Why Games Will Never Be Culturally Relevant

    So I'm sure those of you that read Kotaku, Rockpapershotgun, etc. have seen the "Wager" article by Steve Gaynor. For those of you who haven't, basically he argues that there are two main reasons why video games will never be taken seriously as an artform the same way TV, movies and books are.

    He states that the barrier of entry is too high -- games and consoles are usually fairly complex and involved, even casual ones. They have rulesets and often they have their own internal logic which may not be immediately apparent to people not familiar with video gaming's conventions and quirks. You can very easily read a book, watch a movie or watch a TV show and therefore their message and desired impact are more easily digested. Their message is direct and unmolested by graphic symbolism or outside input.

    I tend to agree with those reasons as stated in the article, but I think that in gaming in its own insular world is actually relevant and has respected publications and critics. (Although in light of the Gerstmann/Gamespot thing, one has to wonder...)

    I don't know if it's because I've been a gamer for so long and that I work in the industry, but it's not unusual for me to have normal conversations about games, vintage gaming, game characters or things that happened in games. Maybe the "average" person doesn't have these conversations as often, if ever, but I think that in 10 or 20 years, we'll look at people who *aren't* familiar with a lot gaming lore and think they're a bit strange or deprived.

    the basic difference is, that games are interactive while movies, books, art in museums aren't. games give a limited freedom while movies, books etc. exactly tell a story you have no influence on. probably this is why i preferred adventure games so much, because they had a solid story and there was only one way to get to the end.

    but i agree on the fact, that games are harder to represent to the public. though i think most people don't even want games to be so famous since games have certain risks too such as social isolation (which is of course not always true). in any way i can live with games but i just see them as something that should entertain me and is fun to consume.

    games usually don't criticize our society, but that's what most movies, books or art do/does.

    The article states its arguments well, but I disagree. The fact is a large proportion of kids these days play video games (or at least the boys). So that’s a huge portion of our younger culture playing, controlling and understanding video games no matter how complicated they may or may not be. And in fifty years time, which was his allotted span, they will be the older generation and we know the boys will continue to play games through their adult lives. Anything with that amount of spread is part of our culture.

    Something I found interesting is he says they’ll be as mature and respected as comic books, and for Westerners that’s far from a complement, but on the other hand in Japan that’s a very good cultural standing, where everyone from every age, gender and creed reads them – because they’re not all burly men and busty women. Though our take on games is quite juvenile as it stands there’s no saying these markets won’t be encompassed as it grows. (After writing this I noticed he addressed it on one of his many edits).

    Though it’s true a lot of video games are trying to be films, which is why we see this bloat in development costs and all the bad things that come with that. And I don’t ever see them invading their turf – at least not while our approach to the production process is so laughable by comparison.

    I've been very careful to avoid the word "art" in this post.

    In fact video games are culturally relevant for the last few decades already. They have influenced the lifes of millions and the group of people who enjoy games is still growing.

    Maybe my definition of cultural relevance is different from his tho.

    edit: i figured it would be interesting to find out more about the cultural relevance of games compared to movies via google fights. I compared the two highest rated movies on imdb to two of the best known video game characters.

    Godfather came on top of Super Mario with only a small lead of 29,500,000 to 25,500,000. Sonic the Hedgehog on the other won against Shawshank Redemption with 5,520,000 to 3,590,000.

    Aren't his pre-requisites somewhat hipocritical? Sure it's pretty easy to read a book, provided you've spent years in educational intitutions and are literate. Games are far more culturally relavant and accessible than literature, any clown can mash some buttons and move a joystick or mouse with little to no training.

    Not that it really matters how people classify it, for some reason it makes me angry when people suggest games aren't a valid artform :ssj:

    Quote from m8nkey

    Aren't his pre-requisites somewhat hipocritical? Sure it's pretty easy to read a book, provided you've spent years in educational intitutions and are literate. Games are far more culturally relavant and accessible than literature, any clown can mash some buttons and move a joystick or mouse with little to no training.Not that it really matters how people classify it, for some reason it makes me angry when people suggest games aren't a valid artform :ssj:

    That's the point -- games are seen as silly things where people mash buttons and shoot spaceships. There's nothing culturally relevant about that, whereas people consider Oscar nominated movies to be relevant.

    Also the author of the post isn't saying *he* thinks games are irrelevant, he simply makes a bet that the general public will never embrace poignant games in the same way people embrace Oscar nominated movies or Pulitzer Prize winning books.

    Quote from zaphod

    why is being considered "art" important?

    usually if something is considered an art, it is easier to pass it for cultural value. honestly though, i fail to see why thousands of paintings can stand out and be all cultural while computer games have to sulk in the corner. tradition be damned.

    call it one thing and it'll make people go mellow and sweet. call it another and they will curse and condemn the day it was made. it's all politics, baby.

    Actualy i think the "general public" cares less about literature then about video games or B-Movies already. And even 9 out of 10 oscar nominated movies dont have a higher intellectual value then some average video game (maybe not in the best foreign movie category).

Participate now!

Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!

Register Yourself Login