 |
|
| | >>> Click
here to download Final Fantasy Ringtones |
 |
#1  [E] On the Artistic Merits of Videogames On the Artistic Merits of Computer Games. When one thinks of art, the first thing to come to mind is most likely the high art of Human history - Dostoyevsky, Hemingway, Homer, and so forth. This is a reaction almost in the spinal column, independent from actual brain input. We have been brought up to believe these are the highest, most accomplished forms of art of Humankind and so, when confronted with the notion of art, they are the first that come to mind. A slightly more considered view will generally include more diverse ideas in the mind of the general populace. Few would debate the merits of architecture and film as mediums with strong artistic potential and examples, despite the sink estates in British inner cities and the ceaseless waves of Scary Movies and associated productions. But moving beyond this, one is hard-pressed to find people who recognize videogames as a strong artistic medium. I feel this is both an underestimation of the medium, and a failure to anticipate the ever-increasing potential it offers. In this essay, I shall demonstrate the various artistic elements in games, from those with strong parallels to more established forms, to aspects unique to this medium. The Aesthetics Games doubtless encompass many things which have the potential to be considered artistic, if properly executed. Specifically these are the aesthetic values - graphics, audio, design elements, and so forth. Music is easily the clearest parallel to draw, because there is no sensible boundary to be drawn between game music and non-game music. However, in times past there have been strict limitations (Due to the great preference for using digital storage) on the amount of data a game could contain, which severely hampered the musical data which could be stored and later relayed to the gamer. Yet despite these limitations, some game composers managed to deliver exceptional works of music art - consider the soundtrack of Chrono Trigger, widely regarded as one of the best soundtracks in the industry. I argue that it is a testament to the skills of the composers of the day that they were able to create tracks which are at the least hugely recognizable idioms, and at best truly evocative and atmospheric, with tight limits on the available sounds and data. With the advent of the CD and, later, DVD as a format for games, the musical potential was vastly increased. Not only were composers able to create soundtracks which are comparable in quality to CDs in typical high street music stores, but they were also easily able to use tracks from various real-world artists. To see the benefits this can bring to a game, one only need to look at Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, a game with remarkable atmosphere which is due in no small part to the eclectic soundtrack. Quite aside from that, game composers themselves gained the ability to express themselves far more fully in the new mediums. Halo, The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind, and Chrono Cross are three examples of game music compositions on par with what is typically considered musical art. So much so in fact that a number of game music concert events have begun appearing around the world, drawing considerable attendance from people wishing to hear game music as rendered by, for example, the Los Angeles Philharmonic Orchestra. Game music only forms one aspect of a much larger package, but it is one which perhaps best highlights the right of games to be asserted as art, if one considers only the aesthetic values. The visual component is a much broader one, ranging from original character concept designs through to special effects like lens flare in the finished product. Whilst hand-drawn graphics such as those in SaGa Frontier 2 are closer to the traditional forms, I maintain that games with graphics we more typically associate with the medium can also have the right to be called art. A particular incident which comes to mind is the first time I played Halo, upon beginning level two after crashing onto the ring world, and seeing the sun streaming through the leaves and branches of a tree. The Covenant made short work of my due to my distraction and as-yet inexpert grasp of the game, but to me that has become an iconic representation of the Halo franchise. Of course when it comes to character design, another aspect is necessarily opened up - the personalities of the characters themselves. Games are prone to stereotyping. For example, in Final Fantasy X the realistically-minded, abrupt character Lulu dresses in essentially a Goth fashion, whilst the optimistic and irrepressible Rikku is garbed in far brighter, lighter wear. Contrarily it may be the case that it is simply the natural gravitations of particular mindsets to particular colors and/or styles which is depicted. Whatever the motivations one can generally tell the personality of a character by their appearance - the well-meaning, somewhat oafish ‘tank’, the shy and restrained ‘white mage’, and the silent, experienced veteran are archetypes gamers are all familiar with. Despite this, many games allow considerable character development as their course is run; again in FFX Wakka, whilst not doing any growing up in the manner Tidus does, is forced to accept some very ugly truths about a religion he had absolute faith in. More importantly, despite the stereotypes, a well-designed and believable character can bring the player into the world in a profound manner. That little tangent highlights the intertwined nature of videogames, and can make it somewhat difficult to analyse these aspects separately - some would contest that it is in fact counterproductive to do so. Nevertheless, returning to the graphical aspects, a character which is well-designed in appearance can arguably do a great deal to help players identify with them - thanks to the very same stereotypes. Another, possibly even more important aspect of design is that of level design. This is the architectural element of games - the creation of structures for the players to observe and explore. Due to the often outlandish nature of games, and their ability to suspend real-world laws, they can include some remarkable locations. In gaming terms, however, if one wishes to apply 'architecture' as a useful phrase, it must be applied to the game world as a whole. Nothing in a game (Well, aside from bugs) occurs accidentally. Everything from the positioning of mountains to the color of the sky is a design decision, and therefore the entire thing, not just the buildings or directly accessible areas of the game, must be considered when it comes to this aspect of design. The term can be debated, but for ease of use I shall apply architecture to mean the design of the world in this essay. The architecture in a game can be used to create strikingly beautiful surroundings, for example the Heaven area in Jade Empire. Arguably the music must also be considered in this because it forms a critical part of the atmosphere generated by the game. However I think they are slightly distinct, and serve as compliments to one another rather than them being dependant on each other. Nevertheless, it cannot be argued that an accomplished fusion of visual art, character design, music, and in my eyes most critically of all, architecture, will create a package with incredible aesthetic appeal, and one which cannot reasonably be considered anything other than art. Interactivity The above segment is likely not to prove overly contentious - discussion about particular terms I have used perhaps, but I do not expect much beyond that. The far more ardent points of discussion are likely to come around from the method of interaction with the medium, rather than the precise specifications of the medium. What sets games apart, and what Roger Ebert criticized specifically, is that they are an interactive medium. This raises a very interesting point of discussion in my eyes, which can be summed up in the question "To what degree is the player an artist?" Yes, the game makers can be artists. The creation of the game, whether in original design methods, or in computer coding, can be an art of design and efficiency. But can someone be an artist when playing a game? Well, look at soccer: When a particularly skilled player appears, not only does he attract multimillion pound offers of employment, he attracts claims that he doesn’t play the game so much as 'art' the game - his skill is such that it transcends mere ability and becomes something so well-calculated, so accomplished, that it gains artistic merit. Certainly, even for one who is something of a sports philistine as myself, a skilful play in football, a perfect free kick to the back of the net in soccer, or a dribble followed by a three-pointer in basketball does have artistic properties. In fact, in almost any industry, a person who combines efficiency with skill to a high degree is commonly considered to be better than merely great, and to have become an artist. I argue that the creation of an act can indeed have as much artistic merit as the act of creation. To what degree can this be extended to videogames? A player with the right combination of aptitude, practise, and memorization can be exceptional when playing Unreal Tournament or Quake. Someone who meets similar criteria, plus has some endurance, can do remarkable things playing Dance Dance Revolution. I do not think such gamers are commonplace, but I think most of us have occasional streaks of luck which make us look and feel very accomplished. Speaking again of Halo, I recall an incident where I bounced a round from a sniper rifle off the inner part of a Jackal’s shield, and directly through his head. It was superfluous, unnecessary, and risky - but it looked amazing and felt even better. Was it art that I happened to set up the correct circumstances, and to hit the exact correct part of his shield, from exactly the correct angle, to shoot him in that manner? I don’t wish to be a braggart, but I do think that is a particular example I have seen of art in gameplay. We move now to another aspect of player interaction with games, and one which ties together the aesthetic and gameplay factors in anticipation of the final section. Specifically, the area is that of player-created content. I do not necessarily mean mods and expansions, as is seen for games such as Morrowind, but rather the things players create within the games themselves, using the tools offered to them. Consider Sim City, wherein the player takes up the mantle of a (Somewhat omnipotent) mayor/city planner and builds anything from a humble hamlet to a massive metropolis. Can a particularly efficient, orderly, aesthetically pleasing, well-run city in Sim City have artistic value? Will a particularly efficient, aesthetically pleasing, evolutionarily safe creature in Spore have artistic merit? I would contend that yes, just as a particular example of exceptional gameplay can have artistic merit, so too can a longer-term investment of time and thought, possibly accompanied by carefully learning the game. Bridging the gap I have put forth my proposition that gameplay itself can have artistic merit, in much the same way as a skilled sportsman can demonstrate. I have established that, from an aesthetic perspective, there is no sensible reason to exclude videogames from being called artistic. What, then, when the two come together? I have often heard/read of developers who consider one of the most fundamental aspects of making an appealing game to be making a game which makes the player feel accomplished when they succeed. Essentially, that the best games are those which allow players to perform 'acts of art' in the course of being played. Whilst the achievement of finishing a game might be exhilarating and pleasing, it is surely far more so when a player has perfected some skill in order to complete it. As I stated earlier it was a very good feeling to have performed an unlikely shot so well when playing Halo. As an aside, I would note that possibly the single most part of a game is the control system - above all else, the game needs to be intuitive and uncomplicated (At least for basic manoeuvres.) Roger Ebert stirred up some controversy in the gaming world for his statements regarding interactivity and diverse choices being a stumbling block to games being art. I understand where he is coming from, but I feel he overlooks several critical aspects of the medium. The first, as I have already highlighted, is the fact that it can allow players to become artists in their own right (Or at the very least, permit them to do things which make them feel good about themselves.) More importantly still, from a narrative perspective, he makes two fundamental errors in his understanding of games. The first is the belief that games do not possess ultimately linear storylines. Linearity is in fact something oft-derided in the industry, and there are common calls for more choices, wider consequences, and so forth. I do not find any great problems with linearity, in fact I feel it offers a very great potential to game makers - it can cause characters, and by extension players, to do something the player might not agree with. Obviously in the real world this is generally abhorrent, but in an artistic medium, it can arouse emotions of almost as much intensity, and can provoke thought and new perspectives on the matter. This is surely one of the most fundamental and defining aspects of art! The second error he makes is in his assumptions on the necessity of total linearity. This might seem something of a doublespeak after the last paragraph, but remember there are many different games, and many different kinds of games. They can each offer something different, and a proper analysis must consider all styles, from rigidly enforced linearity such as that in many platformers, to the sandbox offered by Sim City and the like. Yes, authorial control is required to tell a story, but what if the art is something other than a story? (In the evocation of emotions, or again, in the application of skills.) Moreover I see the possibilities of more open-ended gameplay, or at least multiple endings, to be something which not only enhances replay value, but which can provide a greater sense of consequence and moral advisement than any single-ending story could. For example in Deus Ex: Invisible War one is faced with a choice at the end on who to assist in attaining power, and therefore what kind of world to help create. When I chose the Omar, and saw that the world fell into a hellish crucible, but one from which a truly powerful Human species emerged, it provoked a great deal of thought about my actions. I feel this offered a far more powerful feeling of responsibility than any other medium, and in so doing, gave me a much greater insight into myself than many other examples of art might manage. Another, perhaps more mundane ability to create internal conflict in players is that found in many Survival Horror games. When playing, for example, Silent Hill one is very often faced with the in-game objective of going into somewhere which is not only dangerous for the character, but which is in atmospheric terms rather scary for the gamer as well. The feeling of necessity versus fear is something which is difficult to evoke in a reasonable manner in real life, and whilst other art forms can manage it, I feel games are far and away the best at providing such experiences. Another, even more strong example is in the completion of a game where one has become close to the characters. Games often require a fair investment of time to complete, and so become a notable part of someone's life; so too do the world and characters of the game. Completing a game, both in my own experience in that the experiences several people have related to me, combines the feeling of accomplishment and joy with a sense, almost, of loss - the parting of ways between good friends being the cause of this feeling. I feel another strong appeal held by computer games is that, through their very nature, they can offer different experiences to different players. I have seen this aspect criticized when it comes to their status as art, but I feel that a game which allows players to be more than passive - to express themselves, and which leads to a specific set of consequences, not only enhances the replay value of a game, but allows the player a greater insight into whatever matter is being dealt with, as well as into themselves. I am perhaps somewhat hesitant to admit it, but when playing a Grand Theft Auto game I sometimes find myself questioning my random acts of horrific violence - yes, it’s “only a game”, but nevertheless I wonder if it is something from which I can learn something about myself. And that, in the final summation, is surely the essence of art. |
09-08-2006, 01:00 AM
|  
|
| |
| Banned | You make some excellent points, I am thoroughly impressed. I do agree there is a lack of Killer 7. Wiki'd: http://www.eyesonff.com/members/wiki...tsOfVideoGames |
|
12-03-2006, 03:30 PM
|
|
It sounds really familiar to another essay I know I've read here, though...
? Not actually made in teh seventies, like, recent, but the setting is seventies 
