![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
The evils of videogames
So I have been thinking a lot lately about videogames, and people's attitudes toward them. This is actually a subject of great interest to me on a number of levels -- as a gamer, as a librarian, as a consumer of media, as an educator at a school that teaches game art and game programming. So it's not like this is a new topic for me, but a number of things have gotten me to thinking about it more specifically. First was ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
madlori's post last month about her unapologetic love of television, then an article that bottle_of_shine sent me about getting boys to read that gratuitously insults games, and last, but definitely not least, an entry on the Annoyed Librarian blog that blasts public libraries that circulate games and sponsor gaming events.
There seems to be a media hierarchy in our society: Books are at the top, followed by movies, then television, then games. So why is that? Why should form matter more than content? Why should a game be inherently inferior? T and I just finished Super Paper Mario this afternoon; it was enjoyable, a challenge, and I had fun playing it. Would the 30 hours we spent playing it been better used reading? What if I'd spent that whole time reading trashy romance novels? Or watching television? That's probably about the amount of time I've spent watching Heroes so far; is that a better intellectual exercise than playing a game? What if I were to tell you that Super Paper Mario had a plot, and a complex backstory that led to some significant character development? I'd hardly call it the Citizen Kane of games* but it wasn't mindless fluff either.
It seems to me that most of the people who dismiss games, and their potential as learning tools and/or quality entertainment, have probably never played. Do they really understand the complexity of a good game, the way it rewards learning how to do a task more efficiently, the depth of story and character that some of them contain? A couple of years ago, Roger Ebert (whom I normally adore) famously dismissed the possibility that video games could ever be an art form:
Leaving aside the question of whether art "requires" authorial control (can't improv theater or interactive multimedia be a type of art?) I think this response hits the problem with that belief on the head: even if the progress of a game can be influenced by reader choices, all the various paths that the game can take were created by an author. Quotes like the above show a fundamental lack of understanding about what games are.
All of this is problematic, but it's the librarian's attitude that drove me over the line to post. She (I assume, the blogger uses a pseudonym) keeps harping on the point that games are "only" entertainment, and that the library's mission is to educate, not entertain. Really? I guess we should get rid of all the novels then. And the music, and the DVDs (except for the documentaries), and all the Internet access except for the scholarly databases. Seriously, in what world is this the mission of the library? Especially a public library. Fiction, in whatever medium is an important part of the life of the mind. That's what the library is about -- the pursuit of all human knowledge, not just the parts that someone somewhere has deemed "educational".
I don't think it's any accident that the hierarchy I listed above orders the media by age (books are older than movies are older than TV is older than games). If Pong is the first videogame, then games have only been part of the popular consciousness since the early 1970s. I wonder how the view of games will change when the people who write cultural criticism -- and write award-winning books for teens, and run libraries -- were not only gamers themselves, but were raised by parents who played videogames. We're approaching that era with television, and already I'm starting to see more people taking TV seriously as an artistic medium. Will games be far behind? It'll be interesting to see.
*Which raised an interesting question: what is the Citizen Kane of videogames? Has it been created yet? Will we look back on the history of games some day and be able to point to some game and say "This game changed everything"?
madlori's post last month about her unapologetic love of television, then an article that bottle_of_shine sent me about getting boys to read that gratuitously insults games, and last, but definitely not least, an entry on the Annoyed Librarian blog that blasts public libraries that circulate games and sponsor gaming events.There seems to be a media hierarchy in our society: Books are at the top, followed by movies, then television, then games. So why is that? Why should form matter more than content? Why should a game be inherently inferior? T and I just finished Super Paper Mario this afternoon; it was enjoyable, a challenge, and I had fun playing it. Would the 30 hours we spent playing it been better used reading? What if I'd spent that whole time reading trashy romance novels? Or watching television? That's probably about the amount of time I've spent watching Heroes so far; is that a better intellectual exercise than playing a game? What if I were to tell you that Super Paper Mario had a plot, and a complex backstory that led to some significant character development? I'd hardly call it the Citizen Kane of games* but it wasn't mindless fluff either.
It seems to me that most of the people who dismiss games, and their potential as learning tools and/or quality entertainment, have probably never played. Do they really understand the complexity of a good game, the way it rewards learning how to do a task more efficiently, the depth of story and character that some of them contain? A couple of years ago, Roger Ebert (whom I normally adore) famously dismissed the possibility that video games could ever be an art form:
There is a structural reason for that: Video games by their nature require player choices, which is the opposite of the strategy of serious film and literature, which requires authorial control.
Leaving aside the question of whether art "requires" authorial control (can't improv theater or interactive multimedia be a type of art?) I think this response hits the problem with that belief on the head: even if the progress of a game can be influenced by reader choices, all the various paths that the game can take were created by an author. Quotes like the above show a fundamental lack of understanding about what games are.
All of this is problematic, but it's the librarian's attitude that drove me over the line to post. She (I assume, the blogger uses a pseudonym) keeps harping on the point that games are "only" entertainment, and that the library's mission is to educate, not entertain. Really? I guess we should get rid of all the novels then. And the music, and the DVDs (except for the documentaries), and all the Internet access except for the scholarly databases. Seriously, in what world is this the mission of the library? Especially a public library. Fiction, in whatever medium is an important part of the life of the mind. That's what the library is about -- the pursuit of all human knowledge, not just the parts that someone somewhere has deemed "educational".
I don't think it's any accident that the hierarchy I listed above orders the media by age (books are older than movies are older than TV is older than games). If Pong is the first videogame, then games have only been part of the popular consciousness since the early 1970s. I wonder how the view of games will change when the people who write cultural criticism -- and write award-winning books for teens, and run libraries -- were not only gamers themselves, but were raised by parents who played videogames. We're approaching that era with television, and already I'm starting to see more people taking TV seriously as an artistic medium. Will games be far behind? It'll be interesting to see.
*Which raised an interesting question: what is the Citizen Kane of videogames? Has it been created yet? Will we look back on the history of games some day and be able to point to some game and say "This game changed everything"?
no subject
One of the speakers at the gaming night, also mentioned that respect for video games as a medium would increase as the people who grew up with video games become the leaders of our society. To him, it would simply be inevitable.
no subject
I
I find this very amusing and can just see the pursed lips and the long twitching nose as this is declaimed like word from heaven. Silly twit! I am entertained by education. Does that negate the entire idea? Must education be bleak and grey in a world of technicolor temptations? This sounds like a person who does not love learning. Bah! Ignore ae.
Re: I
Considering that this blogger's other big hobby horse is how horrible library school is, that may very well be true!
no subject
First and foremost: I agree with calling the media hierarchy utter nonsense. I just want to make that clear right off. I'm an unrepentant media maven myself and don't think it's that great when my interest are devalued by society for no good reason.
I want to toss out, too, some media that I think would occupy an interesting place in your argument: plays/musicals, opera, animation/cartoons, and comic books/graphic novels. If I have to place these in your hierarchy, by, say, what's considered most "cultured", it goes like this: opera, plays/musicals, books, movies, graphic novels/comic books, tv, animation/cartoons, video games. I feel safe separating animation/cartoons from movies just because they ARE valued so much less than "real" TV.
I'm kind of surprised, actually, that you left out comic books and graphic novels; I would think that they too would be really interesting from your perspective, especially since they're gaining acceptance now. It's interesting to watch this process, and it's telling, I think, that I can put comic books above TV in that hierarchy -- we probably have Gaiman's Sandman, among others, to thank for that. But I do think I've placed it correctly in the hierarchy -- for one, my college is currently offering a class on narrative in graphic novels (goddamn it, it was capped and I'm not in the major GRRRRRRRRR).
Also that article about getting boys to read mentioned comics. And how they are controversial re: reading. I don't get it. You still READ and you're still able to do interpretive work. Where's the beef?
Anyway, just a note about plays and operas being above books -- I think this hierarchy is some kind of hybrid love-child between your chronological theory and
Back to video games. I, uh. Just ranted a lot about storytelling in video games (http://justira.livejournal.com/219309.html), which started out as a comment here until it got to be ten bajillion words long. So I guess I can refer you to that, since you're part of what got me thinking. The point I want to emphasize here, in response to your post specifically, is that I do think there are ways to creatively fuse storytelling and interactivity, and while this may be hard, it's by no means limiting. In fact, I think video games have an enormous potential for truly innovative, immersive, compelling storytelling; something completely different that no other medium can provide.
The Citizen Kane of video games... you know, that's a really good question. Are we in a comparable place in the history of video games? Citizen Kane happened at a certain point in the development of film -- are we there yet with video games? Have we passed it? The links you provided actually put forth some candidates, and I'll agree that those games are special. My personal list of special games goes: Planescape: Torment, Psychonauts, ICO. Are these special enough? Are they special in the right way? It's hard to call these Citizen Kanes, since the thing is, most games like these -- unique, artistic, philosophical, truly original games -- get ignored by the market. To my knowledge, all of these games tanked in retail. Video games are a peculiar medium like that. I sense a lot of tl;dr coming on the subject, so I'll just stop myself here and sit back and consider this point for a more coherent discussion later.
As for what libraries are for... good question. I thought libraries were there to enrich our minds. At least, that's what I use them for. Education is part of enriching our minds; so is exercising our imaginations; so is collecting and experiencing stories. I think "enriching the mind" is a good umbrella term, something broad that allows libraries a lot of flexibility.
no subject
Was Citizen Kane a commercial as well as a critical success? Was it as lauded at the time as it is now? (I actually don't know the answers to these questions, and since I'm about to run off to work I don't have time to look them up.) I wonder how often these milestones are recognized as they are happening. I haven't played any of the three games on your list (and am unlikely to play at least Planescape because I can't do PC games -- RSI issues), but I have heard about ICO, especially, as being groundbreaking in terms of visuals. I look forward to reading your own, more detailed post about storytelling in these games, but now I really do have to go. Hope to have time tonight!
no subject
The thing is, the Citizen Kane of video games hasn't happened yet. I think a lot of games come close, but none have quite reached the potential of the media form. Which is, taking advantage of the immersive environment (ICO is a good example of this, and I say this as someone that couldn't get past the damn windmill) but also taking advantage of the ability for the player to control their actions.
which is the opposite of the strategy of serious film and literature, which requires authorial control.
They're not missing the point by saying something like that. Considering my current headbutting with academia (as I'm not done with my undergrad and therefore incapable of understanding curriculum the way they do--I find this prevailing attitude a little immature) that is exactly what they want. Authoritarian control. The education system is built on that structure. Just think about how the typical classroom is situated. The teacher is at the front, and the students have to sit down below them.
Not dissing teachers in any way, my biggest problems have always been with administrators and "experts". I think quite a few teachers would try some wonderful and innovative things if they were given the chance. If it weren't for my seventh grade teacher being one of those, I wouldn't be where I am now.
But since I can go on for days about education, I'll move onto libraries.
Maybe books seem to be an emphasis where you are, but increasingly fewer books are making it into the libraries in my area. When I walk into the door, it closer resembles a video rental place. Is this a good thing? I don't know. Maybe books are becoming a lost art form, which is why they're getting so touchy about it.
I don't think that's the right attitude to have. I'll even go a dangerous step further and stocking the static types of newer media (DVDs, CDs) have less educational potential than something interactive could. But then, this is a system based on the lecture-and-notes structure of learning.
Since someone above me mentioned graphic novels, I have to say the more those get respected, the closer we'll probably get to video games getting respect. I happen to love graphic novels, because it combines the visual with the text.
Funny, how both video games and comic books were forbidden to me when I was a kid. Had to catch up during high school and college. XD I have thoroughly stuck my tongue out at my parents about the "time wasting hobbies" considering I get paid to look into that kind of media now.
I guess the thing that really gets me about the "media hierarchy" is that is forgets that books didn't really become the thing they are now until they became distributed to the public. That things like penny dreadfuls were the types of things that helped make reading more ubiquitous amongst the working class. That fighting the current trend of entertainment is fighting what is and possibly will be art.
It's elitism.
If they, whoever seems to be the people that determine "art" as that changes more often than my hair color, can't control it, then obviously, it's something the "rabble" enjoys.
Even some reality shows can be educational and past the point of exploitation. It's just knowing how to use it and make people reflect.
I also think I've babbled enough, apologies for the unconnectedness and incoherency. This is just what I do first thing in the morning--read my "news" so to speak.
~Cendri
no subject
I totally agree that games have a greater teaching potential than "static" media. Some people learn by absorbing, but even more people learn by *doing*, and that's what games are -- a way to do. The serious games for sure, but even games that are meant to "entertain" can teach problem solving and creative thinking.
Interesting that, as someone in the industry, you say that the Citizen Kane of video games hasn't come along yet. Which I totally buy. I wonder though, if we'll know it when we see it, or if we'll only be able to recognize it in retrospect.
BTW, is that Cary Grant in your icon?
no subject
And since I am a complete techno nerd, I'm super into e-books... ever heard of Project Gutenberg? Since I have a palm pilot, I can carry that with me, and it holds more books than my backpack good. But I like the feel of paper books better.
Oh, the entertainment games are wonderful. I've been
stalkingresearching a group in the UK that actually did a big study on off the shelf games (they used The Sims, Rollercoaster Tycoon, and some other one I can't remember off the top of my head...) and using them for education. They came up with some novel ways to do that (the one that comes to mind is using The Sims with the French language turned on to teach French vocab... I wouldn't have thought of that).Really, the thing about using a game to educate is about the goals of the experience. I think the main problem is that a lot of teachers I've talked to just don't see what they want to accomplish in that kind of teaching, you know?
And yes, that was Cary Grant. This next icon is David Bowie. Older men are wonderful.
~Cendri
no subject
I love the concept of using simulation games for educational purposes. When I was in college, there was an economics class that used Sim City for many of its projects -- you had to do specific things with zoning, economic development, etc. Which sounded really awesome. I thought about taking it, but it never worked out in my schedule, alas.
I see your Cary Grant and raise you a Katharine Hepburn. ;)
no subject
Actually, you might like this one blog I follow (my company ALMOST hired one of the regular writers). Heard of Joystick 101? (http://www.joystick101.org/blog/) They don't just talk about serious games, they get into games that are out there. I like them, they were a good jumpoff point for a lot of my design.
~Cendri
P.S. I have the other non-related Hepburn. ^^
no subject
Unfortunately, Kate is my only classic film-related icon. So here, have a kitty instead.
no subject
~Cendri
no subject
I guess maybe people have given up on attacking television as the big bad wolf, given that so many people watch whether it's supposed to be 'bad' or not - video games are still more the province of kids than adults so I guess people who never play games feel more righteous. I don't even think it's a matter of a lack of depth in video games that have been produced so far. I think that
But in the end who knows why people have set video games up as the scape goat responsible for so many ridiculous things. The unfortunate part is that deciding to not educate people about any kind of media is more damaging than the influences of the media itself. Maybe when video games (and not just blatantly 'educational' ones) are included more often in education that's when they'll actually start getting recognition as an art form.
I think video games can tell a story as effectively as movies and novels. I'm pretty sure the hierarchy will always be there though - I mean even within books, which are an accepted art form, there's no escaping the hierarchy.
no subject
Also, I agree with what you say regarding target audiences. Up above,
no subject
In fact, why the heck do sports rank so highly, anyway? I often wonder why that particular portion of the entertainment industry is so "revered" as an "American pasttime", and people are OBVIOUSLY allowed to be rabid sports fans and go to games covered in makeup and costumes, but GOD FORBID you want to go to a gamer convention and cosplay. One makes you cool and awesome, one makes you a nerd. Go figure?
Video games, to me, are almost definitely more thought-provoking and self-involving than videos, movies, TV in general (and, potentially, books/magazines). Your brain is involved, whether it's a Final Fantasy-type strategy game with a story, or a simple shooter like Halo. I'm not saying that video games are like, I don't know, doing math or something, but when you compare it to vegetating on the couch in front of the TV - well, one makes you think, one doesn't, really.
I... might have gone off-topic here. Basically, though: Word.
no subject
I do think that movies, TV, books, etc. can make you think, but it depends on the particular movie/show/book much more than it does for games. Very rarely is it the case that you can figure out the rules of a game and then go on autopilot. If a game doesn't present continually varied and increasingly difficult challenges, then it's a *bad game*. I don't know why games are painted as passive; I think anyone who tries to say that has probably never played out.
Thanks! :)
no subject