Klosterman's article mentions specialization. Most gaming journalists double as reviewers, news breakers, etc...on a fully-staffed website, so in a way it's understandable that it's harder to spot that guiding light.
As far as I can tell, there is no major critic who specializes in explaining what playing a given game feels like, nor is anyone analyzing what specific games mean in any context outside the game itself.
On the other hand, I think Penny Arcade's Jerry Holkins (Tycho Brahe) does exactly that. He likes to talk about context, and genre shifts, and how games cross over into our consciousness and other mediums and how developers use weird cognitive leaps to translate a tangible emotional experience into something that happens when you turn on your console or PCs. Maybe that gets lost because it's not his "primary" job. I like their comic, but Tycho's observations on the experience of video gaming are like delicious icing.
Tycho's writing falling under the news posts for a comic might not make it feel like "real" journalism but when he comments, I think it's some the most insightful writing on videogames and the state of the industry out there.
There is no Pauline Kael of video-game writing. There is no Lester Bangs of video-game writing. And I'm starting to suspect there will never be that kind of authoritative critical voice within the world of video games, which is interesting for a lot of reasons.
I'm sure some of the counter-articles have mentioned this, but neither of those critics began their distinguished careers on the internet, where the vast majority of gaming discussion happens. There's almost too much volume. It's harder to pick out a figurehead in such an enormous, diffuse environment.
Posting some more of the linked-to article here:
"Video games generally have narratives and some kind of character development, but—almost without exception—these are the least interesting things about them. Gamers don't play because they're drawn into the story line; they play because there's something intoxicating about the mix of exploring an environment and solving problems. The stories are an afterthought."
This is all completely true.
This is completely balls.
Dismissing storylines and characters in videogames as reasons for playing is a mistake. Sometimes wanting to know "What happens next? What was that I just saw? Where is this going?" is what kept me up until 5 in the morning. Hell, I think it can SAVE a game with mediocre mechanics. A strong narrative can lend significance to what you're doing and keeps things moving smoothly. Depending on what you want to do, it can be crucial.
Unlike a film director or a recording artist, the game designer forfeits all autonomy over his creation—he can't dictate the emotions or motives of the characters.
Oh yes she or he can. Dialogue, plot, narration...the regular indications that characters have motives in fiction? I'm not really sure what Klosterman means here, and I'm beginning to suspect he's not really well versed in a wide variety of games. (Either that or he used character when he meant player).
And since we've already agreed that video games are the new rock music, we'd be facing a rather depressing scenario: This generation's single most meaningful artistic idiom will be—ultimately—meaningless.
"Videogames - will they die an early creative death, their potential stifled forever?! Am I strongly implying this will happen without a mystical Critical Leading Voice?!"
This sort of argument feels premature. I'd love to see more serious videogame criticism but it'll happen more often once the generational shift gradually weeds out those who didn't grow up with them. Videogames are still a very young industry, and one that has put an unprecedented amount of control over content into the player's hands. (Well, on PCs anyway. God bless user-made patches. The fan-made mod scene is amazing too, and it's interesting to see how many people have gained recognition and sometimes even jobs from participating in it). That alone will keep innovation going. |
