From the cultural downtrodden to the high; our views on what constitutes artistic expression

The misconception that games can never be anything more than a simplistic entertainment medium for the masses is one of the many obstacle that the industry has to overcome before it will be taken seriously in its aspirations to legitimate status as high culture and art. The main problem with this aim is that games do not seek to be nor are in any way in compliance with the traditional canons of elite taste, an absolute necessity if they are to break through this barrier, nor have they had any pretentions of adopting these canons through stylistic modification. The fact of the matter is that what is considered high culture is regulated by an elite minority who fail to realise the untapped potential of this nascent artistic medium. The thought of claiming such a stigmatised medium to be capable of reaching such lofty ambitions may have many questioning whether or not such a goal is realistic but I assure you that it is, maybe not immediately, but it is attainable.

What sets games apart from other artistic forms of expression is the fact that they are undeniably an interactive medium - something no other art can really lay claim to. You may interact with a painting or music in so far that you are yourself a spectator but never truly more than a passive one at most. Such things may move you, they may affect you emotionally and mentally but ultimately, without you there, what is being displayed would remain fundamentally unchanged. The experience is the same for all, it is merely each individual's perception of it which changes.



This is an area where games have limitless scope and potential that has yet to be capitalised upon in any meaningful way. When we see a film or read a book, the vision behind each medium is in the end limited by accepted self imposed constraints every writer or director agrees to work within. A film has, on average, two hours to flesh out every character, develop, shape them and mould an engaging narrative around what is undeniably a constricting framework. Yet if a game lasts less than eight hours, it is considered poor value or to have been rushed through development. The length of your typical RPG (Role Playing Game), the genre most dependent on a strong narrative drive, is generally around the sixty hour mark. Sixty hours to flesh out each character and the world they inhabit. This can't be seen as constrictive, but rather liberating in almost every way. It frees the writer to do things that would seem inconsequential or overly time consuming within a film. But more importantly, it strengthens the all important bond between ourselves and the characters on screen. It can deepen the emotional attachment and our own involvement to what is occurring.

Games not only have the potential to develop existing narrative styles but also to allow the patron to experience it in the way he deems more suitable. When we read a book, we have no choice but to follow the descriptions laid out to us, limited to only seeing what we are meant to. From a cinematic point of view, every camera shot, every take is set in stone and unchanging. In a game you choose how long to soak in every vista, how to deal with every character and yet by doing so you need not deviate too far from the original vision. People prefer and appreciate different things in different ways and by giving them the freedom to do so you not only enhance the narrative experience but also deepen the connection between writer and reader, developer and gamer.

No other medium is capable of doing this so readily and while it may not be ready to handle such artistic responsibility now, the industry is young and growing. It just needs to be treated with the same amount of respect and maturity you would afford any struggling child in their aim to fulfil their intrinsic artistic potential.