This is a great post by Infovore on the Guardian’s — amongst others’ — misguided attempt to ‘elevate’ Bioshock 2 to the level of literature. You really have to read the Guardian review of the game, but what struck me is that it wasn’t even being compared to great literature, a cultural item whose quality stands out from the rest. It was being likened to any literature, ie. another cultural form entirely, one that the Guardian, and most other media orgs, consider superior.
I’m not a huge gamer, and I tend to go for quick, puzzle-y games rather than the prolonged, frenetic thumb-bashing which most shooters seem to entail. I can’t stand the pace. But I was certainly bewitched by the descriptions of Bioshock 2 as a new type of narrative experience, almost a new cultural event. Hmmm, I thought, maybe this erudite, psychologically sound, mature piece of sensory immersion was for me. Perhaps it will reveal depths in me, and itself, that no one knew existed. So I pissed myself laughing when I read Infovore’s paragraph:
“Bioshock 2 is a shooter – a very good shooter, sure, with some tactical elements harking back to Halo’s balance of left-hand/right-hand, direct/indirect – but it’s still a game where you spend most of your time shooting monsters in the face.”
Probably not for me after all, then. But I think I actually would have been really angry had I shelled out 40 quid for a fairly traditional game which poncey critics were trying to legitimise up the wazoo by conferring their favourite elements of other entertainment formats onto.