The Gamer as Artiste

Here is a very interesting New York Times article from 2005 that raises a lot of interesting questions.  The author is John Leland.

Rather than summarize the article, I'm going to parse through it and pull out some of the more pertinent quotations:

"Mr. Spielberg, who has since contracted to create three games, challenged the industry to improve the storytelling, character development and emotional content in the same way it has enhanced the images and action. The medium will come of age, he said, 'when somebody confesses that they cried at Level 17.'"

Sielberg has finished one of the three games mentioned, and has gone on to begin the second (previously). In fact, his call to action has been (at least partially) answered.  Jason Rohrer, Spielbergs new advisor, makes a meager living designing games that make people cry.

Not surprisingly, Steven Spielberg invoked film as a "model for the medium to follow", but as I've argued before, videogames can model more than just one medium.

"Henry Jenkins, director of the comparative media studies program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, suggested that [videogames] are equally close to dance, as a medium of performance, or architecture, as a medium of creating unique spaces."

The articles author also gives some insightful comments on the videogame Industry...

"...the Xbox 360 allows games to look more like movies. Walls have textures; battle scenes show remarkably detailed characters moving independently. Such advanced technology, made possible by increased processing power, also raises the cost of developing games, which now run budgets of up to $25 million, including the expenses of licensing characters and music. This in turn influences the type of games that are produced: Of the 10 top-selling games of last year, all were sequels to successful games, tie-ins to hit movies or both."

I gave my own tirade on the Industry a little while back, but Leland's next question honed in on something a little more nuanced:

"As games gain attention as an art form, it remains to be determined just what sort of art they can or should be."

I have been thinking a lot lately about the effects that videogames have on society, through a cultural lens, rather than an artistic one.

First of all, I believe videogames are a volatile medium. Interactive Media is invasive on more than a sensory level - it is deeply psychologically stimulating. Without presupposing any of the effects they have on society at large, lets touch on the effects that videogames have on the brain. I've always been interested by one study in particular: After playing a simulation, subjects of a relatively recent experiment reported that their dreams consistently modeled their virtual experiences. While this was largely a test of procedural memory, it conveyed the effect videogames can have on the subconscious.

I believe that videogames will soon become the most influential of all art forms. They are psychologically invasive, culturally prevalent, and perhaps most importantly, economically viable. 

As videogames become a larger part of the collective conscious, the values that they convey become increasingly important.  I'm not saying every game should be packaged with a moral lesson - I just find it disconcerting that the vast majority of videogames involve death counts that rival most genocides.

Personally, I'm uncomfortable with the propensity for violence in videogames today. The number one best selling genre is the First Person Shooter and for me, this is a sobering thought.  I won't excuse the public for consuming violence and dreck, but it's the Industry that feeds it to them.

"...the video game industry [compares] to Hollywood of the 1930's, when studios created standards for their products but also imposed formulas for the movies they churned out, with rising budgets and diminishing creative risk-taking."

The key word here is "imposed". I believe innovation and individuality are sold short. Americans may always be more attracted to violence than to subtlety or nuance, but innovation does sell. While Gears of War and Halo may top the charts, flOw, Mirror's Edge, Braid, and Little Big Planet all experienced market success. Perhaps the most convincing argument for risk is the Wii, which continues to outsell it's competitors combined. While it will and should always be a presence, the Industry currently stifles individuality and innovation, propagating values that I find myself questioning far too often.  It's the responsibility of independent artists to counterbalance the industry's broadcast with their own unique frequencies.

"'What you need now is a garage band aesthetic, or independent film aesthetic for games,'"

________

Beyond values, I think there's a lot to be said about our relationship with videogames as a form of Virtual Reality. Personally, I fear true VR. I see it as a degradation of the real world. Games like Second Life depress me. So do The Sims, to be honest. I think even RPG's like Oblivion have some elements of true VR.

I see it as an insult to the medium, and to, well, life. Is the real world so dull, or depressing that it should be played out in a simulation bereft of imagination? Why should a videogame abandon all semblances of artistry in favor of realism? 

When I imagine true VR, I imagine someone examining a photo of someone rather than introducing themselves. Why accept a facsimile when the original is yours for the taking? Videogames must embrace the fantasy of fiction - lest they become an approximation of the real world outside our front door.

"'You're building the world from scratch. Why does it have to look like the world we live in?'"

Sadly, I suspect videogames are on an inescapable path towards an inescapable zenith.  Videogames will one day supplant many of the ways in which we interact with and manipulate the real world.  

Until then, however, I have a few ideas about what games should be like. In my opinion, videogames should always aspire to some level of fantasy, be it a personal aestheticism, dramatic presentation, narrative singularity, or actual elements of the fantastic. Only games set in an historical context should strive for unadulterated realism. 

The best videogames will represent a reality as unique as the artist(s) who constructed them.

Feature Innovation vs Franchise Innovation

Josh Korr (previously) puts in a quick word about Feature Innovation and how it fails to push the industry forward.  Read the article here.  This quote encapsulates the problem nicely:

"...if video game writing remains cliched and bad, more believable faces won’t make a game any better."

This mentality, (improving features, rather than franchises), has its roots in a very understandable problem: the technology that videogames rely on is constantly changing; but, it still doesn't forgive the industry's inability to recruit real talent in the areas that count.

The only way to accommodate the medium's reliance on technology, is to craft art that outlasts the hardware behind it.

While I support Korr and his complaints about the industry entirely, this particular stab at EA predates their involvement with Mirror's Edge, a very flawed and 2-dimensional game that nonetheless carried its weight in innovation.

Breakdown: The Videogame Medium

I'm going to try to consolidate some of my ideas on the whole videogames-as-art idea.  I realize a lot of my earlier posts have some contradictions, and I'd like to solidify all of the things I've been talking about, (previously: Videogames Vs High Art, The Videogame Industry, The Videogame Auteur, Diversity of Videogames as an Art Form, Gameplay)  

I'll try to break it down as succinctly as possible.  

If you happened to actually read the earlier posts you'll notice a lot of overlap.  My suggestion is to start here first.  Ideally, it will be a lot more straightforward.

So.  

First off, 

Videogames as Art: 

Videogames are not considered Art.  They are considered entertainment.  Film began in much the same way, but eventually proved itself as a medium capable of great artistry.  

What differentiates cinema from interactive media?

I believe the most potent issue, is that Videogames lack significant auteurship.

Every other medium is propelled by the presence of visionary artists who create personal and unique work, (not to mention tasteful, relevant, and intellectual).

I can count the number of true videogame auteurs on one hand.

UPDATE: I insinuated one very important ingredient, but failed to mention it explicitly.  The significant presence of true and recognizable Auteurship will garner the attention of true and recognizable critique (as opposed to review).

Which brings me to my next idea...

Videogames that Model Other Art Forms:

With auteurship as a standard, or at least an expectation of the medium, we have to decide how videogames are critiqued.

Many games will (and do) resemble other forms of art.  Therefore, the criteria for analysis will be similar to that of the medium they aspire to.  (There simply aren't any videogame writers who compare to Melville, or videogame directors who compare to Kubrick.  In addition gameplay rarely serves the narrative, and instead dilutes it). 

While videogames do model other forms of art, they are unique, and as such their differences must be taken into account. Interactive Media's most notable and defining singularity is the players ability to manipulate the medium.

Which leads to...

Player Input

Gameplay is the area where videogames need to grow most.  The secondary elements of the medium will always draw upon other forms of art, and as such, these elements are not really limited by the nature of videogames.  They are limited by the ineptitude of the industry's writers, directors, voice actors and other artists.

 

Player input in and of itself has kept interactive media from being 'High Art'.

Ebert's condemnation of player control represents only the most notable of countless similar criticisms: 

"Video games by their nature require player choices, which is the opposite of the strategy of serious film and literature, which requires authorial control"

On the one hand it is my belief that an artist can have authorial control in a videogame. 

We can see the clear signs of authorial control in works like Oddworld: Abes Exodus, Stranger's Wrath, Shadow of the Colossus, Heart of Darkness, etc.  These 'authors' simply don't compare to the auteurs of other art forms, (however much we might like their stories).

On the other hand, I believe that player input will one day rival authorial control.  Games like Echochrome and Braid show the artistic and intellectual value of gameplay, while something like flOw attests to the plasticity of 'gameplay'.  Little Big Planet capitalizes on classic gameplay conventions while perfecting a kind of virtual Lego Land.  Jason Rohrer (previously), on the other hand, uses mechanics to evoke ideas and emotions as powerful as those of any film.

Not one of these examples compares to the level of auteurship present in other mediums, but each and every one attests to the potential videogames have to both model and rival today's definition of 'High Art'. 

The Final Word:

So what does it all mean?  How does it come together?  What's keeping videogames down?  

I'll try to sum things up for you as best I can:

1. The auteur needs to comandeer the videogame medium.  That's the first step.  This will lead to a shift in audience.  The current generation of hard core gamers, nerds, geeks, what have you, will be either left behind, or converted.  The shift will also attract real critics.
   
2. Where videogames model other art, they need to model it successfully.  I believe this requires the cohesion of narrative and gameplay.  In the case of visual art and other non-linear mediums, the guidelines are more plastic.  (This step is entirely dependent on the first step).
3. Where videogames differ from other art, they need to differ with comparable auteurship.  In order for videogames to transcend their name, they must move beyond their twitchy, trigger happy roots.  Gameplay must evolve.  People like Will Wright (Spore), Jason Rohrer (Passage), Jenova Chen (flOw), and Lorne Lanning (Oddworld) have helped to broaden our ideas of what a 'mechanic' can be, but we still have a long way to go.
   

Nobi Nobi Boy

Game director Keita Takahashi, creator of Katamari Damacy, has a new project in development called Noby Noby Boy (or Nobi Nobi Boy depending on your romanization). 

The game features innovative gameplay and centers around having fun, like its predecessor, Katamari.  

Keita Takahashi is a good example of a videogame auteur; one whose work doesn't aspire to the criteria of other art forms.  His games are far from High Art, (as he admits openly in this interview), but the innovative mechanics and singular aesthetic of Katamari Damacy have been used again and again as an example of the medium's artistic potential.

I've always seen a similarity between Takahashi's work and the work of artist collective Friends With You, (Sam Borkson and Arturo Sandoval III).  For me, games like Katamari and the upcoming Noby Noby Boy show how the sensibilities of visual art can permeate a videogame.

Korr Values

This article, by Josh Korr, investigates much of the videogame issues I've been talking about.  He's got about a three year head start, and his ideas are both compelling and succinct.  

The article is largely a response to Roger Ebert's statement about videogames as art (here is an extended 'conversation' between Ebert and artist Clive Barker):

“…I did indeed consider video games inherently inferior to film and literature. There is a structural reason for that: Video games by their nature require player choices, which is the opposite of the strategy of serious film and literature, which requires authorial control.
I am prepared to believe that video games can be elegant, subtle, sophisticated, challenging and visually wonderful. But I believe the nature of the medium prevents it from moving beyond craftsmanship to the stature of art. To my knowledge, no one in or out of the field has ever been able to cite a game worthy of comparison with the great dramatists, poets, filmmakers, novelists and composers.”

Josh Korr goes on to examine some of the inferiorities that Ebert insinuated in his statement:

"First, he is responding to the fact that right now, the player choices and evolving storylines are more like a Choose Your Own Adventure book than anything else. That is, the “story” consists not of illuminating interactions with others or with the character’s own thoughts or imagination; not of original dialogue that brings out the characters’ personalities and journeys or highlights the greater themes in play; not of landscapes and scene shots or descriptions that underpin the greater theme or symbolism of the work; not of asides from the author that do all of the above or take you out of the work for whatever reason."

But he also touches on the nature of criticism itself, and focuses a lot of his four-part discussion on the singularity of gameplay as artistic criteria.

"It’s pretty clear as Ebert says (admittedly with little knowledge of actual games) that the vast majority of video games thus far are inferior to the dominant forms of narrative art according to the accepted measures of assessing that art."

People like Jason Rohrer (previously) accentuate some of the ways in which videogames warrant their own criteria.  I believe that player input can be just as evocative as 'authorial control'.  The problem is that few videogame auteurs are comparable to the auteurs of other art forms: subsequently player control, the medium's defining aspect, is seen as a detriment to it's artistic potential.  On a simplified level Jason Rohrer has proved this: his games show how player input can evoke emotions as complex as those evoked by any other medium.

LMNO

Also mentioned in the Rohrer article is an upcoming game directed by Steven Spielgberg.  'LMNO' is described as E.T meets North By North West.  The game has been championed as the first major videogame in which gameplay focuses on a relationship, namely "a touching and ever-changing relationship between you and a mysterious female character who holds the key to many futures."

According to EA: "LMNO is in development at EALA under the creative leadership of Doug Church (Creative Director) and Lou Castle (Executive Producer)," the publisher stated. No concrete timeframe has been provided for the release of LMNO.

UPDATE: I forgot to mention that Rohrer is acting as Spielberg's consultant throughout the game's development.  While I'm not fond of Spielberg's films, I have a good deal of faith that this project will be interesting and well executed.  I think the fact that he began his foray into the medium with Boom Blox, a physics based game likened to Jenga, shows that he's taking steps to understand it at it's most fundamental levels.

Jason Rohrer

Here is a very cogent and interesting article about independent game creator Jason Rohrer.  

Writer Jason Fagone echos many of the complaints and ideas about videogames I've started to explore, and goes on to postulate many many more.

"Game companies have spent so many years trying to make skulls explode complexly and water ripple prettily that they haven't invested any time in learning how to make games that are as emotionally dense as the best novels and films."

The article touches on auteurship and the industry, (with a few testaments to the upper echelons of the development hierarchy), but it focuses heavily on the man himself.

"Why can't we make a game that fucking means something? A game that matters? You know? We wonder all the time if games are art, if computers can make you cry, and all that. Stop wondering. The answer is yes to both. Here's a game that made me cry. It did. It really did."

-Clint Hocking (a Ubisoft Designer) speaks at a 

Developer's Conference about Rohrer's games

I've been talking a lot about gameplay, and Rohrer is perhaps the best example of someone who crafts evocative and emotional mechanics.

"Rohrer is trying to make art in a medium that most people don't even think is capable of art."

 The first page of the article focuses on the game Passage, a simplistic pixelated adventure "about the inevitability of death".  Jason Rohrer doesn't realize these philosophical ideas with cinematic bookends or dialogue boxes; his games are far from arresting: he evokes deep emotions through mechanics.

For instance, one of his more recent games hinges on the idea that "Mistakes you make, early on, haunt you through some game mechanic later." 

Rohrer's games, (which are less than a 10 minutes long) also bring into question the videogame experience itself.  A game doesn't need to absorb 10-15 hours of your time.  It can be thoughtful and engaging without consuming your life.  

A game like Portal provides another example of a more thoughtful and less extensive gameplay experience.  

Jason Rohrer is an interesting and compelling figure that seems to be pushing the medium forward almost effortlessly.  His games accentuate the fact that gameplay is more than point-and-shoot; it's simply another way to experience art.  I have yet to play his games, but I plan to make a donation...his family subsists off 14k a year.  Here's a link to his site.

More Gameplay

I Forgot to mention another title that utilizes thought provoking mechanics on a basic level. Braid is a downloadable game created by independent developer Jonathan Blow.  Like Echochrome it extrapolates on old videogame conventions.  At first glance it differs little from Donkey Kong or Mario, (save the creative design and painterly visuals); but the gameplay really hinges on the ability to 'rewind' your actions.  Creator Jonathan Blow carefully crafts an experience that questions both the nature of gaming mechanics and of time itself.

Gameplay

UPDATE: Read this more recent post first.

UPDATE: After posting the about the Rohrer article I want to clarify my stance on gameplay mechanics.   Storyline and gameplay should meld.  There should be little or no distinction between the narrative elements and the elements of 'mechanics'; a game like Gears of War epitomizes the antithesis of this idea.  In GoW, the gameplay is 1-dimensional and only motivation, is to kill everything in sight; while the 'story' is told through interstitial cinematics.  There is virtually no interplay between narrative and gameplay.  Ideally the evocative elements of narrative are told through gameplay, like Rohrer's games.

________

In the past couple of days I've realized that it can be difficult to visualize the potential gameplay has as an artistic medium.  This isn't a difficulty I've experienced myself, but one that other people have expressed to me.

Today more than ever, people are willing to admit that videogames can be art.  Games like Shadow of the Colossus, Okami, Katamari Damacy, and even Killer7 have cemented the fact that videogames can at least be artistic.

All of these games are visually arresting, and most of them are well-conceived.  As far as player input goes, however, not one of them breaks the mold (except perhaps Katamari).  evocative mechanics are virtually nonexistent.  Not surprisingly enough, people often have a hard time conceptualizing how gameplay mechanics can achieve a level of artistry.  

On the simplest level, I'd use the game Echochrome as an example.  This is a game clearly rooted in the conventions of the puzzle genre; however, the gameplay really centers around perspective and optical illusion.  Only by moving the camera angle can you complete each puzzle.  Imagine being able to manipulate one of Escher's drawings and you're as close to playing Echochrome as you can get.  This is a game that subtly brings into question the nature of perception, without the aid of a singe dialogue box or quicktime event.  The gameplay itself is thoughtful and provocative.   

Echochrome provides an apt example of artistic gameplay mechanics, but it barely scratches the surface of what player input can truly mean.

I have another example that exemplifies some of the potentials for player input.  Imagine one of the Ethicist's Moral Dilemas.  You stand on bridge above a railroad track.  A train is coming at a steady pace, and a family with their children stands almost directly beneath the bridge in the center of the track.  In front of you is a lever that will divert the track, sending the train off a cliff, a large man stands a few feet away, looking straight ahead down the long train track.  If you pull the lever, all of the passengers will surely die from the fall.  If you do nothing the family will be instantly crushed by the train.  yelling down to them would do no good, as the wind is howling and the distance from the bridge to the ground is so great.  The third option is to push the man off the edge of the bridge in the hopes that his body will either slow the train or alert the family.  Chances are both the family and the passengers would be unharmed, but the man would surely die.

This kind of dilemma doesn't make for an engaging game, and certainly not a very long one, but it does typify the powerful and thought provoking potential of gameplay mechanics.  Player input allows for choice.  

Games like Bioshock & the Oddworld series, provide a cursory example of the kind of decisions a videogame can offer.  Both games allow for a single variable (essentially, are you capable of murder - or not?), and then provide alternate endings as a 'consequence' of your actions.  It's a satisfying and intelligent gimmick, but it's far from revolutionizing the way that a player interacts with the art form.   

On the other hand we have titles like Oblivion, Fable, and other contemporary Role Playing Games, in which the variables are countless, but the consequences are essentially meaningless.  These games tout massive engines and groundbreaking AI, but fail to provide any kind of contextual weight. They ultimately lack the story and artistic direction that lends meaning and gravity to choice.

_________

Videogames are essentially a rudimentary form of virtual reality, and the gameplay mechanics of today are really actions that the player simulates using a controller.  As of now they remain repetitive and largely violent actions, but they are actions nonetheless.  Ultimately gameplay can be any action at all.  A conversation can be a 'gameplay mechanic', just as point-and-shoot is a gameplay mechanic.  

Today games are built around these mechanics and then marketed as linear narratives.  Gameplay is patterned and multiplied, ever so slightly varied, and voila.  Slap on a storyline, some two-bit voice acting, and you've got yourself a blockbuster product.  Games like Gears of War and Halo, are quintessential examples of the Interactive Entertainment Industry's attitude towards gameplay.

Ideally, gameplay and storyline should meld.  There should be no single gameplay 'mechanic' so to speak.  The player should control their avatar, and simulate the actions that he/she/it/they are capable of.  In this way, any 'mechanic' derives only from the context of the story.  The narrative should provide motivation for the characters actions, and those actions should catalyze the narrative progression.  

For instance:  you take on the role of a farmer.  You have abilities like picking up objects, interacting with objects (that you know how to use), walking, running, climbing etc, etc.  These abilities never change, but the storyline, the setting, and the objects around you do.  The mechanic is not the focus, only the way that your abilities adapt based on context and locale.  If your farmer finds himself in the underbelly of NYC, his skills might have totally different outcome: for example, his familiarity with farming implements back home might help him fend off muggers in the subway station. 

More importantly, your farmers abilities should reflect his motivations and progress the storyline.  For instance, you might get a manual labor job in the city in the hopes of earning enough to pay the way home.  Gameplay decisions might also elicit emotions normally absent from videogames: your farmer might be motivated to murder someone, for instance.  The ensuing guilt would provide an altogether different motivation and might ultimately bring the story to a close.

The game Stranger's Wrath, created by independent studio Oddworld Inhabitants, begins to explore narrative gameplay shifts like this.  Halfway through the game, your character is compelled to reveal his true identity, drastically altering his motivations, the story, and the underlying gameplay mechanics.  

Ultimately, gameplay should become more plastic.  Rather than focusing on mechanic, it should focus on motivation, context, and emotion.  

(On a side note, a character might learn new skills or abilities based on the progression of the story line, but this should not be the convention that it is today. it's only logical for a character to expand their abilities if the narrative necessitates it.)

 

Diversity of Videogames as an Art Form

UPDATE: Read this more recent post first.

I just wanted to clarify a few things.  So far I've been focusing almost all my analysis on narrative based games, but narrative is by no means the end all of videogames as an art form.  The single most defining aspect of Interactive Media is the novelty of player input.  Unified by that singularity, a videogame can be nonlinear or abstract; it can be similar to painting, to literature or to music; in short it is a virtual representation of reality itself.  A videogame is as broad as art itself.  

As long as videogames model other art forms, the presence of an auteur is necessary, but not all videogames do model other art forms.  The game Little Big Planet, created by british company Media Molecule, is far closer to Lego than it is to Mario.  The game offers the player with an indelible set of user-friendly tools and the ability to create their own sidescrolling levels.  Little Big Planet represents the apex of user-creation in videogames, and there was no one auteur behind it - is it a piece of art?  

Games like LBP push the medium forward, but they also bring into question the definition of art itself.  In order to understand the underlying form of videogames, I think it's best to start with games that model other media.  Thus far I've focused on narrative games, and I've drawn an analogue with film, but videogames are conducive of many other existing art forms.

I've always been fascinated by the idea of videogames in a gallery setting, for example.  Each piece depicts a different space envisioned and meticulously developed by the artist and his small team. Lights dimmed.  controllers?  headsets?  motion sensors?    Mo-cap actors and programmers mingle with art critics and painters at the opening reception.  

How does player input manifest itself in a videogame modeled after visual art? Games like flOw, by the group That Game Company, might give you an idea.  

  

The Videogame Auteur

UPDATE: Read this more recent post first.

The role of the Videogame Director can be most aptly compared to that of the Film Director. 

The visual nature of the medium immediately likens videogames to cinema, but the more fundamental analogue lies within the developmental process of each respective art form. Both interactive media and film rely on assemblages of disparate talent. The realization of a single videogame or a single movie requires the cooperation, and more importantly, the cohesion of tens or even hundreds of individuals each trained in separate and often alien fields.  

In film, it became the role of the Director to focus the collaborative effort, and ensure the artistic quality of the final product.  As members of Nouvelle Vague asserted, the director should always attempt to channel his/her personal vision into the final product.  In a sense, the artistic responsibility was shifted from industry to the individual: In Truffaut's words "there are no bad films, only bad directors."  Today, film relies heavily on the artistic vision of the director, at least on a superficial level: the role of the director has been elevated and expanded, in part due to the efforts and ideas of Cahiers Du Cinema. 

However, it is easier for a director to leave his/her imprint on a film than on a videogame. While both mediums rely on the collaboration, it is both more extensive and more essential to the production of a videogame.  The various facets that contribute to the structural backbone of a videogame are also more disparate.  Subsequently, the director of interactive media has a more varied role, and it becomes harder to realize his/her vision in the final product.  

For instance, the film director's 'canvas' is less complicated than that of the videogame director.  Auteur Theory states that a director should utilize mis en scéne to imprint and perfect his/her particular style.  Truffaut and other members of Cahiers charged that the directer be responsible for all visual aspects of the scene, from props, to lighting, to the positioning of the actors themselves.  It was often argued that the director should use his camera as the artist does his pen.  By arranging the visual aspects of each scene, a director can channel his/her vision both wholly and immediately. 
The videogame director, on the other hand, cannot.  Because the 'scenes' in a videogame occupy a virtual space, every aspect must be designed.  Even the 'actors' in a videogame must be designed.  Other visual facets of the medium, such as lighting, the positioning of the actors, and the camera itself, must be programmed.  The diversification of responsibility that occurs in the creation of a single 'scene' in a videogame is staggering.  The best videogame directors will strive to saturate each area of the development process with their unique vision.  In other words they will have to direct in more distinctly disparate areas than a filmmaker: they will direct the animators, they will direct the concept artists, they will direct the programers.  Ideally the videogame director will actually be responsible for some of these developmental roles.  

While the videogame director should never be required to participate in every tier of the developmental process, he/she should always attempt to preserve and perfect a unique vision in the final product.  In this sense the videogame director should utilize mis en scene in the same way that the auteur of film does.  The videogame director should strive to personalize each 'scene' through constant involvement in the complex developmental process.

The Videogame Industry

UPDATE: Read this more recent post.

The single largest issue that plagues game development today is the lack of artistic intent.

Rather than the creativity of individuals, it is industry that propels the videogame medium. While the economic sector still has a hand in music and film, (evidenced by corporate entities like Hollywood & the Music Recording Industry) the degree of influence business has on videogame development is unparalleled.

To fully understand the issue, one must have at least a cursory knowledge of the game industry. In order to develop a videogame, a Game Developer must recieve a publishing deal with a Game Publisher. The Developer must then purchase a development kit, (usually for one of the consoles he plans to develop for). However, in order to get the publishing deal, the Developer must have a history of console developments. It's cyclical at best, and bureaucratic at worst. One can see the underlying trend without understanding the industry's nuances: videogame development is an insiders playing field, and the insiders are not artists but businessmen.

The Publisher is essentially at the top of the creative ladder. More often than not it is the Publisher who orchestrates and initiates a videogame's development. Game Producers are now an industry standard, but their main objective is far more executive than it is artistic. More detrimental still, the publisher commonly maintains creative control (to a variable degree). The result is that marketing interests, trends permeate the creative process. Unlike film, which has been largely liberated by filmmakers, videogame development is rarely overseen by an artist. The creative process is so diversified, so nebulous, and ultimately so corporate, that it lacks any significant auteurship.

The position that a videogame auteur would occupy is best defined as a videogame Director, (a title almost universally absent from western games). The videogame Director, held to the same standards as the auteur of film, the author of literature, or even the painter of paintings, is essential to forwarding videogames as an artistic medium.

Videogames vs High Art

UPDATE: Read this more recent post first.

As of today, videogames have yet to transcend their name: They remain a plaything in the eyes of society. Their growing audience does little to strengthen their cultural importance - only their economic legitimacy. While their capacity for artistic merit has grown harder and harder to deny, it will be a while before videogames become a part of High Culture.

Which begs the question "why?" What has separated, and continues to separate videogames from literature, music, film and fine art? Many members of the online community have nodded their heads at critics, arguing that videogames have been neglected through the elitism of high culture. Others have focused on the type of critics native to the gaming world, condemning their criteria, their credo or their credentials. On the other side of the fence, public figures and critics alike argue that videogames are essentially unworthy of critique.

The answer, however, is more complicated. Respected critics have indeed lambasted interactive media, the “critics” of the game world have focused more on review than analysis, and ultimately it’s true that videogames have been excluded from the cultural canon. Each argument has a semblance of truth to it – more than a semblance, in some cases – however, the most important facet lies in the form of videogames themselves. The underlying structure of the videogame as a piece of art is undeveloped and flawed. This blog will (hopefully) serve as a place to outline these foibles and how they must change.

Disclaimer

I'd like to start with a bit of a preface, or perhaps more of a disclaimer. As of now this blog is basically a thought experiment. In many ways it's like a research project. I say this mostly to excuse the lack of citations, indices, and other hallmarks of true essay writing. I will be revising and re-revising as I go along, so input will be taken very seriously.