Progressing gaming

[Batou667]

Bob really ought to be, if not intelligent, then wise enough not to make baloney statements like this.

Can he, or anyone in this thread, give an example of a popular medium being improved by artificially restricting its growth in a certain direction? It just doesn't compute. The "progressive" rhetoric is hot air clouding the underlying, nasty little sentiment of "stop liking things I don't like". Worse, what he's proposing would be a blueprint for stagnation and alienating a large proportion of gamers.

For the medium to grow all we need is for there to be diversity and choice. Let developers create the games they want and let the consumers buy the games they want to play. That's all we need.

 

[LaoJim]

For gaming to progress as a superior medium it needs a superior, progressive audience

Is there any other medium that has progressed as fast as video games? If we compare it to film then at an equivalent point in its development we'd have just got colour and have had sound for less than a decade. (taking the release of Pong in 1972 and the invention of the first motion picture camera's in the 1890s as starting points, arguable I know)

Games have gone from static screens to scrolling levels to full 3D worlds. Within video games, for the first decade any kind of storytelling was nearly impossible, for the second decade storytelling became possible but relied on text. It is only relatively recently we have been able to create games with audio and 3D character models that are capable of expressing some degree of nuance or emotion. (For all that David Cage gets mocked, it is good that this area of technology is improving). Storytelling in video games presents unique challenges as the audience is generally involved with one specific character/avatar at any one time; these leads to questions about whether the protagonists should be silent, how much control over events players are given, and whether the audience should be able to customize the main protagonist's looks as they desire or whether the creator should create a distinct character for the game. These are all complex questions that were not really much of an issue before at least 1993 say (Doom released in this year doesn't really have any characterization at all). Creators have the additional difficulty of constantly having to interweave story and gameplay in a natural way; some think cut-scenes are an acceptable way of doing this, Half-Life showed a complete story could be told without breaking first person perspective. And so on.

So gaming has progressed as a medium. Perhaps it is possible to argue that it is stuck in a rut with too many Modern Military Shooters. Actually if you look at the top games for 2013 they are there but there are not as many in the top spots as you might think

http://metro.co.uk/2014/01/16/100-best-selling-video-games-of-2013-revealed-4265929/

Take this list and compare it with the top movies from the same year.

http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2013

(These are not necessarily the best references, I'm just grabbing something quickly to refresh everyone's memories of what was out last year, the video games chart doesn't seem to include mobile gaming which I'll get to in a second)

Guess wha: t there is a lot of...well what shall we call it? Retrogressive/Inferior entertainment or just big dumb fun entertainment . It might be argued that there are 3 films with strong female leads in the top 10 (Frozen, Gravity and the Hunger Games), and it might be counter-argued that since women are a much larger audience for movies than they are for console games this is to be expected. In any case I don't particularly see that movies (a genre which is more than twice as old as video games) is any more progressive, in it's big hits, than video games are.

Looking at the list of games, from a story point of view the Last of Us, Bioshock Infinite, and Tomb Raider could be said to be progressive in terms of story, if not gameplay, and could be classed as 'superior' experiences. Minecraft can be considered progressive in terms of gameplay. (The Walking Dead from 2012 is a rare example of a game which is progressive in both storytelling and gameplay). When talking about story-progressive games, I class them as such because each of them was trying to do something interesting and different in their narratives. Gamers, by and larger, seemed to be moved by the main characters relationship with Ellie in tLoS, Bioshock tackled big themes like racism and attempted an unusually involved and complex plot, the developers of Tomb Raider was brave enough (although probably prompted by falling sales of previous titles) to take a beloved character and try to make her more believable/relatable/interesting.

It is debatable how far these games succeeded, but being 'progressive' means doing something new and when you do something new you are not guaranteed to hit a home-run on your first swing. Aspects of Bioshock and Tomb Raider were both criticsed: However great Elizabeth was as a character she was still a damsel, was Tomb Raider essentially 'suffering porn' etc. Its fine to ask these kind of questions, but even if you decide that there were problems with the narratives in these games, I still think they were attempting some kind of progress.

I could go on, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to wind up this post now as I have somewhere to be. In short, I think gaming does have a 'superior audience' to use Bob's rather unfortunately elitist phrase, including anyone who bought and enjoyed the story of Bioshock Infinite (say) or even those who didn't and can give deep reasons why not, my cousin and the millions of other children who are enjoying Minecraft, a very different game from the ones I grew up with. Hell even those who can talk about CoD and explain why the good games in the series are better than the bad ones. Here on the Escapist forums people are constantly talking about issues with games; be it the narrative, design, technical or social issues (whether they fall on the pro or anti-GG side of the issue)

 

[DrWut]

Please don't interpret this as a personal attack, but Bob's tweets are dumb and the question is dumb.

For gaming to progress as a superior medium it needs a superior, progressive audience

In regard to games:

What is "superior"? We need to consider what is "good" and what is "bad". Those are concepts that can hardly be applied to a medium that relies on subjective enjoyment. There is no "superior" medium. There is "more games that are that the games I like". So I'm going to translate that part as such.

What is "progress" ? Progress towards what? Art does not have a beggining or an end, styles and themes change constantly depending on the historical period, it's completely meaningful. I will translate "progress" as "having more qualities that I consider good".

In regard to audience:

What kind of douchebaggery is talking about a "superior" audience? Superior in what respect? More intelligent? I think there are a lot of intelligent gamers. Does he want stronger gamers? Better hair? Fuller breasts? I suspect he understand "superior" as "people who share my views" which says more about Bob than about the unwashed masses he despises.

"Progressive audience". Well, people are constantly moving forward in time, so that makes them progressive, right? Oooh, wrong. "Progressive" is polspeak for: "pretentious leftist douchebag that assumes history has a direction, therefore making his ideas objectively right". I'm a leftist, mind you, but these people are embarrassing.

So the complete translation is: "In order to have more games like the games I like we need more people playing games that are as pretentious and ideologically-driven as me". Which is an obvious and meaningless statement.

In response to the question: there is no "chicken" and "egg" because there are no "superior" people or games. People will be people and play the games they like, that's it.

 

[murrow]

The question is, Does a great gaming medium depend upon a great, superior audience?

Oh, my. One of my favourite topics. First, on the issue of 'superiority'. It's a bogus notion, and it leads nowhere. There's an excerpt from Virginia Woolf's 'A Room of One's Own' I cited in another thread, which can also be useful here. It talks about 'war of the sexes', but the overarching principle might be relevant here as well:

All this pitting of sex against sex, of quality against quality; all this claiming of superiority and imputing of inferiority, belong to the private-school stage of human existence where there are 'sides', and it is necessary for one side to beat another side, and of the utmost importance to walk up to a platform and receive from the hands of the Headmaster himself a highly ornamental pot. As people mature they cease to believe in sides or in Headmasters or in highly ornamental pots.

I like to think of art as mode of appreciation. It requires an experiment (the work of art), which can, like all experiments, fail or succeed. And it also requires someone willing to undertake it. This 'willingness' to be experimented upon, this fair-play to know that you are going for an experience that may or may not deliver, and that might take to other, possibly unpleasant places, is what creates a demand for art. To reemploy an example I've used elsewhere: if you have lunch at a fast food restaurant, you'll expect the meal to match your order, and if anything is off, you're going to ask your money back. But if you decide to pay $300 for a blind tasting at a Michelin 3-star restaurant and they serve you live lamprey, you're not going to complain, even if it tastes awful. You might never return, but, by acknowledging the chef's food as gourmet gastronomy, you were aware of the risks.

Of course, the demand for such products will always be smaller, as you've stated yourself. And there's nothing wrong with that. Those works aren't even in direct competition. On the contrary: forcing people to 'become' an elite is a recipe for disaster. No matter how good the work is, you can't produce appreciation by shoving it down someone's throat. Moreover, believing that the 'ideal' state of affairs is a world in which everyone consumes 'high art' (I put commas because the term is revolting), and that people are being 'prevented' from liking this 'high art' by external influences is delusional. It's a symptom of a world-view mired by conflict interactions, that interprets everything as a relationship of power and reduces cultural products to dry, material 'functions'. And it's exactly the pitfall Moviebob has fallen into.

Another thing is that 'commercial art' is indeed a thing, and you'll often see award winning works becoming best-sellers. Which is just another indication that the dichotomy of 'high culture' and 'low culture' that Bob employs so much is complete BS. The distinction of 'simpleton' and 'elite' culture has always been hazy. This goes from the popular melodies in Bach's suites to modern pop-culture references in Haruki Murakami's novels. Granted, the more 'experimental' a work of art, the less demand it will find. That's why a composer like Max Richter is praised by the masses while Pierre Boulez is known only to a few.

The way Bob presents things is that gaming needs an audience that is progressive and already shaped into the sort of people he wants to see as gamer fans. I think he has forgotten that art, "good" art, is suppose to move and influence people into being better.

I'd like to give Bob the benefit of the doubt, but I can't anymore. What he means by "progressive" is not "Progress" the historical teleology (i.e. the belief that history 'goes' somewhere, and that this evolution can be measured), but people spousing the ideology of Progressivism (as opposed to Reactionarism or Conservatism). I'm not getting into this debate because I know Bob has no interesting in discussing it; he's just rekindling the old, date and anachronic flame war between "Left" and "Right", demonizing his opponents as 'reactionary Fox News fans' and his side as the 'pathway to progress'. The very fact that he associates the two so fully is another statement to his bias towards conflict-based, functionalist interpretations of culture.

 

[Izanagi009_v1legacy]

That tweet would be my prime example as to why I despise that man. Just everything about that causes me to cringe.

No gaming does not need that. That statement screams elitism at me, which is the last thing gaming needs.

I will argue that some elitism is needed but as always, it will be on a bell curve. The average person who can understand themes but not to a full critical extent are in the middle, the people who play connect the dots with themes and narratives and who love the art of things will be a much smaller 90 percentile and the people who just want to indulge in action without themes or the consideration of them are in the equally small 10 percentile. I would argue that the gaming audience is a bit to the left in terms of the curve but as our hobby becomes more culturally important, it will shift back to normal.

OT: I am of two minds about this

My critical side is telling me since, in the long term, cultural significance and not profits will determine the staying power of a piece of media within society that we should cultivate the audience of all medias to be more analytical: the type that will play cultural and societal connect the dots with any scene or story and be able to argue the fine points of say imperialism vs the intervention mindset in cheap action movies or (for anime) the interplay of Japanese history and culture in anime and how they utilize other cultures in their media.

On the other hand, I will admit to having a stick up my ass a majority of the time and that I for the past few years have diminished my own enjoyment of stuff in pursuit of this critical mindset which makes explaining to people why I like Panty and Stocking when I usually rail against sex comedies like Project X or Hangover as being lowbrow. I certainly want to enjoy my media but I also am afraid of being seen as unintelligent thinking that I have to push back against all the jokes of anime being porn and overly young girls.

 

[Elfgore]

That tweet would be my prime example as to why I despise that man. Just everything about that causes me to cringe.

No gaming does not need that. That statement screams elitism at me, which is the last thing gaming needs.

I will argue that some elitism is needed but as always, it will be on a bell curve. The average person who can understand themes but not to a full critical extent are in the middle, the people who play connect the dots with themes and narratives and who love the art of things will be a much smaller 90 percentile and the people who just want to indulge in action without themes or the consideration of them are in the equally small 10 percentile. I would argue that the gaming audience is a bit to the left in terms of the curve but as our hobby becomes more culturally important, it will shift back to normal.

I'm a little out of it right now, but I think I have your numbers down. 80% would be a common gamer, someone who understands the themes, but doesn't take it further. 10% would think their better than everyone else Critique it further and be the progressives. With 10% being the guys who just wanna shoot stuff. Is that correct? I want to be sure before I respond.

 

[Izanagi009_v1legacy]

That tweet would be my prime example as to why I despise that man. Just everything about that causes me to cringe.

No gaming does not need that. That statement screams elitism at me, which is the last thing gaming needs.

I will argue that some elitism is needed but as always, it will be on a bell curve. The average person who can understand themes but not to a full critical extent are in the middle, the people who play connect the dots with themes and narratives and who love the art of things will be a much smaller 90 percentile and the people who just want to indulge in action without themes or the consideration of them are in the equally small 10 percentile. I would argue that the gaming audience is a bit to the left in terms of the curve but as our hobby becomes more culturally important, it will shift back to normal.

I'm a little out of it right now, but I think I have your numbers down. 80% would be a common gamer, someone who understands the themes, but doesn't take it further. 10% would think their better than everyone else Critique it further and be the progressives. With 10% being the guys who just wanna shoot stuff. Is that correct? I want to be sure before I respond.

This is a very general assumption based on my understanding of a bell curve. the numbers may very well shift from generation to generation but all media has it's proponents that just want mindless fun, it's proponents that are overly analytical and devote themselves to study of media and the rest will just be people who know the themes but don't devote themselves to the study of media.

While I understand the sentiment of the 90th percentile to have everyone be their intelligence, this is impossible. Critics can influence and inform but not control.

 

[SquallTheBlade]

I will argue that some elitism is needed but as always, it will be on a bell curve. The average person who can understand themes but not to a full critical extent are in the middle, the people who play connect the dots with themes and narratives and who love the art of things will be a much smaller 90 percentile and the people who just want to indulge in action without themes or the consideration of them are in the equally small 10 percentile. I would argue that the gaming audience is a bit to the left in terms of the curve but as our hobby becomes more culturally important, it will shift back to normal.
.

Why does it matter? Why is one thing superior to other? It doesn't matter if you play/watch/read anything for just the action or if you play/watch/read anything for themes/narrative. They are just different ways of enjoying entertainment/fiction.

 

[Izanagi009_v1legacy]

I will argue that some elitism is needed but as always, it will be on a bell curve. The average person who can understand themes but not to a full critical extent are in the middle, the people who play connect the dots with themes and narratives and who love the art of things will be a much smaller 90 percentile and the people who just want to indulge in action without themes or the consideration of them are in the equally small 10 percentile. I would argue that the gaming audience is a bit to the left in terms of the curve but as our hobby becomes more culturally important, it will shift back to normal.
.

Why does it matter? Why is one thing superior to other? It doesn't matter if you play/watch/read anything for just the action or if you play/watch/read anything for themes/narrative. They are just different ways of enjoying entertainment/fiction.

This is not an implication of superior or not, this is just a distribution that I believe to exist. The reason why I suggested the curve will shift to the right over time is that gaming will become more culturally important so courses and texts will appear in their analysis and discussion will increase. This will cause the number of people who are more aware of themes to increase and so the curve shifts.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

My God, the amount of smugness and pretentiousness in Bob's post is mind-blowing.

"For gaming to progress as a superior medium it needs a superior, progressive audience"
In other words, if you don't enjoy the games that 'superior progressives' (as Bob considers himself, of course) like, then you're part of the problem and are holding back the medium.

I mean, how DARE you prefer to play Call of Duty or Gears of War or Madden '14 instead of Gone Home, don't you realize you're "holding back the medium"?!

This is essentially a nice way of saying "well you can play whatever games you want, but if you play the games I don't approve of you're making everyone suffer", which is basically a passive-aggressive way of saying that your opinion is wrong and mine is right.

 

[VVThoughtBox]

As someone who studies fine arts in college and plays video games, I reject the idea that gaming needs a superior audience. This has to be the most elitist and racist thing that I have ever heard in my life. First of all, who is the superior audience that he's talking about? Without any definition, or clarity of the word, the superior audience would technically translate into the rich. Only the rich have the money, education, and power in the world to be considered the superior audience. So when Moviebob talks about gaming depending on a superior audience, does he really mean that gaming companies should cater to the rich?

If the superior audience he talks about isn't the rich, then the only group who fits the description would be the church. The church has lots of money and with it, they can commission game companies to produce video games the promote religious message. Since most games are made in the West, or in Japan, I only see a lot of games with mainstream Christianity, Shinto, or even Buddhist themes being made. Either way, the concept of gaming being decided by a superior audience is too Social Darwinian for modern times, and would result in giving the rich more power over the common man.

 

[Negatempest]

Here's my two cents.
I find it more insulting to completely ignore the fact that games have already been progressing for the better. Games like Ace Attorney and Proffesor Layton are just a few examples of games branching off from the usual mechanics games have done. But are ignored because people after a specific agenda do not give those games credit. Games were naturally going the diverse route. All people like movie Bob are doing is hiding the natural progression for the sake of agendas.

 

[Verlander]

I disagree that it needs a superior audience... it needs superior creators. It needs the freedom to exist, without prejudice, and for it to be communicable in a low cost and easy manner.

So I think that games need to be superior? I believe that there should be a market for it, but it's not the be all and end all. Other media balance quality well.

 

[VVThoughtBox]

One more thing: Where do women and minorities fit in the who concept of a superior audience?

 

[Verlander]

I'd like to add, however, that while I disagree with those tweets, that Twitter conversations don't even touch the blurb of a proper argument. It's nearly impossible to tell exactly what Bob means with those tweets, and regardless, I respect his opinion and right to express it.

 

[Irick]

Well, coming to this from a Critical Theory perspective, cultivating an audience already means that what we are dealing with is not "Art" in any real sense of the term. As Theodor Adorno points out, the artistic process is defined by an autonomy to engage with aesthetic problems that is uncompromised by an economic necessity of procuring the support of an "audience". Art, by definition, is created in a position of privilege removed from the mechanics of production which, as Adorno states, does not invalidate its potential for insight, but firmly situates it apart from the actual practices of labor and thus politics.

I have to disagree with this assertion, again from a critical theory perspective. I feel that your quoted definition of art gives too much emphasis on the artist/author and not with the interaction of that work with the culture at large. While this is a valid way to interpret art, it ignores the larger context. In this, I hold with Barthes[footnote]Death of the Author [http://www.ubu.com/aspen/aspen5and6/threeEssays.html#barthes][/footnote].

I don't think in a post-modern perspective the definitive lines between high art and low are really all that definitive, or the distinction all to relevant. Popular culture is influenced by popular art and vice versa. In this day and age nearly all forms of art are popular, we are eliminating scarcity and availability is soaring. In this way we are eliminating the aesthetic vacuum, instead art is a cultural dialog around the ideas and principles it embodies.

This leads us to the question of a 'superior audience' (I swear, the more I read from this man...). I would say no. No, we do not need a supirior adience. We need better and more open lines of communication between the audience and the artist. Popular culture and art is made through continuous transformation, that cultural dialog. The audience interprets and critiques and the artist is influenced by those interpretations and critiques. The audience also appropriates and creates, and in this way we have fan culture.

For gaming, the intersection of fan culture and art are the essence of the thing. From house ruling D&D to creating total conversion mods for quake 3. This is our way of improving on the process, making better games and expanding the context of the medium.

 

[KokujinTensai]

The market will dictate gaming's future much like natural selection.
Games are made by corporations.
Corporations exist to turn a profit.
These corporations spend millions on market research to find the most profitable market for their projects.
Should games like Gone Home end up becoming profitable then similar games of that mold will be made. If not then the opposite.

Remember when Adventure games where plentiful? Remember when JRPG's were huge? Remember World War 2 shooters? Remember the Wii and the Casuapocalypse?

I say we trust the market. There are millions of gamers who dont frequent these sites. They will buy what they like. These progressives need to learn the truth that they cant force change. Things will change if you let it happen organically.

 

[Amir Kondori]

Man, Bob posts some ridiculous stuff. The gaming audience we have today is the primary gaming audience we are going to have at least during my lifetime.
People think that gaming is getting wider and attracting new people, it is, but it isn't leaving anyone behind. The primary, core market is still going to be the people buying 20+games a year and reading the gaming sites. It is going to be us. This sounds like wishful thinking on Bob's part.