Monday, February 05, 2007

Pretty On the Outside...

I finally got a chance to play Gears of War, and to see Lost Planet. It was an experience. These games look amazing. Not even like "oh wow the snow looks really great" or "wow, there isn't any pixelation at all!" or "gee that box sure falls like a box!". It's like "wow.....this looks real. Like, it looks like it's happening. I believe it!" Amazing tools for storytelling. And so far, from the little ive seen, I like Eternal Darkness better.

I really didn't think that Eternal Darkness would get under my skin the way it did, but it was just so well done! The atmosphere and the drama and the way the game flowed in and out of story, and the way it was continually exciting, for different reasons, the whole way through! A really well made game! What was the main problem I had with it, that would make me not say to a non gamer "hey, you should play this"? All the things that Gears of War impressed me with Eternal Darkness lacks. We made fun of the graphics and teased the poor animation and jeered the video-game-like suspention of disbelief that comes with having to give so many silly commands and having weapons conveniently placed in your path. It isn't real. Yet it was such a more well rounded experience than my limited one with GoW has been.

By the way, I've already stopped playing FF12. It's sad and I'm sure I'll pick it up again, but I really don't care right now. I'd rather be playing FF6 on my computer.

I don't know why I keep trying to justify my scruples when it comes to games. I think it's because critics and art culturs have already come to the concensus that big budgets don't make good films, or good music, or good art. While many people are on my side, that Halo simply isn't that great and SNES is the best system ever, it seems like it's very hard to convince people that big graphics and big budget don't make good game! The Final Fantasy series consistently gets high critical approval, and consistently sucks. First person shooters are praised for their microscopic changes and labeled as innovative when the DS is creating really original games that raise really interesting questions about format and even content, and are labeled as "niche". All the while, self-declared game enthusiasts complain that games are becoming homogenous and simplistic, yet still question the value of the medium as artistic. If we want games to be more sophisticated and expressive, we need to insist that it's possible! Support games that move in the direction you want them to move in. The novelty of pretty textures can only last as long as it takes for the technology to become standard. Good stories engaging gameplay last much longer. If games like Eternal Darkness had the technical research that Gears of War had, perhaps there would be something that would actually cross boundaries.

I feel like the horse I've been beating has actually decomposed and I'm just beating a dry patch dirt, but I will continue to beat said dirt until somewhere, sometime, some video game is given a place in a major entertainment news story, and someone writes Understanding Video Games.

4 comments:

Erin said...

I eat enough ice cream as it is

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Actually, you might be ineterested to know that the DS is getting the credit it deserves.

SnrIncognito said...

you know, this is particularly interesting because the references for this article state that people play video games to fulfil their psychological fantasies. statements made in such a concrete and self-assured way i always am sort of skeptical of, but when i think about it, i wonder if that's not only true for video games, but other art as well. is art enjoyable because of the fantasies it fulfills, no matter how small and simple. and if it's not true for other art, is that one of the reasons video game's haven't been fully explored? because we're only fulfilling fantasies?