Transcending the Gaming Mechanic and Becoming Art
Video games are the newest form of media industry. Forms such as music, film and television are the main forces in the industry with video games slowly getting into the action. These other forms of media can be declared as art or having artistic value. Video games however are not commonly seen or agreed upon as prominent forms of art. The main aggressor who maintains the perceptive that videogames cannot be art is film critic Roger Ebert: “Let me just say that no video gamer now living will survive long enough to experience the medium as an art form” (Ebert 2010). He believes that videogames cannot and will never be art which is the position he has stood by since the debate was provoked. When we break down his argument and explore each premise it can be seen that videogames can be art and may have the potential to be a new kind of interactive art. His changing arguments for why video games can never be art show that he is grasping straws and is echoing past sediments of others who denied the art label to other popular forms of media. Also we can see that the origin of video games parallel the origin of film as discussed by Henry Jenkins. The video game art debate also parallels the debate of film as art from most notably argued for by Gilbert Seldes. When we dissect Roger Ebert’s argument against video games as art, study its origin, evolving nature and interactive nature it can be seen that they are a new form of art which pushes the perception of art further than any other medium. To begin it is best to outline Roger Ebert’s argument against videogames as an art form which has inspired this debate.
Roger Ebert’s main subject of expertise is film. So his view of art is subjected and dictated in his view of film as art. His definition of art seems to change every time he describes what can be considered art and its parameters, but here is a basic paraphrase of his definition; art has an authorial control of a single artist or collection artists who are unified by a common purpose that leads you to an inevitable conclusion. In 2005 he responded to a reader who questioned why Ebert believed that video games as a medium cannot be art:
Video games by their nature require player choices, which is the opposite of the strategy of serious film and literature, which requires authorial control. I am prepared to believe that video games can be elegant, subtle, sophisticated, challenging and visually wonderful. But I believe the nature of the medium prevents it from moving beyond craftsmanship to the stature of art. (Ebert 2005)
So the nature in which a game exists as being an interactive media form that requires a player input and changes the outcome cannot be art according to Ebert. He also believes that games cannot be art because of, “One obvious difference between art and games is that you can win a game. It has rules, points, objectives, and an outcome (Ebert 3).” So he adds that rules negate video games as being art. He also concludes that sports games and board games like video games also have rules and are not considered art, but I will not digress into the comparison of video games and sports games.
Mr. Ebert believes that film is art and that it separates itself from video games because of its nature and structure. If we examine the early iterations and origin of cinema we can see that early videogames parallel that structure. Early films such as Edison’s The Kiss and the Lumière brothers’ Workers Leaving the Factory were more focused on the ability of film being a mode of capture and visual exhibition. These early films show that the nature of film began primarily as a mode of simple capture and visual exhibition and not envisioned or utilized as an expressive or elaborate art form. It is only after experimentation, time and advancement in technology that film started to structure itself as a narrative form, which transcended beyond the mechanic nature of film. This progress of film as an evolving and becoming a more diverse form was encouraged by audience demand and prospective commercial use of film. Ebert has a response to early video games being compared to silent cinema. In his journal entry brashly entitled “Video games can never be art” he is responding to Kellee Santiago who presents arguments for video games already being art, and compares early film to early simple games. Ebert refutes this comparison by stating that, “I'm hopelessly handicapped because of my love of cinema, but Méliès seems to me vastly more advanced than her three modern video games. He has limited technical resources, but superior artistry and imagination (Ebert 2010).” He believes that Méliès’ Le voyage dans la lune is vastly superior to the modern video games she displays but does not account for why it is. What makes its artistry superior? How is it more imaginative than being the wind in the game flower blowing flower pedals to create a balance between the natural environment and urban decay? How is it more creative than Braid’s time manipulation that creates an emotional connection to past mistakes and regret? It seems that he dismisses any kind of analysis between early film and modern games based on little discerning premises.
This shift from a mechanistic structure to a more realized aesthetic value can be seen in Gilbert Seldes’ views from Henry Jenkins article “Art Form in the Digital Age”. In 1925 Gilbert Seldes, the leading literary and arts critic, claimed that cinema can have aesthetic value even though it was a popular culture and not high culture. At the time Seldes claims were dismissed and considered very controversial by those who claimed the status of their medium as art. This is currently similar to the video game debate today. There is an established collective with a concept of art with which their medium fits that descriptor and any new popular medium is dismissed as mindless entertainment for the simple masses. Seldes referred to film as a ‘lively art’, to which Jenkins claims video games are too. He also acknowledges the origins of film and how it has progressed as summarized by Jenkins,” They took the very machinery of the industrial age, which many felt dehumanizing, and found within it the resources for expressing individual visions, for reasserting basic human needs, desires and fantasies (Jenkins).”
The origin of film shares the same origin of video games as being pure mechanical in nature. Where in early film its function was to capture and exhibit the image without explicate context or significant content. The same can be seen in early video games where the function was to manipulate the virtual space in a manner without profound consequence or influential content. They both existed as a pure mechanical medium that results in no further intellectual, emotional or intense consideration. When Henry Jenkins wrote his article, in early 2000, he acknowledges that games have not broken through their mechanical nature yet. He states that “[t]he problem with most contemporary games isn't that they are violent but that they are banal, formulaic and predictable (Jenkins).” They are still in his mind formulaic or still follow their mechanic roots. Given that this article was written before the Playstation 2 was released he saw the potential for games to shift into a medium of artistic worth. I believe that the shift from a mechanic nature to a more complex and artistic nature has transpired. I will discuss what video game has shown that this shift has already happened, but first I will explore Ebert’s limitations argument.
When Ebert stresses that in games you have rules, objectives and player choices which are the opposite strategies of film and literature he fails to recognize that those are also present in film and literature. Films and literature have rules that regulate the abilities of the characters that inhabitant their world. Rules exist that limit the characters and give the audience an understanding of how the character that they relate to operates in that world. This applies to both video games and film worlds. For example in the film The Matrix we are told the rules of the world when Neo learns that death in the matrix results in death in the real world. This creates a structured world with ‘rules’ in which we know the limits of characters in that world. When referring to objectives or player goals in games it can be seen that characters in film also have objectives: Luke has to destroy the Death Star, Neo has to defeat Agent Smith, and Spiderman has to save Mary Jane. Ebert may say that these films are not art or ‘high’ art but what about Citizen Kane (1941), it has objectives too. For instance, the reporter Jerry Thompson’s objective is to discover what ‘Rosebud’ means and what kind of man Charles Foster Kane was. Ebert might declare that the characters have objectives or goals but the audience does not, they are free to interact with the movie and are not limited by objectives. The problem is that film narratives rely on the audience to identify with a character to establish an emotional connection which heightens and intensifies the participation of the audience. Video games also have this participation but seem to heighten this connection and involvement with player outcome. Ebert says that the player outcome negates the video games as a form of art. To which I say that the ability for a player to change the outcome of their experience enhances their connection to that character they are identifying with. When the player operates as an active participate in a virtual world they establish a deeper emotional connection to that game character. The player is concerned with each action and their consequence because of this connection and will participate in this world accordingly to this connection. So since the player has an impact on the outcome of the experience they will have a deeper experience and emotional journey that pushes what art can be as I will discuss next.
In terms of video games being art I believe that they are a new form of art that cannot conform to the established classification of other media forms. Henry Jenkins calls video games a “lively art” because,”They open up new aesthetic experiences and transform the computer screen into a realm of experimentation and innovation that is broadly accessible (Jenkins).” The key in video games as being considered art is their interactive nature. Since video games rely heavily on player interaction the connection to the virtual world must be firm and significant. This means that the players experience in this world relies on three key components, the visual and audio aspect, interactive aspect and narrative aspect. Each component must work towards a common goal that establishes a deep emotional experience and connection for the player. The game that best utilizes these components is the Playstation 2 title Shadow of the Colossus. In this game the ‘player’ takes the role of a young man Wander who journeys in seek of a power to resurrect a girl named Mono. His journey takes him to an ancient forbidden land where he is instructed by a disembodied voice Dormin to seek out and destroy each Colossus. A Colossus is a large creature that exists in various sizes, forms and has different abilities. Only after he defeats each Colossus will Dormin help him resurrect Mono. The ancient land is desolate with Wander only having the company of Argo, his trusted horse. The ‘game’ creates a sense of loneliness that creates a certain character bond between the ‘player’ and Wander.
For the component of visual and audio experience I do not mean the ‘realness’ or accurate representation of nature but the visual and audio impression of a virtual world. This impression must leave an overwhelming sense of emotional attachment and response on the participant to the affect that they exist consciously reverent in this virtual space. Shadow of the Colossus has this effect on IGN Editor Chris Roper:
Whereas most games rely on scattering their environments with living and breathing creatures, intricate structures, various types of foliage and the like to bring their worlds to life, the near-complete lack of any of these in the world of Shadow of the Colossus forces you to essentially paint your own picture of how the world came to be as it is, why it is essentially a wasteland, or even a prison if you will, for the colossi that inhabit said land. Shadow of the Colossus is a visual masterpiece in this regard. (Roper)
Also when it comes to the audio aspect he says:
The soundtrack perfectly matches with the tone of each battle, with the first being somewhat upbeat as you can basically have your way with the first colossus, while the last is something much more downtrodden and somber in tone, with each track in-between blending the ends together in a very natural manner.(Roper)
Both of these excerpts show that the visual and audio aspects create an impression that intrigues the participant to be consciously and emotionally involved in relevance to the virtual world. Both work in conjunction towards a single experience and theme. The world creates a sense of self awareness and position to the affect that you emotionally exist in that world. These aspects by themselves do not show the game as an art form but are critical in creating a sensory experience for the participant.
The second aspect that shows video games as an art form is their unique interactive nature. This is what separates video games from other forms of media and this is also where the latest innovations have taken place. To continue the use of Shadow of the Colossus I will turn to Destroid’s Joseph Leray’s experience with the games controls and how he believes that they contribute to the artistry of the game. The games controls are very simple; there’s a jump button, a hold/grab button, a sword action button, etc. Its not that the buttons and how they are mapped to the controller that is artistic but how they reinforce the artistry of the overall game vision. For example Joseph states the way the hold button works in conjunction with Wander, “You don't just push R1, you have to hold it. The physical associations between holding onto a ledge and holding down the R1 button allow the player to always have a connection to Wander” (Leray). This allows the participant a more intense interaction and connection with Wander. How does this contribute to the art of the overall experience? Simple, this interactivity and interdependency with Wander creates an emotional connection that makes the participant more conscious of his impact in this world. You desperately hold the R1 button as if you are Wander clinging to the side of a Colossus that is trying to shake you off. The interaction of the button press becomes more important because of what that input means in the virtual space and related character. The participant becomes conscious in this world through the extension of the character, and once that conscious connection reaches a certain emotional peak each button press has a deeper significance, implication and consequence to the participant. Joseph sums this up with his declaration, “Again, the player is never separated from Wander and controls all his physical actions, that is to say there is never a rift between what's happening on-screen and what's happening in your hand” (Leray).
The third aspect, narrative value, is one that has the strongest artistic value for it comes from the earliest forms of entertainment, storytelling. Instead of deferring to other people’s experience with Shadow of the Colossus I will express my own experiences with the title’s narrative and acknowledge the other two aspects. As I described before you are Wander exploring this ancient desolate world where your only companion is your horse Argo. This creates a strong bond between you and Argo because you rely heavily on each other and there are no other living objects to interact with, except the Colossus. This relationship and its importance becomes very apparent when Argo sacrifices himself to save Wander. This comes very late in the game after you have trusted the steed to always be there and now you are alone. In my personal experience when this happened I was overwhelmed by sadness. I even remember saying ‘no’ when he sacrificed himself and fell into the ravine. I stopped playing the game and became emotionally connected with it and cared about the characters outcome. I never felt that way about a ‘game’ before, I never talked to the screen as if it would respond and I never felt so alive in a virtual world. As the narrative progress each Colossus you destroy you absorb a dark energy. Each time you absorb this energy your skin pales and small horns begin to grow from your head. After you defeat the last Colossus and absorb all the dark energy it turns out that Dormin was using Wander to resurrect himself. The dark energy creates Wander into Dormin and it becomes apart that the Colossi were protecting the ancient land by each holding a portion of Dormin. So the narrative switches from you being the protagonist to becoming the antagonist and all your progress was done for the means of evil. This narrative would not have as great of an impact if it not for the visual, audio and interactive artistry. The experiences that Chris Roper and Joseph Leray had both apply to my own experience. I was also dazzled by the visuals and audio and how that evoked a sense of wonder for me. I also remember clamoring to hold the R1 button as I fought a Colossus fearing the result if I let go. All of these components work towards a single artistic purpose and become something greater than each one separately. In the case of Shadow the visuals create a desolate environment, the soundtrack creates alludes the sense of adventure and loneliness and the narrative creates a journey of solitude and sorrow. If this experience was not from a piece of art then I don’t know what art is.
It seems that Ebert focuses too much and emphasizes the concept of ‘game’ and doesn’t realize or acknowledge that games have evolved beyond their initial gaming mechanistic origin. It seems that the word game is a misnomer for some current titles that have moved past the simple mechanics that established the medium. Roger Ebert has confessed that he has never played a game but is very easy to judge its worth as not having the capacities to exist as an artistic medium. He fails to recognize that the nature of the game has changed. One quote that Roger Ebert uses to dismiss video games as art I see as supporting it as an interactive art, “I believe art is created by an artist. If you change it, you become the artist” (Ebert 2007). I believe that video games have a shared artistry that has more dynamic methods than say film. Video games have shifted from a pure mechanical nature to a more lively interactive art, which parallels the shift of film. By examining the three components of the Shadow of the Colossus we can see that there is something more than an input output device. The audience is less of a player and more of a participant; they are not playing a game but experiencing an emotional voyage. We can see that video games have transcended their mechanical nature and have become art. Video games will change what we think of art, forever.
Bibliography
Ebert, Roger. “Answer Man.” RogerEbert.com 27 November 2005. <http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=ANSWERMAN&date=20051127>.
Ebert, Roger. “Games vs. Art: Ebert vs. Barker.” RogerEbert.com 21 July 2007.
<http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070721/COMMENTARY/70721001>.
Ebert, Roger. “Video games can never be art.” Roger Ebert’s Journal 16 April 2010.
<http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04/video_games_can_never_be_art.html>.
Jenkins, Henry. “Art From in the Digital Age.” Technology Review (MIT) September 2000.
Leray, Joesph. “Shadow of the Colossus’ controls are an exercise in art.” Destroid. 29 February 2008. < http://www.destructoid.com/shadow-of-the-colossus-controls-are-an-exercise-in-art-72997.phtml>.
Santiago, Kellee. “Video Games Are Art.” TEDxUSC Conference. 29 March 2009.
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9y6MYDSAww&feature=player_embedded>.
Roper, Chris. “Shadow of the Colossus Review.” IGN. 18 October 2005. <http://ps2.ign.com/articles/658/658991p1.html>.
Video games are the newest form of media industry. Forms such as music, film and television are the main forces in the industry with video games slowly getting into the action. These other forms of media can be declared as art or having artistic value. Video games however are not commonly seen or agreed upon as prominent forms of art. The main aggressor who maintains the perceptive that videogames cannot be art is film critic Roger Ebert: “Let me just say that no video gamer now living will survive long enough to experience the medium as an art form” (Ebert 2010). He believes that videogames cannot and will never be art which is the position he has stood by since the debate was provoked. When we break down his argument and explore each premise it can be seen that videogames can be art and may have the potential to be a new kind of interactive art. His changing arguments for why video games can never be art show that he is grasping straws and is echoing past sediments of others who denied the art label to other popular forms of media. Also we can see that the origin of video games parallel the origin of film as discussed by Henry Jenkins. The video game art debate also parallels the debate of film as art from most notably argued for by Gilbert Seldes. When we dissect Roger Ebert’s argument against video games as art, study its origin, evolving nature and interactive nature it can be seen that they are a new form of art which pushes the perception of art further than any other medium. To begin it is best to outline Roger Ebert’s argument against videogames as an art form which has inspired this debate.
Roger Ebert’s main subject of expertise is film. So his view of art is subjected and dictated in his view of film as art. His definition of art seems to change every time he describes what can be considered art and its parameters, but here is a basic paraphrase of his definition; art has an authorial control of a single artist or collection artists who are unified by a common purpose that leads you to an inevitable conclusion. In 2005 he responded to a reader who questioned why Ebert believed that video games as a medium cannot be art:
Video games by their nature require player choices, which is the opposite of the strategy of serious film and literature, which requires authorial control. I am prepared to believe that video games can be elegant, subtle, sophisticated, challenging and visually wonderful. But I believe the nature of the medium prevents it from moving beyond craftsmanship to the stature of art. (Ebert 2005)
So the nature in which a game exists as being an interactive media form that requires a player input and changes the outcome cannot be art according to Ebert. He also believes that games cannot be art because of, “One obvious difference between art and games is that you can win a game. It has rules, points, objectives, and an outcome (Ebert 3).” So he adds that rules negate video games as being art. He also concludes that sports games and board games like video games also have rules and are not considered art, but I will not digress into the comparison of video games and sports games.
Mr. Ebert believes that film is art and that it separates itself from video games because of its nature and structure. If we examine the early iterations and origin of cinema we can see that early videogames parallel that structure. Early films such as Edison’s The Kiss and the Lumière brothers’ Workers Leaving the Factory were more focused on the ability of film being a mode of capture and visual exhibition. These early films show that the nature of film began primarily as a mode of simple capture and visual exhibition and not envisioned or utilized as an expressive or elaborate art form. It is only after experimentation, time and advancement in technology that film started to structure itself as a narrative form, which transcended beyond the mechanic nature of film. This progress of film as an evolving and becoming a more diverse form was encouraged by audience demand and prospective commercial use of film. Ebert has a response to early video games being compared to silent cinema. In his journal entry brashly entitled “Video games can never be art” he is responding to Kellee Santiago who presents arguments for video games already being art, and compares early film to early simple games. Ebert refutes this comparison by stating that, “I'm hopelessly handicapped because of my love of cinema, but Méliès seems to me vastly more advanced than her three modern video games. He has limited technical resources, but superior artistry and imagination (Ebert 2010).” He believes that Méliès’ Le voyage dans la lune is vastly superior to the modern video games she displays but does not account for why it is. What makes its artistry superior? How is it more imaginative than being the wind in the game flower blowing flower pedals to create a balance between the natural environment and urban decay? How is it more creative than Braid’s time manipulation that creates an emotional connection to past mistakes and regret? It seems that he dismisses any kind of analysis between early film and modern games based on little discerning premises.
This shift from a mechanistic structure to a more realized aesthetic value can be seen in Gilbert Seldes’ views from Henry Jenkins article “Art Form in the Digital Age”. In 1925 Gilbert Seldes, the leading literary and arts critic, claimed that cinema can have aesthetic value even though it was a popular culture and not high culture. At the time Seldes claims were dismissed and considered very controversial by those who claimed the status of their medium as art. This is currently similar to the video game debate today. There is an established collective with a concept of art with which their medium fits that descriptor and any new popular medium is dismissed as mindless entertainment for the simple masses. Seldes referred to film as a ‘lively art’, to which Jenkins claims video games are too. He also acknowledges the origins of film and how it has progressed as summarized by Jenkins,” They took the very machinery of the industrial age, which many felt dehumanizing, and found within it the resources for expressing individual visions, for reasserting basic human needs, desires and fantasies (Jenkins).”
The origin of film shares the same origin of video games as being pure mechanical in nature. Where in early film its function was to capture and exhibit the image without explicate context or significant content. The same can be seen in early video games where the function was to manipulate the virtual space in a manner without profound consequence or influential content. They both existed as a pure mechanical medium that results in no further intellectual, emotional or intense consideration. When Henry Jenkins wrote his article, in early 2000, he acknowledges that games have not broken through their mechanical nature yet. He states that “[t]he problem with most contemporary games isn't that they are violent but that they are banal, formulaic and predictable (Jenkins).” They are still in his mind formulaic or still follow their mechanic roots. Given that this article was written before the Playstation 2 was released he saw the potential for games to shift into a medium of artistic worth. I believe that the shift from a mechanic nature to a more complex and artistic nature has transpired. I will discuss what video game has shown that this shift has already happened, but first I will explore Ebert’s limitations argument.
When Ebert stresses that in games you have rules, objectives and player choices which are the opposite strategies of film and literature he fails to recognize that those are also present in film and literature. Films and literature have rules that regulate the abilities of the characters that inhabitant their world. Rules exist that limit the characters and give the audience an understanding of how the character that they relate to operates in that world. This applies to both video games and film worlds. For example in the film The Matrix we are told the rules of the world when Neo learns that death in the matrix results in death in the real world. This creates a structured world with ‘rules’ in which we know the limits of characters in that world. When referring to objectives or player goals in games it can be seen that characters in film also have objectives: Luke has to destroy the Death Star, Neo has to defeat Agent Smith, and Spiderman has to save Mary Jane. Ebert may say that these films are not art or ‘high’ art but what about Citizen Kane (1941), it has objectives too. For instance, the reporter Jerry Thompson’s objective is to discover what ‘Rosebud’ means and what kind of man Charles Foster Kane was. Ebert might declare that the characters have objectives or goals but the audience does not, they are free to interact with the movie and are not limited by objectives. The problem is that film narratives rely on the audience to identify with a character to establish an emotional connection which heightens and intensifies the participation of the audience. Video games also have this participation but seem to heighten this connection and involvement with player outcome. Ebert says that the player outcome negates the video games as a form of art. To which I say that the ability for a player to change the outcome of their experience enhances their connection to that character they are identifying with. When the player operates as an active participate in a virtual world they establish a deeper emotional connection to that game character. The player is concerned with each action and their consequence because of this connection and will participate in this world accordingly to this connection. So since the player has an impact on the outcome of the experience they will have a deeper experience and emotional journey that pushes what art can be as I will discuss next.
In terms of video games being art I believe that they are a new form of art that cannot conform to the established classification of other media forms. Henry Jenkins calls video games a “lively art” because,”They open up new aesthetic experiences and transform the computer screen into a realm of experimentation and innovation that is broadly accessible (Jenkins).” The key in video games as being considered art is their interactive nature. Since video games rely heavily on player interaction the connection to the virtual world must be firm and significant. This means that the players experience in this world relies on three key components, the visual and audio aspect, interactive aspect and narrative aspect. Each component must work towards a common goal that establishes a deep emotional experience and connection for the player. The game that best utilizes these components is the Playstation 2 title Shadow of the Colossus. In this game the ‘player’ takes the role of a young man Wander who journeys in seek of a power to resurrect a girl named Mono. His journey takes him to an ancient forbidden land where he is instructed by a disembodied voice Dormin to seek out and destroy each Colossus. A Colossus is a large creature that exists in various sizes, forms and has different abilities. Only after he defeats each Colossus will Dormin help him resurrect Mono. The ancient land is desolate with Wander only having the company of Argo, his trusted horse. The ‘game’ creates a sense of loneliness that creates a certain character bond between the ‘player’ and Wander.
For the component of visual and audio experience I do not mean the ‘realness’ or accurate representation of nature but the visual and audio impression of a virtual world. This impression must leave an overwhelming sense of emotional attachment and response on the participant to the affect that they exist consciously reverent in this virtual space. Shadow of the Colossus has this effect on IGN Editor Chris Roper:
Whereas most games rely on scattering their environments with living and breathing creatures, intricate structures, various types of foliage and the like to bring their worlds to life, the near-complete lack of any of these in the world of Shadow of the Colossus forces you to essentially paint your own picture of how the world came to be as it is, why it is essentially a wasteland, or even a prison if you will, for the colossi that inhabit said land. Shadow of the Colossus is a visual masterpiece in this regard. (Roper)
Also when it comes to the audio aspect he says:
The soundtrack perfectly matches with the tone of each battle, with the first being somewhat upbeat as you can basically have your way with the first colossus, while the last is something much more downtrodden and somber in tone, with each track in-between blending the ends together in a very natural manner.(Roper)
Both of these excerpts show that the visual and audio aspects create an impression that intrigues the participant to be consciously and emotionally involved in relevance to the virtual world. Both work in conjunction towards a single experience and theme. The world creates a sense of self awareness and position to the affect that you emotionally exist in that world. These aspects by themselves do not show the game as an art form but are critical in creating a sensory experience for the participant.
The second aspect that shows video games as an art form is their unique interactive nature. This is what separates video games from other forms of media and this is also where the latest innovations have taken place. To continue the use of Shadow of the Colossus I will turn to Destroid’s Joseph Leray’s experience with the games controls and how he believes that they contribute to the artistry of the game. The games controls are very simple; there’s a jump button, a hold/grab button, a sword action button, etc. Its not that the buttons and how they are mapped to the controller that is artistic but how they reinforce the artistry of the overall game vision. For example Joseph states the way the hold button works in conjunction with Wander, “You don't just push R1, you have to hold it. The physical associations between holding onto a ledge and holding down the R1 button allow the player to always have a connection to Wander” (Leray). This allows the participant a more intense interaction and connection with Wander. How does this contribute to the art of the overall experience? Simple, this interactivity and interdependency with Wander creates an emotional connection that makes the participant more conscious of his impact in this world. You desperately hold the R1 button as if you are Wander clinging to the side of a Colossus that is trying to shake you off. The interaction of the button press becomes more important because of what that input means in the virtual space and related character. The participant becomes conscious in this world through the extension of the character, and once that conscious connection reaches a certain emotional peak each button press has a deeper significance, implication and consequence to the participant. Joseph sums this up with his declaration, “Again, the player is never separated from Wander and controls all his physical actions, that is to say there is never a rift between what's happening on-screen and what's happening in your hand” (Leray).
The third aspect, narrative value, is one that has the strongest artistic value for it comes from the earliest forms of entertainment, storytelling. Instead of deferring to other people’s experience with Shadow of the Colossus I will express my own experiences with the title’s narrative and acknowledge the other two aspects. As I described before you are Wander exploring this ancient desolate world where your only companion is your horse Argo. This creates a strong bond between you and Argo because you rely heavily on each other and there are no other living objects to interact with, except the Colossus. This relationship and its importance becomes very apparent when Argo sacrifices himself to save Wander. This comes very late in the game after you have trusted the steed to always be there and now you are alone. In my personal experience when this happened I was overwhelmed by sadness. I even remember saying ‘no’ when he sacrificed himself and fell into the ravine. I stopped playing the game and became emotionally connected with it and cared about the characters outcome. I never felt that way about a ‘game’ before, I never talked to the screen as if it would respond and I never felt so alive in a virtual world. As the narrative progress each Colossus you destroy you absorb a dark energy. Each time you absorb this energy your skin pales and small horns begin to grow from your head. After you defeat the last Colossus and absorb all the dark energy it turns out that Dormin was using Wander to resurrect himself. The dark energy creates Wander into Dormin and it becomes apart that the Colossi were protecting the ancient land by each holding a portion of Dormin. So the narrative switches from you being the protagonist to becoming the antagonist and all your progress was done for the means of evil. This narrative would not have as great of an impact if it not for the visual, audio and interactive artistry. The experiences that Chris Roper and Joseph Leray had both apply to my own experience. I was also dazzled by the visuals and audio and how that evoked a sense of wonder for me. I also remember clamoring to hold the R1 button as I fought a Colossus fearing the result if I let go. All of these components work towards a single artistic purpose and become something greater than each one separately. In the case of Shadow the visuals create a desolate environment, the soundtrack creates alludes the sense of adventure and loneliness and the narrative creates a journey of solitude and sorrow. If this experience was not from a piece of art then I don’t know what art is.
It seems that Ebert focuses too much and emphasizes the concept of ‘game’ and doesn’t realize or acknowledge that games have evolved beyond their initial gaming mechanistic origin. It seems that the word game is a misnomer for some current titles that have moved past the simple mechanics that established the medium. Roger Ebert has confessed that he has never played a game but is very easy to judge its worth as not having the capacities to exist as an artistic medium. He fails to recognize that the nature of the game has changed. One quote that Roger Ebert uses to dismiss video games as art I see as supporting it as an interactive art, “I believe art is created by an artist. If you change it, you become the artist” (Ebert 2007). I believe that video games have a shared artistry that has more dynamic methods than say film. Video games have shifted from a pure mechanical nature to a more lively interactive art, which parallels the shift of film. By examining the three components of the Shadow of the Colossus we can see that there is something more than an input output device. The audience is less of a player and more of a participant; they are not playing a game but experiencing an emotional voyage. We can see that video games have transcended their mechanical nature and have become art. Video games will change what we think of art, forever.
Bibliography
Ebert, Roger. “Answer Man.” RogerEbert.com 27 November 2005. <http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=ANSWERMAN&date=20051127>.
Ebert, Roger. “Games vs. Art: Ebert vs. Barker.” RogerEbert.com 21 July 2007.
<http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070721/COMMENTARY/70721001>.
Ebert, Roger. “Video games can never be art.” Roger Ebert’s Journal 16 April 2010.
<http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04/video_games_can_never_be_art.html>.
Jenkins, Henry. “Art From in the Digital Age.” Technology Review (MIT) September 2000.
Leray, Joesph. “Shadow of the Colossus’ controls are an exercise in art.” Destroid. 29 February 2008. < http://www.destructoid.com/shadow-of-the-colossus-controls-are-an-exercise-in-art-72997.phtml>.
Santiago, Kellee. “Video Games Are Art.” TEDxUSC Conference. 29 March 2009.
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9y6MYDSAww&feature=player_embedded>.
Roper, Chris. “Shadow of the Colossus Review.” IGN. 18 October 2005. <http://ps2.ign.com/articles/658/658991p1.html>.
