Kotaku 
Enter your username and password.
Denver, 11:09 PM
Sat Nov 21
21 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip us: tips@kotaku.com
Editor-In-Chief:
Brian Crecente
Email | AIM | Twitter
Deputy Editor:
Stephen Totilo
Email | AIM | Twitter
Senior Editor:
Michael McWhertor
Email | AIM | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor, Japan:
Brian Ashcraft
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, East Coast:
Michael Fahey
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, Oceania:
Luke Plunkett
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, Weekends:
Owen Good
Email | AIM | Twitter
Correspondent, San Francisco:
AJ Glasser
Email | AIM | Twitter
Columnist:
Leigh Alexander
Columnist:
Tim Rogers
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
11/15/09
This is a statement that really bothers me. Why? Because it suggest that what speaks to me as an individual isn't a particular moment, or something off script but a cutscene - and while the developers may have put in a lot of work into a cutscene and have included some meaningful and impacting dialogue and imagery that does not mean that it is what affects me the most.
In his examples of Batman and MW2 the moments that spoke to me the most were things that were just happening in-game, and not carefully crafted cutscenes. In Batman it came at moment where there was a room full of enemies (like always) and I was given the option of taking them all out silently or merely sneaking past the all. There was no reason to even engage in conflict and yet I chose to nonchalantly walk right up to the group and beat the living daylights out of each individual. Why did I need to do something so violent? It wasn't an option suggested by the developers and it was totally unnecessary, and yet, I felt the need, if not the desire, to want to brutal beat each individual. This was a moment that spoke to my human condition because it suggested that, if given the chance (and the power) I would rather see my enemies suffer by my hands than leave them to just stand around and act stupidly (or later come to knock me out from behind).
In MW2, the moment that stands out in my memory was a segment that was scripted but it was the actions of one of my friends that caused me to think about its importance. In the mission 'Wolverines' when America is first invaded there is a section where your commander carries a wounded soldier on his back from one restaurant to another - while being fired at. You, as the player, are told to go down there and cover them - protect them as they travel to safety. I ran out of the restaurant, straight to the other building and risked my life to make sure they made it safely across; I shot anyone who got in my sights, and used my body as a shield to protect what I assume was an indestructible NPC. At first, I thought nothing of it, until I watched my friend complete the same mission. When he was asked to defend the characters he didn't leave the building, he didn't even move to the door to cover them as they walked up, he didn't even look at them - instead he just kept firing at a rather annoying enemy that was popping up and down at the exact moments my friend was firing this sniper rifle. I told him he had to defend them and he just shrugged it off, when the ordeal was over and they were safe (and the wack-a-mole enemy still alive) I asked him: 'why didn't you protect them?' to which he replied 'why would I? I'm not going to die for people I don't care about?' And then the moment clicked for me: I was willing to leave the relative safety of a building to protect my team regardless of how real or fake they were because there was a part of me that just couldn't let them be out there on their own when they needed help - my friend on the other hand wasn't at all moved by their plight, he came first and if they made it, it probably just meant more heads for the enemy to aim at before they got to him. This moment, more than any other in the game (cutscene or not) really spoke to me and the 'human condition' and the difference between my friend and myself and out priorities.
Perhaps Hecker is missing what is right in front of him; yes, cutscenes play an unnecessarily large role in today's games: with the current technology and countless examples of 'interactive story telling' there isn't really a need to rely on them to tell stories any longer. But in many cases what speaks to the human condition isn't so much what the developers put in the story as it is the individual moments and how they speak to us as individual gamers. #development
11/14/09
Big-money developers need to ask "why" every so often, even when making power-fantasy games. But after you ask why - and I think more developers do this than Hecker gives credit - you have to ask "how". "How" is the troubling question here, and it's the part that trips everyone up.
Hecker only makes a few concrete suggestions about how to answer this question:
1. Make storytelling more interactive; stop depending on cut-scenes.
2. Stop over-emphasising military and superhero power fantasies.
Fair enough. In short, "make more interactive and diverse games", which everyone would like, but no one seems to know how to do consistently or profitably.
In other words, the "problem", and I'm not convinced there is one at all, is not with developers, but with the market they serve, which punishes flawed but unique visions, and rewards polished repetition. #development
11/14/09
They're are plenty of people who create music, write novels, and make movies for art instead of their bottom line.
We need to make game development more accessible, or at least comparable to indie film making. #development
11/14/09
11/14/09
11/14/09
11/14/09
Arguing that because the most popular video games all share similar traits they are causing a 'cultural ghetto' while using film and music as examples of diversity is contradictory. Most music sounds similar within each genre and most films all share the same plot conventions. You can rarely have diversity, cultural impact and be popular all at the same time. It isn't impossible but it is rare and expecting it of most video games is naive. Modern Warfare 2, for example, will be popular, and like the first, will have a large cultural impact (most of the people I've sold the game to where I work are the same kind of people that buy Wii Fit) - however, no one is going to call the game diverse. Assassin's Creed was all three, but it wasn't perfect and its the only game that I can think of from the 360/PS3 consoles that pulls off being all four of his criteria (revenue, units sold, diversity, and cultural impact - after AC came out a lot of games began to add that sort of stealth; it was no longer all shadows and sitting still).
To be diverse you need to be prepared to sacrifice revenue - occasionally it works out, like Guitar Hero, but when something diverse comes along and succeeds you get imitators (or sequels and spin offs) and then you are back to saturating the market with the same thing. Unlike movies and music it is very difficult to create your own diverse project. Its possible on PC, and consoles are beginning to get into the indie scene but most of it is crap and the good stuff - like in film and music - often finds a loyal but small audience and that is considered a failure in our industry because we still have some growing up to do.
I think, instead of worrying about CoD or Halo being diverse we should nurture our niche games. The big guys will always be similar, we as gamers like certain things and the big games always give us those things in expertly crafted titles but the small and 'diverse' games are forgotten and then you get articles like this that piss and moan about the 'lack of diversity' and having a 'culture ghetto'. NO! The diverse stuff is out there and sometimes its amazing but we're to busy yelling about how the game that sells 8 million copies doesn't break any new ground or 'plays it safe' to notice that something new and risky is calling out for our attention. Who cares if MW2 isn't diverse? Someone is taking the risk this guy is talking about, and someone out there is creating a game with a 'why?' behind it but it won't get any attention because it won't sell a million copies and it won't have sold those million copies because no one payed it any attention, they were to busy saying 'everything is like Halo'.
We need to get past complaining about the redundancy of big games, like film and music IT WILL ALWAYS BE THAT WAY - but in film and music they appreciate the small things, they give them festivals and coverage in the media, we don't do that in gaming, we shove the little guy to side. Our media doesn't care, maybe it'll get a post on a site if the author has played the game or it starts making waves but magazines don't really cover the small guys and web sites don't either. Unless its a new IP from Activision or EA most couldn't give to shits; and this is the problem, perhaps instead of looking for originality from the major publishers we should find the 'diamond in the rough' so to speak, stop talking about the lack of diversity if you aren't willing to look for originality. If I were to walk you down the main aisle of a video store or music store you'd say: 'well these are all the same, nothing is original where's the different stuff' and I'd reply 'well if you turn the corner, you'll find the less popular but original stuff'. For example, a film called 'Starting out in the Evening' is one of my favorite movies, well it sure as hell isn't going to be beside Transformers, same goes for 'One Week' - another great movie (fellow Canadians, watch. this. movie). Turn the proverbial corner, seek out the originality and the diversity, don't expect it to be thrown in your lap...
11/15/09
If you look at the top 50 grossing films of all time it is dominated by sci-fi, fantasy and comic films.
However I think part of the argument is that many "niche" films still make money, a lot of Deniro films are definitely not bog standard Taxi Driver, Casino, Goodfellas, Raging Bull, but they all grossed profits. Million dollar baby made money and won an Oscar or three as did Brokeback Mountain. Okay they didn't make as much money as Star Wars or Lord of the rings or Harry Potter or Spiderman, but not everything can.
But I think part of the problem is that it is difficult to ascertain what our equivalent of Goodfellas or Brokeback or Blade Runner is?
Is it World of Goo? not really because those films still had budgets and named actors, World of Goo would be probably more Blair Witch. Is it Deus ex? Fahrenheit? will if so then there isn't a problem because both those games sold units enough to make reasonable money and won a lot of respect.
Is it Sims? well if so then we really don't have a problem at all because it is one of the best selling game series of all time. #development
11/15/09
See, Paranormal Activity gained a lot of momentum by finding its small audience and exploiting it. Suddenly it was all over the net, it was in reputable papers and popular magazines. But the small games in our industry don't receive that treatment, sure if it comes from a well known publisher than it will (like Valve with Portal) but more often than not it won't receive any coverage. I really think this is what we need to get passed - instead of cover stories about the latest Activision or EA title spend some time with the indie side of our industry. The risk with that however is that there are a lot of terrible independant games out there - A LOT - so I think what our industry, or rather, our media, needs to do is find the success story, the Paranormal Activity, if you will and exploit it, parade it around and tell us all how great it is. If the big publishers see that we want risk, and we want new things and it will grant them coverage and money than they will respond. Right now, they have no reason to branch out, and why would they? They make millions on what is already a guaranteed success - DJ Hero, a true risk from Activision even if it carried the Hero name, was a failure, while Guitar Hero continues to do well. So why go out on a limb?
Sometimes the coverage doesn't work well either - Brutal Legend hasn't worked out too well for EA, despite a ton of media coverage and a being told by said media that: 'oh well its Tim Shafer, everyone should love it'. Its difficult to really nail down what the issue is because more often than not, no one really knows themselves. Yes, we all want risk but at what cost? Wouldn't it be better for Activision to do something new in an already existing title than create a whole new IP? We get the game we love, they get the money they love and the industry gets something new (see: Call of Duty 4's multiplayer). It truly is a double edged sword - you can take a risk and be original, but you may also alienate the majority of players and the game could flop. I don't want to be hard on the industry because at the end of the day I think they are doing a great job. I'd like to see some new things put I would also be happy if those new things were introduced in the games I already know (add a little spice to things, raise the bar for what a sequel can be, not just a cash grab).
The overall feeling I was also trying to get across, at least from my perspective, is than at least once a week I see an article or hear a gamer, complaining about a lack of original titles and they almost always (especially the gaming journalist) expect the 'diverse' titles to be handed to them by Microsoft, or EA, or Activision and they tell me that our industry is broken, and will fail if they don't create something new - but these same journalists won't cover or even mention the truly original and diverse games that are already out there and I think that is hypocritical.
I completely agree with you when you say: '...I think part of the problem is that it is difficult to ascertain what our equivalent of Goodfellas or Brokeback or Blade Runner is?' You hit the nail on the head with that statement. In our industry, with so many styles of play and so many different genres just how do we decide what makes something stand out above the rest? What makes one game in one genre better than another game in a different genre? In film and music it is fairly easy for something to rise above the rest of the pack and transcend its own genre limitations (Blade Runner is a perfect example). In gaming, however, with so much out there that is SO different (Puzzle, Racing, Shooting, Sports, etc) its hard to find that one 'classic' that all gamers can recognize as a pinnacle of the industry.
Actually, interestingly enough, I'd make the argument that Modern Warfare 2 IS that game - think about it, most people I've played with and most people I've sold the game too aren't 'hardcore' gamers and many don't even play shooters other than Infinity Ward's opus. If any title transcends genres it would be the one many call 'unoriginal' - and isn't that funny? We have games that make us ask why, and we have games that unite players and speak to the human condition already; they are right in front of us, we just choose to ignore them because it may include a number in its title... #development
11/14/09
Or else it will be a boring game. It could have the greatest story in the world, but it will fail as a game.
This whole "games need to be art" movement is really irksome.
11/14/09
Is the movie "Titanic" or any other movie based on a tragedy fun? No, they're entertaining.
If all games stay as mindless "fun" then the industry will stay dominated by teenage/college boys. #development
11/14/09
11/14/09
Sigh. But, no, I actually bothered to read his whole article, and it's rather absurd.
His complaint isn't that games aren't artistic- it's that the artistic games aren't "mainstream" enough. The aforementioned comic book complaint? He doesn't complain that comic books aren't artistic or diverse enough- he complains because most people see them as entertainment, not art. Instead of focusing on actual artistic integrity or diversity, his entire article obsesses on sales numbers.
He actually compares video games to Celine Dione, arguing that, because Celine Dione reaches a greater market, her work is superior.
He completely ignores the cultural concept of art. Art doesn't care if it is "approved" by the mainstream or not, it simply exists for and of itself.
And, for that reason, there are plenty of culturally and artistically successful games and comics.
I mean, Van Gogh only sold one Mona Lisa in his lifetime, and only a few people even cared. #development
11/14/09
11/14/09
My bad.
I feel silly now. #development
11/14/09
I don't like that he acts like linearity and familiar gameplay are automatically terrible. Linearity especially.
Hint: Linearity HELPS make games more "worthwhile" because it helps tell the story a lot better. #development
11/14/09
Being too linear has serious issues, probably not the best example, but for a RPG FFX was way way way too linear (still loved that game though)
And I found GTA IV to be on the other end of the scale, too open ended, the story seemed disjointed as a resut of it.. I know many will disagree though. #development
11/14/09
11/14/09
11/14/09
11/14/09
The trend towards separating interaction and story (i.e., the actual actions you're performing not having an intrinsic meaning) is what the author has a beef with. By working within the usual "story as reward" paradigm, we're limiting other options for storytelling. #development
11/14/09
11/14/09
A linear video game is a fun middle ground between the two. #development
11/14/09
It's not that they can't be enjoyable or meaningful, as that they don't do anything to further the growth of the medium. That's fine in and of itself, but if that's all you end up seeing getting made, the medium will stagnate completely. #development
11/14/09
I am not understanding how ocassionally separating story from gameplay magically stagnates development of one of them or both.
It's a flawed concept. "Unless both are intertwined, both will stop developing"? That doesn't make any sense. #development
11/14/09
If you're going to have a story driven game, the point of improvement is in the interface between play and narrative.
If you're going to keep the game parts completely separate, then making the stories better means you're studying cinematography and screenwriting. Neither of which have anything to do with gaming. And no matter how much you iterate on the combat and progression systems, if you're not saying anything with them, they're not art.
And this is important because you *can* make the gameplay into story. BioShock actually provides a few good examples of this, despite having some very large flaws that I take great issue with. The one part of the game that was absolutely brilliant in terms of a narrative device was the "Would you kindly" reveal. It was clever, and it turned what you'd been doing the whole time into a meaningful narrative element. I personally felt that the whole "it's a stab in the back" thing they were going for ended up falling flat due to the issues I had with other parts of the game, but tying the gameplay and the narrative together in that fashion was legitimately brilliant.
And then there are games like Myst, or Shadow of the Colossus, where the act of exploration is the method by which the narrative is revealed and explored. Or games like Fl0wer, which create a feel and a mood and an emotion via their gameplay. These are all methods that move our understanding of gameplay forward, they push the boundaries of how we understand what it means to play a game.
Final Fantasy X does not do this, despite being a good game, with a good story.
11/14/09
It's still worth discussing and reading about though. But I just inwardly roll my eyes. If I want a book, I'll read a book. If I want to watch a movie I will watch one. If I want art I will create it (professional artist here) or I will go seek out art that others have created and enjoy it. If I want to pull out a sword and stab some orc in the chest, I will play a video game and not wonder "why" I'm doing it. I'm doing it because it's the only venue I have outside of LARPING for crying out loud that I can do it in any virtual sense of the word.
I will say though that the whole Comic book thing was misrepresented. How many movies have been based on comics? How many of the top movies of all time have been based on comics? If that isn't art imitating life then... His example there doesn't hold water and he could have definitely used a better comparison tool.
Now, time to get mad at me because I don't agree. Don't forget to try to convice me that I'm wrong, and your opinion is the right one for me, that's an art in itself.
11/14/09
I mean, there are movies like Rambo, and then there is sstuff like the Matrix. #development
11/14/09
11/14/09
I suppose your comment does prove two things.
1) that we are all different, with different views of through provoking and depth. Really? The Matrix Thought provoking?
2) just because some guy says "sorry games are not art" doesn't mean he is right. It is the culture that decides what art is, not a few individuals. #development
11/14/09
The point is that games have separated gameplay from story, perhaps in an attempt to be more like other media. It is a problem I also have with interactive media. No reason why art cannot be interactive. No reason why art cannot coexist with "popcorn games". But for it to be art, likely it will have to do something that cannot be done in other media, which means that it's point must be told via interactivity.
As for comic book movies, how many people that enjoyed the X-Men movies read the comics they were based on? How many people that saw Hell Boy read any of Mike Mignola's work? And what of Watchmen and V for Vendetta? You realize, don't you, that every time Alan Moore writes a comic book, his goal is to make something that could not be done in any other medium? That's why he has opposed so vehemently the porting of his work to other media. Never mind Citizen Kane, where is the Alan Moore of video games? #development
11/14/09
There can be variations within media, not all video games have to be "lowbrow hack and slash" nor will there ever be a time when "soul-searching psychodramas" is all you will be able to buy at your local Wal-mart. #development
11/14/09
Like this Japanese movie called Yamato no Tachi or something. It was about a bunch of Japanese people on Japan's last battleship that was getting attacked by the allies, and they knew they were all going to die.
It just goes to show you, in war we are really all the same, even what we fight for. #development
11/14/09
11/14/09
11/14/09
11/14/09
11/14/09
11/14/09
Honestly, those that don't think that Games are a form of 'Art' are narrow minded individuals.
On top of that, he he believes comic books not to be art, then thats a whole new kettle off fish.
I'm sure that there are many, many comic readers that would disagree. Me included. And to be honest, rightly so.
On art work alone, comics would be classed as art. On top of that, to go into the development of stories and characters, that too, in some form, could be classed as art.
We should now have become mature enough as a human beings to realise that art is not classified by age, but that seems to be what it ends up being.
For instance, the Mona Lisa or Devine Comedy or Citizen Kane are usually classed as art, why? Because they added a new perspective on the posibilities?
If thats the case, then many games could be classed as art, and as well should be.
People who still believe games not to be art are narrow minded.
They have to look at what has happened and what has been developed from that point. What has been made and experienced.
If they can not find 'art' within gaming, then the simply aren't looking. #development
11/14/09
That is what i say to that. #development
11/14/09
The same could be said for games for the most part. There's a handful that have surprised me in the past, but being surprised is just as much about what you're expecting as it is about what you experienced. Set the bar low enough and even a modest achievement seems like a huge step in the right direction. #development
11/14/09
11/14/09
I would say that there are many people that would call a lot of games and comics masterful works of art.
This would be coming from the gamers and readers that are fans of the said media, the 'experts' we could say.
If they believe that part of there passion is art, then, it is.
This guy using art as the base of the argument, but it just carries no water.
Even in the past, something that has been considered art by one, could be considered blasphemas by another.
To say that 2 medias aren't art, based on popularity is just wrong.
Popularity is dictated by the time, go forward 40 years or so and there will be games that would be thought of as works of art.
So, why not cut the bull shit, call what we see, and tell people that games can be considered a form of art.
If it gets called an art or not, it won't have any effect on the gaming public. Buy surely this should also not have an effect on whether or not it can be called art.
But hey, i'm just a gamer with a long time passion who would class some of there gaming experiences as 'art'. #development
11/14/09
Just because they have been around longer doesn't mean that they have more quality.
In one way, it just means that they have just had time to make more shit.
And if you look at some movie and book stores, you would probably start to think that as well.
Just my opinion though. #development
11/14/09
11/14/09
Except there aren't.
"Just because they have been around longer doesn't mean that they have more quality."
I never said or implied that quality has anything to do with age. #development
11/14/09
The gaming community is a subculture, the technology generation arguement can only go so far. While in our own community we may see games such as SoTC as a reverie/art, it will never be acknowledged as such outside our community.
Games can be art, just not publicly accepted art. Gaming as a medium can mature, sure, but the negative connotation to videogames, as it still exists, will not allow for public acceptance just yet.
And honestly, I'm fine with that.
11/14/09
11/14/09
Any subculture is subjected to judgment of every culture by default. Big fish eat smaller fish. #development
11/14/09
11/14/09
11/15/09
Inevitability is going to be down to whether or not developers bother trying to do more than the same thing over and over again. (That's the core of what Hecker means about falling into a comic book like trap, where even if there's really amazing stuff, it doesn't remove the social stigma of the medium.)
The ball is very firmly in the game developers' court, and with things like the Wii and DS, we're moving further away from a future that's limited to a specific subculture. And then there's the statistics on people under age 40 and their views on gaming being heartening; there're generational forces at work, and they're almost universally positive for gaming eventually becoming culturally mainstream. #development
11/14/09
A million times, YES!
This is exactly how I feel! This is what needs to happen! This needs to be acted upon, not repeated in voice time and time again! By the grace of god, developers, ask why. #development
11/14/09
This is a subject that can not be acted upon, only slowly shifted over time. #development
11/14/09
09/20/09
Well, I suppose I could go Google it.
09/20/09
09/20/09
09/19/09
09/19/09
Now, I appreciate that this can open up the possibility to play through the game and see three slightly (maybe even "somewhat") different stories unfold, maybe with a few special quests tossed in that you only get access to by being one extreme or the other. Personally, I never get to take advantage of that because I usually can't find the time to do an entire 2nd play-through of a game.
Branching dialog must be a pain to write, so I'll give credit where it's due in that these kind of games at least give me a few options and have the world react to me differently depending on what choices I make, but there's already hints that we can (and should!) expect deeper systems in the future. What would I like to see?
In Deus Ex (It's been out over 9 years already?!?), important characters lived or died depending on my actions. Various factions, who had very distinct and opposing goals (and often very clouded morals), were vying for my attention and in the end my choice decided what the future was for all mankind. Whether that future was good or bad was a bit of a grey area, though, and completely depended on my personal interpretation.
The key in Deus Ex is that the choices weren't usually black or white in the vein of "are you a saint or Satan incarnate?" but "which side do you want to win?" When both sides have opposing goals but neither is quite the obvious moral high ground it can be a much more interesting choice for your character. Even if you decided during character creation that your avatar is "good" or "bad", the decision you face isn't forced just because of your character's morality (or lack thereof!).
I think a faction based system (think MMORPG) would be much more interesting in the modern "character choice" games than the global Good/Neutral/Bad system. Some factions can and should be linked, such that friendly and opposing forces to a faction that you help begin to respond to you appropriately. There should also be factions that simply aren't linked, and you're forced to redefine yourself through your new interactions. It could be all the more interesting when this new faction meets some of your old factions and chooses friend and foe a bit differently than you did...
A globally tracked reputation of arrogance or modesty, of being brash or tact, intelligent or simple, and more, would be very interesting to compliment the faction-based friend or foe reputation that may precede you. This would be much more interesting than a global "karma" score that colors the world very black-and-white.
I look forward to a game that tries to track your personality at a deeper level than just basic good or evil, and I'm especially interested in seeing more than just the "good" and "evil" endings to games that (pretend?) to give a character choices. Deus Ex managed to avoid trite good and bad endings over nine years ago--why do I still see them today?
09/19/09
So instead of focusing on moral choice, just give the player choice. Give him multiple ways to solve a problem, but don't put them into stupid predefined categories, that don't make much sense to begin with. What good is it to play the "bad" guy in Mass Effect when in the end you still safe the day either way?
I want to see the consequences of my action unfold in the gaming world itself, I don't need an evil-meter to remind me of my doing.