The title How to Talk About Videogames might give the wrong idea when you pick up video game critic Ian Bogost’s latest book. The “how to” part of the title implies a methodical approach on the best way to do something, but Bogost entirely rejects this method as he attempts to tackle the emerging field of video game critical theory. Literature, cinema, and art theory textbooks address frameworks, theories, and methodologies that authoritatively outline the best approaches to understanding their respective mediums. This is neither how to guide nor theoretical textbook, but rather a showcase or anthology of unidentified critical approaches in action. In his book, Bogost addresses the absurdity yet necessity of critiquing video games in his introduction “Nobody Asked for a Toaster Critic.” What follows is a selection of his own critical writings on everything from the existential anguish that is the Mario Kart blue shell to how the evolution of artistry rarely shows itself in the video game medium. Each essay could be argued to operate under particular theoretical frameworks which apply to cinema, literature, and visual art, such as formalism, auteur theory, phenomenology, etc., yet Bogost never labels his critical reviews as falling under such frameworks. By doing such, by this show-don’t-tell style of “how to,” Bogost matches written form with his own theory, which is that video game theory should fall somewhere between academic and practical and that games themselves similarly fall between cultural artifact and mundane appliance.
In his approaches to various types of games, Bogost gets at some key issues in new media which we have discussed in this class, such as the topic of authorship. Who is the author of something that is created by a multitude of people in a studio concerned with financial success? How can authorship be manifested across several games created by the same people or companies? Can there be auteurs in game design? While Bogost doesn’t necessarily answer these questions, he addresses them in several of his case analyses such as the one of popular phone game Flappy Bird, the first case analysis of the book, which is appropriate because he is able to cover several aspects of gaming in a game that most people will be familiar with. His encounter with the issues of gaming aren’t quite direct, he seems to start by getting at the appeal of these games, what makes them unique, what makes them successful. Often, it is these overarching themes in gaming that are the answer. For example, it is the relationship between the author’s intent and the resulting formal elements of Flappy Bird that make it a unique case study. Bogost identifies a relationship between the attitude of the game’s creator, whose aloofness, mystery, and decision to ultimately remove the game from distribution may have something to do with the success of the game. The resulting game is one that is similarly aloof and distant, which creates a “hard to get” situation for players. The game does not reward or change to beckon the players, it simply exists as if the author created it on a whim with no intention of going above and beyond to hook players.
In this analysis of Flappy Bird Bogost judges the game based on its own merit and criteria rather than fitting it into preexisting frameworks for understanding artistic mediums. By doing this he is boldly carving out a new way of talking about an emerging technology. It could be a start to talk about the composition, narrative, audience response to, and context of Flappy Bird as one would with literature, film, and visual art, but in showing how to talk about videogames, and deciding to write a book about it, Bogost supposes that we need to go beyond existing ways of critiquing and understanding. The nature of gaming is vast, interactive, and multidimensional. A sports video game, involving aspects of existing athletics and video game mechanics, cannot be judged the same way puzzle games are. In fact, this is how Bogost starts out his chapter on puzzle games.
“It’s hard to talk about abstract puzzle games, particularly about why certain examples deserve to be called excellent ones. We can discuss their formal properties, or their sensory aesthetics, or their interfaces. We can talk about them in terms of novelty of innovation, and we can talk about them in terms of how compelling they feel to play. But observations like these seem only to scratch the surface of titles like Drop7 and Orbital. Can we talk about such games the way we talk about, say, Bioshock or Pac-Man or SimCity? Sycg games offer aboutness of some kind, whether through narrative, characterization, or simulation. In each, there are concrete topics that find representation in the rules and environments. Indeed, it’s hard to talk about abstract games precisely because they are not concrete.” (Bogost, 2013)
In fact, Bogost often talks about video games by suggesting they are hard to talk about, but attempting to do so anyway. And he often succeeds just by drawing attention to the thing. Ultimately the take away of How to Talk About Videogames is just this: to talk about videogames, you must think about them. First you encounter them, some you like, some you dislike, but there has to be a reason why. In that way it is no different than talking about any other medium, the only difference is the answers are new, complex, and ultimately somewhere between how to talk about a toaster and how to talk about the Mona Lisa.
Media Example:
Nidhogg, to be discussed in report.
No comments:
Post a Comment