Rather than summarize the article, I'm going to parse through it and pull out some of the more pertinent quotations:
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.
"...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,'"
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?
"'You're building the world from scratch. Why does it have to look like the world we live in?'"
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.
"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.
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.
ReplyDeleteFUCK YES! Especially in the sense of multiplayer spaces. But even in the external paraphernalia that has sprung up around the larger culture things like Team Roomba's TF2 griefing video that do to respawning ares what Coyle and Sharpe do for San Francisco's streets in the early sixties.
(Warning slightly trollish behavior ahead to be followed by reasoned discourse)
It pisses me off that Spielberg thinks he knows how to revolutionize the industry, yet still thinks no one has cried at a game and is using the word level...
(Back to our previously scheduled reasoned discourse)
Games are not movies, people need to respect that and stop trying to make them like movies. Games have a very different palette to offer.
I understand your concern with the affecting your brain aspect of a game, if you want to know more about the dreaming thing there's a RadioLab episode on Sleep where the psychologist who first figured that out references that anything that causes an intense emotional response gets tagged later for dreaming.
I fully understand you're concerns about the violence, but I find that when I am engaging in violent behavior in a virtual environment it feels not like aggression but like puzzle solving. I'm not thinking yeah killing harpies is fun due to my innate evolutionary need to dominate, I'm thinking how do I get these harpies to stop killing me. Granted that's a god of war reference and GoW is not an fps, but i think what people like about fps' is the controller based athleticism. Those games are all about awareness and speed, which is why I have some difficulty engaging because I'm oblivious and dis tractable.
I think realism in games could potentially be useful. It's all about whether or not it suits the gameplay or the narrative. One of the fun parts of the Sims is that it takes reality and gives you a new lens to look at it through. It's fun picture the the talk Joke, Chat bubbles popping up above peoples heads when you meet them for the first time and can get one through the hassle of introductions. Second Life still skeeves me out though, probably because it isn't a game it's a simulation.
I dig what you're doing keep it up. If you like thinking about games and culture you might like A Life Well Wasted the podcast by Robery Ashley.