Speaking for itself (Gaming)

by Kermit , Raleigh, NC, Monday, August 15, 2016, 15:10 (3022 days ago) @ Cody Miller
edited by Kermit, Monday, August 15, 2016, 15:38

Man, I’m with you. I’ve got a contrarian streak and the more people seem to like a creative work, the more suspicious I am that it’s an emperor’s new clothes situation. This is especially true, in my case, with movies. For example, I think many “art house” movies are just as insipid and manipulative of their intended audience as anything at the cineplex (Captain Fantastic is one recent example). And every Oscar season I believe at least half the movies are nominated not because they’re all that, but because a) it’s this or that actor or director’s “turn” (they were snubbed in years past when they should not have been—the Oscars are always playing catch-up), b) the cult of the Actor’s Studio (Leo fits this mold) overly influences everyone, or c) so-and-so adequately depicts an afflicted or downtrodden person or political icon (playing to the Academy’s sympathies).

As others have pointed out, context and culture do affect the perception of any art—it’s a little useless to stop it from happening, and believe you me, I spent a large portion of my academic career arguing the point of view that, if we’re going to consider culture, the contemporaneous culture is what should be considered first (just stating where my sympathies lie). Author’s intent also matters to me, and I think in the case of No Man’s Sky, if we consider the creators’ intent, the game fairs pretty well. The problem comes where people’s expectations don’t match what the creators set out to create, and I think that’s the biggest problem with No Man’s Sky, but that’s a context problem that cuts both ways. Regarding me or anyone else enjoying the game in part because of extra-game knowledge, I confess I am grading it on a curve, and I’m also admitting how my extra-game knowledge affects my immersion in a positive way. It’s inarguable that immersion is something the game is going for, and it’s hard to deny that this game is different in a crucial way that gives it an advantage over a traditionally designed game. To answer your question, though, I think I’d still be impressed knowing nothing about the game, but I would wonder two things—how big is it, and how did they do this? There’s no freaking boundaries and everything is seamless! I mean, WTH? I think anyone would deduce it was procedurally generated if they know of the concept.

And this is an argument about what people know. You can’t stop people from knowing things, whether it’s “this game is made by the same team that made LIMBO” or “this is what constitutes Halo’s canon up until Reach.” I said I was with you, but I’ve realized that the “the art by itself isn’t that good” argument is attractive to me when I’m not fond of something, but I usually find that all the stuff surrounding the art endlessly fascinating if I like the work (can’t get enough of that Last of Us documentary). Given two things of equal merit, I will often detract from the thing I see as overpraised and praise the thing I see as underappreciated. Recognizing my own hypocrisies I find that I have less energy to spend trying to tell people why they’re wrong to like what they like. (My motivation to do the latter probably hasn’t ever matched yours, though--I’ve never spent money on a domain for that purpose.) You ask interesting questions about the fairness of considering what’s outside the game, but these questions are undercut by two things a) the impossibility of art speaking solely for itself, and b) our foreknowledge of your usual agenda. I find the irony of b funny.