|
We really were not expecting much. We have, as is our custom, become extremely jaded of late, so you'll have to forgive us. We thought a lecture about game criticism was most likely a recipe for disaster.
Straight off the bat, Matteo Bittanti, a teacher at the European Institute of Design, in Milan, proved us wrong. The very first thing he said was, "Hello. I am here to talk to you today about videogame criticism. Because right now, it's bullshit."
Videogame magazines, he said, fall into three categories, mostly simultaneously: they are either Megalogs of game data, official/"unofficial" game catalogs, or promotion-as-information (or vice versa). They have an obsession with quantitative evaluation; all things must be numbered in comparison to other things -- thus, he calls it the "Nutrition Label" style of game journalism.
The problem is that the cultural, aesthetic, and social elements of videogames are ignored. Sounds familiar, yes? It will continue to sound familiar, with one distinct difference: this guy knows what the fuck he is talking about.
Game magazines are trapped in a technological-determinist mindset; that is to say, bigger and better hardware means better games. More polygons means more excitement.
Giving an analogy to film criticism, he likens game mags to Cinefex: a magazine that rates, compares and discusses the special effects in movies. Matteo says that all game magazines, with perhaps the exception of Edge, are like this. This would not be as much of a problem had we the videogame equivalent of Cahiers du Cinema to balance against it. We have no serious discussion of games; only the surface is touched. There is no context, and no deep reading.
Now, Matteo is a teacher; not quite a professor, as I understand, but he is trying to create a Masters of Videogame Design degree program at the European Institute of Design.
Teacher though he may be, he still finds game studies far too immature: currently they are not necessary in the creation of great game developers. They could be quite the aid, in theory, but will not become so until the game study academics and the community agree upon a common vocabulary. Currently, academics and gamers are speaking totally different languages. To quote somebody whose name I neglected to write down: "These guys, using semiotics to study games, worry me."
According to Mr. Bittanti, there are three main methods of looking at games academically: games-as-texts, games-as-discourses, and games-as-practices. Let's outline these:
Texts
Games are readable -- and, when done properly, they are complete. There is a beginning, a middle and an end. They are made of different elements that have no important meaning on their own (letters, symbols), but that form a distinct shape when assembled (words, phrases).
In film studies, we (and now I also refer to myself) often discuss movies as texts; it is quite a similar description. This is a somewhat limited view for games, though, as it does not really take interactivity into account. Thus:
Discourse
Discourse is defined here as extended communication. Games are systems of oft-interactive representation, comprised of a set of representational codes. Basically, this is a building block model, with an added element that recognizes that each object in a game is representational; as is every movement. They are not real. The discourse idea has been broken down in many ways; here are three:
-
Structuralists say that the subject (the player) is the product of discourse: the games shape the people. Senator Joe Lieberman's views would fall under this category.
-
Constructivists add the possibility of negotiation and resistance: they say that the player and the games create meaning in and for each other. This is the Cultural Studies approach.
-
Post-Structuralists, according to Matteo, deny any meaning outside of the discourse. As he himself said: "There is no life outside the Matrix."
I think that Bittanti takes the Post-Structuralists too lightly here; my personal reading of their ideas would lead me to think differently of their approach. I propose that the Post-Structuralist would approach games based on their core elements of construction, and would find the node of innovation. I think they would then say that the discourse is between the player and the designer. The game is a vehicle for a message created by an individual or group for a specific purpose.
Practice
In this model, games are meaning-making behaviors in which people engage while following conventions or rules of construction and consumption. That is to say, people play games in ways that reflect their personal outlook or predisposition. Here, social and cultural context have paramount importance: the value that players give to games is what makes them good or bad. Thus, objectivity is nearly impossible in their discussion.
Matteo then went on to outline four improved methods of reading games critically: fashion, politique, the "basket model", and what he calls "me, myself and eye".
Fashion
The idea here is that specific games are informed by generic cultural models; this method is a deductive approach to reading them. It is not the games that are important, but rather the cultural models that form them (that is: the culture in which they are created, the social climate, and so on).
Politique
Here, one analyzes a specific text. The text has an author, and through this method you find what he or she is trying to communicate. Shinji Mikami was the example given; his style is unmistakable and palpable throughout a game of Resident Evil. You must look at the tiny details to get the whole picture; in so doing, you learn things not only about the game, but about the people who made it, and what they want to tell you. This would follow my model for Post-Structuralist discussion of games as discourse.
This idea comes from cinematic critical studies. (That was my major, you know.) The term there is politique des auteurs: "author policy". An auteur can be a director, publisher, or really anyone with significant influence on a project. The difference between the auteur and a normal director is in how much of himself he puts into his work. If you can watch a scene from a movie, and instantly recognize the director, that director is an auteur. Signature features; recognizable art design; mood: these are the result of an auteur's work.
"Basket Model"
The "basket" here refers to the extant knowledge and experience that we all carry. (See also the practice method of reading games.) If I bring knowledge of George A. Romero's films to a game of Resident Evil, I will get a whole lot more out of the reference and influences. The text (game) is a pastiche; a combination of elements (see the first method of viewing games academically). The author/auteur is a filter for these elements. The author does not fully control the text, as ultimately the interaction is what determines the result.
The basket always comes first -- we cannot avoid engaging our previous experience, and gauging it against a new one.
Me, Myself and Eye
This method calls all other models useless, erudite and arrogant. What matters is not what happens in games, but rather what happens to the player. It is the player -- not the author, not the culture -- who makes the game.
While this sounds culturally limited, it is not. It is not context, but the way the game is appreciated, that makes the games.
Matteo gave an example of "The Three Graces", a famous sculpture which portrays three naked women standing near each other. If one just thinks, "nice ass", that may be all they get out of it -- and yet the sculptor has elicited a reaction nonetheless. It is the same with games.
So, cultural context is present in that it gives the context for our ways of seeing -- but this model also gives a rather limited view on the malleability of the human experience.
* *
Matteo says that the lack of cultural criticism is ultimately game journalism's biggest problem. His answer to that problem is: "I don't know."
Typical teacher.
If games are teenagers, then game journalists are toddlers. We, the critics, are still trying to understand games, and learn how to talk about them.
Eric-Jon and I were floored by this lecture. Certainly it was a bit dry, and filled with references to Foucault and Baudrillard; it is not an example of the direction game criticism needs to go. But it was an excellent discussion of the pitfalls and potential methodologies of extraditing oneself from the trenches of the "technical review".
At the end of the show, we rushed the stage to talk to him. Matteo has been working on a series of books, which he calls Ludology; each one addresses one specific game, and the author of that game (Metal Gear Solid and Kojima; Resident Evil and Mikami). They look quite nice, although they were in Italian, which... I don't read. But they have an English publishing deal now, so these things may begin to pop up. It's certainly one way to go.
We were ultimately struck with his idea of there being a Cahier du Jeux to offset the traditional graphics-based game mags. Perhaps it struck such a chord because this is exactly what we hope to accomplish ourselves. You will be hearing a lot more from and about Matteo in the coming months; of this, you can be certain.
It was humbling, really. His ideas were our ideas, just fleshed out in ways you could grab onto. I got the feeling that here, finally, was somebody who might have something to teach me about games. This isn't a matter of arrogance; it's just a simple fact that most people don't think deeply about this sort of thing, even to the extent that a recent college graduate such as I is forced to feel over-competent in this regard.
It is good not to be the smartest one. If you are interested in game design through academia, I say go to Milan. If you can’t afford it, then read his blog and learn for free.
brandon sheffield suddenly wishes he spoke Italian
[Next: Revelation.]
| 
