That would change the way you’d look at the story quite a bit.

KG

Yes, games aren’t real and probably 99.99% never have any problem keeping them seperate from reality but that doesnt mean they have no impact on the cognitive evolution of the individual or society. Philosophers, playwrites etc have known for a long time that ‘entertainment’ can and does have the potential to shift and manipulate the perceptions of the audience … any input into our brain matter can have this effect, and the more specific thought patterns are repeated the more often pathways in the brain become permanent influencing other behaviors and perceptions.

Oh and of course you have to take into consideration the total gullability of the human species. We will believe almost any nonsense if the right buttons are pushed … just look at the world religions if you dont think fantasy, pretend and superstitions can have a real and lasting impact on humans ;)

KG

(For “Man!” blame Quinns. I think “y’know” may be all on my head though)

Don’t worry. As with most quirks, I’ll get bored of them soon enough.

KG

Lewis says:
Muzman: if that is indeed the debate, then bloody hell, there have been loads of Citizen Kanes.

I suppose what the argument is trying to get across is: even the games aiming for complex, multi-layered, meaningful narratives aren’t anywhere near the quality of Citizen Kane. I’d largely agree. But then I’d point to titles as far back as the mid-to-late 80s that have been as relatively influential in other ways.

Yeah, part of the fun/problem is figuring what line to draw. You have to talk around the yae or nae of Kane’s all conquering greatness with your game/film fan usually. I’m not one who thinks its the perfect article by any means, but I can see the case for its significance.
If you want to understand the movies we mostly watch today (depending on the movie, of course) you’re pretty likely to be watching a lot of Hitchcock and Kurosawa and even early Spielberg. Exploitation and horror films have been hugely influential so you end up watching lot of genuine crap from the late sixties and early seventies. Kane would be an odd beast, with all of its symbolic mood lighting (for instance) either of debatable effect or terribly heavy handed.
The story aspect is fair enough I guess, but I don’t think Kane’s story is all that complex or multilayered. What sets it apart is the way it’s told and it’s approach to character being very cinematic. Taken from that angle we get a few Kane’s in gaming, as you say.
One that I trumpet regularly is Thief: The Dark Project. I reckon it ought to be in all the text books in five years (though it’s hard to peg it as influential since developers don’t often cite it even when they seem to be doing the same things). The counter argument is usually that “the story isn’t good enough” to be Kane, it’s just a generic sort of anti-hero tale in an unusual setting and nobody really likes the last level. But is that the most important thing. A lot of great stories have fairly generic plots. It’s how it’s told that’s the thing and it’s method for dealing with the problem playing the main character (as that is narrative gaming’s particular area) with the narrative being linear is elegantly done. It’s still game-cutscene-game like many before. But the way you are delicately fed clues and can optionally seek out a whole lot more in the game, about the world and its characters, and the many ways to play the game. These allow a lot of room for players to create the character for themselves while still having the same basic throughline as everyone else. Garrett is a very ‘vidematic’ character, if you’ll allow me that nightmare of a term.
This is, of course, alongside the litany of other achievements the game makes (stealth is way down the list. Most of them are all the things they had to do in order to make stealth work). The detail of all those things make it something people should be looking at in years to come and make it less of its time than say Half-Life will turn out to be (though it isn’t yet).

Anyway, that’s one brief summary of a Kane argument of the sort I’m talking about. You could probably make a good case for a few games like that, Half-Life among them.
Game genres make it a bit interesting as narrative driven FPSs are an easier parallel for obvious reasons, but where do we slot Starcraft for instance? All kinds of fun.

The thing is, “games” are and were born as an extension of play. It’s just more a advanced take on games we used to play as kids, such as cops and robbers and Cowboys and Indians. Even in those games the goal is to kill the other guy (”BANG BANG, I GOT YOU TIMMY!” “NUH-UH BILLY, YOU MISSED ME”).

Hell, play for most carnivorous mammals consists of practice fighting. Look at puppies playing, they usually go for the neck and try to pin each other down.

Do games trivialize death and violence then? No, not anymore than your average child’s game does. The only thing is that it makes it more visual, which I think is what the issue is.

And also, why would I want to experience my gran’s death again in digital format? That’s not art, that’s just disturbing. I play a game to have fun, not to feel sad and slightly traumatized.

In fact, like many people pointed out, why do we need games to be art?

If games can ever be considered art, why can’t something like LARP, paintball or lasertag?