I’ve recently been reading about the various talks at GDC this year. One that seemed to get a lot of attention around the blogosphere was about game developers still being adolescents by Heather Chaplin. I don’t necessarily care to discuss her controversial opinion; there is plenty of that already. One particular part stood out however; when she said that when film was this age it already had Citizen Kane. I’ve already mentioned my thoughts on comparing games progression as a medium to film, but this’ll be a slightly different and shorter rant.I don’t get where people get off saying games should have a Citizen Kane or a Godfather by now. It’s a pretty common accusation that doesn’t really make sense. Great films come out all the time, but by definition to become a classic it has to be judged over time. Citizen Kane wasn’t immediately lauded for being the greatest film ever created, it took time for people to recognize it. When something good comes out we can appreciate it immediately, but it can’t be considered timeless until some time has passed. Games haven’t even been around long enough to create a classic.
I have a feeling we’ll be talking about games like Shadow of the Colossus and Deus Ex for years to come. If people ever start studying video games aside from the production side I imagine games like Mario 64 will definitely be covered for laying down the groundwork for the transition to 3D. There are plenty of important games, including some with uniquely presented and interesting stories.
To sum up, we don’t know what games will become the classics, whose to say there isn’t already a Citizen Kane?
And not only does time need to pass for a game to become timeless, but it has to be compared to other games. Games that instantly come to mind when I think "timeless" are Mario Brothers, Super Mario Brothers, and Donky Kong. Why? Because they started it all. And because they've been around the longest.
ReplyDelete