Worth Reading: 10/04/2013

I love Ian Bogost, every medium needs people who are never satisfied with it and I think that while his goal seems to be to say 'this is good, but I know you can do better' sometimes, his (and other critics writing) gets mistaken as 'this is shit. do better.'

@turambar said:

I agree with this sentiment towards Bogost's writing and the writing of a few other games writers with aspirations of discussing games more academically, such as Leigh Alexander.

My other issue is that, unless I've missed huge swathes of their writing, they seem to largely be applying literature and film analysis to games (lit for the writing, film for stuff related to visual composition of scenes, use of soundtrack, etc.). And then they seem to have nothing to say about games that are brilliant pieces within the medium that is video games, but happen to be light on story and also lack any implied themes.

For example, Limbo lacks a coherent story but has enough of a motif and makes enough allusions to the nature of the world that it still has some implied "writing" to speak of, so plenty of articles have been written about it. On the other hand, Terry Cavanagh's VVVVVV and Super Hexagon are amazing video games, but aren't trying to make an emotionally moving point through their writing, and no one seems to have much to write about them at length aside from "Hey, this is really good, you should play it". Academic video game criticism needs to be able to look at video games holistically, not just focus on games that are incredibly heavy on writing and story focus.

Gone Home is cool and all and has fantastic writing and voice acting, but it's also an audio-visual version of a Where's Waldo book. I wish game criticism had an equal amount to say about games that are the inverse of that, but the more academically-minded games writers seem to be far less proficient at commenting on the quality and depth of game mechanics, and instead perseverate on games with extensive writing.

[WEIRD ADDENDUM: While Googling to confirm that Leigh Alexander had indeed written very little analysis of Super Hexagon, I found this article: http://gamechurch.com/revelations-nostalgia-violence-and-hexagons/

It contains the note "(Trigger warning: occult material)", then mention of an article about video games and the occult, then "(End trigger section)". WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE THAT HAVE BEEN DEEPLY TRAUMATIZED BY THE OCCULT? Religious sites are crazy. I need to start throwing random trigger warnings in front of whatever I feel like. Seems fun.]

@elwoodan said:

The issue taken with Bogost is that his most damning piece of criticism is not one targeted against games, and demanding that games do better. It is targeted against those that play them, damning people for not having read a book by Jeanette Winterson, and in the same breath raising those that have to be somehow above ever playing a mere video game.

That is not constructive criticism nor critique. That is a mere insult.

@bisonhero: Agree, plus I always felt music is a much better comparison as an art form to games than books or film. Simply because the deeply mechanical nature of booth - and how storytelling is absolutely optional to what the core of the medium is.

Then again I don't think Gone Home is some masterpiece, it's a nice little game that did some touching things and was fun, enjoyable, and well put together for the little vignette that it was. The writing, characters, and environmental aspects of the game were certainly well crafted and generally good, but not something that at all stuck with me. I don't really remember many parts of the writing much, more the house than anything.

Games like Braid, Mother 3, The Walking Dead, or Kentucky Route Zero were much more interesting and effective overall (though I did shed tears a few times in Gone Home.) Anyway I welcome grand-standing criticism of anything usually, but it can be difficult to do without sounding condescending. From looking at his other writing, and just from that piece itself, he is obviously well-informed(did not expect him to mention Minerva's Den) and a good writer, but his tone has its faults of course.

Exactly, it just perpetuates the idea of heteronormative/cisgender-normative ideas in our society that just excludes and oppresses people. It is not about pointing out that they are transgender and making them feel special or whatever, it is about seeing them as a person/human being first and taking all of that into an account, not "OH WHEN OF THEM TRANSFOLK HEHEHAHHOHA". Obviously being transgender is part of who they are, but like you said no one gets made fun of for their cisgender identity, and that's what is important, it is not fair or equal in that regard.

Man... I have not seen the name Henk Rogers come up in a long time. Very fitting for him to write that Wired article.

Gosh it's a good thing "no joke is harmful" or that would've slayed me. ;p

Thanks Patrick. I got goosebumps from the Yamauchi piece by Henk Rogers. What a great story.

While GTA V is mechanically a brilliant game, and even not that bad of a story, it is a very pessimistic and very crass game too. It pokes jokes at group who's lack power just as hard, if not harder, than groups histriically invested with power.

I have played only three GTA games over the years, and because this one is mechanically superiors I finished this one. But, with that said, I am find that the sense of satire in this game is just off in a way I did not see iun pervioudl games. Maybe, GTA was never really all that good of a satire; yet I feel like the past games were far better or took their shot more at people in power instead of people without power. This new game makes me cringe far more often because so much of the jokes are made at the expense of those in our society just gaining power for who have little power. It would be a nice dream to think maybe I have evolved, it would be easier to say GTA has just lost its edge so I could blame the game, but probably it is both. I have evolved enough to see what I though was funny was just mean, bigoted, and done out of fear on my part. Yet, the game has lost sight that satire of the powerful is a leveler whereas satire of people who lack power is just 'hitting when they are down'.

Oh, I appreciate that game for what it does well. But, no amount of mechanical wonder should allow me to ignore the crass, misfired satire being leveled at parts of society that have seen too much savaging and too much bullying. Just because everyone gets savaged in the satire does not mean the damage is equally shared, in a power vacuum where some have power and other do not there is no "its all fair".