Is A Game Really "Just A Game"?

Posted on Wednesday, December 1 @ 15:46:11 Eastern by Jesse_Costantino

The recent Supreme Court hearing on November 2 brings this issue front and center. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and state congressman Leland Yee argue that games are “just games” and should be regulated like cigarettes, porn, and alcohol. Meanwhile, the gaming industry is arguing that games have artistic merit and deserve protection under the First Amendment. Whether we realize it or not, we gamers are helping Schwarzenegger’s case by arguing that the mainstream media should stop taking games so seriously.

Part of the problem, though, is that we don’t know yet what “meaning” looks like in a game. Is there some deeper meaning to shooting our friends online with an M4? What’s so profound about playing a plastic guitar and fake drums? Are we willing to say that Wii Fit is as potentially powerful as Schindler’s List?

And to say that only some games can be meaningful relegates the rest to the giant scrap pile of hollow entertainment. Pulling a game like Flower out of your back pocket whenever you want to prove to non-gamers that games are “art” is like pointing to Yao Ming in order to prove that all Chinese men are “tall”.

If we say that only a few games have meaning while the majority is just hollow junk, we fuel the fire of public sentiment against the “juvenile”, “gratuitous”, and “senselessly violent” ~~toy~~ gaming industry. If we gaming apologists think that only a few games have any real value or meaning, we’re indirectly endorsing the non-gaming public’s prejudice against games.

Put bluntly, a creative industry that can only produce three or four meaningful games among hundreds of releases every year probably isn’t worth defending. Why do we hold up Flower, Braid, and Limbo as the artistic pinnacle of the industry rather than more typical fare like Halo, Assassin’s Creed, or God of War? What makes a few floating flower petals any more meaningful than a muscle-bound, blade-wielding demigod?

Every game has the potential for political, social, historical, racial, sexual, psychological meaning. So the problem isn’t on the side of those making the games. The problem lies with those of us who play and consume them. The onus is on us to find meaning in the games we play. We can’t expect designers to make smarter, deeper, more culturally significant games until we gamers start taking the current crop of games more seriously.

Does this mean we should stop having fun? Of course not. If anything, by taking something more seriously, we can enjoy it that much more. Does taking sex seriously make it any less fun? God, I hope not. Meaning is a type of investment; the more we invest, the bigger the pay-off. I mean, what could possibly be more fun than seeing Bowser as the monstrous embodiment of our basest sexual desires run amok? How much differently would we play Super Mario Bros. if we saw in those goombas a manifestation in fungal form of our feelings of sexual inadequacy?

If we ever want games to gain mainstream acceptance and respect, we have to be willing to take the good with the bad. If games can be racist, they can also challenge racial prejudice. If games can be sexist, they can also be sexy. If games can be inexcusably violent, well, then maybe they can also teach us about human anatomy. But if we really believe that games are “just games”, then we’re dooming ourselves to be treated like “just a bunch of overgrown kids” forever.

< Previous Page
1 2
Next Page >

Comments

WILLS_COOL_MODE
Joined: Oct 2010

Posted: Dec 1st, 2010 at 9:59 pm
I think the entire entertainment industry is out of whack when a critic can look at Max Payne and say "this game is bad because it is violent" and then praise a movie like Reservoir Dogs for the very same reason. Both use violence to drive the story, and ultimately wouldn't be nearly as good without it. The only difference is that a game requires input on the part of the player, and as a result the people who are so quick to criticize it will never actually experience it. It's like watching a preview of Reservoir Dogs and saying it has no artistic merit because there's a lot of shooting.

0 0

gonzar09
Joined: Jun 2007

Posted: Dec 2nd, 2010 at 12:43 am
This type of subject has been at the front of my pro-gaming philosophy for years. At some point in the last 2 decades the gaming industry made a leap from being "just games" to pieces of both artistic, Oscar-winning drama and crap of the worst kind. When a game no longer relies on points the focus becomes that of its presentation and subtext, rather than just eliminating a conglomeration of pixels on a screen and watch the number ticker go up. Sadly though, I don't believe that games can be "just games" anymore, since, like all things, they too have evolved and have become more complex, societal reflections rather than a race to the top of leader-board mountain.

0 0

sliverstorm
Joined: Jun 2007

Posted: Dec 12th, 2010 at 12:15 pm
Why are comments limited by character amount? I promise your server won't run out of storage space.

0 0