| |
|
Okay. I know I posted the first reply to this thread, but it now seems to have been eaten. The basic gist of it was this:
quote:Trijhaos:
Why is it when you say that you play video games in your spare time, people look at you like you've grown an extra head. If you read books thats great; you're an intellectual. If you go to the theater or ballet you're cultured. If you watch TV or movies you're like the majority of people in the world. But the instant you say that you like to control the pixels on the television screen, people automatically think you're some sort of geeky troll-person with the social skills of an inebriated lemur.
The videogame indusrty itself is to blame for this, in a very big way. Every new entertainment medium has, at its inception and during its infant period, been the subject of derision from the intelligentsia. Novels, film, television, all were originally viewed as childish activities suitable only for the ill-educated lower classes. They escaped from this snobbish generalisation by reaching for greatness. The first films were notable only for the new technology; there was little to no actual artistic 'worth' in them. But then truly creative people got involved and decided to take the medium to new and exciting places.
The problem with videogames is that people became aware of the commercial possibilities before the artistic ones. Games that dare to try something different from the norm stand very little chance of making it to market. If they eventually do, they're smothered by the big budget tripe that's thrown out by EA, Infogrammes et al and the accompanying marketing push that these companies can afford for their wares. Publishers like these have absolutely no interest in taking the medium to new places; their profits increase year on year simply from financing and releasing genre stereotypes: the first person shooter, the real time strategy, the racing game, the one-on-one fighter.
ANd that's all most people associate with the term 'videogames'. Jesus, look at most of the examples of the form that have been offered up in this thread. Mrtal Kombat is one of the most pathetic 'me too' excuses for a release ever. It sold well for one reason and one reason only: blood. The game was a poor man's Streetfighter that was created by some PR bod at a company notorious for producing shite. GTA3? Please. If there's one game out there right now that's going to reinforce the image of the gamer as a social outcast, that's the one.
The only game mentioned so far that deserves praise for transcending the percieved boundaries of the form is NiGHTS, which I'm guessing most people have never even heard of, let alone played. Why? Partly because the company who published it were in financial difficulty and didn't have the bottomless wallet that was available to their rivals (Sony), partly because it was an original, unique concept that the marketing geniuses decided wouldn't sell.
I'm sick to the back fucking teeth of non-gamers viewing gamers as nerds, geeks, social fucking outcasts.
I'm sick of videogame companies refusing to finance original ideas, sacrificing the possible future of the medium in favour of the fast buck.
What sickens me the most, though, is the way that gamers reinforce their image through their dull, unquestioning acceptance of copycat software and apparent refusal to either put any effort into their purchasing habits ("Oooo! Quake 4! Doom 3! Tomb Raider 46! Gran Turismo 957!") or willingness to even try something that strays from the norm.
In reply to some of the comments from matsya and Crunchy (among others), can I just ask if you'd judge movies and cinema-goers by the popularity the all-action blockbuster, ignoring the artistic moves that are made elsewhere in the industry and focussing only on those films that make muti-million dollar profits? |
|
|
