Video game criticism is still in its infancy. While there can be the occasional thoughtful thought-piece about a game, trends inside the industry, or design critiques, video games' bizarre center-of-a-Venn-diagram existence means that ludic critiques often fail to do more than sum up a subjective enjoyment while cinematic critiques can't capitalize on an inherently interactive medium. McKenzie Wark tried laying a critical framework back in 2007 with Gamer Theory, but I think it may have been too theoretical to be applicable. One reason is because of the rapid way in which the medium as a whole morphs. There are comparatively few ways to consume written stories: Serialized stories (like Dickens' work) or complete novels (I'm thinking of Hugo) are pretty much the only way that books were consumed for a lengthy space of time. Video games, on the other hand, have transformed during my 35 years of life from a niche pastime to arcade cabinet extravaganzas to home consoles tethered by cables to 4KHD games played on wireless controllers and managed through smartphone apps. Video games are used in education, exclusively online, and in countless other ways.
The result of this is that the form of the game becomes nebulous enough to prevent a workable definition, without which it's increasingly difficult to know what games actually are. And how can we critique what doesn't exist? The folks over at Third éditions (a French company, as I understand it) have nevertheless taken pains to create book-length, sustained looks at some of the most seminal video games currently in existence. I read their book on Final Fantasy VII, and just finished their approach to Metal Gear Solid. Of the two, the book discussing Metal Gear Solid is better--in part because they dedicate a hefty portion of the book to the chronology of the story as laid out in the sundry games that make up the series. In the case of FFVII, they have fewer games (and fewer bizarre plot twists) that allowed the book to work well for me without pushing me too hard on what was going on within the game. The one on Metal Gear Solid, however…well, spoilers on the games ahead. What Brusseaux, et. al. have accomplished is an attempt at documenting the entire, complicated mess of the MGS universe while also giving intriguing interpretations about the game that I hadn't really thought of. Though some of their preferences come through (their comments about which game is the weakest in the series, for example, doesn't always track), they manage to put an enthusiastic, thoughtful lens on these games. I've been a fan of MGS since it came out in 1999--though I originally thought it was stupid because the character couldn't jump over any obstacles. And I've eagerly awaited every new version of the game, with MGS 2 being my favorite entry of the lot. (I played most of--or maybe it was all?--of the original Metal Gear, but I never tried my hand at Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake.) In fact, I purchased a PlayStation 3 specifically so that I could play Metal Gear Solid 4, which remains the only game that I've ever purchased that I spent the extra money for a "deluxe edition" that came with a "Making Of" Blu-Ray and a couple of other goodies. (I did that because I assumed that there wouldn't be any more Metal Gear Solid games, so I wanted to go out with a bang.) So when I saw this book was available, I immediately picked up a copy and read through it over the course of a week or so. While there are some things that bother me (the authors use exclamation marks far too frequently, which is to say, at all), and it's clearly a French text (not that I'm an expert, but there's a certain flavor that translated French provides…also, it's not a bad thing, merely a noticeable one), the overall process of the book was really enjoyable. One aspect of the book that was useful was seeing the entire story unfold chronologically, using prequels in their correct context. Skull Face's jobs (not learned about until playing through MGS V) during MGS 3 are interwoven into the entire fabric of the story. It's a chapter that spans almost 100 pages of the 250 page book. They omit small details for the sake of clarity, and though I liked seeing it all placed together in such an approachable way, I realized that there's a lot "lost in translation." This is like reading Shakespeare with the Sparks Notes effect: The magic of the story is in how it's told, not necessarily the story itself. Stripping the way Kojima's narrative works--its tandem effort of being both cinema and video game--really makes the whole thing sound preposterously silly. And it is. I mean, most stories, stripped of the passion of their creation, sounds tinny and hollow. This is why I struggle with writing a query for my books: Perfunctory distillation is hardly inspirational. What if the games were given a different medium? Well, there are a couple of books by Raymond Benson released a few years ago that retell the story from the first two games, which end up feeling like a fanfic version of a walkthrough. Even the dialogue is carried over from one medium to the other. Presented in that format, the story becomes even more extreme, with gaps in logic that operate normally within a video game becoming untenable when put into book form. A quick f'rzample: In Metal Gear Solid 2, the character Raiden must deactivate a bunch of bombs by finding them and freezing them with a freeze spray. This leads to a boss fight which is filled with the player finding additional bombs and freezing them. As a gamer, that's an enjoyable experience, as it's tense and the possibility of missing one of the bombs could lead to a game over state. In the book form, it seems tedious and there's little tension about Raiden's victory as the spontaneity of a game is pulled into the less-flexible logic of a novel. As for Brusseaux and company's analysis, I really liked the way they pointed out some of the cyclical motifs that I had failed to notice when I was playing the games, most significantly in the way that Metal Gear Solid V echoes the usurped expectations of Metal Gear Solid 2. The difference, of course, is that it's clear that Raiden has taken Snake's place in MGS 2. In V, I didn't see Venom Snake as a phantom to Big Boss' Naked Snake until the final moments, when the ruse was established. Raiden has S3 to turn him into Snake; Venom Snake has Mother Base turn him into Big Boss' "clone"--a clone that Big Boss actually wanted and appreciated. Those parallels are really cool, but the emptiness of learning that I actually learned nothing about Big Boss still hurts*. I guess it's a type of phantom pain. Anyway, if you've played the games, I would recommend checking out the book. It has some dry parts, but on the whole it was a worthwhile and enjoyable experience. --- * The loss of David Hayter as the voice of Snake in both Ground Zeroes and The Phantom Pain is something that still makes no sense to me. I've decided to blame Konami more than Kojima on that front, though I really don't know what to make of it. |
AuthorWould you like to support my writings? Feel free to buy me a coffee (which I don't drink, but I do drink hot chocolate) at my Ko-Fi page. Thanks! Archives
July 2022
Categories
All
|