My Message close
GAME JOBS
Latest Jobs
spacer View All     Post a Job     RSS spacer
 
May 22, 2013
 
Blizzard Entertainment
Senior Software Engineer, Server
 
Blizzard Entertainment
Senior Software Engineer, Game Play
 
Blizzard Entertainment
Senior Software Engineer, Game Engine
 
NetherRealm Studios
Senior Software Engineer
 
NetherRealm Studios
Lead Software Engineer
 
Monolith Productions
Lead Mission Designer
spacer
Blogs

  Games as Commentary: Indiecade East Panel Reflection
by Heather Hale on 02/23/13 01:42:00 pm   Featured Blogs
4 comments Share on Twitter Share on Facebook RSS
 
 
The following blog was, unless otherwise noted, independently written by a member of Gamasutra's game development community. The thoughts and opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of Gamasutra or its parent company.

Want to write your own blog post on Gamasutra? It's easy! Click here to get started. Your post could be featured on Gamasutra's home page, right alongside our award-winning articles and news stories.
 

[My thoughts and reflections on the "Games as Commentary" panel held at Indiecade East. Panelists: Paolo Pedercini, Richard Hofmeier, Heather Chaplin, and Ian Bogost, Moderated by Simon Ferrari.]

"If you have something to say about the world, write a book," cited one of the panelists referring to Apple's app store guidelines. Should games have an agenda? Should that agenda be reinforced by the creator or should meaning in games be left to interpretation? Videogames are a tricky medium when it comes to commentary, and at my first panel at indiecade East, the best conclusion I could come to is that there is no easy answer. The following is my reflection on the discussion.

The topic of storytelling in games was discussed at length, and how many mainstream games (Bioshock, Mass Effect, Dishonored) create a story that gives the player the veneer of control with the support of a visually immersive world and complicated gameplay mechanics, but the truth of the matter is that these games are still severely limited in terms of actual control.

Heather Chaplin spoke about how these games create, "the illusion of commentary" by giving us endings that are designed to be ambiguous. By shying away from taking a real stance with their storytelling, these kind of games end up giving us nothing concrete to take away. Although many indie games seem more limited in terms of game design, sometimes these limitations actually allow for a much more subjective experience for the player.

Pixel art is an example of a popular style in indie games which can be misleading because of it's "cartoony" aesthetic, when in truth, this simplified art style can allow players to project more of themselves into the game and perhaps have a more unique connection to the game.

To the world outside the wonderful niche group who play indie games, their sometimes quaint appearance coupled with the age old misconception that “videogames are for kids” becomes a big hurdle when it comes to being taken seriously as an art form.

Ian Bogost talked about an experience they had with their game being featured in a museum installation; even though the game was in Latin, many museum goers thought of this as an exhibit as a good place to bring their kids, who obviously could not understand it.

The designer seemed to feel he hadn't accomplished what he wanted due to the fact that most people would not give the effort required to truly experience the game he had created. I think this fundamental concept is the biggest problem for ambitious, agenda heavy indie games.

The challenging thing about videogames as an artistic medium is getting people to take the time to play. Asking people to do something is a weighty request in comparison to asking them to sit down and watch. Especially in the case of indie games, it’s difficult enough to have someone discover that a game exists, and an entirely different challenge to get them to actually play it.

One speaker relayed how statistics show that Netflix viewers put mostly documentaries and art films on their instant queue, but more often watch light comedies and TV shows instead. You know that once you force yourself to digest the less digestible works you’ll be better for it, but the trick is getting people to delve in, and it's not an easy problem to solve.

As the discussion winds down, the group seems somewhat pessimistic about ever engaging a larger audience. A consensus is reached that most people are always going to want some kind of a narrative element in order to connect with any artistic medium.

Some expressed frustration at this notion, as indie games can be an incredible way to create a completely new and immersive experience, but the question of whether games should have a message and whether that message should be reinforced by the designer was one that could not be answered.

It's easy to see both sides of the coin, the world of indie games allows you to shape a completely unique experience that doesn’t require explanation, and is sometimes stronger for it (like in something like Slave of God http://www.increpare.com/2012/12/slave-of-god/)

But with this lack of primer for the audience, it’s difficult to get people to start, let alone stay long even to achieve what the designer had in mind. These kind of games bleed into a territory that is more like looking at an abstract painting than watching a narrative film, and that is an amazing accomplishment for such a young medium, but as a young medium it is going to take some time for works like this to find their place in the world.

Games are such a multi-faceted medium, and with the growth of the indie games movement, I believe that it will only become more diverse over time. I think the best thing we can do is to never limit the way we look at games. As players, we should ingest every kind of game we can, and encourage game designers that the sky's the limit.

Luckily we live in an age where the power of the internet can make anything happen, and indie games are most certainly a favorite son of many of the most active and powerful internet communities, so it’s only a matter of time...

 
 
Comments

Joshua Oreskovich
profile image
I could state some meaningless argument about how important art is in our lives and how we should keep up the good fight ~ in agreement.

But I think I would rather cut to the chase, that by allowing business and government to dictate social norms, and cutting spirituality out like it's a dead and undesirable appendage and as long as science dictates our bearing we will continue to devolve.

Phil Lemon
profile image
Well said Joshua. I think the panellist who was quoted a saying "If you have something to say about the world, write a book," should be working as a government bureaucrat in China. I feel the games industry is in desperate need of people with something to say in order to lift it out of the mindless dollar driven doldrums it appears to be in. There should always be a place for games that evoke real thought and discussion about the human experience and the world around us.

Joshua Oreskovich
profile image
I think the Apple quote is specifically, "If you want to criticize a religion, write a book." In part the problem is I believe because of our post-modern materialist dominance (conformity to material humanist laws) in the business world and there is an especially large prevalence of this in the video game industry (but also all media). And on the other side of the spectrum you have christian America (mostly) which is still a substantial portion of the consumer base which is culturally pro-spirituality, pro-God. As far as I can tell there isn't a middle ground of understanding and the gap is widening, not closing. Because our society has by natural inclination separated to it's own corners.

Why is this monumentally important? I think the Binding of Isaac is great example, there is a loss of connectivity to the issues when understanding Biblical reference of religion, in particular. why is that? Well I would be honest if I told you it was designed this way.

But it's not just titles that tackle Biblical concepts from a world view and fail dramatically, it's a fundamental loss of truthful representation across the board. For example for most materialists "miracle" and "faith" don't have a relative category other than "fruit-cakery".

So what you end up with is either magic or the scientific equivalent discovered. Which doesn't do justice to either issue. Also there is a comprehensive loss at the point of understanding belief in God as well, just general garden variety struggling believer, without again ... slander.

Extra Credits if you haven't checked it out (http://www.penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/religion-in-games-part-2) righteously demonstrates this issue, whether people agree or not. I love art and I don't think people should be restricted from making games like the Binding of Isaac, of stating their disagreement with this or that belief, but I think some issues are not fairly represented, not even really in the least .. and this includes the game site critics which again have pretty much same bias.

"There should always be a place for games that evoke real thought and discussion about the human experience and the world around us."

I think we should even go a step further, to say media, any media should bring people together. We should be able to express freely, but "some" media only within the context of safe learning environments. As some media is also surprisingly dangerous, especially for children.

the biggest problem I see isn't meaningless violence or pornagraphy, it's a lack of contextual understanding. All things possible, not all things profitable. And it's killing the minds of our newest generation. I believe in God, Jesus Christ ect ... but even Joesph Campbell (spiritualist / pantheist) recognized the severe problems of a people without meaning .. as he called it ~ myth.

And this is something that goes fundamentally far beyond simply growing up with "you really can't know anything / screw the world attitude". And goes a step farther into self justification through by scientific common belief via genomes ect .. to a point of denial of possibility, denial of spirituality, denial of self will. And what hammers the nail in of this philosophy is ultimately me-ism, coupled with survival of the richest. We are quite frankly growing and nuturing nihilistic materialistic sociopathy, because "now we know everything".

I don't know that you wanted to hear this Phil, but that's my honest answer.

Joshua Oreskovich
profile image
There is religion out there also Phil, but it's quite subtle.

World of Tanks is a sort of older world tribalism / spiritual cannabalism
Planetside 2 is a dogmatic new world order of Atheism, Anarchism and Nationalism.
even Guild Wars 2 Is existentialist, as it's devs designed it specifically for you to derive whatever meaning suits you ... it's actually specifically designed that way.

Their behavioral design belies an unmistakable statement disdain for religion (pretty specifically the 3 major religions that believe in God), meaning, or anything that could possibly be misused as morals, ethics .. or heck even values, besides those which promote making money in-game. Because these things threaten the stability of their money making machine, religion would be an end to it. Morals are too expensive.


none
 
Comment:
 




 
UBM Tech