man in gauze is king ramses II, silly.

Garro

I think the drama and plays Roy is talking about are certainly thrilling at points - but it's not what the works themselves are built around.

Maggie Greene

Second, lines like "people think game X is childish, although it's mature" is kind of pointless, reveals more about our own insecureness than what people really think. (don't let this be a problem. Look at some american comics and how pretentious they have got without being mature - and comic fans still shout that people think they are childish - no wonder).

xupaxupa

Blah8

Eternal Sonata was pretty fun, but the ending left me completely clueless. Not to mention, the ending credits sounded like a PSA about environment and doing the right thing in general. Personally, I don't mind if a story is supposed to have pertinence to something(as in a social criticism etc), but a lot of the really specific, really in-you-face ones just piss me off to no end.

I loved No Country for Old Men because while I was enjoying this incredibly badass duel between two men in Texas, I started rolling around "what did the guys making this try to say, if anything." So, I can enjoy the story at face value and I can start trying to connect the dots.

That quote you mentioned bothers me, because I'm caught between it and stories I love. It says no thrills, but does it mean "no cheap thrills" or just flat out, nothing can be thrilling in this story in order for it to be good? No cheap thrills I can understand. There are plenty of incredibly cheesy/bad moments in any number of stories that are just an easy "zomg" moment. However, I could say watching Anton and Louellan have a gun fight was thrilling. None of the violence in that movie was cheesy, but it was tense and put me on edge a time or two.

Another thing, about no surprises; Battlestar Galactica. Is revealing four of the five final Cylons a cheesy twist to sell the show or part of a well-crafted, thought out, narrative? I mean, we're talking about a universe where the Cylons becoming human-like, in fact the skin jobs holding rank over all other Cylons in their hierarchy, is a major story point. This isn't AvP: Requiem (and then the predalien laid the eggs itself!), or SG-1(and then there were MORE aliens to kill humanity!), or a Resident Evil movie(she's really science project! And there are thousands of her!). We're talking about an integral part of the story; there is some prophecy/insane programming/ hand of god, thing, going on here, and we have yet to find out what it is.

Garro

Media can be incredibly profound without trying to find some philosophical underpinnings to play up - games flinging themselves off the deep end/being thrown off the deep end piss me off just like perfectly good academic works ruining themselves by trying to heavy handedly work in 'THE THEORY,' because god forbid we have a stand alone thesis that shines on its own merits. I do think we do games & ourselves a disservice by trying to find things that are barely there - or not there at all - and beating a dead horse.

Of course it's possible, likely even, that many people who played Bioshock weren't whacked over the head with the textual underpinnings because they're not familiar with Ayn Rand; but if you're going to bother to make a game that has underpinnings that whack those 'in the know' over the head while flying over the heads of the rest of your audience, why not be bothered to make those underpinnings less heavy handed, more elegant, more meaningful?

Maggie Greene

Pombar

Pombar

Godog

I stated: There was nothing wrong with Xenosaga's cutscenes, if you didn't enjoy them, its just not your type of game.

I was not emphasizing absolutely nothing wrong, of course their is not absolutely nothing wrong with anything. Nothing is perfect, and you seem to want to imply I meant this probably more to cause an argument or belittle me moreso than any other reason you may have.

I was making the point that if someone had a problem with Xenosaga's cutscenes it was more out of that person's personal preferences, than anything wrong with the cutscenes and use of them itself. There was nothing wrong, is a figure of speech here, to accentuate the main point of the sentence.

It does contribute to an argument, I'm pointing out that while everyone loves to deride Xenosaga's use of cutscenes, its not a problem with the game. That was how it was intended and it found an audience that loved it or enjoyed it. Everyone loves to get on the bandwagon and think & state what the majority do. That doesn't mean it's correct. So I have contributed to an argument. Furthermore, for you to respond to my post in argument, is contributing to an argument in and of it self.

How is the Xenosaga series fanservice, for one thing I was referring to the 1st game anyways, which is the one with the longest cutscenes. They also continued this same style in their sequels. Not because of fanservice (that is what the encyclopedia was), moreso because they were staying true to their original style, game type, vision, etc.

Lastly, why do you see no merit in fanservice anyways... Is it wrong for companies to provide their fans with what they desire? And how is so bad to provide gamers with the fulfillment and end to a story they were in the middle of. That is much different than a company rehashing a series over and over with sequels for the sake of sales alone.

Gam3r

Ok, maybe that came out wrong. First, let's get rid of that word "deep", it just means too much at one time. I would use multilayered, meaningful, mutlifaceted, intense, immersed and profound.
Now let's get started.
In your article comes out a well-known-habit of mine - while playing there pops up this question mark, which asks "Could that game not have gone further, could it not have been writing a bit more multilayered?" or exclamation marks like "Great, clearly inspired by early expressionism and his aesthetics of the grotesque (for example Silent Hill)!".
I then tend to analyse it with my German studies background or if the content is historically inspired with what I'm learning during history classes. More than once the games don't hold up. It is not that I couldn't enjoy just some mindless action fights à la God Of War. But every now and then I want a game that is as multifaceted as a Kafka book or as challenging an Ian McEvan story.
And clearly here crumbles nearly every game I've played together. They just don't hold up. Be it a Final Fantasy RPG which is so full with "wanna-be-meaningful" content that you simply can't detect it anymore or Bioshock which uses his so-called "moral conflict" just as a mask for - well, yes action. Why as a mask? Because the game puts an end to it where it might have become interesting. The player never suffers from any direct consequences. Oh, certainly he get's the bad ending. But that was it. Compared to Camus' L'étranger (yes, I use the french, original title) where the reader suffers during pages and literally feels the pain of the long, long minutes and hours of heat, solitude and wait the experience in Bioshock is just - not good.

By comparison with other media - be it film, radio or books - our most beloved videogames just don't hold up. While the experience is more intense it isn't so meaningful. Games unleash a (and pardon my use of the fitting expression) clusterfuck of impressions on you which are only strong together. But try and peel them like an onion (like you could do with any multilayered literature) and you end up with just some meaningless elements(as with Bioshock). However there is light. There are intense videogame experiences which at the same time are meaningful. Now everyone might have a different opinion but only through discussion a consense can be found. I would like to throw in DeusEx (for is analyse of all-strong companies in a not so far fetched future and the problems and consequences of human power), Killer7 (which plays with your senses and principles of moral, while exploring all the way down a schizophrenic personality and holding up to every bit of Boris Vian's surrealism trips), Contact (which shows the problems of technological races and their lack of taking into consideration other human beings) and Terranigma (it sets an stellar example for any kind of fanatism and a religious belief which can't accept any other beliefs).
Those games allow you to work yourself through every layer of it and always come up with something new. At least for me. If it is also felt that way by other gamers should be considered in a scientifical discussion. With correct use of words and who know how to analyse. It may not be a disservice to throw games down the multifaceted-pit. It is perhaps what we should do more often. On the other hand we should never and - here I agree with you - try it with games which just want to be an intense experience.

amadeus3000

(And I also think there are some things that are just plain "ungettable"...)

amanojorge

PratzStrike

Demaar

MoaM

The graphics/audio are vastly superior, game mechanics are vastly superior, the narrative is vastly superior. All in all, the whole experience is superior, which is due to technology and the development of games maturing along with the players.

Demaar

There's no need to ask "what defines maturity"! For goodness sake, this article steams of maturity! Why? Because you've articulated something. You've shown us something.

Articulation.

That's what defines a "mature" or "intelligent" anything.

And by trying to redefine a simple concept like "maturity" this article gets on my nerves. Especially by mentioning trite like Xenosaga...

First, I've never played Xenosaga -- so my opinion is void; stop reading (if there is anyone reading, lawl) -- and never will, simply because it's three parts of a whole. Not a single story built progressively in separate stand-alone stages (Metal Gear Solid series, Mother games, Legend of Zelda games), but a single story chopped into three pretty pieces. Or maybe I should just say "six pretty pieces"?

It's not that there are so many themes within, or that underlying concept of requires a large amount iteration (à la Ulysses, Gravity's Rainbow). It's simply an excessive chain of events.

Xenosaga, Halo, the emerging Final Fantasy 7 lore, and a plethora of other sequel based games are circle-jerk chains of fantasy; games gleefully haunted by intentionally long stories (via segmented gameplay hours; "wait until we finish the story"), a flood of jargon, and very very slight relevance to reality to keep one *cough* intellectually invigorated...

They're not "deep", they're not "mature", and they're certainly not examples of effective story-telling (Buy 3 games, get the full story!).

I don't need to play Xenosaga to know, essentially, the only thing one takes away from it is a plot. Everything and anything the series has to say (its themes, its questions, its symbols) are obviously secondary to its elaborate science-fiction world or playing the game itself.

To even imply that Xenosaga "[tries] so hard" to fit in this "deep"/"mature"/"high-brow" category of gaming (which should be defined as something other than "thinking a lot") is a complete denunciation/misunderstanding of meaningful, insightful works (in any medium)...

Gaming is just too far down the entertainment road.

"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'" - (par. 9)

And therein is the ultimate problem with this article/this discussion: the quality of "Deepness" in video-gaming is given to a game which requires analysis: any game with elaborate plot elements can be considered "deep" and "mature". It definitely doesn't work like that.

The spectrum of meaningful games is based upon entertainment; it's simply absurd. We praise Halo and Final Fantasy 7 as "Great Stories", "Great Games"...but they're so simple, basic, fruitless.
In the end they're just complex fantastical parables, and we love them as that. We don't need anything else. Right?

That kind of mentality pervades this article...

If there's no discussion of thematic value when defining "mature" and "deep" games...then you're discussing something entirely different than "maturity" and it's synonyms.

This is all depressingly funny.

MoaM

Kounji

Any game that has a sexy robot chick operating twin triple-triple barrel vulcan cannons cannot claim to be mature. Plain and simple.

Gunhaver

Jonn

Being the art that includes a "true" interactive can harm as much as it helps. By interactivity I refer to gameplay. Gameplay will affect pacing. It will interrupt. It will force compromises. It may be bad or plain unecessary, becoming a detractor to the game's better elements. On the other hand, it can also add dimensions to art previously not possible. But even when the effects are not entirely negative, story will always play slave to gameplay.

Not to say video games can't deliver an equally resounding experience, but it's surely different. Just like the visual arts are not like cinema which are not like novels which is not like poetry which is not like dance, etc.

On the subject, I also think the most important contributor to this whole issue, the slow acceptance of video games as an art, is the interactive element. Particularly the multiplayer. There is no other medium like it in that respect. The closest might be competitive song/dance/skating, but it's not a head-to-head thing it's a "judge our performance" thing. Video games are a medium that shares a spotlight with sport, so some people are bound to peg it one way and keep it there.

Xiedo

I do hate the fact that the number of units sold determines the value of a game to those of us who play. I mean, nobody judges Shakespere by how many copies were sold last year! Indigo Prophecy is a game that has all the ingredients of a great cenima work yet so many "true gamers" either haven't heard of it, or write it off as wierd because nobody bought it. When the next Indigo Prophecy or Ico comes along we all owe it to ourselves to try them.

Games can move your emotions and have an effect on your life in a meaningful way. Right now I think gaming is in High School- capable of sophistication and art, but often puts it to the side in the interest of having fun instead.

crashlanding

I just wanted to say that I agree with you on the Xenosga aspect. As someone who often reads the Bible at first I thought it was cool to find the little references throughout the game. That was until I was being beaten over the head with them.

At one point while playing the 3rd installment I just turned the game off "this is getting ridiculuous" was all I could say.

Aflack: Likes slushies

I just did't get Killer 7. When I tried, I still didn't get it.

"We're in a tight spot! A very tight spot!"

lol

Best of luck on your paper.

karasu is my homeboy

kylo4

Until a game entertains, sells a Halo 3 like amount, and you don't have to kill anything to get to the end, they will be associated with the level of television rather than fine cenima.

crashlanding

Maggie Greene

Well-written critiques such as this one.

Excellent job.

KenzinFive

I think that rather being a new medium, games are simply slower to evolve than previous mediums because they're more complex. I don't mean that in a condescending tone to other forms of entertainment at all, but Books only have stories (or at least words, you can break it up into multiple sub-categories if you want). Movies added a visual component, and then sound as well. Games have all of the above as well as the new interactive component. When you spread resources (be they time, money or thought) over a greater area, things are going to happen more slowly.

Luziphir

kilroy2

ziggy6069

Lost Odyssey is worth mentioning here, I thought it had a unique take on some heavy stuff while still being a fun RPG.

Thyrfing

MarshallArts

mwclarkson

5 years ago I would never have imagined a video game that was *basically* a work of Nietzche but we have those now. It's apparent that the people who make games have grown up along with the meduim, and the gamers who play them have as well- Bioshocks sales are a partial testament to that. I say partial because of the reason games have not quite "grown up" yet.

One word: violence. The majority of games that have actual characters, dialog, and story always use some type of violence to convey the action. No genre is immune to this, and it is the main reason that gaming is not accepted alongside film and literature as an artistic medium. Name your favorite game and somewhere there is (probably) shooting, slashing, punching, explosions via magic or mechanics, and lots of smashing. Granted it's an easy way to provide the interactivity that games require (as well as being fun), yet at the same time is an obstacle in the way of deep social impact. If you have the most meaningful story in all of gaming it can become a joke when you have to make the hero do that right-handed slash 2,000 times in order to see it!

crashlanding

mwclarkson

I believe that says more about the industry's audience than the industry itself. Business people do what they do because it works and it works because we spend our money like crazy on it. Even in these tough times where the cost of living is insane, we're still all going to rush out and get GTA4.

EA single-handedly changed the shape of the industry because it brought the corporate money-hoarding scheme to what was generally a young hobbyist industry. Perhaps I shouldn't say single-handedly because they weren't the only ones, but they were insanely successful at it, especially during the heyday of PC gaming.

In a business sense, the tremendous success of EA creating clones or gobbling up young devs was, simply, something to aspire to. While they invited the scorn of gamers everywhere for things like Origin, Bullfrog, or what have you, financially, they made serious cash.

So yeah, I don't blame publishers for chasing the formula that works. If EA can be the powerhouse that it is by nabbing off everyone else and simply buying those they can't compete with (though lately, it seems they're trying desperately not to be that EA anymore), it would be entirely stupid not to follow suit.

But you're right, nonetheless. It doesn't breed art, but it makes for breeding amazing potential for art, which I believe is just as important. As a medium, games must be successful if it's to find any sort of respected grounding.

You can't stop people from buying what they're comfortable with. Graphic enhancements, roster updates, or what have you (and I'm not talking about just EA) are what fuels the industry we gamers are so passionate about. But in the end, like most moviegoers, gamers in general aren't interested in artistic expression. Those that are interested are a select niche of the audience and when you're a tiny fraction, you don't really have the pull.

Perhaps if there was a respected award that devs can earn similar to the Oscars (and please, Spike TV is a joke), there'd be more artistic endeavors because people like to be recognized. I can say with confidence that without the Oscars, film wouldn't have come as far as it has. Even if the tiniest film gets an award, there's a great deal of accomplishment there and it also alerts people to truly marvelous work.

In contrast, gaming awards are far from appreciative of artistic work. Game of the Year isn't given to the most artistic expression of the medium, but rather to the one that seems to be the most fun. And most of these awards are given out by magazines/websites that are run by guys and gals in their 20s - fun is where their interest lies.

So I still stick to my opinion that games don't need to mature in the form of artistic expression as a norm. Games are supposed to be fun and that's where the focus should always be. Yes, there will be Okamis and Colossi shadows, BUT they will always be experimental in nature or art-house, if you will. They're truly wonderful pieces of gaming, but it's unlikely that these things will become the norm.

No more than film. You can't seriously tell me that if you stand back and line up all the movies that have been made this year that each one is artistically sound. They're not. They're entertaining. If the Academy were run by 20-somethings, you can bet something like Wedding Crashers would win best picture before Brokeback Mountain (wrong year, but I'm just pulling from my head).

I'm not saying that 20-somethings are stupid or anything like that (I'm a 20-something myself), but rather that right now, the only recognition worth having in the industry is financial. Clover is gone because they simply didn't make the cash. If, however, something like the Oscars (and I must point out that it must be respected as much as the Oscars, though I personally don't give a crap about the gold statue) was around to give Okami its rightful recognition - and let's face it, no magazine or website has that kind of political pull - it might have saved Clover from its inevitable death.

In a way, the industry isn't ready for the hoighty-toighty hobnob expressionist (read: not Expressionism). I don't even think it wants it.

dunetiger reads kotaku, seems pleased

Metals are awesome. 255 marios can dance on the head of a pain, the other memory slot is for when there aren't any marios on the screen.

onidavin

I'd say it's mature because someone with "mature tastes" (an arbitrary distinction probably more subjective than "what is art?") would probably be at least satisfied by the range of titles available to video gamers as long as they have the basic education in the medium to discern the maturity level of a game out of what is out there. Trying to quantify it is meaningless as the whole argument is basically built on personal emotional impressions. What is art? How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? They're arguing semantics over terms that aren't even clearly defined.

There are some games most would agree are mature, but "is gaming mature?" could be answered with as broad a spectrum of responses as there are games published. It's like asking "are metals good?"

fuchikoma

bistromathics

wild homes got the wrong bloke!

Well-written and well-said, my friend. I totally dig MGS2 for the exact same reasons you do. I thought Raiden was a terrific character and thoroughly laughed when I realized I wouldn't be playing Snake past the tanker mission. It was the best ruse.

But is it deep? I'm not so sure. It's definitely preachy and philosophical, but I don't believe that it is inherently deep because it really doesn't leave much room for interpretation. Sure, you can take different swings at it and come up with something that works, but at the same time, Kojima's script is "Hey, this is how it is. This is why it's a problem."

MGS1 had a different feel to it because it was left a lot more open. Perhaps maybe I just felt that the villains in MGS2 were shallow, but I feel the MGS1 rogues gallery is far superior in terms of character depth. Similarly, the relationship between Boss and Naked is much deeper than anything presented in MGS2. Obviously, that's just my opinion and I won't go into a diatribe defending it, but I loved your analysis.

dunetiger reads kotaku, seems pleased

Spoony Bard

onidavin

You are right in the fact that "the industry is young" is a BS excuse, the true state of the game industry is better related to the CA gold rush of the wild west. Game companies see one formula that works and then rush towards it, (after all theres gold in them there hills....), they pump as much money as they can into the titles that sell off of the point that they are just like the last great game. After all we developers need to eat too.... The downside to this is it does not breed any true art. Games that change the way we look at things are often copied, but rarely do well on their own. (Think about Okami, it was truly art in game form, but where is Clover now?).

The issue also stems from how console development works, after all, who wants to pay the insane licence fees for a title the are not sure will sell. Sure, it could be made for the computer, but we all know that the true PC gamer is a dying breed.

The game industry is in sad shape at the moment, and it will take an almost complete rework to change the direction that it is headed. Until the day that that happens we will be stuck playing the next ripoff of Final Fantasy or Halo, while waiting on a new masterpiece to appear in the cluster f*** that is the local game store.

Now to go and dig up my copy of ICO...

fawrh

Why are people talking about games ratings, like M or T or E? She didn't even talk about that in the article.

Not trying to bash anyone, just actually wondering.

ChiltonGaines

artofwar420

The style of game is too old, and the graphics and presentation are too old. I could get the story and everything from Wikipedia. I will be able to enjoy Crisis Core then, without having to dutifully trudge through three discs.

It would just be pretentious; like saying "Hey guys, I beat FF7. I'm awesome."

Square should remake it for the PS3. Then they would make a killing and have a great game too. Then people would bitch. But who cares?

/rant

Great piece, Maggie. Yours are always great though.

P.S. I'm not a FF Fanboy

ChiltonGaines

I think it's hard though for games. I mean, with writing (A Modest Proposal) and stuff like "Romance of the Fruit Peddler", you can do double entendres and stuff like that, and it'll be entertaining and have a serious point.

With games, you have to consider that it needs to be interactive. That makes it a little harder to be all poignant and stuff.

ChiltonGaines

@Roto13: You're should've had something that smokes our comments after a statment like that. Fail.

Thyrfing

We're just doing ourselves and the industry a disservice if we're waiting for games to evolve in the same pattern as literature or film. I mean, Hemingway, Pynchon, and Rushdie are brilliant, but I don't need my next Bioware RPG to play like it's channeling 'Vineland.'

wild homes got the wrong bloke!

mwclarkson

@Raian1: @dunetiger : the mekuri master: I love the way you two talk about maturity.

Raian for the point about text being the medium that makes literature art being the price of admission for enjoyment, and comparing that to gameplay

dunetiger for the point about the internal conversation being really hard to translate... and seperate from a gamer's thoughts

these two concepts, gameplay and character's thoughts are, once mastered, the last real barriers to game maturity

hopelesshindu

wild homes got the wrong bloke!

I, along with many, have often asked 'why is it that video games, which share all the features of other mediums, have rarely, or not at all, risen to the level of the greatest works of art, literature or film?' Of course this is a subjective evaluation, but I do not think video games have yet delivered a 'las meninas' or 'crime & punishment' or 'citizen kane', to name a few. However, from your description, Braid, sounds like an excellent step toward this goal. The reason why I say this is because when the question of video games and art is brought up, the first level of discussion immediately turns to narrative, and examples of video games which have moving and compelling ones. However, I think the nature of video games might in fact limit their ability to tell truly great stories. Who can really think of a story while immersed in dodging bullets, killing monsters, or trying to get that last experience point? The very nature of the action or tasks involved in playing a game may in fact be distracting from the story. Not that I don't love games with great stories. This is not to say that the potential for video games to reach that next level does not exist.

For me, one of the defining features of great art is that makes, compels, or challenges us to experience the world in new ways. It is here where the greatest potential of videos games lie. No other medium possess the ability to play games, no pun intended, with how we perceive time, or challenge how we interact with the world and interpret what goes on around us. I look forward to playing games, that like Braid, aim to make us experience the world in new ways. Not that narratives aren't great, but there are many paths a game could take to reach that level.

To continue my random musings, for me, the Civilization games would be among those which approach the level of great art. The strategies for winning those games have made me think more about the strategies used by nations or cultures to achieve their success. In fact, the Civilization games make an excellent companion to the recent book 'Guns, Germs, and Steel", the author of which must be a true master at CIV IV, if not he should give it a try.

hymietown

I don't think that we can list any one thing that can make a game great simply because, to paraphrase Woody Allen, the milieu is relatively young and there isn't a set of aesthetic criteria by which we judge a game. There is a sort of hazy triumverate - story, gameplay and all the technical aspects (how does it sound, how well do the menus work, etc) - but we still rely on other media, really, when describing the high points of most video games.

I think that art in general succeeds when it opens a dialogue between the presumed artist (even though there isn't really just one in this case) and the participant. It's when we feel compelled to ask questions that a game begins to blossom and that it becomes art. This would hold true for any genre- in Team Fortress 2 I am always asking questions (how do I get around this guy? or can I disable this turret, kill the engineer and the heavy without dieing?) just as much as I was when I played Lost Odyssey (I wanted to know more about Kaim, et al).

Video games seem to straddle the low and high brow. It's difficult to even concieve of a "high brow" game (admitedly, some of the most high brow stuff - like modernism- relishes being occasioanlly low brow). But I also feel that not only is this interstitial position fiscally necessary, it's also where half the pleasure of a game comes from. What was more fun about Bioshock: the Little Sister "moral" dilemma (let's face it, most of us had made the decision one way or the other before we were even faced with it) or discovering more and more about Rapture and its residents? I bet pound to penny that most people found the various storylines way more compelling than the moral dilemma. So yes, it's the subtle stuff that works for us (presumably, because the heavy-handed stuff isn't interesting - there's no question and we feel as though we're being guided).

I quibble:
Do you and I (Maggie) feel beaten over the head with the Rand references and the objectivism? Maybe a bit by the end we were worn a little thin. But I bet that's because we are both educated enough to recognize the stuff right off the bat. Think of how interesting it would be to someone who had no idea what objectivism was?

/ramble

PearceShea

The more I think about this, the more I think that gaming is just not suited to explore serious, mature themes. Games need some kind of conflict, violence, sex appeal, adventure, etc.

Thyrfing

Bioshock is one of the first games I've played where the subject matter of the game is actually deeper and more mature than I expected. The Bioshock universe is full of philosophy, religious contention and idealism. It is a game that actually makes you think about the moral implications of a society without religion or inhibition. And for that reason, it represents one of the first truly mature games out there.

In contrast you can look at titles like Gears of War, where a rich world with endless storytelling potential is put to waste with trivial stereotypes and backstory. It's a classic example of a mature title that just isn't very mature.

DugDawg

Pombar

Roto13

[gadgets.boingboing.net]

onidavin

Pombar

Mature vs. Juvenile is the right kind of spectrum for this discussion.

onidavin

I think it was called "Love". Basically it was a journey through life and death. Simple, yet elegant and poignant. Yes, there was little narrative, but to me that was a perfect example that mature storytelling could be told in a simple and direct way.

Does anyone remember this?

Spoony Bard

It's simply evolving and changing too fast to be mature. Most of the major participants are over 30 and have clear memories of their first primitive gaming experience. They had to quite literally make everything up as they went along, including the hardware to play it on.

Sure, it's a billion dollar industry, but that doesn't make it mature, it makes it vulnerable to exploitation by more mature businesses.

It will start to be mature when colleges graduate game programmers and artists who's skills that they learned first semester weren't obsolete by their third year.

It will start to be mature when you can get a masters degree in game design from a respected university.

And it won't truly be mature until these graduates work their way up through the business, kick all of us old farts out on our asses and do something.

Zadaz

mwclarkson

However video gaming has long since arrived at the point where it could properly be an appropriate entertainment for adults in terms of content, depth, and in some cases, story. Personally, I'd thank Sony for doing that with their marketing demographic for the PSX, though as a kid I enjoyed Dynamix titles such as "Heart of China" that were arguably already there, or at least intended for a young adult audience and higher. Other PC titles were also for adults in more of a "mature" rather than "explicit content" way, I remember especially in the late 80s/early 90s, but they didn't really ignite the same industry transformation the Playstation did. Sega always liked to be the edgy one for consoles, but Sony deliberately and persistently targeted young adults AND succeeded.

Of course there are always floods of juvenile games, but to use books again, there are also loads of dime store romance novels/kids' light novels/comic books of lesser meaning. It comes with the territory of mainstream acceptance, but the educated can separate the wheat from the chaff easily enough.

Ultimately I'd say the medium is there, it's just a matter of waiting for society to catch up and take note.

Now to drop the maturity level to the other end of the spectrum: always lol @ petit girls hand-wielding massive impossible uberguns. Also, Batman movie abs...

fuchikoma

Rather than story, games should be dynamic and self-perpetuating, in a sense. I'm not talking about sandbox games, either. Think about sports...those are some of the longest-played games ever, and they have no story or narrative, but a lot of objectives. With today's processors, games could have a lot more dynamic goals and objectives going on. I really think this is the real breakthrough that developers should aim for.

@Derigor: I'm not trying to sound mean or anything like that, but maybe you are more of a viewer than a gamer? As in, the game could just be a movie and you'd be just as content. I just don't see the point of playing a games for story when other mediums have much better storytelling. But hey, I do like MGS, although I disagree on the controls. I think it has good gameplay. So have I come across as a hypocrit yet or what?

burpingcat

Pombar

If you will refer to my earlier post about sometimes playing games for a reason above and beyond merely enjoying the mechanics at play - for Fear, in Resident Evil's case, or for the sake of the narrative in FF's - then you'll see what I think about FF7's game mechanics.
Yes, they're backwards and not exactly immersive to the degree that you feel like you are Cloud. But are they playable nonetheless? Yes. Are you expected to play the game solely on the merits of the gameplay mechanics? No. It is the aforementioned narrative that primarily motivated fans of the game to play it through to completion.

Pombar

wild homes got the wrong bloke!

Do all games have to have this 'deep' and philosophical approach to their stories? Certainly not.

Do they all have to entertain? Yes. That is the whole point of the entertainment venue we all here enjoy.

Did bioshock do well with both independently? I certainly think so.

Some people do what something more like the 'deep' that bioshock offers. Whether bioshock is a poor example or not is completely up to you. I however think it is at least a step in the right direction for those who do enjoy it. 'Variety is the spice of life'- or however it is said. Bioshock, to me, pulled off a great story, with many elements that few other games take advantage of (FF series, Halo, Half-Life, Mario, Whatever) and you didn't have to be a philosophy major or read all those articles about Ayn Rand/objectivism to still enjoy it.

Has gaming grown up? Certainly in places. It admittedly could do more to improve its image.

There are so many parts to this argument that its hard to really come off of it with one focused ideal between everyone. It is at least an entertaining discussion, however.

Jetsetneo

jmsalal

Pombar

This is why games are frequently very formulaic. Because essentially, the best way to get us to buy games is to make games that remind us of experiences we already liked-- why do you think they keep calling it Final Fantasy? Why do you think games borrow mechanics so completely? Sure, it is sometimes more cost effective, but that's the point. In a hugely expensive business like making games, you minimise risk and maximise appeal. And cost of entry is very much a part of that. If the audience won't follow you as far afield in a game as they would in a movie because the audience behavior to participate in a game is different, then it follows that games will not evolve in a way that resembles, or runs parallel to, the evolution of movies.

wild homes got the wrong bloke!

To suggest that Orwell is only above average I think a little naive on your part for one who seems to know his novels and plays well.

But your arguement on FFVII I understand, but I still fail to find its gameplay anything but horrendously outdated, even for its day, and that the JRPG format was being done to death before FFVII but luckily it never hit Western shores... til FFVII came along and in the same way nowadays we are hit with average FPS back then you had horrendously average turn based RPGs which in themself provide as much fun as fighting two excel spreadsheets together.

Communist_Gamer

Pombar

If you were to take any of the Resident Evil games and perfectly translate them into a film or book, they are just cheesy, B-grade horror stories. They would make great popcorn action movies, but they're not mature/provocative kind of material. I'm sure when the first RE game was being pitched, it was all about the gameplay, theme and the tech behind the game. It probably wasn't pitched as a vehicle to tell the story of Jill, the master of unlocking, or as a topical commentary on the consequences of irresponsible military genetic research.

@mwclarkson: I'm sure you would not play a 'The Pianist' game. It wouldn't be fun. Or maybe you would, but there would be so few of us that would, there wouldn't be a publisher out there that would go near it.

Thyrfing

You build a product with your audience in mind. You also need to consider the audience's cost of entry. Film has a very low cost of entry-- all we're required to do is sit, and keep an open mind, and possibly not fall asleep. Given this low entry barrier, filmmakers can create very distinct, unique visions and trust that the audience will follow him, to whatever mature or other end.

Games, on the other hand, have a very high cost of entry. They ask for more of our time, more attention, and a much more intricate kind of participation. As a result, gamers require (though we may not realise it) a much more homogenised experience. This isn't to say we desire less creativity. It simply means we need to have our new experiences grounded in our old ones.

wild homes got the wrong bloke!

Just kidding. Amazing piece, Maggie.

TOWER_JUNKIE

Abriael

Pombar

Metal Gear Solid 2

Now, while this is by and large my least favorite of the three Solids, I must say that it has ended up being quite mature in the sense that it has taken an established medium, such as video games, and an established storyline in Kojimia's nearly 2 decade old "destroy a metal gear" theme, and flipped both on their heads.

To understand what I am going to say, I have to discuss Metal Gear Solid (the first) for a bit. MGS, aside from being one of the greatest reimaginings of 2-D to 3-D, along with the GTA series and Mario 64, the game was the first time that an action game (RPGs have been doing it forever) attempted to challenge the gaming world's perception on what an action game should be. Putting aside Kojima's constant breaking of the fourth wall and ambiguous morality aplenty, MGS did something that few games can do effectively; make you feel both compassion and revulsion for the villains and protagonists alike. Nobody behind the codec was a saint, and nobody at the receiving end of a bullet/missile/Snake-fist was a demon. Everyone felt wronged in some way and everyone wanted to change their world because of it.

In terms of comparing it to a film, I KNOW it is reaching, but I have to compare it to when the first time I saw the Godfather in the sense that as a kid in Jr. High, it was the first time I was enthralled with the protagonists though they were villains, and how even the cops were not good guys. Everyone had this moral ambiguity, and the story proceeded from there.

The reason why this comparison is reaching is because it took decades upon decades to make The Godfather and only, say, 20 years for MGS. Video games still have a long, LONG way to go. And while I understand Maggie's claim that "video games are young" argument is no longer valid, you have to admit that video games are improving leaps and bounds faster than movies were. While most of these improvements are mostly cosmetic, based on prettier graphics and crisper sounds, there will come a point where the amount of resources put into cosmetic changes will be outdone by getting stories and gameplay right. Things will look so good, or not need to look as good to be "mature" and intellectually stimulating. Think about how long it took early movies to master costume, set decoration, and SOUND before they could be considered mature pieces of art. Charlie Chaplin's Tramp eating a shoe did not emerge overnight, but rather, took great understanding of film narrative and 'special effects' planning. Like old films borrowed much of their early attempts from theatre, video games borrow much from film, but it is only now evolving into something that doesn't need film influences, but can steer popular culture by itself.

Not until videogames master cosmetic concerns will Maggie's whole point about rereading a book and getting immense satisfaction out of it will translate into playing games for more than just discovering secrets or to be the master of the game. In the future, people will be able to replay a game or a portion of a game just to relive a certain feeling. I know it is already starting to happen, as when I played the Sniper Wolf fight just to hear her Kurd story (not the Otacon love on a battlefield afterwards though…). When I played that as a teen, I was amazed that there was a group of people I didn't even know existed in the world who were mistreated and that I was learning about them through a video game. Flash forward to the current time in history where the plight of the Kurdish people is relevant in a political sense due to the war in Iraq. If that isn't an example of games maturing into their own, I don't know what is.

Which brings me to MGS2. Again, I really didn't like a lot of the choices that were made with the game, but, as with many movies, though I don't like the changes, I can appreciate and understand why they were there in the first place. Of all the articles I have read about MGS2, the most jarring one is an article I read recently describing MGS2 as the first real post-modern game. While this may be just another instance of the gaming culture trying to make their medium more relevant, I could not agree more. MGS2, like its predecessor, upended what it meant to be a game. Here, right after 9/11, comes a game that that millions of fans expected to be a game where Snake kicks ass, takes names, and is as memorable as the first MGS. What they got instead was this meta story about international politics, conspiracy theories, child soldiers, and….. Rosemary. The choice of putting you in the control of Raiden not only was a development choice as to justify explaining every control to you again (as opposed to a legendary Solid Snake who, if was being given directions on how to climb a ladder, would seem foolish and quite out of place), but it also was a big FU to those who thought they knew what a game sequel SHOULD be. The gameplay itself was unique in the sense that it gave you an option whether to kill everything you see, or just put everything to sleep, thus giving players the choice on their own sense of morality. Even walking through a stream of urine or running around naked challenges the idea that a hero of a game is a bastion of awesome that under no circumstances should do anything embarrassing.

Postmodernism, if I could remember it from my sociology classes, is the deconstruction of all social, intellectual, and artistic norms. MGS2 is postmodern because the whole tanker chapter was essentially virtual reality constructed by shadow organizations in order to control the world. While it made no sense to most of us, the same with the concept of postmodernism; defining postmodernism is an exercise in futility because postmodernism challenges what a definition is. It is abundantly clear that Kojima's message of disillusionment and challenging of norms is apparent from the moment Otacon describes Philanthropy as a UN recognized anti-proliferation group, and Snake corrects him by stating that such peacekeeping organizations are still "fringe" to the final fight and death of a former US president in the middle of NYC (again, post 9/11).

Maggie talks about maturity in light of commercial success, well, I am going to argue that maturity should also be discussed in absence of "good or bad" judgments. While I don't think that MGS2's story is as "good" as MGS or MGS3 (which continued this postmodern idea in MGS2, but in a more refined and clear way), it is, without a doubt, the most "mature" example I can think of in modern gaming. Kojima didn't beat us over the head claiming to be postmodern, it just was, unlike Bioshock's art deco, Ayn Rand, and objectivism, which was touted months before the launch. So, I guess, in retrospect, that even the launch of MGS2 was postmodern, because it was marketed one way, and turned out to be in a completely different; upending what pre-game hype is. Think about it…. With MGS4, people are questioning even prerendered CGIs, asking Kojima whether his TRAILERS are canonical, because during MGS2 trailers, they showed Snake in all the Raiden parts.

So to make a long response short (sorry for the wall of text), yes…. I do think gaming is grown up. That is not to say it has a lot more growing up to do, nor do I maintain that the MGS series is the be all end all justification for maturity, but with gaming already reaching postmodernism and discussions of art-deco backdropped objectivism, it is safe to say that even if gaming hasn't matured yet, maturity is nigh.

hopelesshindu

Pombar

ninjafetus

For example, a novel only requires the reader to understand the language, and thus the spectator does not expect to look at interesting scenes or listen to interesting sounds. Thus, a book can describe an exciting scene that would appear drab in a film or video game.

In this regard, video games are the most difficult to develop to various capacities, because gameplay is a medium that is expected to be addressed in a certain manner. If a game doesn't have good gameplay, its' other qualities tend to be overlooked.

It's these games that don't fulfill the requirements in order to expand upon other requirements that we consider art. Likewise, films without expected narratives or expected visuals will be considered art.

The interesting thing will be to see how expectations of gaming change with time, and how new games appear with the improvements in technology.

Raian1

Gam3r

This said it was a pretty interesting read, I'd like to believe as you finely pointed out that the industry is mature enough to see where the money is at and force is to recognize that a gun inserted in an anus or alien lesbian sex warrant extra sales but maturity hardly can be defined by content as finesse rarely comes from blockbusters which by definition are trying to appeal to the broadest target audience. That is, even if it seems most of the industry totally misjudged the casual market.

I think the main challenge as of now is that inflated budgets mean less risks, and even for independent movies it's pretty rare to get a movie such as donnie darko which costed like 5M and made a nice return on investment and since everything is super subjective i believe you can only define maturity by growth, market penetration and other random tangible numbers.

As plots and stories are involved, next-gen games must appeal to many countries and ideologies, so it's got to be dubbed down at some point and i'm starting to think that Shin Megami Tensei is the japanese GTA.
.

Fabrice

Pombar

@Thyrfing: I don't give too much credit to "games must be fun" as an objection or obstacle. Movies and shows have to be watchable; books have to be readable. That's not an obstacle to using these media to say something, though it can be an obstacle to a particular person's saying a particular thing.

mwclarkson

I think at the moment, games are primarily made to be played for this very basic level of 'fun', but how is that different to films being fundamentally 'entertaining'? I think games can and will branch out of this box it's been placed in, and we'll see games that justify themselves, and are enjoyed by gamers, as more than just a virtual stressball.

Pombar

amanojorge

When it comes to more mature games, just write games that don't treat people like adolescent horny boys, and it's probably fine. Sure, some stories do try to go over the top with the "oh shit I'm blowin' your mind" business, but at least it's not trying to reach us as if we're three and need pieces of shiny every two feet to lead us to the conclusion.

I'm not against the shiny, mind you. I rather enjoy explosions and violence. Still, my appreciation for it doesn't mean I wouldn't like something that makes me think every now and again.

Maldron

ThisCharmingMan

futurebiblehero

A game has to be fun. A film or book can explore so many more sophisticated ideas and emotions than games, because they don't have to be fun.

One thing about games 'growing up'- that may be true in some respects, but the mainstream still regard videogames as immature (even deviant, or a waste of time). A great thinker or writer isn't likely to swim upstream to make his or her statement with a game. That stigma has to change in a big way before we make any significant headway into film/book territory.

That being said, I like gaming the way it is. The more development time inversted to convey complex plots and heavy emotional/topical issues, the less time is put into gameplay, innovative features, immersive visuals and perfectly rendered cleavage.

Thyrfing

mwclarkson

Xenosaga - Not impressed. I loved Xenogears, but these games were too heavy handed at times. Sometimes I got the impression that the references were being made just for the sake of "sounding" cerebral.

I particularly enjoyed the Gabriel Knight series - that was a way to explore something a bit more educational and mature in nature and blending it with great gameplay.

Keep in mind, the beauty of the gaming industry is that there are many possibilities for storytelling. A Final Fantasy-type linear approach works just as well as an Oblivion style (partial linear) approach to me. You can even consider games like N+ or Lode Runner as telling a story in a way.

But personally, I enjoy games with a definitive story. I have enjoyed the transition to mature storylines - even though there are bumps along the way.

Spoony Bard

But I agree, it may be just my inner fanboy speaking.

amanojorge

Being that your someone who isn't as interested in the story; you can't tell me that there are no games out there that are good and cater to your needs.

jp182

jp182