A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Space Marine
Paul has already given something of a vivid opinion on Avatar. And me being a serial cynic of all things existent, I expected that I too would grab the brass hate-ring and hold fast while the carousel of social mania swirled itself into the ground, waiting it out until the bluegasm subsided.
Many critical accounts had already been written about the flom (such a work of hubris and fiscal obscenity virtuosity deserves its own term). I knew what the critical narrative was, and where the battle lines were being drawn. Avatar had divided people into brainers and feelers, into environmentalists and fuck-it-allists, into parts of the problem and bearers of solutions. Devin Faraci’s righteous screed on CHUD seemed to nail down the scrum from the point of view of someone who simply didn’t like being told to turn off his brain. This seemed to be the most popular dissenting view.
Won't the real Avatar please stand up?
Avatar was clearly intended for the mainest of mainstream audiences, skewing considerably towards the action-figure through frat boy age spectrum, although there is no reason that older folks wouldn’t have a grand old time too — Cameron made sure of that. Experientially, Avatar plays more like a Disneyworld ride than a traditional film, and I know for a fact that grown-ups actually have a pretty dope time on those teacups.
These more mature human males and females, given the choice, would probably still opt instead to see the latest Oscar-baiting English-Patienty movie, or an independent work by an ambitious auteur, or an international film where Judi Dench, Helen Mirren or Kate Winslet plays one of two queens. And luckily for them, they don’t have to walk far from where Avatar is playing to slake their more demanding intellectual thirst; the film industry has always embraced everything from Meet the Spartans to Primer. But there is always a stanchion at the center of pop culture around which the cinematic multitudes orbit, and these days that is Avatar.
The same holds for videogames; there is always one Grand Poobah title getting all the adspace and mindshare. Games occupying this critical spot have included some pretty important works: Grand Theft Auto 3, Super Mario Galaxy, Halo, and Fallout 3 to name a few from the past decade, and we can all look forward to the Final Fantasy XIII blitz once it drops in March. Like Avatar, these games inhabited that rarefied space transcending the videogame subculture, where everyone — not just gamers — has at least heard of them.
Mass Effect 2 may be a great game, but it’s still the intellectual equivalent of a Star Wars novel.
At the moment, Mass Effect 2 is at the gaming epicenter, having sold 1 million copies worldwide so far, and encouraging mostly enthusiastic reviews. By any account, it is a solid game, blending story and RPG elements with action gameplay both frenetic and precise. The voice acting is solid, and we are finally starting to see mouths that look like they are saying the things they are saying.
Both frat boys and the action-figure set are having a blast with it, just as with its movie-industry cultural equivalent Avatar. But what about the older, more “mature”, more intellectually inclined amongst the potential gaming public? Pretty much everyone had a good shot at a fun time when going to see Avatar, but what about Mass Effect 2? Would a college professor enjoy it? Would an insufferable asshole brainiac douchebag ever plunk down 60 bucks for the collector’s edition?
Ultimately, no. Mass Effect 2 may be a great game, but it’s still the intellectual equivalent of a Star Wars novel. It will never have any lasting cultural significance the way a blockbuster mainstream movie would. Rocky, E.T., Gone With the Wind — our culture is supercharged with films that have offered something to people of all ages and brain-types, and which will be remembered for generations. And yet, we still have not seen a video game transcend in that fashion since, well, Pac-Man. It just hasn’t happened yet. It is valid to point out that compared to cinema, video games is a nascent medium — Hollywood enjoys a 70+ year head start. But can you honestly see any trends in the videogame industry that point to an ambition of greater cultural and intellectual impact and importance?
Still waiting on NeytiriXJack slashfic ...
Fart-sniffing holier-than-thous who pooh-pooh Avatar can always go to the Herzog retrospective at the Angelika. Their needs are met. And while serious cinema obviously doesn’t inhale cash like its pop-culture cousins, it is still culturally significant, and there are numerous awards which recognize and encourage the efforts of serious filmmakers. But where is the like-minded gamer to go? If I have determined that Fallout 3 and Mass Effect 2 are a bit too Froot Loopy when I’m looking for Shredded Wheat, where is the alternative, high-minded intellectual sphere of gaming? Where is “2001: A Space Quest”? Where is “A La Recherche du Frickin’ Lasers Perdu“?
Depending on which survey you believe, the average gamer is now between 32 and 35 years old, and 4 of every 10 are women. Surely then, there is a market for a new kind of mainstream game which embraces intellectual maturity. I’m not saying we need a FPS English Patient, or a bullet-hell I Am Curious Yellow. But if Hollywood can make a movie out of Tetris, then where is “Seven Samurai: The Game” (and just try and tell me that’s not a spectacular idea)? Why are the only truly fascinating, cerebral games being made and distributed for free by isolated artists? In the film industry, even those guys are getting paid, and when they’re not getting paid, they’re getting recognition.
It’s not just an issue of the perils of acceding to a market which may or may not exist; there is also the issue of how to make a “serious” game fun, or even how to turn an intellectually rich concept or story into a game at all. But if anyone can think outside that box, it is videogame-creating geniuses like Will Wright, or Hideo Kojima. And besides, who even says video games need to be “fun to play”? I’m serious! Some of the greatest movies ever are abjectly un-fun to watch, but we recognize them as great nevertheless, and our hearts are full when we experience them, as are our minds. That kind of reaction tends to open wallets.
Games have perennially inspired predictions of superseding film as the predominant cultural pastime. When will they inch towards that next step?
PS: No, there is no Tetris movie, and yes, Avatar was completely awesome.
I happen to think there is some rather intelligent writing in Mass Effect 2, if you take the time to look past the gloss. I think it is more aligned with traditional pulp space opera than fodder for the cash-in post-film commodity market. Granted, space opera (the likes of Iain Banks or Jack Vance) doesn’t quite touch Asimov, but it certainly contains some food for thought. Consider the ongoing examination of intercultural politics in the game; the solutions provided are likewise never blanket or pat, in the predictable and insipid war-mongering fashion of American “Michael Bay” style films. There’s depth there, and an open-minded attempt to consider complex and counterfactual scenarios. Also, kudos to the game for the genuinely neutral portrayal of pansexuality (in the cases of the Asari and also Jack).
agreed that ME2 is a really solid effort. when you make a call for a higher literary pedigree from games, there’s always going to be a devoted fan somewhere arguing “but but but” for their favorite games, like Grim Fandango or Planescape Torment. but there are plenty of titles that hit this “really solid” note. none that i’ve seen which even try to reach too far beyond.
I think it’s a great point – that there’s really no such thing as an art-house market for games – really there’s no “brow” division at all (which is somewhat surprising). But a part of me thinks that trying to make games more like art films or literature would be a step in the wrong direction. I remember when Myst first came out, people talked about it as being the first video game to resemble art (largely, I think, because it was subtle and somewhat boring). But the films that are taken the most seriously as art are those that really explore what makes the medium different from other artistic media (e.g. Eisenstein’s use of editing). I predict that when video games are respected as an important art form (as, I feel, is inevitable) the great classics (the equivalents of Gone With the Wind or Casablanca) will be Super Mario Bros. 3, Warcraft and Streetfighter II, rather than Myst or other games that more closely resemble more familiar art. If brainy professors don’t play games I think it has more to do with lack of familiarity with the medium than lack of worthwhile content.
The hall of great gaming classics is still a long way off. I would be willing to bet 10 beers that its hypothetical membership will include Myst. By 2040 at the latest Sure, it was boring and infuriating, a Monkey Island without the humor, more obscure puzzles, and better(?) graphics. But it was a formative experience for many gamers, myself included. It was hailed at the time as the vanguard of “contemporary gaming” – but that trend stuttered and placed Myst instead at the vanguard of a genre of high quality hidden-click puzzlers. At least one is released by a major studio every couple of months and the indie crowd pumps them out like clockwork. Seriously, I will bet you both 10 beers.
Let’s start a (future) video game hall of fame! (F)VGHOF!