Objection: Is the Cultural Trajectory of Videogames Doomed to Parallel That of Comic Books? Part II

re: Objection: Is the Cultural Trajectory of Videogames Doomed to Parallel That of Comic Books? Part II

Evan Narcisse — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 05:39:44 GMT

I think Gaynor's assessment of the modern-day comic market is a little off. Sure, the superhero stuff still tends to dominate the public imagination but we're living in times when the New York Times runs a regular spotlights featuring the talents of Chris Ware, Dan Clowes and Seth. Curious observers can see that comics are a multifaceted medium and that there are tons of different kinds of stories being told.

The big difference and the source of lots of people's frustration (I think) is that the wealth of material is there in comics. And, it's not in games, at least not yet. Like you say, video games are still a young medium.

The fear, I think, is that a focus on commercial considerations will make it so that games will never build up a deep and varied library of experiences. On the production side, it's a lot harder to put a game in front of an audience's eyes than it is to do the same for a comic or graphic novel. However, you could argue that in certain channels (free browser-based games, for example) an independently-produced game can reach more eyeballs than a independently-produced mini-comic. I'm not going to parse the stickiness of the content or the differential in the experience, because that's the kind of apples-vs-oranges kind of debate that never really interests me that much.

Bottom line: I think it's too early in the lifespan of video games for Gaynor to be making this call. More later...

re: Objection: Is the Cultural Trajectory of Videogames Doomed to Parallel That of Comic Books? Part II

Austin Walker — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 13:54:15 GMT

N'Gai, love your stuff, just want to say that you're always dead on with your writing, and even more so with your clever covers. Somehow you're always right on with those regarding what I'm doing with my life: I started watching The Wire when you used the season 4 poster. I just found all of my planetary comics coinciding with the pic of Elijah Snow, AND I just finally got into the League. You're good at this blogging thing ;)

re: Objection: Is the Cultural Trajectory of Videogames Doomed to Parallel That of Comic Books? Part II

Lummy — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 23:59:24 GMT

When it comes to comic books, let's not forget that the Comics Code Authority implemented in 1954 dealt a serious blow to what was otherwise an emerging art form that only now it beginning to leave the rut with Gaiman, Moore and the rest of the group.

I imagine that the minds behind the code wrote off comics as kiddy stuff, like Gayson has done to video games, without giving them a fair shot to grow up. In a way, comics were pushed into the ghetto by their outside influence, not because of the limitations of the medium per se. Given a fair shot, who knows were we'd be right now? We can point to Japanese manga for a possible example. Even though they have their fair share of giant robots, even the archtype that is Astro Boy manages to sneak in more maturity than American comics from the same era. Cultural differences? Yeah, sure, but I've read stuff with over-the-top action that has gutsier storytelling and art than the X-Men. (Old warhorse Evangelion always comes to mind.)

The danger with sweeping pronouncements as 'video games will always be for kids' is that it nips the bud of what could become a beautiful flower. Once you believe that, it's easier to slack off and just stop caring about the future. I believe video games are right now in the place comics used to be back in 1954; at the crossroads. Let's not drop out of the race before it starts.

re: Objection: Is the Cultural Trajectory of Videogames Doomed to Parallel That of Comic Books? Part II

swankidelic — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 05:36:33 GMT

Great article, N'Gai. I had some interesting ideas reading it (at least I think they're interesting):

You quote Gaynor with "...trying to be "cinematic" without understanding that the real value of a video game comes from being uncinematic, unrealistic; from embracing the otherness of the form...", and follow up with "We've asserted in the past, videogames are nowhere nearly as good at telling stories as they are at providing us with experiences, at putting us in spaces where narrative(s) can emerge through exploration and gameplay."

To put it concisely, in the context of video games, story is a function of setting, not of plot. This is because of the real-time nature of video games, I think. Plot comes from this real time gameplay, a constant streaming of events. Story tends to provide the who, what, where when and why of the gameplay, Video games have fallen into the trope of separating plot and gameplay - the story and plot advance alternatively, with cutscenes paced counter to missions. The games you point to as shining examples make effective strides to marry the two, closing that schism between plot and story.

Is that separation a problem? Personally, I don't think games need much story, they only need enough to fill in the setting. Many of the games that started this industry and the formalistic language it speaks started off with no story - Pac-man, Galaga, Super Mario Brothers, et al. When someone questions the artistic validity of video games, story is the first aspect trotted out, and I don't think that's entirely correct.

Ambiguity and idiosyncrasy are mere stylistic trappings. They tease the intellect, but do not provide the depth and meaning, the kernel of human truth, that worthwhile art strives for. As such, they can be earmarks, hints to look closer, but they as well just be imitative and deceptive.

You also touched on film noir and how it was retrospectively labeled art. I think film noir was awarded this because of the way that it played with and defied the formalism of film - stark lighting, on-screen shapes and composition, etc. If video games are to be a valid art form, they should have their own formalism, their own language. It can be argued that video game formalism does exist, but so far it's fledgling and ill-defined. Gaynor had a good point of taking after film noir's bucking of these formalistic values (although the marketability of such games is difficult to broach, outside of indie circles).

As nerdy as it sounds, ludology is fascinating. It deserves some kind of literary core to be penned.

Lastly, I want to say that pointing out the prevalance of "pop" juvenilia in all media is a good call. In modern society, it seems like a necessary sector, and not just for economic purposes. It also defaltes Gaynor's pessimism well =)

re: Objection: Is the Cultural Trajectory of Videogames Doomed to Parallel That of Comic Books? Part II

Ross-A — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 02:37:33 GMT

Bravo, yet another classic delivered to us by N'Gai Croal.

You touched on the masses not regarding games seriously or as art. I believe that a game is not a painting, in that it's a unique medium. Hence, a game must be judged on its own merits before one can realize that the medium is capable of delivering a compelling experience.

On that note, thanks for the compelling read.

re: Objection: Is the Cultural Trajectory of Videogames Doomed to Parallel That of Comic Books? Part II

JohnyZuper — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 06:15:56 GMT

Games have been considered as something childish for centuries. Is there any reason why that would change now that we play them through computers?

re: Objection: Is the Cultural Trajectory of Videogames Doomed to Parallel That of Comic Books? Part II

SuperEffective — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 19:53:39 GMT

Poker and chess are for children now?