Is it just me, or has gaming been suffering a little identity crisis lately?
First up, the pace at which we hear film adaptations announced is picking up. We've got Street Fighter, Prince of Persia, and in case you haven't checked your feeds this morning, guess what? BioShock, to be directed by Gore Verbinski.
I've written before about entertainment media convergence -- both the case in favor, and the case against, with each standpoint arguing why this sort of progress could be either good or bad for the industry. Just yesterday, Activision saw a mindblowing ratcheting-up of its profits, announcing a record fourth quarter without even releasing any games during that period. The lion's share of that windfall is entirely thanks to two franchises: Guitar Hero and Call of Duty. And you know what that means: get ready for more sequels and tie-ins than you can shake a controller at.
Why has this distinctive games-as-Hollywood vibe come flooding in all of a sudden? For one thing, gaming continues to thrive as a big-money industry, even in the face of high, high risk and what may or may not be an American economic recession. The industry was worth something like $9 billion in 2007 and is expected to keep growing.
Despite the stigma of ignorance that still surrounds a major release like GTA IV, resulting in advocacy groups lobbying congress for retailer-penalty legislation and slinging hyperbolic (not to mention inaccurate) language like "you get points for driving drunk in this game," we have heartening signs of increasing respect in the mainstream for games: a fine GTA IV writeup by the Times' Seth Scheisel, dignified GTA IV review in Slate by Wired editor Chris Baker, and increasingly thorough and relevant industry coverage by Variety's Ben Fritz (disclosure: I've written for Baker and regularly write for Fritz, and have a high opinion of them both).
Variety's news on Gore Verbinski's directorship of the BioShock flick is currently the magazine's top story online, and in searching the links for this post I also discovered another cool Slate piece on GTA IV's portrayal of illegal economies. Though Newsweek's N'Gai Croal believes "the mainstream" still has a ways to go in effectively writing about games, I don't necessarily agree - I was recently talking with an Entertainment Weekly writer who agreed that the mandate for mainstream outlets might be more about sharing game culture with the curious or the casual, at this point, than satisfying the needs of game consumers, who are more likely to turn to the trade publications for reviews. Different audiences have different needs.
The second big story after GTA IV's bar-raising release and the sophisticated acclaim it's received is the advent of Wii Fit, which looks set to raise another bar -- the one set by Wii Sports when it changed the way society at large thinks about video games. I want Wii Fit, but not the way I normally want a new video game. I want it like I wanted my iPhone, or like people want a GPS for their car. I want it like it's the hot new "lifestyle product." And it is.
You know, though we always hoped this day would come, the games industry isn't really used to this -- we've begun questioning our own practices, since the value and context for gaming is so much broader. Weighing methodology for game criticism against that of music and film has become the norm, regardless of whether or not the comparisons are relevant. We're wondering how we can embrace and leverage this evolution; for my part, the only thing I'm wondering is: Can we please finally dump review scores?
With all of this broad and unexpectedly "sophisticated" attention shining on us, I'm reminded of that archetypal episode always seen in sitcoms of a bygone era, the one where a poor schlub's shoe-polished and wealthy boss makes a short-notice promise of a dinner visit to his coarse employee.
The unfortunate soon-to-be-host scrambles about his little castle, making sure his wife looks spectacular, dressing the kids in stiff little suits and instructing them how to behave, planning the perfect menu and making sure unpredictable variables, like the slovenly drunk uncle or the rude Grandma, are well under control.
It's worth noting that those TV episodes rarely go well for the hero -- hilarious disasters tend to ensue.
21 comments:
The reason video games are being made into movies is because Hollywood has just about run out of comic books. They're planning an Ant Man movie.
That last sentence was both a joke and true.
Hollywood is always looking for the next big thing. They will convert anything to a movie if they think it will sell. Books, Comic Strips, Plays, TV Shows and now video games are almost the last frontier. The popularity of certain games that sell millions of copies are bought by the demographic they are mostly trying to reach.
There's also a Tekken movie in the works.
... thought you oughta know. XD
Phil - Hey, Ant Man is a remarkably complex superhero and fitting of the kind of Marvel makeover afforded other such heroes. He beats his wife. What kind of moral compass could a hero like that possibly have? It's an interesting question to delve into in a film.
I like that Hollywood seems to be looking at video games in a real way. Remember comic book movies in the 80s and earlier? They sucked. Now, they make tons of money and garner lots of praise. Hopefully we'll be able to say, "Remember how video game movies used to suck?" I hold out hope for Bioshock, though I'm a little wary of the direction it could take. As good as Bioshock was, I thought the Andrew Ryan thing was quite predictable. Not to mention Gore Verbinski also directed the 2nd and 3rd Pirates movies. (Not a huge fan of those)
"You know, though we always hoped this day would come, the games industry isn't really used to this -- we've begun questioning our own practices, since the value and context for gaming is so much broader."
Um, what? So many questions here. First off, who is this "we?" The business people? The developers? The gamers?
The value and context for gaming is broader? Broader than what? Value and context? Huh?
I realize all you crazy kids want to take ownership of this stuff and treat gaming and journalism like it's some radical new thing, but jeez... do people really believe that game criticism is radically different from literature or film criticism? Not just consumer-level reviewing, but true criticism? And do people really think those of us that were doing this "game journalism thing" during the first wave of "games are going to replace movies!" talk in the mid-90s weren't having these same kinds of discussions?
(And hey, we didn't use ratings in those days, but changed when those dang Internet kids showed up on our front lawn.)
I don't know, it's just weird that every "new games journalist" type seems to be in denial that any sort of quality work and thought and analysis was being done before blogging existed. Hollywood is in bed with gaming? You mean like it was in the early- to mid-80s? Like it was in the mid-90s? Hollywood bought a bunch of lunches, lost a lot of money, and went home.
Will it stick this time? Maybe. The money's bigger today, but Hollywood is always looking for ways to piggyback on established properties because they require less marketing to reach certain demographics. It's not a matter of gaming getting more respect; well, they respect gaming's ability to make money, but that's it. The deals never favor the game companies. Hollywood still holds all the power.
Anyway, they also want to make sure they can easily reach that gamer demographic, and man, we make it so easy. I've seen some people talking about how the Bioshock movie will be great because Verbinski "gets" gaming, just because he mentioned Portal in an interview. Really? That's all it takes? PR people take note!
That's a funny analogy. Of course, Darrin and Major Nelson both had the advantage of wives who could instantaneously make everything perfect just as the boss was crossing the threshold of the front door.
And, that little digression was relevant to absolutely nothing.
Anyway, I think we can do away with review scores as videogames become more legitimized in the mainstream, but there will always be gamers who aren't satisfied unless they have hard numbers to go along with a reviewer's subjective opinion. Movies have proven themselves as a legitimate art form for nearly a century now, and we still have rags like Entertainment Weekly, giving letter grades in their reviews of the latest releases. Even literature is given review scores. I think it just comes down to individual media outlets, and what their target audiences expect. But for we higher beings, review scores are indeed pointless.
steve:
hmm, it was? sorry, musta missed all those sophisticated treatises on donkey kong from all the magazines that couldnt stay in business even when the industry grew. calling people "kids", little bitter?
i'm just not thinking good things about this movie nonetheless.
p.s. - Wow, steve! Condescending much?
Wow, that was a little bit condescending, O.K. more than a little (meaning steve).
Anybody knows game journalism has only begun to develop even a semblance of respect. Maybe Steve has been aware of this stuff since we "kids" were all in diapers... but if it feels new to us now, it obviously wasn't laid down too well, so you got nothin' to brag about.
You might be angry about it but there's no need to be freaking rude.
"Um, what? So many questions here. First off, who is this "we?" The business people? The developers? The gamers?"
Is there any group on that list who has not been eager to see games treated as a mature entertainment business by society and the mainstream press, instead of as niche toys with little redeeming value for non-nerds?
"The value and context for gaming is broader?"
Yes. There are more relevant parallels today than ever to gaming and real-world culture and interaction, and as such it has more value to more people. It's a vague quote, but I get it.
"I realize all you crazy kids want to take ownership of this stuff and treat gaming and journalism like it's some radical new thing, but jeez... do people really believe that game criticism is radically different from literature or film criticism?"
Yes, in fact, I think they do and they should. If you think games should be reviewed like films and books, which are non-participatory narratives that aren't meant to be "played," you'd be in the minority, in my opinion.
Certainly I hope the same level of criticism is eventually applied to games as film and literature. Perhaps you should aim to column for, say, the New Yorker regularly on game criticism. I wish you luck, because I think our lexicon is not quite there yet, nor do I think there is yet enough of an audience yet to commercialize that.
"And do people really think those of us that were doing this "game journalism thing" during the first wave of "games are going to replace movies!" talk in the mid-90s weren't having these same kinds of discussions?"
She didn't say anything about "games replacing movies." The implication is that games as a business are resembling Hollywood as a business more than ever, with both the good (and lots of the bad) that implies.
"(And hey, we didn't use ratings in those days, but changed when those dang Internet kids showed up on our front lawn.)"
You didn't? Please direct me to this archive of game journalism's foundation, and show me those rapscallions who led us astray by forcing scores on us. ...Honestly, I don't think I ever read a non-scored review in my life until the Internet. I'm perfectly willing to admit I may simply have not been aware of it. I am a "kid" after all...
"Hollywood is in bed with gaming? You mean like it was in the early- to mid-80s? Like it was in the mid-90s? Hollywood bought a bunch of lunches, lost a lot of money, and went home."
Yes. And the mentality and the state of the games biz is markedly different today. If you think it's the same day as the infamous ET cart, you're wrong.
I'd actually hazard that gaming is getting into bed with Hollywood now, and Hollywood is willing to sleep with him because he can pay.
No offense Steve, but you do seem just a little bit out of touch and irrationally angry. Seriously, can I ask why you're having what seems to be a really defensive reaction? Did you work at a magazine that went out of business when things started going online?
to take the sitcom analogy further, though, those boss-coming-over-for-dinner usually have a happy ending in which, after the great disasters have set the tone of the evening and the employee can't imagine things getting worse, the boss is won over by some quirk, hobby or characteristic that get unearthed.
Funnily enough, I could easily see such a thing being, say, the employee's guilty gaming pleasure. ("I see you've got Rock Band, there, Steve." "It's my son's-d'ai mean, I've Rock banded for years!")
to jump in on steve's comments, I don't think it's a naive belief that games journalism is new, but that the traditional journalism establishment is starting to recognize gaming in new ways.
My own knowledge of game journalism history is sparse, I'll admit, but from what i do remember, there was little talk about video games as artful (let alone art in and of itself). Sure, there was probably articles about the success of people in the industry, but very little about what video games said as a reflection of society (perennial exception being the "increase of moral decay" exposes, of course).
And even if such pieces did exist (I'm sure some did, despite my spotty memory), they were probably relegated to puff pieces in local newspapers or hobby magazines.
Now I'd love to be proven wrong and shown these articles. They'd be of great historical value to the industry/community. But I think your assertion of arrogant ignorance is untrue and unfounded. We, the current audience of 20/30somethings, were literally kids back then, and journalism wasn't as easily to pass along as it is now. Don't yell at us, teach us!
Leigh,
If Pauline Kael or her editors had decided that her mandate was "more about sharing movie culture with the curious or the casual," movie criticism would be all the poorer for it. The same would have been true of music criticism if Lester Bangs or his editors had decided that his mandate was "more about sharing music culture with the curious or the casual." I believe that if my peers in the mainstream media and I do our jobs correctly; if we write clearly and lucidly, general interest readers are capable of absorbing far more genuine and truthful portrayals of what it's like to experience an individual game than we are currently giving them. To do otherwise is a form of condescension--well-intentioned, perhaps, but it's condescension nonetheless.
That's why, in my follow-up blog post, I praised the Chris Baker piece for Slate that you mentioned. It's much closer to my ideal than many mainstream reviews of videogames--and it's completely accessible to the curious and the casual. His essay is the kind of writing to which we in the mainstream media should aspire when we write about games. I'm not particularly interested in *sharing* game culture with the curious and the casual, but I am interested in educating and informing them about the art, craft, business and culture of videogames. And I think we can do a better job of this if we have a little more faith in what mainstream readers can understand and appreciate.
Cheers,
N'Gai
N'Gai,
Well, I don't disagree with that general principle - hence the caveat "at this point." Maybe I'm being a little cynical that there is yet a truly broad audience for the kind of work we'd really like to be doing regarding games, though I certainly aspire to it.
For what it's worth, I consider you "one of us" more than I consider you "mainstream," despite your outlet (which I mean as a compliment) - although the M-word is hearteningly increasingly an irrelevant distinction, hence my slapping some quotes on it.
I DO think that there's a tremendous quantity of assumptions and vocabulary that's particular to people who are familiar with gaming, and alien and confusing to people who aren't. It's not something that's particular to gaming. This is true for any . . . niche? Hobby? I don't think it's the best word, but you understand what I mean: sports, cars, bird-watching, and the like. I can pick up a car magazine and read an article, and by the end I'm sitting there, blinking stupidly - because it's an article written for car enthusiasts, and I don't count myself among their number. A fierce debate over the inclusion of some new valve in the new model of a luxury car means nothing to me . . . and if someone who doesn't play a lot of video games walked in on me arguing with someone about Quick-Time Events, they'd be just as confused.
So I don't think writing articles that are meaningful to people who aren't "games hobbiests," for lack of a better term, is necessarily condescending. There are, to continue the comparison, some car articles that I've read with great interest, because they touch on aspects of the car which are familiar and interesting to me as a "casual driver." So it's not a matter of patronizing the reader as much as it is about writing about the aspects of gaming that relevant and interesting to someone that's not a "gamer." I don't care that the 2008 model of car XYZ is now running with a slightly different engine . . . but an article about how dashboard interfaces are designed touches upon my interests, since I've spent untold hours with that lighted panel just below my field of vision.
Also, to Steve: video games are still in their infancy. Yes, they've been around for thirty years - but the first films arose in the 1890s, and reached a point recognizably similar to what we've got today in the late 1920s. That's a solid thirty years of development, from scratch to mainstream, and that's about what we're seeing with games. But I think most of us would agree that film in the '20s was still the childhood of the medium, if not the infancy. And movie criticism, too; people have been writing intelligent things about what they see forever, but toddlers don't offer very much in the way of in-depth character study. My research hasn't extended this far, but I'm sure if you looked you could find people writing interesting dissertations on what the inclusion of Sound will do to the medium. But it's probably not very sound to say that movie journalism hit it's stride in 1906 and has just been going strong since.
It's arguable that the growth of technology is accelerating faster now, and the state of communications is making social change move just as fast. But there's some interesting parallels between the state of games now and 1920s film: the conglomeration of a small number of mega-studios and the assembly-line style division of labor into specialists for each aspect of production are a few good ones.
That was the decade when movies moved from being a curiosity that some people really enjoyed to something everyone went to see. And that same shift is happening in gaming, I think, which means that gaming journalism is becoming relevant to a much larger group of people. Thus it's changing from something aimed internally, at people who are already hobbiests, to being aimed more universally, with the fringe hobbiests and non-hobbiests finding interest too. (See above.)
So yeah. Things ARE changing. Gaming is still figuring itself out, Hollywood is still figuring out what it's relationship to gaming should be, and games journalism is still figuring out who exactly it's audience is. And not only is it relevant, it's also really interesting.
(Also, the site where I looked for details on the beginnings of Film is Here. Again note that it's clearly aimed at the layman - it doesn't throw around terms and names which we're expected to already know, but doesn't patronize us either. It's interesting stuff, too, and not only because of the interesting parallels to what's happening to video games now.)
@SVGL: I don't think you're being cynical when you say that there isn't a broad audience for this kind of writing. But that's because we haven't really cultivated that audience in this manner. I think more mainstream audiences would respond to essay's like Chris Baker's if writers and editors gave them the chance to experience it. As for my mainstreamishness (is that even a word?), my Level Up work is not, but my magazine work is. What I hope to do is find a way to carefully bring the occasional writing I do about videogames in the print edition of Newsweek closer to the regular writing I do about videogames on my blog Level Up. We'll see if I'm successful.
@Noc: When I said condescending, I was referring to the assumption that a general-interest audience isn't capable of considering a game in any other manner than a summary of the events, a list of gameplay elements and comparisons to other media. I think you're right that some of the specialized vocabulary surrounding games can be daunting, but Baker did a good job of keeping such jargon to a minimum, and when he used the term "possibility space," he was careful to explain it in a way that was as accessible as was his essay. I'm not saying that mainstream writers should adopt the approach of enthusiast outlets; I'm just making the case for finding more creative ways to bring our readers into the meat of the gameplay and sharing our reactions--intellectual, emotional, mechanical, etc.--to what we do when we play a particular title.
N'Gai said: "I think more mainstream audiences would respond to essay's like Chris Baker's if writers and editors gave them the chance to experience it."
Yeah, but very few editors do, otherwise I'd be making a bit more money and doing a lot more work, or so I like to think. My impression is that the majority of editors are still cautious about making room for frequent, high-level game journalism because they're not yet convinced the audience is there yet. Which I think is crazy, but then again, what if they're right?
I don't assume a lack of comprehension ability on the part of the potential audience. I'm just not sure the desire for the content is quite there yet - or if it is, it's not at the point where editors are willing to recognize it. As a trade journalist I'm cautious of becoming myopic and assuming that the larger level of interest is equal to that of my currently-specific (dare I say "niche"?) audience.
To my eyes, you have quite a fortunate situation and a really enviable opportunity at Newsweek (though I want to be clear I'm not disparaging you and calling it "luck") and I'm glad you're leveraging that role to try and bridge the gap a little bit at a time.
People ask me a lot where I want to "end up" in my work -- with a gig like that at a similarly sophisticated mainstream publication, probably.
Lets not forget that Literature as we know it was forged in about 10000 BC, but it took until Don Quixote (1605,1615 AD) to go beyond the epic. If that is anything to go by, Video Gaming isn't an infant, its a fetus.
Thank you for the Paranoia Agent image. 'Here it comes' indeed - but were we asking for it all the time?
Kingmob: When you're "backed into a corner," do you really have a choice? :)
Video game criticism needs a Roger Ebert to give the field legitimacy and relevance in the mainstream.
Pauline Kael might have been the greatest of all movie critics but she wasn't the most important. It begins and ends (maybe has ended now that he's off the air?) with Ebert. Kael was beloved by academics and a monarch in New York and Hollywood but had negligible impact beyond the upper-crust chattering class. She was just as much of a "niche" philosopher as Croal, Alexander, Yahtzee or Totilo (albeit with a larger niche) until Siskel and Ebert brought their game into your living room and made "thumbs up" (hope I don't get sued for using the phrase) into the lexicon.
Ebert, with Siskel, had the total package: personality, importance and retalability. And they brought coverage to a medium that was lacking. The show was educational without being condescending and it changed the whole game.
A jargon-free, non-G4 syndicated review show - fun and spirited but serious - that people watch and discuss could do the same for gaming. Until Jake and Lucille in Tuscaloosa are aware that video games are not entities that merit serious discussion - and this could take another 40 years - game reviews will be seen as toy talk.
"Is there any group on that list who has not been eager to see games treated as a mature entertainment business by society and the mainstream press, instead of as niche toys with little redeeming value for non-nerds?"
I'm not entirely sure how this impacts players, unless they few gaming as their secret shame. And the changes are happening as much because new generations of press people grew up with games and are knowledgeable about them, not out of some overnight switch to gaming have more artistic/social credibility.
It's only being treated as mature entertainment because of business, i.e. "those games sure do sell well." It's still a second tier entertainment form so long as it tries to cozy up to Hollywood, because it lacks everything that makes Hollywood Hollywood, like glamour, sexiness, etc.
Gaming is probably closer to books, in that it has some breakout products but is generally faceless.
And getting back to my original point about how this has happened before, Time Warner purchased Atari in the early 80s because gaming had become a credible business... and almost went out of business when Atari cratered. And in the 80s, the Infocom games were treated very seriously by what little mainstream press covered games, mostly because they were "literary" instead of Elf-y.
"The implication is that games as a business are resembling Hollywood as a business more than ever, with both the good (and lots of the bad) that implies."
Hollywood came calling for the exact same reasons in the 80s and 90s. In both of those cases, it was very, very bad. Things are different today, but journalists in particular shouldn't gloss over the industry's past dalliances.
Despite people's claims otherwise, the parallels between today and the mid-90s---when the "cinematic game" was really taking off, and Hollywood actors started regularly appearing in games---are pretty strong.
The difference is that game companies are bigger, but they're still putting themselves in a second-tier position to Hollywood by constantly cozying up to them and letting the movie studios dictate all of the terms of their deals.
"Please direct me to this archive of game journalism's foundation, and show me those rapscallions who led us astray by forcing scores on us."
You could start with Computer Gaming World, which didn't have ratings until some time in the mid- or late 90s. They actually have archives online... its very old issues (from the 80s and 90s) also had long form, essay-like pieces that contextualized gaming.
The magazine I worked for also switched around the same time, and we did it because the powers-that-be thought we needed to be more like websites.
"Did you work at a magazine that went out of business when things started going online?"
Nope, we went out of business last year for reasons unrelated to the Internet.
Anyway, I wasn't being condescending with my initial "kids" comment; I was joking, since this was a typical "get off my lawn" kind of screed.
Post a Comment