Birth.
An infant has no knowledge of the outside world; the tiny bundle of wonder is like a hyper-sensitive sponge, soaking up everything in sight.
Soon after birth, the infant learns to crawl. A few months and a year down the road, it will walk. And after walking...running.
It has always been the dream of man to fly. Renaissance inventors were obsessed with the possibility and the ancient Greeks wrote of it in tragedy. To fly is to dream in day; to fly is to become something we are not. The daring required for the Wright brothers to set flight at Kitty Hawk is the same daring that put man on the Moon.
As game designers, we want to fly. We want games that are loaded with emotion and contextual meaning; we want our Godfathers, Citizen Kanes, and Midnight Cowboys, and we want them now. We want mainstream media to take us seriously.
All of us have been guilty of impatience, at one point or another. I heard an argument the other day that equated GTA and Halo to murder simulators - very fun murder simulators. I've had a lot of fun with those games, but look at the ratio of narrative driven content (involved VO on missions, NPC interaction with context, cutscenes, etc) versus empty simulation time.
But where to fill that empty space?
Two answers are given for this question. First, we should crawl - we should get a story down first that isn't confusing or boring, and has a good deal of empathy in cutscenes. GTA IV and MGS IV came very close to establishing this type of pathos, but I found MGS IV long-winded (but Kojima is an auteur, so I take that as part of the amazing whole), and GTA IV's reviews lauded it as a superior triumph in establishing player-character catharsis, but at least for me, it wasn't there in the slightest. GTA IV felt stilted and very stale, when it came to narrative, and the comparisons to some of Scorsese's best were out of line.
After we crawl, we should start walking - adopting more of the Mass Effect style in-engine story telling and keeping the player involved...and then run, etc.
The problem with this 'by-the-bricks' approach is that it's piecemeal. Art is a whole, not parts; placing things in like Lego bricks seems to fail the focus will be lacking in one area or the other. Art is a synthesis of disciplines; in literature it is the crafting of prose sentence mingled with the rhythm of words connecting together; cinema is the camera, acting, formal disciplines, et al; and where do games fit it in? A solution to a problem must be complete.
Therefore, I propose that we fly before we walk. Flying - shooting for the stars - may be a painful process. Millions of dollars could be lost. Careers could be ruined. Reality: games, depicting moving images that include life-like avatars of real-life people cost a lot of money. Mess up trying to fly, without the right parts or people, and the fall is going to be long and hard.
It's not a road that should be tread lightly.
If game designers want to make that Godfather, that Citizen Kane, take notice; those were studio pictures. It is up to the auteur - or team of auteurs - to make the game that they know they can make. It is up to the auteur to shoot for the stars and dream of flight. We went to the moon in a decade. I think that the most powerful avenue of storytelling can be reached quicker - with hard work, diligence, and attention to craft. We need to synthesize our art form; codify it and reproduce exceptional works that are clear and demonstrable products of this process.
It's out there...who's going to claim it?
They're waiting. Can you hear them?
A birth is at hand.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Saturday, November 8, 2008
The Auteur in Games: Caution and Diligence
Auteuristic theory transformed the landscape of cinema. It is not coincidence that the influence of Truffault and others' writings in Cahiers du cinéma preceded the explosion of Young Hollywood and coincided with French New Wave, which form the artistic tenets of the filmic medium today.
As has been previously stated, games are a visual medium, meaning that they at the very least involve moving images. This language has been critiqued and developed at length by the development of the film industry. The main argument of auteurism in film, when abstracted further to games, is that the author must remain agnostic of medium.
This is to say, quite plainly, that an author may write a story with a book, with a movie, or with a game, and that the neither of the mediums is superior to another, but must be used with the author's intent in mind. Examine, for a moment, the differences between the Lord of the Rings novels by J.R.R Tolkien, and the movies by Peter Jackson. They are similar, and yet remain a consistent level of quality, by virtue of their differences.
But what of the games? One playthrough of the games that accompany the trilogy finds them lacking in the breadth, scope, and drama of the movies, in addition to a host of problems in integrating the core story articulated in the books. It is here that I will posit the main argument for the advent of the auteur in games: quality.
Though a game may be fashioned by committee, it is those games which bear a significantly focused direction (the brain trust behind the first Halo, the work of Blezinsky on Gears, Molyneux's Fables, Kojima's Metal Gears, the brothers Houser on GTA III and forward). Indeed, Sam Houser has stated that his responsibilities on GTA III to be "militant on ensuring the game had a look, a sound, a story and a feel that worked."
Does not the director maintain the voice of quality for his work, in addition to the blocking and staging of mise-en-scene? It is also no secret that the Grand Theft Auto series has been one of the most prolific and successful of the past two console generations. The argument of game auteurism is that this is not a mistake, nor is the involvement of Jason Jones, Alex Seropian, and others on Halo. Abstract ad nauseum for every game with this model, and we will see a great many successes versus fewer failures.
The argument of game auteurism will say that gameplay is the brush by which the artist may paint, the words by which the writer may write. To fulfill this novel position, the game auteur must be well versed in the forms of dramatic composition, visual and aesthetic production of moving image, and the dynamics and interlocking mechanisms of complex game development.
The game auteur will also hold a singular vision for a game, and must imprint his style upon the game. Thus, the auteur must be well-versed and skilled. It will not do for an aspiring auteur to simply be a producer, or simply a writer. The game auteur must, and rightfully so, be a skilled talent unlike the rest. How else will he be able to lead a team of perhaps a hundred men, unless his skill and vision are clearly articulated with a golden touch?
Diligence must be applied to reach this virtue. To be the auteur of the game - captain of a great force of creative talent - the auteur of the game must hold himself to a higher standard. Mediocrity is the panacea for all others, but a humble approach must be taken to this role of game development. First, one must recognize that every great work of art is not perfect, and it is this ideal which must be maintained. No matter how good or proficient one has become at his art form, he may always become more proficient and efficient. In order to reach this asymptotic ideal, the auteur must hold himself to a nearly insane level of quality, and by this he will be able to demand the same standard of quality of those with which he collaborates.
Caution must be applied when articulating this belief - that the game auteur can and will produce the emotionally impacting and profoundly moving dramatic interactive story. It will not do to march into the industry and announce that 'I know how things should work, despite having less experience.' If the game auteur theory is correct, then it should arise from his or her hard work and diligence, then transfer to the suggestion that he ought to lead a game. Games are expensive labors with great monetary reward for publishers, but also great downside; if the auteur is unprepared and somehow manages to be granted control of a project at the depth he desires, he must be cautious and diligent to produce a work of unspeakable quality, else the vision of the auteur may be short lived.
It also will not, and simply will not do, for us to create games that are deigned mediocre by those who consume them. I personally hold the view that art is the product of the artist, and that a great artist cannot help to create many works that an audience will enjoy and love; hence it is to becoming a great artist must be the highest priority. This is why we must be diligent; it will do no good to posit theories on narrative in games and ways in which a story might be told better than it is currently told, if we cannot produce the desired result when it matters.
For this reason, I place a call to all who will hold this vision as kindred to their own: do not rest, do not sleep, until you are satisfied with your ability to create art. If we are diligent, we cannot fail. But diligence requires both sacrifice and humility; let us pray that we are capable of both in equally great measure.
As has been previously stated, games are a visual medium, meaning that they at the very least involve moving images. This language has been critiqued and developed at length by the development of the film industry. The main argument of auteurism in film, when abstracted further to games, is that the author must remain agnostic of medium.
This is to say, quite plainly, that an author may write a story with a book, with a movie, or with a game, and that the neither of the mediums is superior to another, but must be used with the author's intent in mind. Examine, for a moment, the differences between the Lord of the Rings novels by J.R.R Tolkien, and the movies by Peter Jackson. They are similar, and yet remain a consistent level of quality, by virtue of their differences.
But what of the games? One playthrough of the games that accompany the trilogy finds them lacking in the breadth, scope, and drama of the movies, in addition to a host of problems in integrating the core story articulated in the books. It is here that I will posit the main argument for the advent of the auteur in games: quality.
Though a game may be fashioned by committee, it is those games which bear a significantly focused direction (the brain trust behind the first Halo, the work of Blezinsky on Gears, Molyneux's Fables, Kojima's Metal Gears, the brothers Houser on GTA III and forward). Indeed, Sam Houser has stated that his responsibilities on GTA III to be "militant on ensuring the game had a look, a sound, a story and a feel that worked."
Does not the director maintain the voice of quality for his work, in addition to the blocking and staging of mise-en-scene? It is also no secret that the Grand Theft Auto series has been one of the most prolific and successful of the past two console generations. The argument of game auteurism is that this is not a mistake, nor is the involvement of Jason Jones, Alex Seropian, and others on Halo. Abstract ad nauseum for every game with this model, and we will see a great many successes versus fewer failures.
The argument of game auteurism will say that gameplay is the brush by which the artist may paint, the words by which the writer may write. To fulfill this novel position, the game auteur must be well versed in the forms of dramatic composition, visual and aesthetic production of moving image, and the dynamics and interlocking mechanisms of complex game development.
The game auteur will also hold a singular vision for a game, and must imprint his style upon the game. Thus, the auteur must be well-versed and skilled. It will not do for an aspiring auteur to simply be a producer, or simply a writer. The game auteur must, and rightfully so, be a skilled talent unlike the rest. How else will he be able to lead a team of perhaps a hundred men, unless his skill and vision are clearly articulated with a golden touch?
Diligence must be applied to reach this virtue. To be the auteur of the game - captain of a great force of creative talent - the auteur of the game must hold himself to a higher standard. Mediocrity is the panacea for all others, but a humble approach must be taken to this role of game development. First, one must recognize that every great work of art is not perfect, and it is this ideal which must be maintained. No matter how good or proficient one has become at his art form, he may always become more proficient and efficient. In order to reach this asymptotic ideal, the auteur must hold himself to a nearly insane level of quality, and by this he will be able to demand the same standard of quality of those with which he collaborates.
Caution must be applied when articulating this belief - that the game auteur can and will produce the emotionally impacting and profoundly moving dramatic interactive story. It will not do to march into the industry and announce that 'I know how things should work, despite having less experience.' If the game auteur theory is correct, then it should arise from his or her hard work and diligence, then transfer to the suggestion that he ought to lead a game. Games are expensive labors with great monetary reward for publishers, but also great downside; if the auteur is unprepared and somehow manages to be granted control of a project at the depth he desires, he must be cautious and diligent to produce a work of unspeakable quality, else the vision of the auteur may be short lived.
It also will not, and simply will not do, for us to create games that are deigned mediocre by those who consume them. I personally hold the view that art is the product of the artist, and that a great artist cannot help to create many works that an audience will enjoy and love; hence it is to becoming a great artist must be the highest priority. This is why we must be diligent; it will do no good to posit theories on narrative in games and ways in which a story might be told better than it is currently told, if we cannot produce the desired result when it matters.
For this reason, I place a call to all who will hold this vision as kindred to their own: do not rest, do not sleep, until you are satisfied with your ability to create art. If we are diligent, we cannot fail. But diligence requires both sacrifice and humility; let us pray that we are capable of both in equally great measure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)