BLOG

Ian Bogost's picture

By Ian Bogost

July 20, 2008

The End of Gamers


Think of all the things you can do with a photograph. You can document the atrocities of war, as photojournalists sometimes do. You can record fleeting moments in time, as did documentarians like Henri Cartier-Bresson and Robert Frank. You can capture the ordinary moments of family life, as many people do at birthday parties or holidays for an album or shoebox archive. You can take a snapshot reminder of a home improvement project in order to buy the right part at the hardware store. An automated street intersection photograph can capture license plate for future ticketing, and a pornographer can capture a nude body for future titillation.

One way of getting a sense of the maturity of a medium is by looking at all the different things we can do with it. All photographs share certain properties—all bend light through an aperture to inscribe an emulsion or digital sensor. But the uses of photography vary widely.  It is this breadth and depth of uses that makes photography a mature medium.

We can think of a mature medium as a continuum or a spectrum, stretching like a line from purely artistic uses at one end (documentary) to purely instrumental uses at the other (the hardware store snapshot). In between the extremes of “art” and “tools” are innumerable possible uses. In every medium, no matter its maturity, many of these uses are known and well explored, while others are new and emerging.

Understanding the properties of a medium helps us distinguish between them and influence the sorts of things they can do or produce. Photographs allow light to be recorded on photosensitive surfaces. Telegraphs allow words to be transmitted over long distances. Paintings allow pigmented substances to cover surfaces.

Marshall McLuhan suggested that we study these properties of a medium rather than the individual things produced by them, thus the famous aphorism “the medium is the message.” McLuhan’s point was that the things a medium does to a culture are more important than the content they convey. For example, McLuhan argued that the printing press ushered in an era of visual culture, and that the mass-produced book homogenized experience and knowledge.

Properties of Games

Videogames also have properties that precede their content: games are models of experiences rather than textual descriptions or visual depictions of them. When we play games, we operate that model, constrained by its rules: the urban dynamics of SimCity;  the feudal stealth strategy of Ninja Gaiden; the racing tactics of Gran Turismo.

On top of that, we take on a role in a videogame, putting ourselves in the shoes of someone else: the urban planner, the ninja, the auto racer.

Videogames are a medium that lets us play a role within the constraints of a model world. And unlike playground games or board games, the videogames are computational, so the model worlds and sets of rules they produce can be far more realistic and sophisticated. These properties of videogames—computational models and roles—help us understand how videogames work and how they are different from other media.

Serious Misconceptions

But such an understanding only gets us so far. Videogames suffer under the weight of many misconceptions. Some of these are all too familiar: questions about whether games promote violent action or whether they make us fat through inactivity.

One that some people have tried to overturn is the idea that games are only for entertainment. So-called “serious games” claim to offer an alternative: games that can be used for serious purposes like education, healthcare, or corporate training.

But games, like photography, like writing, like any medium, shouldn’t be shoehorned into one of two kinds of uses alone. Neither entertainment nor seriousness nor the two together should be a satisfactory account  for what videogames are capable of. After all, we don’t distinguish between serious and entertainment books, or music, or photography, or film. Rather, we know intuitively that writing, sound, images, and moving images can all be put to many different uses.

A voice can whisper an amorous sentiment or mount a political stump speech. A book can carry us off to a fantasy world or help us decide where to eat dinner. A film can shock us with a factual account of a genocide or help us practice aerobics.

It is time to take the same attitude when it comes to videogames. We must no longer be satisfied to understand and support games as leisure or productivity or nothing. We must do with games what we do already, implicitly, with every other medium we use to create or consume ideas. We must imagine videogames as a medium with valid uses across the spectrum, from art to tools and everything in between.

The good news is, we don’t have to wait for a renaissance in videogames to start doing this. We just haven’t been thinking about games as a medium with many uses, so interesting examples often get labeled illegitimate. Sure, there is lots of unexplored terrain along videogames’ media spectrum, but there are lots of examples that already exist.

How Games are More


There are games used as social satire, like Rockstar’s Bully, which depicts and critiques high school social dynamics. There are games used as propaganda, like America’s Army, which the US Army uses as a recruiting and publicity tool. There are games used for specialized advanced education, like the Sloan Foundation’s Virtual U, which teaches Ed.D. students about running a university.

There are games used for therapy, like Call of Duty, which has been repurposed for psychological use as a treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder. There are games used as a way to experience music, like Harmonix/MTV’s Rock Band, which turns pop songs into performances. There are games used to train employees, like Cold Stone: Stone City, which helps franchise ice cream store workers get a feel for the correct portion sizes of different flavors.

There are games that get us in the holiday spirit, like Sims 2: Happy Holiday Stuff , which adds Christmas items and actions to the popular PC game. There are games used to organize political acts, like A Force More Powerful, which offers strategies on nonviolent conflict and how to build resistance movements. There are games used for political campaigning, like John McCain’s Pork Invaders, a simple web game about pork barrel politics.

There are games used as an interface for work, like Seriosity’s Attent, a Microsoft Outlook plug-in that turns email into an attention game. There are games used for advertising, like Burger King’s Sneak King, an Xbox 360 title in which the player takes the role of the restaurants creepy mascot to deliver food. There are games used for autobiography, like artist Jason Rohrer’s moving little title Passage, which subtly characterizes the strange permanence of life’s choices.

There are games used for exercise, like Nintendo’s Wii Fit. There are games used for religious practice, like youth ministers’ unique way to play Bungee’s blockbuster Halo 2 as a witnessing tool. There are games used as editorial, like Points of Immigration, a game about a proposed immigration bill, which the New York Times published on its op-ed page. There are games used for meditation, like Journey to Wild Divine, which uses a biofeedback controller to encourage calmness. There are games used as pornography, like Jenna Jameson: Virtual Sex Machine, a sex simulator featuring the popular (former) adult superstar. There are games used as documentary, like Escape from Woomera, a recreation of the Australian Woomera Immigration Reception and Processing Centre. There are even games used as mindless distraction, like Bejeweled or Microsoft Solitaire, which many play just to fill the time during a conference call.

When we acknowledge videogames as a medium, the notion of a monolithic games industry, which creates a few kinds of games for a few kinds of players, stops making any sense. As does the idea of a demographic category called “gamers” who are the ones who play these games.

The point is not whether games qualify as art or not. Nor whether games are useful tools or not.  Rather, the point is that there are lots of other things people can and do accomplish with videogames. Some are well-established, like entertainment, and some are emerging, like meditation. No matter, all of those uses taken together make the medium stronger and give it greater longevity.



 

Alex_V's picture

Nice post, interesting comments.

I don't think McLuhan's 'medium is the message' statement is correctly interpreted here. While an important call to arms for a certain line of analysis, it certainly cannot be considered 'instead' of the appreciation and analysis of content. Are we really promoting a situation where all appreciation of a subject is rendered pointless because the 'medium is the message'? Of course not - that would be ludicrous, and indeed McLuhan's famous statement could be ignored under those conditions, because it isn't what he said, but the medium in which he said it that would be analysed. Let's not get over-excited with McLuhan - he raised an interesting point, but it's not a stick to beat art appreciation with.

I believe that unfortunately the question still IS whether games qualify as art for most people - the answer is obviously an emphatic yes, anyone with half a brain can see that. Games have also become useful tools as well, and examples of great design and craft. That's cool if games can be practical and useful, just as non-fiction can be illuminating and even artful without diminishing the wonder of a Dickens novel. But it's not the end of anything - it's certainly not the real end of gamers or games, it is arguably barely the beginning. True, the word gamers (or 'players') should mean anyone and everyone, just like anyone or everyone can be a reader, or a viewer.

jedevangelion's comments are fascinating in this context - clearly there is still a way to go in convincing people that games are developing as an artistic medium. One of the main barriers is this idea of intentional themes - while I can see a very deliberate self-parody of game linearity in Bioshock, or clear satire of Western values in the GTA games, the idea that Space Invaders could be a work of art is still a step too far for many people. That, for me, is the real issue - persuading people that there can be an intrinsic beauty in a 'simple' thing and what it represents, and with the way we form a relationship with it. I think expressing that 'art' exists merely through the themes of increasingly complex modern releases kind of misses what is wonderful about games.

Sam's picture

Great article and some fantastic comments. Another point I feel should be raised is just how much the quality of games (I despise that word too) can vary. Some “games” can be very deep, thought-provoking, breathtaking experiences that rival that of A-grade cinema. On the other hand you have games which are, well, broken. Now compare this to other art forms – you can’t really have a “broken” movie. A poor script and bad acting, sure. And when was the last time you looked at a painting and wanted to punch the nearest person to you in the face through frustration? It doesn’t happen.

The regular uninformed “non-gamer” could walk into a store and be faced with a choice: buy Call of Duty 4 or Conflict: Denied Ops. To him they are both war games; the decision doesn’t hold much weight. Little does he know that this very decision could be the difference between throwing his controller through the window or enjoying one of the best gaming experiences of ‘07. Likewise, some people may watch a movie and think “that was great; I might go and pick up the book." Fine. What if a person finished watching a movie and thought “hey, that was really good. I might go and pick up the game." No. Don’t do that. You might as well just kill yourself. The average gamer knows this. Movie spin-offs are epic fails that serve the one and only purpose of making money with as little effort as possible. This makes me very mad. The general public doesn’t know this, and when they buy these games they think “Games are sh!t. I can’t believe I spent $60 on this."

I think there should be some sort of quality control that limits the amount of “broken” games people are exposed to. Stuff like this causes a lot of wrong misconceptions about games.

Edit: Sorry about the rant. It’s an interesting topic. And it’s also nice to have an intelligent conversation about games for once.

Gareth_Hall's picture

Sam - You raise an interesting point there: you can't have a movie that's 'broken' in the same sense as a game can be. That's because a game is a construction in a different way than a movie is. In a way I suppose it's like the difference between the drawing of a house and a physical house itself: the drawing can only be flawed in its representation of reality, whilst the physical construction can have bits of the roof falling off, poor foundations and (as an acquitance of mine discovered) a propensity for the kitchen to flood whenever it so much as drizzles outside.

A game is obviously more than a series of images and sounds, it's a simple or complex ruleset combined with an implementation or set of implementations of those rules. As Ian's excellent article points out, games need to be recognised as a medium. To an extent this has already happened: people do think of games as a separate type of entity to a film or an album or whatever. Unfortunately, I believe it's difficult for people to understand a new medium unless they are able to define it against another. Movies have always been the medium that games have been defined against (or, at least, have in the last decade or so), and that's probably the wrong basis for comparison.

Until people can accept video games as a medium perhaps more closely associated with 'traditional' games, then the limits of them will always be tighter than they need to be.

jedevangelion's picture

"...Bioshock and Assassin's Creed, ostensibly action/adventure games that are really about the lack of choice or control one has when agreeing to play a game."

Do you genuinely believe that? Seems a bit of a stretch to say that NOToffering the player such choices is actually a postmodern statement about the lack of such choices in videogames. I think they were just badly designed games in that respect, simple as that.

I don't think there was an underlying desire to make the games 'really about' anything other than ... well, what they were actually about.

Nachimir's picture

Thom (not Dinsdale), I think you're dead wrong... or only part right. I suspect you're thinking of "maturity of content" rather than maturity of the medium, and they're different things.

"Does pornography make film a stronger (or more accepted) medium of communication or expression?"

Yes.

There's more to making pornography than pointing a camera at someone's fanny, so even if you disagree with the content, the camera operators, lighting technicians, set designers, make-up artists, etc. are all practicing and improving their craft, which makes the film industry more professional and mature. The culture it caters to, maybe not, but it shouldn't be confused with the industry itself. If you want to see this improvement in action, try watching some 2008, 1980s, and some 1930's porn and comparing them to each other.

While people may watch it with the express intent of getting themselves off, by watching anything they're improving their visual literacy, whether they want to or not.

It doesn't matter if I think Peggle, Lula 3D, and Pippa Funnel games are all junk food and/or shovelware, by pushing the medium out to new audiences they strengthen it and increase people's understanding of games.

Thom's picture

Nachimir,

I think that "maturity of content" and maturity of the medium are inherently tied together, but if you could explain the differences between them as you see it I might be able to understand where you're coming from.

As far as 'maturity of content' goes, I didn't mean to imply that for a game to help the medium transition to mature the games themselves had to conform to the ESRB standard for Mature. I meant that the ideas or concepts a game is based around have to mature. What I disagree with is the notion that simply by spreading the medium out to a wider audience through any and all practical applications we are making it stronger. I think that philosophy ends up impeding people from making games that are thoughtful, powerful emotional experiences and it is that kind of game that will bring a wider acceptance of the medium (which is what really decides whether a medium has 'matured' or not) and, if the experience is revolutionary enough, draw in more people from beyond the subgroup of 'gamers'.

If making all that shovelware gets more games into more hands, even if those games eventually look visually stunning, have great, simple controls and can help you enjoyably kill 5 minutes, if the end result is that those little time-killing games reinforce to the millions of people they are spreading out to that 'games' are just a brief, light form of entertainment, I can't see how that makes the medium any stronger.

Nachimir's picture

Media has inherent properties regardless of what they're used to express, which is exactly what McLuhan was talking about. The content of a medium can be anything from utter populist trash to the most elitist art, but the techniques used to make either and anything inbetween can be highly sophisticated. The difference is of production and consumption; even making rubbish, an industry improves its skills.

Because it is widespread and well understood, TV is a mature medium, even though much of the content is shallow and crass. No medium is under any obligation to cater to the tastes of one particular group of people, and doing so is not what makes it "mature".

I totally understand what you mean by mature content, and (I suspect like you) am far more a fan of it than anything superficial or titillating. However, I don't have any desire or ambition to spread that taste to everyone else... anymore ;)

IMO mature media is "mature like cheese" rather than "mature like people" :)

Thom's picture

I think I get what you're talking about: every product in the medium, even the crap stuff, helps to practice and refine the skills and talents necessary to the medium, and when you combine that with its many applications spreading it out to a wider audience that helps grow the accessibility and user interaction with the medium, this leads to its 'maturity'. Is that about right?

If so.....I guess I can't really argue with that. Admittedly the TV analogy helped me get there, but I see what you're saying (unless this isn't what you're saying at all. oh $&#@, am I coming off like an idiot right now?! I gotta go.)

Nachimir's picture

Yeah, that's what I'm getting at.

I do wish more content was mature in a refined way rather than an "M for" way, but I've kind of accepted that many, many people have vastly different tastes to me :)

Games are also finding it difficult to head in that direction; Erasmatron and Facade are currently quite broken but impressive protoypes in interactive storytelling, whereas polished products like Bioshock and Fable don't offer much beyond a binary choice. We'll get there, but I think the technology is still a long way off.

Almost gave up on games entirely in 2004 because I was fed up of Unreal Tournament and the like, but then Katamari Damacy smacked me upside the head.

Thom Dinsdale's picture

As this article implies, I think the biggest barrier here between games as toys and games as a versitile medium is a linguistic one. The term "game" is in and of itself totally redundant.

The development community has long known that games are more than their name implies (military flight training simulators spring to mind as an age old example). But at the point of retail they're still marketed and sold as such. Until there is a further "paradigm shift" in the minds of consumers games will remain just that, games.

Thom's picture

Well, while I agree that we are seeing a broadening of the applications of videogames, I disagree that this broad scope of applications has anything to do with the maturity of the medium, or that its many uses taken together make it stronger. Does pornography make film a stronger (or more accepted) medium of communication or expression? Does the Wii make videogames a stronger medium? Its interactivity certainly gives it the potential, but do the practical applications take full advantage of that?

I think what helps to bring maturity to a medium are some basic standards (as you see with books, magazines, music, newspapers and online news communities), and people working within that medium and those standards creating widely accessible yet mentally stimulating game experiences. To use a recent example, The Dark Knight works on a purely visceral level as escapist entertainment, but to anyone looking deeper than the costumes it can function as a 9/11 metaphor and an exploration of the ways we choose to deal with terrorism. Another example would be games like Bioshock and Assassin's Creed, ostensibly action/adventure games that are really about the lack of choice or control one has when agreeing to play a game.

There will always be people pushing the boundaries of any medium, be it for artistic or commercial reasons, and while those experimental applications may prove to be interesting, enjoyable or even revolutionary, it will be the people who can take whatever is at the core of those experiences and retool them to appeal to a wider audience that will make the true impact, rather than simply an abundance of micro-games that contain great ideas. Something you mention in your article, Passage, is a great example.

It's an interesting concept; a game that takes place over the course of a characters life that underlines the effect of choices and the natural toll life takes on all of us. Videogames are a perfect medium for something like this, with their ability to generate realities as needed, the accepted nature that a game experience can take anywhere from 3 to 100 hours, and their ability with modern technology to realistically simulate these events. In it's current form, however, it is not useful to the medium. Its being available only through the internet, its 8 bit graphics and soundtrack, and the fact that the game features no text or spoken narrative are off putting enough to keep it away from a large percentage of the worlds populace.

When someone comes along and makes that concept more interactive, more fun or more visually stimulating, then people in general will take notice. Maybe that product will lead to a broadening of what people feel the medium can accomplish but unfortunately Mr. Rohrer's game will not. People like Mr. Rohrer or the team from DigiPen that made Portal may advance the capabilities of the medium, but people like Ken Levine or Peter Molyneux are going to be the ones who transform the medium from juvenile to mature.