A Critical Analysis

of Contemporary

Video Game Criticism

Abstract
Video games are becoming an increasing important element within contemporary culture. However, looking at the video games being massively produced and sold one notices a degeneration of innovation and experimentation. It has been argued that video game journalists need to provide a critical platform on which video games should be discussed and assessed. However, video games journalism and critique seems to lack a constructive and critical approach towards the medium. This paper tries to analyze the current state of video game journalism and critically asses its constructive value.

Course: Game Studies Student: Robert-Jan Schiphorst Student Number: 3237370 Date: 08-07-2011

We need critics who know and care about games the way Pauline Kael knew movies. We need critics who write about them with that same degree of wit, wisdom, and passion. -Henry Jenkins (2005)

A Lively Art?
Henry Jenkins wrote the above statement six years ago in his article "Video Games, the New Lively Art" in which he revisits Gilbert Seldess argumentation for defining art within new media and appropriates it to the now relatively new medium, video games. Jenkins's reason for using Seldes becomes clear quickly as the similarities between early cinema, which Seldes argued was a lively art, and video games, are striking. With the term "lively art" Seldes referred to the popular arts at the beginning of the twentieth century. Stating that these were fully imbedded within everyday life, their presence were embraced and validated by the average citizen because these media reflected the modern world in which they lived, both in content as in the technology of the media itself. "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)." Seldes thus celebrated arts that were not fully established, because it was here where experimentation was a necessity, where there were no clearly defined norms, only innovation and a perpetual movement forward. In the early days of cinema every new film was a technological and artistic experimentation of the medium itself, there were no guidelines or safe bets and this made it, compared to the classical established arts, a lively one.

Fast-forward about eighty years and Jenkins is arguing that a similar case can be made for video games. Slightly changing the previous quote by Jenkins and appropriating it towards video games quickly reveals the similarities of Seldes's lively arts: video game developers took the very machinery of the digital age, which many felt dehumanizing, and found within it the resources for expressing individual visions, for reasserting basic human needs, desires, and fantasies . Video games have become an increasingly bigger part of popular culture, they reflect the digital media that surround us and exist within them. Moreover, the video game industry is becoming bigger than the music industry, which shows video game's immense popularity. However, looking at the video games themselves, the ones that apparently define the video game industry and how the industry is viewed, show an incredible lack of both liveliness and art. The liveliness of the medium, its experimental and innovative approach, seems to be lacking. Why is this happing, what is the reason for this

seeming conservative mentality within the video game industry? This paper will argue that this conservative approach is being fueled by the lack of a resourceful, inventive and critical voice within video game journalism and argues this by looking at contemporary video game criticism and assessing its merit.

A Conservative Medium
These are the top video games of 2010 based on worldwide sells:

1. Wii Sports (Wii) 2. Wii Sports Resort (Wii) 3. New Super Mario Bros. (Wii) 4. Call of Duty: Black Ops (Xbox 360) 5. Wii Fit Plus (Wii) 6. Call of Duty: Black Ops (Playstation 3) 7. Halo: Reach (Wii) 8. Kinect Adventures (Wii) 9. Pokmon Heart Gold/Soul Silver (Nintendo DS) 10. Super Mario Galaxy 2 (Wii)

Of this top ten, eight games are sequels or spinoffs (or even sequels of spinoffs) and only two games are original intellectual properties: Kinect Adventures and Wii Sports. This list shows the overwhelming abundance and seaming popularity of sequels. Why is it that within a medium heralded for its innovation and modernity the actual media texts lack both innovation and experimentation?

The short answer for this is purely economical. Producing video games, and especially modern video games, is an expensive and risk-full process. So much so, that video games companies arent easily willing to risk millions of dollars on a new intellectual property if it is unclear that they will profit or at least make their money back. Maintaining a video game franchise, that is at least profitable, is therefore a logical financial decision. David Nieborg points out in his book Triple A: The Political Economy of the Blockbuster Video Game that this franchising trend is a key aspect of the seventh generation of video game consoles. Downloadable content (DLC) and paid-for downloadable content (PDLC) in-between sequels are used as a means to maintain a franchises presence and playability,

making it an unfinished commodity. "Triple-A game publishers (...) rely for a sizable part of their revenue on publishing next-gen console games and because of that they have createdand are sustainingan increasingly volatile business environment (187)." Therefore, in order to remain profitable video game companies serialize their popular properties to the point at which they are no longer successful; the most recent case of this was the "Guitar Hero" franchise. What is also financially beneficial for this method is that the costs for innovation, both on the level of content and presentation, are greatly reduced.

However logical and sound the above answer may seem it remains unclear as to why these serialized games actually sell so well. Once again, we can answer this from an economic perspective but now from that of the consumer. As stated above, producing video games is expensive and not surprisingly, this makes the games rather expensive as well, especially compared to other media like books, music or movies. A new triple-A game can range between 50 to 70 dollars (in Australia the prices can go even higher) and because of this the primary video game consumer, mostly young adults, are financially limited to buying one, maybe two, games a month. They, similar to the video game companies, try to limit their risk in buying a game of which they do not know exactly what they are getting. Therefore, as a safety measure, they buy games that are very similar to games they have already bought and enjoyed. Looking at both the video game companies and the video game consumers, you thus notice an unhealthy trend of risk-management. This trend is unhealthy because it is a downward spiral for innovation, experimentation and the evolution of the medium as a whole.

Nevertheless, not all attention should be put solely on the economic aspects of video games, this paper will therefore put attention on the current state of video game criticism and the value wellthought-out criticism can have for the medium. In Jenkins's article, he emphasizes the importance of criticism as the opening quote illustrates. Criticism is important Jenkins argues, because it supports innovation and experimentation, it offers a reflection upon the cultural artifacts a means of giving value and addressing significance. Only well-formed and unbiased criticism can correctly address the industry and the consumer.

As the art of games matures, progress will be driven by the most creative and forward thinking minds in the industry, those who know that games can be more than they have been, those who recognize the potential of reaching a broader public, of having a greater cultural impact, of generating more diverse and ethically responsible content and of creating richer and more emotionally engaging content. But without the support of an informed public and

the perspective of thoughtful critics, game developers may never realize that potential (Jenkins).

As Jenkins points out, an informed public together with thoughtful critics are an essential force for pushing video games forward. Does the current state of video game criticism reflect this position formulated by Jenkins?

The biggest problem with contemporary video game criticism is the lack of actual criticism. In a short online video posted by "Extra Credits" on the video game website, escapistmagazine.com video game reviews are examined for their form and function. In the video, the lack of critique in video game criticism is also pointed out: "there is no critique, only review (...) game reviews are often merely a report of what is in the game." As pointed out before the reason for this is once again largely economical, before the consumer is willing to pay about 60 dollars for a game they want to know what they can expect. A video game review therefore seems more comparable to a consumer report than actual criticism. In the article "Too Human Versus the Enthusiast Press" Rebecca Carlson directly shows how video game journalists can be regarded as mediators of commodity value. At one point in the article, Carlson states:

As journalists act to insert themselves in the production of commodity value, their role requires the continual negotiation and performance of valid/valuable expertise; when journalists preview, review, and rate games, they do this explicitly. They articulate appropriate consumption knowledge by creating and reinforcing categories, distinctions, criticisms: what makes a game good; what game or game play is worth consumers' attention; how much particular types of games should cost; even evaluating and determining what makes a game a game or conversely not a game (9).

Carlson here also emphasizes that game journalists are providing a sort of consumer report: "(...) What game or game play is worth consumers' attention (9)".Moreover, at the 2009, D.I.C.E Summit there was a conference named "Video Game Journalism - Who Cares?" in which several prominent video game journalists were asked questions regarding their profession. At one point Seth Schiesel, video game journalist for The New York Times, states that video game reviews are important because the price point of video games are so high. The problem with this consumer-oriented approach to video game reviews is that they seemingly move away from regarding video games as cultural objects and towards a perspective of video games as commodities. Videogames reporter and critic David Thomas states: "Game critics can either help Wal-Mart manage their game inventory around

predictable hits or game critics can incite the game-buying public into consciousness-raising riots (4)." The "Extra Credits" video furthermore states, "We need to begin developing a critical language that lets us have a conversation about games rather than simply describing them". As perfectly sensible, as this seems this position seems to garner surprising opposition from video game journalists. In a recent debate about game journalism at the Waag in Amsterdam with journalists, academics, developers and enthusiast there was a striking difference of opinions concerning the role and attention video game journalism should strive for. A prominent Dutch video game journalist, Boris van de Ven, was cynical about the effects or attention a more serious approach to game criticism might garner stating that if there were actual demand for it, it would already be present. This statement is problematic for it states that demand is always leading, something especially rare within technological innovation. Moreover, the possible lack of demand for serious game journalism can also be telling to what degree people regard video games as a serious medium. This perspective was also present in the recent debate, journalists seemed to defend the lack of serious video game journalism by placing video games next to established media like film or literature and stating that these media could be better reviewed then video games. This statement is rather shortsighted; as it seems to neglect the years, it took to for film critique to gain any cultural or intellectual stature and following. Moreover, it were the critics of early cinema who documented and described the advancements in the medium. They tried to establish a vocabulary and terminology to articulate the elements of film that were unique for the medium. Moreover, the 2009 D.I.C.E Summit also showed a surprising lack of interest or concern about the way in which video games should be discussed or critiqued. Again and again the focus was put either on the challenges of reporting events within the video game industry or how to write about the production of video games and their developments, while actually discussing the ways in which they can discuss video games an sich was almost completely absent.

Conlusion
Video game culture is currently going through a pivotal and decisive moment. At one hand the video game industry is booming, over the past couple of years more and more video games are being sold to a more diverse audience and demographic. In addition, even more recently, new platforms for video games have emerged with mobile phones and through social networking websites like Facebook, giving developers new ways of distributing and developing games to a larger audience. It is clear that video games are here to stay and that cultural and economical presence is increasing. Nevertheless, can we refer to video games as a "lively art"?

Seldes's description of a lively art corresponds with that of the current video game medium; however as the elements for a lively art may be present there is still a considerable lack of critical discourse surrounding video games as cultural and artistic objects. The current popular discourse surrounding video games emphasizes them as commodities, products for the consumer. This consumerist rhetoric has become so normalized that proper video game criticism has suffered because of it, and has even crossed over in academic discourse. Video games still lack a platform on which they can be critically discussed and examined from a non-consumerist and non-enthusiast approach. Thomas states: "the discourse about games needs to move beyond the descriptive and proscriptive commercial product demanded by the market and, instead, provide a normative position about how things ought to be and use the game to illustrate the argument or the counter argument (4)." Jenkins enforces this essential role of well-articulated criticism because its value lay not only in the critique itself, but also in the reflective and constructive elements that are essential for a developing medium that tries to innovate and move forward.

Literature

Carlson, Rebecca. "Too Human versus the enthusiast press: Video Game Journalists as Mediators of Commodity Value."Transformative Works and Cultures 2 (2009): 1-14.

Huber, William. "You Played That? Game Studies Meets Game Criticism." Breaking New Ground: Innovation in Games, Play, Practice and Theory. Brunel University, London. September. 2009. http://www.digra.org/dl/db/09287.17255.pdf

Jenkins, Henry, "Games, The New Lively Art." [2005] Jenkins, Henry. Publications - 06-07-11 http://web.mit.edu/cms/People/henry3/GamesNewLively.html

Nieborg, David. Triple-A: The Political Economy of the Blockbuster Video Game. Amsterdam., Z.u., 2011.

Thomas, David. "You Played That? Game Studies Meets Game Criticism." Breaking New Ground: Innovation in Games, Play, Practice and Theory. Brunel University, London. September. 2009. http://www.digra.org/dl/db/09287.17255.pdf

Other Sources

Worldwide Yearly Chart - 2010. Vgchartz.com http://www.vgchartz.com/yearly.php?date=2011&reg=World&date=2010&console=&maker=

Videos

Extra Credits: Game Reviews. Escapistmagazine.com http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/3587-Game-Reviews

Video Game Journalism - Who Cares? D.I.C.E Summit 2009. Fora.tv http://fora.tv/2009/02/20/Video_Game_Journalism--Who_Cares#fullprogram