A little over a week ago, Time Magazine published its Top 10 of Everything 2008, which included their list of Top 10 Video Games of 2008. For those who haven’t seen the article, it’s here. Topping the list is Rockstar’s Grand Theft Auto IV, a game that has topped many people’s lists, as well as ruling the roost on Metacritic. This, of course, has also caused many people to backlash against it.
My own personal feelings aside (a slick, entertaining yet-partially flawed pseudo-remake of GTA 3), the Time article makes an interesting comment - “…a grade-A shoot-’em-up that doubles as an interactive novel…” - that seems almost more (incidentally) provoking than naming it the top game of 2008.
For the past few years, gaming has been torn between becoming a mature artistic medium or remaining a digital past time, the electronic heir to Monopoly’s living room. This battle has taken the form of hardcore gamers rampaging against the rise of casual gaming that the industry itself has latched on. These arguments always seem to harp and focus on the Wii’s bountiful shovelware, and while, there is a lot of ground in this argument, it misses the more interesting one:
What hooks the casual gamer?
From the days of Ms. Pac-Man, game makers have been trying to implement some level of story into their games. Some have a vague sense of concept (Italian plumber + kingdom of mushroom + angry snapping turtle), while others embrace the other extreme (Kojima, I’m looking at you). Twenty years ago, there was no real defining line between casual gamer and hardcore gamer. Anyone could play Pac-Man or Mario Brothers. But as the games became more virtual and “harder” to control a segment became phased out.
The current idea in gaming to bring back the masses, revolves around the idea of mini-games or simplistic controls that promote fun. Basically, electronic board games. I applaud these efforts and think its perfectly healthy to have a tremendous amount of these, especially since you can have a degree of experimentation that you cannot have in any other way.
But eventually the novelty wears off.
In the early days of film, people would flock to the theaters just to watch two minutes of people stepping off a train, or running around with a hose. It was a technological wonder and the people paid. But behind the scenes, the creators began to see what could be possible and, with the audience in their hands, waiting, pushed the medium into its more complex story driven phase.
Since then, for good or bad, movies have gone through growing phases to keep the audiences - both casual and die hard, mainstream and independent - happy. And it does so with many crossover hits. Passive audiences can move from generic and bland films to more hardcore films that require active audiences just through exposure.
Which brings me back to the GTA IV comment. I wouldn’t say it’s the best example of an interactive novel (in fact, I would strongly argue that Metal Gear Solid 4 does it much better), but in its own way it can serve to be the 21st century’s version of The Great Train Robbery. With its high profile, news making, crossover gameplay, it can be the hi-definition interactive gunshot to digital-boggle addicted audiences, and with that potential, maybe it deserves to stand as the best of the year, despite its flaws.
The fine people over at 
