First let me explain what I mean by this. In other art forms, and we will be discussing games as an art form here, there is a certain amount of social awareness and activism. Movies, books and art all confront viewers with political or social commentary hoping to educate or influence us in our views. People in these mediums have taken their art and decided to use it to show the world something, to influence people’s minds, to educate us on certain ideas or wrong doings going on. They’re trying to change the world for the better. There is the entertainment side to these art forms but there is also the activist side, the part of the industries that try to help the world by influencing people via their medium. In fact one thing that makes art "Art" is that it confronts the viewer and challenges their thoughts on life and creates a heavy emotional impact. Not to say that games don’t have emotional impacts, many do, but they do it in a world of fantasy that very, very rarely confronts real world issues or prompts for real change.
I’m not sure if I’m explaining this correctly so let me give an example. The film
Hotel Rwanda is not made for entertainment’s sake, it is meant to show the world the atrocities that occurred and are still occurring in Rwanda. Elie Wiesel’s
Night, one of the most moving pieces of literature ever written on the Holocaust, is written to educate and inform people on the atrocities that occurred in Nazi Germany. What if someone made a game on these subjects? Would that be offensive? Taboo? Inappropriate? Not if we consider games as art. If games are art, and they are, then they should be tackling these subjects and a myriad of other ones. In fact, I would argue that with the increased popularity of gaming, games should not only be broaching subjects pertaining to social change but it has become the videogame’s duty as the leading form of media in the world.
I wonder how game developers and designers can sit back, knowing they have one of the most influential and predominant forms of media in their hands and not use it to open up some eyes. Where are the game designers who are calling for games to approach more real world subjects? Where are the gamers who want to be emotionally affected by a game the same way they are by a movie about Hiroshima or a book about the multiple atrocities committed in Burma. There must be other gamers like me who want gaming to be more than just an escape from reality but also a way to change reality, a way to shape our world for the better. The possibility is there, we just have to change a few things about the world of gaming.
Perceptions of What Videogames Are Gamers can barely get people to perceive games as even a rudimentary form of art let alone a way to champion a social cause or present an ideal. If you brought up a game about the genocide in Rawanda to a person, their first thought would be of a gamer shooting a group of Tutsi with a machine gun. If people’s notions about gaming changed, though, then the first thought would not run towards a murder simulator but of the great strengths an interactive experience could apply to such a subject. The question becomes can people perceive games in such a manner that they aren’t games anymore but works of art, meant to influence and educate.
I’d argue yes. I think the likes of
Passage or
Stars Over a Half Moon prove that games can tackle serious subjects in a meaningful and enlightening way but the vast majority of games aren’t going to do this until people’s perceptions about them change. We have to be able to say, “Hey, this isn’t a game, it’s a piece of art, a story, an interactive message", and have people believe it or else any game, like
Passage will be seen as nothing more than just a quick diversion. Even worse, if the game deals with a more violent or upsetting subject, without a change or perception on what games are and can be, they will simply be seen as an insult to their subject matter. Good intentions only get one so far.
What and Who the Industry is About One of the major problems with developing an art culture around gaming is that, unlike other forms of media, gaming grew up around an industry not around experimentation and art. While these two aspects have always been found in gaming, the driving factor behind the development and technology of games has always been money and industry. Unsuccessful games, no matter how great, don’t usually get another chance. The point is that the industry produces games to make money, which is fine, that is what industry is for. The problem arises when that is all the industry is about and thus support for other types of products is almost completely absent.
The gaming industry doesn’t seem too interested in spreading the love. While I’m not saying any other industry in the media is a saint since all of them work towards making money almost every major film studio and publisher puts out films and books that pertain to more than just entertainment. This just does not seem like a goal that gaming companies even have on their radar. Part of this has to do with the public perception of gaming that was discussed before but that won’t change unless game developers change what they’re doing. Game designers need to lead this charge in not only designing games that are fun to play but taking the time to confront cultural and social issues taking place throughout the world. Money can be a driving factor, but it shouldn’t be the only factor.
A general argument about why games can’t really pertain to current events is that great game development takes years in the least. Of course, any gamer knows that this isn’t true. Yes, a high end game can take years to design but gamers know that the budget of a game doesn’t define the impact of the game. Plus, socially aware games do not have to pertain to current events or even real events. They need to confront ideals and challenge the gamer’s perceptions on how they view the world. A socially responsible game leads to action or at least thought from those who are playing it. So as I see it, developers could easily design games around social activism.
What and Who Gamers are About Developers aren’t going to change much if gamers don’t change themselves. Not to insult this entire site and gamers in general, but we aren’t always the most socially aware group. In fact, often we’re pretty self-centered. Even when we aren’t, we seem to keep our gaming and our ideals (right or wrong) separate. This is unfortunate since we have one of the largest and most popular ways to socially network in the world. Games have the power to unite thousands upon thousands of people and to think that that power could be used to change injustices around the world and isn’t is really depressing.
Please don't misconstrue this as me saying that gamers shouldn’t be having fun or shouldn’t be killing each other with large guns. We as gamers don’t seem to be doing anything else with this fantastic ability and there is a lack of anyone leading a charge to change that. This is even more disturbing since participants in gaming on Live and PSN (and the Wii if the service didn’t suck) are clearly uneducated, throwing insults that are both culturally insulting and terribly offensive out more easily than anyone should be able to. The opportunity for social education and change over online gaming is truly epic and yet gamers don’t seem to want to promote the opportunity.
We as a community need to change our attitude towards gaming, seeing it not just as a pastime but as something that can influence the world around us. If we perceive our games as more than just games, than the rest of the world (developers, non-gamers, politicians) will slowly, most likely really slowly, see it that way too. Magaret Mead said, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." I know gamers are committed and I think the millions of us around the world qualify as more than a small group, we just need to direct this not just towards gaming but towards the betterment of all.
How Games Are Conceived and Designed Game design has to change in order for this to even be an idea. Right now, the point of most games is to win. No matter what the story is, you move from point A to point B trying to win. This necessitates enemies, challenges and victories. But great stories don’t always have these things in them. Some stories end sadly, some don’t have any true bad guy, some don’t have a good guy. In order for a true social message to appear in a game, it would have to be designed around the message and story and not the gameplay. This isn’t to say that the gameplay shouldn’t be great but getting to a boss should not be about the driving motivation behind the character’s actions. For games to truly impact life, they have to mirror life far better.
Where does that leave the game side of the work? The same place it was before. You could have fantastic combat or reality based puzzles but the game needs to present them in a realistic manner. Mowing down a group of men needs real world consequences; it shouldn’t be so easy to kill people if you’re confronting the topics of war and murder. However, if a gamer was forced to make a difficult choice in a terrible situation, and the decision never seemed truly right or wrong but just human, how much more powerful would that be? Game design for games like this would have to be based around choices, not challenge. After all, isn’t that what makes gaming (and being human) so great; the ability to choose our actions and perceive the consequences of them?
But these are complex ideas and would have to be executed correctly via money and development, two things that a game designed for social impact and not profit probably wouldn’t have. That doesn’t mean a quick and easy game couldn’t have a social impact. If a
simple flash game can pertain to the malnutrition in Africa, then why can’t more games bring forward awareness? Not just games you’d find thrown together on the web but smaller budget titles released over digital distribution. The game doesn’t have to be incredibly deep or intrinsic, though games like that would be amazing. It just needs to raise awareness. If one person helps after that then it did its job.
How We Get Our Games Social activism in games won’t be costing you 60 bucks at the store. Hell, one of the only reasons we get it from major studios in film anymore is because the academy awards exist (sadly gaming’s highest honor seems to be sponsored by Spike). But the smaller independent filmmakers are developing films despite the lack of profit and smaller publishers print books on every topic under the sun despite the lack of book sales. The problem, and it is changing, is that at the moment independent gaming has no place for their voice to be heard in the world of gaming.
Of course, with the likes of WiiWare, XBLA and PSN, smaller developers are gaining more ground and don’t have to resort to shouting at the Internet to show off their game. These smaller, more indie friendly venues are a great chance for developers of all sizes to release games that may not make a ton of money, but can cause a ton of change. It ties back to the entire industry being based on profit. The methods of game release are based on that too and until things start to really change there won’t be a place for a game confronting subjects beyond rescuing a princess or conquering an alien enemy.
But it isn’t just the means of distribution that blocks socially aware games from coming to fruition. No matter how low budget, games such as this need money. But there’s no funding to push socially aware gaming forward. Film, books, television, art all have private and public sources to fund the creation of pieces that won’t necessarily make a profit but are attempting to change the world. Where are these funds for gaming? They need to exist not only for the sake of developing a different type of game but for developing games as an art form. Of course we’re caught in a catch 22 here. No one is going to develop a fund for a genre of game that doesn’t exist and no one can develop the genre without the funds. Until someone takes one of these steps even farther forward than gaming will be perpetually stuck in art limbo, never making a true impact.
Conclusion Maybe you don’t want any of this in your games. For many, gaming
is simply a pastime, a way to get away from the harsh realities of the world. I know it is for me. But I can see gaming being so much more and while I cherish the fun I have with every game, I want it to actually be more. I want to be able to hold up a game and say it made a difference. It is art because it confronts us, it is not about playing but about doing. I don’t know if I’m alone in this but I hope I’m not. If you’re aware of games like the ones I’m discussing please point them out and spread the word about them.
It really is a tradegy that games that have the potentiol to be incredibly powerful and moving like Luc Brenard's Imagination is the Only Escape get so misconstrued by the media and are regarded as, like you said, an insult to the subject matter :( Grwat post though! I agree with you though, as much as I love my mindless fun, games with a message have a place too.
Unfortunately the video game idustry is not widely looked upon as an art form as you pointed out. I think that alone makes what you're talking about difficult to do. It's a bit hard for me to imagine something like this happening at this point in time, but nevertheless a good idea. Good read!
I think social activism in games could be construed as a major buzzkill for the guy trying to sell a million units the the parents of 6-13 year olds.
Also, games are a means of pacification. Getting greenlit for potantially millions of dollars of development money to make a political statement is just not going to happen.
The medium, nor the people that use it are quite there yet.
You said: "There must be other gamers like me who want gaming to be more than just an escape from reality but also a way to change reality, a way to shape our world for the better. The possibility is there, we just have to change a few things about the world of gaming."
I cannot think of a more eloquent way to sum up how I feel about this issue than that. I am 100% in a agreement with you, and I hope this piece gets promoted.
Good god. I just read my comment and am quite ashamed at the amount of typos in it.
Vishusdelishus brought up an intersting point though. Although you, I and the rest of the dtoid community might buy a game like that, few else would. Were not the average consumer, the homophobic dicks on XBL are, and I can't imagine of them ever buying or reading Night, or playing a game like it. That's why games like Passage and Stars Over Half Moon Bay are published as free flash games. They would be commercial failures if they were made into a for sale game.
Yeah, I have to say this is probably the best cblog article I've read since I got here. I was intending on writing a piece with the exact same thesis in the near future (although I wasn't clever enough to think it could fit into the monthly musing category). In fact, I've formed a collective that's working on a few games that are intended to be socially active; I can't talk too much about them yet, sadly, but I'm making these games because you're EXACTLY right-- for games to be considered art, they also need to convey more complex messages, and not simply be vapid entertainment mediums.
However, I think a site like Destructoid is doing leaps and bounds for promoting these types of games, or at least has the capacity to, through its "Indie Nation" column. Furthermore, with game programming truly getting easier and easier (see: XNA Studio, Game Maker), we might see games come out of the era they appear to be stuck in (which is, IMO, comparable to music's disco phase-- entertaining and without substance) into a new renaissance, a place where social messages can be conveyed (kinda like how punk killed disco).
Then again, maybe I'm a hopeless optimist. Regardless, fucking CLASS post. I'm in awe.
@ Scary Woma...SWPM
That's why I brought up the idea of govt. or foundation funded gaming. I realize that people just aren't just going to buy games like this (sadly) so there needs to be an outlet where games are developed becasue they should be not just for a profit.
@cowzilla
Sadly we'll have to wait till the goverment is populated by more gamers then not, which could be a couple of decades. Plus theyd have to be devoted gamers. Most of the people I know, IRL, who play games consider games just games, with no potentiol to be anymore then that. I hope someday we can change that though.
Also, Front Page Plox!
Firstly, I'd like to say that this is by far the best article I've ever read on this website; thank you for taking the time to compose this.
My sentiments more or less match yours, however I'd have to disagree with the idea that the gaming community isn't "mature enough" (or what have you) for intellectually challenging video games. It's like any other segment of society: there's a portion comprised of loud idiots who are looking for little more than tits and explosions in their entertainment, and another, quieter section that enjoys actual art. If you build it, they will make themselves apparent, and all that jazz.
I also think the gaming industry mirrors that of the film industry. Hollywood makes shitty movies that are appealing to the eye (geared toward the lowest common denominator) and cost millions to make, are made solely for profit and have no soul. The only way that a good film can be made is either if there's a ("revolutionary") filmmaker who has a lot of pull in the industry or a lot of money, or a smaller, independent company makes it (and this is because of the cost of producing / distrubuting a film, which due to new technologies is decreasing). The problem with the gaming industry is that it costs a lot of time and money to make a game, however as many have already said XBLA, WiiWare, PSN (and digital distribution as a whole) are really opening doors for those smaller companies to create their art and deliver them to a mass audience.
In short: mainstream shit usually sucks (no matter what venue), people are generally good at heart (well, at least half of them), and technology will save us all (at least those of us who desire fine films, games, and bionic penises).
Interesting. Quite frankly, I don't think the 'industry' is ready for it yet. One could argue if there are games that are Art, personally I haven't seen or played them yet. However, I happened to do a small study on http://darfurisdying.com/, which has a flash game that tries to show the horrors of living in the conflict zone. It also shows a horribly onesided and biased view which ultimately led to little effect on subjects who were tested with it.
But there are a number of these kinds of games out there; short gameplay experiences that are made to shock the player into the perspective of someone or some culture that they only see from their own perspective.
One the one side, this is highly effective because it gives people a way to instantly recognize problems rather than just reading about them. Then again, dying from rape/murder/starvation/thirst gets really boring. One of the reasons people play games is escapism, and people don't want to be forced into a realistic perspective if they are paying 60 bucks for it. Even if it sounds harsh, you can't expect the general public to care for longer than 5-15 minutes.
Even Hotel Rwanda had to pace its horror to deliver the story effectively, if it was just 2 hours of dead africans, people would've walked out or got bored with it. Or perhaps they would get some kind of The Passion of the Christ reaction to it because of the continuous exposure to human horrors.
You make a good point at gov. funding, since they fund other art-forms. Smaller, cheap/free games look like the way to go for now, unless someone will make a highly addicitive and successful AAA title that will cover social commentary and whatnot. Haze tried that with its story, and look where it got them.
I think we need our own Citizen Kane before we can move to Hotel Rwanda's and Constant Gardeners. It feels to me that we are still in the 80's action movie era with games. Then again, if someone could make a free XBLA/PSN game that helped spread awareness about social dilemma's etc, that would be great and probably a lot of people would play it.
Great post :)
Well written. This should be promoted.
I hope social activism in gaming comes about in the future. I definitely has the most potential as a medium to spread awareness due to its immersive qualities. The best way to enlighten and inform others is to have them experience or see the situation firsthand. Though a game obviously wouldn't be firsthand experience, it has the potential to be the next best thing.
@Prof Pew
Thanks for the link thats really interesting. Awesome response man.
Unfortunately, most 'gamers' (ie the people that only own Halo 3, GTA IV, and MAYBE CoD 4) don't care about games as an art form. They're too busy throwing keggers and impregnating high schoolers. The fact is: people don't care about art. If they haven't had a strong background in something, they aren't going to seek it out, and they won't be affected by it in the same way that the artist/creator/author intended. Same thing with Night: A lot of my class mates didn't care, and they didn't get past the first chapter or so because they did't want to read it. It's a shame though, they're missing out on being enlightened :(
Just gonna comment on a few things I found interesting in this fantastic article cow.
"If you brought up a game about the genocide in Rawanda to a person their first thought would be of a gamer shooting a group of Tutsi with a machine gun."
Unfortunately, that's still what a large percentage of uninformed talking head viewers would still think, even if explained to them in pictures. Until we can come together and make gaming a culturally acceptable medium to all types, such as movies and music, this will always be a problem.
"The problem arises when that(money) is all the industry is about and thus support for other types of products is almost completely absent."
This is where you hit the nail on the head. Until we get a big studio willing to give major chances to a little guy, or make huge sacrifices to personal gain to release what they want (a la nin and radiohead), this is probably the major stopping point. Frankly put, the "social activistic" game is not gonna sell well. Maybe over a long period of time as word of mouth spreads, maybe with a site like this pushing it along it would, but frankly them xbox live bigots you mention will not spend cash or time playing a game like that.
Also, you mention how we get our games will change how developers and gamers alike will view them. Yes. The key word here is "eventually". When a smart, dangerous (because the first few will probably have to be, shock tactics sometimes are the only thing to get people to listen or watch) game eventually comes out on XBLA or PSN, you know at least most of the members of this site will own it. After backlash and what-not, if those games can show that not every game has to be pew-pew-bang-bang to make money (the driving force), then we'll start to make some changes.
I may have misconstrued some of your points, or gone off a different way then what you were talking about, just felt I had to read and respond to this. Great article. Front page plz.
Thanks blehman. You make a valid point and one I don't think I stressed enough in the blog. Eventaully is a very key word here. The kind of change I'm discussing would and could never come about quickly and even if it did that might not be for the best as a gradual progression towards including this style of gaming would probalby benefit the industry as a whole.
Even though this type of activism would work on other media, it's kinda hard to put it in a game for the masses, since most people see games as a form of entertainment more than anything. Distribution of a game that shows for example the problems in other countries wouldn't get into people.
Another thing, I see gaming as this; it's a form of entertainment, but with the potential to become a medium of art, so it could work to do something like this, but it just wouldn't get the attention besides the gaming community.
That's why that indie games would work, only that would transmit a message for the said community.
Sorry if I said something that has been repeated in the posts (haven't read them yet).
What a great post Cowzilla, as always.
Here is the number one problem: Money.
Video games take years, and alot of money to produce and develop. No one is going to want to make a game that "opens eyes" if it's going to cost them X dollars. Sad but true.
I actually would rather games stay out of social activism, I don't want to play anti abortion hero, or something like that. I want to have fun.
right , forgot to add, and imo social activism isnt fun
I'm glad this got promoted, I missed it the first time around. Excellent read.
@Yashoki
I tried to promote that in that gaming needs support from independent sources that care more about the message than the money. They're out there for film and books and art but not for gaming.
Wonderful read thank you for posting this.
Personally, I believe the reason we are not seeing these types of game in the mainstream is because no one has ever tried to create something you are describing. The closest thing I can honestly think of is something along the lines of Bioshock or the "morality choices" in splinter cell double agent. However, I believe these aspects of the games do not serve for us to question our own morality but instead are included just to benefit the game story-wise. The little sisters do not represent an arguement against let's say, who has the right to kill. They instead represent a tool to fascinate gamers and make the game seem deeper than it is. By all means I'm not calling Bioshock a bad game at all.(in fact I want more games to follow in it's footsteps.) Bioshock is simply the closest thing we have to compare the idea of social activist games and unfortunatly, it is syill a long ways away from being a game that truly is able to make us questions our choices.
Oh and thanks for the front page Hamza!
Social activism in gaming? Sure why not. I mean we have macho, right-wing, might is right, America fuck yeah in video games, why can't we have social activism?
Then again I am sure many game developers/publishers will ask "Why challenge people's perceptions of the world, why make people consider social implications in their actions, when it's so much more profitable to appeal to people's more savage nature?"
@eternalplayer
Actually, I think we have.
Wonderful post man, I recently posted an idea for a game based upon the very principles that you describe in here :-)
hope you like it.
And I do believe there allready is a small amount of all this in our games, just in a way that is too subtle for the mainstream media to notice... ( like the alien in AssEffect that want to copulate with other races since they believe 'inbreeding' is bad for their species, which is a quite open rejection of the common misconception that inbreeding is good for a race... or even the whole bioshoch which basicly shows what the result of a world without morals could be... )
I really hope they'll get it right one day...
Excellent, excellent article. Cowzilla, I continue to hold you in high esteem. I've often had thoughts like these kicking around in the back of my head and wondered if a game could ever actively engage with society and improve it in more than just a cultural sense.
I think rich companies should sponsor Achievement points. They're moving toward heavier amounts of advertising in videogames anyway. Imagine this:
"TACO BELL ACHIEVEMENT UNLOCKED: You killed 100 Zombies with headshots. 3 bowls of rice were just donated to orphans in Malaysia."
C'mon! You know it would work.
I'm going to pick apart a whole bunch of comments.
One thing I would like to point out that I didn't see explicitly mentioned was this. Think of a social activism game as similar to getting a documentary film made. From my experience, that is probably the closest parallel.
@vishusdelishus
Getting greenlit for potantially millions of dollars of development money to make a political statement is just not going to happen.
Millions of dollars is only if you are going to create something of massive scope. A bioshock, a GTA4. A flash game can be done for 50 grand (more likely even less). An xbla game will run you around 300-400k.
@Scary Womanizing Pig Mask
Were not the average consumer, the homophobic dicks on XBL are.
Not quite true. If the numbers are to be believed the average consumer on Xbox is actually the ones with Silver accounts.
@Professor Pew
Then again, if someone could make a free XBLA/PSN game that helped spread awareness about social dilemma's etc, that would be great and probably a lot of people would play it.
Free or not, you will still have to get MS to accept it. They still foot the bill for your download/online bandwith. PSN would be easier since they just host the content, provided you can get through their cert process. Also, if you own a website, you could make a flash game and distribute it to all the various flash networks out there as well pretty much on your own.
@blehman
Also, you mention how we get our games will change how developers and gamers alike will view them.
Honestly, its the marketing and PR types that will be the most difficult. I've never met a marketing person at any of the companies I've worked for that played many games. Anything outside of what they were required to play as part of their job usually wasn't a wide range of genres either.
Well, okay. This site has it fair share of twists and turns toward the academic (I present this article as exhibit A) but I don't usually feel the need to get all "college" on something. But let me throw this one out there real fast: There is a man named Walter Benjamin (who was a Commie, but never mind that) who very correctly pointed out that there was a sense of ritual, tradition and reverence in art forms before politicization. But now nearly every art form is politicized at the expense of this sense of authenticity, which he called the "aura," which is not the manliest name ever I'll admit. But it makes me think.
As we search for better ways to present video games as a true artistic medium and not an endeavor capable only of expression through previously established mediums, do we really want to start pushing to politicize games? Especially when they cause so much controversy on our own? I think there is a purity in the art form that hasn't even been attained and might not be until the technology develops much further than it is now.
So to me, there might be a place for politicized games but if there is a push for social activism we might waste this period of deliberation we're in now, when we are looking to the actual "art" in our art form, and potentially even further marginalize those independent game creators out there really searching for an interactive medium's unique authenticity.
Was that just retarded? I don't know. But there's a part of me that thinks as soon as a work becomes political, and to be sure 99.9 percent of artistic works in every medium are political in one way or another, it loses a unique quality and becomes just another of the many cliches we already know so well in this society. So I personally would resist a social activist movement in video games because I think the benefits are much less than the potential harm to the medium. I think it would be best to slow things down and really look to the future. As the Greeks said, "Sophrosyne," or as we might say, "Slow down, you're moving too fast."
Really good read here,found the idea of really changing what we do in a game instead of just winning to something much more than just that would make games a lot more interesting. The fact that a game has the ability to give a message is amazing but sadly the only problem in the industry is that taking risky decisions like that don't necessarily fly with most publishers. That is really sad to think of because I agree that games can be so much more of an experience instead of just a mindlessly fun one.
not that i don't agree with the idea of untapped potential in games: it's there, no doubt about it.
But if you take a hard look at mainstream gaming since the last generation era, there are a few good examples of how this is already being done in some way. Metal Gear Solid, for one, is pretty outwardly critical of nuclear warfare and war politics in general. Shadow of the Colossus is trying to make you give a shit about lives other than yours. Manhunt was a sort of absurd critique on the bloodthirst and gratuitousness of videogaming. Bioshock is a pretty vicious condemnation of objectivism and humanity's tendency towards self-destruction and manipulation. Call of Duty 4 applies pretty neatly to the times we live in and the wars we fight these days. Half-life 2's opening levels bear a curious familiarity that's hard to ignore. The recent flush of casual games, the brain training games that are everywhere, also the Wii Fit: admirable, although flawed and riotously silly attempts at making gaming productive on some level as opposed to escapist.
I think the issue lies with video games being treated by and large as a form of entertainment. While entertainment does not have to be mindless by any means, video games in particular are expensive to make and relatively time/effort intensive. Thus, the consumer is forced to be a little picky, the publisher has to make tricky budgeting calls, the developer is challenged with developing a suitably compelling experience, and the gamer is challenged with putting forth the time and effort to complete said experience.
It's tough to find some room in there for the soap box. Considering the vast majority of games tend to boil down to "us versus them," i imagine it would be difficult as a designer to create a game that is fun and compelling while also socially relevant (or rather, activist) in a major way. That, and people who are making piles of money tend not to find activism in their best interests: it threatens the status quo, followed by the cash flow, word up.
Videogames as art works in the mainstream because artistic intention is dependent on the game mechanic more often than it is at odds with it. However, it's hard to send a clear political or social message without being at odds with the game mechanic or the gamer. This is especially so in an industry as large and risky as this one is. a social message would have to be compelling enough to entice the gamer to pursue it in the context of the game, while also being palatable enough to sell many copies. This is not easy.
However, it isn't impossible. "The medium is the message." I think most artistic endeavours in general carry a degree of social relevance. Artistic intention in mainstream videogaming is already worth its weight in gold, considering how novel the medium is at the moment.
i forgot to add: sweet article, dude.
I couldn't agree more. One thing I could add is that your article seems to indicate that the change we want isn't happening, where in fact it is. A number of games have started to come out which, even subtly, do this.
One example is Call of Duty 4. During the first 4 hours of that game, I, as somebody who knows and reads about the middle-east conflict, felt like utter shit. Especially things like going into the TV station. The TV station in Iraq being a focal point for one of America's atrocities during the bombing of Baghdad.
I do agree I would love to see more though, again, very good article.
This is probably my favorite article that I've read on d-toid.
Thinking back to games 10 years or so ago, there are quite alot more games that are thought-provoking. If a game can make someone stop their thoughts for a second and rethink something, then videogames are one step closer to becoming a real form of art.
Wow, awesome responses. I love when comments for an post are longer than most blog posts and really generate discussion. to those of you who said that this is already subtly occurring in games. I totally agree that games like Call of Duty 4 and Luc Bernard' game are taking steps in that direction but the end goal there still seems to be winning for the most part and not the story. Don't get me wrong I applaud these games for what they are doing but I just wanted to give my ideas on how the inudustry can and should do more.
I also believe that we are nowhere near this goal. It will take many, many, many years for this to ever occur and will require much of the development of gaming as an art from that gabrielcoeli points out. And please if going "college" brings up interesting points like yours do it more often :)
Well, just like movies, music, and books, we'll soon have games that are talked about far more than they are played.
Just like there are "Movies for Watching" and "Movies for Talking", "Music for Listening" and "Music for Talking" (etc.), there are soon going to be "Games for Playing" and "Games for Talking".
Look forward to conversations like these :
You : So, you play games?
Pony-Tail Guy (PTG) : Oh yes, games are wonderful.
You : You looking forward to Gears of War 2? I can't wait.
PTG : Oh, I've never heard of that. What I really want to play is Obama, Fighter From Hope 2.
You : You mean the Flash game -- the Galaga-clone where Obama's head shoots special interests with words?
PTG : Yes, I think it's most important game that's ever been made. It not only has the best gameplay of any game ever, but it's also completely true. It's far better than mainstream games, which only promote violence, oppression, and racism.
You : Ok ... hey, you really like that Obama game, how much time have you spent playing it?
PTG : Five minutes. By the way, you should really play the Obama game instead of that "War" game, from what you've told me I'm pretty sure it was created by Neocons.
Tank man!
Great article. Personally i think that games have their place as just entertainment as well as Art because i dont know any other way to describe the film Dark Sector and the film Indiana Jones.
But proper social deconstuction and questioning social norms are prevelent in many games. MGS, Bioshock and even SSBB, (i mean where else can you classify the cultural value that Sonic can beat Mario despite having shittier games)
is that pic a sneak peek at the upcoming 2008 Beijing Olympics!?
There are plenty of examples of games tackling these sort of controversial subjects all the time - from Deus Ex to Gears of War.
It sounds like you have put alot of thought in the article, but perhaps you just aren't looking hard enough?
@Capn Birdseye
Why should I have to look hard? Games are tackling these issues half heartedly and if you think Gears promotes anything but gun toting action and war than you're sadly mistaken. Not that I don't love Gears but taking a stance towards violence and war by having people shoot everyone around isn't really sending any sort of message. You learn moral lessons from any game with a plot even Mario what I'm talking about is actual real world experiences not an anit-war story covered in science fiction and then coated in the blood of all the people you just mowed down with your chainsaw.
Ok maybe the religion killing game would have been more artistic if it weren't just "kill Jesus" or "Kill Mohammed" and more along the lines of try to convince them to stop preaching because of the terrible things to come. The game still interests me.
btw Shadow of the Colossus made me cry when I beat it.
turkcell parça kontör kontör vodafone parça kontör avea parça kontör vodafone parça kontör
parça kontör parca kontür kontör yükle ucuz parça kontör kontör parça kontör
turkcell parça kontör kontör vodafone parça kontör avea parça kontör vodafone parça kontör
parça kontör