In my previous post, I argued that video games, as a medium, have earned their reputation as being particularly uninterested in themselves as art. That is to say, while they are art, most people who engage with games do not do so as they do other art, with a few exceptional titles that have such obvious artistic merit that they break the norm — games like Shadow of the Colossus1 or Disco Elysium2.
Even among only people (like me) who primarily talk about games, there seems to be two primary categories of analysis within games: those who talk about games as art, and analyze them as such, and those who talk about games as products, including things such as reviews, previews, and… well, most press coverage.
Now, herein lies the problem: while the latter category gives coverage to all manner of games, proportionate to the relative size and quality of the game, the former category — the one that actually does what I set out to do — only talks about a specific subset of games. Specifically, they almost exclusively filter for only games which are obviously artistic — and specifically those that are obviously “saying something” — before digging into them.
This categorization is wider than the list of “masterpieces” that everyone always brings up, and you will often see games that are smaller or more flawed discussed by YouTube video essayists like Jacob Geller3, Noah Caldwell-Gervais4, Super Eyepatch Wolf5, or hundreds of others. They, and many others, are doing good work, normalizing the discussion of games as art and analyzing them as art. So good, in fact, that they serve as the primary counterexample to my previous statement that “we don’t treat games like art.”6 Those folks do.
But — even moving past the fact that the vast majority of the gaming industry and public are not a part of that scene of analysis, even as viewers — I do find the way even they discuss games to be missing a critical element. Namely, to reference CritPoint’s brilliant blog post again: none of these people, at least that I am aware of, have had the time to “tell Roger Ebert that Tetris is art.”7 That is to say: even amongst those who are analyzing games artistically, they are still only able to single out specific examples of particularly artistic games, and not analyzing individual games beyond those as art.
This is not to blame them — they are essayists and videographers, after all, not reviewers. They do not have infinite time, nor could they do all the impressive work that they do if they had to stop and say their thoughts on Hello Kitty Island Adventure8. They are not reviewers, and I would not expect essayists and bloggers working in the space to act like them.
And speaking of reviewers: in our industry, they — as “the people who do talk about any game” — are product reviewers. They are telling you where to spend your hard-earned money, and want to tell you what features a game does or doesn’t have that will justify (or reneg) a purchase. I would know: I am a professional reviewer, after all. And I’ve told many people to buy or not buy many games, in my time. I wasn’t thinking about art when I did.
But, that leaves a middle space. A middle space of critics who review games as art, not as products. Who discuss not the salability of a game, but its meanings, ideas, and merits. A middle space that, in other mediums, is filled by a certain type of professional critic, such as (ironically) Roger Ebert for cinema or Jerry Saltz for the world of fine art. These are not essayists — though their reviews sometimes read similarly — but they are also not product reviewers (Ebert rated movies, but the purpose of his reviews was to give his thoughts on them as art, not to give people a “buyer’s guide”).
Where is that middle space for games, though? Where is the middle discussion, where are the critics who review wide swaths of games for their artistic merits, instead of as a product to sell? Where are the people tackling not only Mouthwashing9 or the Silent Hill 2 remake10 through an artistic analysis, but also Candy Crush11, NBA 2k2512, or the newest Call of Duty (which is apparently Black Ops 613. Where’s the video game version of Ebert to come and call the newest Assassin’s Creed “reprehensible, dismaying, ugly, artless and an affront to any notion, however remote, of human decency”14? Even if it’s fun to play.
That middle space, I am sorry to say, does not exist. It could, of course. All it would take is one or several reviewers with the talent and artistic devotion to write like Jacob Geller and the practical-mindedness to write reviews for many games instead of essays for just a few. It needs people with the talent to make essays and big, artsy productions about the most important games… and then to instead write or talk about South Park: Snow Day15 as though it should “mean something” (or whatever it is art is “supposed” to do).
If games are art, after all, then all games are art. And for them to be considered legitimate as art, they need critics who consider them — as a whole, not only individual examples — to be art.
But if games are art (which they are), then they are mostly sloppy. Unrefined. Even the best, most artistic games have artistic flaws that make them imperfect as art, but which go unnoticed because they are perfect (or nearly so) as a product. And among games that are less than perfect? An obsession over salability has meant that a bad game just doesn’t get discussed from an artistic lens at all, and that a good game with little artistry (usually meaning one with little narrative) will not be critiqued as a serious piece of art, but only as a toy. Ultrakill16 goes in the “time-waster” bucket as Angry Birds17, in that there are no loud critics willing to call both “art” and say why and how.
So, maybe you agree with me. Maybe you think that games are art, and that they deserve artistic critique on their own merits. Not as products, but as pieces. Artistic critique that takes into account their many facets and sharp-edges. Critique which isn’t afraid to call a game that sucks art, and can explain how it fails as art.
But, even if you are… So what? The video game industry is entrenched in the status quo, deeply and stubbornly consumerist to the point of artistic apathy. Those voices that do highlight games as art are relatively weak, and only exist to reify games that already fit the mold of what “games that are art” looks like. And the middle ground… well, it just doesn’t exist.
And here I come along, arrogant and pretentious, to state that “well, actually, what we need is someone like me who can review a lot of games, but do it artsy. I’m basically Roger Ebert for games!” Even if it wasn’t so egotistical, it would still be blindly optimistic, wouldn’t it? Not to mention overcommital…
But, still, I’m here to say that, yes. That is the solution. If you are here, I must assume you already follow others who analyze games as art, so you know as well as I do that there is a hunger for this kind of critique, one covering a wider swath of the industry than current video essayists and academics are able to.
And so, the call to action is simple: if you want there to be critique of video games that legitimizes them as art, then follow me and people like me. Or take this as reason inspiration to start writing yourself. Use this jumping off point to talk to others who want the same. Join communities, and rally behind figures doing what you want to see.
For my part, I want to create critique like what I’ve discussed above: I want to be a critic of games as art pieces. And I want to engage in the discussion of games as art, and I want to hear about anyone else creating the kind of critique that treats games as art. It will need to start small, of course, but how does anything start?
It starts, in fact, with one step.
Next week, I will create the first of my reviews for this site. Unlike the kinds of reviews I might write for an outlet interested in games as a product, I will instead discuss a game that no one discusses as art, and tell you not only why it is, but what I think about it. Maybe I’ll tear into it, call it “intellectually vapid,” or maybe I’ll say it is “the harbinger of greater things to come in the realms of interactive storytelling.” Most likely, it’ll be somewhere in between those two extremes. Most art is.
I do not expect to do it alone. Art creation may be solitary, but culture is not. And so I invite you, dear reader, to join me in this, and to point me towards the others that are doubtless doing the same. I will work with whoever I can to validate this medium of art that I love, and maybe — with a bit of luck and a lot more connections — we can make something with this that can change perception and broaden horizons, at least within our bubble.
See you next week, reader.
Butcher's Creek is not sufficiently brave enough in its narrative, gameplay, or aesthetics to continue…
How Games Deal with Beginnings
For a bunch of good reasons and even more bad ones.
A low-poly pillar of indie horror, Paratopic earns its moody, off-kilter reputation.
With gun customization that gives weapons personality, Ground Branch is a competent tactical shooter that…
Artistic discussion of games has long lagged behind other mediums, and everyone involved with games…