Video Games, Violence and Art (Extra Reading)

I stumbled across a pair of fantastic articles this week, and I think a few of you guys will definitely want to check them out (if you haven't already).

First, an article on the portrayal of Death and Violence in games. Sure we're used to seeing plenty of both in our games, but it hasn't all been an exercise in desensitizing ourselves. It's worth noting that certain games have portrayed death very seriously and emotionally.

Second, a somewhat longer article discussing the whole "Video Games / Art" thing in the wake of Ebert's follow-up argument. The debate itself might feel a little old to some of us, but Lincoln University's Grant Tavinor makes a strong argument for the artistic merit of video games. This article won't end the debate but, if you've been thinking about this issue a lot lately, you're definitely going to want to read this.

Gaming Can Make a Better World

Someone linked me to this TED video, and I thought I'd share it here. It's a talk about how the skills gamers are developing while they conquer virtual worlds could be turned on the problems in the real world. Definitely an interesting watch. At the very least, it may help to encourage you that we aren't completely wasting our time with this hobby.

"Streamlining" Does Not Mean "Dumbing Down"

Nathan Grayson posted a great article over at Maximum PC yesterday, and I thought you guys might enjoy it.

He explains why gamers should stop raising hell every time we hear that a game has been "streamlined." By clinging to our old standards of what a genre is "supposed to be," we stand in the way of experimentation and progress, holding back the industry at large.

On the one hand, I know why many of us do it. We like the way many of these genres play now. We get attached to these games, and we want to play more like them. Then we hear they're changing the formula, and we freak out. There's no guarantee that the new gameplay will be as good, and - even if it is - it's not the same gameplay we already liked and wanted more of. I don't think there's anything wrong with liking a successful formula and wanting to enjoy more of the same.

But when we cling too tightly, and close our minds to potential improvements, we really do cripple forward progress for the industry. Sometimes, these daring changes lead to games that we treasure and wonder how we ever did without.

We would all do well to try and keep an open mind. You miss out on a lot of great gaming experiences otherwise.

Digital Cowboys' Latest Guest: James Portnow!

I don't think a lot of viewers realize just how key James Portnow is to my lecture videos. Even before he and I officially teamed up, his articles and columns had informed my views on games. He is where most of the real gaming insight is coming from. I'm just the parrot who sits on his shoulder and squawks it out for the world to hear.

That said, I (like the rest of you) had never had the opportunity to hear his actual voice before. Until now!

The Digital Cowboys brought him in to appear on their latest podcast, where they discuss the terms "Game" and "Gamer" and what impact those terms have on our medium. It's a great discussion and an absolutely fantastic episode. I highly recommend giving it a listen.

Hatin' the Sports Games

Kotaku's Luke Plunkett recently put up an article examining why we gamers get so cranky over sports games. Quite an interesting read.

I recall feeling some indignation over sports games in years past, but I can't really remember why. I've actually enjoyed plenty of sports games throughout my gaming "career." Tecmo Super Bowl and Ken Griffey Jr. Baseball on the SNES. Madden on the N64. Since then, I've drifted away from the licensed "simulation" sports games and stuck with the "video game-y" type. You know, the kind that abandon realism to ramp up the fun: NBA Street, the SSX games, Mario Tennis, etc.

I've been wondering exactly why so many of us get riled up over the sports genre. I've come up with a few guesses.

1. Electronic Arts.

Until recently, EA could be counted on for two things: making piles of money and making gamers angry. They've been working hard since 2008 to make up for past transgressions, and I forgave them completely when I heard they were picking up Tim Schafer's Brutal Legend after Activision abandoned it. But for years, you could always rely on EA to bring gamers' blood to a boil. And a lot of the time, it seemed like their sports game franchises were at the center of it. Like when EA got exclusive licenses to NFL teams, eliminating competitor franchises. Or the fact that each annual full-priced release of a franchise felt almost exactly like the last with a new roster.

For better or worse, when you think "sports games", chances are that your first thought involved an EA sports franchise. And that connection probably didn't help sports games gain favor with the gamer crowd.

2. Not "For Us."

I'm not sure what causes it, but we gamers tend to act openly hostile towards game genres and franchises that don't cater to our tastes. I don't know why we do it, but it happens all the time. We hate on sports games. We mock "kiddie" games. We scoff at fishing games, hunting games, movie tie-ins, Hannah Montana karaoke games. We seethe with anger when we see a developer "dumb down" a franchise to appeal to people besides ourselves, the hardest of the core. Maybe it ties into the same part of us the drives fanboyism. I don' t know.

We get especially indignant when we see games cater to the "frat" demographic, the "bros". It almost feels like a personal insult or being cheated on, in some weird way. "Games are our thing! We're your dedicated audience!" Our resentment of the audience causes us to resent the games that target them. And sports games tend to fall in that category.

Is this reasonable of us? Hardly. But it still happens.

These are just a couple of possible explanations for the sports game hate, and I'm sure there are many others. What about you guys? Why do you think we whine about these games so much?

Storytelling and Interactivity

We're all pretty used to video games telling stories by now. I've gone at length about the topic before. But one aspect of game storytelling I didn't cover in that lecture is how games are equipped to tell stories in a completely unique way.

Games have told their stories using several methods: cutscenes, scripted events, texts scattered across the world, NPC dialogue and others. Our medium has taken narrative conventions from literature, cinema and theater and used them to great effect.

But games are more than just a combination of other media. What makes games a truly unique medium is interactivity, and games rarely take advantage of that feature when telling a story.

I should qualify that statement: a certain level of interactivity is usually present. You aren't just sitting there watching a story being told from beginning to end. You are fighting the battles, navigating the world and interacting with the characters. You are accomplishing the goals necessary to keep the story moving forward. But outside of this common system, interactivity is rarely taken advantage of. And I think that's a shame.

Enter Hideo Kojima of Metal Gear fame. Now, I won't deny that Kojima has his flaws. He direly needs an editor to trim down his dialogue, but I am perfectly happy to overlook that shortcoming because of what Kojima does right. Though his games tell stories in an almost purely cinematic fashion, he uses interactivity at key moments to tell stories in a way no other game does.

Let me give you an example. I'm about to go deep into spoiler territory, so if you haven't played Metal Gear Solid 3 yet, beware. Also, shame on you.

At the end of Metal Gear Solid 3, there is a scene immediately after the final boss fight where Snake stands over his defeated enemy, a woman who is very dear to him: The Boss. Though Snake cares very much for this woman, he is duty-bound to end her life. After they exchange some parting words, Snake lifts his gun and prepares to fire. We cut to an overhead camera shot, looking down on the tragic scene and we wait as Snake hesitates to fire. And we keep waiting.

And then we realize: I have to do it. I have to pull the trigger.

Suddenly, the already somber event is even more painful. Snake doesn't want to shoot and neither do we. But neither of us has a choice. We can't complete his mission or the game until the act is done. With just a small measure of interactivity, a merely saddening cutscene becomes heartbreaking.

That is a glimpse of the potential this medium has. That is something games can do that no other storytelling medium can. If game designers and storytellers can learn to harness that potential, video games could become something amazing.

I enjoy games as they are now, but seeing glimpses of true potential like this makes me very excited for the future.

The Q.T.E.'s Advocate

So we're finally getting some more details on David Cage's upcoming title, "Heavy Rain," and already we're hearing the predictable complaint. Like Indigo Prophecy before it, Heavy Rain will feature a very familiar gameplay mechanic that has become dreadfully unpopular over the last year or two.

Ah, the Quick Time Event.

I never have figured out exactly when we began to hate the QTE so much. I know that it can certainly be a frustrating feature when not implemented properly. The "cool factor" of certain Resident Evil 4 cutscenes is diminished somewhat after seeing the first half of the scene eight times because you suck that much. Some titles (Tomb Raider: Legend, for example) only throw a few QTEs in the entire game, so they pop out of nowhere and you're never expecting them. Some games make the "PRESS THIS" cues too quick or too difficult to see.

Suffice it to say that Quick Time Events have been done poorly in quite a few games.

But it frustrates me that some gamers would dismiss an entire game over this feature. It's become another one of those words that gamers hear and immediately roll their eyes: "Quick Time Events", "Linear", "Motion Controls." I think we get so caught up in our bandwagon of cynicism that we begin to forget the potential these features have when used properly.

Think back to the game that started the QTE craze: God of War. The boss battles in this game were already epic set pieces, but it was the inclusion of Quick Time Events that took the fights to the next level. These sequences took the battle beyond the stock set of fighting animations and static cameras and gave the fight a brutal, cinematic flair. I don't see any way those battles could have been nearly so engaging, brutal or satisfying without using the Quick Time Event.

This feature does have potential. Rather than demanding that developers STOP including this feature, I suggest we start asking that they use it BETTER.