so, after reading
this article over breakfast this morning (oats with smuckers' jelly mixed in, as i forgot to buy enough actual fruit to get me through the week), i got to thinking about a few of bogost's points. and, since i'm taking a break from exam-ing this afternoon, i thought i'd blog about them. you know, like a real, old-fashioned blog post.
i really like the way that bogost breaks down and effectively dissolves the idea of a free speech debate around the content of the new
medal of honor's use of the taliban as a multiplayer (team? side? what's the right word here?). that the debate boils down to whether or not it is tasteful to include the
term "taliban" in the game does in fact illustrate how little of a political point the term's inclusion - or the taliban's inclusion - was meant to make in the first place. what's (maybe) worse, the fact that taking the term out of the game - replacing it with the catch-all term "opposing force" seems to have largely sated the game's critics shows how little the popular view of video games still expect from those games. in a time when so many are ready to fiercely defend video games' status as "art", doesn't it seem strange that the things that still get us talking critically about games most readily are things that are projected onto those games from outside cultural contexts?
as bogost mentions, the inclusion of the taliban in
medal of honor could have been a point
within the game and therefore also outside the game for discussion regarding the nature of war and the ambiguity of conflict. instead, what you get is the same old "you can play as the bad guy!" bullshit "special" game mechanic, made controversial by a label slapped on it meant to refer to real-world events outside the game, and thus stir association with the controversy attached to those events. the bottom line is that even our most controversial, thought-inspiring games generally refuse to start discussions of their own, and are content to ride on the backs of controversies already being enacted on the culture at large.
example:
GTA, the game series best-known for pissing people off in the real world (the fact that it introduced the genre of the sandbox shooter is never nearly as important, somehow).
GTA isn't controversial because the game itself forces you, through its gameplay and/or story, to confront interesting moral conundrums or engage in critical thinking. it's controversial because you can shoot hookers and shoot down police helicopters in a fighter jet. so what? i mean, i don't want to derail my point into a different conversation about whether
GTA's level of violence is acceptable, but, seriously: so what? how is the conversation about whether or not playing
GTA will turn our kids into murderous maniacs a more important conversation to be having than a more basic conversation about why, 30 years after the NES, we're still playing games that only challenge the gamer to mindlessly gun down everything that stands in their way en route to a completely heroic objective in a universe of perfectly black-and-white morality?
games have the ability to generate such a conversation, but they so rarely do. players stomp everything in their way for hours upon hours en route to rescuing the princess, but nobody ever stops to think that, hey, when luke blew up the death star, he was technically killing thousands of potentially innocent people.
does this mean that i think every game in the universe needs to address the metaphysical implications of mortality, or that the next time you boot up your franchise in
madden you should have to face maddeningly (no pun intended) complex decisions regarding the emotional repercussions of your fake players' professional sports careers on their marriages? of course not. part of what makes games fun is the magic circle, the idea that there's a border beyond which the game doesn't go. sometimes i shoot a scientist in
half-life or blow him up with a pack of explosives simply because i can. precisely because it's something that would be completely outrageous in real life but within the game there are no consequences. games like
medal of honor build their appeal on the basis of the idea that you can be one man and single handedly save america from the taliban, or the nazis, or the combine, or whatever. of course that's ridiculous, but that's often why we play.
however, is it too much to ask to want games that are still games, but are smarter? here, as much as i HATE intimating that video games and movies are in pretty much any way related, i think bogost has a good point comparing the criticality of games to that of film. sure, a lot of people go to the movies for explosions, or date movies, films that could hardly be considered "critical thinkers". at the same time, though, you have a movie like
avatar becoming the biggest movie of all time. now, say what you will about the mythic, derivative story (aren't all our big stories derived from myths?), at the core of
avatar is a film that forces the viewer to consider a lot of post-Columbian assumptions of Western superiority...it's a popcorn flick,but it's also a postcolonial text, albeit one that's fairly obvious and ham-handed. and when people saw it, even people who weren't stuffy lit majors or cultural critics, people
fucking talked about it. for months. it started a discussion that likes of which i haven't seen touched off by a movie since
The Matrix. which, incidentally, was another movie that worked both on the level of popcorn flick and metaphysical garbage masher. whether or not you thought either of those movies were
good, nobody can argue that they don't force the viewer to confront a critical subtext amidst the explosions. people make movies that are all about challenging assumptions, too:
brokeback mountain,
food, inc., restrepo, and people go see that shit.
yet, then there's video games, sitting forlornly on the fence, complaining that nobody will buy them if people are forced to actually think. the primary difference between movies and games is obvious - interactivity. the interaction the player has with the game has to be enjoyable, or else the player won't come back. but can't you have interaction without casting the player as a Good or Evil in the game world? wouldn't players be
more likely to want to play a game if the character they embodied was able to interact more realistically with a more morally ambiguous world? there's a difference between wanting to play in the magic circle because games are fun and wanting to escape into a stupider microcosm of the real world where nothing you ever do is questioned.
i have little to know experience with MMORPGs, but i almost wonder if those types of games simulate a critical reality more than traditional games, because at least within the world of an MMORPG, your actions effect others and you have to acknowledge some level of society.
geesh...i was going to talk about some examples of games, but i see i've gotten way carried away. i guess i'll see if anyone responds to this and then maybe i'll write a part two...
