|
At the inaugural Project Horseshoe conference, I proposed a
topic for discussion: how can games achieve legitimacy? I had noticed that many other creative fields
were respected for their work, but computer games were still seen as a cultural
blight to be blamed for society's ills and legislated.
Many people still considered computer games
as something only intended for kids, despite the large adult audiences that
play games. How could we, as game
developers, be seen as legitimate creative workers?
Computer games are in the awkward position of being a
relatively new medium that already has considerable influence. We don't have
the millennia of history that writing has, yet games have entered the
mainstream and are rarely considered solely the domain of social outcasts.
Many
people have grown up only knowing a life where computer games have been
available. We are close to being
accepted as legitimate, but not quite.
What is Legitimacy?
What does it mean for games to be a legitimate medium and
what does it mean for game developers? Obviously games are accepted in some
ways, but not in others. Why?
I believe there are different areas of legitimacy, and they
are all part of what makes a medium legitimate. The primary three types of
legitimacy are:
Financial Legitimacy means making money and being a
viable medium for business. Older media often
do not have to worry about this type of legitimacy; for example, people rarely
publish poetry with the hope of making a large profit -- it is often done as an
act of prestige. Many new media, such as computer games, prove themselves in
this area first and that helps gain other forms of legitimacy.
 Artistic Legitimacy is how the people working in the
medium see it. For example, how do you see your job as a game developer? Do you
think you are making art? Do you think you're making mere entertainment?
Do you
do games until you can break into a "real" creative medium like movies?
Do just collect a paycheck? Do you work in games because of the creative
opportunities? The answer to those questions influence how legitimate games are
as a medium.
Cultural Legitimacy indicates how much society
respects the medium. Is the medium worthwhile to spend time on, like reading
books, or is it considered a waste of time? In many western societies, we
respect the concept of "freedom of speech", where we allow people the
right to express themselves freely.
Many attacks on creative media have been
halted because of the protections afforded by this freedom. Book burnings are
often seen as something abhorrent, an attack on the legitimate medium of
writing. Yet, some people don't see the same problem with limiting the sale of
video games to the point of harm to the medium. This is usually influenced by
the other two forms of legitimacy.
|
Printer-Friendly Version
Also, the links to the Horseshoe Project don't work for me, could be something with my connection, but I thought you should know.
The gaming industry will earn it's respect when it starts to deal with topics that isn't standart issue in (really) bad Hollywood action b-movies. Untill then, we'll be given the same respect as the Hollywood action b-movies (= none).
But that would require publishers to risk innovation, gamedesigners to go beyond juvenile male teenage scenarios, marketing to able to market topics other then WW2 and retail to accept AO-rated games for AO-customers (aka adults).
Brian has a point: why should anyone respect us, when we don't respect ourselves?
When a developer tells the average Joe that they make video games for a living, many average Joes think that means that they get to "play games for a living all day". And that the work is childish or simple. This needs to change!
I think preserving history is important. Unfortunately, that history is what has led to the uninformed stereotypes: kiddy, or violent games. An issue is that the word video game = Mario to the non-gamer, and that means kiddy (and if they don't think kiddy, they think violence). It's almost as if the term "video game" is inappropriate for the deep, artistic stuff being made nowaways.
I would love the day when video game coverage is alongside movie and book reviews on a weekly basis in mainstream publications (which to be fair, some already do to a small extent).
Games are based on the player DOING so naturally they're going to emulate action movies. Until we get AI that can carry on a natural conversation, we're going to end up mostly with cutscenes when we try to make a game without action.
That said I think the interactive experiences we create are very sophisticated and deserve the same respect that a movie with sophisticated dialogue and storytelling gets.
AO-rated games are more the equivalent of porn and dumb over violent games and not something "mature". A lot of movies changed the industry and the art of movie making without having content that would make them the equivalent of an AO-rated game. "Hiroshima mon amour" would be pretty boring to kids and they would not understand a thing but it doesn't make that movie adult only.
I think that, by having a dedicated following of the gaming industry as an industry but also as an art with websites such as Gamasutra, we are already making steps forward. It's publications like Les Cahiers du cinéma and Positif that spawned the New Wave and brought movies into modernity and maybe we are slowly doing that just by having debates about such issues.
If you do things that people will respect you for, then you will gain respect. We are not doing things that people will respect us for, except in very rare cases. Hence, no respect! This should not be a mystery.
The article touches on this subject, but only in two sentences near the end. The rest of the article is just perpetuation of the problem.
Now that previous statement might seem like I'm arguing with myself, but my point is thus: A lot of culturally challenging material was once met with friction or down right rabid opposition, but were later found to be culturally important works.
The best examples would be in books that inane whistleblowers tried to ban to "protect the children", or another pathetic excuse. 1984. Tom Sawyer (and Huck Finn). The Catcher in the Rye. To Kill a Mockingbird. Lord of the Flies. A movie off the top of my head that fulfills this description was Kubrick's Clockwork Orange.
Before we get our version of Citizen Kane, we might have to challenge what is traditionally accepted as material suitable for video games, and that may come with the AO rating.
Then we look at Wii which everyone says is innovative and that it is gaining respect from the non-gamer, but really it is just perpetuating as its main mechanic, gameplay above all else. Throw the plot out the window, heck throw voice overs out the window. There just isn't balance at this time in gamer and non gamer to allow for our citizen kane. The non gamers won't even care to play unless there is some gimmick, or simply can't play if it is too comlpex, and the gamers are either happy with where we are or understand time will fix it all.
I do agree that the work that an artist does should and will gain the said artist respect, but to what level does that respect affect the artist? What I mean is that the respect earned by the work of a designer/artist/writer has relevance within the industry's community, but may not, and often does not, in the general public/audience. You have experienced this level of respect within the industry. Articles on Gamasutra itself has shown that, asking you about your philophies and ideas toward game design and the furture of the interactive medium. The argument in this article, it appears, is how to obtain legitimacy within the "mass audience", not just the industry. I think Garth is getting close to part of the industry's problem, that being the connotations surrounding the very terminology and use of these creative products. Both games and comics had much of their beginnings within a younger demographic, thus obtaining that stereotype of being a "kids product", not an artistic piece. Film, on the other hand, had a history of being a more vaudville/adult audience type of media. So when issues of censorship and regulation begin to emerge, politicians, the press, and the public become more concerned about the media that seemingly (and perhaps actually) is targeted towards childeren (games and comics) instead of media targeted towards adults (Film, Literature, Theater). It not just about the actual work and audience of this media, but the percieved audience according to those who control the money, the mass public. Basically, its a PR problem for the industry, not a work ethic issue. To believe that hard work alone will bring the gaming industry respect is a naive idea.
I agree that games are based on doing, - it's an interactive medium.
Doing is describes with verbs; here's a list of the most commen english verbs: http://www.acme2k.co.uk/Acme/3star%20verbs.htm
How many of them have you seen in a game? How about the combination "kiss, cuddle, caress"? Why haven't anybody made a game with these verbs? this interaction? It doesn't have to be kill, shoot, destroy.
Gamedevs make Hollywood b-list action movies, because that's what they think they need to do, - and because that's what they like (and because the gameeditors support it, - Unreal Ed can't handle "kiss")
Games are rated AO for a number of reasons; - the primary being either extreme violence and sexual content.
But sexual content go far beyond porn; - it can be erotic without being porn. But if you make a game, where people can see a pixelated nipple, you'll get an AO-rating.
And the (K)(Wall)-marts in the states won't sell your game. So much for selling (and therefore getting financing) for relationship-oriented, erotic games for adults.
Thus most of the commentary made in commercial games has been through complementary narrative, where the tension is entirely on fictional characters and may feel "safe." But big budget games avoid any real dealings with hot topics like racial tensions or class warfare. At best, as in GTA, you'll see some over-the-top portrayal that cannot be taken seriously.
And yet, even those portrayals are considered controversial.
Despite the games that make some of us angry, we are on the right track. Games like Mirror's Edge (bold innovation on an existing genre), LBP (user-created content), Civilization (have fun with education as a byproduct), and Braid (as close to traditional "art" as you can get, IMO) are massive steps in the right direction. But we can't get angry because certain types of games are still made; it's part of the business that sustains our industry. "Legitimate" media has duds too (for every "Lord of the Rings" film there's 10 "In the Name of the King" rip-offs... same with literature).
In a nutshell, I think we need to keep doing what we're doing. We just need some outlet beyond game dev mediums that can effectively communicate to John Doe why Braid is so incredible (without confusing them!).
This is hard to do though. I showed family members (non-gamers) Portal, thinking they would appreciate a wonderful concept that doesn't involve blood or killing. After two minutes, I was told "It's stupid", "I can't get it", and they walked away. This could be a fundamental problem: The mass audience doesn't WANT to get it.
Its sad because we don't have to do much to get there.
I do agree that innovation and lack of diversified content in games is one of the main reasons that people cannot relate to them (and thus respect them as a medium). However, much of it comes from the business side of things. Developers are not willing to risk putting mature or unique content in their games just as much as they are willing to risk sex and an AO rating. They don't want to risk this because games cost a lot of time and money to make.
Sure, we have good independent games and the capacity to make some of these ideas a reality in the independent games realm... but will they? In some countries in the world you can go into a store and browse dating games and games with explicit content right next to GTA IV. What about here in the USA? The UK? Germany? There is no market (for cultural and political reasons), so if they do make something it is immediately going to be labeled like a bad "B-movie" and get bad rep. Designers will praise it, like Psychonauts, but if it makes little money and gets a bad reputation that little independent game company will tank or move onto greener pastures. Others will look at that company and say: "I am not going to be like that guy." killing the idea.
I see our breakthrough coming in more liberal legislature, more positive media attention, and larger publishers making bolder risks because of the better political environment. When will this happen? When "the aging senators, reporters, and lawmakers will be gamers or individuals who were exposed to games for their entire lives."
Its either this or games become faster and cheaper to make and the market gets flooded with independant, AA, B, and AAA games of all types (remember what happened with flash games?) Unfortunately I see this as less likely than gamers getting into positions of power.
This is why it is sad. Because we are going to get there anyway regardless of how much we innovate- and we all know how hard we push for innovation when it doesn't effect the bottom line.
In this world of Game Development i have two identities that seem to conflict. I am both a developer and an academic. I find there is an aggression words academics in the development and player community. The assault on Dr. Richard Bartle from this last year is a perfect example. Dr. Bartle was not criticizing WoW, he was critiquing it. there is a HUGE difference between the two concepts that seems lost on most people.
As an academic I am one among a number struggling to provide the sought after legitimacy. I am not alone. There are many people like myself in the humanities who are working towards this essential recognition of video games as valid and legitimate forms of entertainment and, in my case, even as literature.
One step that MUST be made is for player/users to stop and think about what is being said about video games when an academic analyst speaks up, especially those who have a humanities approach, and not submit to knee jerk fan-boy reactions. Likewise, those developers out there whom view academics as ivory tower dwelling criticizers need to back off and let us elevate their work to that position of being legitimized.
What we are doing, me speaking as a pure academic, is trying to chip away at a wall that exists for all new social, cultural, artistic objects seeking legitimization. It is not very easy. Those of us who have picked up the digital entertainment banner are doing it not for love of the game, for being gamers (though that can be a factor) we are doing it because we have identified an intrinsic importance in digital entertainment. It is worthy of study, it is worthy of elevation from a “child’s pastime” to a formally recognized and valued artifact of our global culture. Our work is harder than many non academics will ever realize but we do it because it NEEDS to be done.
So, help us rather than attempt to crucify us and we will hand you the legitimization that is so dearly needed!
For one, book burning isn't comparable to what's going on legislatively with respect to games these days. People are trying to formalize through legislation a similar restriction to what the movie industry enforces voluntarily. If movies are the paragon of legitimacy, this would seem to indicate that we're on the right track.
Also the discussion of the Comics Code Authority completely removed from a discussion of the Hayes Code isn't helpful. Movies are once again held up as an example... by WW2 they were a "legitimate" medium, yet the Hayes Code was in effect then and for many more years. If the article is playing by its own rules, it would seem that "strongly encouraged" voluntary censorship initiatives like the CCA and Hayes Code don't actually affect the legitimacy of a medium. It can't be one way for comics and not for movies, can it?
By the way, thus far it would appear that the game industry has avoided any sort of CCA/Hayes Code situation altogether... is this an indication of legitimacy or an indication of a maturing populous?
On page 3 we're offered the assertion that games are perceived as children's toys and can't tackle issues like war and death. I... don't think that's true. Let's see some backup on the assertion that this is the general perception of society and not a vocal minority.
I don't think games have achieved the same legitimacy as movies or books... a discussion of Roger Ebert's comments on the matter from a year or so ago would be much more helpful than a bit of whining about voluntary censorship initiatives.
Regarding the comments... AO games are not the primary way forward. It's a huge misstep to assume that to tackle serious content with seriousness we need to be creating AO content. It would gain us much more respect to tackle the issues in more clever ways.
I think we're making large strides towards legitimacy... if we're not there already. But I also think that sometimes the people disrespecting the game industry the most are the people inside of it.
Interactive entertainment media offers us unique advantages over literature and film. We have the opportunity to ask our audience their opinion and customize the outcome based on their decisions. Should it seem then so difficult a notion to propose that we place them in emotionally challenging environments that enable them to question themselves and their own decisions? Oh, that's right, we already do. We propose depth and challenge societal norms. Xenogears did quite a number to discuss the extremes of the human condition in the scenarios it provided. Ranging from human slavery, cannibalism, designation of racial superiority and the war of an oppressed people. It even managed to obtain political outcry from a number of religious groups.
We are very capable of making games that will remove the overtone of bloodshed and violence to focus intently on the human condition and experience. We could easily make a game in theme of a mystery setting where the primary concern was taking care of a frightened client, discerning evidence and socializing with a seedy underworld. None of which requires violence as a primary focus.
We are not incapable of creating these games. It is not as if there are not those among us who know how. That's not the problem. Our problem stands with the difficulty that if we created these games, no one would buy them. The academic culture who might hail as triumphs would not provide nearly the numbers necessary to justify their substantial development cost. The actual consumer base available would be less interested in this sort of game. We can debate about this but the metrics to date favor my analysis. Furthermore, those who might be interested in the game for its unique new perspective will likely be unwilling to learn the hand-eye coordination necessary to enjoy the game without reminding themselves constantly that it is a game.
Unlike film or literature, we require our audience to be in the capacity to interact. We can provide them with the experience, so long as they are capable of enjoying it through the tools by which it is to be had. The audience capable of enjoying a title worthy of academic prestige is not currently significant enough to justify the creation of such a title. Not that I wouldn't love to participate in the development of one or purchase one myself, but that point it moot. While you may criticize us for not making games that are culturally phenomenal and inspirational representations of the human condition, the criticism shouldn't fall squarely upon us as developers. We're willing to make the games, but society isn't willing to pay us the exorbitant sums necessary to do it. To add to that point, even if there was a justifiable market for an independent developer to pursue, the quality wouldn't be competitive to the market base without major funding behind it. No publisher is willing to stand behind something marketing isn't. If you want to pick a bone with someone, you ought to have a discussion with marketing on why it's impossible for them to bring anything that isn't one of your stereotypical disappoints to market and push it hard enough to generate real sales.
In our own right, departed from academic acceptance, we are actually a culturally accepted medium. Not by the traditions of an older generation, but we represent in force a major influence and are a significant component of many lives. Our society reflects that heavily, whether or not you want to accept it. Halo IS a cultural phenomenon. World of Warcraft IS a cultural phenomenon. They have deep major influences in lives in our society, they represent identities for people. They are more than simple games.
They are not academic analogies of the human experience, but they have incredible meaning and power to many, many lives. They will inspire, connect and motivate behaviors in individuals. They have become major components of developmental growth in youth to adulthood for many. They represent every major trait of a genuine cultural phenomenon, but they are not academically respected for it.
I just felt the need to identify that, since it seems we're talking about acceptance in academia, rather than society. Respect for our ability as artists. Respect, perhaps, for the power we wield to influence a populace. In reality, we already deserve the respect for what we are capable of with this art. Academic society doesn't choose to recognize us. That doesn't mean they shouldn't.
Any more legitimacy and you'll have people sucking up to each other until there is a sucking vacuum created, which causes a sucking up black hole. In this sucking up black hole everyone is perfectly elite and society can only acknowledge them as kings with bountiful fruit and fish laid at their feet, build great temples in their honor, and paint their names up in the stars every night.
You cannot compare the movie and comic book industry to the game industry because they are very different forms of expression; it's like comparing painting to sculpture.
The key to legitimacy for games is to show artistry in interactivity, not in "seriousness."
The Last Express
Loom
The Madness of Roland
Trinity
Populous
Balance of Power
Hidden Agenda
Myst
Ico
Valkyria Chronicles(??)
Planescape: Torment
...help me out here...
A thesis is, the industry started out driven by the designers and then was taken over by the marketers. Designers strived for legitimacy from an early time, when it was first apparent they were working in an artistic medium. Marketing crushed them in a race for profits.
To sustain the thesis, we should be seeing independent games striving for legitimacy.
DHSGiT was intended to be literary satire for gamers.
Braid
Passage, Gravitation,... succeeded as narrative experiments akin to flash fiction.
Fatherhood is an interesting Rogue-like, experiment.
Flow(??)
Democracy
Kudos
Oppai Baka (one for the AO admirers :-)
Flower
Facade
Global Conflict: Palestine.
PeaceMaker
Super Columbine Massacre
...help me out here...
I tried to list games with content that explores the human condition. Personal bias warning,... blah, blah, blah.
(A quick defense of Oppai Baka. It is about obsession, to the point of warping reality. It was probably not intended, but the deconstruction really works. (breasts as chopsticks? a mailbox?))
Think of all the books in existance, all the movies, all the music. That's a lot of media, right?
To me, video games are a synthesis of all those thing, with the additional veneer of involvement in some degree by the player.
There is zero doubt in my mind that games have equal capacity for artistic and cultural respect as other mediums (IE near infinite, depending on use). Even the player involvement aspect, which many see as hindering gaming artistically, can be explored and used in ways that are completely unique to gaming without sacrificing integrity. Over time society's treatment of the medium will match its potential, but that involves taking risks and recognizing the work of those games which push our sense of what video games are capable of.
Of course, I hope that happens at some point in the next 20 years because I'd like to be on that wave before I get old, but we're making strides now.
The biggest obstacle I see right now is that people don't accept the uniqueness of modern media, and trash it because it's not old and on paper like Shakespeare, but that's something I could go on about for more time than I have.
"But sexual content go far beyond porn; - it can be erotic without being porn. But if you make a game, where people can see a pixelated nipple, you'll get an AO-rating."
I agree. But then, maybe it's the rating system and what gets rated AO that needs to be changed. They show nipples in movies that are rated 13+ and nobody is going in the streets to protest about it. I think that it is a consequence of games not having that legitimacy. If a game show the same level of eroticism as some movies or tv shows they will either be attacked (Mass Effect SeXbox scandal on Fox News comes to mind) or given an AO rating, which is basically a ban form any big retailers. We need legitimacy to be erotic and not get an AO rating but we need to be able to be erotic and not get an AO rating to get legitimacy. I think you can see the vicious circle here.
Games already have legitimacy on the game-playing demographics. The problem is with people that have never played a modern video game. “The Sims”, the Wii and the DS have probably done more to help video games achieve legitimacy than anything else.
If your game is geared towards 18-34 males (thus probably being the kind of game that you’d typically consider playing), then no matter how revolutionary it is, you’re not helping much. If your game is as half as complex as an AAA title yet it manages to appeal to new demographics, you’re leading the charge here.
On the other hand, who knows, maybe games will gain cultural legitimacy as a great, cheap way to have fun during the Great Depression of 2008~20??.
Games are not movies with a controller.
It is wrong to solely evaluate video games in terms of movies because, while they do have some qualities in common, there are many more that belong solely in the domain of games. Yet all the time people state that a game is inferior to a movie because it has juvenile or hackneyed characterization and storytelling.
This reaction is to be expected. Movies came before video games, and they’ve been around long enough for people to clearly understand what a movie is and what makes it good. So now that we have this new art form, “video games”, we use the best artistic framework we have to evaluate it, movies.
That framework is a fine thing to use as long as the user keeps in mind that it will only explain a fraction of a game’s value. Unfortunately, instead the analysis usually ends there, omitting the majority of the game’s beauty. So in response to the above situation of the game’s story and characterization being pathetic, I would say, “Sure, that may be true, but in the full scope of a game those two components are often unimportant.”
Super Smash Bros. is a graphically poor game involving cartoon characters beating up on each other. If this game was a movie, it would be the lowest of the low. And yet SSB has positive qualities no movie has, such as emergence. Play the game with a group of your friends for a couple of weeks, and you’ll see what I mean. The way you play the game evolves over time. It acquires its own lexicon, social controls, and metagame. Your personality feeds back into the game, changing it.
Movies can never incorporate their audience as part of the experience like games do with the player, whether it be building communities, enculturing values (good or bad), or allowing the player to take on alternate selves. Why is it more artistic to watch a fake serial killer than to act and think like one in a game?
In conclusion, being as good as a movie is not an end-point for games. In fact, trying to live up to another medium’s standards is counterproductive in establishing the legitimacy of video games.
In order for games to be fully appreciated, to become legitimate, we need to develop a separate critical framework unique to games. Once the tools of criticism are in place, the average consumer will be able to understand video games in a context more complex than “is this fun or not?”. Think about it this way: would movies be considered artistic if no one could understand them?
This is the same legitimacy films and books enjoy; now keep in mind that most books and movies don't hold a lot of cultural integrity, but the good ones do. I think we are already on this road for games as well.
So you can create art games all day (and I won't complain), but ultimately we need to create games that are accessible to a wider audience, like how Maus blew open the art comics market. I was deeply moved by games like Ico, Passage, and Braid, but would my parents and non-gamer peers ever be interested in playing any of these? It's not so much the themes behind the games - my grandmother would watch any art film I'd be interested in (or almost any). But it seems as if it's something as fundamental as the way we interact with games as well as the question of challenge.
After all, you have to play a game, and with these games you have to play them to the end. How can you achieve the catharsis that lies at the end of Ico or Braid without having fought your way through the previous levels? And how can you get someone to play through your game when the control interface is completely alien to them, to say nothing of their interest in the themes presented or their ability to surpass the challenges presented? These I think are the greatest hurdles, because it's very easy for someone to pick up a copy of Maus and read it, but not so for the videogame equivalent.
Lastly, to address the question of preservation, at the risk of tooting the horn of self-promotion, please direct your attention to the IGDA Game Preservation SIG: http://www.igda.org/wiki/Game_Preservation_SIG We are working on a white paper to present at the GDC IGDA booth demonstrating why we need to preserve games and why your support as game developers is required. Further, I started the Game Developer Memorials project to remember the lives and work of deceased game developers, something that I see as important to giving respect to our community but also to aid in legitimization of the form ( http://www.igda.org/wiki/Memorials ). If you are interested in helping with any of these projects, please send us an e-mail.
Rather than filling up this interesting discussion thread, my incensed response to the article is here:
http://www.artfulgamer.com/2009/02/11/bastard-in-a-basket/
Regards,
- Chris
Publishers, Gamers and Media.
Publishers don't seek risk. In fact, they do as much as they can to avoid it. As such, the industry has become stifled in many same ol', same ol' rehashes and World War II shooters. You can't entirely blame publishers for not wanting to put money into development that they don't know they're going to lose money in, but has this got out of hand? Are publishers a huge active component to the stifling of the industry? If this changed, could that alone start making strides towards the industry being viewed as a legitimate form of media that is mass accepted by the public and those who are not a part of it? A big part of this issue seems to be the next component.
Gamers. If we truly talked with our wallets, we probably wouldn't see so many generic and World War II shooters and loads of franchise sequels. We cry for innovation, we cry for the next big thing, we cry for a knight in shining armor to save us from this big, ugly dragon that is tedium. But aren't we responsible but not willing to realize it? Are we so jaded and spoiled that we're not willing to buy new IPs and risk spending money on unknown titles? Do we not realize that money talks? If we were actually willing to try Psychonauts and Valkyria Chronicles, could we finally convey our deep desire for fresh and new material in these stagnating times? Is the price point on current consoles and games too high? Is that alone why we don't seem to be showing the publishers what we truly want?
Finally the Media. Ah, the media. This is what I feel fuels the fire for politicians. Everything in our culture seems to be directly effected by media exposure. Through the media we are told how we're supposed to look, what to care about, what to dislike. The media's portrayal, either positive or negative, always seems to have some sort of flow on how that particular subject is perceived by the masses. Thanks to the media, you can be famous for being famous. Thanks to the media, you can face unfettered opposition from law makers and politicians. And the media doesn't even have to be *right* it just has to be sensational! If the media covered the positive stories and outcomes of gaming, would we see so much political backlash against the industry? If the media was accurate and fair in its reporting, would people really buy into the disproportionately blown out of proportion reports?
We are legitimate. But the scope is we're legitimate amongst ourselves. The industry has legions of bloggers and news reporting and fans and followers and awards and the other ceremonial type stuff people associate with "legitimacy." What we don't have is an educated and understanding society that accepts the industry if they don't game. Given time, the gamers will outweigh the non-gamers (actually, I think they currently do...) and we'll wonder why people had such an ignorant and blind hatred for our industry in the first place.
Regardless of where we're at now, when we finally invent Holodecks (the most realistic type of video game) books and movies will be the novelty and games will be the social standard. ;)
Many comments here seem to be saying that games are already extremely deep as cultural experiences and that it's just some kind of education or PR problem. That is not true. At least, most of them are not any more deep than any number of menial things that normal people do all the time. To insist otherwise is perhaps to be too overzealous of a games enthusiast.
I that the question "How do we gain legitimacy?" is ill-construed and will only lead to bad answers. The proper question is "How do we start doing things that will have legitimacy?"
Here’s a tough question: Do the people making games (indie or not) have anything worth saying? With very few exceptions, I would say no. This industry is made up of software craftsmen and toymakers for the most part. I’m not belittling those roles, but if you want to make ‘art’, it helps to have an artistic vision to express (and that’s not something that you switch on/off. It’s a personal hunger that doesn't give a shit about publishers or marketers). Why are you making games? Are you drawing from the rich well of life experiences, or are you trying to pay a nostalgia-fueled homage to your favourite NES RPG?
Neither of those motivations is more correct than the other, but realise that if you are after the latter, your audience (and most likely the cultural impact of your game) is going to be just as limited as your ambition. Jonathan is right. We ought to be talking about: "How do we start doing things that will have legitimacy?"
There’s a reason Miyamoto is a genius. I think his designs, many based off of real life experiences or feelings, is key to why his games are able to connect with a wider audience. Of course, Shiggy has largely focused on childhood, or child-like experiences. We can move well beyond that. It’s no coincidence that kids leave the games behind as they grow up. As their lives become more complex, and their experiences richer and more diverse, games remain infantile and unsophisticated.
Hopefully, as technology becomes easier to use, less tech-proficient people from increasingly diverse backgrounds and lifestyles will inform our medium…but why wait around for that? The question that needs to be asked is not, “Are we culturally legitimate”, but, “Are we legitimately cultured?”
Or at least this... any question that can be roughly translated into "How can games become more like movies?" isn't the right thing to ask. Perhaps it's an oversimplification, but that seemed to be the real question asked by this article.
1. Chasing after a ball
2. Dancing
3. Driving a car around a track
4. Playing a guitar
You can dance backup for Britney Spears, or dance in a ballet and it's considered legitimate by both the dancers and society. You can play soccer for a living, or play baseball on the weekend, and it's considered legitimate by both the players and society. The content/art in those mediums has nothing to do with how they are perceived. Art is a very subjective thing. How are videogames different? Some people consider making games for a living a legitimate path, others don't. How is that different from every other career? I doubt telling your father you want to be an actor is much different than telling him you want to be a videogame developer.
What irks me is the developers that created this industry, and the players that supported it, didn't care whether it was legitimate. That's why this industry exists. If you think we're not legitimate, does that mean they should never have started? I wonder what they'd think of all this navel gazing.
I believe the legitimacy problem with video games stems from one thing that hasn't been discussed. It's that we game designers want things from the medium that aren't typically possible - like sculpting a sound. Certain works of genius, such as Chrono Trigger or Super Metroid, make us think it's possible to be 'engrossing' and 'immersive' with a story worthy of a novel, while also being fun. Unfortunately, video games are not movies or books. While I did play through those long great games at times, almost all of my time spent as a gamer was on long-term competition. I think this is true for most gamers. Starcraft, Halo, even Subspace:Continuum absorbed thousands of hours of playtime while Chrono Trigger had only a day or two. A fascinating phenomenon happens when one looks at these competitive games - they're more widely accepted as a result of how much they're played. In Korea, Starcraft became a televised sport, complete with star players, teams, and mobs of screaming girls. How much more legitimate can you get? My point is, games can have legitimacy *as games*, as sports, but never as books or movies. Developers are mistaken.
If you want games to "mean something" like movies and books do, they're certainly lacking. And so do sports, music, architecture and others.
A lot of games are thematically bankrupt, but they present an unexplored possibility space in such a compelling way that the player is completely absorbed into it. If that’s not an artistic achievement, I don’t know what is. And you don’t need to take my word for it:
“One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others may despise it, is the invention of good games and it cannot be done by men out of touch with their instinctive selves.” - Jung and the Story of Our Time, Laurens van der Post (1977) [Wikiquote]
Yes, it would be great if there were more games that pushed the envelope in new ways. And I commend those working hard for it. But we’re doing the medium a disservice by not recognizing the merits it already has.
The simple fact of the incredible growth of the industry, the fact that every kid now grows up playing games, that game conventions are now a part of our culture in a deep way, and on and on all argue that we are as "legitimate" as any entertainment business. Articles like this seem to say that there is something wrong with what we do if we aren't striving to make the next great piece of art -- when the actual job is entertaining people.
If I can make a "simple entertainment" that pleases people, I'll take that any day over a great work of "art" that no one plays. The first legitimizes what I do (to the only one that matters, myself) far more than the latter would.
We make entertainments. That is a noble thing in itself.
all of this posturing to be the "next hollywood" and stuff and trying to go from comics to graphic novels... that's all just the bullsh1t of the suits and pr people. big money, big business, blah blah blah. if you ask me, nuke the whole thing and have it be guys in garages again. that's the spirit of the thing.
and make no mistake. there will always be games. if some kind of huge tsunamis wiped out the BUSINESS of games, games would still exist. there are tons of people who don't give a flying f about p.r. and suits waiting to take our places the moment we exit the stage.
we make fing games. if people enjoy it and you enjoy doing it then that's fing it.
might as well ask how we could make rock n' roll "respectable".... ugh.
http://destral.wordpress.com/2009/02/12/legitimacy/
"charlie chaplin tried to entertain and he made art. some people try to make art and they don't even entertain."
aiming for respectability itself is a somewhat gauche endeavor dontcha think?
as for porn, it is gaining considerably more pop culture acceptance these days and whether it is considered respectable or not, it is entirely legitimate. in fact, you could probably trace a good deal of the history of representational art through important pillars marked "erotica".
and you have profits and viewership far exceeding hollywood to prove its legitimacy.
i would be totally fine with having the acceptance, respect and profits of the porn industry.
jin
I guess it's possible to manipulate the player into approaching the game with the developers intended view point, but ideally the player would give the game the benefit of the doubt and go along with its premise. That requires strong and gripping design which is further challenged by having to provide instant gratification. It can be hard to take something seriously that rolls over to please you.
If only games had a patron that could fund artistically ambitious games. I guess devs looking to pursue that avenue just have to do the extra legwork of looking through more ambiguous grants from governments and various foundations.
I can't afford to keep up with it anymore, I'm tired, and I'm starting to age.
If you want it to be truly meaningful, you gotta put some more meaning into it...
Quit shooting for the money, shoot for the meaning, and do the best you can possibly do... And then maybe you might become legitimate. But only, maybe.
Addressing this discussion more directly, its worth noting that my 65yo mother will have watched little of any of these shows, but also won't doubt that they have their merits (except perhaps Firefly!). She knows there is "quality" out there - shows that are all they can be, given their vision (and, where relevant, budgets). She also knows that budget is one of the least important factors in determining whether something is good, and therefore doesn't judge the entire medium by its most expensive output. Isn't that where the games industry wants to be?
Does the analogy with TV point towards how the industry can gain legitimacy? I don't know. But then I don't know if TV serials are legitimate either.
However, it seems some people have read some interesting things into the article. This isn't a post whining about acceptance or a public display of self-pity. It's an attempt to inform people about an issue I think is important. The discussion here has shown that people are thinking about it, whereas they might not have been thinking about it before.
And, I certainly don't want games to become more like movies! I use the example of movies because it's something that people understand, and where it worked to become more legitimate in the memory of people still alive. It's an attempt to help people to learn from history.
The discussion has started, now it's time to take the next steps. Jonathan Blow said above:
The proper question is "How do we start doing things that will have legitimacy?"
This is why the question I put forward in my article wasn't ill-construed as Mr. Blow asserts, because it leads to asking more precise questions that have more precise answers and proper responses.
Anyway, if anyone wants to have a more direct discussion on this with me, you can find a topic on my professional blog: http://www.psychochild.org/?p=590