Wherefore art thou Lester Bangs of gaming?

Everyone do yourselves a favor and listen to the latest episode of 1up yours from last friday, they have a really well thought discussion over this maybe half an hour in.

http://1upyours.1up.com/

Wherefore in that context means why, not where. Just to fill you in and be a lameass like that.

When I started doing game reviews I wanted to give something different than a shopping guide. I wanted to give my impressions of the overall experience, not necessarily whether it is worth your money or not. I didn't want to give an arbitrary score, I didn't want to focus on thumbs up or thumbs down. I chose a system of "funness" "shininess" and "worthiness". I have gotten good feedback in response to my reviews, and yeah, I think that more thoughtful reviews in the industry are needed. Too many game sites just give you a rundown of how many levels the game has, or other information you can get by reading the back of the box. Let me know how this game is going to make me FEEL, man!

And of course why we don't have Game-Aides.

Detroit Sucks

I think to say there is almost no exception to the idea that most video games are not about story, not about MEANING is perhaps unfair. It just happens to be the case that most of these games do not sell very well. These games are the critically acclaimed, but financially starved type. The 'Best games that nobody played' type. Examples that come to mind are 'Beyond Good and Evil' and 'The Longest Journey'.

I just hope to see more of those in the future for those among us who devour those games.

Beyond Good and Evil clearly had something to say, other than that though nothing comes to mind.

Oh fuck, "the first Xbox critic"? He could have mentioned a better one.

Anyway, he's generalizing too much. There are games that mean something. Personally, I see many of Square games, or RPGs in general, meaning something. You can definitely analyze the trend's created by Capcom, and that despite them releasing so many sequels, how many genres have they improved/created? Why are their first games on any series so good and original? They sure must have some meaning. Also, Kojima has said before that his games mean something. Other parody games, such as Asterix or GEX, are meant to make fun of pop culture, just like *spoofs* in cinema.

Not all games mean something, but... you can say the same thing about movies. For example, X-men 3 meant: "The biggest pile of turd in hero movie sequels", but that's pretty much it. It had *potential*, as Klosterman said, but the movie ended up being the worst of the trilogy. You can say that about a lot of movies.

Not all movies mean something, but some games do mean something. I hope more games with some meaning come out.

It's pretty simple. Becoming a movie star or rock star is all about getting rich, getting high, and getting laid. In any order to great repetition. There are swarms of women who'll jump into a famous actor or singer's bed at short notice. Journalists who cover those fields have a good shot at catching some of the rejects on the rebound.

Gaming stars are far more likely to be anonymous and hideend behind the virtual stars of their games. They're more like film directors. Most people can recognize a fair number of actors but how many movie directors would you recognize if their picture is in the paper? Spielberg and George Lucas would get a lot of hits, then the recognition rate goes way down. But even a fim director has a good shot at his actresses.

Where is the casting couch for game designers? It isn't like the characters are free agents and Lara Croft is sleeping with game designers to line up her next gig. Booth babes? I doubt it. Unless there is a lot of cash involved and the woman is taking offers, they aren't blowing the big name game designers in the private room of the E3 booth.

So where is the attraction for the Lester Bangs of gaming? He may get some free goodies like the games themselves and t-shirts, but the really good stuff like shared drugs and women aren't part of the picture.

Hell, you have a better chance of getting high and/or laid covering Science Fiction conventions. The more popular writers get a surprising amount of groupie action and from women who are actually attractive. Two writers of my acquaintance wrote a book in which a combined version of themselves went to hell as a result of his convention carousing. The going to hell part was a premise for a modern take on Dante but the partying and adultery were based on their own experience.

Movie and rock stars are great to hang around with because they're living a life most can only dream about. Game designers are living pretty ordinary lives by comparison and don't have a lot of scandalous subject matter to offer.

Thanks for posting on this - a very interesting read. I think a subset of games have been approaching "narrative significance" and deeper meaning for many years, but that subset is very small and the significance invariably has to be servant to gameplay. This is unlike other art forms where experimentalism is more accepted, because the level of immersion in games is so high, to the point where you are "one" with a specific agent in the game.

A few games to throw out there: much of the Infocom ouvre from the 80's (of course tied to literature in direct ways), Ico, Metroid Prime (the use of exploration and examination of old messages to indirectly tell the story was brilliant), Eternal Darkness (essences of Lovecraft), Final Fantasy VII, Grim Fandango, point and click adventure games in general, Deus Ex (branched storyline that still conveyed a coherent, gripping narrative). Other games have the potential for deeper narrative resonance but were plagued by poor voice acting (the Myst and Metal Gear Solid series come to mind).

I have to go study, but I think there are many more examples of games that can be appreciated on a more artistic level than they are currently, which I think is the essence of this discussion.

Anyway, thanks again!

The problem is not with the lack of critics. People like Gabe and Tycho are pretty much exactly what they're looking for, and I'm amazed they can't find them since Penny Arcade is popular enough to get about 2 million hits a day. Lack of critics isn't the problem.

The problem is that the author, Chuck Klosterman, is a tourist to the gaming culture. He takes a quick glance at a few web sites and makes a broad generalization. I could say that no movie critics exist exactly as he described him, but that would merely be a comment about my lack of interest in looking for movie critics. Honestly, as a passerby of movie culture, I see Ebert & Roeper as the equivalant of Gamespot or IGN.

I hate his "Gone with the Wind" analogy. That's just proof that he doesn't understand games. Where exactly are the games that turn out "differently for every person?" The fact is 99% of games are completely linear with very little player interaction affecting the plot. (Aside from the obvious decision to not play affecting the plot's halt, which is akin to saying a book is interactive because you have to turn the pages.)

I took a film studies class a few years ago. We learned the basic film terminology, and learned how things like lighting and cinematography expressed elements of the narrative.

In video games, that's usually backwards. The plot is usually just an explanation of the gameplay or character motivations. And that's the way most people like it.

It's irrelevant WHY Mario is going from castle to castle. No one REALLY cares about the Princess. He just needs something to motivate him forward. And in the end, anything would really do.

There are of course deep game plots that could stand to be examined. "Metal Gear Solid" and "Beyond Good and Evil" comes to mind. Even GTA has been held up as an example of social criticism. Those games do have a deeper meaning and there are a lot of people that do write about them that way.

Serious game criticism is largely academic right now, but, as far as I can tell, so is seriuos movie criticism. Only a handful of non-commodity-focused critics exist for both mediums.

In the end, you're not gonna find what you don't look for.

And oh yeah, "Wherefore" means why, so the title doesn't make any sense. I bet that's the most commonly mis-quoted line from Shakespeare.

Most mis-quoted line is actually, "Alas poor Yorick. I knew him well." The correct line is "Alas poor Yorick. I knew him, Horatio."

But I get your point ... and I studied plenty of Shakespeare. *slaps wrist*

Thanks! :)

HEEENNNRRRYYYYY JEEEENNNNKKKIIINNNNSSS!

"There is a void, but there is still time to fill it. Somebody needs to become the first significant Xbox critic, stat. If nothing else, I'm sure he'll get rich."

I highly doubt that. Literary pioneers who go against the grain to advance their craft never achieve anything except poverty or post-mortem immortality. Better to be the world's second significant Xbox critic.

Because people only care to read the review scores to see what they should buy. Or else they wait to see the sales charts for Japan so they can seem like they are cutting edge gamers. There isn't going to be a Lester Bangs because no one would read him because he wouldn't choose for you what game you should buy.

I don't like the analogy that video games are like rock songs... or that they're like food, or movie theater. Why do people have to keep saying video games are something that they're not? They're just games. Sometimes they have meaning (Final Fatasy, Legend of Zelda) and sometimes they have no meaning (Tetris, Pong) and then there's everything in between. And I don't agree that they'll become boring, because if such a thing was even plausible it would have happened already. People don't like things that are boring. If they don't like something then they won't buy it, so making games interesting (whether through gameplay, story, design, appearance, whatever) is an incentive to developers to make money. This writer assumes too much. He is an idiot and should be shot. They would mean a lot to me. ;)

You really want to know why?

For the most part, game review editors are basically all the same.

Try writing a review with any thought, or that deviates from the expectations of what the game is, and you can flat-out be told to rewrite the article. Remember when GI gave Paper Mario 2 a poor review? They were under pressure to re-review the game.

Some reviewers are graduating to real journalism, but when is the last time you've heard of even a music journalist being bound by a NDA? They're not. Until that system changes you cannot really call them journalists; more like industry mouthpieces.

An interesting article with some bad assumptions:

Bad Assumption One - That Pauline Kael and Lester Bangs are good role models

There is a reason both have fallen out of favor. (Slate article about how music critics don’t want to be labeled “rockist” like Bangs: http://www.slate.com/id/2141418/) These critics are reductionists and their disciples are even worse. We need a full range of opinions. Gamers do not need critics who decide that only games that fulfill one set of criteria are good and everything else is unworthy.

Bad Assumption Two – There is no good gaming journalism

Someone already mentioned Penny Arcade. I’d recommend everyone here take a look at http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/games/archives/game_culture/2005/03/ten_unmissable_examples_of_new_games_journalism.html. This site has some great examples of the great gaming journalism that Klosterman says does not exist. Tom Chick is a great writer and “Saving Private Donny” is a power essay on gaming violence and its relationship to real suffering and pain; it is arguably his best. “Possessing Barbie” is the finest piece of writing on the true nature of intimacy that I have ever read.

Bad Assumption Three – The dynamic nature of games leads to worse criticism

Wrong, wrong, wrong. “Bow Nigger” (sic) and “Possessing Barbie” directly prove that the critics involvement and choices leads to greater insights about human nature. The fact that these articles are both about multiplayer suggests fertile new ground for criticism as people can create their own meaning together. The era of “the great artist” that both Kael and Bangs worship is coming to a close.

Bad Assumption Four – The meaning is the only worthy aspect of the game

Even film and literary critics discuss cinematography and prose style. The themes of the game are only one small part at best. Artistic beauty, immersion and even control schemes are all worthy of critical discussion. Read Bruce Geryk’s somewhat review of Rise of Legends and the nature of a good strategy game at Tom Chick’s site – http://www.quartertothree.com/inhouse/features/261/.

I will agree that most game reviews are mind numbing and most game journalism is undigested game company PR. But the last thing gaming needs is to slavishly follow old, defunct forms of criticism suggested by people who have not taken the time to see what is already out there.

I see great, laughable irony in the fact that this update comes from the same author who thinks Chris Crawford is a kook.

My favorite games draw me in like a great book. Less graphics, more writing please. I'm the only critic that matters as I decide whether or not to pull out my wallet.

#18 Kael and Bangs have fallen out of favor because they aren't around any more to defend their thrones and newer critics are sick of having to live up to the legend of people who came and went decades ago.

Young readers might skip their books since the subject matter revolves around films and performers that seem hopelessly dated to casual sorts. So the old guard becomes increasing read only by serious criticism nerds, like 19th Century authors nobody outside of academia remembers. Like William Ashbless.

Pauline Kael remains the subject of the all-time greatest example of living in an echo chamber. After Nixon's landslide victory over McGovern, a candidate even committed doves thought was incapable of dealing with defense issues, Kael was supposedly heard to exclaim that it was impossible for Nixon to have won since nobody she knew voted for him. While some claim this is apocryphal it perfectly suits a person who started her career at a Pacifica (AKA the US broadcasting arm of Pravda) station and then spent most of her adult life in Manhattan.

Some insist the story isn't true but they tend to be people I having difficulty taking at their word, such as the real world model for Jay Sherman.

#17

It isn't at all unusual for a music journalist to be under the equivalent of an NDA. Publicity campaigns for new album releases are carefully coordinated. Journalist who don't respect embargo dates can find themselves left out in the cold the next time the same label is lining up PR for one of its artists.

calthaer: erm, how? Thinking the game industry itself is creatively dead isn't the same as acknowledging a lack of critical study of the form. Am I missing something here ... enlighten me.

@ #21 - How does a publicity campaign intersect with journalism? Only when a company refuses to allow information out, then gives press releases and/or advance copies of music/games/whatever. That's just being told what to write. That's not journalism.

First off... why do we need a Lester Bangs? I don't want to be the Lester Bangs of video gaming. I want to be the Rick "32_Footsteps" Healey of video gaming. Sure, I'd like the respect and money, but I don't want to do it by becoming a video game reflection of someone else. I wish to succeed or fail on my own terms.

It's difficult to be heard, yes, but there are critics who look beyond whether or not a game is worth buying. I like to think that I insert some of that into my reviews and editorials, though I'll let others judge whether or not I succeed. I know quite a few others do as well.

The problem is audience. Those of us who at least try to look beyond the basics are still building an audience. We don't have a "Rolling Stone" to really reach out to gamers. We don't have alternative papers giving us any more than a single page for video gaming. We don't have any penetration of note into the major media.

Sure, we have our soap boxes on the Internet, and I don't regret having mine. But those other forms are guaranteed readers, huge numbers of them. While Internet writing has much more potential exposure, we typically have less actual exposure. Once the deserving writers get actual exposure, then we'll see a writer hit it big like Bangs or Kael.

But even then, that writer should be true to themselves and not just be the "Lester Bangs of video gaming." We need our own stories to tell, not imitations of others' stories.

Citing Metal Gear Solid and Beyond Good And Evil as "video games that have meaning" seems odd to me. If you were to strip these video games from their cinematic cutscenes, they would just be a succession of vapid, yet thrilling, action sequences. The art and the meaning in those games actually comes from cinema, and not from the inherent nature of video games.

David Jaffe's keynote at GDC had touched upon that subject when he said that current video games "were like porn" in structure, with "game" sequences sandwiched between "cinema" sequences. The simple fact is that a game, whether video or otherwise, cannot carry a narrative like film or litterature can, and the storytelling capabilities of the medium really don't go farther than the original Super Mario Bros. Video games are built around premises, the basic caracteristics of storytelling, and in many cases, they can completely do away with characters and environements and focus on the abstract, like Tetris.

Am I saying that video games can't be art? No, but they have to be on their own merits, and they cannot be evaluated as art on the same criteria as, say, film is. Because then either they are too much "game" to be cinema, or they are too much "cinema" to be a game.

C.Grant: Crawford's statements re: creativity in the game industry are not really the meat of his "shtick." If anything, there are only an outcropping of his whole theory, which in a nutshell appears to be that "Games could be art, but they aren't -- yet." His "Art of Computer Game Design" is still one of the best works written on the subject, and all his later comments and works sort of stem from that statement he makes there - that games aren't art, but they could be some day.

Even Steve Johnson says in "Everything Bad..." that games aren't art yet. And when Chris Crawford says that "creativity" is "dead," what he most likely means by that (if you've ever read any of the rest of his stuff) is that games aren't *trying* to be art, either - they're not reaching for that or grasping at that goal (which is essentially what Henry Jenkins, referenced in this blog entry, is also saying). They're not thinking: "What new ways can I stimulate the human mind and how can I create a game that means something - or where players can construct meaning?"

And Crawford - as cantankerous and "doom-and-gloom" as he is (he really is a "glass-half-empty" sort of guy), is at least trying to do that with his Storytron thing, or whatever it's called. Whether he'll succeed or not, I don't know - but you have to give the guy props for trying.

@ Francois,

"If you were to strip these video games from their cinematic cutscenes, they would just be a succession of vapid, yet thrilling, action sequences."

You're basically saying if you change the game completely, it will be different.

Those games rely on the cutscenes to tell the story. They have really well-made cutscenes and the narrative is usually pretty good because the cutscenes are well-made. The meaning of the narrative can only be understood by watching the cutscenes. For most games, the gameplay itself doesn't necessarily convey the narrative.

However, I think Beyond Good & Evil and MGS 3 are exceptions to that rule, if only in limited instances. In BG&E, when the DomZ attack the city, that's not done in a cutscene, it's done in a real time battle with your hovercraft. As for MGS 3, one of the most poignant scenes in the game is when the player is forced into killing The Boss. It could have been a cutscene, but by forcing the player to press the button, it gave that plot point greater significance.

Your perspective is one where you equate art with narrative. Paintings and sculptures are art even if they don't tell any kind of story. Music can be art even if it doens't contain a plot. There's no reason why video games have to limit themselves to a narrative form. Personally, I think Tetris is a perfect example of interactive art. Games can tell meaningful stories, but the entire medium should not be judged by the ability to craft a narrative.

#24

Without access to the subject of his writing the journo is very limited in what he can achieve. A guy who just listens to CDs and writes his impressions is just a reviewer. A journalist needs to go deeper.

A good example is Kurt Loder's 'Bat Chain Puller.' This collection of Rolling Stone articles got up close to the subjects being discussed. Without those firsthand impression it would have just been another fanboy observing from afar.

Since these subject have lives and the occasional desire to not be under the magnifying glass, they or their management are going to dictate when a journo like Loder is granted access. By no small coincidence, this tends to intersect with when the celebrity has an album to sell, a movie to plug, or a tour to promote.

For rock journalist there is hardly a better time to hang with a performer than during a tour where excesses and exhaustion combine for memorable moments.