They certainly seem to receive a lot less attention in the mainstream media compared to movies or books even though they are one of the biggest entertainment industries out there.
There also appears to be a perception that they are just amusement for kids even though many games especially on the PC are some of the most intricate and sophisticated entertainment out there (especially strategy games like Civilizationa and Europa Universalis)
And famous game makers like Sid Meier and Peter Molyeneux are much less than known than their counterparts in film or music.
Is this a generational thing; ie. most of the people who started gaming as teens in the 80’s aren’t quite old enough to make editorial decisions yet?
I have noticed that games seem to receive more attention in e-zines like Salon so is this a cultural difference between old-line media and their more adventurous Net counterparts?
I honestly don’t think games have reached the quality of film or literature yet. I think the dividing line is that games are entertainment - whereas literature and film at their best are art. Art is good; an end in itself. Entertainment is an intellectual cul-de-sac, dulling rather than sharpening the mind. I spent ages using PAW to build a great sci-fi text adventure set in the future of Eastern Europe. In the end my greatest obstacle was the stupid player. So i removed him/her, and wrote a story instead.
I hate this, myself. I’ve seen so many games that have very VERY nearly reached levels I would call postmodern; creative in and of themselves. But they’ve never quite made it. Not YET. It’ll come.
Furthermore I don’t think so radically new a genre as games has been around long enough for anyone to have got a serious handle on how to make art out of something so clearly controlled by the user. Those games with clearer storylines end up too linear. Those without end up as sims. It’s hard to put the two together without levels of computer power we’re only now beginning to reach. On that level, we should perhaps see the 1GhZ PC as the beginning. Think of it as 1mb, maybe?
However I think all this will go in time. How long have we had computer games? If we’re incredibly generous we could say 50 years. I think that was when they first taught room-sized machines to flash lights in pretty patterns. It’s not long, and there’s only been a chance for little folk to program for… what, thirty years?
Maybe that’s another point. Programming requires one to think like a scientist. If that’s a genuine hindrance to creative thought, I’ve yet to be convinced, but it may have caused a few hiccups along the way. We’ll get there. Well, I’ll get there. And then I will send for you.
Hmm the issues you bring up are somewhat different from those I had in mind. After all there are many types of popular culture which aren’t “art”.
Anyway you are probably right that plot-based games haven’t reached the emotional power of the best films and books yet, though they appear to be getting there. However the fact is that a lot of popular culture doesn’t reach those standards either.
In any case the games I tend to play are strategy games and I can definitely say that the best games out there like Europa Universalis are as intellectually stimulating as the best books out there.
Well, I think that computer games are still (in a sense) a ‘minority’ form of entertainment. An awful lot of people don’t have computers, or don’t play games on them, who do read books or watch TV or go to the cinema.
I’d put computer games in the same category as board or card games.
Millions of people play poker, Bingo, Monopoly, whatever. These are not referred to much in mainstream media, largely because there’s not commercial sponsorship available for “champions”. Though I understand darts and pool are regularly televised in England, due largely to sponsorship from equipment manufacturers.
Computer and video games ARE part of the mainstream culture.
They’re for the most part personal experiences, Games. Same with board games. There is, however an anual ‘Quake’ (I, II, III versions as they’ve become available) and ‘Unreal Tournament’ championships that offer a prize of up to $250,000 to the winner but I think they (FPS’s) are viewed much like the ‘Ultimate Fighting Championship’ (Full contact fighting) events in that they appeal to the Violent natured people (Once again a generalization 'cause I’m not violent natured but I do love my Games) and I challenge people to completely discard games like ‘Final Fantasy VII’ and ‘No One Lives Forever’ as ‘unartistic’
I would not say that computer/video games are not a part of mainstream culture.
I mean, we’ve had movies based on Final Fantasy and Tomb Raider, fer cryin’ out loud. Not to mention that Super Mario Brothers movie that came out some time last decade.
Hmm I guess it is arguable that computer games are in fact a part of mainstream culture or at least are becoming so.
However for example even the biggest games get pretty little attention in the media and as I mentioned even famous designers like Sid Meier are unknown to the country at large.
How much time to computer games get on TV (which IMO lies at the heart of popular culture)? Very little that I know of. For instance TV is a perfect medium to review or preview games, interview game designers etc. I bet there would be a good audience for an Ebert/Roper style weekly programme about games but none exists AFAIK. My hunch is that the reason is that the older guys who run TV don’t play or understand games.
One major stumbling point is that games are really expensive. The forty to sixty dollars it costs to buy a hot game will take you to many new release movies, and power a TV indefinatly. Another factor is that games (even networked ones) are largely solitary activities. While there are people that play games en masse, most games are played in solitude. This does not create the same social experience as other forms of pop culture. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, few games reach the point of emotional identification. Few games are capable of making the player cry. There is just something in the way of emotional involvment. Methinks it is the strange line between linearity and free gameplay. On one hand there is too much control to be a linear story, like a movie…but there is also too much linearity for total immersion to occur. This creates a standoffish space between the character and the player.
Games are actually quite cheap if you consider them on a per-hour basis. A decent game will often give 40-50 hours of entertainment so it works out to a buck an hour. That is cheaper than most other forms of entertainment out there.
There might be something to the fact that games are still largely solitaire but then that’s true of reading a book as well. Anyway that’s changing with online gaming.
After thinking about it a bit, I believe that gaming is in fact on the verge of entering mainstream culture. The two movies that tracer mentioned are a sign of that.
So is the basic demographic fact that people who grew up on games and continue playing them are becoming middle-aged and therefore more powerful.
Another factor is that the technology is getting more and more immersive and the next generation of video cards and processors will probably deliver photo-realism which is bound to draw in more people. Also genres like the Sims (while disliked by many hardcore gamers) really draw in non-regular audiences and make the industry more mainstream.
So everything considered I wouldn’t be surprised if games become a central part of mainstream culture by the end of the decade.
Are we really talking about making computer/video games “part of” the popular culture? Because they already are – just look at who’s standing in line for an XBox or Gamecube this Christmas for proof.
From reading the OP and CyberPundit’s subsequent replies, I think the real question that’s being asked is, “When will computer and video games get respect?”
Yeah perhaps that might be a good way of putting it.
A comparison might be made with the porn industry. Lots of people buy and consume porn but it’s still not considered respectable part of the culture.
Obviously games aren’t that disreputable but in comparison to the number of people who play them they are definitely under-reported. And unlike porn I would say that they deserve better, ie the best games out there are a highly sophisticated and stimulating way to pass your time.
If I’ve missed this point elsewhere in the thread, then just disregard this post.
The main difference between video games, or games in general, and other forms of popular entertainment is the degree of passiveness afforded to the recipient of the entertainment. To listen to music or watch a movie, it’s not necessary to develop any particular level of skill to succeed with being entertained by either one. A video game though requires a commitment of time and an effort to become competent in the playing of the game. It’s that achievement of competence which allows the game to cease being a frustration, and begin being an entertaining pastime.
Sid Meier ROCKSSSSSSSS…1 fan here…sure there are lots more…but alot more ppl watch movies than play games…even tho some games are totally amazing and i’d give them more credit, artistically and technically than any movie! too bad everyone duzn’t think that way…which iz why games are not viewed as such on a large scale…its just the exposure aspect.
I have to agree with this point, Remember the news reports after columbine. It seemed like everyone over 30 thought videogames were “murder simulators”, while everyone under 30 was amased that the news was showcasing five and six year old games as the height of the evil technology.
I think i’d have to agree with the generational thing. Most older people don’t want to do much with games, except like the computer nerds. But at the same time, many kids my age don’t know shit about games, all they know is what they see on MTV. So, until the gaming companies can make enough money to advertise on huge networks, they will stay out of the mainstream.
not sure if this adds anything to the debate, but I’d like to note that The History Channel has been plugging Civ III pretty heavily during the last week or so.
I think this is really the gist of it. There are a few games which I’d consider works of art, but only one of them truly allows nearly anyone to enjoy it in the way that the developers intended without the frustration of learning the game.
Mario 64 is, by far, the easiest game to pick up and play, aside from maybe something like 1942 or Pong. No manual is required, anyone can play it from my niece who was 3 at the time to my mother who was 52 at the time. While they maybe didn’t grasp the nuances of the graphics, or all the silly references to the other games, they were able to explore the Mario world in the way that was intended by Miyamoto without problems or frustration.
Of course, they probably couldn’t do all the goals, but I don’t think they or the designers ever expected that. It was enough that there was an interesting landscape that they could wander around and play in, while other, more ‘hardcore’, gamers could actually go about completing the game.
Anyways, back to the topic…
What I really think causes the lack of more TV time is the demographic that plays videogames is also the same that watches SportsCenter or Pokemon or The History Channel. When faced with that, I think most people are going to just make another TV show aimed at one of those groups, in hopes of making sales to advertisers easier, instead of having commercials for WWII videos, new Digimon toys and Rogain in the same ad break.
Electric Playground - a Canadian show out of Toronto, part of Second City - is an excellent game review show. Funny, smart, irreverant and not too full of themselves.
There is another called Gamerz, but it is really annoying to watch.