Alright! first legit review of my blog and the game in the docket is Farcry 3! Since the common man has forever been enamored with stats, I'd like to begin by throwing a few up:
Number of play-throughs: 1
Time until completion: Roughly 2 weeks.
Pace of gameplay: Casual
Difficulty: Medium
Console used: Xbox 360
PLEASE NOTE: This blog is a spoiler den. Keep reading and you will soon know how it ends.
Ahh, Farcry 3. A game hailed with so much excellence that my younger brother asked me to get it for him as a Christmas present. And so my Christmas of 2012 will be forever remembered by running slave-trading pirates through with a machete, ripping the bloody skins off of animal carcasses, and scaling ramshackle radio towers, all in a beautiful tropical environment!
So what's my take on the game? Mmm... let's see. Well, I must hand it to Ubisoft for coming up with a decent open-world FPS/RPG. I imagine the company's experience and feedback with the Assassin's Creed series helped them out to create FC3 to be what it is. Still, others might suggest any other Ubisoft title can be argued to have influenced FC3 to be what it is. Most obvious of all is the possibility that it is the first two Farcry games had influenced FC3 to be what it is. And why not? You cannot have a 2nd 3rd or 4th (etc.) installment of something without the very first version. Well, the makers of Troll 2 did it, but we're not talking about them...
In any case, the reason why I'm harkening back to AC for elements of note in FC3 and not other games is because I've never played the first two Farcry games. And after playing AC, and AC Revelations, and hearing a lot about AC3, I can guess that a lot of what they have you doing in FC3 is a lot of what you're doing in AC3.
Now the incredulous among you might jump to the obvious differences about these titles, mainly the camera views, the free-running and the story. Mmm... yes, but aren't there towers in both games that reveal map area upon scaling them to their heights—which inevitably, by the way—have some sort of fast way down from the top? Aren't there enemy outposts in both games for the player to capture for his NPC-allies? Isn't there an underlying emphasis on stealth-tactics in both games? Aren't the bad guys in both games offensive to American sensibilities? Don't the currencies in both games feel horribly inflated (Okay, that's maybe one editorial too many...)? Does Ubisoft get ubihard at the theme of main characters lacking ring fingers (sorry, couldn't resist)?
I'm sure I can draw more parallels out from the two titles (And who knows? It could be everyone who reads this is heartily concurring with my remarks, or at least saying, "No duh, moron!"), so if I remember any I'll let 'em rip, but I want to move on to the better, juicier, core results of this hit video game title.
I'll start off by saying I liked it more than Assassin's Creed and Assassin's Creed: Revelations. This surprises even myself! Ever since the Halo fad and subsequent Call of Duty fads and the Battlefield 3 (I guess?) fad, I've started to dislike the FPS as a genre. It's easy to understand why. For my part, online gaming disagrees with me. I can first remember the time when my big brother hooked up his Xbox (the original that is) to the internet and got a month's free subscription to Xbox live. Playing Halo 2—the world's most popular game at the time—over the internet was kind of a big step forward for us in video game hipness.
Rewind it just a few more years, and we were astonished little boys when big brother hooked up some old mac computers (my dad's employers were going to throw them out anyway...), together and we were playing, (ironically) Bungie's FPS precursor to the Halo games: Marathon. I believe big bro used Ethernet cables to set up a LAN. There was a time when a blue cord ran the length of our suburban home to link up the three computers, one in dad's room and two in the "lab." Now that, in all candor, was fun. Given my little big rant in my introductory post, readers may think of me against all games that don't have lengthy or engaging plots. For the record, I think there is a place for "party games," as I've termed them. Smash Brothers, Tekken, Star Wars: Battlefront and even Halo are games that provide players the opportunity to get together with some pizza and beverages and let the good times roll, "good times" understood as indulging in playfully killing your friends and family in a home-sweet-home setting. I'll leave the second half of this conversation for a later time however.
Getting back to the topic at hand, I cultured a moderate distaste for FPSs around the time between Halos 2 and 3. "Why," you might ask? "The campaign modes," I'd say. "Well, no duh again!" you might reply, "No one plays the campaign modes! FPSs are all about the online play."
But have they always been? Indeed when Halo: Combat Evolved hit the shelves in whatever year it did, Xbox live didn't exist! Or if it did (I'm lazy when it comes to fact-checking), it certainly didn't support it. The upshot of this means the only multiplayer going down in Halo was classic-style split-screen, not the 16v16 big team battles, ranked matches, clans and whatever sort of hootenanny youngsters can get into nowadays. This premise leads to the next: certainly, with the multiplayer in Halo being what it was, surely more consumers were spending their time on the campaign mode when no friends were around to do otherwise. Additionally, Halo became such a legendary game that people had to have played and explored so much of what it had to offer, i.e. campaign mode.
Let me tell you, when I came across a copy of Halo: Combat Evolved, I naturally played the campaign. I'd played the Halo 2 campaign a lot before this, so I was eager to see the first version of the game. The one that set things all off. I was disappointed. Not because I liked Halo 2 better (indeed, I confess the reason why I played 2's campaign so much was because I was very bored at the time and I fell for the game's graphics), but it's because the campaign was boring, repetitive and repetitive. At least Volition's Red Faction had a plot you could relate to a bit more!
I found Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, 3 and Black Ops more or less of the same vein. Just point and shoot and run from location A to location B... maybe hitting some buttons along the way... well at least COD has some interesting and mildly interactive cutscenes from time to time...
So thanks a lot, props and kudos to you, Farcry 3, for not being a copy of other FPS fails. I liked the gameplay quite a bit actually. It was a refreshing change of pace from the previously mentioned shooters. Stealth and planning actually play a part in your success. Experience is awarded for skillful kills, multiple kills and if you took out an enemy outpost silently enough. And for those without patience to be stealthy (shame on you!), the game can still be played. Yes, I'd hardly lump FC3 into the "stealth genre" pile.
They've said FC3 is like "Skyrim with guns." Just the tagline that motivated my brother put it on his wish list. My response to such a tagline was, "I thought Fallout was like Skyrim with guns..." Well, I can see why they'd put it that way. A year after the epic came out and the masses are probably already clamoring for another one. Just make it real-life, tropical and chock full of firearms and it'll sell itself. In my opinion, I was right in thinking Fallout is the real "Skyrim with guns." FC3 earns itself a "close, but no cigar" on my does-it-compare-with-TES V: Skyrim-o-meter. Heck, I wouldn't even say it's "like Oblivion with guns," but if they used TES IV, no one would have bothered playing it in the first place. Chronological Snobbery rears its ugly head once more.
But Ubisoft has picked up some useful things in the RPG-making trade, crafting to name one, experience gains and weapon customization another and another. I didn't even really notice or care that there was a lack of leveling up a "leather working" or "syringe making" skill. FC3 is a game that just gives it all to you, or at least makes you think it does until you quickly find out that you need to run some more main quest to unlock new recipes. Not that I cared much about that either; there weren't that many sub-quests or side quests that I wanted to do first before I crossed a point of no return somewhere along the main quest line. I have mixed feelings about the side quests. I felt like they were kind of a stupid way to make money and carried about as much depth to them as those odd mini quests gamers encountered in GTA IV. But if they felt as personal as the quests and odd jobs in a Bethesda game, I would loose all track of time, and being stranded on Rook Island would quickly become too surreal; it's surreal enough taking into account the time you can spend/waste there, the amount of people you kill, the kind of money you make, and other various and sundry factors.
But for all that, I like the gameplay better than AC or AC: Revelations. The plot I also liked better but that's where things get tenuous. First off, they cast a set of douchebag teens who I automatically have no sympathy for from the moment the game begins. Okay, so the popular crowd might be more able to identify with them, fine. I'll suspend my judgment... Lord knows I needed to when I played through GTA IV (but then, Niko Bellic wasn't a douchebag teen, but I digress).
I liked Vaas as a villain a whole lot and I find it a supreme bummer they didn't do more with him. He's on the cover of the game for Pete's sake, I thought he'd be a tougher nut to crack. Hell, I would have appreciated it a whole lot more if the game gradually turned Jason Brody (aka player character) into another Vaas. But like GTA IV, this plot rolled off the rails on a crazy train and fell into a slough of something reminiscent to the "oh crap, we got rid of the bad guys and the main character hasn't really sacrificed himself for it yet" dilemma.
If it tried to confuse what I believe morally, it failed. If it tried to show me moral foundation amid a ship of wretchedness in a sea of chaos, it failed. I don't know what the game was trying to tell me about morals and I soon stopped bothering to find out when I killed my first hundred or so STD-ridden pirates. The scene where Jason finds out his brother Riley actually survived and is being held captive by Hoyt was obviously meant to be some kind of crux, but all I get is a brief one-liner soliloquy from Jason, "What have I become?" I dunno, Jason, what have you become? Less of a pussy about killing people, that's for sure. But are you any closer to being a man? Can't say you are.
In the end, everything you've fought for boils down to one moral decision (where once again, I would have there be a lot more of these dotted throughout the game, each choice turning you either more into a Vaas, or more into a... Grant maybe? He did seem like the least douchiest of the group despite, being a solider...): should I stay or should I go? I'm not sure at this point what there is to tug at my heart-strings for ditching Citra and the Rakyat. I personally felt betrayed by them the moment they first drugged me and had me running errands for them. I had my suspicions when I first woke up to find what's-his-name etching a tatau in my arm at the beginning of the game.
So I freed my friends and left, in turn causing what's-his-name to get all worked up in a lather and come at me with a blade. Citra, silly schoolgirl that she is, throws herself in harms way and absorbs 100% damage for critical hit! Needless to say, she dies, and I escape the island with my friends. I haven't played the other option, but I've seen it on Youtube just now....
...Okay! It wasn't entirely what I expected, but yeah, Brody ends up killing prior girlfriend and making vigorous love to Citra on an altar. Brody finishes and Citra shouts prophecies, or rites or something. Then she turns Brody on his back and lets him have it with that same blade you used to kill prior girlfriend with! Ouch! At least you get to see her boobs again before you go...
Hmm... final thoughts on plot: Lord of the Flies did it better. If I am right, what the writers are trying to do is paint the classic "noble savage vs. tamed westerner" picture. But that's not fundamentally, what our choices boil down to. It's not just in the Rakyat culture that "warrior" translates to "psychopath." Anyone in anyplace in any circumstance can be just as much of a bastard as Vaas or Citra. We forget that killing is an impulse that starts in the heart first. The desire to cause pain can easily be seen in the small child who refuses to obey it's overburdened, stressed-out, pleading mother who absolutely refuses to put her foot down. And then consider a man behind a desk who can utter but a few words and by them, start wars and genocide. We cause pain to others daily because it's a cheap substitute for killing them. Killing people we don't like isn't worth the risk nowadays (or so games like this will have you believe), so unless society collapses or unless your hand is forced, we will refrain from killing (unless we're soldiers or abortive mothers) because we, "just cannot take what we need."
In William Golding's Lord of the Flies, the nature of humanity as a whole is captured in his island microcosm. At the end of the book, the children get rescued by a Vessel or the Royal Navy (if I'm not mistaken), subtly reminding us that the whole time these boys are on the island, forming factions and killing each other, it does one no good to clasp hands and think, "Oh, how the lack of civilization contorted their souls into savagery! If only they were at home, they wouldn't be doing this!" Maybe not, but their elders were doing it with things a whole hell of a lot worse than a stick sharpened at both ends.
In the outcome I chose, Brody ends the game with some dialogue like, "I've killed so many people... It'll take me so long to come back from all that... but somewhere really really deep down inside me, I know I can do it..." or something to that effect. In reality, Jason Brody has nothing to "come back" to. Sure, he has a girlfriend, but they only antagonize hatred and pain; last time I checked, that's what humans do to each other, and last time I checked, girlfriends are humans. If Brody is truly sickened by his actions on Rook Island, I would much rather prefer the outcome to be a lose/win rather than a win/lose or a lose/lose scenario. In other words, it would have ended better if Brody gave his life for his friends rather than a lovesick Citra (and btw, how can you be lovesick like a schoolgirl one moment, and still be willing to kill your lover the next?). They can keep the "stay with Citra" ending as it is. That's an accurate enough portrayal of the wages of wickedness I think.
And that's a sufficient enough report on the game, I think. Granted, I didn't cover the other game modes like multiplayer, and I did get way off track multiple times, but there's still a lot to chew over here. And if you still want more... I suppose that's what comments are for... but this blog is mainly for myself in the first place. Just consider yourself a welcome guest.
Friday, January 4, 2013
Wednesday, January 2, 2013
Intro Intro
I am not concerned with prestige. These following posts serve only one major purpose and that is to chronicle my thoughts of certain video game titles I've played and any accolades or critiques I can bring to them. Any outsiders stumbling across my thoughts may feel free to stop and go on as they see fit.
Video games are a great passion of mine and they are increasing in popularity around the world. I feel it safe to assume that they enjoy the reputation as one of the world's fastest-grown industries. As someone who has borne witness to the changes our world has been subjected to in the past couple of decades, and simultaneously as one who cannot stem the outpour of thoughts and questions from his head (indeed, "The brain secretes thoughts as the liver secretes bile."), I relish the thought of jotting down my opinions on cyber-paper, coming back to them after some time, watching them age like stationery in the arid desert sun. The prospect of philosophizing about something I love piques my love for that something still further. So without any more delay, I will begin—as all philosophers do—with a question.
The increased and yet increasing popularity of video games has been aforementioned. It would be foolish to think that video gaming is an obscure pastime (like pogs, or something). Multitudes of people, spanning all across the demographic board, flock to electronics stores, video game shops and conventions to play, peruse and purchase these games or enhance their gaming experience.
But—and here's my question I promised you—I still cannot admit that most people take them seriously. Wait, that's not a question! Okay here it is: why is it that people don't take them seriously?
Okay, now here's the part that, for philosophers, is necessary and enjoyable: defining terms. Now, when I use the word "seriously", do not think of the guy who honestly and literally believes that Alex Mason was President Kennedy's assassin. To put it another way, I recognize the fact of "make believe." I understand why more video games are including the warnings at the beginnings or ends stating that it's all a work of fiction; "Any entity, person or organization represented in this game are fictional despite their apparent similarities in real life... blah blah etc. blah."
No, my question is a bit deeper and complex. Take my roommate for example: he loves movies. Actually, virtually every soul at the college I attend loves these Hollywood films. My own father is readily willing to sit down at and watch a motion picture with me, but when the game console turns on, he's gone. In fact, I'd wager were some psychopath to put a gun to his (very politically conservative, by the way) head and give him the choice to either watch American Pie or play Portal 2 (or of course barring these, die a besplattered death), He'd pick the movie, despite it being the last one on earth he'd watch willingly (and even then I'm convinced he'd induce vomiting right afterward). Oh, and in case you were wondering, he wouldn't even have to beat Portal 2, just play it for however long American Pie lasts.
Suffice it to say that people these days may enjoy video games, but it's the movies that are socially acceptable to hold in-depth conversations about. I think out of all of the things people talk about when they meet someone for the first time, occupation is first, movies second, hobbies a close third. Maybe I'm wrong, but shouldn't movies be considered a hobby on par with video games? Wait, no! A better solution! Shouldn't video games be elevated to the social pedestal along with movies?
I admit up front I'm not that keen on films, be they Hollywood or otherwise. As a medium, I think they are growing inferior and obsolete. Someone in the movie business told me that Hollywood is in a panic. The industry is facing a catch-22; they want something new and different, but they cannot have too different. Hence we are faced with remake after remake. I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw that they were going to redo the Spiderman series for instance. But I hear any ideas introduced to Hollywood that are too original are rejected on the basis that it might not sell. Additionally, it's my opinion that the movie medium itself is overburdened. A three hour time limit is pushing it and people are only willing to pay attention to something for so long. Oftentimes a movie will feel like it cut out at the end, and viewers feel as though the producers were going along with the film just fine until they realized that they were approaching the time limit, and felt compelled to wrap it up quickly. Then there's the whole problem of sequels and prequels; when a movie has gone on long enough, it's become customary to set the end up so that the audience can see where things might pick up again when the next installment comes out, or in the prequel's case, tease the audience with the backstory to those classic films we've grown quite fond of.
To all these problems (and any other's I might have missed), I'd suggest that television could be a remedy. Things are getting so that anyone can fabricate decent-looking CGI without much cost. Shows like Firefly and Band of Brothers are proof of this. Intricate plots can be made. Story lines can weave and cohere neatly with each character. Sets, special effects and the like can be done rather excellently. And ultimately, the tale is not as restricted by time limit, allowing one to watch an episode at his or her leisure.
Alas, television too poses some problems, the biggest one being many don't know when to quit once they've gained the public's interest. Actually, that's what I find to be the bane of many a medium. Popularity seems nice at first. What is our zeitgeist these days if not democracy? Interestingly enough, many music lovers have found this to be the direct opposite. With the advent of the hipster, more and more people are finding out that the band they discovered last year (who could only boast of a fan base of a couple hundred), are now leading the charts, but for some reason, they don't sound as good as they did back then.
In the realm of TV then, it's the same fate. Friends, Buffy, Scrubs, Smallville, That 70's Show and others have run for a long time indeed. But there comes a point where the producers realize people have stopped watching, and it's time to let the show die. And when that time comes, can people relate the end of the series like they relate to the end of a good movie or book? Something's telling me the answer is no.
Anyway, that's all food for thought. In respect to video games, I would like to propose that they too can achieve (and in some cases already have achieved) the medium value on par with that of a book, movie or TV show. And that's what I mean by seriously.
Why I think they don't get recognized as such is how I think they're still seen by culture. Many people (my father included) think gaming is a childish or inane act, regardless of how much violence, sex, drugs and/or rock 'n roll is portrayed. In their minds, it all boils down to sitting in front of a series of images that can be controlled by pushing buttons and moving analog sticks or clicking a mouse, so ultimately one can fulfill a goal that is about as worthless as winning five bucks in the lottery. Big whoop, eh? The point of gaming to them seems to be tantamount to purposely inducing oneself into deep sleep so one can achieve a lot of fun things in their dreams.
What I've just described might sound to you like a non-gamer. Actually, I believe gamers like this exist, and they might even compose the majority of gamers. They will heartily acknowledge that the games they play have no effect on the reality around them and admit the only reason they play the things is because it's a great new-fangled way to have some fun. That's odd, that's exactly how I would describe watching a movie... they have no effect on the reality around me and I only see them as a great, new-fangled way to have fun.
That's not entirely true, I'm just biased against movies. For the record there have been one or two that moved me to think deep. I can still count more video games that have stimulated thought within me, and as long as we're at it, hundreds of more Japanese anime and thousands of more books.
And that, my friends, brings us to the Great Divide, which is another thing philosophers inevitably run into... and very much enjoy.
I will close this post explaining what I mean by this Great Divide and I will open my closing harkening once again to my father. Remember his disposition toward gaming? Well to be fair, there was no such thing as video games when he was a lad. Furthermore, when gaming hit the market in the form of Gameboys (with their black-and-white screens and their four AA battery requirements... sorry, writer's moment of nostalgia), Ataris and what have you, games were still very basic content-wise. They were fashioned back in the days when being a nerd was something to be ashamed of. After all, they were, by and large the products of computer programmers, AKA nerds. Computer nerds back then weren't interested in plot structure, you see. And if they were, then they took poetry and theatre electives, dressed up like Shakespeare, got called a faggot, and got beat up for it. At least the computer nerds could stay inside their labs and homes all day, where no one might come around and give them trouble.
But the nerds needed something to do in their free time (yes, even most nerds have free time) and they would have liked to play a game with someone, but since nerds didn't have friends back then, they decided to program a little game on the side (believe me, they have free time). These first gen games, as a result offer the player with some kind of challenge with the computer being the opponent. People like the nerds began to say, "This is great! Why play a few rounds of spades with those bothersome neighbors when I can play infinite rounds of Tetris with myself?" People like my dad began to say, "This is dumb! Why play a solitary game with a score that doesn't matter when you could be having fun with real human beings in a friendly game of cards?" Needless to say, my father is one of those bothersome neighbors... Anyhoo...
But let the reader check him/herself lest he/she (screw it) think that's what the Great Divide is all about! The reason my dad has always despised gaming is what he thinks of the content. I've noted similar complaints in other men of similar standing. "It's all about how much non-existent points you can rack up while not paying any attention to your dog/baby sister/whatever." But wait! Aren't video games more than that nowadays? If I ever took that route that no teenager ever takes and tried to explain to pops that video games are more narrative-driven now, would that make him understand? Actually, it doesn't. He just tells me to read a book instead if I want narrative. Figures. How many times do I see him reading a fiction novel? Never. On the extremely rare cases where I do see him playing video games, are they narrative-driven? Nope. Hypocritical bastard. But I digress... and I'm supposed to be concluding too... Oh the humanity!
THE POINT IS that the Great Divide I'm dealing with here, is the divide in the driving purpose of the game itself. If you've been following along, you'll know which side of the divide I take. If you haven't been following along (Heck, I understand if I lost you at paragraph one!), I'll tell you now: in this world where video games tend to be driven by 1) gameplay, competition and high scores, or 2) narrative, in-depth characters and beauty, I choose..... *drum roll*
Number 2! When it all comes down to it, I think the purpose of the bulk of our entertainments should be, as Sir Philip Sidney said, to delight and teach. There sure are a surprising amount of people out there these days that don't know how to think! I'm convinced many of these people don't want to think, and so they avoid daily the issues that plague us in current events. Some avoid the issues by drowning themselves in the newest movie release every weekend. Others do it through blind and meaningless competition. A disturbing amount of people think they can achieve absence of thought by turning to drugs, legal or no. Even more disturbing are those that believe drugs are what's helping them to start thinking, or enhance their thinking.
No. Narrative does this. Good narrative poses questions. Attentive listeners dwell on these questions. The fortunate ones obtain wisdom from their struggles with their thoughts. The wise become great leaders and raise greater leaders in their footsteps. So get ready, gird up the loins of your mind and let the thinking begin.
Video games are a great passion of mine and they are increasing in popularity around the world. I feel it safe to assume that they enjoy the reputation as one of the world's fastest-grown industries. As someone who has borne witness to the changes our world has been subjected to in the past couple of decades, and simultaneously as one who cannot stem the outpour of thoughts and questions from his head (indeed, "The brain secretes thoughts as the liver secretes bile."), I relish the thought of jotting down my opinions on cyber-paper, coming back to them after some time, watching them age like stationery in the arid desert sun. The prospect of philosophizing about something I love piques my love for that something still further. So without any more delay, I will begin—as all philosophers do—with a question.
The increased and yet increasing popularity of video games has been aforementioned. It would be foolish to think that video gaming is an obscure pastime (like pogs, or something). Multitudes of people, spanning all across the demographic board, flock to electronics stores, video game shops and conventions to play, peruse and purchase these games or enhance their gaming experience.
But—and here's my question I promised you—I still cannot admit that most people take them seriously. Wait, that's not a question! Okay here it is: why is it that people don't take them seriously?
Okay, now here's the part that, for philosophers, is necessary and enjoyable: defining terms. Now, when I use the word "seriously", do not think of the guy who honestly and literally believes that Alex Mason was President Kennedy's assassin. To put it another way, I recognize the fact of "make believe." I understand why more video games are including the warnings at the beginnings or ends stating that it's all a work of fiction; "Any entity, person or organization represented in this game are fictional despite their apparent similarities in real life... blah blah etc. blah."
No, my question is a bit deeper and complex. Take my roommate for example: he loves movies. Actually, virtually every soul at the college I attend loves these Hollywood films. My own father is readily willing to sit down at and watch a motion picture with me, but when the game console turns on, he's gone. In fact, I'd wager were some psychopath to put a gun to his (very politically conservative, by the way) head and give him the choice to either watch American Pie or play Portal 2 (or of course barring these, die a besplattered death), He'd pick the movie, despite it being the last one on earth he'd watch willingly (and even then I'm convinced he'd induce vomiting right afterward). Oh, and in case you were wondering, he wouldn't even have to beat Portal 2, just play it for however long American Pie lasts.
Suffice it to say that people these days may enjoy video games, but it's the movies that are socially acceptable to hold in-depth conversations about. I think out of all of the things people talk about when they meet someone for the first time, occupation is first, movies second, hobbies a close third. Maybe I'm wrong, but shouldn't movies be considered a hobby on par with video games? Wait, no! A better solution! Shouldn't video games be elevated to the social pedestal along with movies?
I admit up front I'm not that keen on films, be they Hollywood or otherwise. As a medium, I think they are growing inferior and obsolete. Someone in the movie business told me that Hollywood is in a panic. The industry is facing a catch-22; they want something new and different, but they cannot have too different. Hence we are faced with remake after remake. I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw that they were going to redo the Spiderman series for instance. But I hear any ideas introduced to Hollywood that are too original are rejected on the basis that it might not sell. Additionally, it's my opinion that the movie medium itself is overburdened. A three hour time limit is pushing it and people are only willing to pay attention to something for so long. Oftentimes a movie will feel like it cut out at the end, and viewers feel as though the producers were going along with the film just fine until they realized that they were approaching the time limit, and felt compelled to wrap it up quickly. Then there's the whole problem of sequels and prequels; when a movie has gone on long enough, it's become customary to set the end up so that the audience can see where things might pick up again when the next installment comes out, or in the prequel's case, tease the audience with the backstory to those classic films we've grown quite fond of.
To all these problems (and any other's I might have missed), I'd suggest that television could be a remedy. Things are getting so that anyone can fabricate decent-looking CGI without much cost. Shows like Firefly and Band of Brothers are proof of this. Intricate plots can be made. Story lines can weave and cohere neatly with each character. Sets, special effects and the like can be done rather excellently. And ultimately, the tale is not as restricted by time limit, allowing one to watch an episode at his or her leisure.
Alas, television too poses some problems, the biggest one being many don't know when to quit once they've gained the public's interest. Actually, that's what I find to be the bane of many a medium. Popularity seems nice at first. What is our zeitgeist these days if not democracy? Interestingly enough, many music lovers have found this to be the direct opposite. With the advent of the hipster, more and more people are finding out that the band they discovered last year (who could only boast of a fan base of a couple hundred), are now leading the charts, but for some reason, they don't sound as good as they did back then.
In the realm of TV then, it's the same fate. Friends, Buffy, Scrubs, Smallville, That 70's Show and others have run for a long time indeed. But there comes a point where the producers realize people have stopped watching, and it's time to let the show die. And when that time comes, can people relate the end of the series like they relate to the end of a good movie or book? Something's telling me the answer is no.
Anyway, that's all food for thought. In respect to video games, I would like to propose that they too can achieve (and in some cases already have achieved) the medium value on par with that of a book, movie or TV show. And that's what I mean by seriously.
Why I think they don't get recognized as such is how I think they're still seen by culture. Many people (my father included) think gaming is a childish or inane act, regardless of how much violence, sex, drugs and/or rock 'n roll is portrayed. In their minds, it all boils down to sitting in front of a series of images that can be controlled by pushing buttons and moving analog sticks or clicking a mouse, so ultimately one can fulfill a goal that is about as worthless as winning five bucks in the lottery. Big whoop, eh? The point of gaming to them seems to be tantamount to purposely inducing oneself into deep sleep so one can achieve a lot of fun things in their dreams.
What I've just described might sound to you like a non-gamer. Actually, I believe gamers like this exist, and they might even compose the majority of gamers. They will heartily acknowledge that the games they play have no effect on the reality around them and admit the only reason they play the things is because it's a great new-fangled way to have some fun. That's odd, that's exactly how I would describe watching a movie... they have no effect on the reality around me and I only see them as a great, new-fangled way to have fun.
That's not entirely true, I'm just biased against movies. For the record there have been one or two that moved me to think deep. I can still count more video games that have stimulated thought within me, and as long as we're at it, hundreds of more Japanese anime and thousands of more books.
And that, my friends, brings us to the Great Divide, which is another thing philosophers inevitably run into... and very much enjoy.
I will close this post explaining what I mean by this Great Divide and I will open my closing harkening once again to my father. Remember his disposition toward gaming? Well to be fair, there was no such thing as video games when he was a lad. Furthermore, when gaming hit the market in the form of Gameboys (with their black-and-white screens and their four AA battery requirements... sorry, writer's moment of nostalgia), Ataris and what have you, games were still very basic content-wise. They were fashioned back in the days when being a nerd was something to be ashamed of. After all, they were, by and large the products of computer programmers, AKA nerds. Computer nerds back then weren't interested in plot structure, you see. And if they were, then they took poetry and theatre electives, dressed up like Shakespeare, got called a faggot, and got beat up for it. At least the computer nerds could stay inside their labs and homes all day, where no one might come around and give them trouble.
But the nerds needed something to do in their free time (yes, even most nerds have free time) and they would have liked to play a game with someone, but since nerds didn't have friends back then, they decided to program a little game on the side (believe me, they have free time). These first gen games, as a result offer the player with some kind of challenge with the computer being the opponent. People like the nerds began to say, "This is great! Why play a few rounds of spades with those bothersome neighbors when I can play infinite rounds of Tetris with myself?" People like my dad began to say, "This is dumb! Why play a solitary game with a score that doesn't matter when you could be having fun with real human beings in a friendly game of cards?" Needless to say, my father is one of those bothersome neighbors... Anyhoo...
But let the reader check him/herself lest he/she (screw it) think that's what the Great Divide is all about! The reason my dad has always despised gaming is what he thinks of the content. I've noted similar complaints in other men of similar standing. "It's all about how much non-existent points you can rack up while not paying any attention to your dog/baby sister/whatever." But wait! Aren't video games more than that nowadays? If I ever took that route that no teenager ever takes and tried to explain to pops that video games are more narrative-driven now, would that make him understand? Actually, it doesn't. He just tells me to read a book instead if I want narrative. Figures. How many times do I see him reading a fiction novel? Never. On the extremely rare cases where I do see him playing video games, are they narrative-driven? Nope. Hypocritical bastard. But I digress... and I'm supposed to be concluding too... Oh the humanity!
THE POINT IS that the Great Divide I'm dealing with here, is the divide in the driving purpose of the game itself. If you've been following along, you'll know which side of the divide I take. If you haven't been following along (Heck, I understand if I lost you at paragraph one!), I'll tell you now: in this world where video games tend to be driven by 1) gameplay, competition and high scores, or 2) narrative, in-depth characters and beauty, I choose..... *drum roll*
Number 2! When it all comes down to it, I think the purpose of the bulk of our entertainments should be, as Sir Philip Sidney said, to delight and teach. There sure are a surprising amount of people out there these days that don't know how to think! I'm convinced many of these people don't want to think, and so they avoid daily the issues that plague us in current events. Some avoid the issues by drowning themselves in the newest movie release every weekend. Others do it through blind and meaningless competition. A disturbing amount of people think they can achieve absence of thought by turning to drugs, legal or no. Even more disturbing are those that believe drugs are what's helping them to start thinking, or enhance their thinking.
No. Narrative does this. Good narrative poses questions. Attentive listeners dwell on these questions. The fortunate ones obtain wisdom from their struggles with their thoughts. The wise become great leaders and raise greater leaders in their footsteps. So get ready, gird up the loins of your mind and let the thinking begin.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)