As we identified earlier in the semester one of the themes throughout postmodern literature is that the major questions it tries to answer are ontological. As I interpret that it concerns the exploration of our perceptions of reality and what we perceive to be real and what we perceive to be fake, and what the important distinctions here are. History as Fiction of course would be a great example of that blurring and the relationship between the two. As we’ve already seen extensively throughout Ragtime there are extensive gaps and inconsistencies in history, and even in the nature behind a historical pursuit. As a result there’s a lot of room to blur the lines between history and fiction we thought we saw, and Doctorow does it nicely. As he argues himself, his mixing of historically accepted events with events that he conceived of himself presents a still very realistic picture of what our history could have been like. He believes that it’s not strictly important whether or not part of his “history” is widely agreed upon or not, because he believes that by freely creating his own story it frees him to mold the work into one that is as useful as he can make it. By not being constrained to create a specific narrative he has valuable room to move around and make his own valuable lessons. It’s this aspect of Postmodernism that I find the most philosophically interesting; that it accepts all realities as potentially equally valuable, and even potentially as viable and and useful to consider as what we perceive to be our own reality. And as many people are starting to find more and more disturbing our “virtual” realities are bleeding into our “real lives”, Video Games being an excellent point of departure I think.
If you think of video games as following historical periods like literature I would argue that they started their journey during the Modernist Period. What I mean by this is that early in their history video games were the epitome of a structured narrative. There was absolutely a set point and set way you were supposed to achieve that end goal. Think Mario. You can only ever move forward or sit still (often not even that) and there were set places you jumped to in order to clear each level. Admittedly there was a little bit of variation here in exactly where you chose to jump, but for the most part there was a set beginning, end, and way to advance through the middle. If you wanted to a person could memorize the required keystrokes and timing and would be able to beat the game with their eyes closed. Think here of the similarity to the Mystery Novel, as Mr. Mitchell cited as the quintessentially modernist form of literature. The main character advances through a set of clues, supposedly interpreting them objectively, and in the end it leads them to a seemingly inevitable conclusion. Both forms follow a rigidly structured line of events.
Just as literature’s evolution from modern to postmodern was gradual and even subtle, so too was it the case for gaming. As games grew in popularity their complexity was also forced to grow in order to meet a hungry demand. While many aspects of the visual appearance of games, and even the mathematical models used to create these games have advanced dramatically these are only a vehicle for which to improve the gameplay itself. And the biggest focus on changing gameplay, in my opinion, is trying to create as much characterization in the game as possible. Things started off pretty low key; maybe you’ve got a choice of a few different weapons with which to face bad guys or maybe there were a number of different paths which you could take. But things started to get complex pretty fast (I’d just like to add in a note here that I am by no means trying to account for the whole history of gaming, I’m not even closed to qualified to do so, I’m just drawing on recollection of games which I’ve had interactions with). The first pokemon games for instance we now see as little more than childish, but the underlying mathematics and potential for specialization in their heyday was probably tremendous. Especially in the 21st Century though I think that game development has started to skyrocket as a viable industry. The result being that the complexity of game design has has taken off at a comparable rate. For those of you who are semi game savvy I remember thinking back in the early 2000’s how awesomely complex and interactive the Diablo games were. And in their defense I still think they’re fun, but in light of recent games they fall somewhat short of what our standards for complex would be. Take for example the most recent Grand Theft Auto game. Not only does it have some of the widest variety of personalization of any game I’ve ever played it also has an important defining difference from Diablo: after beating what they offer as the main set of missions there is absolutely no shortage of freeplay activity afterwards. In other words they’ve made it entirely possible to live within this constructed reality just like our own. And anyone who’s ever fallen into obsessive gaming sessions can attest, you can really inhabit these things. I don’t jest when I say I can spend upwards of 12 hours straight playing a game like GTA. Many people find this kind of activity deeply disturbing, I certainly don’t like having done it after the fact, but it becomes all to easy to blur your distinctions between your reality and the game. For many people the idea of spending your life inside of a virtual reality, as has sometimes been cited as a dystopian plot, is really not even a far off fear. It’s now entirely possible to make an entire career out of playing games. There are youtubers who do it for upwards of a million dollars a year. Most people (often of older generations) find a great deal of fault in the idea that you would spend your life in some alternate story besides what we call reality.
As much as I think there are valid concerns for people spending too much of their time inhabiting video games I also think that a lot of the value of a game is missed. This is the same value behind narrative that Doctorow so strongly advocates as to why fiction is just as valuable as history. While no video game portrays life perfectly a lot of them do a pretty good job, Grand Theft Auto being a reasonably good example. And just like any good novel it’s chalk full of moral ambiguity, questions of friendship and love, and it’s slightly hypocritical scathing social commentary. So before we’re too quick to jump to accusing of video games as not being a valid reality let’s all reflect on those same misgivings that were put forward towards Historical Fiction.
There has always been a lot of talk about "virtual reality," esp. in the early days of the Internet and the "information age." It's the kind of thing sci-fi (or SF, if that's the preferred nomenclature) writers have been exploring since the mid-20th century. But you make a good case that, with contemporary video games (which almost shouldn't be called "games" anymore but something more like "video fictions"), we have entered something like that once-imagined future. I like the analogy between modernism and early, goal-oriented games where puzzles need to be solved. Postmodernism allows for more "play", in the sense of freedom and essential goallessness--it's just *inhabiting* another world, another identity, often one that is just as "real" as the one the gamer inhabits when unplugged. My sense is that the capacity to play remotely--with/against people who aren't in the room with you, or whom you don't even know personally out in the real world--has really enhanced this "ontological" aspect of gaming. Curiously, this seems to be made possible alongside developments that make games seem more "real" (in terms of photographic detail, psychological elements, etc.). So a kind of formal "realism" in the games' design (as opp. to the Nintendo variety, which is more whimsical) corresponds, ironically, to a more postmodernist function. Huh.
ReplyDeleteI thought about touching on the online aspect that has permeated gaming so much in the last few years, and how totally postmodern that is, but thought I was perhaps already a little longwinded. I think though that maybe it would have been an even better example than my grand theft auto one though, since it takes the idea of personalization and creating your own reality to a whole new level. I think maybe the most postmodern thing on the whole planet would be the entity known as Minecraft. Probably most people are at least a little bit familiar with it, but I could probably write another entry this same length just about how the options that independent modifications to the game coming almost entirely from the fan base open up mind boggling potential for shaping your own new reality. Literally the whole idea behind the game is that you're reconstructing your own world in as many ways as you can make possible. I think the sheer popularity and brilliant simplicity of the game support the idea of the really importance and joy behind gaming being it's potential create your own reality.
Delete