|
Post by Discoalucard on Jul 11, 2006 14:58:32 GMT -5
www.esquire.com/features/articles/2006/060610_mfe_July_06_Klosterman.htmlOddly enough, the first thing I thought was, why exactly is hip hop relevant? The second thing was, why aren't there going to be newspapers in 25 years? I mean, surely the internet will be everywhere, but it's not a replacement for paper. Regardless, the point of the article is that video games need better criticism in order to be taken seriously. He calls for a "Lester Bangs", and I didn't know that was before today, but everyone is pointing to Tim Rogers. Now, Tim is mostly internet-famous because a lot of people hate him, not because he's got a lot of fans (see: voted worst gaming journalist ever by Somethingawful, even if that was half a joke.) This is because (A) his self indulgent writing style tends to put people off who just want to read about games and (B) people find that taking games too seriously is pretentious because, fuck, man, they're just video games. The solution was apparently New Games Journalism, but it's hard to take that too seriously when a bunch of would-be intellects write articles comparing Katamary Damacy to communism and expect to be taken seriously (although they probably don't, so I guess that's a moot point.) I think the concern is more the latter criticism of Tim's (or NGJ's) writing - when people part of the gaming culture don't think video games shouldn't be taken seriously, then you've just removed the possibility of any actual criticism. The problem, I think, isn't that the writers or the minds aren't there. I think it's the culture - both in gamers and non-gamers. As brought up here before, in the Real World, if you play video games and you're out of college (heck, maybe high school), then you're kinda viewed as being a little bit weird (moreso if you're a girl, as Ms. Succubus can attest to.) On some levels, you kind of expect this view from the older generation, but it's often our peers who've probably grown up with them, but have had too many other things take precedence. This is the inherent problem with video games - you can listen to an album while driving to work or whatever, or watch a movie in a span of two hours or so. Video games require a kind of devotion that you can only have if (A) you're a kid, or (B) you're really into it. So...yeah, a lot of people won't be concerned by it. This is why video games are not the modern rock music, nor the rebellion of our generation, as the Esquire article seems to think. It's not nearly universal enough. The gamer culture part disturbs me more - here we have a culture that's always been charactertized as kind of nerdy, yet it's been gaining mainstream success steadily over the past decade or so. What this breeds is a group of people who are generally interested in gaming, but don't want to the stigma of being a gamer, which results in annoying elitism all over the place, ranging from message boards to professional publications (yes, EGM, geeks go to E3, and all geeks are fat and sweaty, YOU GUYS WRITE ABOUT VIDEO GAMES FOR A LIVING AND I ASSUME YOU'VE HEARD OF THE STORY OF THE POT AND THE KETTLE) As such, it also doesn't want to take gaming seriously, for the sake of keeping up appearances. So...uh...is this guy right?
|
|
|
Post by Malroth on Jul 11, 2006 15:11:23 GMT -5
Its nothing but hot air. Like you said, video games are just video games. I don't play Final Fantasy because its a juxtoposition of religous sentiment and 60s rebellion (yeah, that was completely made up), I play it because I like RPGs. I like how its an interactive story with pretty graphics, enduring characters, and the fact I can blow 50+ hours I would normally spend just staring at the wall.
Critics do exist, but they're mainly concerned with the QUALITY of games, not the meaning. Certain games have become more concerned with graphics than control and actual fun factor, and many critics leap on that fact.
I dunno. It seems like this article was written by someone who has no idea what gaming is about and is BSing his way through another paycheck, or takes gaming WAY too seriously. Its one of the extremes, anyway.
|
|
|
Post by YourAverageJoe on Jul 11, 2006 15:26:47 GMT -5
I think it's the former, noone is ever going to write. "As can plainly be seen on this screenshot: Mario is a communist and is spreading his red star flag all over for the sake of "Mother Russia"
Wait, that WAS written somewhere, but as a joke, mind you.
|
|
|
Post by Drawesome(Dale) on Jul 11, 2006 15:45:02 GMT -5
I think that the younger generation was hooked on games because they were trendy then the older genartion sees as just a trend then when they realize their here to stay they write it off as a kid's thing. Not just because they see kid's playing but they also find them hard to understand. So basicly allot of dumb people call them kid things because their not patient enough to learn how to play them. Then american pop culture chimes in and calls it all sorts of things like a waste of time or a kid's thing again. What pisses me off most is when people who wathch TV or listen to music call it a waste of time when in fact games are much more mentally stimulating then any other form of enertainment media or art form.(Besides reading which you learn more in but you don't develope any problem solving skills with)So anyone who calls VG a waste of time but partakes in any other form of media is a damn moron.VG's are by far the greatest form of enertainment because it's ineractive and is mentally envolving on so many more level's then other art forms.
EDIT:Their was even a study that showed how VG's can develope reaction ability and problem solving skills. And now wityh stuff like brainage coming out let's hope this goes to the next level.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2006 16:26:26 GMT -5
Welllllll... interesting, this is. See, video games have always been my number one hobby, and I take them seriously... to a degree. I get a bit obsessed with beating and collecting them at times, and I wax fanatically about some of my favorites. But lately, I have taken to the perception that all they are... are games and nothing more. Nothing to cry about if your save games are accidentally deleted, or if you lose that one auction on eBay for a rare commodity you may never see in a long while. I'll keep gaming in the future, rest assured. It will serve to fill in that void between resting and working. But I'll never take it TOO seriously, even though shouting curses and insults at the overly cheap CPU fighter may be construed by some as being a bit maniacal. But hey, they also serve the purpose of venting frustration. Eh, could be. Maybe not. A little from column A and a little from column B. I don't friggin' know. All I can say is that I play video games for at least three hours on average, mostly because I live in a boring suburb out in nowhere. Precisely, Mal! I don't tear up alien ass in Contra because "Red Falcon" is a dirty Commie Nazi and I'm fighting for American rights. All I see is two commandos blasting aliens... fighting for Earth rights. But in a fictitious setting, not at all linked to the Cold War! I play it because, even though I practically know it like I know that 42 is the meaning of life, the universe, and everything... well, I've lost my point. Back on focus and overall, it's fun... and it's JUST fun. ... indeed. I can't stress that enough, but I get enough stress from that fact. I won't start WW3 because Sony of America won't release the games SNK made for the Atomiswave on the PS2/3. I'll be greatly annoyed by it, but all I can do is let off some steam, come to terms, and just play something else... or import it. Games are games, not statements! Well... okay, Killer 7 had many statements to make. Let me revise that; some games may have statements about the current state of things and subtle social commentaries, but they're just there to enhance the style! It was obvious that Communism was the main enemy in Strider, but I'm not slashing filthy Reds! Nothing that I'll take offense for, even if one of my ancestors may have been Peter the Great (probably not)! And shit, Nazis in Bionic Commando. Badds, as the case may warrant. Despite the name change, they're still Nazis. But Capcom didn't make a mockery of World War II, they made it one of the greatest titles of all time! ................ wow. I really don't know what I'm saying, or even trying to say anymore. But one more thing: Remember the guy who committed suicide over Everquest? Yeah. There is a line between "playful" and "serious." I guess the problem is that it's an incredibly thin line that not many can see.
|
|
|
Post by Drawesome(Dale) on Jul 11, 2006 16:36:40 GMT -5
I do take them seroisly to a degree.(Like when I'm after a highscore)But all I'm trying to say is that their better than other art forms like movies music or TV. I'm far from obsessed I mostly just play a bunch of fast to play games for an hour then do other stuff(But I have gone through periods of exsessive playing).But if you are someone who is obsessed their's nothing wrong with that ether in my opion.(Reality sucks anyway) ;D
|
|
|
Post by ReyVGM on Jul 11, 2006 17:14:36 GMT -5
"Here we have a culture that's always been charactertized as kind of nerdy, yet it's been gaining mainstream success steadily over the past decade or so. What this breeds is a group of people who are generally interested in gaming, but don't want to the stigma of being a gamer, which results in annoying elitism all over the place"
That phrase there, that's gold Kurt, GOLD.
|
|
|
Post by YourAverageJoe on Jul 11, 2006 17:17:56 GMT -5
Warning, sarcasm: sotenga, anyone who plays Everquest shouldn't live anyway...
Anyway, plot critics aren't exactly what the Video Game market needs. Not now, not ever. So what if MGS3's Sokolov could simbolise two people? He was just a damsel in distress to begin the plot!
|
|
|
Post by Weasel on Jul 11, 2006 17:30:44 GMT -5
Most video game plots these days should just be taken at face value anyway. There are very few games these days that actually encourage deep thought (the earlier MGS games, Xenogears, and Deus Ex are the only ones that come to mind).
|
|
|
Post by bioniccommando83 on Jul 11, 2006 17:34:29 GMT -5
The author's argument would hold if video games weren't an interactive medium to a degree that surprasses movies, books, and music. While abstraction and interpetation are done in those mediums, because of their expansive, what if nature, video games are closed by nature of their programming. Just as it is with binary- it's either a one or a zero, with nothing in between, the video game is a closed circut so to speak.
Looking at earlier games such as Pong and subsequent sports derivatives, these are the best exmaples of a game that's soley based on, and should be criticized for the gameplay. The same could still be said of many games in other genres- shooters, old platformers, etc. The depth of literate elements, shown in games such as Kojima's Metal Gear Solid (which is obvious in its artistic asperations) or the story of the Xenogears universe are more recognizable as attention is being drawn to those aspects, in part being owed to the technology used to develop the games.
This does not however detract from the gameplay and subsequent artistic merits of games like the Phantasy Stars, Marios, Zeldas, and Sonics, which excelled in the 8 & 16 bit era, sometimes with minimal story by today's standards, or none at all, but are still considered classic games because of the simple fun factor and enjoyment one has from interacting with them. This aesthetic quality doesn't rely on the symbolism of Sonic being a hedgehog or Mario being a plumber from Brooklyn, but lies with in the self-contained elements- graphics, sound, control, and challenge. The classic literatary criteria is the achronism here- it applies, especially nowdays because people are aware of its value in game design, but it is not the end all be all of evaluating video games.
Conversely, there have been a few historical and arts based books released, dealing with how arcades and home consoles developed- with attention to design, business and politics, and the art used inside the game as well as on the box. This is one element that is often overlooked by mainstream critics, usually found for only for those who consider themselves diehard game enthusiasts. The fact that there are books and articles though catering to this market, small as it may be though, shows it is not being neglected, but remains a niche in the larger picture. If there is not more attention being given here, it is simply because of a lack of interest or demand in the mainstream. While serious movie goers have their Cannes and their Sundance, there are also the Siskle and Eberts, just as there are the EGMs, Game Informers, and Nintendo Powers to offer their own fine tuned, professional opinions as well.
|
|
|
Post by ReyVGM on Jul 11, 2006 17:40:43 GMT -5
As for the new group of people that play VG but don't want to be associated with gamers, can you blame them?
I'm sure you all love movies and music, but do you really want to be or be associated with those moviephiles that pop a vein each time someone questions the difference between how Vito Corleone and Michael Corleone died?
Think about it. We all love our games and get mad/offended/disappointed when people criticize them, but do you really think most people would like to be associated with those that start a heated argument each time you yell 'CAPCOM RULZ SNK SUX!!!' ?
|
|
|
Post by Discoalucard on Jul 11, 2006 17:42:36 GMT -5
I don't tear up alien ass in Contra because "Red Falcon" is a dirty Commie Nazi and I'm fighting for American rights. All I see is two commandos blasting aliens... fighting for Earth rights. But in a fictitious setting, not at all linked to the Cold War! See, though, it's very possible to make those comparisons (Red Falcon = RED MENANCE?!?!). It seems a little bit silly looking back it from twenty years ago. But if you're some eight year old who knows that Commies are bad because the history teacher told you, then yeah, Contra is gonna mean something. And...I mean...Rush'n Attack exists and all. It's not exactly subtle. The thing is, what it's representative of is pretty shallow. Take, for example, Rambo: First Blood Part 2. The whole movie was about dealing with the frustration of Vietnam, but it came out during the Cold War, at a time that we knew there was an enemy but couldn't do anything about it. Except here this was true American hero, who went it in practically alone, kicked ass in the way he couldn't in 'Nam...(and the way we couldn't with the USSR) and, you know, people loved it. Plus it backed the whole "one man vs the bad guys!" that we love. Now, Rambo pretty blatantly inspired Contra, but it doesn't have quite the same amount of layers. You're still just a single (or two) commando, so you've got the "one vs many" aspect, but it's lacking in the sense of rebellion against bureacracy. I guess those elements could put into a game, but they'd interfere with the actual gameplay. And that's fine. Video games don't need to say anything important (although they can), but they appeal to us for a reason, and I think that's what the article is saying. What I'm saying is that video games as a medium are too alienating to have the appeal of the music scene, which is the parallel he's trying to make. It can be applied to a lot of things. Obviously The King of Fighters is not making statements about the tragedy of gang violence or anything, but it's possibly to analyze it in other ways. Does, for example, the way you play or the characters you pick say things about your personality, even unrelated directly to the game? I'd say yeah, definitely. What they are, exactly, hasn't really been explored, at least in my knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by Discoalucard on Jul 11, 2006 17:47:53 GMT -5
Most video game plots these days should just be taken at face value anyway. There are very few games these days that actually encourage deep thought (the earlier MGS games, Xenogears, and Deus Ex are the only ones that come to mind). Silent Hill 2 does, and 4 to a lesser extent. I read an excellent article in Edge about Manhunt that talked about stuff like this. Almost made me want to play the game. That's the good kind of criticism that you rarely see. Also, hilariously enough, I read an interpretation of Final Fantasy X's plot in /v/ on 4chan. Apparently, the story could be a parallel for Japanese youth in today's society - you have kids growing away from the family and raising themselves, who are representative of Tidus. And then you have the conservative Japanese-type families, who are very tight and big on a sense of duty, The game is all about Tidus discovered his purpose through returning to the traditional ideals. Naturally, this is something that us Americans aren't going to understand, because they don't apply to us. It's like giving Fight Club to a bunch of people in a third world country and expect them to get it. Things like this are there, you just need to look for them. Some people tend to look for them in the wrong places (as mentioned several times above) and just ends up goofy.
|
|
|
Post by kyouki on Jul 11, 2006 18:26:55 GMT -5
Video games are just video games to me. Playing video games is one of my hobbies.
Video games will never be able to have the same kind of criticism that books or movies or music have, because as mentioned above, they are interactive. It's a different experience. It would be like criticism of a vacation or something... it just doesn't work. Playing video games (or board games, or anything else interactive) is difficult to criticize because it's such a personal action. Since the game will unfold differently (and measurably) from person to person, all you can do is comment on the aesthetics, really. "The graphics are technically proficient" and "the game controls well and is easy to play."
I don't really care to have "serious" criticism of video games anyway. Even in the cases of games with excellent plots, I have to attach "well, for a game" to that. Silent Hill 2 has the best plot of any game I've played... but a huge part of that is the playing of the game and the interactivity. If you just sit there and read the script it's pretty awful and- seperated from the gameplay- almost meaningless.
I don't see why games need serious criticism. They are entertainment products and they make an awful lot of money being so.
I suspect the impetus for wanting all of this serious criticism comes from three groups of people- games journalists that feel inadequate because "they're just games journalists", games developers that actually want to be movie directors but couldn't cut it in that industry, and gamers whose only major hobby is games and want to be taken seriously.
Again, games are just fun distractions to take your mind off of more serious stuff. Most movies and music and books are as well, but the interactivity is the difference. It's not better or worse because it's interactive... it's just different.
As for new games journalism, it's such a bunch of crap. You can write a great article about video games. Retro Gamer does so consistently... but they never amplify the importance of games and their articles almost always are of the "Boy, games are a lot of fun! Did you know blah blah blah" variety. Some great online sources for well-written but sane video game articles are Hardcore Gaming 101 (of course) and Sega-16.
|
|
|
Post by kal on Jul 12, 2006 22:58:05 GMT -5
I think the main problem with the way games are analysised is what's been said in this topic previously, that games as a medium are wholly seperate from all non-interactive mediums.
The problem begins with the obligatory storyline - so many games past and present have storylines built only so the game can exist in its present form and when people attempt to analysis the plotlines the get confused, annoyed or bored and start drawing obscure conclusions and connections.
So the reviewing industry gave up on plotlines and focused more on the games as entertainment in a more lighthearted manner. The obvious problem with this is that the industry has grown up but reviewing has not.
Take Legacy of Kain, the storyline has been built up through 5 titles, it's a resonably entertaining plotline centred around fate and whatnot with a gothic styling. When I personally play it I do keep playing not just for the time wasting interaction but also to find out what happens next and I do enjoy being made to think a little while playing however I do not look for complex analagise or allusions.
I find that when gaming you rarely have time to stop and think "Hey, they're all representing Communists" or "Wow, Democracy doesn't work" because usually you're too busy fighting some monster or journeying to some distant land. That's the thing, when watching a non-interactive film you can sit and take in whats happening and with a book even more so at your own pace, when gaming though you've often got too much in your mind to consider that Plagas (Resi 4) are visual representations of the terrioist virus or yellow plague or some such.
It's also hard to blame game journelist for largely reviewing a good game plot as "Good plot for a video game +1 mark" simply because when you have 6 - 10 hours to clock a game and review it, it's understandably tough to then follow through with a deep analysis of plotlines and subtext, no the subtext reviews surface later as a result of some fans or so-called intellects.
What I'm getting at here or at least attempting to is one of the reasons that gaming is and still is considered unserious and time wasting is because you end up with fluff, due to the nature of video games and the need for games to actually be fun it's difficult to have a concise and meaning full plot while Generic RPG Hero 2f battles his way through a dozen green slime.
So most designers settle on focusing on what people generally game for, for entertainment, it's what they expect. Games can have subtexts and they can be deep and signifigant I'd also agree that they can have interesting social commentaries but the majority of games either don't or unintentially do. Killer 7 it's deliberate and that's very obvious but with Contra being insipired by Rambo does it genuienly have concepts or are they just as a result of Contra being based of Rambos concepts.
Something that's always bothered me in games is when something happens in a cutscene and then when the game begins, it's not there anymore, like your characters are attacked by 100 enemies que game and there's 3. This further disrupts games potential at holding coherent subtexts because they end up confused in themselves. This is one of the reasons Advent Rising is a personal favourite of mine it makes a deliberate and focused effort to keep what happens continuous between scenes.
The distiction between playable and unplayable, the need for interactive entertainment over developing storylines are two main items that are holding back games from being considered *serious*. Though the problem with games is the price tag is $50 US where as a movie is what $20 - 25, both casual and hardcore gamers feel the need to have what they expect (Playability and Entertainment) for such a price and in large amounts. Due to this fact games are restricted to what messages it can squeeze in between.
In the future I can see feasibly games becoming more possible at holding up to whatever *serious* cristism is, I feel it's an arrogant and ignorrant term that would show a complete lack of understanding as to what is video gaming. Gaming needs it's own Critisim which will evolve as games do, it'd be like reviewing movies like books, you can kind of but you really can't. They share their merits and their flaws and some are creepy hybrids.
|
|