their responsibility to provide a counter point to the marketing spin companies would put out there. In short, I think that videogame journalism was negative in order to provide a voice of the people.

The people’s voice, however, is now prevalent without gaming journalism. I am of course referring to the “blogosphere”. As has been elegantly pointed out before, the internet has provided a platform wherein the consumers are able to make recommendations (though these often are phrased as demands) and point out weaknesses (though often done with malicious hyperbole) without the Gate Keepers of the past. So where does this leave our journalists? Some would say out in the cold.

I believe that journalists will always make themselves relevant. This relevance will most likely be gained by providing content which users will not. Either in-depth or stylized reviews, or previews which non-professionals simply will not have access to. I do believe, however, that along with this unique perspective we may have to see a change in relationship between publishers and journalists. This change in relationship is one I think people will find unappealing. I believe more game magazines will be owned by the big publishers: ie. Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo.

Before you discard this argument completely, hear me out. Firstly, I subscribe to OXM and think it’s a great magazine without actually being owned by Microsoft. I’m not saying they have to be. What I’m saying is that as the after-the-fact criticism starts to move more towards blogs, and established media outlets move more towards previews, we’ll be lucky if we get magazines like Nintendo Power. Back when my Gamecube was my primary console, I subscribed to Nintendo Power. I realized full well that the magazine was a large monthly book of advertisements for pretty much everything I could play on my GC and DS. With that perspective in mind I still found it really informative. The features and previews had lots of content I hadn’t read or seen before and I very rarely invested too much in the reviews. As I mentioned, I don’t want to get too much into reviews here, but I’ve discovered that most magazines have reviews I don’t agree with 100% and as such I go to other sources which more closely match my taste in games. That’s not to say I can’t find the other information valuable.

There are many who would claim that due to advertising space and “exclusives”, contemporary journalism isn’t far from this paradigm, but I disagree (call me an optimist). I think the calls for journalistic integrity really need to revaluate what it is we expect from journalism. We, the consumer, need to understand that not all journalism is going to be impartial, and that’s okay. With a new perspective on journalism I think we can all get a better grasp on defining our own critical material outside of the mainstream print and web media.

I’m hoping next week to examine the comparison between videogames and other media like film and literature.

A Slight Delay

I’ve been out of town all weekend doing some volunteer stuff, so I’m afraid I just don’t have my second post ready on game criticism. I figured rather than half-assing it I’d post my impressions of a few games I rented a while back and pick up the criticism next week.

The following are games I picked up on my one free month of the Blockbuster game pass. These were all games that I felt I wanted to check out but either didn’t have a demo, or I wanted to see more than the demo offered.

Rise of the Argonauts: This game is officially on my buy list. I’m not saying it’s without bugs, but none of them outweigh the potential of this game, for me at least. It has sticky corners, only really plays well when installed to the hard drive, and the dialogue has too many dramatic pauses. Aside from that it has a great combat system, beautiful graphics, and an inventive story which reimagines Greek mythology. Not for everyone, but I’m sold.

Quantum of Solace: I wasn’t hoping this game would be Golden Eye, but I was hoping for split-screen multiplayer with bots. It doesn’t have split-screen multiplayer. That’s a huge disappointment for me. The campaign seemed pretty good (the use of actors from the films is awesome), but the gameplay just isn’t great enough. The stealth wasn’t stealthy enough and the action just felt … strange. It’s very much the kind of game you repeat a level over and over until you get it just right, and I wasn’t looking for that. I will say that I prefer its cover mechanic to that of Gears of War. Unfortunately the cover mechanic is really all this game holds for me, and there are other third-person action games I’m already looking forward to.

Sonic Unleashed: When I saw the reviews for this one I thought that it was just another case of adults beating up on a kids game. Though not a fan of Sonic in the past I wanted to like this game. The first few levels convinced me that this was a pass though. The controls just aren’t tight enough for what this platformer offers. I like the visuals and the design differences between the day and night levels, but the dialogue was a lot of fluff without any substance and the controls frustrated me too far. I was also really disappointed that while you were graded on how well you did in a level there was no opportunity to go back and replay it to try and get all those secret nooks and crannies. That was the final, big, nail in the coffin for me.

F.E.A.R.: I picked this game up because I missed it when it was originally released and I liked the demo for the sequel. The game looks a little dated and the controls weren’t as good as the revised ones for the sequel, but the A.I. is still better than most stuff out there. I’m not sure if I need another FPS right now, but it’s definitely still in the back of my mind.

Unreal Tournament 3: This game was another I thought might be good for multiplayer fun, after all it’s made for multiplayer. I also knew that it had bots, so I figured it would perhaps resemble the multiplayer of Timesplitters 2 (fully customizable with up to 4 human players on one console). I was super disappointed to find out that you could only play with two players on one console. WTF!?! How does Halo still have this beat? I returned the game in disgust.

In the end I used up my last few days working through the better part of F.E.A.R., but I just couldn’t get into the story enough to outright buy it. Then my gamepass was up and I went back to my pile of shame to start working on the stuff I already owned.

Next week I’ll be posting a bit about my views on the realm of videogame journalism.

On Game Criticism Part One – Videogames as Art

I’ve picked up a number of new blogs in my regular reading lately and they’ve reignited my critical thinking from my M.A. I decided that it’s time I put down some of my ideas about games criticism. This is the first in a number of posts (yet to be determined) which I’ll be doing over the next few weeks. Each one will look at a portion of the current situation and challenge of video-game criticism.

Starting things off, I want to examine the whole videogames-as-art quandary. During this piece I’m going to look primarily at two games: Flower and Braid. I want to state up front that while I’ve experienced a ton of media about both of these games, I have not played Flower and I have not gotten the “star ending” in Braid. Before anyone would use my lack of complete knowledge about these games against the integrity of the post, I would like to point out that I am not examining the total depth of the games themselves, but rather their relationship to their cultural environments. What I mean will become clearer later on.

In 1917 an art exhibit featured a urinal, rotated 90 degrees, under the signature “R. Mutt”. This piece, created by Marcel Duchamp, forever changed the face of art. The argument attached is that since the piece was in a gallery, it is therefore art. The urinal became art by virtue of Duchamp’s singular understanding that it was art. There are some today who believe Duchamp was crazy, but there are many others who consider him visionary. What I’m trying to take away from this is that while a piece may seem devoid of artistic value to some, to others it may not. I believe that we as gamers need to stop seeking validation from outside our circles, and instead need to refine our perceptions within.

That leads me to Flower. Long before its release, many exclaimed that Flower was going to be a brilliant and emotional game full of artistic presence. After its release there are many who agree. I refer you to Michael Abbott at The Brainy Gamer and his initial gush, emotional response to “play”, and his more technical musings. This response is pretty much what I expected in terms of first impression, especially from members of the critical community. Then there was the second wave.

The second wave of reception is best exemplified in a series of posts by Leigh Alexander at Sexy Videogameland. I refer you to parts one, two, and three. Ms. Alexander’s point is that while Flower is a good game (she does like it a lot), it is forced to somehow justify an entire industry of entertainment as art, which it’s not ready to do. She points out that the hardcore audience (notice how I didn’t say media outlets there?) elevate Flower on a pedestal claiming that this game transcends the average and brings play to a truly artistic level. For responses to Leigh’s point of view I refer you to The Brainy Gamer and Versus CluClu Land.

Something caught my eye at The Brainy Gamer’s response. He talks about putting Flower in the hands of non-gamers and how there was no need to explain the artistic merit behind the game. It was just accepted that the game triggered a pleasant response from the “lay-person” audience and was recognized as art. However, on Listen Up they were saying that when non-gamers were presented with Flower they found it incredibly alien. It was also on that podcast that they said Flower belongs on the Wii. Truthfully, if the measure of a game’s artistic nature is it’s accessibility to non-gamers or casual gamers, then Wii Sports and Wii Play are the gaming equivalent to the Mona Lisa and Michelangelo’s David. I believe that should Flower truly be that accessible to those outside the gaming circle, then it is hardly the best representation of the medium as art.

Now let’s turn to the other critical darling downloadable game: Braid. Here’s a game which received similar accolades, being a representative of game as art, also with a unique visual style and game mechanic. Braid, however, is not for non-gamers. The first few levels of Braid probably suit casual or introductory players well, but the later stages require some pretty precise presses of the buttons. It is for this reason that I think Braid is better suited to represent the “art” of videogames. Not because I’m a 360 fanboy, but rather because its true nature appeals solely to actual gamers, similar to the manner in which true talent in painting is recognized by painters.

Before I close, however, I will assert that Braid is not the best game to represent videogame art. While it does have nice graphics, alluring music, a tantalizing story, and unique mechanics, ultimately Braid fails to display the fullness of the art form. That being said, I think every game fails to do so in some way, and gamers thus need to stop pointing at one game or another claiming “Look, it’s art!” That would be like saying the Mona Lisa asserts all painting as art, or that Duchamp’s urinal explains sculpture to the lay person. No, instead gamers need to assert the medium as a whole by creating a thorough and ever-evolving criticism of the medium; a set of guidelines by which we can begin to examine where each game fits in the eternal timeline of “play”. We have already begun, with our genre-defining terms and jargon such as FPS, RTS, HUD, and D-pad. Now we just need to take it to the next level.

Tune in next week for more theoretical rambling.

Recovering from Burnout with Burnout Paradise

I noticed during my play through of Dead Space that I was feeling a little burned out when it came to my gaming. Since before Fallout 3 I’d been playing one game at a time pretty intensely. While I was working my way through Dead Space I started to feel like I was on a bit of a grind, and I decided I could use a break (though of course I didn’t want to stop until I’d finished Dead Space since it was/is so awesome). I was really unsure what that break would mean for my gaming, but it turns out the break just means a different kind of game.

I decided to purchase Burnout Paradise after a few different blogs I read posted about it only a few days apart. I’d heard about the game before, and I liked Burnout Revenge on my original Xbox, but I just hadn’t gotten around to picking this one up. So I invested a paltry $20 to pick up the game, and invested 800 microsoft points to get the Party Pack along with the free updates. I must admit, I’m really glad I did.

Burnout Paradise has just the low-pressure gameplay I needed. Criterion (the developers) made the game in such a way as to encourage you to take time between races to just drive around and explore the world. There are tons of secret passages, a number of “collectible”-esque pieces (like billboards you smash), and even each street has a pre-existing best time to beat. Along with these distractions there are a ton of races, each of which fit into one of five categories: race, stunt, marked man, road rage, and burning race. I won’t go into technicalities, but there’s tons of fast driving and taking down other cars for those who are, or aren’t, familiar with the series.

The graphics in the game are awesome, and I have to say they’ve left me conflicted. You see, they don’t have any split-screen multiplayer. I’ve heard that this is simply due to maintaining aspect ratio and graphics. After having played the game for many hours I understand what they mean. There’s lots of world that’s rendered very fast as you drive around, and since it’s an open-world racing game it would be even more taxing for the console to essentially run two game worlds side by side. The Party Pack does give you some cool games, but it’s all pass-the-controller style. Not that there’s anything wrong with pass-the controller, but it’s definitely more a party-style game than a one-on-one sitting-on-the-couch rivalry style. It’s just too fast for that. That being said, I’m not sure I would make the sacrifice in the awesomeness department to have the split screen. Like I said, conflicted.

The multiplayer, however, is really my only beef with the game (especially since they put in the restart option). I’ve unlocked over half the cars and can’t wait to get them all so I can feel vindicated in dowloading the DLC models they have (as well as the new area they plan on offering soon). I think it’s a testament to the game that while I’ve played, and continue to own, somewhere in the neighborhood of 25 games, this is the one that I’ll buy the most paid DLC for, even though I’m not playing it online with friends.

By now I’m sure you can tell that I’m happy with my purchase. I’m now slowly getting back into the hard-core regime I was on before, but I really think that Burnout Paradise is going to keep me relaxed for a long time to come. Not bad for a release over a year old.