Are video games shallow?

[SomeRandom]

So as an avid gamer, I was always quick to defend video games as a legitimate art form.
But I’ve come to realise that maybe I don’t actually treat games like I do, say literature, for example. When I’m reading (particularly if I’m drunkenly stumbling around in “the cannon”) I just take it for granted that I’m supposed to be analysing the hell out of it. The nerdy references, what the text means etc. and I’m no art student either, I just read books. But that’s the way culture has pretty much taught me to view the “arts” in general.
Cinephiles gush about film theory and the various artistic movements and call backs prevalent in the medium.
So again, there’s this almost osmosis style of understanding that movies are often an art form. Criticised as such.

But though I greatly enjoy playing games and I could probably analyse many in a similar way, there’s a disconnect. Perhaps born from societal expectations. When reviewing games, gamers typically focus on things like game play mechanics, graphics, characters and story. Maybe also how flexible or nonlinear it is.
But there’s no real discussion about critical theory. Indie games sometimes bring up good discussions, but gamers simply don’t talk about games the way that cinephiles discuss movies or book worms talk about books. Even I don’t really discuss games in the same manner I would if I were gushing over Oscar Wilde.

Is it just because games are a new medium? Can they be explored in the same manner we fight over say Shakespeare?
Or is this simply their fate?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Not sure. Good question though. There exists a certain website on the internet meant for gamers. And focused on deals on video games. Rather than playing the video games much, most people on the site have adopted trying to buy video games and sell them at a profit, rather than on being a gamer.

 

[Milton Platt]

So as an avid gamer, I was always quick to defend video games as a legitimate art form.
But I’ve come to realise that maybe I don’t actually treat games like I do, say literature, for example. When I’m reading (particularly if I’m drunkenly stumbling around in “the cannon”) I just take it for granted that I’m supposed to be analysing the hell out of it. The nerdy references, what the text means etc. and I’m no art student either, I just read books. But that’s the way culture has pretty much taught me to view the “arts” in general.
Cinephiles gush about film theory and the various artistic movements and call backs prevalent in the medium.
So again, there’s this almost osmosis style of understanding that movies are often an art form. Criticised as such.

But though I greatly enjoy playing games and I could probably analyse many in a similar way, there’s a disconnect. Perhaps born from societal expectations. When reviewing games, gamers typically focus on things like game play mechanics, graphics, characters and story. Maybe also how flexible or nonlinear it is.
But there’s no real discussion about critical theory. Indie games sometimes bring up good discussions, but gamers simply don’t talk about games the way that cinephiles discuss movies or book worms talk about books. Even I don’t really discuss games in the same manner I would if I were gushing over Oscar Wilde.

Is it just because games are a new medium? Can they be explored in the same manner we fight over say Shakespeare?
Or is this simply their fate?

Does it matter if some games are shallow?

 

[Sunstone]

I know very little about them, so this opinion should be taken with a grain of salt. I do not believe the genre has reached its full potential yet.

From what very little I have seen, they are technically accomplished, but have very little to offer anyone in terms of genuine insights into human nature and how the world really works. They are geared towards a 14 year old's ability to understand things. In the world of art, something that is technically superb but is deficient in 'meaning', 'insight', etc., is most often considered inferior work.

But that could change. English theater more or less sucked before the Elizabethans came along. Hollywood wasn't much before the 1930s. All games need is a Shakespeare or two. An Orson Wells or two. Just one or two geniuses and everything could change.

Now, here's where they really shine. They interest people in world building. And world building as a hobby can be among the best ways to learn how the real world actually works -- if taken far enough --- because it makes learning fun.

A good friend of mine taught himself a whole lot about statistics, military tactics, and history by spending considerable time and effort to develop realistic algorithms for resolving large-scale unit battles in Dungeon and Dragons.

Another friend of mine is currently working her butt off to understand economics so she can better create a world she's building that is set 2000 years in the future.

And so it goes.

 

[Debater Slayer]

BioShock, BioShock: Infinite, Grand Theft Auto IV, Red Dead Redemption (and its sequel), Heavy Rain, and Max Payne 3 are just a few examples of games that gamers and reviewers alike have analyzed from a literary and artistic standpoint rather than only a gameplay one--and for good reason. These are games that nailed both the gameplay and artistic elements in such a way that, in a sense, you could analyze the art in them because you just didn't have to worry about major flaws in their game design.

Aside from the relative novelty of video games as a literary and artistic medium, I think the nature thereof simply requires gameplay to be polished to a certain level before you can truly appreciate other elements. What use is the best story if it is told in a game where, for example, you couldn't finish missions or move from point to point without game-breaking design flaws, bugs, or uninspired gameplay mechanics?

Focusing on the story at the level you're mentioning is different from other media because in games, it is usually a luxury only enabled by mastering other game aspects. That's inherent to the gaming medium, as far as I can see, and it makes games that much harder to tell a good story through than other media. For a good book, you mainly need a good narrative and story. For a good movie, you need a good book/good writing as well as good music and acting.

For a good narrative-driven video game, you need all of the above and then also good gameplay. If you get a single one of these elements significantly wrong, your ability to tell a story through a game and have people deeply analyze it is greatly diminished, and this is why games like BioShock, GTA IV, and Half-Life 2 are absolute masterpieces. They pull out all the stops the best examples of other media do and then some.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I know very little about them, so this opinion should be taken with a grain of salt. I do not believe the genre has reached its full potential yet.

From what very little I have seen, they have very little to offer anyone in terms of genuine insights into how the world really works. They are geared towards a 14 year old's ability to understand things. But that could change. English theater more or less sucked before the Elizabethans came along. Hollywood wasn't much before the 1930s. All games need is a Shakespeare or two. An Orson Wells or two. Just one or two geniuses and everything could change.

Now, here's where they really shine. They interest people in world building. And world building as a hobby can be among the best ways to learn how the real world actually works -- if taken far enough --- because it makes learning fun.

While your points apply to a great many video games--most, perhaps--a game like BioShock tells a remarkably mature and thought-provoking story that indeed includes elements of how the world actually works. It shows a dystopia where Ayn Randian selfishness ran rampant and consequently created an ugly, dog-eat-dog society.

Grand Theft Auto IV has commentary on the criminal underworld that some illegal immigrants are exploited into, and Red Dead Redemption touches on, among other subjects, American exceptionalism and white supremacy and how they contributed to the genocide of Native Americans as well as the damaging of the environment.

Such mature narratives in games are few and far between compared to the myriad of shallow shooters and (understandably) kid-oriented games, but they still exist and offer deeper storytelling than most other media can due to the interactive nature of video games.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So as an avid gamer, I was always quick to defend video games as a legitimate art form.
But I’ve come to realise that maybe I don’t actually treat games like I do, say literature, for example. When I’m reading (particularly if I’m drunkenly stumbling around in “the cannon”) I just take it for granted that I’m supposed to be analysing the hell out of it. The nerdy references, what the text means etc. and I’m no art student either, I just read books. But that’s the way culture has pretty much taught me to view the “arts” in general.
Cinephiles gush about film theory and the various artistic movements and call backs prevalent in the medium.
So again, there’s this almost osmosis style of understanding that movies are often an art form. Criticised as such.

But though I greatly enjoy playing games and I could probably analyse many in a similar way, there’s a disconnect. Perhaps born from societal expectations. When reviewing games, gamers typically focus on things like game play mechanics, graphics, characters and story. Maybe also how flexible or nonlinear it is.
But there’s no real discussion about critical theory. Indie games sometimes bring up good discussions, but gamers simply don’t talk about games the way that cinephiles discuss movies or book worms talk about books. Even I don’t really discuss games in the same manner I would if I were gushing over Oscar Wilde.

Is it just because games are a new medium? Can they be explored in the same manner we fight over say Shakespeare?
Or is this simply their fate?

There aren't many games that can really drive a theme for analysis like Final Fantasy or Metal Gear Solid. If this is the medium age, the average mental ability of the average player, or maybe video game making isn't attracting story tellers, I don't. But I do get what you mean. Even Elder Scrolls, for as awesome as they are, they are overall intellectually starved.

 

[Sunstone]

While your points apply to a great many video games--most, perhaps--a game like BioShock tells a remarkably mature and thought-provoking story that indeed includes elements of how the world actually works. It shows a dystopia where Ayn Randian selfishness ran rampant and consequently created an ugly, dog-eat-dog society.

Grand Theft Auto IV has commentary on the criminal underworld that some illegal immigrants are exploited into, and Red Dead Redemption touches on, among other subjects, American exceptionalism and white supremacy and how they contributed to the genocide of Native Americans as well as the damaging of the environment.

Such mature narratives in games are few and far between compared to the myriad of shallow shooters and (understandably) kid-oriented games, but they still exist and offer deeper storytelling than most other media can due to the interactive nature of video games.

Which of those games would you judge the equal of Hamlet or Citizen Kane? Just curious. Don't intend to debate you.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Which of those games would you judge the equal of Hamlet or Citizen Kane? Just curious. Don't intend to debate you.

Relative to the gaming medium, I would say BioShock may be gaming's Citizen Kane as far as goes. However, in a broader social scope, I wouldn't judge any of them to be equal to Hamlet or Citizen Kane. It is also hard to tell now how they will stand the test of time in, say, 40 or 50 years.

I don't know whether this inequality is a result of any shortcoming of these games (or the medium itself) or simply a result of the lesser reach and social impact of video games thus far.

Perhaps it is also born out of the medium's novelty compared to cinema or writing. Think of how many Hamlets there have been in the centuries of English writing or how many Citizen Kanes there have been in decades of movies. I think it may simply be a matter of time before games reach that level of social exposure too and the best video game stories are compared to the best of literature and movies.

 

[SomeRandom]

Does it matter if some games are shallow?

Not really. I’m just trying to examine my positions lately. Also boredom lol

 

[SomeRandom]

BioShock, BioShock: Infinite, Grand Theft Auto IV, Red Dead Redemption (and its sequel), Heavy Rain, and Max Payne 3 are just a few examples of games that gamers and reviewers alike have analyzed from a literary and artistic standpoint rather than only a gameplay one--and for good reason. These are games that nailed both the gameplay and artistic elements in such a way that, in a sense, you could analyze the art in them because you just didn't have to worry about major flaws in their game design.

Aside from the relative novelty of video games as a literary and artistic medium, I think the nature thereof simply requires gameplay to be polished to a certain level before you can truly appreciate other elements. What use is the best story if it is told in a game where, for example, you couldn't finish missions or move from point to point without game-breaking design flaws, bugs, or uninspired gameplay mechanics?

Focusing on the story at the level you're mentioning is different from other media because in games, it is usually a luxury only enabled by mastering other game aspects. That's inherent to the gaming medium, as far as I can see, and it makes games that much harder to tell a good story through than other media. For a good book, you mainly need a good narrative and story. For a good movie, you need a good book/good writing as well as good music and acting.

For a good narrative-driven video game, you need all of the above and then also good gameplay. If you get a single one of these elements significantly wrong, your ability to tell a story through a game and have people deeply analyze it is greatly diminished, and this is why games like BioShock, GTA IV, and Half-Life 2 are absolute masterpieces. They pull out all the stops the best examples of other media do and then some.

Hmm, so is it the opposite? Are games deeper than other mediums because they have extra expectations of them?

Irrelevant but I prefer GTAIV over V. Though I don’t know why.

 

[Nimos]

Is it just because games are a new medium? Can they be explored in the same manner we fight over say Shakespeare?
Or is this simply their fate?

I think it depends on what game you are talking about. Some simply fall into the category of being entertainment, sort of like one wouldn't call monopoly art either.

But some games which aim is on storytelling and character development, I think are pretty equal to that of a movie and in some case a lot better. Think about the amount of movies being made and how many of them are so utterly bad, that you don't know whether to cry or laugh.

If you haven't played Last of us (Which I haven't) But heard that it should be very good, I tried to find some videos of it, to see why that were the case.

So found this video, which goes through the whole game as if it were a movie. And personally it didn't take all that long for me, to see why people thought of it as being good, the characters are very likeable and acted, with a good story. So worth checking out if you don't know it.

 

[SomeRandom]

I think it depends on what game you are talking about. Some simply fall into the category of being entertainment, sort of like one wouldn't call monopoly art either.

But some games which aim is on storytelling and character development, I think are pretty equal to that of a movie and in some case a lot better. Think about the amount of movies being made and how many of them are so utterly bad, that you don't know whether to cry or laugh.

If you haven't played Last of us (Which I haven't) But heard that it should be very good, I tried to find some videos of it, to see why that were the case.

So found this video, which goes through the whole game as if it were a movie. And personally it didn't take all that long for me, to see why people thought of it as being good, the characters are very likeable and acted, with a good story. So worth checking out if you don't know it.

Oh I liked Last of Us.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I'm going to leap a little to the left here, but some of the Indie game developers have done an awesome job of really exploiting the medium and putting you in the shoes of other people in a way movies struggle with.
Do these games have high production values, and are they aimed at selling the most units? Not, not really. Nor can they convey as much information as a movie, and certainly not as a book.

But they can elicit quite nuanced feelings.

Sone very quick examples of what I mean;

This War of Mine
Papers, Please
Orwell
Not Tonight
Beholder

From a more technical point of view games like Automation provide amazing depth in areas like design and testing of automobiles that movies or plays ever could.

For me, the problem is comparing mediums in any direct sense. They're all different, and they have their own strengths and weaknesses.

But playing This War of Mine isn't shallow.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Which of those games would you judge the equal of Hamlet or Citizen Kane? Just curious. Don't intend to debate you.

I would put at least the first Metal Gear Solid game up with Hamlet. It is a shooter, but an anti-war, anti-hero of an anti-shooter. It has thrilling and fascinating fourth wall breakers, and delves into how nuclear threats never really actually went away, we just assumed it would get better after the Cold War, but if anything the game claims the threat has never been greater. It also highlights how nuclear armament as a deterent is, at best, a foolish endeavor that ensures nuclear weapons will always be a around.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Speaking of Half-Life 2, it was a great game. It was before they had *some* of the special shader and lighting graphics effects they do now in games. But great care was taken even back then, in creative ways. I read an article where rather than just traditional lighting of maybe one or two lights for lighting, in plain white color, that the developers worked out a system of 4 positioned lights for lighting the world and characters, each one a different color.

 

[Twilight Hue]

So as an avid gamer, I was always quick to defend video games as a legitimate art form.
But I’ve come to realise that maybe I don’t actually treat games like I do, say literature, for example. When I’m reading (particularly if I’m drunkenly stumbling around in “the cannon”) I just take it for granted that I’m supposed to be analysing the hell out of it. The nerdy references, what the text means etc. and I’m no art student either, I just read books. But that’s the way culture has pretty much taught me to view the “arts” in general.
Cinephiles gush about film theory and the various artistic movements and call backs prevalent in the medium.
So again, there’s this almost osmosis style of understanding that movies are often an art form. Criticised as such.

But though I greatly enjoy playing games and I could probably analyse many in a similar way, there’s a disconnect. Perhaps born from societal expectations. When reviewing games, gamers typically focus on things like game play mechanics, graphics, characters and story. Maybe also how flexible or nonlinear it is.
But there’s no real discussion about critical theory. Indie games sometimes bring up good discussions, but gamers simply don’t talk about games the way that cinephiles discuss movies or book worms talk about books. Even I don’t really discuss games in the same manner I would if I were gushing over Oscar Wilde.

Is it just because games are a new medium? Can they be explored in the same manner we fight over say Shakespeare?
Or is this simply their fate?

I do like games where they tell a good story or the type of game where your own story unfolds throughout.

mindless bunny hopping, bang bang , poo poo poo type games might be fun for a bit but those are definitely the shallow hollow type games that don't really have any artistic value as i see it.

Uncharted 4 would be a good example of an excellent story-driven game and looter shooter type games like the forest or 7 days to die are games where your own story unfolds as you faced well-designed danger mechanics and conditions in order for your character to survive.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Which of those games would you judge the equal of Hamlet or Citizen Kane? Just curious. Don't intend to debate you.

I second bioshock as being one of those games which explores objectivism in a new and interesting way. But it's really hard to compare to movies or theater because neither of those things have the level of interactivity that games do. Where having you, the player, make choices and engage with the story in ways that simply cant be done in other visual medium. It's a toolset that some games use to great effect (like Mass Effect) or don't.

Since they're such entirely different mediums contrasting the two is difficult as heck. What is the Hamlet of music or the Citizen Kane of architecture?

Of course 'what is shallow' is such a subjective question anyway that it'll only be harder to judge. There are award winning movies that I think are just oscar-baiting garbage meant to appeal to hollywood elite, not to me. (Citizen Kane isn't one of them, but Kings Speech was.)

 

[sun rise]

I'm not a gamer in the sense that others are but I find some graphics to be better than the paintings of some famous artists.

As to how shallow they are, I've read at least one series of novels which was so formulaic that I considered it shallow but for a while a moderately OK way to kill time.

We've not seen a War and Peace quality game yet that I'm aware of but maybe someday.

 

[Sunstone]

I second bioshock as being one of those games which explores objectivism in a new and interesting way. But it's really hard to compare to movies or theater because....

To make such a comparison, one needs a 'common denominator'. For instance, one would expect in a great work of literature -- that happened to be critical of objectivism -- that the characters, plot, etc not merely criticized objectivism, but also insightfully explained the grounds for their criticism through those mechanisms (character, plot, etc). By that token, one can ask if Bioshock not only criticizes objectivism, but insightfully explains why objectivism doesn't work? Of course, I don't mean that it explicitly explains it. Rather that it explains it via character, plot -- whatever means it has at its disposal.


EDIT: I just read the Wikipedia article on it. Wiki seems to imply that Bioshock is more or less on the literary level of a Medieval morality play. That can't be accurate, can it?