Games As Art: Round Two - Repudiating Ebert's Argument, finding Art in GTA III

So now I shall continue my argument for games as art. My previous post on the matter, for those who do not wish to suffer through it, can be summed up as follows: Games are a revolutionary art form which use the interactivity between a user and program to create an experience that expresses a significant message, statement, or emotional state. Before I resume my argument, I would like to respond to Jake's marvelous post. Thank you Jake, for proving my most important point - that "art" is different to different people. Jake seems to find any act of creation a work of art, the only quality that can be called into question is the craftsmanship and effectiveness of the product. My view is slightly different, in that Art (with a capital A, mind you) requires intent behind it other than making a profit - hence why most games are disqualified. For example, I don't really consider the Mona Lisa Art. It's a masterpiece of a painting, but as far as I can tell, it's just a portrait, a master painter's attempt to render a compelling image as true to life as possible. Honestly, I don't care - it doesn't change the fact that it's a beautiful and compelling painting. But I digress. Ebert's main argument against games is as follows: "There is a structural reason for that: Video games by their nature require player choices, which is the opposite of the strategy of serious film and literature, which requires authorial control." Anyone who has ever played or designed a game can tell that Mr. Ebert has done neither. Allow me to point out the biggest hole in this argument: Every one of those player choices has to be programmed by a designer. Every last one. In fact, this vision of games as full of player choice is something that the industry has been pursuing for years, with varying degrees of success. Player choice in games, especially with regards to how it affects the overall vision, are miniscule. Let's take GTA III as our example: This game is heaped with praise about being open ended and driven by player choice, and yet there really isn't all that much freedom, from a narrative perspective. Sure, you can run around and cause mayhem and hijack cars at will, but to experience anything other than a very basic game, one has to engage in tightly scripted missions. A player also has no control over the narrative - every player who finished the game is going to complete the main missions, and get the exact same ending. You can't undermine the premise of the game (being a criminal in faux-NYC) by, say, turning yourself in and working as an informant. And why not? Because the designers did not want the player to have that option. One might say that such an option is denied the player by those with "authorial control." Moving on, I would like everyone here to recall the last literature class that you had. Somebody in that class (and this always happens) brought up some exteremely tenous or subtle symbolism, or metaphor, or something, and you thought to yourself "What? You, good Sir (or Madame, for the gentler sex is no less inclined to such flights of fancy), are reading far too much into this. Or perhaps you are making this shit up." Possibly at the time you were polishing your monocle, or puffing thoughtfully on a pipe. The point is, it's very easy to read complexity and depth into things where it doesn't exist. As an example, I'm going to employ GTA III again. Observe: *Ahem* Grand Theft Auto III, or GTA III as it is more commonly known, is largely acclaimed within gaming circles as being brilliant and denounced by everyone else as a corrupting "murder simulator" that sickens the minds of young innocents. However, both parties are missing out on the subtle commentary that GTA provides both on American culture and the Human Condition. GTA is a hyper-violent game set in a city that is clearly directly inspired by New York City. The story follows the rise of a criminal as he shoots, steals, and murders his way to the top of the criminal underworld. Every "mission" assigned to the player by his superiors invariably involves destruction - whether it is murdering the key witness in a case, or "whacking" an informant, or even destroying a cargo ship used by a rival gang to move drugs. But this seemingly mindless violence is very intentional, both in its hyperbolic intensity and seemingly bad taste. Our first clue to the true nature of this game is its developers, Rockstar, a company based in England. Thus the game is by its very nature a commentary on Amercian culture by an outside observer. By examining the game, we can see certain elements popping up time and time again: 1) A glorification of weapons and violence 2) Material possesions being elevated above human life (the notorious "killing a hooker for cash") 3) The relative value placed on human life, especially those of poor and minorites, is very little 4) There is little confidence in the ability of the police to protect citizens, in fact, the police are brutal and seem to relish in using brutality for offences against officers, even minor ones such as lightly bumping a police car with your own. Traffic violations, however, are ignored, as is behaving like a hooligan and recklessly endangering others. This seems to suggest a perception of the Police force as an establishment unconcerned with the maintainence of an orderly society, and more with protecting its own members and standing. In fact, the stiffest penalty faced by even a mass murderer caught by the police is an afternoon in jail and a fine. 5) There is no way for the player to progress in society without resorting to crime. This can be read as a commentary on the idea of the "American Dream" and upward mobility, or rather the lack of it for those without connections or money. In a more meta narrative, the game says this about players: 1) People will enjoy engaging in consequence-free depravity. 2) Most players will at some point, for pure amusement, use weapon and armor cheats to rampage through the city with no intention other than to cause as much mayhem as possible. 3) There are few consequences for failure, even death is little more than a hassle. 4) Massive numbers of people enjoy the extreme violence, over the top gore, and large quantities of sex. These things hold mass appeal Thus, a discerning look at GTA will reveal that there is quite a statement being made about how America is percieved by the outside world. The Hyper-violence and sex-crazed game is actually quite subtle in its message. See? You can do this to any game. Look at it from a different angle and WHAM! Instant Depth! Now I'm pretty sure that the above was not what Rockstart had in mind when they were creating the game, so I wouldn't call it art. In fact the above is bullshit. It's interesting to think about, and (if I say so myself) could be used as the basis for some very interesting discussions, but I really just pulled it out of my ass for this article. The fact remains that games can say a lot if you are willing to look carefully. Next: The Impact of Commercialization on Games As Art, plus a critique of System Shock 2 followed by a side by side comparision of than game and Bioshock. Then: Interactivity as an Art form, Planescape: Torment critique.