Legitamacy for Game Developers?

[HyeJinx1984]

Interesting Op-Ed from Gamasutra: Legitamacy for Game Developers (http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3925/legitimacy_for_game_developers.php)

Tackling the, seemingly never ending, inner conflict with the games industry wanting to be respected. Personally, I think it may never happen, or at least not for a while... it is the same reason why comics, despite all their big movies and so forth, have the same problem... the words themselves. Sometimes I wonder if the people who are constantly vying for legitimacy actually stop and consider the fact that their working in a medium in fact called "games."

The word itself has a very negative connotation in our society: We tell out significant others not to play games with out hearts, we use phrases like "life is not a game"... the word in an of itself is damning and trivial. So as long as you're trying to prove to someone that something called a "game," which by it's very definition is not something to be taken seriously, IS something to be taken seriously then you have a terrible up-hill battle that I doubt will ever be won. Does that mean games should change their name? That they should scrap "Games" all together and refer to themselves as solely as "Interactive Media"?

Of course not. Just how I despise the phrase "Graphic Novel" when referring to comics as a pretentious and pathetic euphemism, I'd feel the same way about referring to games in commercials and the common vernacular as "Interactive Media." So what's the solution? Hell if I know... but MAYBE it has something to do with not being so concerned about gaining the approval of people who aren't even in your demographic. If they come into the fold one day, great... if not, we've been doing just fine without them.

[hawkofva]

Most games can't play the "Interactive Media" card, especially if it's some kind of multiplayer versus game. Some games, like "Indigo Prophecy" and "Mass Effect", are more likely to be able to use that excuse because they're all about the tale, but something like "Halo" or "Guitar Hero" will always fall under "game" because of what people see as the bottom line: score.

[kiggidykev]

Writer makes a valid point, but I think the definitions and reception of words change from generation to generation. "Game" and "comic" are two good examples.

When I was in school in the early 90s, "games" (meaning video games) were considered uncool, and admitting that you liked or played games meant that you were lame, case closed. Heaven forbid you showed an interest in Super Nintendo or said you liked the new Street Fighter, or it meant being ostracized.

Now, it seems like "games" have a more relaxed view, given that they're more mainstream and accepted. Even the NES stuff I used to play and get made fun of for liking now has a geeky or retro kind of cool. Makes me glad to gave kept the same hobby all this time, feels like a deserved and earned kind of knowledge that makes me appreciate the medium even more.

Personally, I don't care if video games are ever accepted by critics and the general public as an art form, and buzzwords like "interactive media" are just used by teachers to try and sound important and cutting-edge. I like them, and if there's one thing that being a gamer geek NES kid in the 80s taught me, it's that I don't need anyone's approval to enjoy the things that I like.

Thanks for the rant :)

[Apples]

Just how I despise the phrase "Graphic Novel" when referring to comics as a pretentious and pathetic euphemism.

I lol'd because I totally agree with this.

[HyeJinx1984]

Tenk u, tenk u.

There's also another false argument going on here with the whole "legitimacy" and "art form" thing... especially when comparing it to movies. I think people tend to forget that the year it came out, Dukes of Hazzard was the highest grossing film of the year. Every summer is filled with (some good, but mostly bad) sequels... and most people make their decision on whether or not to go see a movie based on an actor they like who is in it more than anything else (my dad, for example, will see ANYTHING with Robert DeNiro in it... even Rocky and Bewinkle). Speaking of actors, the only reason millions of people tune in to watch the oscars every year is BECAUSE of the glitz and glamor of the stars. If game's had their own version of the oscars (and they kind of do with the game developers awards...) it would just be what the academy has the day before, with all the technical achievement stuff that they have in a closet some place while the media and public get ready for the next day's red carpet affair.

Sure, movies make a LOT of money, but so do games now (wasn't Halo 2 the best selling product, including movies, period the year it came out?). As for cultural impact and artistic merit... games, first of all, from Mario to God of War to Halo have quite a bit of cultural impact, and as for as people taking them serious artistically... most people walk out of a theater and forget whatever it as they just watched. WE don't because we're nerds and we like to analyze things... so we just assume that everyone is doing that with movies, and wondering why they don't do it with games.

Anyway, me done rambling...