I finished Red Dead Redemption a while back but haven't had the time/drive to post about it until now. But when thinking about the game's story recently, I couldn't help but think about its place in the whole "Are games art?" argument.
The last time this topic came up in theO's news section, I liked the direction in which Pleiades Rising steered the conversation -- that art isn't about how pretty something is (though that helps), but how it engages someone. How it makes that person think, and what it makes that person think about. To me, real art asks questions, and often difficult questions that have no real answers. That's the thing I think many gamers miss when this topic comes up: Art probes subjects and feelings that are not easily resolved (and that art often cannot resolve), and that runs entirely counter to the reason games exist in the first place.
For video games to truly be an art (if that is indeed what gamers want the medium to be), then that must be reconciled in some way, at least in the games that are attempting to be Art. Many developers have been trying to reconcile this and have definitely been experimenting for years. You've got Hideo Kojima and the Metal Gear Solid series, with the main complaint being that it swung too far in the direction of story at the expense of gameplay (not to mention parts being largely incomprehensible). And you've got other shots at it like a lot of Rockstar's games (including RDR), BioShock, most of BioWare's games, many JRPGs, etc.
Maybe the most interesting part of gaming is that video games can directly engage people better than any other medium, because the player is essentially a direct participant in the story (by proxy, of course, but for all intents and purposes the gamer is linked directly to the playable character). (As a side note, I think that's part of why there's so much passion in this argument -- people get really attached to these stories and characters, because there's such a personal connection to them. Then they pump them up to be more than they are, even though I would personally say that, at best, most stories in games are Good for a Video Game.) And I think toying with that personal connection has led gaming to some interesting directions as far as artistic expression is concerned -- BioShock being a prime example (its most famous twist plays on this).
If gaming were to become an art, bending that personal connection and participation in the game would be the best direction to go in, I think. It's maybe the only way gameplay and storyline can truly be resolved. That tangent finally brings me to Red Dead Redemption, which I think plays on that personal connection quite well. The story stands up with many great westerns, although I think there's a bit too much padding for it to be considered one of the greats. But in spirit, it certainly connects, especially in the overall sense of cynicism the story has toward John Marsten's quest.
Like many games these days, there's a gameplay device that tracks morality: Doing "good" things and "bad" things will affect how people react to Marsten, but in terms of the overall story, the player does both good and bad. The overall theme is redemption: Marsten wants to make good on his past deeds and settle down to a quiet life with his wife and son; he's being forced by the police to hunt down the members of the gang he was in back in the day. This leads Marsten in the middle of various conflicts throughout the country, and to get information on the whereabouts of the gang members -- and help in taking them down -- Marsten aids people who are just and people who are rotten to the core.
A topic that often comes up in modern westerns is the decay of one way of life in the face of mass industrialization. RDR brings that to the forefront by placing the game just before the start of World War I, which was of course one of the major turning points in modern history. One of the most striking sights in RDR is the presence of utility poles wherever one goes; it's such a simple thing, but it's something I'd never before seen in a western (unless you count modern day stories that have a western flavor like No Country for Old Men or The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada). The symbolism is always there -- the world is moving in a different direction. Marsten fights and claws to retain his way of life (even selling his soul a bit as he seeks absolution), but it's a way of life that the world deems obsolete.
All this converges in the one part of the story that really got me thinking (and that inspired this post): The hunt for the final gang member. I'll be vague so as not to spoil it, but the way everything goes down is vastly different to most Final Boss encounters in games. Like any good western, the resolution has the hero wondering whether everything he did was truly worth it. Again, Marsten does good in his journey, but he also helps out some decidedly scummy individuals, and the big thing is that the world is neither better off nor worse due to his journey. Marsten goes into this with one goal, and he achieves that goal, but at what cost?
It's fascinating from a story point of view, and somewhat frustrating from a gameplay point of view -- and I think that's what Rockstar is going for there. It's questioning the conduct of the gamer through the course of the game, and it acts as a way to counteract the inevitable desensitization to violence that comes through the game. This twist also highlights something that I believe is a point of contention for many people: All this is inevitable. Often when a game has a certain focus on story (and artfully telling a story), there's a necessary degree of freedom that is sacrificed. There's a definite path that needs to be tread. RDR and other Rockstar games attempt to reconcile this by giving the player freedom to do stuff outside the main story, but that conduct has zero effect on how the main story develops. If you act like a saint the whole way through, Marsten will still do evil. If you act like a bastard the whole way through, Marsten will still do good.
Many gamers decry that type of linearity, and there have been attempts to get around that and still tell a good story. I'm really interested in playing the Mass Effect series and seeing how those games' purported freedom of choice truly affects the story. Games like Heavy Rain and 999: Nine Hours, Nine Persons, Nine Doors try to circumvent through multiple choice and multiple endings, but a lot of those stories end up being Good for Video Games and not so much in comparison to stories outside the medium. (Actually, I wouldn't even call Heavy Rain's story Good for Video Games -- it's barely a B-level serial killer plot, and the voice acting ranges from average to atrocious. If it weren't a game, and the player weren't in control, I honestly think it would be worthless.) By and large, though, most stories worth talking about, I think, are quite linear.
Personally, if the story is good enough, I don't mind that sort of sacrifice. I think Red Dead Redemption pulls the rug out from under the gamer in just the right way, and it was true to the spirit of the many westerns it emulates. Everything else about the game is a lot of fun as well. RDR is the type of game that really gives me hope that video games could possibly be an art form and not just hyped up to be one from people who don't know what they are talking about.
Anyway, that was a huge ass word dump. I've been out of the game (lol) for a while now and have just been getting back into the swing of things since I got my Xbox 360 a few months ago, so if you have an issue with something I've written, then feel free to knock some sense into me.
EDIT: Also, I should probably say that I have no real problem with gaming stories (or any stories, for that matter) that aim simply to be entertaining and provide a fun experience. Real art is rare, I think; I have great respect for stories that both entertain and have something meaningful to say, but it doesn't often happen. Aiming solely for entertainment is good enough for me most of the time.
