Kotaku
We talk about innovation in a number of ways in the game industry, some of which are very far off in the grand scheme of things: erudite discussions of game play, biomechanics, tailoring an experience to each individual. We have the less esoteric, more realistic discussions of what can be done with games now, and that sort of 'innovation,' I think, is really more a discussion of games 'growing up' and heading into more mature territory. Perhaps some of these debates are being cast in the wrong terms, or at least, there are multiple avenues of discussion to be explored.
What defines 'maturity'? I think the entertainment industry is somewhat hampered by defining works that include sex or violence or rough language as having 'mature themes': clearly there is an age component ('Should 10 year olds be watching this stuff?'), but it's overly simplistic at best. In my media collections, I have works I consider thematically "mature" in the ratings game sort of way, and the works that are mature in a different way. The ones that play with preconceived notions of the way things are or should be; the ones that deconstruct the traditional, reconstitute it as something new; most importantly, the ones that can be read on a number of levels.
The wonderful thing about the last bit is it tends to be sophisticated and subtle; if you'd like to ignore the historical context, or the barbed, oblique criticism of something it won't lessen your enjoyment of the work on other levels. The first time I read A Dictionary of Maqiao, one of the few novels on the plight of sent down youth during the Cultural Revolution I have managed to stomach, much less enjoy, I realized at the end the author was effectively attacking a century of literary criticism in China. The next time I read it, I came in with a fresh perspective and a whole new take on little bits and pieces of the novel. Heavy stuff, but the average person without any grounding in academic works on the subject could read and enjoy the book.
We sometimes toss games off the "deep" deep end: the trumped up moral dilemma of Bioshock and the ensuing months (and months and months) of discussion, added to excitement over Ayn Rand and Objectivism, was - in the end - overblown, and we quietly put it to bed. Leigh Alexander said something to the effect that we get so excited when a game seems to be trying that we go overboard. Sometimes designers toss their games off the deep end: much as I love Xenosaga, barring the atrocious second installment, by the third game I was left going 'Oh, come on' when yet another heavy-handed Biblical reference popped up. Sure, I was left wondering if Nietzsche's introduction and reception in late 19th century Japan was similar to the one in China, but was that really the point? Yes, there were some good strands of classic themes — questioning belief systems, organized religion, technology — but it got lost amongst Issachar this and Wagner that. Someone on the team clearly knew their Isrealites and classic Germanic operas, at least superficially (shame they weren't a Strauss fan, we could've had a ship called 'the Fledermaus'), but to what end?
The question is: do they need to try so hard? Certainly, the subtle layers and multiple readings I favor in my 'mature' media don't just happen. On the other hand, one of the things that distinguishes most of those works for me is what pleasurable experiences they can be for a range of people. I generally pride myself on having a more or less accessible collection of 'serious media,' and I wish I could put more games in that category. You can have your cake and eat it, too. Why do we find it so hard to strike that perfect balance in games? I'm not suggesting that there aren't games that don't offer rich themes and subtle nuance, but the trend seems to be swinging towards over the top and in your face.
I spent a few weeks padding my way through Jonathan Blow's Braid - it's clever, it's interesting, it's different. On a purely superficial level, the game is a return to simpler times: the plot resembles a fairytale (complete with be-braided princess, though I don't recall storybook heroes wearing suits and ties), the graphics have this lovely dreamlike quality that I associate with high-quality children's books, the game play is something that we're all familiar with (on the surface, that is) - the classic platformer.
Still, after a few hours with the game, my mind was already shuffling off into philosophical territory, seeing parallels with readings I've done on the nature of time and the complication of memory. And I can't say I ever thought I'd come across a game that made me go 'Gee, I wonder what Michel Serres would have to say about all of this'; while being in a much more easily digested package, Braid asks us to rethink time in games and time and memory more general, at least a little. It tweaks game mechanics a bit, rewrites some rules of the platformer genre, and in the process, achieves much more than might have seemed possible from a casual glance at it.
For a storybook setting, it's pretty damn grown up in some respects. I suspect many will write off Braid as nothing more than a rehash of classic platformers, dismiss the ending as a trite twist, criticize it for not being as 'revolutionary' as it probably should be, given the press it's gotten. I tend to think the most influential of works don't set out to be so: they become influential over time. Set out to overturn the cart and create something trailblazing and new, and 95% of the time you're going to fall short of the goal. Still, for a short little game, it can be enjoyed on several levels. It's trying hard, maybe too hard in some cases, and it deserves credit for that; it also deserves credit for functioning on several levels.
I really don't think it would take much to push a little harder and make more games that function on deeper levels that don't overwhelm players with their 'deepness.' I so wanted to love Eternal Sonata, and I wound up being very disappointed because I saw lost opportunities left and right. It would have been possible, I think, to weave aspects of Chopin's life into the main story without resorting to inserting "educational" snips that were reminiscent of low-budget elementary school videos. There were glimmers of what could have been every so often in the game, and that made me all the more unhappy the designers didn't push just a little further.
One of my academic areas of interest is the film scene in Republican China; we have article after article and book after book that dissect films for their political and social significance. My current research is on Hollywood film advertising in 1930s China, and by default I've been exposed to advertising campaigns for domestic films, the ones that scholars have read, re-read, and dissected for their 'deep meaning.' What many of these deep readings ignore is the sheer economic realities of the film industry: directors may have wanted to 'say something' or urge people to action, but companies wanted to make money. It is the benefit of hindsight that allows us to carefully examine and critique these films on an academic level while ignoring the economic realities of the film industry.
What in the hell does Republican era Chinese film advertising have to do with games? Well, when it comes down to it, the film industry (like the game industry) is concerned about making money at the top levels — the goal is not to change society, but to bring in the money. Even films that are seen today as being deep and insightful were sold on the principles of color, sound, and excitement (violence, mystery, sex or whatever), or simply having a big name attached to the project. Sound familiar? People like Blow rail against the current structure of the industry (not without basis) and the focus on cash, but other industries have somehow managed to produce works that stand the test of time as great works while working within the constraints of having to make money — often while working under conditions that simply aren't an issue in the gaming industry (or modern film industry, for that matter).
The excuse that the game industry is 'young' doesn't cut it — people always point to the film industry, as if it was a wasteland of vapid entertainment and no thoughtful criticism prior to the 1940s, which is demonstrably false. The earliest extant Chinese film is a 1922 comedy à la Charlie Chaplin called Romance of the Fruit Peddler, and even 19 year old undergraduates in the year 2008 are entertained by it. On the flip side, it does — and did — say something about the unpleasant realities of Shanghai society in the '20s (all this in 20 minutes, with no color, sound, or cameras that could zoom or even move without being physically hefted. Amazing!). Likewise, Chaplin's iconic character of 'The Tramp' made his first appearance twenty years after the first-ever public screening of a film and was entertaining while offering a reasonably serious social critique (and Chaplin was a serious commercial success). Criticism and thoughtful debate were likewise going on much earlier than we care to admit. If people want to use the film industry timeline as an excuse for why we're not further along, then they better start explaining why the money-quality-depth conundrum was not insurmountable for film makers in the teens, '20s, and '30s (even in locales that were lagging behind Hollywood and Europe from a technological and economic perspective!) — yet is cause for much wailing and gnashing of teeth among gaming circles.
What makes money? What's the guaranteed cash cow? It's the Final Fantasys, the Halos, the 'great stories' of gaming. Really, I'm A-OK with tradition. I think it's pretty cool that the Shuihu zhuan continues to be reinvented, and that includes forms like the Suikoden series; you can't get much more 'traditional' than one of the Four Great Classical Novels. I don't think a renovation of games (or at least some of them) needs to take some radical form; I'm not even convinced a radical form is the best way to making inroads to really changing things. I like our "great stories," the great classic games. There's something to be said for the comfortable, the familiar, the tried and true. There's a reason I go back to my favorite books, my favorite movies, my favorite games. I go back because something about them made me love them, and switching on a console or cracking open a book takes me back to a familiar, much loved space. Making classics - making them well - is nothing to be dismissed, nor is going out on a limb and trying something new, no matter how minor it seems. One of my favorite descriptions (from The God of Small Things) of those 'great stories' applies as well to my favorite games as it does to my favorite books (not surprising, perhaps, given that the great stories tend to pop up in all media):
The Great Stories are the ones that you have heard and want to hear again. The ones you can enter anywhere and inhabit comfortably. They don't deceive you with thrills and trick endings. They don't surprise you with the unforeseen. They are as familiar as the house you live in. Or the smell of your lover's skin. You know how they end, yet you listen as though you don't. In the way that although you know that one day you will die, you live as though you won't. In the Great Stories you know who lives, who dies, who finds love, who doesn't. And yet you want to know again. That is their mystery and their magic.
I don't think we're ever in danger of losing the "great games" and their ilk, if for no other reason than they are generally successful and profitable. Square has made a very profitable business, and an excellent reputation, out of precisely that kind of conservative, evolutionary design that produces great games. There's plenty of crap out there that turns into a popular success, but there are plenty of games that have much to recommend them that also have commercial success. I think those great games - the familiar and well loved - are the best places to play with tradition, but the most dangerous places to start: you risk alienating a core audience. Braid is successful in many ways because it starts off on immediately recognizable and understandable territory, but I think it will wind up suffering for that, too.
The fact we have "great stories" — great games, great genres, great tropes — is what makes me think it wouldn't take much to bump stories up a notch. We already have a kind of Maqiao equivalent in games — just as Han Shaogong makes a 'tip of the hat' to those in the know and offers a little something extra for readers who have the background, plenty of games tip their hat to fans of particular games or genres (I can't count the number of times some insignificant detail of a game resonates strongly with memories of other games played, usually leading to a good bit of delight on my part). And usually, that tipping of the hat is subtle enough that players who don't understand the reference won't be hampered by lack of background or interest. I'm not a gigantic Final Fantasy VII fan, but I was really delighted with Crisis Core: stepping back into a familiar world, with familiar characters, and seeing a different take on familiar situations was a pleasant experience. The whole game is an ode to things that came before, but — while I doubt many people who have picked up Crisis Core are totally clueless to FFVII — it was eminently accessible. Would the uninitiated miss a lot of the little moments? Of course. Could they play the game and enjoy it? I think so.
Is it really a huge leap from that sort of careful crafting and structuring to pushing beyond the borders of games to offer a little something extra for those who want it — without detracting from the enjoyment of people who simply want plain old entertainment?
I hope some games never change - I'd hate to see the death of my favorite game mechanics or play styles or even plot points. But I'd also like to see more richness without the pretensions: we shouldn't have to desperately cling to any bit of hope in a game and trump it up. I'm sure the pendulum will sort itself out eventually and we'll find a happy medium between pure entertainment and the overbearing Xenosagas of the world. A game doesn't have to be full of belabored Gnostic or Objectivist overtones to be 'smart' or 'deep,' and aiming for 'smart' or 'deep' doesn't have to mean an end product that isn't any fun. Throwing games off the deep end does us — and them — a disservice, but so does ignoring the subtle potential for just a little bit more.
"Spring breeze in Yangliu" (1975), from Stefan Landsberger's Chinese Propaganda Poster Pages; Eugène Delacroix, George Sand (1838); Redskin ad, Xinwen bao (27 Sept. 1929); Laogong zhi aiqing (1922)
Comments
Wow! Another excelent piece, Maggie. ;)
If groing up is to loose innoncence, then I would say, yes, yes indeed, the industry has matured. And may I add, to something I do not find myself very confortable with... :\
I enjoyed this.
My favorite games are the ones with layers, that can be as deep as symbolic as one feels they want it. There is a way to tell stories that are simple on the outside and yet much deeper if one wants to go deeper.
Sometimes games try to hard to have epic, complex stories and it falls apart. On the other hand, I don't think "The evil ruler destroyed the crystal into 20 peices and only YOU can collect them to save your people!" cuts it anymore, either.
And then there are games like Killer 7 which make no sense what so ever.
Not everyone around the industry believes it has matured. GTA4 is an adult tittle, ala Sopranos, but people believe it is aimed for kids.
Good read!
As far as storytelling, of course gaming is growing up. They are able to tell great stories in a way similar to movies. However, if Xenosaga's five billion hours worth of cutscenes is what growing up means, then I'd much rather be a Toys 'R' Us kid.
I didn't read that whole thing...rather long. But it brings up a very good point.
Is the "Mature" rating really an apporpriate name? As usually those games marked as "Mature" are rather immature in nature at times.
At this stage it would be difficult to invoke a new rating convention (what happens to all those games current on shelves?)
But perhaps the ESRB can look into renaming the current crop for the next gen.
E, E10+ and T are all self-explanatory. But the "Mature" rating just doesn't sound right. Would an "R" rating be more appropriate? I don't know what ratings are used in other countries, but in the US parents all over know exactly what "R" means in terms of content.
the simple fact that we even have story telling in video games is a sign of it's maturity. We no longer care about "boops and bleeps"; we've accepted Video games (Simulations) as a medium for telling a story and conveying brilliant art or at the very least interesting ideas.
It's definitely an interesting read. I would like to point out though that mature content does necessarily lead to a mature medium.
Maggie, once again you have outdone yourself. Great job on this article!
@TRT-X: - "I didn't read that whole thing...rather long."
Are you kidding me?
Impressive. It's definitely necessary for us to recognize that the world of games has grown to a point where it's mature - and it's important to cater to that maturity by being thought-provoking.
Without causing that thought-provocation, a medium grows stagnant. Very much like the film industry did - they put out a few rare gems now.
[Video]Gaming has grown... pretentious. I'm not sure we should be encouraging that.
KOS-MOS, om nom nom nom.
Oh..uh...article. Right.
Yeah, that was a good read. I found myself nodding in agreement several times.
i'm not sure that gaming as a whole will be able to 'mature' in the way that you're talking about based on narrative alone. other forms of entertainment rely so much more on story than games do.
what i think we really need is a way to convey the ideas and concepts that other 'great stories' are able touch on through the mechanics and user interaction of games. i cant even begin to think about how that would work (the wii is definitely not going to do it), but tapping into the only thing unique to gaming is really the only way to do it (imho).
Surprisingly "grown-up" article on gaming-nice work!
And yeah, "Mature" as a label is meaningless, as anyone who watches late night TV warnings should know: "Porky's 3 is intended for Mature Audiences" :p
'Mature' should be a rating for exaclty that... a MATURE game...
Games such as ManHunt, GTA or No More Heroes should have different rating with more explicit concepts ..
Rather than "Mature" i would call it 'Juvenile' and playable for 15+ in the case of No More Heores, for example. 'Sadistic' or 'Gory' would fit Manhunt and I think GTA would fit on the 'Juvenile' rating too..
Actually when one is able to buy their own games, either because your parents give you the money or you've been keeping some or you are old enough to earn it by yourself , you dont really care about rating. If a 12 year old want to play GTA.. he will play GTA...
The issue here goes waaaay back to the values that parents teach to their children. I know of 6 year old children playing GTA:San Andreas without any of those idiotic consecuences that fundamentalist believe in. Parents: If you suck at parenthood then your children will turn out 'bad' either they play GTA or not!
@dead_red_eyes: I scan the Interwebs over my lunch break. I'll come back and give it a look tonight when I'm not on the clock.
This is why I enjoy games that make you think without hitting you over the head with "THIS IS OUR POINT" or "YOU SHOULD PROBABLY CONSIDER THIS".
I enjoyed Xenosaga, but the references were overbearing. I loved Persona 3, though it is very straightforward in its themes, it makes you think about your life.
One problem about "maturity", though -- almost anything can be analyzed, deconstructed, viewed in another light. The impact of a game is very relative. Different works mean different things to different people. Is Bioshock really about choice? Is the very lack of true choice you have in the game a further point of the story? Or it just an artifact of the game itself?
@Rod_F: The problem there is the ratings become WAY to subjective and almost tailored to the game.
The idea is to try and simplify the rating process so that it's as easy for parents to understand as possible.
Heck, I'd bypass putting "Mature" or "Restricted" and just slap "18+" on there for a rating. Can't get much more obvious than that.
Thanks for that article. Really a great read.
This is why I became an art major, for the thoughts. I loved this article, but I must say that I believe the industry is already mature. The problem, I think, is our own train of thought. Just look at the old classics, it doesn't get much more subtle than old NES and Atari games. Much like an impressionistic and abstract painting, it is what it is, just a bunch of paint on a canvas, a bunch of pixelated dots on a screen. Therefore, for anyone to find any sort of meaning to it, they'll have to think about it. If no one were willing to seek out the meaning on their own, I don't think Pollock would have been as famous as he is today. I'm positive their are subtle meanings in everything, in art, games, and even everyday life, we're just either too blind or too naive to see it.
I guess the easiest way to say it is that we're like an overprotective parent who continues to see their child as an innocent kid, and not as the fine young adult they really are.
Thank you. I try pointing this out to people in my store when they say they don't want a kiddie game, they want something "more mature" and so I have to ask them by mature are you looking for something more challenging or something with blood and boobies in it, cause while the blood and boobies are RATED mature, they are much more adolecent than something in like say a Zelda game where you have to work your way through challenging situations.
@fearing: Man I need to learn to use some punctuation. Nice runnon.
I think the ESRB should get rid of the M for mature rating.
It's a simplified use of the word, and honestly I've always felt it was used incorrectly.
I think they should just use an Age system, like 10+ 14+ 18+
Not that I got that off my chest, great article. I love the games that challenge ones ideas (on top of entertain us). But unfortunately very few games in our day have stories that are involved or thought provoking.
Great article.
I personally feel that the best way to make games "deep" is by really and truly integrating the story with the gameplay.
Bioshock really worked and became "deep" for me, not due to the Ayn Rand connections, but because the story, the history of Rapture was being spelled out for me as I played. I remember the first time this hit me in that game. I had just picked up an audio tape and was listening to it while I continued wandering around Rapture. Suddenly, a splicer jumped out and started attacking me. I fought him off -- while the tape was still playing -- and it suddenly struck me that the splicer that just attacked me (and was now lying dead on the ground) very possibly could have been the person who made the diary I was listening to. And I was probably poking around his office too. That one little instance made the game much more "real" and made the world come alive in a way that all the Objectivist references in the world could never do.
I still think that we still go overboard on the importance of plot and Bioshock though groundbreaking in the industry is still little above average in quality compared to other stories.
I like where the industry is. Yes I don't like that money truly does make the videogaming world go round, but I'll put up with it.
And if anyone dares to even suggest the FFVII story was unique and actually interesting has not read any classics or even above average modern titles.
I think that where alot of game go wrong is that they underestimate the fact that providing an experience (fearful trepidation ala condemned, wonder and lament ala bioshock, lost odessey)is a sufficient "first layer", and undertones and plot subtleties get pushed to the fore out of fear that no one will notice them on the first playthrough. but i don't think people need to notice them on the first playthrough, and if game developers were more secure in their ability to create atmosphere and experiences, in ways that only games can, then they wouldn't be as quick to try and explain entire themes in one cut-scene or dialog.
Well, the way I always thought of games becoming more mature was in terms of the actualy years it's been since Atari first hit the market; I mean, when the console system first became available on a mass scale, everyone bought one and became obsessed with the games.
Naturally, the kids who grew up playing games on the Atari, later the Nintendo and Playstation, eventually got tired of blasting blocks on the screen and wanted something deeper, more in keeping with their own blossoming maturity.
So, you've got to figure that the writers in the gameing industry today, by and large, were those children who wanted their games to grow up with them.
Thus, you start seeing deeper, more complex storylines and literary references in games, (naturally, coming from the East first,) as well as the obligatory violence and sex that goes along with that.
Yes, games as a whole are maturing, but some of them seem like the fantasies of juvenile minds who never really finished the process of growing up.
@emag:
Gaming hasn't matured enough as an art form to be pretentious yet.
It's hard to be pretentious when Bioshock is this industry's standard for superb storytelling and the main character doesn't even have a voice or name.
Your post got me thinking about about the future of story telling in games and what could become of our industry.
I think to start off you have to point out the basic differences between this medium and others (ex. film, books). Games empower the player with a sense of control over the surroundings yet we still see a basic narrative based on accomplishing a simple goal. We are told what to do and we find a way to do it.
But what if we take what separates games from other forms of entertainment and build our stories around them? Let the player make mistakes and let his actions dictate the plot. Some games have attempted this to a certain extent yet I feel there could be so much more.
What drives us to keep playing? Determination, frustration, the thrill, sometimes even fear. What if we try to expand the range of emotions felt by the player?
With the ability to make choices in games comes all new ways to engross the player. I look forward to the day when I regret the decisions I've made in a game. This is a strange statement but it's very possible to make games that take your decisions into account and leave you with an outcome (plot wise) that you did not want or expect.
Just a few thoughts, loved the article.
Xenosaga... I was extremely excited about this trilogy when i fist heard of it. Then i played the first game, and it in no way brought back any of the feelings i felt when playing Xenogears.
Xenogears is a perfect example of having your cake and eating it too.
@onidavin: 'almost anything can be analyzed, deconstructed, viewed in another light.' The point here isn't if *I* can deconstruct a concept, but if the work itself is doing it (one of my favorite literary examples is Kazuo Ishiguro's 'When We Were Orphans').
First, I'm of the opinion that games shouldn't be about storytelling or narrative. It just doesn't make sense to tie down an interactive experience with story elements that are linear in nature. It feels easier to just enjoy a game for what it is when it isn't requiring me to go through a story. Also, I agree with the poster emag; story in games is getting quite pretentious these days.
Second, this new wave of more involving gameplay concepts that ask more questions (like moral dilemmas and such) is indeed welcome, but I don't think it should replace the old standard completely. Killing every thing on screen for no good reason may seem mindless, but it's still fun to do every now and then.
Actually, I don't see the evolution of video gaming in the sense of maturity and "seriousness". I think video games will go the way of film. That is to say, we will look at more "immature" games as a part of a high culture body of video games. Pac Man and Super Mario Brothers will get the same level of respect as films like The Great Train Robbery, or A Trip to the Moon receive today. People will applaud Berzerk for its clean aesthetics. 2D platformers will be regarded as jazz is today.
How we regard video games is retroactive. As time passes older games will be more highly regarded, simply because of how they differ from the current generation of games. I think seeing video games and more and less mature is rather moot because maturity can be defined in so many ways. I don't think video games have reached their pinnacle just because of thematic complexity, or being able to interpret games in multiple ways. A view like that is very dependent on what you consider a video game to be.
A very interesting piece. I think that on the most basic level - that of improving technology, gaming has obviously matured in many ways. But the demands of the market are about the same I think. If you look at any media, there is very little evolution at some levels, whereas at others there is radical change. Of course, this change often divides. So while you get Bioshock and other games that delve into philosophy, you also get something like SSBB, which is just fun on a basic level. Also, deep subject matter is hardly new. Technically "A Mind Forever Voyaging" is probably interactive fiction, but it's still pretty deep. Again, all that limited it was the available technology in 1985. So I don't think it's a question of maturity. Rather it's a question of developers pushing their imaginations and striving to create something special.
Great article. I do believe storytelling in gaming will continue to evolve as game designers become more proficient as writers. One of the problems that lead to the shallowness of many games, I believe, is the very technological-oriented background of many (probably most) developers; they are people who tend to know a lot about numbers and programming and technical points, but, at least based on computing engineers and programmers that I know, are significantly out of touch with the finer aspects of literature, poetry and philosophy. While I'm not saying being tech-savvy deters people from being art-savvy, the individuals who can do both are, indeed, rare, or so I perceive. Maybe as more humanities- and arts- centered people start to filter into the game developing industry, we'll be getting more of the "subtly deep" games that you mentioned. Maybe then the perception of what a "mature" game is will shift away from "anything with sex and/or violence" to "something that requires a mature mindset to be thoroughly appreciated".
Great article! It's interesting that video games have yet gotten to the put of being mature. I'm waiting for a game to be insanely brutal, without any sex or violence.
@Maggie Greene: I think that gets at a big tradeoff. If the work deconstructs itself, it has to stay effective/meaningful without becoming hokey. Too often something might as well have METAPHOR plastered all over it.
I personally prefer the sort of postmodern openness to interpretation you'd find when a work is more low-key about its meaning, but having a work that is complex without shouting "ROAR I AM COMPLEX LOOK AT MY LEVELS" is important too.
@burpingcat: So you are the guy who is responsible for all those plotless shooters!
I'm just kiddin of course mate.
I'm the opposite. I'll play something just for the story and ignore crappy game mechanics (see shooting sequences in MGS having terrible controls) just because I get drawn into the story and want to know what's going to happen next. Of course the more non-linear the better but thats friggin hard to develope that much story varients in interactive media.
Here's a mature game that doesn't rely on any narrative: Tetris. It wasn't the first puzzle video game, but it is pretty much the poster child for what became to be the "casual" sector. It seriously made you rethink how games could be played.
I think a lot of games are surprisingly mature - Dragon Quest 8 made great use of a varied lexicon, bolstered by a feyly exquisite denouement. Bioshock doesn't come close, the themes are obsequious to the incendiary lack of prescience of philosophy and rapaciously engorged by the archetypal pusillanimous sanctimonious reprobate lacking a mere modicum of sagacious volition. If you want to sate your visceral curiousity for truth, philosophy is not an appropriate medium.
The exploration of human relationships is too often lacking in games, that's why RPG's are usually the only intellectually mature games.
Maggie, well done, as usual.
I feel that as more people who seem to care for the deeper qualities in games voice their opinion and put their money where there mouth is, then that will become a standard. The general trend in film, the ever-present standard for video games, has shown that over time there is a greater saturation of works that do show maturity in your second sense of depth. As you pointed out, an industry that is based around an art form is still confined to economic constraints, and people have come to expect more and more from films as time has progressed (even if it was expected or critiqued in the beginning, the maturity, in your second sense, is much higher now than in the past) and that has pushed the industry to where it is. Now it seems that if people can begin, in great numbers, to look deeper into games for more than just graphics, mechanics, and gameplay innovations, then the industry will be forced to mature and deal with greater levels of thought in their game. But this, again, comes down to where the market lies (is it not obvious what I study in college). That is really the final test, if the gaming audience wants to mature, the industry will have no choice.
I also loved the point you made with your quote about the great stories. Right when I read it I thought instantaneously of the Silmarillion by Tolkien and Ocarina of Time. Those for me are two great stories I will always return to, no matter what. The more games hit on that level, the more of my money they will get - and they already get a lot!
You hit the nail on the head with the Eternal Sonata bit. Lost opportunities all over the place. Those photo snippets broke up the flow of the game way too much, and seemed intrusive, and somewhat lazy. I also thought the game was literally hitting the player on the proverbial head with issues of morality. Apparently, subtlety isn't one of Tri Crescendo's fortes. It was one gorgeous looking game though. Anyway, wonderfully written piece, Ms. Greene, you always bring a fresh outlook to Kotaku Towers.
Maggie,
I've always thought that a RTS based on the storyline of Sanguo Yanyi [Three Kingdoms], and gameplay following the rules Sunzi would be really enlightening for those interested in military treatise or Chinese narrative.
The game could have a number of factions involved with Liu Bei/Zhuge Liang or players could control Cao Cao's army and get an entire different perspective on Three Kingdoms. We could even be controlling Sun Quan, sometimes working with Liu Bei, then later working to take his land back.
Zhuge Liang avidly uses techniques (ambiguously magical even?) involving reading/controlling wind and putting fire to its best use, much like Sunzi talks of his "Five uses of Fire". This flaming element could be used as a key facet of gameplay.
Anyway, I'm sorry for ranting on my crazy idea, but your Feature sparked a couple memories of my Chinese film and stratagem courses back to life, and I couldn't resist.
I do believe that looking to the past is not a terrible idea in the slightest. These classical stories remain classics for a reason, and can very well be revamped for the current age if their cultural relevance doesn't play to this generation's ideals.
Either way, thank you for the stimulating read, it is pieces like this that I love to see coming more routinely to a site I frequent as often as I do.
-J.
Excellent article, makes for a good pre-final read.
@ThisCharmingMan: Surprisingly, the only part I liked about that game was the little 'Hi I am a history lesson' bit, though perhaps that was because of the music.
The rest of the game wasn't just unsubtle, it was comically awful. It suffered from the notion that it was important without being so.
A death scene that has a flashback to a scene we just saw? With a monologue that lasts damn near ten minutes? Yikes.
And don't get me started on the 'The More You Know' style credits. "HEY YOU APPRECIATE YOUR LIFE KAY?"
Fantastic write-up.
I'm glad you pointed out that we need more games of higher, more mature concept that also can make money. For some reason the industry cannot reconcile these concepts, for the most part.
-- WTF is commentor valleyshrew trying to say with his/her/its sentence about BioShock?