Gloaming Crackle

Ebert’s at it again. He’s such a brilliant man, but damned if he doesn’t have a mental block on this issue. He just can’t seem to understand the point of videogames. Then again, he hasn’t spent much time with them. And his arguments are pretty reasonable for someone who doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

I sent him the following response, which I have no illusions he will actually read (as he is such a busy fellow, and has so many other things to worry about):

The thing is, videogames — like film, novels — are about establishing a particular perspective of the world. Whereas film and novels explore this perspective through a linear narrative, videogames define the world of the observer through a limited set of laws. The artist control is in defining the world, the laws that govern it, and thereby — critically — the potential consequences to action.

For that is what videogames explore, on a basic level: cause and effect, action and consequence. That few explore it well is beside the issue of the potential of the format. Imagine if you will a world defined by the rules of childhood — all of the little baseless paranoias and insecurities. Now imagine the issues an elaborately staged, highly psychological design could explore by taking into account, by playing the player’s responses to the game’s stimulation.

Hitchcock is considered master of his form in part because of his skill in playing the audience. The same is the key skill in a game designer; the craft just isn’t there yet. And the interface sucks. (The Wii is a nice step.) And maybe the technology isn’t where it needs to be yet, either.

The key issue, I think, is the difference between freedom and liberty. Sure, there’s no art in freedom — in being able to do anything you want at any time. Liberty, though — an allowance of choice, within a limited scope of options — now we’re getting somewhere. Especially if, within that narrow web, there is real, meaningful consequence to every action.