I don't play video games much. Honestly. I remember a time when I was addicted to a few games, but into high school and college, I stopped playing entirely simply because of countless other activities I deemed "more important."
But since I'm at the University of Southern California, which has (apparently) the best game design program in the country, I began pondering video games more. I started considering the stigma video games have and how gaming is similar to reading, a highly praised educational activity.
Someone who reads a lot gains credibility. He becomes a knowledgeable person. But someone who plays video games a lot doesn't gain this same credibility, although he no doubt learns things too.
Is this right? Should gaming have such a stigma?
Reading and playing video games share many similarities. You learn. You "get lost in a different world." You, potentially, become isolated from others. (In the case of reading, you might be reading in a group, and in the case of video games, you might be playing with others, but often, reading or playing video games would isolate you from surroundings.) Your mind is engaged and focused. They're similar...
I remember a conversation I had with a good friend about how video games should be viewed as credible an element to society as literature. So many novels have literary merit, and the educated members of society are proud to have read such novels. But games? What if games had "literary merit" too? They're so complex - perhaps even more so, what with the direct interaction with people. What if we could view the various elements of a video game - graphics, storyline, themes, meaning, representation of life, music, and more - and appraise the game just like we appraise literature?
If games were clearly educational, and if they didn't have the mild stigma they do, what would society be like?
#rambling thoughts...
EDIT ===
Here's an interesting link about video games being the next great art form: http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2010/06/20/tom_bissell_extra_lives_interview_ext2010
I got to think more about this. Perhaps the usage of the word "game" in "video games" limits our understanding and ability to see that video games are more than that. Ever read 1984 by George Orwell or Outliers: The Story of Success by Malcolm Gladwell? If you have, you'd know that limiting language/vocabulary influences thinking. By having the word "game" associated with video games, people have a harder time grasping the artistic and "literary" value of video games. This is probably because we associate "game" with so many childhood things - tic-tac-toe is a game, and so are board games, little puzzles...
Maybe we need a whole new term for video games.
This is a fascinating parallel that I've never made before... (You learn. You "get lost in a different world." You, potentially, become isolated from others....) And I must agree that reading and playing video games share many patterns of behavior.
ReplyDeletePerhaps, however, there is a difference in credibility gained from reading genres like fantasy/scifi/mystery from more "serious" literature like the "classics" and non-fiction?
I have certainly seen my share of eyes roll when I mention that I read fantasy or sci fi.
Given that experiential distinction, I'd say that most video games I've seen more firmly align with the first category while the credibility that you describe seems to grow more easily from the second category.
Wow - your point about most video games aligning with the first category (i.e. fantasy/scifi/mystery) is really interesting... I find that true. Maybe people should start making games that relate to non-fiction more... like, a story about being a slave during the Civil War.
ReplyDeleteWouldn't that be interesting!