Gamasutra's Leigh Alexander offers this thought-provoking opinion piece, originally presented at the Nine Worlds Convention in the UK.
Here goes: Your system sucks. I mean, gaming culture sucks.
This endless loop of dog-eared geek references and getting mad on the internet isn’t culture. It’s exhausting. While amazing little games and inspiring jams sprout like flowers all the time, the bigger conversations remain static.
If I’m to call what I’m doing “culture journalism,” I struggle to be content with celebrating and evangelizing the games and ideas I love and believe in only to the relatively-small audience that already likes them. Especially when, frankly, it often costs me a lot just to be here, pouring my heart all the time in the daily wringer of people who are offended by the very idea of change, by my unwelcome “alternative” presence.
Games are supposed to be about expressive play, creation and sharing, but often it feels more like it’s about nostalgia and gatekeeping, a competition to see who’s the most insular and obsessed. And let’s not forget about the guy rushing to the forefront to remind us that “games are a Business,” when he wants to talk about what he feels entitled to or why it oughtn’t be shared. There’s always that guy.
Bear with me, though. It’s not all hopeless. Things in the gaming world are not as bad as gamer culture makes them look. We’re standing at the precipice of a moment where we have the power to change everything: To reject complacency, to protest commercialism, to embrace diversity and to riot, screaming, toward our generation’s glorious inheritance. Everything is telling me it’s time.
I want to talk about the 1990s in America -- not as an exercise in ironic nostalgia, but to tell some stories about culture that might help us.
In 1993 I was about 12 years old, starting the seventh grade, wearing scrunchies and stonewashed denim and toting radio-friendly pop music cassettes. My little friend and I listened to Wilson Phillips -- songs with names like “You’re In Love!” -- and Paula Abdul, who had one of the year 1990’s most popular videos. It was called “Opposites Attract,” and it featured her dancing with a cartoon cat, even though it wasn’t a kids’ song.
The “Opposites Attract” video helped exemplify the naivete of popular music at the time. The music writer Steven Hyden, whose irreplaceable, must-read essay series “Whatever Happened to Alternative Nation” heavily informs most of the music history I’ll share here, has a great quote about it, saying “it signaled that American culture desperately needed someone to wipe that stupid grin off its face.”
I hid from the 1980s playing computer games in the basement, engaged with the mysterious vocabulary of HyperCard shareware and stubborn, sagelike parser games. I didn’t really speak the language of pop culture, which demanded girls wear bright leotards and get yelled at in dance class by women with big hair. Miss Jane. Miss Sue.
At night, I’d get myself to sleep playing marathons of Klax into the night with my sister, and then I’d drift off to music I’d play on my clock radio in the dark. One night, something changed: I considered the manufactured, alienating pop music I heard and I thought, “If I don’t do something about this, I’m never going to be cool.”
When you’re young, “being cool” is, of course, just a shorthand for belonging, for feeling like you’re part of the world, for being able to share the conversation of the day with other kids without feeling terribly left-out and broken.
I decided to change the radio station to the rock frequency I’d heard of, the one my babysitter listened to when her boyfriend came to pick her up in a red pickup to go to a Mr. Big concert. I particularly remember the first song I discovered that night in the dark: It was called “Low” by Cracker, and it was shot through with a strange melancholy I’d never quite heard before. At first I didn’t even really know if I liked any of it, but it felt like a way out. It was called “Alternative music,” and it was for people who wanted a way out at the end of the 80s, at the turn of the decade.
Turns out a lot of people were left scarred by the 80s, an era marked by corporate climbing, capitalist idealism, and the machines of industry. Your dad was defined by the Business (capital B) he was in, and your mom was at the gym, feverishly climbing a Stairmaster to nowhere. My dad, actually, was a journalist -- he wrote about hi-fis, and ended up with a “home technology” column in the Boston Globe, back when the idea you could have technology in the home at all still felt new.
Video games entered the home during the 80s, too. Because of my dad’s work, we got sent an Atari, a Coleco. We had a Commodore 64 and an Apple IIe, and shelves full of software we’d been sent by companies hoping my dad would write about them in his home technology column. Those games were adorable, a newborn little art form learning to talk.
Very quickly, though, they were pushed into the service of showcasing hardware platforms, a job they serve even today, ever called upon to be the horseman of hardware strategy. By the end of the 90s, games ended up developing the precise obsession with fancier tech and more lavish graphics that the hardware arms race needed it to. They ended up belonging to The Man.
Dane MacMahon |
16 Aug 2013 at 1:13 am PST
|
I've always struggled as a consumer to understand why games getting more popular, mainstream and accepting really benefits me. I'm not saying they shouldn't, just asking why the average "core gamer" should care. Think about it:
What does more people playing your favorite genre get you? Well, usually it means change. They add quest markers so Joes and Janes with less time or smaller attention spans can find the solution. They take away your fantasy boob armor which, sexist or not, you liked seeing. They debate on Fox News how violent your game should be, they port it to platforms you're less interested in and make design decisions as a result. They add auto-aim, they remove mazes and keys, they tell you budgets are so high to attract more people that they have to attract even MORE people. One day you wake up and that jock guy you felt so different from at school is tweeting you asking for tips on how to build a "tight rogue." You sit there wondering... How has this benefited me? I'm not saying games should remain niche forever. I'm not saying aiming directly at a smaller male market is the best thing to do. I'm saying when we sell the hardcore on why it benefits them to seek this larger acceptance, this larger market, the hardcore will probably lighten up. We haven't done that yet, I don't think. Asking hardcore gamers to wish that Nirvana moment grunge rock had would come to games only makes sense if they want to see their favorite game on MTV. Maybe they don't care. Maybe we have to make them care. |
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
Jakub Majewski |
"and women, as religion usually punishes women"
Wow, just wow. I wish you'd written this on the first page, so I would know not to waste my time with the rest of the article. Leigh, you know that old saying? "Better to stay silent and let people think you're an idiot, than open your mouth and remove all doubts"? Well, you're not an idiot - but if you're so embarassingly ignorant about something, don't write about it. And by the way - while I can understand grunge as a response to the 80s, it was a terrible response. "We don't like what our parents are telling us, so we're going to do nothing instead." The existential problem was genuine, but the answer provided by grunge was the very worst possible answer anyone could give - as Kurt Cobain so logically demonstrated by taking his message to its ultimate conclusion. Along with gangsta rap, it severely damaged a whole generation of young people, and its ruinous impact will probably be felt for decades to come. |
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
Rob Bridgett |
Lots to think about here, great piece!
An interesting production difference between music and games is that, for the bigger titles at least, games take so much longer to create. I think this often means they always feel about 3-5 years out of step with the times (all their film and tv references and assumptions about the audience are from popular culture that we saw 3 years or more ago). To continue the analogy, if Nirvana spent 3 years making and marketing Nevermind, relying on focus groups and a large team of writers, directors, producers... it wouldn't have been a Nirvana record... it would have been another Def Leppard record). Indies do have a closer relationship with culture in this way, they can react quicker to what is going on and they can 'surprise' an audience with something completely 'new', as well being able to take risks as they have the advantage of not having an executive culture. But I think game culture 'needs' to have both indie and mainstream, just as music does, otherwise there would be nothing to react against. |
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
Samuel Fiunte Matarredona |
I know the conversation it's about videogames, but the analysis is a bit wrong and shows lots of flaws of the general article.
where to begin? Here: "As “alternative music” went mainstream and became a commodity, though, a lot of the heroes of grunge wore the crown of fame poorly, warring with record labels and ticket bookers, sabotaging awards shows and even openly hating fans." what are you on about there? really? the fact that Pearl Jam got in conflict with ticketmaster is a sign of poorly wearing that crown? (a crown that admitely they didn't want to begin with) they were fighting against a monopolistic giant and if you don't see how that it's good, then I fear your pose of "we vs. The Man" it's just that, a pose. The Riot Grrrrl movement its parallel to the "grunge" one, or even slightly after, Soundgarden, Nirvana, Mudhoney, Green River, TAD were all active in the 80s while most Riot Grrls bands were formed from 1990 on. Then, your thing about that it was music that induced to eating disorders...care to elaborate on that? the only one I can think of doing that is Fiona Apple, and I doubt that was her agenda, more like her emotional and psychological disorders, and you definitely cannot blain her for that. I also disagree with what you said about movies (Slacker a popular firm? you should have better pointed to clerks, or Singles). I kind-of-agree with the point of your article. I disagree with the analysis in it. PS: I reccomend anyone interested in the Seattle music to watch Doug Pray's documentary "Hype!". And sorry for the mostly off topic post! |
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
Tommy Hanusa |
"Games are supposed to be about expressive play, creation and sharing, but often it feels more like it’s about nostalgia and gatekeeping, a competition to see who’s the most insular and obsessed."
What games are supposed to be is... complicated. I think it's best to say that games are supposed to be an abstracted experience. The creator may abstract it in such a way to creating meaning or an intended feeling. so what you say is true; but I think games should be seen as more inclusive than just this; and being nostalgic isn't necessarily a bad thing, especially for a game that's personal. (I feel a lot of indies make performers because they are reminded of their youth) "If it weren’t for Pearl Jam, we’d have no Nickelback or Creed, for one thing." You have been added to Seattle PD's most wanted list for using Pearl Jam and Nickleback in the same sentence (sorry, no exceptions). "When it comes to video games, the feminist-led DIY scene is probably the most important thing happening in game culture right now." I wouldn't call it 'feminist-led' because I don't think that's the major point. The idea that people (anyone) can create an experience a game and try and share or explain an experience in their life is whats important. The fact that women are doing this is just a byproduct of the fact that women do things... (that sounds obvious but whatever). "The fervent prizing of 'fun' is controlling the commercial game industry" There are issues of accessibility and usability that come into play here. If you abstract an experience into a game nobody can understand; its not much more than a novelty. For instance 4' 33" is so obscure you need to dig to find meaning in it; its interesting in the conversation it generates (kinda like 'Proteus' ) "Instead of looking at expressive game makers, we’re still stuck trying to prove we’re valid by purchasing whatever marketers say the Hot Title is." let's just say I heard a lot about the Backstreet Boys, N'Sync, Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera in the 90's too. Really what we have is most gamers are excited about what the marketers are pumping at them; while you also have a sort of counter-culture crowd that is interested in this indie scene. The indie scene is an enthusiast scene; its people that really care. Its not the mass market. That's the crowd it is, its not jocks and cheer-leaders and yuppies with popped collars. Its dorks, its hipsters, its scene kids, its the people who don't want to be part of the crowd. If all the jocks and bros started playing indie games like Fez, Analogue, and Cart Life all the counter-culture crowd would make CoD clones, mini-mobas, and free-to-play social-mobile games. C'est la vie. In closing I really agree with most of what you said and with how you said it (you know because I'm in Seattle and you talked about grunge music so your basically preaching to the choir). I definitely do think there will be a shift sometime soon where everyone will try and express themselves through games. Even if it never gets to that level, there will always be developers with expertise and game jams to create expressive experiences rather than just enjoyment, pop entertainment (or at-least facetious, unemployed developers who wanna poke fun of their last project/ colleagues). I also really do want to play a twine game by and angst-y 14 year old about how much junior high sucks... because lets be fair, junior high only exists to embarrass you so you can learn to laugh about yourself later... that twine game is gonna be great... |
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
Mike Jenkins |
"Games are supposed to be about expressive play, creation and sharing"
Well that saved me 6 pages of reading. |
|
|
Sjors Jansen |
Leigh, I appreciate that you acknowledge there is a difference between big business games and small indie games. And you are a loud voice behind the "games need to be better" thing for better or worse.
I got out of the industry for fear of doing the same hollow thing over and over again with only increased power and tech. But, talk is cheap. 1) I agree that it would be cool to see more "meaningful" big expensive games. I doubt anybody actively opposes it. They don't have to come at the cost of mindless violence. All it takes for change is one big commercial success, then the industry will copy it. Just like with Nirvana. Indies are drenched in nostalgia just as well as the big industry. And most indies also dream of being rich for free. Here's a song to get that point across: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoWMmZEoT84 Wanting free money is not something that will change unless modern capitalist society takes a drastic change. (making all transactions public for instance) There will always be room for experimental stuff, just like indie movies and the anarchist press but it won't become the modus operandi for the creator masses. 2) You cannot fault your audience for a negative response if you start out with "your system sucks.." and when a lot of the history you describe is lacking in perspective and research. You see what you want to see, which is perfectly normal, but you can see how it's going to raise issues right? Nobody can have an unlimited perspective, so some important stuff you leave out: Regarding game design: Most of the "old-guard game designer dudes" (and dudettes I might add) were experimenting a lot more back in the day than the indies nowadays. Making indie games is what being in a music band used to be probably. It's starting to be cool simply because we've grown up with games. That's why we now also finally are seeing more cool girls. Games were never completely anti-social or something, even if we appeared that way. But people reading books never looked any different. You can share experiences if you want. Regarding Nirvana: Nevermind was set up to be a marketing success, Kobain sold out on plenty of things. The double voice trick that Lennon also used for instance. Just because it's catchier. Promoting and exploiting lifestyle has been a big thing. The "Grunge" label was no different. It's that sense of wanting to belong to a group which you mentioned. There was also Sonic Youth, Kim Gordon (very much in regards to feminism), Lydia Lunch, etc.. There was punk, there was no-wave. (Seriously, go watch the documentary "kill your idols"). And there was also house, drumm 'n bass, jungle, and basically electronic music. 2 unlimited and Aphex Twin. Regarding guns: I feel you can't omit the argument that a virtual gun has always been an easy interaction mechanism for videogames. It really doesn't matter if it shoots butter or iron. But it's not that easy to think up something that works. It's said that ideas are a dime a dozen but most of those ideas aren't worth a couple of million $ because they simply don't hold up that well when push comes to shove. Are you willing to risk your job and those of a hundred more in doing so? I've seen games with millions invested canned because the designers couldn't figure out how to make it a worthwile experience. |
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
dario silva |
Leigh, how about reformatting and making this a 3 part series? I feel like you've covered so much ground that anyone trying to respond/join the discussion is going to have to use a wall of text and maybe misunderstand your core questions/observations. Great topic though, really epic.
|
|
|
Michael Joseph |
"E3 is pure ‘80s: Aging men in tight pants who are still really excited about babes, robots and aliens."
-- Thought provoking article. I enjoyed looking at our industry through the lens of our popular culture. You really can tell a lot about a society and it's culture by looking at it's programming. It might even help us predict the future. "Meaningful entertainment doesn’t take well to being commoditized, and that’s important to remember in the context of conversations about what the games industry “owes” players." -- If game creators view themselves as artists, then I think the only thing they owe their players is artistic integrity. That's actually a lot to ask. And for many it's way too much. (that or you get diluted definitions for "artistic integrity") "Eventually, “Alternative Nation” died with MTV, as the counterculture became as commercialized as everything that it was trying to protest" -- I don't actually blame subcultures or counterculture for becoming corrupted. It's just too easy to do especially when the subculture is started by teenagers who haven't really figured out anything yet. Embrace and extend. Countercultures need a more complete philosophy about them to serve as built in safeguards against those who would try to infiltrate/takeover/exploit the subculture for profit. |
|
|
Wendelin Reich |
I often find Leigh's articles and blog posts intelligent and inspiring, but this whole piece strikes me as a wasted opportunity.
For an article that starts out by (IMO rightfully) denouncing gamer culture's "nostalgia", the entire piece is weirdly nostalgic, and the drawn-out comparisons to a specific time and place in popular culture were hard and boring to read through, and least to me. By the same token, the notion that twines and feminist indie games are somehow the Answer with capital A seemed pretty arbitrary. This is sad because I share the premise: there really is something about gaming culture that is holding the entire medium back. Vast parts (in terms of money) of an entire industry are held hostage by adolescent males who seem to be the only ones who care deeply enough about games to troll forums, write reviews on Metacritic, harass outsiders and generally get on everybody else's nerves. If we want gaming culture to thrive and diversify, the answer doesn't lie in feminism or in Anna Anthropy's Zinesters (though I'm not denying that their part of the answer). Instead, the answer lies in finding ways to end the hegemony of "angry young men". Just look at who dictates about 90% of the announced content for PS4 and XBone! |
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
James Margaris |
Edit: Mistake to try posting in this thread.
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
Ryan Smith |
Hm. Maybe game-jamming is the form of gaming-grunge that exists today? Quick, expressive, zero-budget, dirty, and awesome.
In fact, I think I'm gonna try out making a "grunge" game this weekend. It's Friday night, I have no date, a two-liter bottle of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock. |
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
Craudimir Ascorno |
I think the problem with gaming community in that regard is just highlighted by this comparison with the grunge movement. What Nirvana (and other grunge bands) has made to change that "80s" mentality is only important because they shared the message they wanted to share through their own work and they climbed to mainstream levels of popularity without singling out other popular bands or movements.
Many bands must have been doing the same before or by the time grunge and other socially conscious bands started to become popular, but their message would be irrelevant without mainstream exposure. Besides, the "80s" mentality persisted with bands like Guns 'n' Roses continued success through the 90s because the socially conscious bands were concerned about delivering their message, not removing the other bands from existence. Then you go to gaming community and many people today is advocating change in the "dudebro" standards of mainstream gaming (I am using the term commonly used and I am not debating if it is accurate or not). However, unlike the grunge movement, they are acting like preachers: people from outside saying that the game creators are wrong and must change their mentality because it is the only right thing to do. I am sure that preachers were against the "80s" aesthetics in music back in late 80s/early 90s, but their effectiveness to change youth's perspective was irrelevant. Instead, they attracted a lot of hate, that was countered with more hate and the whole point of the discussion was missed. So, to promote a change in the "gamer" culture, people must change it from inside. It means, making games, hitting the mainstream with something new, toppling what is considered standard now. If the grunge movement had been just ultra-niche bands that no one cared about supported by journalists and critics spewing hate towards the "cool boys" culture, it would have gone nowhere. I agree that the "gamer" culture needs new perspectives, but people must act effectively from inside. People must be like Nirvana, Pearl Jam and Rage Against the Machine, taking their guitars and messages to the road, facing hostile audiences in small venues to conquer the audience gradually. People must not be like intellectuals from Age of Enlightment that used their rhetoric to teach how the society should be and how people should behave while they did nothing they preached. |
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
Keith Burgun |
>>History has shown us repeatedly that rejecting the systemic machines and instead looking inward at what we have to express as people is one of the most important things a creative culture can do.
You're ignoring that Nirvana, for all their cultural relevance, were INCREDIBLY crafty songwriters who, despite what the timbre of their music suggested, followed in the classic songwriting footsteps of The Beatles. In other words, we can't substitute craft for "personal-ness", and that's what's happening in the personal art games world. We can't be ANTI-CRAFT. Anyway, great article overall. |
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
Randall Stevens |
I thought this would upset me because it would somehow end up at the terrible conclusion that Nirvana was a good band. Happily I see that this is not the case, though I think many of those writing comments have missed that point.
I think that a bad message is being picked up from this piece, and I want to talk about that: The indie darlings are already similar to the leaders of alternative rock. They are white kids with no real problems (having too much heroin is not a real problem), and they have gone away from something corporate to create something smaller and more personal, but what they created is very different. That is a good thing, because we don't want them to be the same. Alternative rock bands (Nirvana especially) were not great technical musicians. They weren't even average musicians. They created music that has a special place because it echoed the thoughts of the youth at the time. Thoughts that were mostly selfish and petty. Then they sold out and we ended up with the terrible decade of rock music that followed. So we still had corporate rock, but it was laced with this shallow rebellion against... what? The society that had made your life so comfortable and without conflict? It was a time of rebellion without meaning, and crusades against nothing. You only rebel against your parents being "sell outs" and making too much money, because you don't know how shitty it is to grow up with no money, or family, or food. That was the movement that alternative music attached itself to. It wasn't timeless or well constructed, but it spoke to a lot of people who really needed that affirmation that their lives really were as tough as they imagined. Now to the point. Is this really the case for big indie games of this last half decade? Are they actually pieces of shit that are only becoming famous because they happened to be different at the right place and time? Will their creators quickly sell out and begin making garbage that is missing both the spirit and the technical prowess? Will new players look at these games in a decade and be disgusted that these poorly constructed titles reached fame and fortune. Will the new players think of us as fools for liking something that was just playing to the paradigm shift that was happening in game appreciation. Is that what we want? I don't, and I don't think that is what we have. I don't think these games are poorly made, and I don't think that they will be seen as just cultural markers instead of good titles. The good titles we have will be considered good titles regardless of gaming generation, and that is something to be damn proud of. No new listeners in a decade will hear Nirvana and think it is good music. Those kids who had Creed or Nickelback or System of a down as the soundtrack to their teenage years may look on those bands favorably, but nobody else will. I believe that I could give Aquaria or Fez to someone years from now and they would have the same chance of liking it as someone today. I don't think our good games are just riding ripples through a culture. I think games can be things that are both revolutionary and timeless, and that's what we should be looking for. That is what we should be trying to make. Things have to have meaning beyond the change that is happening in a subculture. If the only message is change, then you really have nothing to say to anyone later. Change was meaningful before because it required sacrifice. I am talking about real sacrifice, blood and pain and you and your friends never coming home again. Getting made fun of on the internet is not a hard life. The changes that will happen in this industry will not carry with them real sacrifices to lend gravitas to the message. So your works had better have something else to say once the change has past. Thanks if you read this all. I'm off to listen to some avril lavigne... just kidding, I've got blonde on blonde waiting on my record player. |
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
Mark Kilborn |
I read about a third of the comments on this and then stopped. It's just too messy. Too much pontificating.
Here's what I got out of this article. Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong, but this is what I'm moving forward with: Being inclusive, as a culture, is good for us. Why? Because it brings us diversity. It brings us more options. It allows the medium to grow. Ultimately, that's good for all of us. Yes, even the hardcore gamers who love Gears of War or other mainstream games like that. Follow me for a minute. If our culture becomes more inclusive and we, as a whole, create more diverse experiences, we're bound to reach a tipping point where we can't be collectively dismissed as "those people who like to play games about killing people and blowing stuff up." You can't say that about music or film as a whole, because there is such tremendous diversity in the content of those mediums (even if only a narrow range of it gains mainstream popularity), and it's VISIBLE to the world outside of that culture. In games, we have the defensiveness many have described. We have death threats and people lashing out at anyone who dares to do (or speak up for) something a little different. And when those are the noisiest parts of our culture, people see that and the mainstream games, and they draw some unfair/somewhat inaccurate conclusions about us as a group of humans. I do NOT think she's suggesting we water down games or even make "core" games more inclusive. Let Gears of War be what it is. I take this article as more of a call for a cultural response. Can we collectively make an effort to not be a bunch of asses to people who are not "core gamers," who don't fit our homogenous definition of a gamer. Just be welcoming. "You like Twine games? I have no idea what that is, but we're both gamers, so that's cool. Love what you love. I love what I love. And maybe we can each show each other something we haven't played before that the other will like." Yes, it's kind of kumbaya-ish, but an attitude along those lines would do a hell of a lot to: improve our image in the world reduce scapegoating/etc. from outside of our culture grow games as a medium And WHATEVER you like about this culture, I don't see how those three things are bad, especially when all that's required is to be a nicer person. So yeah, tell me if I totally missed the point, but that's what I got from it. |
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
John Gordon |
I thought this was a good read. Also it scratches the surface about a deeper point: the history of video games parallels the history of rock music in a lot of ways (although there is about a 20 year time delay).
Both started out in America but suffered a huge decline after about a decade. Rock and roll music was revived by the British invasion in the 60's, while games were revived by a "Japanese invasion" in the 80's. (And so on.) So if you look at what was going on about 20 years ago in music, you see that people were getting sick of the bands backed by the big record labels, because it was like hearing the same type of content recycled over and over again. Sure the production values were high, but the content was unoriginal. So consumers got interested in "alternative" music, because the content seemed fresh. This is the sort of thing we are seeing in games right now. One option is unoriginal content with high production values. The other option is seemingly original content with much lower production values. Which side will consumers go for? Personally I'm betting on content. |
|
|
Michael Josefsen |
I'm so tired of this dichotomy of the big AAA man-shooters vs the oh so honest and important indies with their games about loss and identity. In reality, there's games of every imaginable type, made for every imaginable reason and on a fluent scale of production cost. I think we should stop even using the word 'Indie' as it always comes along with this implicit value judgment, that it is more respectable and valuable than those pesky not-indie games.
Also, I'd appreciate if people like Leigh would stop pretending that there's no value in games as challenging systems. I still think this is what games are best at. Sure, make your little games about emotions, but I have other mediums for that kind of thing. |
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
Jonathan Adams |
Games can be amazing venues for demonstrating the complexities of human emotion - but power fantasies are good too. Both types of games should be regarded as conceptual peers, with their ultimate merits judged by their individual quality, rather than assuming one or the other is inherently better or worse than the other. We are all allowed our preferences, but one type of game is not more legitimate than the other, and we should all be sure we don't express our preferences in ways which are pointlessly insulting.
It's true that commercialization of art can cause art to stagnate, but I do feel it is worthwhile to speak up and try to reduce that stagnation alongside creating fresh ideas from the indie scene. Culture is always in flux, and capitalistic interests will always be in hot pursuit of what people are willing to spend on those changes, but this is only really a problem when the corporate interests become antagonistic or otherwise seek to impede competition from forming, |
|
|