Explanation is needed, isn’t it?

While the literature on video games is extensive, and with the blogging world typing madly about critical thoughts about the medium, it seemed to me the best way to join this rapidly growing community is to start a blog myself. Primarily a student of film, I wondered why couldn’t I myself criticize video games as closely as I criticized films. At first, the barrier of games simply existing as entertainment stopped me, but recently independently produced video games with an artistic intent in mind have made me think more critically about the idea of “entertainment.” After all, anything that calls our attention away from the mundane routines of life can be considered a form on entertainment. Films that rival literature as daring insights into the human psyches were made first and foremost to stave off boredom. Literature, too, was first and foremost interesting to read. Can’t games too, fall in this category?

Secondly, I was wary of any criticism of video games because I was unsure by what measure I should criticize a piece of work. Cinema can be judged, in my opinion, by its fidelity to reality, but games it seems do not have such a clear cut judge point (though one can argue cinema’s representation of reality is not a clear cut assessment at all to a film’s quality) to make any sort of academic claim. Yet, as I thought more about the subject, something became clear to me, and that is how similar the video game medium is to the cinema, save for some very fundamental difference. The main difference that makes the video game truly a video game, is the title of this blog.

The simulacrum of existence seems to be a very contrite and pretentious title, but to me signals the simple reason why we play any sort of game. This reason couldn’t have been determined without first examining our obsession with the moving image, the cinema. Why are we so preoccupied with moving pictures, when we could very well see movement in real life? For some, this is because the implicit reality that cinema offers to its viewers. The image on the screen is forever tied to the reality, a concept first proposed by famous film critic Andre Bazin. For him, the cinema cannot be divorced from reality. The cinema could be judged on how well a film was faithful to reality, how the film was first and foremost as an objective image existing without context. Only when someone views an image does subjectivity become a concept. This is why we are drawn to the cinema by the millions every single day. We see a replication of reality, regardless of the context.

Of course, the video game does not have the advantage of being tied to reality, thus it is not the reality that draws us in by the millions. Something else must draw us in, or else video games would not have gone past its humble beginnings of monocolor pixels moving on a screen. Both film and video games seek to immerse us in their respective worlds. For film, the immersion comes from its incredible fidelity in reality. However, this reality is simply the reality of what has happened. Nothing will change the reality, no matter how much input from the audience. Video games, however, exist because of the input from the player(s). And the player only has input because the creator as deemed input possible. The creator conceives the World, and the player simply exists, simply is the Being in this created World.  Being and World, Player and Creator, it is this relationship where video games are fundamentally different from any other medium that exists. It is in this relationship video games can truly be called the 8th medium (or the 4th art, if you will.)

Then where does this “simulacrum of existence” come from? We can agree that the player and creator are undeniably important in video games, but why would the video game be a simulation for being? This is because in video games, narrative progresses or goals are completed simply because of the player’s interaction. Simply because the player exists in the creator’s world and performs actions, goals are completed. Narratives are progressed. In a world where even existence can constantly be questioned, in video games at least our actions directly influence the video game world. And because the world changes because of our actions, the player becomes more concrete. His existence is confirmed. However, the created world is not reality. Hence, it is a simulation, following rules and laws that certainly exist in the reality. Thus, video games (and games in general) can be considered a “simulacrum of existence,” because the world the player exists in is not reality. It is not even the reality of the creator (Though it can be.) It is a world created from a separate idea of reality that can only exist with a player. Reality is interpreted by the creator, who then establishes a world that follows this subjective reality. It is not a copy, but a copy’s copy. It is a simulacrum that cannot exist without action. Thus, it is the simulacrum of existence.

However, there does exist a paradox. But that is for another post.