Why aren’t games respected as a medium?

A while back I was having a discussion with a gamer friend and a number of non-gamers. My gamer buddy mentioned that, on average, he buys at least one new video game every month, often more. The non-gamers responded with raised eyebrows and asked, “Isn’t that a waste? Why don’t you rather spend your money on books or something?”

There are so many gross assumptions in those two small sentences that it’s hard to know where to begin a thorough deconstruction. One of the subtexts suggests that video gaming is a pastime opposed to intellectualism and that gamers choose to be illiterate.


Gamers have probably heard similar comments throughout their lives, from friends to teachers to family members with good-yet-misdirected intentions. It’s the symptom of a larger issue at hand, that video games simply aren’t extended the same degree of respect as other mediums. They’re often seen as a juvenile waste of time, as if they rank as the absolute lowest form of entertainment. True, games aren’t necessary for survival and won’t offer eternal enrichment, but is that also not true for movies, music, fictional novels and virtually every piece of art ever conceived? Why do these forms of entertainment not receive the same degree of criticism that games must endure?


I can propose a theory. I would contest that video games are the most difficult medium to understand and appreciate fully. Games require merit on their consumer’s part, as well as a degree of endurance and the willingness to make mistakes and learn from them. I can appreciate that games are not everybody’s thing and that’s just fine, but to berate them because you aren’t interested in being challenged is about as daft as dismissing a language as useless because you can’t speak or understand a word of it.


My one gamer friend has a rather simplistic viewpoint on it.
His view is one of "never underestimate a good name". That a big part of it is the word "game". And that "games might have been taken a bit more seriously if they had been called interactive art". :p


Have you experienced a moment of video game disrespect as a medium?

Answer: Too many dorks & fanboys which is why,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BonusKun

Answer: Too many dorks & fanboys which is why,

---

And here I am thinking we could blame it all on teabagging. :p

So you're saying because of the fanbase itself?
As in, for example, if you have a look at some of the "immature" arguments posted by some members on various gaming boards, and it will really paint a pathetically childish picture. Someone who doesn't know better will assume that all gamers are like that and thus not respect the medium?

Most of it probably comes down to whatever people have grown up with. Often eldery and adults think it's a waste, but they probably never grew up on them. They had a childhood full of films and books instead. When people of this day and age think that way about games, it's most likely because of the ''nerd'' stereotype. Fanboys are plentiful with music artists/bands and movie franchises, too.

To be honest, though? I feel gaming is more of a respected medium than it has ever been. Rarely do I run into people who find it a waste of time/money these days. I do agree gaming is not as large as other media formats, but when I see games like The Last of Us I wonder how long it's going to take before gaming catches.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4AmIKhfr40

Dara puts it quite nicely I think. Although with more effing than I remember. I think a lot if it comes down to what came along first. Like how in the 90s future video games are intelectually superior to zero gee holographic movie novellas.

IMO one reason is that its a medium that tries so hard to be like other mediums instead of embracing it's own strengths and be something different. And that is one reason why even i, myself, don't respect videogames that much anymore.

For instance, ever since the storage medium allowed lots of real voice acting, orchestral music recordings and lots of FMVs/cutscenes, etc, videogames tried (and still try so hard) to become movies. Sometimes i play a game and have the feeling that the creators would rather do a movie instead if they had the chance. It's almost as if the videogame industry is run by a bunch or rejected movie producers and directors who try to make their dreams come true by making "cinematic games".

See, games don't have to have great acting or good direction. The characters can still get a free pass for looking like wooden dolls. The direction can still get a free pass even when it's Uwe Boll quality. The movie industry isn't all that great ofc, lots of shitty movies exist, but the thing is that a shitty "movie game" can still get a pass because it's not called a movie, its called a "game". A shitty Uwe Boll movie could still be a decent cinematic game today and be respected by gamers as a game instead, even though the story would be crap despite being the top priority in said game's development and it's gameplay/interactivity being limited or almost non-existent.

IMO games need to be games first in order for people to respect them. Unfortunately, cinematic mainstream games isn't the only problem. Casual mobile games with zero quality and tons of microtransactions and progress bars that are nothing but fillers, also bring videogames down as a medium. And if you take into account that most people have only known videogames via their mobiles, well, it doesn't help much.

Good thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulis

For instance, ever since the storage medium allowed lots of real voice acting, orchestral music recordings and lots of FMVs/cutscenes, etc, videogames tried (and still try so hard) to become movies. Sometimes i play a game and have the feeling that the creators would rather do a movie instead if they had the chance. It's almost as if the videogame industry is run by a bunch or rejected movie producers and directors who try to make their dreams come true by making "cinematic games".

---

Too true. Look at Kojima. Regarding games being their own thing, people have forgotten the narrative that naturally evolves out of mastering most 2D games for example. It's unique, and it's closest comparison would be learning a musical instrument. Instead, a lot of modern titles in the public eye force their narrative on the player. Partly since being a passive observer requires less effort, and partly, as you say, game development has become wannabe movie-making.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulis

IMO games need to be games first in order for people to respect them. Unfortunately, cinematic mainstream games isn't the only problem. Casual mobile games with zero quality and tons of microtransactions and progress bars that are nothing but fillers, also bring videogames down as a medium. And if you take into account that most people have only known videogames via their mobiles, well, it doesn't help much.

---

And this is the other side of modern gaming. The need for skill and practice has been replaced by the need to grind XP and/or buy your way to victory.

Since gaming went mainstream, both issues have become a thorn in the side for those that enjoy actual skill-based challenges, which is what games are really defined by IMO. The graphics and sound just help deliver these challenges in a thematically enjoyable way.

All the greasy, vocal, socially inept yokels paint an ugly picture of what people who play games are like. It feels to me like gaming has, at least a little bit, regained some of that stigma it had back in the days before the PSX. It seemed like gaming became a lot more acceptable during the 5th and 6th gens, but 7th gen all the online crap and nerds finally having an outlet for all their frustration has set it back. With the internet also came the endless nickel and dime-ing as well.

The short answer is it hasn't been around long enough. Gaming in its infant form has only really been around since the 70's that's all the time it's had to evolve with new technology and ideas in game design since.

There are people who have tried to take a more critical, artistic eye towards gaming and developers who have used the medium to create true art but the audience at large isn't interested in that kind of introspective thinking yet. Movies and comics had to go through their awkward growing phase of just being viewed as worthless entertainment as well, it's only in recent decades that such thing as respected movie criticism and analysis have come into existence. With a few exceptions you can argue comic books aren't quite there yet as well.

There's also a lot of different facets of gaming to consider. Is it narrative that makes it art? Is it the sound and visuals? Is it the gameplay itself? It's all of those things making video games a very complex and nuanced medium to study. We'll probably have it figured out by the time the current generation of teenagers are all doddering old men and want to elevate the things they enjoyed as children to a more respected status.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OverDrone

Since gaming went mainstream, both issues have become a thorn in the side for those that enjoy actual skill-based challenges, which is what games are really defined by IMO. The graphics and sound just help deliver these challenges in a thematically enjoyable way.

---

It varies from person to person what defines a video game. What makes a video game a video game? Is it the challenge that comes with it? Is it just a way of casually playing something for the sake of enjoying something? Or is it all about immersion? ''True'' gamers rag on productions like The Last of Us because it's a movie wanna-be. To a lot of people, though, the reasoning behind why they are doing something in a game is equally as important if not more important than what they are actually doing. Games like Contra throw you in without any context, which can make it hard for certain people to care about and thus enjoy. The Last of Us, while not anything ground-breaking in the gameplay deparment, sucks you into the game by establishing a connection with the player through narrative, music and graphics. All of a sudden the average gameplay starts feeling a lot less average to these people.

Me? I play video games for the challenge that they bring, mostly. Overcoming trials and pushing the limits of my reflexes and developing skills - a more old-skool gamer. This doesn't take away that I don't respect and admire the cinematic games for what they can achieve and bring, however.

Everything in life is based on interest; if you're not interested in something that someone else is you either react, depending on character, as:

1. Understanding but otherwise indifferent (polite).
2. Unappreciative and ignorant (rude).

In regards to video games many of us relate stronger with games both casually and even as a hobby because we had the opportunity to grow up with much of it. It was more accessible, shared the interest with family or friends, it now has it's own history. Older adults won't share that sentiment as easily because it just wasn't part of their culture growing up and younger kids will probably recognize it but may not identify with the generation of games of our time.

What I feel hurts the conversation and hobby is the over-exposure to Youtube personalities, channels, 'gaming historians' (REALLY?!) that just keep coming out of the woodwork and over-saturate the discussion trying to capitalize on the 'retro' scene. I appreciate how people want to share their love for games but how many different people need to review 'such-and-such' game to tell me it is good, bad, hidden gem, rant and rave, etc. etc.



All said and done, everything in life is based on interest. If you share that interest with someone, awesome. If not, people will either be polite or rude about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jump Space

Games have always been an important part of our lives. They are useful learning tools. They are are integral to an individual's personal social development. Some games are certainly of more value than others (video games maybe less so, but they are still more engaging and envolved than television), but if anyone gives you a hard time about what kind of games you play, it's more than possible that they have limited life experiences to draw from themselves (regardless of age). It's your decision how you spend your free time ultimately. Who wants to waste that time worried about peer pressure or whathaveyou?

---

Your comparison to TV is a bit daft. Television is known to lower IQ by some margin, so gaming being better than TV is no high praise. Games will never replace the importance of books or good intellectual discussions, though in the long run augmented and virtual reality could augment academia to a good extent.

Speaking of television, even though it's an inert medium, it did carry a slew of good programming warning us of what might come to pass. Stuff like Black Mirror, Ben X, and even Surrogates warn us of a future where we replace our phsyical personas with avatars and statistics that reflect nothing in the real world.

Five minutes on a popular Twitch stream is more than enough to tell yourself: Fuck this shit, nuke it from orbit.

There are arguments that mainstream television (scripted, non-reality shows anyway) has been getting smarter while mainstream cinema is getting dumber.

Although much of that is moving from traditional TV sources to online streaming.

Yeah, the ridiculous inferiority complex on display from gamer culture as a whole ultimately bothers me more than the occasional snide remark from someone not that invested in the medium, and I think it's holding us back from evolving it when so many feel it's more important to emulate more respected mediums just to get a metaphorical pat on the back from them. The way people zealously react to games like The Last of Us is frankly embarrasing at times (like wanting to show it to their parents or spouse/partner, in some desperate search for validation).

The truth is that gaming has integrated itself into the lives of just about everyone today regardless of age and gender. But the juvenile image and marketing mainly aimed at teenagers and adolescent boys since the 90's eclipses everything else in marketing budget and thus gets a disproportionate amount of mindshare. It's a problem because you can clearly see how deeply it misrepresents what a diverse industry it really is. It's become an image problem because when people think "video games" that's what comes to mind. I'm pretty sure it's inevitably going to change over the next couple of years though as the signs are everywhere. Minecraft's gargantuan success transforming itself into a cultural phenomenom, mobile games like Clash of Clans getting Superbowl ads, and esports/streaming culture outgrowing traditional sports media, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeckoYamori

Yeah, the ridiculous inferiority complex on display from gamer culture as a whole ultimately bothers me more than the occasional snide remark from someone not that invested in the medium, and I think it's holding us back from evolving it when so many feel it's more important to emulate more respected mediums just to get a metaphorical pat on the back from them. The way people zealously react to games like The Last of Us is frankly embarrasing at times (like wanting to show it to their parents or spouse/partner, in some desperate search for validation).

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvDVyJjXH1s

Me and my brother (a photographer) often discuss what art actually is, and we have come to the concensus that it is the idea not the medium that is the art. That said, I reckon any media can be art, but the vast majority of video game output is not art. It's not even bad or good art, just not art. That's why Mortal Kombat (for one example) is not art, it's just a game. If I was an artist and I put this game on screen in art gallery with an idea in mind, it would become the metaphor for my art, but be confused by some as the art itself.

Rez is art because it has at its core a concept and new original idea as well as being a game. You can call it good art or bad, but it's still art. It is a good game because it is well executed and succeeds at what it attempts to, though you may or may not like it. This is how (insert media) can just be objects or art good or bad.

Many people think of art as the execution, but it's not. That's how an artist with zero technical ability can make a successful piece of acclaimed art.

All this said, even the most unoriginal concept can be artistically pulled off: Virtua Fighter is really a 2D fighter disguised as a 3D affair as all the action exists on one line (in effect) like all the fighters preceeding it. Not art, but executed artistically, which is different and often gets confused as art.

I reckon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thierry Henry

And here I am thinking we could blame it all on teabagging. :p

So you're saying because of the fanbase itself?
As in, for example, if you have a look at some of the "immature" arguments posted by some members on various gaming boards, and it will really paint a pathetically childish picture. Someone who doesn't know better will assume that all gamers are like that and thus not respect the medium?

---

I wouldn't think of that per-se. In general Videogames are still considered something that only kids play with by a lot of people so seeing it as some form of legit adult entertainment is something that hasn't quite reached the mainstream of adult minds for those who arn't into it as much as some people on these forums. I don't mind it personally seeing as many years ago before that during the 80s, It was really only kids who played games. Now that those kids have all grown up it's adults who are becoming the big spenders on games and gaming related items.

The problem is this hobby is also a breeding ground for idiots who buy shit never to play only to leave them on a shelf, people who spend way much more money then they should on games *MUSHA for example* or those who get into this hobby simply because they're tools who line their walls with games so they can post youtube videos about how awesome their collections are only to make a comment about owning a crapton of NES games and yet have never even played Mega Man.

Video game storytelling is usually absolutely awful, that doesn't help the 'games are art' movement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jump Space

I was at times refering to games in general (card games, board games, sports, role-playing games, war games, etc., some of which are used as teaching tools), not just video games, but video games do allow a form of agency comparable to traditional games, that is missing from television and other kinds of arts and entertainment. You often decide where to go and how to get there. That is not better or worse than a movie or television show, but it is more involved and engaging because you're making choices as to what happens. If you strip a player of agency in a game, it is no longer fun. It's more difficult than film and television production because of these variables.

It's also more fascinating to me because so much of cinema is derived from books which are usually more interesting than the films and shows based on them. Some of the shows you just mentioned sound like a lot of classic print science fiction from the past 50 years or so (J.G. Ballard, Phil Dick, Dan Galouye, Harlon Ellison, William Gibson, Neal Stephenson, Larry Niven, etc.). Familiarity with print science fiction is one of the main reasons I have little interest in television and movies these days. I get too many cases of deja vu. This does not mean that I think it's worse, I just look elsewhere for my entertainment. Granted, games electronic or otherwise also borrow ideas from books, but I'm usually not concerned with the plot, but the the overall story of play (how, I as the player, personally interact with the game, playing for score or speed, etc.).

---

Interesting points made. I want to ask what you think about games as a hobby taking more time of our lives, it's making more and more people avoid doing work in the real world. Community work isn't going to do itself, and western societies are ageing ones and there will be need for youth to do more work for the public "good" (or start rolling out robots lol). Call it art imitating life, not the other way around. Or perhaps we're blowing this out of proportion, and that asocial people will usually remain the same percentage of the population, and idle TV viewers are now gamers who play DayZ or WoW for hours on end. At any rate it's a measurable phenomenon in Japan, a nonwestern society that has adopted gaming in various forms at an earlier stage.

I do not respect mainstream movies and music at all, and the more video games become similiar to them, the worse they get.

You do not need the respect of these forms of 'artists'. All they do is give awards to themselves and ignore that they barely made anything worth a damn for decades.

Here's a good example of gaming moving into practical fields http://www.nidirect.gov.uk/osni-minecraft-ni-map

I suspect there will be more applications to try to heal mental health sufferers, physiotherapy, surveying, engineering, etc.

Some of these points have already been made, but nevertheless, here's my take on things:

Games can definitely be art, in more than one way: Rez, for example, is a great audiovisual experience. I greatly love Journey, where the game itself and the way in which you progress is the core of the gameplay, not just reacing and arbitrary goal (Even my wife, who - aside from a short stint playing PC games at the tail end of the nineties - was keen on games, really enjoys that one) . I'd also consider "The Stanley Parable" as a great example of games as art, as an exploration of what contitutes the borders of narrative or gameplay options, the freedom a player has versus the predetermined path of storytelling in general.

Also, game and visual art can interect strongly, if you only look for stylistic approaches. Each year the Into the Pixel exhibition (http://www.intothepixel.com/) shows some terriffic examples of game art as stills.

However, most of these examples aren't the big budgeted mega block busters that garner the most attention. And I'm afraid the biggest reason why gaming isn't accepted as an art form and won't be for a long time lies in two major factors: The most visual aspects of "Gamer culture", and the ways big budget corporations and PR peddle their wares.

For example, I'm not a fan of "The Last of Us". I think the gameplay is limited, I don't like the characters, I think the plot is transparent and predictable, an example for what film critic Roger Ebert once called an "idiot plot": The story can only progress the way it does because at certain key events, everyone is acting like a moron. I can understand why people like the game: The pacing is well done, the environments are beautiful, and I respect a game that relies heavily on action yet allows itself to just stop and "smell the roses" every once in a while. However, it happened quite a lot when I brought up I don't like this game, I don't enter a debate: I get outright attacked how I could dare not liking such a masterpiece. Usually the defenders didn't point out where they personally see the strenghts or why they didn't think my points were valid, but went straight for the insults.

I can only shake my had at how many gamers outright insult every reviewer, every news reporter or basically anyone, even fellow gamers, who thought of a game they liked (like GTA V, Last of Us or any kind of Call of Duty Game for example) as anything less than perfect. How can those people ever expect that gaming will ever be respected as a certain kind of art form if they react to every sort of criticism like angry, petulant children? And since those are usually the most vocal representations of gamers out there, that's what shapes the general public's opinion of what they think constitutes a gamer: An angry (man-)child who can't take any form of criticism well. How could such a person ever understand art?

And the AAA game companies don't really do much to change the impression as well, since they usually pander to the lowest common denominator. I liked CoD 4 - Modern Warfare for what they did, when they dared to show the aftermath of a nuclear explosion, with it'S inevitable outcome - that was gripping. But since then, tin my eyes the series devolved more and more into just pandering to a white male, jingoistic demographic that wants to excert their power fantasies and inflict their virtual superiority onto someone. Now, I also have a few friends of mine who like to play the occasional CoD entry for their gameplay mechanic, but even they tell me that they usually don't play on public servers because they are usually filled with whiny teens or racist sh*theads.

Or what about EA or Square Enix and their PR-stunts? Like the atrocious "Leather Killer Nuns" campaign for Hitman Absolution, which was only focused on violence, explosions and T&A? Although Hitman is a game usually focused on stealth, and those nuns only played a miniscule part in the finished game, but they nevertheless decided to market the game in a way that pandered to the absolutely lowest common denominator. If I told a nongamer I liked Hitman as a games series, and he pointed to the ad where your protagonist mows down leather nuns in miniskirts (unironically, not in an over-the-top kind of way like "Machete") and then asked "Really, you like stuff like that?" - what could I say in return? When even the company who MADE this game decided that this is the way they want the game to be seen as?

Examples such as these make me almost ashamed to call myself a gamer, because gaming has so much more to offer! Exploration, different styles of interactivity, completely new ways of storytelling, of visual representation. Yet if both the vocal gaming culture AND the biggest companies reduce it all to guns, explosions and T&A? That's like if all movies were advertised in a style akin to your typical Michael Bay flick. THIS is the stigma gaming needs to overcome, gaming culture needs to overcome, if gaming shall ever be respected for its potential as an art form.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pulstar

Here's a good example of gaming moving into practical fields http://www.nidirect.gov.uk/osni-minecraft-ni-map

I suspect there will be more applications to try to heal mental health sufferers, physiotherapy, surveying, engineering, etc.

---

Yep and to a certain extent it is already being applied to assist with mental health as well. There are apps that are being used to treat things such as insomnia, anxiety, and depression. For example, there is the Cognitive Bias Modification app that is a computer game that reduces stress, anxiety, and depression. Is it a cure? Of course not. But when used in combination with traditional therapy it is known to alleviate some or all of the symptoms.

If you need any reason to consider video games as wholly artistic endeavors, go play an adventure game or (god help you) one of those interactive fiction games. But if we're talking about "real art" here in terms of graphics, I'd be grasping at straws to give you an answer. Far too many companies these days are obsessed with "breath-taking" photo-realism, leaving visual ascetic to the wayside

There are a lot of good responses on here and I think you've pretty much gotten your answer. But I'm sort of in the camp of "video games aren't a medium, they aren't art". Sort of. I mean, I think there IS an art to making a game and a good game, but I totally agree with Soulis - game developers try way to hard to put something out this isn't so much a game but something that imitates other forms of art. In conclusion and especially nowadays, most games aren't anything culturally significant. Video games have kinda gotten away from what makes them games, and gradually became less about the beauty of game and more the beauty of something else. Virtual reality or simulation isn't really a game IMO, and that's a huge problem because so many games now rely on simulating a realistic experience. And on some level, I also think a game is just a game so it's harder to make an impact, and few ever do their own thing well enough to be as culturally significant as a good movie, or a good book, or a good song. There's a reason why Pac-Man is famous and Grand Theft Auto is infamous.

A lot of people think of games and they think of a slob sitting in front of a TV screen with a headset running around in a virtual reality shooting random people... and all too often they're right. It's no wonder so many non-gamers think that if you've played one you've played them all. I've heard people say "...what have we become when a human being spends an entire day looking at a screen and pushing a button". I can't argue with that. A lot of games allow you to just turn your brain off and get sucked into repetitious patterns for hours on end until it reaches a point of being unhealthy.

Dunno, I think there are a lot of reasons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by negative chill

If you need any reason to consider video games as wholly artistic endeavors, go play an adventure game or (god help you) one of those interactive fiction games. But if we're talking about "real art" here in terms of graphics, I'd be grasping at straws to give you an answer. Far too many companies these days are obsessed with "breath-taking" photo-realism, leaving visual ascetic to the wayside

---

I think there are different ways of looking at games as art. Narrative is one way, but also things like gameplay, visual and aural design. These all on their own (except maybe gameplay to some people) are considered art but when brought together to create a game, suddenly it's no longer art? I never really understood that.

To me something like the Lucas Arts adventure games are wonderful artistic endeavors, but so is something as simple as Robotron 2084 for very different reasons.

It's all in the eye of the beholder I suppose.