A lot of the discussion stemming from Gamergate addressed legitimate and interesting issues. Journalistic ethics are always up for debate and scrutiny, the potential for games as an art medium rather than pure entertainment is enormous, and the idea of what constitutes a "game" is surprisingly difficult to define. These are issues that can be discussed once the Quinnspiracy and other sexist rumblings have died down. In fact, these issues would best be discussed unaccompanied by tainted hashtags like "Gamergate."
The most common defense given by Gamergate supporters against accusations of sexism is to say that the movement is about journalistic ethics. While the implications of the spark behind this discussion, there are questions still unanswered about ethics in games journalism. Certainly, an industry where reviewers and developers are as close as is the case with video games is a powder keg just waiting to explode. To what extent to personal relationships and biases affect games journalism. At this point, it;s unclear. One could also ask what obligation games journalists have to write reviews catered their customers, as opposed to merely publishing their true, unapologetic opinions. This may be one case where the libertarians are right; Penny-Arcade's Tycho may have put it best when he said, "When your media doesn't represent you, or actively attacks you as it has here, it’s not your media. You’ll have to make your own..." Though many of the games journalists now *did* start out as just hobbyists who got a solid following, gamers are a supportive community, and recent hashtag wars notwithstanding, gladly follow gamers who contribute to the community, whether for pure recreation or otherwise.
While some gamers were concerned with why certain games drew critical acclaim, others were asking what it even meant to be a "video game." Games like Depression Quest and Gone Home drew ire over being too story-oriented and not incorporating enough player action. Some called them essentially "interactive novels." The term "interactive novel" sounds a little like a contradiction in terms, but, these gamers argue, there must be significant change in the gamestate in order to call something a game. Otherwise, they say, a "Choose your own adventure" book could be called a game. This argument comes dangerously close to saying that a linear sequence of challenges leading to a final boss and a literal victory screen is the necessary to call something a video game, thus disqualifying games such as MMORPGs and overall insulting the intelligence of gamers as a whole. Fans of DQ and Gone Home counter that the player comes in lacking critical information, completes challenges that change the gamestate, and that finishing the game with more information is a sufficient "victory" to call it a real game. It's really difficult to say one side is definitively right in this case, but certainly these games are different than the ones your typical gamer is accustomed to.
Along with what constitutes a video game, many have led to questions of what kind of content should go into a video game. More specifically, they wonder if games can be art- creative works that lead us to new information about ourselves-or pure entertainment. It's long been argued that games are undervalued as a creative medium, and that those who dismiss video games as childish or immoral ignore the potential for games. Though DQ and Gone Home have drawn criticism for being too "artsy," or for having an agenda, lots of very popular games have had a story and an agenda. Games like Bioshock, a dystopian shooter that takes aim at the philosophies of Ayn Rand, draw in audiences with both immersive gameplay and interesting plots. From the other side of the spectrum, there are those who claim we need more games like DQ and Gone Home. Women, they observe, make up almost half of gamers, and so studios should cater to them. Though more female characters might not be a bad thing, the idea that games should change to appeal to women is patronizing and sexist in light of the fact that women *already do* play and enjoy games. Once again, the libertarian option seems the best way to deal with game content; the game industry should not dramatically rebuild itself to cater to women, but games may at times target an audience that is more casual, and it's not really the hardcore gamer's place to say those aren't real games, or that they shouldn't be made. At the same time, it would be wise for the video game market to remember who spends thousands of dollars on new games, gaming PCs, and other merchandise.
It's easy to dismiss gamers as a group of antisocial, misogynist, white nerds. It's easy to say that the games market is unimportant. The reality is that those statements haven't been true for a long time. There's a reason mainstream media has been buzzing over Gamergate; I for one am happy to see some of the serious issues in gaming finally being addressed in a real way. I can only pray that gamers take this as an opportunity to grow as a community and as people.
No comments:
Post a Comment