I've had a deep malaise with videogames for well over five years now, ever since I stopped playing PC games. I've often been heard to proclaim that videogames are dead as a worthwhile or artistic medium, but something has occurred to me recently. My ire and withering criticism has been almost totally directed towards the major releases of the videogaming world: the ones that every magazine and website cover and that the majority of the so-called hardcore eagerly await.
Now, in most other mediums I enjoy and follow, such as music or literature, then I have absolutely no interest nor time for major releases. I buy almost no music that's released on a major label and I spend no time listening to the radio or watching movie channels, and I certainly don't give an aerial intercourse about Dan Brown, JK Rowling or James Patterson. I don't get annoyed or critical of these things, because I expect them to be crap, and I'm fully aware they aren't representative of the quality available in music or literature.
So why do I contradict my own principles when it comes to videogames? Well, I've thought about it briefly and come up with two ideas, both of which I expect to be challenged in this thread.
The first is that videogaming doesn't have much of an underground, and that's because videogaming has traditionally seen itself as underground by default, and so has been indiscriminate about its levels of exposure until very recently. Videogaming has always been associated with geekiness, despite an effort about once every decade for the industry to dumb itself down yet further and throw more marketing at a wider demographic. What's more, videogaming has a self-image of itself as a niche interest, an inherent underground. The whole construct of the "gamer" has no direct equivalent elsewhere. There is no "reader" or "listener", and even "film buff" is much less common and much less indicative of a subculture. Normal people like books, music and film, but gamers like videogames.
Of course, thanks to the efforts of Nintendo, videogaming has seen a recent influx of new recruits that problematise the whole notion of gaming as an underground totality. This has happened before in the 90s, when Sony rebranded gaming with a more cinematic and adult emphasis with the original Playstation, appealing to the general public and so creating a new type of gamer. This split gaming into the PC vs Console dichotomy, where snobby PC gamers saw their format as the bastion of more complex, more sophisticated and less mass-marketed gaming, as opposed to the shallow ranks of console gamers.
Now Nintendo have brought in a new and even less underground demographic so the boundaries have shifted again. Now we have this ludicrous notion of Hardcore vs Casual, where the same gamers who ten years ago would have been the shallow, mainstream players for liking games such as GTA IV and Halo 3 have now convinced themselves they are the "hardcore", entirely thanks to structuralist relativity. Most gamers who've been playing for more than 24 months view themselves as "hardcore", even though they're actually buying shiny, vacuous major studio dreck which would be massively overground in any other medium.
So any true underground that gaming once had has been steadily erased by marketing and reinvention first by Sony and now by Nintendo. Gamers like to see themselves as part of a subculture so they'll brand themselves as "hardcore" even though they're playing Resident Evil 5, the videogaming equivalent to a new Lethal Weapon film. The traditional cultural values and self-image of videogaming combined with the adolescent geek mindset of gamers ensures that they always see themselves as part of a transgressive sub-culture and only an act of incredible, brazen commodification such as the Wii can stir them into life, and even then only as far as swift rejection. Casual gamers don't even know they're called "casual", but all "hardcore" gamers are fully aware of their bullshit badge of honour.
The second point I want to make is that, with PC gaming now firmly relegated to the second tier of gaming relevance, noticed by most gamers outside of its diminishing fanbase only for the occasional major release and the MMORPG bubble, there aren't enough outlets for a gaming underground. With major multinationals such as Sony and Microsoft dictating who gets to release what on their systems, the notion of a non-corporate, creatively minded gaming underground thriving is highly unlikely. The "marketplace" innovation is one lease of life for indie developers, but I'm yet to be convinced it's a thriving scene for new creative blood. The undoubted king of the 360's marketplace is Geometry Wars, a game released from major publisher Activision, and Geometry Wars 2's high score table indicates no more than 250,000 people have even downloaded the trial version.
Although it's a major publisher product, Geometry Wars 2 is a perfect example of how misguided the creative energies of most videogames are today. High quality indie games available for download across the console such as World Of Goo show that an endless push for superior production values, graphical and sonic splendeur is a waste of resources. Major developers have massive budgets, development teams and resources, and there's no way indie developers can compete. The industry is too top-heavy to support an underground scene. This isn't like music or literature where anyone with a band, a DAW or a word processor can make something of equal standard to anyone else. We're talking about the ultimate technological medium, and yet the most creative and interesting games being released could probably run on ten year old technology. A more even distribution of capital is needed, because when the same studios are making all the money, they're becoming less and less inclined to put their resources to good use.
We're supposedly living in the era of the "long tail" where everyone's niche interests are catered for, and yet videogaming, the self-declared niche of society, is still largely obsessed with mass-marketed products. The trendier magazines and websites run the occasional article on one underground area or another, and then go back to writing bloated previews for the new Final Fantasy. Let the casual gamers play the equivalents of Harry Potter or Britney Spears. The so-called "hardcore" should be investing their money into the indie developers who might actually push us out of a landscape of generic shooters and creatively bankrupt sequels.
Now, in most other mediums I enjoy and follow, such as music or literature, then I have absolutely no interest nor time for major releases. I buy almost no music that's released on a major label and I spend no time listening to the radio or watching movie channels, and I certainly don't give an aerial intercourse about Dan Brown, JK Rowling or James Patterson. I don't get annoyed or critical of these things, because I expect them to be crap, and I'm fully aware they aren't representative of the quality available in music or literature.
So why do I contradict my own principles when it comes to videogames? Well, I've thought about it briefly and come up with two ideas, both of which I expect to be challenged in this thread.
The first is that videogaming doesn't have much of an underground, and that's because videogaming has traditionally seen itself as underground by default, and so has been indiscriminate about its levels of exposure until very recently. Videogaming has always been associated with geekiness, despite an effort about once every decade for the industry to dumb itself down yet further and throw more marketing at a wider demographic. What's more, videogaming has a self-image of itself as a niche interest, an inherent underground. The whole construct of the "gamer" has no direct equivalent elsewhere. There is no "reader" or "listener", and even "film buff" is much less common and much less indicative of a subculture. Normal people like books, music and film, but gamers like videogames.
Of course, thanks to the efforts of Nintendo, videogaming has seen a recent influx of new recruits that problematise the whole notion of gaming as an underground totality. This has happened before in the 90s, when Sony rebranded gaming with a more cinematic and adult emphasis with the original Playstation, appealing to the general public and so creating a new type of gamer. This split gaming into the PC vs Console dichotomy, where snobby PC gamers saw their format as the bastion of more complex, more sophisticated and less mass-marketed gaming, as opposed to the shallow ranks of console gamers.
Now Nintendo have brought in a new and even less underground demographic so the boundaries have shifted again. Now we have this ludicrous notion of Hardcore vs Casual, where the same gamers who ten years ago would have been the shallow, mainstream players for liking games such as GTA IV and Halo 3 have now convinced themselves they are the "hardcore", entirely thanks to structuralist relativity. Most gamers who've been playing for more than 24 months view themselves as "hardcore", even though they're actually buying shiny, vacuous major studio dreck which would be massively overground in any other medium.
So any true underground that gaming once had has been steadily erased by marketing and reinvention first by Sony and now by Nintendo. Gamers like to see themselves as part of a subculture so they'll brand themselves as "hardcore" even though they're playing Resident Evil 5, the videogaming equivalent to a new Lethal Weapon film. The traditional cultural values and self-image of videogaming combined with the adolescent geek mindset of gamers ensures that they always see themselves as part of a transgressive sub-culture and only an act of incredible, brazen commodification such as the Wii can stir them into life, and even then only as far as swift rejection. Casual gamers don't even know they're called "casual", but all "hardcore" gamers are fully aware of their bullshit badge of honour.
The second point I want to make is that, with PC gaming now firmly relegated to the second tier of gaming relevance, noticed by most gamers outside of its diminishing fanbase only for the occasional major release and the MMORPG bubble, there aren't enough outlets for a gaming underground. With major multinationals such as Sony and Microsoft dictating who gets to release what on their systems, the notion of a non-corporate, creatively minded gaming underground thriving is highly unlikely. The "marketplace" innovation is one lease of life for indie developers, but I'm yet to be convinced it's a thriving scene for new creative blood. The undoubted king of the 360's marketplace is Geometry Wars, a game released from major publisher Activision, and Geometry Wars 2's high score table indicates no more than 250,000 people have even downloaded the trial version.
Although it's a major publisher product, Geometry Wars 2 is a perfect example of how misguided the creative energies of most videogames are today. High quality indie games available for download across the console such as World Of Goo show that an endless push for superior production values, graphical and sonic splendeur is a waste of resources. Major developers have massive budgets, development teams and resources, and there's no way indie developers can compete. The industry is too top-heavy to support an underground scene. This isn't like music or literature where anyone with a band, a DAW or a word processor can make something of equal standard to anyone else. We're talking about the ultimate technological medium, and yet the most creative and interesting games being released could probably run on ten year old technology. A more even distribution of capital is needed, because when the same studios are making all the money, they're becoming less and less inclined to put their resources to good use.
We're supposedly living in the era of the "long tail" where everyone's niche interests are catered for, and yet videogaming, the self-declared niche of society, is still largely obsessed with mass-marketed products. The trendier magazines and websites run the occasional article on one underground area or another, and then go back to writing bloated previews for the new Final Fantasy. Let the casual gamers play the equivalents of Harry Potter or Britney Spears. The so-called "hardcore" should be investing their money into the indie developers who might actually push us out of a landscape of generic shooters and creatively bankrupt sequels.
