Let's just ignore the fact the blog hasn't been updated in a long time and proceed with the article shall we?
I've been reading reviews for the ever popular Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, when I came across the following line by 1up.com's David Ellis about the game's single and multiplayer components: "Though still a blast, the single-player campaign isn't the reason thousands of people still play the original MW on a daily basis."Ellis's comments, by no means, reveal some secret gamer practice. I never finished the single player campaign to Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne because I was so hooked on the multiplayer. But his review got me thinking about the single and multiplayer modes in relation to the "games as art" argument.
When people talk about video games being art, narrative is a big part of the critique. Games like Bioshock and Silent Hill 2 have received acclaim for not only their stories, but the way in which they presented them. Even Halo has been prasied for creating a great story and mythology to surround that story in. The point is, game naratives can present critiques and discussions about the world in the same way famous works of literature do.
So what happens when you take a powerful story like the one in Modern Warfar 2 and add a multiplayer component to it? If we were just looking at games as art in terms of narrative, there would be a problem with classifying games as "artistic." The multiplayer aspect undermines the single player's story because there is no real story attached to the multiplayer. Suddenly the game becomes less about the consequences of war and more about killing tons of dudes, either solo or with a team. And with more people interested in the multiplayer component of the game, the single player becomes the side dish rather than the main course. At best, the hardcore multiplayer gamers will play the single player campaign to gain achievements or unlock hidden bonuses.
This is why a critique of games must cover all aspects of games, and not just the narrative. Looking at games from a design perspective, artistic games may not even include a storyline at all. Super Mario Bros. is still regarded as a masterpiece not because of it's storyline, but because of how exceptional the gameplay was. Likewise, Team Fortress 2 is a strictly multiplayer experience, but the game earned the same amount of accolade as Bioshock thanks to its unique art style and entertaining gameplay. Narrative is important in video games, but it's only a portion of what constitutes an entire video game.
I obviously believe that games can be just as artistic as movies, paintings, literature, etc. I wouldn't be writing on this blog if I didn't believe that. However, I still feel there is some relevance to the multiplayer killing the integrity of a game argument. I'm currently working on a paper about science fiction stories in video games, and my professor is worried that because so many games can be reduce down to "kill all dudes," it hurts the power of those narratives. Even when considering all the other apsects of video games, that's a powerful arguement to fight against; one that I'm still trying to refute.
What do you guys think? Leave a comment or send me a message! I'd love to hear other's opinions on this matter.
Posts
