Chapter six of Understanding Video Games, titled Video Game Culture, seeks to map the cultural position held by video games, already having laid the groundwork for a basic understanding of the phenomenon of video games in the previous chapters. The authors state their intention of looking at the cultural relationship between video games and other media, how public perceptions towards this new medium have grown and evolved, and how games may be used for different purposes, depending on the group utilizing them.
This examination starts by pointing out that all new media has faced opposition in its infancy. In fighting for acceptance, any new medium has had to face criticisms of being low-brow, illiterate, and market driven as forms of dismissal in the face of more classical art-forms. That these arguments are highly classist, meant to maintain an elitism and an entry barrier, in place to suppress the lower classes, does not go unnoticed by the authors. They cite Pierre Bourdieu, who illustrates similar points, but replaces the term ‘class’ with ‘social group’. Bordieu’s ideas also point to a ‘culture/counter-culture’ model, where traditional ‘high’ arts are confronted with emergent ‘low’ arts in a constant struggle for legitimacy.
This struggle has resulted in what the authors term a blurring of ‘high culture’ and ‘pop culture’ in the mid 20th century, with trends such as pop art, cultural relativism, media studies, and cultural studies. This movement has been an attempt to shed imperialistic attitudes academia has long held towards other cultures, be it along class lines or nationality. Ironically, media studies has started practicing the same elitism it had railed against, as video game studies are still widely dismissed, as recognized by the authors, although the discipline has started to gain a foothold academically. 2012 was the first year the Canadian Congress of the Humanities featured a series of presentations devoted solely to video game studies, and, while the presentation space was limited, it is still a step in the right direction. Having attended and presented at the event, I can personally speak to the exciting mix of fresh ideas and opinions presented by all involved.
Another issue the authors recognize is the conundrum of the question of video games as art. On the one hand, this question is completely arbitrary, as a definition of art is purely subjective. On the other hand, possible answers determine academic, political, and social acceptance, funding, presentation, and so on. The problem is that video games are not the only medium still stuck in this quagmire, as television, comic books, and even film, to a degree, are still fighting for legitimacy.
There is an interesting phenomenon pointed out in modern society illustrated by the authors. Despite (or, possibly due to) fewer and fewer people being able to lay claim to having never played a video game, fears about mental and physical effects of games continue to be widespread. The most common of these fears is the representation and subsequent encouragement of violence. This concern is not new to video games, as questions were raised about Death Race back in 1976, as mentioned in an earlier blog post. It is pointed out that discussions about violence in video games are often framed by examples of youth violence, as it seems, solely for sensational effect.
Mention is also made of a finding presented in the British Medical Journal about playing video games being linked to increased aggression, and that this increased aggression is clearly considered a detriment. What is not discussed, however, is that aggression and violence are not one and the same, and that good forms of aggression (self-confidence; ability to be more outgoing; more willing to speak up/speak out) are also possibilities. Be that as it may, the chapter then details how Mortal Kombat in 1992 and Night Trap in 1994 forced the game industry to establish the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) in North America and Pan European Games Information (PEGI) in Europe to provide ratings for all video games, much like the movie industry did in the face of criticisms of moral turpitude.
Much like the situation with the film industry, it is clear that media panic has contributed to the reaction against video games, as well as the pressure to form the ratings boards (please note: I do not think the ratings boards are a bad idea, whatsoever. They serve to inform parents of the content their children are consuming, as more and more people play video games daily). The authors define media panic as the public’s reaction to the form and content of new media, typically focusing on its effects on the young. Further, that the news media regularly cites video games as influences in relation to youth violence and tragedy, despite lacking any evidence of said influence, or even that the assailants had experience with the game being vilified, is noted by the authors. They cite Dmitri C. Williams’ discussion of video game representation in news media, as he mentions how said representation is inaccurate, filled with misrepresentations, and vilifying the games themselves. Williams indicates that these problems reflect basic conservative fears about new media, while serving at the same time to enforce social norms about gender and age, through underrepresentation of game players who are female and/or older.
Despite these arguments, it is clear that there is still marketing within the industry which tries to sell games based on sex, violence, glory, and transgression (for example, the campaign for Dead Space 2 in 2011, centred around the idea “Your mom hates Dead Space 2”, instead of any mention of the narrative or gameplay). The authors contend, however, that the most common approach to marketing video games is to aim for people who are already gamers and thus ‘in on the secret’. This idea is incorrect now and was at the time of this book’s publication, as, in addition to game ads, such as the ones for Mass Effect and Uncharted: Drake’s Fortune (both of which were aired in 2006), more and more resembling movie trailers, there is also the Nintendo Wii’s marketing campaign, designed to feel more welcoming and inclusive to all.
The chapter then details the reactions to video game culture taken by different world governments:
- U.S. – No legislation as yet, despite attempts in several states.
- South Korea and Thailand – Government-funded game addiction centres. Thailand has also implemented a gaming curfew, blocking certain game servers between 10 P.M. and 4 A.M.
- China – Ban on minors from online games where player-characters may kill one another. The country has also banned the games Hearts of Iron I and II for depicting Tibet as an independent state.
- Greece – Ban on all electronic games, in an attempt to curb gambling problems in the country. The ban was later narrowed to allow video games.
This look at various reactions highlights the dichotomy between considering video games as ‘kids’ stuff’ and the perceived need to legislate this new medium. The authors actually warn against taking video games as ‘kids’ stuff’, in their discussion of idealization of play. They contend that, as people, through nostalgia, form perceptions of what play should be, and that play is linked to childhood, these perceptions may also carry class biases via elitism, ignoring the darker, more adult elements of play in people of all ages.
The discussion then returns to video games’ relation to other media. The authors point out that, as games have increasingly entered into the mainstream, styles from other media, such as film, television, and comic books, have been incorporated. In this way, these older media have borrowed elements of video game presentation in return, but the exchange is far from an equal trade. Video games, as the newer medium have taken more style elements from older media as an attempt at legitimacy by way of resemblance. By this token, however, game mods (modifications) and game visuals are brought into the discourse as works of art, carrying distinct visual styles and experiences, as evidenced by Velvet-Strike and Pac-Manhattan.
Finally, the authors take an extended version of Huizinga’s view that (video) games inform and reflect culture. Their examples are the satire present in the Grand Theft Auto series and the representation of history in Civilization III. While this notion is a good idea, the authors do not take it far enough, failing to recognize inherent cultural biases in the games, such as the programmed-in racism and imperialism present in the Civilization games, which Alexander Galloway did see clearly. The authors do cite Sutton-Smith as indicating that there are subconscious values inherent in game design, but only so far as the games act as primers for behavior, not as reflections of biases.
No comments:
Post a Comment