AAA Game Developers are Threatening the Legitimacy of Video Games as Art
“I am prepared to believe that video games can be elegant, subtle, sophisticated, challenging and visually wonderful. But I believe the nature of the medium prevents it from moving beyond craftsmanship to the stature of art.”
Robert Ebert’s comment in his 2005 blog post was met with much ire from gaming critics and creators alike. I don’t want to continue the decades old debate of interactive media as art, because I believe that it’s long been settled: video games are an art form, and if you want to debate that feel free to find one of the thousands of think-pieces on the topic instead. The reason that Ebert’s quote is important is that he wasn’t fully wrong. Gaming faces a barrier to universal recognition as art that other mediums have already solved. AAA developers view the medium as profit, the result of a careful craftsmanship and not as a method to express ideas, often refusing to find a happy medium between the two that other art forms have achieved for years.
Lets look back at the the top 10 best-selling games of 2016 according to Gamespot. Notice that of all the games on the list, only Final Fantasy XV is without a heavy focus on multiplayer action.
2016 Top 10 Game Sales
- Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare
- Battlefield 1
- The Division
- NBA 2K17
- Madden NFL 17
- Grand Theft Auto V
- Overwatch (no Battle.net sales)
- Call of Duty: Black Ops III
- FIFA 17
- Final Fantasy XV
These games neglect any sort of creative narrative and instead aim to create a multiplayer experience that is repetitive, addicting, and fertile for after-purchase transactions.
Their core gameplay is an infinite loop of shoot at others, score points, or complete missions. It’s not troubling that these types of games exist, Hollywood puts puts out mindless summer blockbusters every year. It’s their dominance in the field that spells trouble for video game’s respectability as art. What’s worse is that the gameplay loop is not only tedious, but it is riddled with paywalls, content only unlocked through purchases.
From a purely capitalist standpoint, the high sales should justify the mass creation of these types of games. Its an understandable line of reasoning for a company that’s reached the size where pleasing its stockholders is more important that serving its customers. Yet, the predatory practices employed in these projects degrade video game’s status in the art community. The games in the 1–9 slot all employ some type of “loot box”, which are gambling devices (that have no restriction for children)used to gain items in-game. Or in Grand Theft Auto V’s case, money can be directly used to purchase multiplayer cash that unlocks more items in the game. These games stand for no higher purpose or aim to create consumer-friendly environments, instead they look to suck the player’s wallet dry with after-purchase microtransactions and gambling mechanisms (after the typically $60 initial game price no less).
Has a book ever asked you to pay $10 for the chance of receiving another page?
Games that contain narrative, meaning, and interesting mechanics are far from dead. The indie scene has created great pieces such as Undertale, Fez, and Cuphead. What’s troubling is that these indie developers are suffocated by the mass release of repetitive, meaningless, and at times predatory AAA games. There is a finite amount of money that gamers spend every year, and the games that have an infinite time limit look to take the whole pot. The works that look to push the art form forward are being relegated to independent developers who have put their livelihood on the line to complete it, such as Cuphead’s developers quitting their jobs and mortgaging their homes to complete their game. Why should individuals bear the risk of progressing the art of video games? Why do AAA developers not have a responsibility to the art form they profit from?
Greed has tainted film and books before, sure, but never has it overtaken the core of its field. Meaningful books and films are released by big publishers and studios yearly. Video games are at a crossroad of idealism versus profit. The nature of the medium does not have to be in conflict with art, contrary to what Ebert suggests. Studios can release significant work and turn a profit like they have in the past. But if the dominance of mindless multiplayers games with predatory spending systems continues, then Ebert’s vision of gaming will come true and all the medium did to evolve will be lost.
