Tag Archives: marcel proust

When will all the classics come?

Last Friday, Extra Credits team members James Portnow and Daniel Floyd did a Q and A with some of their fans. I happened to catch the end of it. One of the points that James Portnow made was how the great classics of games had not been made yet. I am quoting from memory here as, at the time of writing, a recording on the talk has not been put on line yet. I think the question was where in the history of game we were. Everyone seems to agree that we’re at the very beginning of huge things to come. I cannot honestly deny that I share that impression. But Portnow went further and said (if I remember correctly) that the game equivalent (and he meant equivalent as in role in history, I think, not in content) of The Odyssey or of Hamlet or Dante’s work had not been made yet. I don’t remember clearly which tiles he quoted. At some point he mentioned a nineteenth century title and pointed out that there was a huge gap between The Odyssey and that title. This is, obviously, true.

Still, there is one aspect that he seemed to have ignored. Classics were not always classics. Joyce and Proust were never popular writers. Neither was Descartes for that matter. But many authors that we now consider classics and force reluctant children to read while they’d rather be watching TV, going to the movies or (how shameful!) be playing video games were precisely considered the popular entertainment of their time. Two names come to mind in this category: Shakespeare and Dickens. As a French person, I’d like include Corneille in the list, and maybe even Molière. Balzac certainly fits the description. Idle children in the nineteenth century, instead of doing something productive, used to read Dickens or Balzac, or some other pointless, easy and potentially immoral readings. Now these are assigned as schoolwork.

The Far Side: Hopeful ParentsI’m not sure we can be certain that games that were made as early as the eighties or maybe the seventies will not fit that description some day. But it would be unwise to categorically assume otherwise.

Why I want to make games

Here at the ETC, a very informative and charismatic speaker asked the students, “Why do you want to work in this field.” This field was video games. In her mind, it most likely was in the AAA industry, but maybe she meant video games in general. I had a looming impression that my answer would be too convoluted to fit in the succinct Q and A format we were in, so I kept quiet. Now that time have passed and I have somehow managed to brush my thoughts into a coherent set of threads, I will answer here.

In short: classics.

Interactive media are in their infancy. We may have come a very, very long way since the seventies, but that’s certain to be only the first few steps of a longer journey still. We’re where the Western novel was in the eighteenth century, where the theatre was in the Renaissance, where painting was in the Middle Ages. We’re still in the times classics are being made.

When I got into Carnegie Mellon, I most likely had a choice between the ETC and Dramatic Writing. In many ways, Dramatic Writing tempted me more, but the ETC seemed to be the right choice. An argument I heard a lot if favor of the ETC is that it would make me much more employable that Dramatic Writing. It would have been a blatant display of a superficial character not to take such an important and practical aspect in consideration. But that was not it.

Why would I have gone into Dramatic Writing? Because I love television. Writing in American television blows my mind, not in every instance, of course, but definitely in most respects. But then what? Let’s say I make it television, for the sake of argument. I get a small job as a story editor on a mediocre show. Then another, then another. Then I get a job as a story editor in a good show. Then another. Then I become a lead writer for that show. Then for another. Then, at last I am given my own show. Even if my new show is a success at that point, what then? I will not be like David E. Kelley, or Aaron Sorkin, or Chuck Lorre. Those people will have moved on by then. And with the Internet and (duh) video games taking center stage, where will television be like by then?

Whereas here, in this medium, I have the opportunity, maybe, someday, with a lot of work, a lot of luck and a bit of faith, to be like the David E. Kelley or the Chuck Lorre of video games. I don’t know if games, or interactive entertainment, or whatever one feels like calling them, are where novels were in the eighteenth century. Maybe they are where novels were in the nineteenth century: big, bold, formulaic behemoths of literature about to gain some level of respectability in the arts. Or maybe that’s where games were in t he eighties and we’ve reached the moderns in games. Maybe our independent games will turn out to have been the Virgina Woolfs or the Prousts of the medium. I don’t know. Maybe one of use will be the Agatha Christie of the medium. Given the opportunity, if earned, I’d take that title with more pride I could express here.

The important things is that games are lagging a lot behind most media and that’s normal and we should embrace it and take it as an opportunity to do great things and to be great for it. Interactive entertainment is where the future is still very likely to be shinier, more beautiful, more challenging, more intriguing, more delightful than the present. And I want to be part of that, in some respect.