He Was Always Trying to Prove Something
Earlier this year, writer and critic Michael Thomsen appeared on the webcast version of ABC’s World News with Charles Gibson and declared Nintendo’s Metroid Prime trilogy “the Citizen Kane of video games”. The segment was not particularly persuasive, being a collision of film history, video games, and the evening news– we see quick cuts between Kane’s bold swaths of shadow and three-dimensional laser combat with space aliens, while Thomsen says something about loneliness– but the piece struck a chord in the video game community, which emitted a loud and derisive collective snort. The reaction of Anthony Burch at Destructoid was typical: he wrote “are you fucking kidding me?”
Within the video game industry, and despite strenuous, well-argued objections to the worth of comparing two very different media in two very different times, debate about “the Citizen Kane of video games” pops up again and again. As overused as the phrase is (along with its equally abhorrent twin, “where’s the video game that will make me cry?”), it stubbornly persists because it’s an easily-graspable shorthand for a bothersome problem: where are the games that will artistically legitimize them to everyone who doesn’t play them? The non-gamer world, succinctly represented by film critic Roger Ebert’s 2005 assertion that video games are “inherently inferior to film and literature,” just doesn’t see what’s so great about them, despite our own fervent belief and our dogged evangelical efforts.
The real debate, then, is about what exactly we’re going to muster to show the world to prove that what we’re doing isn’t just a fun diversion, but something of genuine cultural import. And the irritation with Thomsen seems to stem from him calling Metroid Prime a work of art for the ages with about as much guile as a schoolboy proclaiming the genius of a trade fantasy novel he read over the summer in front of the rest of the class. “That’s what you’re going to show to Ebert to convince him videogames are a legitimate art form?” Burch wrote. “You’re going to show him the morph bomb and expect him to nod repeatedly, and admit that the story of an extinct bird race and a woman with a bazooka on her arm is just as meaningful as La Dolce Vita? Seriously?”
Well, what else can we point towards? Thomsen picked Metroid, he told me, partly because he was just trying to talk about something that he personally responded to, and felt had some connection to the technical innovation for which Kane is known. But there are many other games out there with thoughtful, artfully constructed designs– games absent of laser beams in space, games that when played invite us to consider the rules and the mechanics that govern the world around us. We give these games awards and talk about them in polite non-gamer company as proof of their worthiness, but ask a typical gamer about the most memorable moment in his playing life and he is as likely as not to mention the time he sniped five guys in a row to save the day in a particularly hotly contested multiplayer match.
The idea that the embarrassment of admitting you really like games might be mitigated by pointing out that there exist certain works of interactive art that deserve to be taken seriously also doesn’t hold water when one looks at the fate of comic books, which, despite having been blessed by many works of absolute sincerity, seriousness and subtlety over the years, have largely failed to make a dent on the popular imagination as anything other than the province of the juvenile in body or mind. And how video games may or may not avoid the marginalized fate of comic books is another worried strain of thought running through the industry’s creatives. It serves as a warning to those who assert that cultural acceptance is simply a matter of time, that we can wait around for a coming generational shift. Michael Abbott, a professor at Wabash College who teaches theatre and film, notes his students usually aren’t particularly impressed with Kane when he screens it for them, but that they aren’t therefore automatically interested in video games, either: “From time to time I mention games in my class, and sometimes they respond and sometimes they don’t. They’ve all played games, sure, and see them as a fun thing to do. But the idea that one could think critically about games, that one could take them seriously, is really quite foreign to many of them.”
Real maturity, then, is about more than just appearances. It is about what lies underneath. Even though Burch wrote scathingly that Thomsen’s comparison “makes our most beloved art form look like kid’s stuff, and us like a bunch of idiots,” the very same day Destructoid also ran a story entitled White Knight Chronicles 2 has pointy boobs, droopy boobs. The implication of this being that treating games as the inwards-facing exclusive province of boyish adolescence is perfectly acceptable as long as Mom and Dad aren’t looking; if they are, though, hide the controllers and put on a tie. This inferiority complex runs so deeply in the gamer mindset that we will often swear up and down it does not exist while we continue unbridled our wildly passive-aggressive approach towards the artistic establishment, equal parts brash and defensive, trying to look older and more experienced than our years: the hallmark of youthful insecurity.
So before we can confidently come forth with our own particular offerings towards the sum of human cultural output, the light of civilization, it seems we must continue to gyrate through this adolescent process of self-discovery, as awkward and humiliating as it can be. Whether we like it or not, however, learning to be comfortable in our own shoes is not a journey that we can delay indefinitely.
Commentary | November 19, 2009
Reader Comments (21)
You will notice, however, that I didn't actually write that article.
My wife will though. Sometimes I think this whole Citizen Kane thing isn't the point. I don't think that games can't be like films, but measuring ourselves against a two-hour cutscene is just deflating. Films and literature are essentially just inferior to games, if you think about it. Do we want an Oscar for Best Game? No, of course we don't.
Is this so different to other media? The typical moviegoer's most memorable film scene is more likely to be from a recent popcorn flick or an outrageous comedy than a critically acclaimed classic. A reader picked at random today is more likely to love a Twilight or Harry Potter book than Anna Karenina.
The trajectory of gamers is not to become accepted by mainstream culture so much as to become mainstream culture. Comic books never made it because they never had a wide enough audience within any single generation, but now, below about age 30, everyone plays games in some form.
So you can see how silly it would be to ask: Where's the porn that will make me cry? When will we have the Citizen Kane of porn?
I've noticed a lot of people who object to people trying to, in their view, read too much into games, unless it's something amusing like Mario being a secret communist metaphor. It's a cousin to the inevitable comments on the more regrettable gaming blogs whenever a controversy erupts over racist imagery in the game: that the entire argument is invalid because "it's just a game". Apparently games are completely incapable of expressing a message when it's inconvenient for people to point it out.
Don't get me wrong, I personally work on video games because I believe that games can be more than what they are right now. For me, most of the games I see out there and work on are simply just games or in many cases they boils down to action/reward porn. And this even applies to independent or casual groups; in the end it's all visual eye candy.
So as video game makers, I feel we have we just learned how to use the tools and we've just begun to tap the potential, but we have to be consciously aware of what we're creating, whether we're presenting a deeper message or it just boils down to eye candy, and take a stand for it. And there needs to be developers who also stand for one or the other as well... there's a lot for "games are just games". I think many creators in other mediums have mastered controlling what they're trying to present, and that's why the audience can clearly separate what's "art" (kane, hamlet) and accept what isn't (debbie does dallas, a news report, etc.) without question.
And in truth. I believe it. Kane and Prime give me similar glimpses into the existential struggle with identity, achievement, and loneliness. If you can argue against that thematic cohesion, have at it. It's not an airtight argument. But it's my experience. It defines the value of my time with the game, and for me, it's very similar to why Kane has value. Would that people spent more time articulating their experiences rather than all the rhetorical throat clearing about whether or not comparative analysis is worthwhile in the first place (what an embarrassing argument -- exhibit A in the adolescence of our critical class and culture). The history of our intellectual evolution and growth as a thinking people is based in comparison and objects considered in different lights. Games are not excepted from this tradition and, I think, they excel when considered in this light.
@Mike Thomsen If only that's what the Citizen Kane arguement was about. Comparing how thematic elements are handled between two works in a cornerstone of criticism, but that isn't what the Citizen Kane arguement is about. It's about gamer's insecurities and wanting a title to point to that everyone will recognize, though may not have played, as art like Citizen Kane. They want that so they wont feel insecure when they talk about thier hobby. The whole question has nothing to do with intellectual stimulation.
Furthermore Citizen Kane is hailed as the work it is today not for the themes it chose to tackle, but how it uses the mediuem to tackle it. Yes Metroid Prime may (or may not) have similar themes, but it does not use everything at its disposal in the mediuem to convey its theme and/or message.
I must concede that there is no metric by which to measure the value of these mediums other than personal worth. I never really intended to assert otherwise; when I say that they're inferior, I'm blatantly subverting Ebert's ignorance with a statement of (apparently far too subtle) irony.
I just wrote about a thousand words here, so I'm going to hold on to them and make some money with them. Sorry!
A great work can appeal to both the masses and the extremely few intellectuals: Shakespeare, for example, wrote plays that appealed to everyone. He used complex metaphors and irony for the smart, crude jokes for the stupid, warnings about witches and ghosts for the religious, existential angst for atheists, political drama for the rich and social satire for the poor. Planet of The Apes was a clever commentary on the wonders of science and the simple beauty of exploration and discovery, but it, also, had monkeys.
Philosophies proposed in the past shape our perception of the future: Descartes's theories, for example, seemed ridiculous until modern sciences, such as Quantum Physics and Relativity, suggested that he was, absolutely, correct. We should use video games to propose such ideas--because, as "Solid Snake" said, "Life isn't just about passing on your genes: We can leave behind much more than just DNA, through speech, music, literature and movies, what we've seen,heard, felt--anger, joy and sorrow--these are the things I will pass on.
http://www.segabastard.com/rub/kane.html"Begging the world to take gaming seriously is a fruitless endeavor. It won't advance gaming in any way, it won't make games better."
Our hobby cannot, yet, be taken seriously-- but if, as I suggested, we integrate literary subtleties into it, that should change.
Yes, video games have started to appeal to the masses, but, only, very simplkistic casual games have become popular outside of the hardcore market. Gamers who discuss complex R.P.G.s, strategy games or bloodthirsty action games will, most likely, be perceived as raving obsessive lunatics. Guys who see gamers as such are, usually, hypocrites: Most of them are, in some way, obsessed--whether with some other medium, work, drugs, friends, hatred or anything else.
Is that the implication of those Destructoid posts? Or is it just that games websites are just as happy to run argumentative analysis as they are immature boob-humour?
Fair point - that is a leap I've made, and as Anthony Burch himself points out above, he did not write both of those posts. Still, though, I feel the conflation of "what should we show Ebert?" with "let's look at breasts!" can illuminate something about the overall attitude of the site, and, very broadly speaking, the state of medium it covers - even if they were two independent editorial decisions from two different contributors.
thanks,matthew
I can't help but think of this as similar to the kind of snobbery that says genre fiction can't be meaningful. What do laser beams have to do with the worth of a piece of art?
Super Metroid was one of the most thoughtful, atmospheric, and yes - artful games ever made and it has wrapped in classic science fiction dress. Did that stop it from elevating the platformer and tugging at the ingenuity and curiosity of the player with it's immersion and intuitive mechanics? To learn to wall jump was a true achievement. To search it's levels was to take into consideration the hidden passages and idiosyncratic level design that never quite told the player everything that was happening.
This is a good point. I used "laser beams in space" as a shorthand without thinking carefully, and realize that is probably the wrong way to put it. I fully agree with you that genre trappings do not, at root, matter (I actually said as much a couple years ago on this blog).
thanks,matthew