#1:
“Video games are for boys!”
If you don’t mind, I’ll hit you with a stat
from the Entertainment Software Association (ESA):
“Forty-seven percent of all game
players are women. In fact, women over the age of 18 represent a significantly
greater portion of the game-playing population (30 percent) than boys age 17 or
younger (18 percent).” -http://www.theesa.com/facts/index.asp
So.
More women over 18 play video games than boys under 18. Seems like video games are more for adult
women than boys, right? Not really. It really does appear that most video games
are totally for little boys with military fetishes.
Take into consideration that the definition
of video games is more broad than just the triple A console/PC shooters that
seemingly pervade every pocket of the perception of what video games are
nowadays. It also includes casual,
puzzle games on smartphones, computers and the DS, which lends the statement:
“Video games are for boys!” in need of a little amending in order to not be
stupid. Video games are for
everyone. The video game community, and many
video games outside of the casual market, present themselves as being NOT for
women.
Why is it that the biggest, most
expensive to make video games end up presenting the view female characters with
writing and design choices that show them primarily as a romantic lead and a pair
of tits and ass cheeks over a 3-dimensional character with an arc and a
personality and stuff? Is it because the
games are made with its own sort of “Male gaze”, for men to look at and pine
for?
Well, yeah, but I think that it’s also
because it’s been this way for so long, and a corporation making a NEW
decision, even though it could make them even more money by getting more people
invested in games, is unlikely if they have an incredibly likely way to make a
shit ton of money doing the same thing.
Also, writing real characters and not just
the character descriptor of: “Has unrealistically perfect tits and ass.” Is
difficult and takes skills that aren’t in abundance in the video game industry.
Some people say that men are designed in a
similarly exaggerated fashion. I’d agree
with that to a degree. The bullshit
there is that it’s still the MAN’s perspective that exaggerates their
design. It’s not a man that’s made to be
fetishized as the perfect man women want; it’s exaggerated to be what MEN WANT
TO BE. It’s all male fantasy, and that’s
wrong. There’s nothing wrong inherently
with male fantasy, or even objectification of women, or objectification of
anything, it’s just that when that is nearly all that’s there in an artistic
medium, or a culture, you have serious fucking problems on all fronts.
Now add on that the community who are more
invested in games than just games designed to be casual, are antagonistic
towards women. This is very well
documented. Anyone who hasn’t seen
antagonistic behavior towards women in the video game community is either lying
or dangerously deluded.
After all of that, it becomes obvious
why women don’t want to play these games that don’t seem to be made for them,
and become engaged in a community that doesn’t seem to be embracing them to play
equal roles in the community. That’s
okay though, because they’re totally cool with them being booth babes, sexy
cosplayers, or hot commentators on G4. When that’s what’s available, it’s
obvious why there aren’t many women fighting against those fighting to keep
them out of the community. And that’s a
damn shame. Video games have so many
wonderful experiences to offer everyone.
All that aside, the aforementioned
corporate side would definitely lead one to the conclusion that video games are
mostly seen as a product by the people making them and not an art form. I would agree. Still.
One of the dumbest statements about video games is this:
#2:
“Video games aren’t art, you idiot!”
When a film critic is reviewing a movie, is the
focus of their article whether or not the film in question should be considered
art or not? I don’t think so. I think that they’re trying to communicate
whether or not it is a piece of art that is of good quality, mediocre quality,
bad quality, whether or not you should see it, if you would enjoy it and
everything in between.
Is Tommy Wiseau’s the Room art? Why not?
Because it’s bad? Does all art
have to be good at the least? How bad is
it allowed to be? Only a little? Why?
If that’s so, then why is film considered to be an art form at all? If the majority rule applies to whether or
not film is art by how much it is good, then why not apply that to the whole
medium, and consider it not an art form because most movies aren’t good? Are most movies good? I don’t know.
Have you seen all of them, and decided the quality of each of them as being
more good than bad, thus giving it the right to be called an art form? Should we just take your word on that?
It gets into a really muddy argument as you can
see. I opine that art should be
considered as something made not of utilitarian value, but to communicate or
evoke something. Plain and simple.
Is architecture art? Absolutely.
But doesn’t that have utilitarian value? This is where art splits off into two
worlds, and two words. …Or I guess one
word that means two different things: Art as a painting, a movie, a game, etc.,
and art as a building, a meal, a toilet, etc.
If the architecture is being analyzed by its
aesthetics and such then the art that is being analyzed from the lens of it as
a medium of expression and not its utilitarian value. If it is being analyzed from its quality as
what it does, how well it does it, etc., it is the OLD word art, a much more
all encompassing definition that refers to works themselves. This definition just refers to the craft
someone works in. In short, the same
word meaning two things refers to two aspects of the work in question when it
can overlap into a work of both utilitarian and non-utilitarian value. Does a Frank Gehry building function well as
a work of art from the perspective of how well it works as a building to house
people? No. At least not from what I hear about his
buildings. But they aren’t made for that
reason. Can a building be both? Can a meal be both? I think most utilitarian things can be
both.
It’s a complicated conversation that has been going
on and will be going on forever. I think
the above is the best way to look at things, and to get across that art forms
that people don’t consider art forms, such as video game, or even FILM once
upon a time are in fact art and help us get on with the discussion.
#3: “Ok
smartass. Well then, video games can’t
be high (good) art!”
The above isn’t just the argument of MANY people I
have talked to (strangely enough it seems like the default position of all
people), but of an important figure in the art world. Film critic Roger Ebert, an artist in his own
right, and a man deserving of much respect.
Ebert started at #3, and then got a shitstorm of emails from the ever
respectful and articulate video game community, after which he revised his
position to #4.
After the shitstorm had cleared and Ebert redefined
his position, he said this: “Why do you care what I have to say?” Yes it’s nice that there is hypocrisy that
rests in Ebert considering the art he has spent his career analyzing and
reviewing was once not considered art for a reason that shouldn’t effect the matter
(Because film is collaborative, it isn’t art.
If that’s true, then a painting made by two painters can’t be considered
art.), and he is an important figure and he does deserve rebuttal just because
it is an important issue… But why do we
care? Why did everyone flip out so
much? He doesn’t play video games. At least he hasn’t played enough video games
to decide whether or not they could ever be high art. He isn’t informed. Debating him is useless and a waste of
time. We could debate him. Use him as a platform to show the truth
behind the art of game. But he’s already
lost, by not knowing ANYTHING.
Yeah, most video games are not high art,
but that’s Sturgeon’s Law. If these
people were willing to understand the position of people who ARE informed, I’d
tell them to play Missile Command, Super Mario Bros., The Legend of Zelda,
Portal, and BIT.TRIP COMPLETE. While
they’re doing this, I’d tell them to read into video game history to provide
context, and question every single thing that happens in the game they’re
playing.
Why are there 3 missile towers to shoot
from in Missile Command? Why are you protecting
both your missile towers and a city? Why
do so many missiles and planes and shit come from all directions of the screen
towards you? How come you can never beat
the game, and the only end of the game is punctuated with a screen that says:
THE END when you fail completely and the city is completely destroyed? How did all of this make you feel? What did it make you think about?
Missile Command was originally in the arcades in the early 80's.
Some of the easiest ways to play it today is to buy it on the Xbox Live Arcade if you have an Xbox360 and I'm sure it's available on the PC. shouldn't be hard to find it online.
Why is all of Super Mario Bros.' progression
directed completely from left to right? How
is it different from so many games before it, in particular relating to
achieving a goal? Why are the blocks
placed where they are? The cliffs? The enemies?
The pipes? The power-ups? How does the placement change and how does it affect your experience? Why does
each world end with you seemingly defeating Bowser, and a little mushroom guy
saying: “Thank You Mario! But our
princess is in another castle!” How did
all of this make you feel? What did it
make you think about?
Super Mario Bros. was originally released on the Nintendo Entertainment System in the 80's.
The easiest way to play it today is to buy it on
the Wii Virtual Console for 5 dollars, or find it online. You can also
buy it on the Nintendo eShop for the 3DS if you have one.
Why is your character in the original
Legend of Zelda’s continuous attaining of items effect how you play the
game? HHow could it relate to the growth
of the character itself? Why doesn’t the
next level just start up after you’ve finished one, like Mario? Why do you have to discover each of them
through exploring the overworld? How did
all of this make you feel? What did it
make you think about?
The Legend of Zelda was originally released in the 80's for the Nintendo Entertainment System. The easiest way to play it today is to buy it on the Wii Virtual Console for 5 dollars, or find it online. You can also buy it on the Nintendo eShop for the 3DS if you have one.
How could the gameplay mechanics of Portal
relate to the character relationship between yourself and the only other
character in the game? How could this game be seen as a more feminine approach to the first person shooter genre? How does this game approach female characters in different ways than most games? What was up with
the companion cube? Why did the game end
the way it did? How did
all of this make you feel? What did it
make you think about?
Portal is available for the Xbox360, Playstation3, and Mac and PC on Steam.
Why does the BIT.TRIP series progress the
way it does? Why does it start in BEAT with
gameplay similar to pong? Why does CORE
change the gameplay to stationary, four directional shooting? Why does it change in VOID to allow you to
move anywhere you want on the screen?
Why are there so fewer penalties in RUNNER? Why are there no lives and no game over? Why is there so little time between making a
mistake and putting you back at the beginning of the level? Why does the game over return in FATE? Why is the tone so much darker? Why did the gameplay change from jumping,
sliding, and blocking enemies and obstacles, to shooting them and collecting
hearts they drop? Why are you stuck on a
rail?
Why is the game over gone in FLUX? Why does the gameplay turn back to the
simplicity of BEAT? How do the new
gameplay elements mirror gameplay elements from the previous games? Why is the action directed to the opposite
side of the screen?
How do the brief cut scenes provide context for the
deeper meaning in the games? What
do the musical motifs mean? Why is there
always so much going on in the background?
Why are the graphics so simple and Atari-inspired? Why is it all rhythm based? Why is there occasional repetition of
obstacles? How does the progression of
the series relate to the progression of Video Games, and how does the
progression of the series relate to the progression of a human life from birth to
death? How did all of this make you
feel? What did it make you think about?
All six of the BIT.TRIP games are available on Wiiware for the Wii.
BEAT and RUNNER are available on Steam.
The ultimate collection of all of them along with an assload of extra challenges and features is available for retail on the Wii under the title: BIT.TRIP COMPLETE
If after all that they’re still on the side
of: “Video games can’t be high art,” only then will they be deserving of
debate.
Until then, they’re just being uninformed and
stupid. As opposed to just stupid.
