The topic of video games and how they should be labeled has been quite a hot topic. In fact, this has been such a hot topic that when brought before the supreme court, they decreed that they are protected speech via the 1st amendment. This is significant since that is what cinema, theatre, and literature is also covered by. Now the other three areas are considered art. Video games have been, and still are, fighting to have this same moniker. It is quite a unique case when you sit down and look at a medium that does have artistic qualities to it (just look at the beauty of the landscape in some of those games) but unlike the other mediums, video games are 100% entertainment. What I mean by this is that even games that are meant to teach or have possible academic aspects to it, like Portal, entertainment is still the number one issue at hand. No matter how educational or factual a game may be, if it isn't entertaining, it will not be successful.
Within cinema, there are documentaries that serve the purpose to inform and/or persuade on a certain topic. Theater has specific styles (like Brecht Epic Theatre) that puts the importance of an issue over the entertainment that an audience may have. Literature has both fiction and non-fiction books that deal with issues and discusses them in ways that get people to talk. If anyone has ever read Fahrenheit 451, you know that it deals with how easily manipulated the world is when books are all destroyed since people are not provoked to think. That is what the three mentioned mediums can do and have done over the years. Video games struggle with the art debate because of the fact that, like I said earlier, entertainment is the core.
Where video games have gained steam in the debate is the fact that games have been made that provokes thought. It may not deal with topical issues, but the games force you to think about the morality and the overall ripple effect decisions may have. The best examples are the Mass Effect games and the episodic games of The Walking Dead. Neither of these games are set in everyday circumstances or dealing with current issues facing oppressed groups or economics. Where people get hooked is the fact that these games deal with the issue of trying to be moral in the face of an overwhelming task where taking moral shortcuts, such as stepping on/screwing over people, are very tempting since they make the current objective so much easier. The long term consequences of taking the shortcuts can be minor, or the reason why you end up losing a key member of your group, to even the death of the character you control. Mass Effect deals with this on a grand scale to where a few decisions you make could decide the fate of an entire planet. The game deals with a scenario that people cannot relate with of being a super-soldier that is tasked with preparing and defending the universe against a threat that could wipe everyone and everything out. People can relate to things like the relationships, the hardships Shepard faces as he talks to different races that have long standing issues (some are similar to racial issues), and just being an underdog the entire time.
The Walking Dead games takes a much different approach. You are Lee Everett, who was on on his way to jail for murder when the outbreak occurred. Although the zombie apocalypse is something we cannot relate to (not matter how much people may want to), we can relate to a guy who has hit rock-bottom like Lee and is just trying to redeem himself. We can also relate to his struggles with trying to band people together under tough circumstances and keep the very dysfunctional group from breaking.
These two games are extremely thought provoking and 2 of the games/franchises people point towards when making the argument for video games as art. The biggest thing that games have going for them is the fact that unlike in the other three mentioned mediums, the person playing the game "experiences" what happens. Since we are the ones shooting, deciding, planning, and picking the speech lines, it feels like we are the ones pushing the story along. In a sense, we are, but of course at the same time, the story gets pushed along as the developers wanted it. Still, plot twists, such as the amazing "Would You Kindly" phrase in Bioshock 1 hit on a personal level since it effects "us," the person we're controlling. Since we put the hours of time into them, we feel an attachment to them that just is not felt in the other mediums. This does not mean that we don't feel anything should something tragic happen to a character in the other mediums, but it has a special sting when it is a character that we took the time to "bond" with in a video game.
Because of this, I personally believe that video games can be art. Are there games out there that are not art in any definition of the word? Of course, but there are books, movies, plays, and music that are the exact same way. There is always bad with the good. Video games, I believe, capture the thought provoking through a different means. I don't know if I could elevate games to the same level as books, but I believe they can still impact a person in a similar way that a great book can. I think as video games evolve, the case for them to be considered art will be stronger since the story elements of games have been strengthening over the years. As I said, I don't know if I could put them on the same level as theatre, film, and literature since I have never seen a video game cause a dramatic shift in the thought process of people or cause a new movement, but I believe that they can be in the conversation of art that provokes thought and emotion.
As with any controversial topic, one opinion will not sway it one way or the other, so that was not the point of this. I wanted to basically give my two cents and see what people think. To anyone still reading this, what do you think? Are video games art? If yes, should they be put on the same level as books, film, and theatre?
And remember, Don't Panic, and never forget your towel.
No comments:
Post a Comment