Gesamkuntzberg

 I've always wondered why video games are a lot more entertaining than movies or music or other forms of art. When I was younger, I used to watch very few movies and listen to not much music, while playing copious amounts of video games- which started with a handheld device which had only Tetris and a crappy racing game and then a Nintendo which obviously had Mario and other games, and then a PC when I was 10, which gave me games like Lionking, Aladdin and Skyroads. It's been a long journey since then and I've learnt a lot of things on the way and I've several favourites including Alpha Centauri, Portal, Civilisation II, Fallout 3, DOTA etc.- all from different genres.

The video by MrBtongue which talks about Dark Souls gives a satisfactory explanation for this. Videogames are a Gesamtkunstwerk, or a 'total art form' which makes use of several forms of art to combine them into a single experience. Movies are also a Gesamtkunstwek and they combine things like background score, acting, the story etc. to create a form of art that is superior to the score, acting or story taken separately. Movies have evolved so much over time that things like editing and direction can also be considered to require artistic inputs. Anyway the final result is more than a sum of its parts. Listening to the score of Star Wars, looking at the special effects, looking at the acting, reading the story etc separately does not give you the same experience as watching a movie. Videogames however take it to the next level. There are several additional elements that a game provides. Firstly, it puts the story from a protagonists point of view really effectively compared to a movie since you play the protagonist (I'm talking about action shooters and RPGs in games and movies which have a clear protagonist). Secondly, they let you create your own story and characters. Several games allow player interactions to affect the story. For instance in Mass Effect 2, which can actually be started with a savegame file from Mass Effect 1 to make sure that your character choices are taken into account during the 2nd game- allows you to die in the end if the player does not provide things like providing enough protection to the protagonist's spaceship. This actually kills off the character at the end of the game and thus makes it impossible to export the savegame to Mass Effect 3, which would've be possible if he had survived. Games like Mass Effect give several choices in game to make sure that the story is personalised and that the protagonist behaves in a way that you want him to (and ideally how you would if you were him/her). This mechanic also allows for higher replayability of the game since you can play the entire game with totally different choices and get a new experience- but let's talk about replayability later. Thirdly and most importantly, there is a completely new experience that games provide as compared to movies- the gameplay mechanic. Gameplay mechanic is so crucial to games that all games are classified according to the mechanic and not the type of story that it tells. This is unlike the case in movies and storybooks which are classified according to the story. Games can be First-person-shooters or platformers or Role Playing Games even if they tell a science fiction story. Portal and Mario are both platformers which have absolutely nothing in common in terms of the theme and story. There are very rare cases where the method of storytelling is used to classify books - the choose your adventure type of book falls into this category. Classifying movies as silent, colour/black and white etc. also are parallels to the classification given to games.

So how good are games anyway? I would go to the extent of saying that unless something else comes up, they are the next generation medium for entertainment. One problem with games is that they are not as easily accessible as movies, and while someone who's never seen a movie before would be able to enjoy it, several games are difficult to appreciate or even play, if the person has had no prior experience playing games of that type. GTA 5 racked in 1 billion $ revenues in its 1st four days of release- much faster than any movie ever. This is in spite of the fact that the game hasn't yet been released on the PC and also the issue of accessibility, which I expect would reduce in the future. Companies like Microsoft and Sony realise that gaming is the next big thing and at least till the consoles a couple of generations back (Xbox and PS2) used to sell them at a loss to just get the market share and ensure that they aren't left out of the race.

As of now however, games can't be called superior to movies. This is because movies have been with us for about a century and there have been so many innovations on the way and they have received a lot of attention. Television is also a competitor and provides more personalisation than movies and you get more choice as to what to watch. Youtube gives even more personalisation and I expect youtube and Netflix (or a similar video-streaming service) to directly replace TV as a superior option if it hasn't already-  at least in developed countries. Internet is again, not 100% available or accessible, partly because of speed and connectivity issues. Internet is a relatively young technology and I'm sure that TV would be eventually phased out. Coming to the areas where games aren't as good as movies- one particular point is how games often require a clear protagonist and you are forced to do things on his behalf (or act as a god and control many thing like in Age of Empires- either way you have an effect on the world). This means that you cannot be told a story that the storywriter wants to tell. You always have an effect of your own on the world and the story is not pure in the sense that it's not exactly the single story the storyteller wanted to tell. But then this is like a side-effect to the advantage that you get a personalised experience playing the game and that you have an impact on the world. There are however some games which encourage exploring the story and not really having a huge (and at times any) impact on the game itself. A significant example is the game called "Gone Home" where you (as a girl) explore your house after coming back after some time to find out where your family has gone. Clues and notes give you an idea in the end and your whole lifestory is told through several objects and books in the house. There are several audio clips as well, and the whole experience I have to say, is very unique and very touching. Another game that isn't exactly a story told to you- you do get a few choices and you explore the story through these choices is "The Stanley Parable" which is much more casual and I'm sure that games like The Stanley Parable have a great future. These games which illustrate the different ways in which videogames can be an art-form, are not exactly my favourite games, but they do take care of the criticism of having to write the story ourselves while playing a game. These games have a pre-decided story that you explore using the game environment. Which is interesting because many people do not actually consider them as games. I do, however and it is because of the highly interactive nature as compared to just choosing a clip to watch. Gone Home has you walk around the house and pick up objects and turn on and off the lights, read stuff etc. and it's not quite the same as reading a book or watching a movie. Yes, it doesn't have a clear gameplay mechanic but the interactive nature of the experience makes it a game. Interactivity I guess, can be called as the 4th unique thing about games and it's a lot more than choosing your own adventure in a book that allows you to do so. Replayability is another one at 5th, and there are several game which provide fresh experiences during replays. Strong examples are- playing different races or countries in games like Starcraft or Age of Empires, choosing the 'good' or 'bad' or 'neutral' karma options in games like Star Wars KotoR or Fallout or Elder Scrolls or indeed Mass Effect. I'm sure that there's a 6th and 7th but I'll stop here.

From economists' point of view there's a separate reason why games would be more popular and this is because it's easier to monetise games. People can easily pirate movies and enjoy them to a similar effect as in theatres (or heck, they can create a home theatre themselves) but there are several games which cannot be enjoyed without paying for them. This is especially true for consoles and this explains why developers are more interested in making games for consoles. A game like World of Warcraft is played online and the best thing about the game is that you can play it with your friends. Pirating the game is kind of pointless since playing it alone is just boring. Games would have to connect to Blizzard servers which would check if your game is authentic and thus make it really difficult to pirate such games. Elder Scrolls online is an upcoming game which is expected to sell majorly and has a similar mechanic. Some games which have a single player experience like Diablo 3 need internet connection to work (even for single player) and crackers have found it difficult to disable this requirement. In any case, even without the monetisation reason, games would be incredibly superior as a form of entertainment, to movies in a few decades time (though they are already very superior in my opinion).

Video on Gesamtkuntzberg: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIx7Ot5Mq2Q‎