Let's skip that; it's just too dark

[Chi Kong Lui]

This discussion reminds of the interview with Jason Roarer on A Life Well Wasted podcast. One of the ideas that Jason was trying to explore with the game Passage is how gamers will intensionally subvert whatever vision the artist had intended. In Passage, he describes how you can basically go from right to left and never experience anything, but if you go up or down, you will see much more that the game has to offer. Its one of the unique qualities of video games and there's always going to be a conflict between developer and gamer.

As for MW2, there's no right or wrong answer and its ultimately up to what the creator wants to do. As was mentioned in comments by Walter Kim on Mike's post on "Are game developers ethical reponsible for gender roles?", being inclusive is usually a financial benefit to the developer, however, they are not obligated to do so. As artists or creators, they are free to do whatever they want. Spielberg could have toned down the violence in Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan for children, but that's not what he wanted the audiences to experience. Doesn't it always suck to watch a rated R movie on TV that's been "edited for offensive content."

One thing that I think Brad was getting at is that deep down, we want to experience the vision of the artist. Its puts us in a different perspective that can be entertaining and enlightening. That's why we enjoy art. At the same time, its sucks if certain segments of the population are excluded like when games don't provide subtitles for deaf gamers.

Its funny how in a lot of these contentious debates, there's rarely a right or wrong answer and the opposing sides aren't really opposing each other. One thing I learned from my heated debate with Shun on Transformers and the recent gender roles debate here on GC, everyone would benefit from being more curious about what someone else has to say rather than making sure your voice is heard (which very often has the opposite effect).

[joetbd]

I wasn't going to post, because I have no interest in Call of Duty or Modern Warfare 2.

But I am a huge advocate of choice. I certainly understand artists wanting their work to be viewed as intended. But I have often stopped playing games, simply because the developers left out a simple option that would have made the game far less frustrating.

For example, when developers fail to include an option to "invert" or reverse the camera controls. The western and Japanese standards are completely opposite each other.

I have abandoned several games, games I might have otherwise enjoyed. Just because of those "up is down" "right is left" camera controls. Some times, with small games, I can understand the lack of options (I understand it, I dont like it). But when a game like Final Fantasy 12 leaves them out, that is just insulting.

Particularly when it is such a simply thing. Something that even small developers include.

Like an adjustable gamma setting.

[Alex Raymond]

Apologies if i've offended you, Alex, or anyone else here as well.

You haven't, no worries.

[Chaos Wielder]

Alex,
In the way you formulate the point, I'm not sure one can be totally consistent and argue against it(chapters are in books, so why not in games?) I suppose my hesitation to going along with this is that it is very different than how games previously have been designed--most, I'd wager, have a linear form of progression. This new method, while not necessarily "bad", is a very different design ethic.

In the way you formulate the point, again, I can't really argue against it(or, at least, I haven't thought of a way). It might run the risk of designers putting very strange things in their games and leaving the player decide whether they should see it(individual offense would dictate the text of the game).

This whole discussion, I think, is rather abstract, so a developer making a totally obscene game and then placing responsibility on the player for offense and interpretation--"you didn't have to see that"--doesn't seem all that farfetched.

Options, yes, are a good thing, but there's a(n overly) suspicious part of me that sees potential problems...however hypothetical.

(btw, thanks for the link!)

Originally Posted by Gene Park

After all, most of the people I know who played MGS4 skipped almost all the cutscenes in the game.

I think that has more to with Kojima not being able to design a game(or write a script), but that's for another discussion.
This is a case where player choice is very important. I don't care if 'love can bloom on a battlefield'.

[calicraig]

Originally Posted by Chaos Wielder

I can see your point Alex. More options, in a certain abstract sense, does empower the audience to interact in a potentially stronger fashion. Also, other forms of art(books, DVDs, comics, etc), actively allow and potentially encourage the audience to change the flow of the text. So, yes, in the abstract there might not be anything necessarily wrong with this(one could say that our conception of these art forms implies a sort of linear understanding--there are "rules" for reading a book, in the sense that language and other forms of communication have shared methods of understanding. The reader could have the "option" of reading the book sideways, but that would probably be stupid. These "options", in any case, are not all to be encouraged equally).

I suppose letting the player skip around in whatever order they want--in the hypothetical game--does not "matter", but I'd think experiencing things outside a certain order weakens the argument towards art(unless you want to say the experience is important no matter the order, but I'm suspicious of that). If we're going to have "deep" meaning, it becomes a bit absurd to say the order of events should be wholly left in the player's discretion--I understand the argument for empowerment, but this seems more like enjoyment posing as insight.

But you've got me thinking, anyways. Your hypothetical game might work, but it might be an argument forever left to something that doesn't exist.



I'm not going to touch the PTSD subject, as I simply don't know enough to comment with good faith. It is interesting that same veterans use it to help cope with their problems; this is against my intuitions on the subject, and I'm going to do some looking into it.

And that "grenade spam" shit makes me embarrassed to play games.

As I was reading this thread I kept thinking, well I can skip a chapter in a book and other "art" forms. So glad you mentioned it.

Part of art is the interaction with the artist and the participant. It should be a conversation, not a one-way thing.

In a Lit class of mine, the professor asked us to raise our hands if we prefer reading the description of a painting before trying to interpret it ourselves. Some raised their hangs, while others wanted the artist's direction to guide them. In either scenario, the participant still has control.

It is certainly an interesting concept you raise that video games are in control, while this is not the case with other mediums.

[Dramund]

Art? In my gun porn?

I understand we're supposed to assume "If videogames are art" but I'm having a hard time taking this discussion seriously. Games can be art, but that generally moves far away from slaughtering hundreds of people in a frontal-lobe muting sensory experience. Ico and Flower immediately come to mind.

That said, art or no, there is no doubt a creative vision packed into every game. However, I also think the writer and designers should approach certain chunks of the game with the idea that many people are going to be playing these games for some mindless action, explosions, blood, and other Samson-like fantasies. I simply don't think many designers would have the ground to say "You have to see this; this is our vision" unless it works in context of the artistic experience of the game. The obvious artistic experience in MW2 is anything but artistic. The designers could claim an artistic vision as anyone can claim their creative vision as art. I just wouldn't expect anyone to take the designers seriously after starting the game.

Gun porn isn't just a term either, it really describes the appeal of Modern Warfare. If I can skip the scene zoomed in on the guys face in hardcore porn, I should certainly be able to skip the terrorist sequence in MW2. Trying to mix in artistic cut scenes would create an abomination similar to Caligula.

Also, don't take this argument as an attempt to belittle or disrespect Modern Warfare 2. Contrarily, I think it's disrespectful to belittle the mountains of Grade A military fetishism that take forefront to any artistic vision that, to be quite frank, belongs elsewhere.

Stepping back more: If a game is art, then skippable content is entirely up the artist. To do anything else would be an insult to the "artistic vision." Whatever an artists reasons, the artist chooses what the player can choose to do. If the artist had to give a reason for a decision then, well, it wouldn't be very artistic.

[Chaos Wielder]

Originally Posted by Dramund

Stepping back more: If a game is art, then skippable content is entirely up the artist. To do anything else would be an insult to the "artistic vision." Whatever an artists reasons, the artist chooses what the player can choose to do. If the artist had to give a reason for a decision then, well, it wouldn't be very artistic.

I can agree with this.

And I'm all for gun porn, so long as it's done tastefully.

[Chi Kong Lui]

Originally Posted by Dramund

Stepping back more: If a game is art, then skippable content is entirely up the artist. To do anything else would be an insult to the "artistic vision." Whatever an artists reasons, the artist chooses what the player can choose to do. If the artist had to give a reason for a decision then, well, it wouldn't be very artistic.

This is falling in line with what Ebert said about how video games could never be considered art. Subverting control is the very nature of video games, but I don't think that disqualifies it from being considered good art.

[Dramund]

Originally Posted by Chi Kong Lui

This is falling in line with what Ebert said about how video games could never be considered art. Subverting control is the very nature of video games, but I don't think that disqualifies it from being considered good art.

I'm not sure if you were just shortening the quote, but that paragraph is more in line with what you said. It's ultimately up to the creator - and artists never need to give a reason. As far as MW2 as art, I think I'd be derailing the thread too much because no one has answered the question "What is art?" with complete accuracy. The short rationalization on my part is that I don't consider it art for the same reason I don't consider summer action movies art.