The Role of Cultural Criticism in Gaming

[Irick]

We stand at a crossroads.

Gaming is becoming mainstream. The computing race has brought down the price of entry to... incidental. Complex gaming is simply another function of the general purpose machines we have in our pockets. It is no longer something we must buy materials for, it is a free download away. More people than ever are being exposed. More people than ever are taking up a liking. Output is soaring. We are growing and maturing. We are interacting with the general culture...

Gaming is an important cultural institution.

So... how do we address it?

I think we need to accept it, as art. As culture. It's popular culture, no longer scarce but a pervasive. It can be interpreted in any way someone sees fit. It can be used as an illustration of a viewpoint. It can be put on a pedestal as an expressive medium that gives us insight into the human condition.

I do not feel that critisism needs to do any more than it ever has, but I do think that we need to work to establish terminology and methodology so that we can transmit our ideas and developments to the next generation. We need the ability to use games as part of our vocabulary. We need to be able to exchange ideas and intelligently discuss using games.

I should be able to point to games and conduct a cultural critisism of any medium depicting them.... likewise cultural criticism from any medium levied at games should be considered as we integrate more with the world at large. We should be receptive of a feminist critique as we should a critique of the rules, or the gameplay.

... but we should be stringent on our personal standards. We should know when to fact check. We should know how to navigate the rich context of our medium. We should test everything and hold fast that which is good.

Criticism of criticism should also be accepted.

But it must all be done with respect.


This is a necessarily broad topic. The way that games should be considered in culture, the way that we should evaluate games, the rules of rigor, etc.

Feel free to make points, counterpoints, refutations, bring in examples. Lets make this a discussion though. Lets try to be good to each other.

 

[murrow]

I don't have any definite answers. Indeed, people wiser than me have started this discussion and gotten nowhere.

But I do have some general comments. Maybe you can use them to foster further reflections.

(I'll assume you're talking about 'cultural criticism' in mainstream websites. Because scholarship about games already exists and it's a growing field. Just give it a look at Games & Culture, Convergence and similar publications.)

For all that is said about the quality and impact of games, minimal attention is often given to the quality and impact of critical pieces. Most of what passes for 'criticism' in websites is click-bait. A lot of commentators who engage in criticism have zero background to call upon. It's hard to 'criticize' games with no prior knowledge of game design, hermeneutics and aesthetics, but it's downright impossible to state any relevant commentary without a basis in history, political science, anthropology and what else. When people read an economics column, they expect it to be written by an economist. If game websites really want to invest in this kind of content, it's only right they go after the specialists as well.

As a historian, I cringe every time I see the word 'history' being thrown around in a click-bait-du-jour. Those pieces are often factually wrong, formally lazy, lacking references, and intellectually dishonest. You could learn more about history browsing wikipedia. I have no doubt other social scientists and humanities scholars feel the same.

It can be put on a pedestal as an expressive medium that gives us insight into the human condition.

I believe it was Hegel that defined art as that which 'presents man to man'. (the exact quote escapes me.) This is the gist of it, though. The value of a world of art resides in its capacity to make us venture into novel experiences and point of views, while concomitantly making us recognize ourselves as part of humanity as a whole.

It is the exact opposite of what some self-entitled 'cultural critics' have been doing, stating that 'you need to be [INSERT QUALIFIER HERE] to get it', or that 'you found it boring because you weren't born in the 90s, otherwise you'd see how amazing it is.' If the value of a work of art was limited to carbon copies of the person who did it, no art would survive the test of time. One doesn't need to be an ancient Greek to appreciate Homer, nor a 14th century Englishman to understand Chaucer. If the mind-blowing indie masterpiece of the month can't speak outside its generation, it's doomed to vanish. And that makes it bad art, if art at all.

As far as 'minorities''points of view go, I'll refer to Virginia Woolf, from her famous essay "A Room of One's Own":

It is fatal to be a man or woman pure and simple; one must be a woman-manly or man-womanly. It is fatal for a woman to lay the least stress on any grievance; to plead even with justice any cause; in any way to speak consciously as a woman. And fatal is no figure of speech; for anything written with that conscious bias is doomed to death. It ceases to be fertilized. Brilliant and effective, powerful and masterly, as it may appear for a day or two, it must wither at nightfall; it cannot grow in the minds of others.

And just to be thorough:

It can be interpreted in any way someone sees fit

I do think that we need to work to establish terminology and methodology

Those statements are contradictory. Having a method implies that some things are off-limits, or are at least not as valuable. This gets us in an even tougher bind, for art criticism has been plagued by a relativistic, anti-method trend in the last decades that's all but dooming the field. Here's a primer [http://www.amazon.com/Theorys-Empire-An-Anthology-Dissent/dp/0231134177/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1413211730&sr=8-1&keywords=theory+empire+anthology+dissent] if you're into some reading.

The bottom line is that there isn't a problem with 'gaming criticism', but with the general notion of 'cultural criticism' as a whole. And, as long as the 'say-whatever-you-want', 'everything-is-valid', Í'm-always-right-because-stuff' mentality perseveres, I, for one, don't see in it a worthy import. If the alternative is cheap, empty criticism, I'd rather have no criticism in mainstream websites at all.

 

[Flutterguy]

Not something I'm concerned much with. If I come crossed something I personally dislike I'll make a mental note of it, and if enough of these notes add up I'll stop whatever it is. Something extremely offensive will sort itself out without me, because people love an easy target. Now I'll critique mutual interests with friends, but that's a way of better understanding their motivations and reflecting on my own, its not just spiteful gibbering.

To say gaming is just now pop-culture seems a bit off to me, I'd say that happened during midway through the PS2 era, many others would say before that.

 

[Irick]

For all that is said about the quality and impact of games, minimal attention is often given to the quality and impact of critical pieces. Most of what passes for 'criticism' in websites is click-bait. A lot of commentators who engage in criticism have zero background to call upon. It's hard to 'criticize' games with no prior knowledge of game design, hermeneutics and aesthetics, but it's downright impossible to state any relevant commentary without a basis in history, political science, anthropology and what else. When people read an economics column, they expect it to be written by an economist. If game websites really want to invest in this kind of content, it's only right they go after the specialists as well.

This is very true. Right now I'm personally trying to figure out what sort of specialist we need. I very much enjoy the analysis of Chris Franklin's Errant Signal, the general discussion provided by PBS Game Show, the witticism of Yahtzee's Zero Punctuation and the critisism of Jim Sterling[.

But, I think that we lack the definitive canon seen in other mediums. I have been attempting to build a good grounding personally. My background is Computer Science, I've got a bit oh Philo 101, Psych 101, an understanding of Aesthetics and some of the base principles of graphic design from my high school days. I've been delving into Rules of Play as an immersive experience, snapping up sources as they are quoted, trying to read through primary sources and reflect on essays I discovered in the various publications. So far i've gotten 25 or so new scholarly works that I have delved into in this pursuit. (I can provide a list if there is interest)

There is also the question of my experience as a gamer. There are seminal works I can point to. There is the influences of the media I have mentioned. My immersion into the culture...

But what is needed? What are our fundamental principles?

As a historian, I cringe every time I see the word 'history' being thrown around in a click-bait-du-jour. Those pieces are often factually wrong, formally lazy, lacking references, and intellectually dishonest. You could learn more about history browsing wikipedia. I have no doubt other social scientists and humanities scholars feel the same.

I agree. This problem is pervasive in journalism, and I am intent to do what I can do to raise the bar. Eventually I intend to make a serious effort to provide the kind of cultural criticism and critique I believe games deserve.

It is the exact opposite of what some self-entitled 'cultural critics' have been doing, stating that 'you need to be [INSERT QUALIFIER HERE] to get it', or that 'you found it boring because you weren't born in the 90s, otherwise you'd see how amazing it is.' [...] If the mind-blowing indie masterpiece of the month can't speak outside its generation, it's doomed to vanish. And that makes it bad art, if art at all.

I agree with this sentiment. The popular opinion is what makes popular culture. PBS Idea Channel had a great discussion on the topic of popular culture fairly recently, and it has influenced my logic as to the role of gamers in the process of gaming and games development. To summarise, the process of popular culture is a dialog between creators and fans. The fans transform the media into popular culture in a feedback loop that then influences the creator's process. I feel that this is a particular powerful concept in games media considering the interactivity of the medium.

A powerful story will cease to be powerful without a fandom. It will be locked into its own context, outside of cultural relevance. In this way, cultural criticism must involve the folk.

As far as 'minorities''points of view go, I'll refer to Virginia Woolf, from her famous essay "A Room of One's Own":

It is fatal to be a man or woman pure and simple; one must be a woman-manly or man-womanly. It is fatal for a woman to lay the least stress on any grievance; to plead even with justice any cause; in any way to speak consciously as a woman. And fatal is no figure of speech; for anything written with that conscious bias is doomed to death. It ceases to be fertilized. Brilliant and effective, powerful and masterly, as it may appear for a day or two, it must wither at nightfall; it cannot grow in the minds of others.

That's beautiful, as is expected of her prose.

And just to be thorough:

It can be interpreted in any way someone sees fit

I do think that we need to work to establish terminology and methodology

Those statements are contradictory. Having a method implies that some things are off-limits, or are at least not as valuable. This gets us in an even tougher bind, for art criticism has been plagued by a relativistic, anti-method trend in the last decades that's all but dooming the field. Here's a primer [http://www.amazon.com/Theorys-Empire-An-Anthology-Dissent/dp/0231134177/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1413211730&sr=8-1&keywords=theory+empire+anthology+dissent] if you're into some reading.

The bottom line is that there isn't a problem with 'gaming criticism', but with the general notion of 'cultural criticism' as a whole. And, as long as the 'say-whatever-you-want', 'everything-is-valid', Í'm-always-right-because-stuff' mentality perseveres, I, for one, don't see in it a worthy import. If the alternative is cheap, empty criticism, I'd rather have no criticism in mainstream websites at all.

I don't necessarily believe that these are entirely contradictory statements. By establishing a good methodology for gaming we have a point to deviate from. I don't discount the value of deviated sentiment, but I question its transmissibility without an established terminology.

Thank you very much for the book suggestion. I will keep it on my list for my next round of purchasing.

*edit*

Not something I'm concerned much with. If I come crossed something I personally dislike I'll make a mental note of it, and if enough of these notes add up I'll stop whatever it is. Something extremely offensive will sort itself out without me, because people love an easy target. Now I'll critique mutual interests with friends, but that's a way of better understanding their motivations and reflecting on my own, its not just spiteful gibbering.

To say gaming is just now pop-culture seems a bit off to me, I'd say that happened during midway through the PS2 era, many others would say before that.

I'm not attempting to really define a specific point, but I do have to say that empirically at least there seems to be more discussion on the subject and more time being spent on it. I wouldn't say that it is just now starting to be pop culture, but that it's now decidedly mainstream. It's not a novel niche interest but something that we know and are starting to understand in a greater cultural context.

I didn't want to ignore your contribution. I do apologize if I can't think of more to comment on. The way people use criticism is a rather personal decision and unfortunately I don't really have much prepair down the line of it being unimportant.

 

[Irick]

Now I honestly believe that the critics are working hard at doing their jobs, they're playing games we would never think to play (I've seen some of Jim Sterling's Squirty Plays, I know he is), and they're putting out reviews based on what they see, to an audience they think they're talking to. But the fact is, the audience is just not the same. We're no longer a gaming audience. Some of us are home makers, some of us are college graduates, some of us are teenagers, some others are feminists, others still are conservative Christians who love to shoot terrorists. We can't keep treating every game review as if the audience is a collective.

I don't believe that we will. While the internet has given rise to some of the most impulsive garbage in terms of mass media in the world, it also allows overcoming previously insurmountable barriers. While we are seeing the decline of creativity and professionalism in television and Hollywood, we are seeing a golden age of independant expression. This unfortunately makes it difficult to have conversations on said creative things outside of subcultures, because the niche is becoming a larger part of people's lives. But... this allows for more aspects of an individual to be explored. It allows for more lenses.

I do somewhat lament the fall of arcade culture. I only caught the tail end of it, but it allowed for a larger cultural exchange. But, as you said, we need to be proud of how we have transformed. We still have that culture, it's still part of us. We can still discuss it as a historical precept and we can still take pilgrimage to the great centers of arcade culture, bastions of play :3 I do love being so close to Orlando. Disney maintains a great arcade.

Our perspective may become less important, but it won't disappear, and there will always be those of us who are passionate enough to put out content and add to the text surrounding the games we like. But... the question is, how do we share those values? We can't really transmit the feel of being in an arcade in the 80s-90s. It's gone. But... we can still discuss what made those games so important to the times, and draw on them for inspiration in the future.

I'm not sure if any of that made sense. I'm painting a room with only one window, and the fumes may be getting to me. But I'm trying to put my thoughts together. So, the media has to evolve with us, and we have to let it evolve and not be afraid of the evolution. And force it to evolve with us if it won't. I think that's what I'm trying to say.

Hah!
Don't over exert, but your rambling followed perfectly :3

I don't think we have to force games to evolve, they will evolve. It's easier than ever to express oneself in the medium with the development of GDKs. It's ridiculously cheap to start gaming or making games. The perspective and subject matter will become more diverse as more voices sound. As i mentioned above, in the process of popular culture, those voices will necessarily influence the creation process and we will mature because of it.

... but I want to be part of that process. I want to understand the language to use, quantify the important cultural motifs, the schemas. I want to be able to explain gaming and its importance, because I think it's worth knowing.

 

[Irick]

My take.

Articles are either.
reviewing the product

Reviewing the art and themes

Discussing social issues in depth.


Try to pick one per article and don't try to cram in a discussion of your politics in a product review. People care about a reviewers professional opinion on the game, that's what people value.

I don't think we are qualified to make that claim. We can really only say what we value.

People have just as much a right to call bull on your critique and present their own takes. There is no right or wrong in art critique only listening to others takes.

Yes, this is true of any interpreted medium. In gaming it's also important to keep in mind that there may be stories that simply do not exist in anyone's playthrough but your own. The individual experience is all we ever can speak to in any form of critisism, but i belive it's even more so in games.

You'll excuse me if I'd rather support equality and accept critique from 3rd wave feminist who aren't obsessed with hunting the boogeyman of the patriarchy. nor do they consider the world being under the grip of a Matrix style conspiracy run by The patriarchy.

I have to stop you here for a moment and ask that you keep in mind that prescribing actions to a group is not respectful of individuals in that group. It is fine to criticize second wave feminism on the ideals, but implying the specific actions of individuals can be universally assumed to be an inherent part of the group is going to be insulting. This is the equivalent of someone assuming that because you have spoken out in favor of GamerGate values that you are going to be a violently misogynistic troll.

The only way to have a discussion is to approach the topic with a level of mutual respect. I would like to take this opportunity to remind readers and posters alike that we need to approach this topic without prejudice against any poster or any group of posters, potential or otherwise. If you would like to refer to specifics of the group in question, please do it without claiming or implying it is an innate trait.

I'm not saying that this is intentional, I'm merely attempting to point out possibilities for flare ups before they occur. I think everyone involved here is interested in civil discourse and I will do my best to assist where I can.

I don't want to start a trend of quoting fallacies at each other, but in general a familiarity with them will help arguments proceed without loaded language which should help minimise issues in communication.

Lets remember to be good to each other.

 

[MirenBainesUSMC]

Its an interesting topic but unfortunately, there are very few games in my opinion that even have enough internal depth to warrant deeply invested thoughts and considerations concerning cultural criticisms... or any thing like it, be it psychological or metaphysical.

If the game has deep characters then it could very well flareup. Many brutal arguments come to mind during my discussions about Mass Effect 2 only because it was written well and had actual guts to talk about versus say a typical run-and-gun, simple fun works.

Plus the age factor does play into it to. An interesting observation is how one player views Assassins Creed 2 as a slow starting sleep-fest a long with boring side stories about Ezio's stupid romance. Where as I saw the beginning of Assassins Creed 2 as a page ripped out of Romeo and Juliet with young Ezio having a street brawl with the would be bad guy whom later would be avenged for his father and brother's deaths. The free running with Ezio's brother through the streets of Italy followed by a late-night reandevox with a merchant's daughter... only to be thrown out because he had spoiled her virtue. The big scene of the execution --- and the memory logs where you get to see the back story of his real first love and its tragic results. Now re-wind, all of which I said has been broken down into " This sucks" " This is stupid, I don't care about this guy and his girl issues" to " Where is the blood and the assassinations already!"

So with this in mind, conflicting age groups, gaming perceptions, and where one is intellectually in their life will either progress towards peeling back metaphors, hidden meanings, and the duality of man vs himself Or " Lets get a high gamer score by trying to get a 15x kill streak!"

 

[Vault101]

its like people want their games taken seriously but don't want what that entails

in fact...why are people so surprised when someone looks at games with a critical eye? they've been doing the same with movies for faaarr longer

Its an interesting topic but unfortunately, there are very few games in my opinion that even have enough internal depth to warrant deeply invested thoughts and considerations concerning cultural criticisms... or any thing like it, be it psychological or metaphysical.

yeah this sort of goes hand in hand with the "are games art" thing

I love analysing things and discussing why they work, why a plot point was so awesome or why a character was so compelling

but to do that you have take into account the creator....not what they [I/]intended[/I] per se but how much they are trying

like maybe I could glean from 50 shades of grey some kind of satire on romance novels and relationships...but I KNOW that the author does NOT have that kind of sophistication...what we see is what we get, otherwise I'd just be adding to whats not there (this I think is what they call "fanwank") <-it is a rather subjective thing of coarse but sometimes...you just know

compare 50 shades with a much much better/more spophisticed literary work "the poisonwood bible" we know the author knows her shit, so the family smuggling all their useless first world stuff in their coats on the way to the Congo is intentionally symbolic of them bringing all their useless first world values and ideas

games...a lot of the time there isn't a lot there, there are exceptions where we can talk about themes and meanings, but ultimately...you can add to whats there but you know all your doing is a thought experiment

 

[Jaegerbombastic]

I posted most this is in the mass GG thread last week but I feel it fits with this discussion:


For all their big talk about wanting games to be taken seriously as art, most game journalists don't know and possibly don't care to know how to critique art properly. The point for art critique, especially art with a socio-political message, is not to rate it based on what the message is but how it's conveyed. For example, Schindler's List was given mass critical accolades and several Academy Awards not because it was a movie about the Holocaust, but it was an extremely well made movie that portrayed the Holocaust in a way that was unique, emotional, and very engrossing. It's the execution, not the concept itself, that makes it a great movie.

For the flip side, look at Cloud Atlas. Cloud Atlas has an intriguing as hell story (well, stories) and a pretty damn powerful message about humanity, the abuse of power, tolerance, etc. The book is a fantastic read. The movie? A jumbled up mess where the pacing and mood oscillates wildly, the acting is equally all over the place, the individual stories are hard to follow because of A and B, and yellowface. Hence why it has polarizing reviews and bombed at the box office; the concept was great, the execution was sloppy.

Many game journalists don't do this. When being critical of the game from an allegedly artistic perspective, they base their reviews off of how best a game reinforces their own biases. Polygon's review of Tropico 5 is a great example of this. The critic gave the game a lower score for no other reason but because he didn't like the fact that the game was a satire of Latin American dictatorships. Not whether it was an effective satire (and personally I think the Tropico series can definitely afford to be darker a la Brazil), but the mere subject matter of the game. If a movie critic gave Cross of Iron, Das Boot, or Die Brucke low scores solely because the main characters were German soldiers/sailors in World War 2, he/she would be laughed out of the profession and rightfully so. In fact, something similar did happen when a critic accused Dirty Harry of being fascist propaganda.

So yes, we should start critiquing games from an artistic standpoint, but that doesn't mean gauging a game on how well it panders to your personal politics and sensibilities. That makes you no different from moral guardians ranting about how videogames/rock/comic books/etc. are bringing about the collapse of western civilization. What critics need to do is separate their own biases and look at piece (in this case the videogame) as a coherent whole.

 

[MirenBainesUSMC]

Well I'm also probably those few and far in between that can even glean some political/Social/Historical/imitated real life to talk about from even the most basic shooter to more complicated RPG type games.

Always out to catch any good observation in a game.

 

[MirenBainesUSMC]

As for Lame-Stream media --- they are the dregs of the writing world. A lot of these men and women are just being paid to either like or dislike something, probably paid to either say good things or bad things. I work every now and again in the freelance industry, you'd be surprised how many people really don't research or write their " own work".

Some of these people have dead lines they are too lazy to keep. Some of them could only find this medium to write for because they couldn't gain access to other publications. Some are just industry shills. This isn't the only medium with this problem, its rampant in all circles of certain journalism.

 

[Irick]

So with this in mind, conflicting age groups, gaming perceptions, and where one is intellectually in their life will either progress towards peeling back metaphors, hidden meanings, and the duality of man vs himself Or " Lets get a high gamer score by trying to get a 15x kill streak!"

My basic idea is that criticism will happen. The methods and what are important will vary, but the critisism will happen. I think going forward there will be a demand for more nuanced critique. As our games interact with culture it is inevitable that we will find those who wish to comment on their effect. We can only direct that want into a formalised study. I hope we can cast a framework that will help with this. I am reading Rules of Play to the end of trying to learn these frameworks.

yeah this sort of goes hand in hand with the "are games art" thing

I love analysing things and discussing why they work, why a plot point was so awesome or why a character was so compelling

but to do that you have take into account the creator....not what they [I/]intended[/I] per se but how much they are trying

like maybe I could glean from 50 shades of grey some kind of satire on romance novels and relationships...but I KNOW that the author does NOT have that kind of sophistication...what we see is what we get, otherwise I'd just be adding to whats not there (this I think is what they call "fanwank") <-it is a rather subjective thing of coarse but sometimes...you just know

compare 50 shades with a much much better/more spophisticed literary work "the poisonwood bible" we know the author knows her shit, so the family smuggling all their useless first world stuff in their coats on the way to the Congo is intentionally symbolic of them bringing all their useless first world values and ideas

games...a lot of the time there isn't a lot there, there are exceptions where we can talk about themes and meanings, but ultimately...you can add to whats there but you know all your doing is a thought experiment

Well, you don't have to take into consideration the author when critiquing a work. I mean, consider Beowolf. We can still deeply analyse it even though we know next to nothing about the author(s). If you consider Roland Barthes's essay La mort de l'auteur to assign the text definitive perspective or limitation based on the Author is unnecessarily neudering the text. Perhaps someone can find a really good satire in 50 Shades of Grey, and that expands on the text. That is how we make culture powerful.

Video games are a relatively young medium, we are still exploring how to use them effectively. However, I still think that they are worthy and deserving of the kind of critisism that allows them to be culturally impactful. I would love to explore the themes of transcendence in Deus Ex. It would be interesting to critique Mario Bros. as a post modern representation of the break down of class structures. I think there is more there though, I just don't know what to look for yet.

 

[Spudgun Man]

Just sit down and play your minecraft, leave it to the devs to do what they want with their toys and if you want to do something different then slap on a fez and go change your second name to an animal of some variety.