I'm applying for a internship at Game Informer soon, and in order to apply, you need to submit some work to indicate you have some talent in the field of game journalism.
So I put together this little opinion piece and I was wondering if ya'll had any advice on how to improve it, or if its good as it is. =P Any advice and criticism is welcome, I won't get better until I know whats wrong!
thanks in advance!
~*~
Its no secret that, for quite some time, and probably for many years to come, gaming has been at a very pivotal stage of its existence: we?re at a point where gaming is capable of more than ever before. Where basement programmers have slowly been able to re-gain some of the ground they lost when gaming became a major entertainment industry through the indie market. Where games, while most are still action packed shoot em? ups, have started to mature in a more subtle way, exposing shy glimpses of the human condition... but games so far have only really flirted with the true potential they could reach.
And, of course, there?s the argument of games as an art form. Something no one really considered seriously back in the days of Donkey Kong and Pac-Man.
Now, at first, I was all behind this growing movement: after all, games are my favorite medium. As vehicles for storytelling they?re the first medium in the history of civilization that can truly speak to a individual rather than a group of people, or a society. After all, what could be more telling than watching the consequences of your own actions play out- even in something as apparently lacking in sophistication, such as a game of Modern Warfare, will show us how our approach to a problem- an approach unique to us- will work, and that can speak to us on a personal level. This cannot be underestimated in value, and if we encourage it down this path I can see bright things for the future of games.
...but then I pause, because to say games are art, we have to ask a fundamental question about what makes a game a game. Or, more specifically, the question poised: is the purpose of a video game to express, or to simulate?
The answer is in our history.
The original reasons video games were invented, way back to ?Tennis for Two?, was just to create a electronic version of a sport, a mini-game, an electronic board game... and then we moved onto Asteroids and Missile Command and Centipede. These weren't just games in the traditional sense, these were simulations: you took on a role, and you were expected to act as if that was a real situation. You were more or less role-playing, knowingly or not, as a space-commander trying to survive an asteroid field, a missile base commander who?s defending 6 cities from a fiery apocalypse, and a guy trying to survive an onslaught of giant insects. Inevitably you failed, granted, and in death you were allowed to get back into boring old reality; but still, for the time you were on that game, you were someone else.
Games followed this trend: players took on a role, entered another character?s persona and controlled them, guiding them like a guardian angel past countless pits and monsters and inconveniently placed traps and there hasn?t been a single game since that I can think of that hasn?t had you in control of another person/object/thing- and why not? That?s what defines a game- Control.
To put simply, they simulate events and circumstances and give you a degree of control over a figure in said, the purpose being to give you the feeling of being that person in that situation. Heck, even Angry Birds puts you in the role of a flock of angry birds... a bit of a stretch, but true, technically.
No other art form does this: in books, paintings, music, movies, you are an observer. An invisible pair of eyes and ears spying on the lives of other people: you don?t have control, you don?t have input, you just watch, and in many cases, learn. Through watching and listening you almost inevitably see the character learn or have their actions inadvertently teach. They express something. Show it to you, and while you may be emotionally invested within the character, you can still distinguish between you and them- there is nothing at all that would suggest you two might be linked. The same can?t be said of a game, because you control the character directly, and therefor you may learn something about yourself through the actions of these characters, it prevents for anything broader being spoken... unless a cut-scene is used, which is essentially a movie, so it doesn?t count. In many ways, while unparalleled, as said before, at telling us things about ourselves, it could be said it does this too well, because preventing anything greater from coming out of it.
But here?s the thing where the line is blurred as far as art is concerned:
People are fine with reading about the life of a retired cop, his depressing life, his wife?s affair with the mailman, and his minds? slow, painful deterioration into Alzheimer?s, but they don?t want to live it. And no one is going to want to pay 60 dollars and invest 30-40 hours to let them do it. This simple fact extremely hampers a game?s ability to be an fully-formed artistic medium: as long as games are still considered simulation, or has any degree of Role-Playing, you?ll be hard pressed to sell a game with the same premise that movies and books can get away with.
To put it simply, we still expect to have fun with our games.
Additionally, whenever a game currently puts you in a situation you wouldn?t normally want to be a part of, like Dead Space or Heavy Rain it does so tactfully, by including sections of violence, badassery, ect, that makes us feel more cool, and continues to give us that feeling of accomplishment we come to expect from our games. It shelters us from what would otherwise be a unpleasant fate by making sure we know we?re still awesome, and that we?re doing something: something that has immediate consequences and effects that work in favor of the protagonist. A movie version of Dead Space, for example, wouldn?t follow Issac through every encounter with the Necromorphs, because it?d be excessive, but in a game its necessary because the immediate reward for surviving a Necromorph encounter, which is allowing you to keep playing, is what drives the player forward.
The problem is, that feeling of accomplishment games excel at would distract the player from the expression our depressed ex-cop game would be trying to purvey: hopelessness, bleakness, losing everything you loved, and betrayal by society and family. Dead Space and Heavy Rain can?t do something like that: because no matter how you look at it, Issac kicked ass, and you were always making some progress on the trail of the Origami Killer.
A game?s job, right now, is to simulate. Its what it does best, its what its comfortable doing, and while expression isn?t impossible within a game, it has to be done within the confines of simulation.
Am I saying that games transcending this current confinement is impossible? No. Games have so much versatility that saying anything is beyond them would be a mistake. But with the current formula used, where a player?s motivations are primarily the feeling of accomplishment in doing something well or the drive to get more powerful, we are not in the right mindset- nor are we equipped- to enjoy the fully-realized gaming experience: which would be to simultaneously simulate and express seamlessly, with one being implemented without sacrificing the other. After all, we?d be amiss to reject one of the principle objectives of games, and what makes us so unique from any other creative art form, in the name of expression.
if games could accomplish this, then they?d quickly become the most dominant art form in the world, where one medium could speak to you, society as a whole, and tell us stories henceforth unimagined.
So I put together this little opinion piece and I was wondering if ya'll had any advice on how to improve it, or if its good as it is. =P Any advice and criticism is welcome, I won't get better until I know whats wrong!
thanks in advance!
~*~
Its no secret that, for quite some time, and probably for many years to come, gaming has been at a very pivotal stage of its existence: we?re at a point where gaming is capable of more than ever before. Where basement programmers have slowly been able to re-gain some of the ground they lost when gaming became a major entertainment industry through the indie market. Where games, while most are still action packed shoot em? ups, have started to mature in a more subtle way, exposing shy glimpses of the human condition... but games so far have only really flirted with the true potential they could reach.
And, of course, there?s the argument of games as an art form. Something no one really considered seriously back in the days of Donkey Kong and Pac-Man.
Now, at first, I was all behind this growing movement: after all, games are my favorite medium. As vehicles for storytelling they?re the first medium in the history of civilization that can truly speak to a individual rather than a group of people, or a society. After all, what could be more telling than watching the consequences of your own actions play out- even in something as apparently lacking in sophistication, such as a game of Modern Warfare, will show us how our approach to a problem- an approach unique to us- will work, and that can speak to us on a personal level. This cannot be underestimated in value, and if we encourage it down this path I can see bright things for the future of games.
...but then I pause, because to say games are art, we have to ask a fundamental question about what makes a game a game. Or, more specifically, the question poised: is the purpose of a video game to express, or to simulate?
The answer is in our history.
The original reasons video games were invented, way back to ?Tennis for Two?, was just to create a electronic version of a sport, a mini-game, an electronic board game... and then we moved onto Asteroids and Missile Command and Centipede. These weren't just games in the traditional sense, these were simulations: you took on a role, and you were expected to act as if that was a real situation. You were more or less role-playing, knowingly or not, as a space-commander trying to survive an asteroid field, a missile base commander who?s defending 6 cities from a fiery apocalypse, and a guy trying to survive an onslaught of giant insects. Inevitably you failed, granted, and in death you were allowed to get back into boring old reality; but still, for the time you were on that game, you were someone else.
Games followed this trend: players took on a role, entered another character?s persona and controlled them, guiding them like a guardian angel past countless pits and monsters and inconveniently placed traps and there hasn?t been a single game since that I can think of that hasn?t had you in control of another person/object/thing- and why not? That?s what defines a game- Control.
To put simply, they simulate events and circumstances and give you a degree of control over a figure in said, the purpose being to give you the feeling of being that person in that situation. Heck, even Angry Birds puts you in the role of a flock of angry birds... a bit of a stretch, but true, technically.
No other art form does this: in books, paintings, music, movies, you are an observer. An invisible pair of eyes and ears spying on the lives of other people: you don?t have control, you don?t have input, you just watch, and in many cases, learn. Through watching and listening you almost inevitably see the character learn or have their actions inadvertently teach. They express something. Show it to you, and while you may be emotionally invested within the character, you can still distinguish between you and them- there is nothing at all that would suggest you two might be linked. The same can?t be said of a game, because you control the character directly, and therefor you may learn something about yourself through the actions of these characters, it prevents for anything broader being spoken... unless a cut-scene is used, which is essentially a movie, so it doesn?t count. In many ways, while unparalleled, as said before, at telling us things about ourselves, it could be said it does this too well, because preventing anything greater from coming out of it.
But here?s the thing where the line is blurred as far as art is concerned:
People are fine with reading about the life of a retired cop, his depressing life, his wife?s affair with the mailman, and his minds? slow, painful deterioration into Alzheimer?s, but they don?t want to live it. And no one is going to want to pay 60 dollars and invest 30-40 hours to let them do it. This simple fact extremely hampers a game?s ability to be an fully-formed artistic medium: as long as games are still considered simulation, or has any degree of Role-Playing, you?ll be hard pressed to sell a game with the same premise that movies and books can get away with.
To put it simply, we still expect to have fun with our games.
Additionally, whenever a game currently puts you in a situation you wouldn?t normally want to be a part of, like Dead Space or Heavy Rain it does so tactfully, by including sections of violence, badassery, ect, that makes us feel more cool, and continues to give us that feeling of accomplishment we come to expect from our games. It shelters us from what would otherwise be a unpleasant fate by making sure we know we?re still awesome, and that we?re doing something: something that has immediate consequences and effects that work in favor of the protagonist. A movie version of Dead Space, for example, wouldn?t follow Issac through every encounter with the Necromorphs, because it?d be excessive, but in a game its necessary because the immediate reward for surviving a Necromorph encounter, which is allowing you to keep playing, is what drives the player forward.
The problem is, that feeling of accomplishment games excel at would distract the player from the expression our depressed ex-cop game would be trying to purvey: hopelessness, bleakness, losing everything you loved, and betrayal by society and family. Dead Space and Heavy Rain can?t do something like that: because no matter how you look at it, Issac kicked ass, and you were always making some progress on the trail of the Origami Killer.
A game?s job, right now, is to simulate. Its what it does best, its what its comfortable doing, and while expression isn?t impossible within a game, it has to be done within the confines of simulation.
Am I saying that games transcending this current confinement is impossible? No. Games have so much versatility that saying anything is beyond them would be a mistake. But with the current formula used, where a player?s motivations are primarily the feeling of accomplishment in doing something well or the drive to get more powerful, we are not in the right mindset- nor are we equipped- to enjoy the fully-realized gaming experience: which would be to simultaneously simulate and express seamlessly, with one being implemented without sacrificing the other. After all, we?d be amiss to reject one of the principle objectives of games, and what makes us so unique from any other creative art form, in the name of expression.
if games could accomplish this, then they?d quickly become the most dominant art form in the world, where one medium could speak to you, society as a whole, and tell us stories henceforth unimagined.