Gamasutra: The Art & Business of Making Gamesspacer
View All     RSS
October 31, 2014
arrowPress Releases
October 31, 2014
PR Newswire
View All
View All     Submit Event

If you enjoy reading this site, you might also want to check out these UBM Tech sites:

Video games will save the world
by Patrick Miller on 01/14/14 06:38:00 pm   Expert Blogs   Featured Blogs

The following blog post, unless otherwise noted, was written by a member of Gamasutra’s community.
The thoughts and opinions expressed are those of the writer and not Gamasutra or its parent company.


From where I sit, it's not hard to see all the many ways that video games fall flat. Triple-A is allergic to new ideas; indies can't see past their own navel; our entry-level pathways to the industry are plagued with dead ends and poor labor practices; on balance, we're a medium dominated by straight white cis men; our online spaces are slums of shit; and so on, and so on. It's easy to see all the bad stuff everywhere, just piling up everywhere, especially if Video Games is where you work on a daily basis.

A few months ago I was chatting with my then-boss Simon Carless, baller/shot-caller for GDC, and he observed that, as bad as things seemed in games at any given moment (particularly with respect to issues of power and stratification), that they seemed a whole lot healthier than any other comparable sector. I've been mulling over that for a bit since then. On one hand, Simon is literally The Man when it comes to video games (and I'm sure he loves it when I remind him of that); on the other hand, his perspective and insight into the holistic world of video games is pretty much crazy deep, so I couldn't just write it off.

Since then, I've come to the conclusion that video games will save the world. Because a lot of the problems we're tackling now, at various places in the broader world of Video Games, are problems that we'll all have to tackle elsewhere, eventually -- and nowhere do I see those problems being tackled as enthusiastically as I do with video games.

The virtues of a young medium

Video games are a fascinating place where technology (and tech capital) intersect with art and creation, and with academia, and as a popular medium with the general public. It's an industry where we literally create new worlds to solve problems in -- problems whose solutions inevitably prove relevant to the world out of video games, as our work goes on to inform everything from medicine to the military.

It seems like every day in games I see people working on solving problems that simply have no Big Book of Solutions. These problems are in human-computer interaction, in economies that have both virtual- and real-world boundaries, in skills acquisition and training, in network engineering, in entertainment content and event production, in manufacturing and distribution, in international brand-building, and so on -- and that isn't even talking about the actual development of the game itself!

Just look at what Valve is doing with selling digital goods and defining how we think of our virtual "inventories"; what Oculus VR is doing to engineer around our physical quirks and limitations; what Twitch is doing to turn play into performance; all of this work will undoubtedly have reverberating impacts upon the next hundred years of humanity. Games and play drives change in technology; technology drives change in society; society changes games and play.

Our pioneers mostly aren't dead yet

In the world of video games, there is a cultural hegemony around what is and isn't a game -- hegemony which is often used by some to exclude marginalized creators' works (see the periodic senseless hate for Gone Home, Depression Quest, etc.). But this hegemony isn't insulated by generations upon generations of dead creators, nor institutionalized worship for their works. Instead, those creators are still alive, still talking, often creating still, well into their third or four acts of their career. And the subsequent generations of devs who they inspired are still at it as well.

So we have different generations of creators all working in conversation with each other (and we're finding that both the early pioneers and the new folks actually have a lot in common, as it turns out). No, this conversation is not perfect, but it's happening, and I think it's important that these conversations are happening while this medium is still very much in a formative period.

(In fact, it turns out that it's the too-well-trained mainstream consumers themselves that reject the games from the margins; one need just look at Gone Home's presence in the Game Developers Choice Awards, right up there next to the epitome of Hollywood-game-blockbuster The Last of Us, to see that the rhetorical policing the boundaries of "video game" is largely coming from certain segments of players, not the devs themselves. I think we may find that money is interested in making more Gone Homes, even if WeedSmokeBalls420 is not interested in playing them yet.)

The Internet is a shithole, and we live in it

One important thing we've learned over the last 20 years is that people on the Internet are dicks.

Thing is, games have grown up along with the Internet. The Internet is part of our collective DNA. Anyone who plays video games and doesn't interface with the Internet at all -- no multiplayer, no news or forums or Twitter, no online marketplace, nothing -- might as well be the games equivalent of a hermit, or maybe someone who doesn't own a TV and is a little proud of that.

Which means that when people on the Internet are dicks, it necessarily affects our enjoyment of video games -- something which isn't nearly as true (yet) about music or film or literature, from what I can tell. And that means we need to find ways to solve the problem of Internet Jerks -- whether it's professionalizing community moderation, intelligently structuring various Internet communications media to encourage certain kinds of discourse, propagating community values and standards, learning how to carve out online comfort zones and "personal space", opening ongoing conversations about marginalized groups and social justice issues, etc.

We have to do all of this because we can't make awesome games without an awesome Internet. I can't enjoy fighting games when people are jerks on the Internet, and I love fighting games, so I guess I'm just going to have to fix jerks. "Normal", not-game-playin' folks can distance themselves from the Internet in a way I find most game-playin' folks cannot.

So when I see people in games talking about anger's proper place in a virtual community invested in social justice, I sit back and think, "The lessons we're learning now are the ones that everyone else will be studying 20 years from now." Because over a long enough spectrum, all other communities will be just as inseparable from the Internet, and they'll have to solve the same problems we're working on now.

"The Liberal [games] media"

I use this blog to analyze games writing of all kinds, and I'm often critical. I like to think that my criticism doesn't come from the "Everything is shit" perspective so much as the "Everything could be better" perspective -- which is why I try to keep my criticism constructive. 

One thing that I am inordinately proud of over the last few years of games writing is the way that critical conversations of gender and sexuality (and to a lesser extent race and class, though that still leaves much to be desired) have proliferated -- not just in discursive communities explicitly dedicated to advancing social justice causes, but in consumer-facing, mainstream (for us) publications.

I think it's hilarious that jerks in Reddit comments bemoan the plague of feminism in games writing; clearly, if the main place feminism intrudes upon your privileged life is in writing about video games, it means we're doing something in a mainstream medium that other mainstream media are not doing! We are having a conversation about gender and sexuality that connects to your life in a meaningful and relevant way (video games), and you are reacting to this conversation with defensive hostility and contempt because you cannot ignore it like you can in your everyday life.

Put another way: A man's attitudes toward women and gender typically change not when he starts dating or gets married, but when he has a daughter -- because only at that point is he forced to sit down and consider how much shittier the world is to a woman than to a man. With video games -- both in the games themselves as exercises in empathy, and in the discussion about games -- we are given an opportunity to open that conversation significantly earlier than that. It won't take the first time, or even the fifth, but it will eventually sink in.

Kicking down the barriers to capital

It's kind of crazy to me how quickly the modern indie game dev scene has grown -- and how part of that growth has been connected to our willingness to find other ways to get at the capital necessary for us to build what we want to build.

If I were to decide to start working on a game tomorrow, I would have so many different options for funding it. I could build a prototype in my free time, using off-the-shelf tech and my home PC, and shop it around to a publisher (because publishers now have budgets for indie games!). I could start by getting a team together to mod a commercial game, and if it's successful, use that mod to develop a relationship with the commercial game dev or use it as a proof-of-concept for crowdfunding and publish through Steam Greenlight. I could use an Early Access program to build a highly-invested community early on. And so on, and so on.

Crowdfunding, pay-what-you-want, early access, less-manicured storefronts: All of these are ways of circumventing traditional barriers to capital access (loans and investors). This makes game development more accessible for people who historically have had a hard time finding loans and investors, which gives us games from different locations of situated knowledge, which grows the overall value (financial and creative) of our medium as a whole. And I think that it's great that we're quickly developing paths for people to create and flourish outside of institutionalized mass-production game development relatively early in our medium's history, because I don't want Going Indie to be something you can only do when you're young and reckless or old and established, and I'm hoping that we can preserve and grow that as a viable sector well into video games's maturation.

Film, schmilm

Now let's compare all that to the world of film, where The Hunger Games: Catching Fire is the first movie with a female lead to be the year's #1 film since The Exorcist 40 years ago. Where the Internet, as an independent distribution channel for video, simply hasn't caught on (how many web-exclusive independent shows do you watch?) like it has with games (ironically, most of the successful web shows are about video games, and are taking advantage of new tech like easy live streaming to do even more radical stuff).

We may be a young medium, but relative to our closest cousin, we're coming along pretty nicely. I'm calling it now: 2014-2114 will be a big century for us!

--patrick miller

Related Jobs

The Workshop
The Workshop — Marina del Rey, California, United States

InnoGames GmbH
InnoGames GmbH — Hamburg, Germany

Mobile Developer C++ (m/f)
The College of New Jersey
The College of New Jersey — Ewing, New Jersey, United States

Assistant Professor - Interactive Multi Media - Tenure Track
Next Games
Next Games — Helsinki, Finland

Senior Level Designer


Ardney Carter
profile image
Video games will not solve the world's problems. If you are looking to video games as your savior, you are destined for disappointment.

Katy Smith
profile image
Video games will not solve the world's problems. Neither will movies, tv shows or books. "To Kill a Mockingbird", "roots", and "The Diary of Anne Frank" certainly didn't hurt, though. Why couldn't games do the same?

Luis Guimaraes
profile image
Video games teach people to be problem-solvers (active agents of change) instead of passive observers.

Jeanne Burch
profile image
Jane McGonigal gave a TED talk a few years back with a similar theme:

I show it to my students (usually to their irritation) in the hope they will take that optimism and determination and apply it to their own career in games.

Arnaud Clermonté
profile image
I don't see many gamers tackling problems other than their own first-world problems.
They grab their pitchforks when a console doesn't have backwards-compatibility with an older console that they already have, but they don't volunteer to feed the homeless in their town, they buy just as much sweatshop products, Monsanto products, meat and fossil fuels as anybody else.
It's like there is a wall between serious world problems and first-world gaming issues.
Gamers are among the richest inhabitants on this planet, and they could potentially do a lot to "save the world" by just spending that money wisely.
I'm just not seeing it happen. When I do some volunteering, I hardly see any gamers. They are not interested.

Arnaud Clermonté
profile image
Look at what Gabe Newell has to do to try and get gamers donate to a charity:
Look at the comments. Hardly anybody cares about the charity.

Here's a sarcastic commenter who doesn't even see the point of a charity:
" The $500,000 question:
Redditor - "Gabe! When can we expect to see HL3?".
Gabe - "We currently have no date set for release or any upcoming information".
Money well spent."
And that's the most popular comment I could find.

Katy Smith
profile image
That doesn't explain the success of Child's Play, Extra Life, Humble Bundle, or Gaming for Good. Sure, there's going to be "what's in it for me" people everywhere, but I don't think it's more or less prevalent in gamers than in culture as a whole.

Patrick Miller
profile image
Pretty much all the comments so far have talked about how *playing* video games will not save the world, which is a different topic that I didn't write about!

Ardney Carter
profile image
In the event that you're lumping my comment in with the generalization "pretty much all the comments so far" let me make myself clearer. I am not talking about merely playing video games and I am fully aware that this isn't what you were talking about either.

But let's be clear, even at their finest video games are just another medium for conveying ideas. And though the method for absorbing those ideas is different than that of books, music, or film, the content of those ideas is nothing drastically different than what has come before it. Neither books, nor film, nor music (and cultures that sprang up around them) before your medium has "saved the world" and your new medium and the culture surrounding it will fare no better.

This is not to say that nothing positive can come of video games, as some other commenters seem to have taken my words to mean. Of course positivity can come from games just as it can from any other medium. But there's a difference betwene isolated positive trends and fundamental changes that will solve humanity's problems on a global or even a merely national scale. It's worth noting that there was a period in the not too distant past where a sizable number of people felt that their chosen medium (music in their case) could bring about lasting positive change. They were wrong.

Humanity is, at a fundamental level, incapable of solving all the world's problems. To believe otherwise is evidence of naivete or hubris. Perhaps both.

Patrick Miller
profile image
Oh, okay. Games won't save the world after all. I'll change the headline. You might want to have a talk with these folks next:

Luis Guimaraes
profile image
"even at their finest video games are just another medium for conveying ideas."

People love reducing games to a mere medium. I just don't get it why.

Christian Philippe Guay
profile image
For the record, we know for a fact that we currently live in a virtual reality and video games represent the same thing as microcosm. In order to change the world, we first need to change ourselves and we can change ourselves by going through various life experiences and just like life... video games can provide many. But the difference is that game designers have the power to create very specific experiences in order to solve very specific problems.

I'm not saying that video games are the only way to change (not save) the world, but it's definitely one of the most powerful tools we have.


John Trauger
profile image
"A man's attitudes toward women and gender typically change not when he starts dating or gets married, but when he has a daughter -- because only at that point is he forced to sit down and consider how much shittier the world is to a woman than to a man. With video games -- both in the games themselves as exercises in empathy, and in the discussion about games -- we are given an opportunity to open that conversation significantly earlier than that. It won't take the first time, or even the fifth, but it will eventually sink in."

The question is, do you expect your audience to buy this?

You need a very literal buy-in to deliver your message.

There's only so much preachifyin' anybody is going to stand still for before they vote with their feet and pocketbook.

You can always attract the True Believers and a niche game could make money in that niche market, but at that point, don't kid yourself that you're making a difference when the only people playing your game are the ones who already "get it."

Now comes the dark side: attempting to force hegemony on the game industry to make your POV inescapable by beating devs over the head with the "sexism" stick. At that point the job becomes agitprop, or worse, appeasement. That's not necessarily fun or art.

Fun or art is when new topics are undertaken voluntarily.

Patrick Miller
profile image
I think it takes multiple points of engagement. One movie or game that discusses gender/sexuality/race etc critically is easy to ignore; a dozen less so, and so on. Eventually, you'll find one which resonates and makes you think.

Leonardo Ferreira
profile image
Senseless hate for Gone Home only came from the expected places for such thing to be had (you don't really expect sensibily and pacimony from Reddit do you). What I saw, was, in fact, overwhelming, unanimous, praise for a rather dull experience with a not very bold story. Also, there is the elephant in the room, which I haven't seen discussed anywhere, that is the fact that if said game story wasn't synched with the current discussions in games media and society in general, it wouldn't have made such a ruckus (just look as Dear Esther, a game with a similar storytelling approach, but with a abstract and challenging narrative, wiht few easy answers).

BONUS ROUND: Depression Quest was a bit lazy and patronizing, and the way it was framed, for me, was quite disrepectul, not to mention a bit exploitative, for people who struggle with said disorder; the moronic hate it previsibly gathered kind of shielded it agains said criticisms. A game with a similar tone but with a more sensible, and yet less complacent, approach was Actual Sunlight, which, again, fail to garner much traction.

BONUS BONUS ROUND: feminism, like marxism, liberalism or conservatism, ia a political option. Not agreeing with what it proposes does not make anyone wrong, and also, not everyone who don't agree with it is a 4chan member or a Reddit commenter, or acts like such. Furthermore, the deep, north american vision most these articles propose, with the fetichization of ideologies, the elitism and moral superiority, and any lack of sensible analysis or propostion of solutions, aree quite troubling. Just look at how consumer culture is jumping on the bandwagon of internet-filtered moralism.

Sam Stephens
profile image
Great comment. There has definitely been a very political edge in discussions recently. People are caring more about politics than the games themselves. Games are getting more praise for what they are about (often political/social) than how they are about it. Of course, this kind of thinking has been present in most media studies in America since the the 60s and 70s. It's just that gaming, as a culture, is new and the more "intelligent" gamers model their writings on what is privileged elsewhere in order to gain acceptance.

Rick Gush
profile image
Nice. I'm with you Patrick. I gave a speech titled Games can Cause World Peace back in 2000 for a LAN fest in Florence. I've put a few female protagonists in games, and it's always surprising how many people are surprised by that. ha!