The what now?
For as long as I can remember in my life there has always been some debate about what part of a game is better, or more impactfull/important than the other parts. A classic example of this is game play versus graphics. For example, can good game play make up for terrible graphics, or, can great graphics compensate for bad game play? Right there we see two modules, or parts that make up a game. The game play, and the graphics. For the simplicity's sake, I want to keep this discussion to just video games, and not board games, or sports. What are the parts, or modules that make up a game? Well I think they are
- Game play/mechanics
- Graphics/visual representation of what is going on
- SFX
- Soundtrack
- Story
Each of those parts make up what a video game is. Each one by itself is not a game, but together they make one. Game play alone is just theory about how the game will play. Visual representations of the game by themselves are art. SFX alone are just sounds, and a soundtrack is just that it is by itself. And a story is a story, but cannot be a game in and of itself. Some games stress one piece over the others, but each game has some representation of each piece.
"Oh but Obediah, what about multiplayer only games? Where's the story there?!?"
Well, in each round of Counter Strike, LoL, or any other such game is it's own story. The match starts, there is conflict in the middle, and then it ends with the victory of one team over the other. ESports are compelling because of these stories. We want to experience first hand the story of CLG against Team Solo Mid. A video game does not exist without each one of these elements. A conscious choice was made by the game designers about each one.
Now to the point.
We should not be analyzing games based on their story or soundtrack alone. They do not exist in a vacuum. So debates about ludology vs naratology and the like do us no good. They are destructive and are unable to analyze a game fully. We should not debate whether graphics or soundtrack are better for a game, each one is needed for that game, and any one game needs to be analyzed with all of them in mind. You can't analyze the story of Bastion without the soundtrack. It is an integral medium of how Super Giant tells the story. In theory we could exchange the SFX in Battlefield with those of LoL, but not only would that change what both games are, I don't think we should do that. Games are not modular. We think they are. We analyze them as such, we study them like they are, but they aren't. Yes it takes all five elements to make a game, but if you change one of them out for another it becomes a different game. Therefore we need to talk about video games in reference to the whole thing, not just one part.
Yes, designers make decisions to emphasize one part over the other, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. Each element is there contributing to the whole. The entire game needs to be designed well, but as long as it is, unorthodox choices about how to implement each element become part of that games style. Pixel art is no longer considered "bad graphics" and games like Limbo with very minimalistic graphics can be very successful. The most influential, and 'best' games have executed each element masterfully. They have not ignored a single element.
A video game is one thing, not many
As long as we continue to argue about what element of a game is more important than the other, we will prevent ourselves from analyzing whole games as art. Right now we say "Oh the music in this game was beautiful" or "look at the art design" and even "the writing was great!" This mentality is holding gaming back as an art and industry.
No comments:
Post a Comment