I think I should make a movie out of the title of this post's title. Nah,actually, I have a good life. I'm listening to Iron Maiden while writing this blog post at work. That is pretty rad.
But let's get serious for a moment, shall we? *serious face* There we go.
When I talked about E3, it was just one part of many of why it's frustrating to make so many grandiose exclamations about the potential of games, and then see the industry treat us like a bunch of post-pubescent teenagers.
It's hard for people to see what I'm talking about when all they see about games are things like Grand Theft Auto 4. It's a good game, but people aren't seeing the story or the writing. They're just seeing the beating up of prostitutes and the stealing of their money.
And then what is the (second?) most successful entertainment endeavor of all time (in terms of revenue)? Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. Admittedly a good game. But what about the title of the game? It probably couldn't get more vague or less interesting. It's like those old NES games: Golf. I've never played Golf, but it might have been a really good game back then. Is this how we're going to look at Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2? It might as well be called "Guy Shoots Gun at Bad Guys". Seeing a screenshot or short video of CoD:MW2 (ughhh) wouldn't be enough to tell people how this is any different than any other gun-shooting game.
But this is what people are seeing. Meanwhile, I'm on my soapbox going "No really, games can be artful experiences! You gotta believe me people! Please! ...I have a right to be here officer! Don't arrest me for telling the truth! It's the truth, dammit!" Then I get put in prison, and then a bunch of nerdy rock stars and celebrities write songs and make commercials about my wrongful imprisonment. You follow?
The problem is, the only way to get people to understand how games can be all of this is by actually playing the game. Playing a game is quite a commitment, in terms of time and money, one that skeptics like Roger Ebert aren't willing to invest. So even with an amazing game like Shadow of the Colossus, the only way to demonstrate it properly to people is to have them just play the whole thing. They aren't going to do this. So all they know is what they see on the news. What they see on the news isn't flattering.
The industry isn't really helping itself break out of this stereotype. The games that get the biggest ad campaigns and buzz are stuff like Gears of War or Call of Duty. So the industry itself is just playing it safe, and in the meantime, people are getting tired of seeing guys shooting guns at bad guys/aliens. And then we have guys like
this that are in charge of the world's largest game publisher. This guy doesn't even like games!
Why the heck else would Roger Ebert make such ridiculous statements about games? He admits that he's never really even played a game, so do you think he reads tons of game blogs and magazines? Hell no! He gets his information about games the same places everybody else does. This is lame. Like, super lame.
I know that lately a lot of people have said some really compelling things about games, and this is very encouraging. But for now, it's very frustrating to seem like I'm talking about invisible, imaginary games that are beautiful and artful.
I'm very optimistic, and I truly believe that games will eventually gain the title of "art". But it'll take a long time. Games depend on technology so much more than other mediums. 20 years after the very beginning of film, technology for cinema had reached the point where creating art out of the medium was easy. But if you look at games, not much progress was made between the 70's, 80's, and early 90's. We're finally getting to the steep part of the exponential technology curve, and it's exciting.
But for right now, the news and the industry itself are making me look kind of silly. I think I'm also very impatient and getting a little ahead of myself, so I could stand to cool off a little...
Further reading/viewing:
