The Age has an article on the independant games played at the Australian Centre for the Moving Image in Melbourne's Federation Square. It was a hands-on exhibition where visitors can play any of the sixteen games which were from the recent the Independent Games Festival at San Francisco in the ACMI Games Lab. David Hewitt (from Tantalus and IGDA Melbourne) was there and gave his thoughts on the potential of games to offer more than what mainstream publishers provide (generally involving "Man with gun, man with car . . . man with gun and car.")...
"I think games can be deeply affecting and really culturally important," he says. "I think most games aren't, though. I'm not angry or put out when people who don't play games have this perception that games are bad or not terribly meaningful. Games that get a lot of attention in the media are generally a little bit vacant."
A lot of games that get a lot of attention and I can think of a few have little or no story, plot or substance.
Those that do don't sell to well.
A lot of games are also violent with no substance.
Good points!
I was basically asked if games could ever be as culturally "important" as film or literature, and relplied that although there are a few barriers intrinsic to the medium (e.g. less accessible, and interactivity makes for a less consistent shared experience) that there were signs of games starting to become more broadly meaningful and important. I also made the point that to many of us, there have already been games that, while not as widely known amongst the general public as Citizen Kane or Crime and Punishment, have actually meant a great deal to us, in terms of forming our sense of identity and so on.
The related point, however, that's fallen victim to editing here, is that:
a) the vast majority of games are based primarily around the idea of "fun", and
b) there's nothing wrong with that, and
c) that's even MORE true of very successful games, and the ones that you read a lot about.
I don't think games NEED to be narrative-driven or have a sense of self-importance to be worthwhile - I think games as escapism are a perfectly reasonable proposition, and far better than many other forms of entertainment.
The bottom line is that those who don't understand games well tend to write them off as a completely vacant activity. That's a largely true and entirely understandable point of view - but games already mean a bit more than that to some of us, and some have shown signs of becoming more meaningful to a wider audience as well. "Art" games aren't ever going to supplant "fun" games, nor would we really want them to, if we stopped to think about it. But if a few more of them get in the spotlight, it's actually great news for all of us, in terms of validating what we do, moving the medium forward, and so on.
David has mentioned some points regading games. I am 42 and I enjoy playing games, probably for the reasons he has mentioned.
I still like a good story though!
Sounds alot what Ernest Adams covered a few weeks back on gamasutra: The Designer's Notebook: Where's Our Merchant Ivory?
I think personally its mainly a perception thing though. If you look hard enough there are games to suit _all_ tastes. Its just that you need to go look for them. But this is the same with any medium - niche target audiences are niche, but that doesnt mean no-one has been making games for them.
The fact is, mass market audiences are not compatible with niche market audiences - you cant target a small audience and expect the 'big boys' profits and support. Imho there are no victims in the gaming industry, because the realities of development (for consoles and PC's especially) point toward having to meet a mass market audience to be able to even break even on the current development budgets.
We can spend endless hours talking about what would be good if... but it is a business, and an industry. Maybe in 50 years time when we have a well developed and well defined industry there may be the scope to afford our 'art house' studios and titles.
Id like to see some more artistic games built (there are quite alot out there btw).. but I also dont see a huge amount of point in it becoming a core component of the medium. While games may contain "man with gun, man with car.. etc", surprise, surprise.. that sells - and it sells big. Its a bit like many great art works - it oftens takes many people to appreciate it to make it become an accepted art form. We are at the infancy of gaming.. in the future, we may look back to now and class GTA as a masterpiece of the gaming art? .. perception..