Why Are There No Highbrow Video Games?

simoniker writes "In his latest 'Designer's Notebook' question, columnist Ernest Adams asks a very simple question: are video games' lack of cultural credibility partly due to the fact that "we don't have any highbrow games"? Titled 'Where's Our Merchant Ivory?', Adams asks: 'Almost every other entertainment medium has an elite form... We produce light popular entertainment, and light popular entertainment is trivial, disposable, and therefore culturally insignificant, at least so far as podunk city councilors and ill-advised state legislators are concerned.' Do games have an image problem compared to other popular media, and how do we fix it?"

Comments

Isn't art highbrow?

[ALeavitt]

Both Ico and Shadow of the Colossus transcend simple "gamehood" and, to me at least, stand as true works of interactive art. A game doesn't have to be stilted and boring to be highbrow.

Re:Isn't art highbrow?

[sottitron]

These are EXACTLY the two games that came to mind for me, too. The problem with saying there are no highbrow games is that makes it seem like the author has seen them all... So maybe this is a stretch, but, who is to say a game like Rallisport Challenge 2 isn't highbrow?? First of all, its gorgeous and doesn't have anyone killing anyone else with a machette. And do you know what the bankroll of someone who is really into Rally racing is like? I mean if you can travel to another country or even another continent to see a race, you are not exactly sweating it.

Re:Isn't art highbrow?

[giorgiofr]

Also throw in Deus Ex: Conspiracy. A masterpiece of interactive art, as you put it. AND arguably one the best games ever made.
Let us never speak again of the sequel, though.

Re:Isn't art highbrow?

[XenoRyet]

Those two are excelent examples, and the columnist's discription of a "highbrow game" was practicaly a review of the Myst series. I'm sure there are a score of other great examples that we're not remembering just at the moment.

I don't think the problem is so much that we don't have highbrow games, as it is that no one, not even snooty columnists, recognizes them when they see them.

Re:Isn't art highbrow?

[XxtraLarGe]

Also throw in Deus Ex: Conspiracy. A masterpiece of interactive art, as you put it. AND arguably one the best games ever made. Let us never speak again of the sequel, though.

There was a sequel to Deus Ex? How could anybody hope to top that? Next you'll be telling me there was a sequel to the movie "The Highlander".

Re:Isn't art highbrow?

[AugstWest]

Dreamfall: The Longest Journey popped into my head. There was also Shadow of Destiny for the PS2 which seems like it will never have a sequel.

Re:Isn't art highbrow?

[aichpvee]

I'm not going to read the article (it isn't "highbrow" enough for me), but maybe the point he should have made is that there aren't ENOUGH "highbrow" games. This is probably because of the high cost and low sales (considering the price) of video games and the relatively "lowbrow" demographic that they continually fall back on because it is cheaper and safer than chasing other groups of end users. So of course there isn't that much content there, because it's all being aimed at the lowest common denominator, which is often too low to even be common.

Re:Isn't art highbrow?

[badasscat]

So maybe this is a stretch, but, who is to say a game like Rallisport Challenge 2 isn't highbrow??

Why would a game designed to intentionally represent a real sport as accurately as possible be considered more "highbrow" than the sport it's intended to represent? At best, the highest form of culture it could aspire to would be the same as the sport itself.

I do think there are plenty of "higbrow" games out there, whatever that means, and it is one of those terms (like the term "insane") that is only used by people on the outside of both the industry in question and legitimate criticism of it. But I do get the gist of the intended meaning. Thing is, Merchant and Ivory (the example he cites from the film world) aren't really held in any higher regard in their industry than people like Martin Scorcese or Zhang Yimou, both of whom have made some extremely violent films. So I think looking for these sweeping, romantic, non-violent epics is kind of missing the point - that's a genre, not a measure of artistic value.

I could prattle off a list of 100 games I'd consider "highbrow" right now - in that they contain artistic elements that only those educated in critical thinking would catch (this is pretty much the definition of the term) - but I think it'd be kind of pointless, because that's not really what this guy's looking for. What he's looking for is the genre of romance games, which I'm honestly pretty thankful don't really exist.

(Sex games are a different matter entirely.)

Re:Isn't art highbrow?

[Hoi Polloi]

You left out "Leisure Suit Larry"

Re:Isn't art highbrow?

[Richy_T]

You don't fool me. That's a goatse link for sure.

Rich

Re:Isn't art highbrow?

[Anonymous Coward]

What about Final Fantasy VII certainly not graphically wounderful by todays standards but it has love, betrayal, your heros journey. Not to mention it actually evokes emotional responses from player other then just frustration at how hard it is to beat some boss. Top that all off with and amazing music score and you have the closes thing to highbrow I've seen in awhile, much more so then say Civ 4.

Re:Isn't art highbrow?

[utopianfiat]

Monacle-bearing man: "Pip pip, time for a spot of Myst, eh good chap?"
Stiff-upper-lip man: *pushes shuffleboard puck* "Right-oh."

Re:Isn't art highbrow?

[Mindspider]

I don't think the author was saying that we need a romance game; what the author meant was that we need more games with intellectual subtlety. Comics are an excellent example here: comics aren't lacking in technical skill. I'm currently studying art in college, and even though I may understand the intricacies of a Caravaggio or a Michelangelo painting, sometimes I'd rather just read Spawn. Comics aren't lacking in complex plotlines, either... there are many examples of fantastic writing in the comic-world.

The bottom line, though, is that true classics of any artform have layers upon layers of subtleties. There just aren't many examples of comics that are truly rich in intellectual value. From my own experience, I've found that most classical painting was done using very conventional, often uninspiring, subject matter. Look at the Mona Lisa- a standard portrait of a woman. Nothing exciting. What makes the Mona Lisa so amazing is the incredible subtlety and thought that went into the painting, and that isn't something you can pick up at a glance. A Spawn cover may look more interesting, but it pales in serious comparison.

So back to video games- there are many examples of intelligent, extremely well-executed video games out there. However, I don't see any games that are comparable to Bach or Rembrandt or Dickens. Ico and Shadow of the Colossus are beautiful pieces of art, but beautiful doesn't necessarily mean "high brow".

Re:Isn't art highbrow?

[ConceptJunkie]

Next you'll be telling me there was a sequel to the movie "The Highlander".

Yeah, but if they did that, they'd probably make a really crappy one and have to do a third just to set the record straight... better they don't do any more.

Although it might have made a good TV series.

No high-brow gamers?

[1_brown_mouse]

Honestly, don't you have something better to do with your time?

Very simple answer

[Opportunist]

Making games costs money. People with lots of money don't want to spend lots of money on "intellectual" games. Because it's just games.

Movies can be "highly intellectual and cultural". Music too. Even food. Computer games are simply nothing to brag about in front of your high profile friends.

Re:Very simple answer

[Opportunist]

Whatever it may mean...

Let's face it, though, that the computer culture is, so far, a short one. It's a very new medium, unprecedented by anything it developed from that could be viewed as the "heritage" of it. Music developed during the ages. Even movies had their roots in theatres and plays. Computer games have nothing to draw from.

Thus they are not taken serious as a cultural element. One could argue that the junk that's currently sold as music is at best what fast food is to cooking, but there is "good" music, maybe it's a bit dated, but there are pieces of music that can be considered true art. And it needn't be something along the lines of Mozart or Beethoven. A lot of "pop music" is very capable of moving people, inspiring them, it had some serious impact on our life and it even had influence on politics and the way people see the world. I'm especially thinking about music from the peace movement in the 60s, for example. Most of it can be considered pop music, but it had a "message", it contained elements that are thought provoking, it's not just easy listening and entertaining.

Such precedents are missing in the computer games history. And now is maybe one of the worst moments to try something like that. Making games is costy. It's not like you can sit down in the basement with your friends and you strum your guitars 'til something with a message comes out. You need good people, with a lot of math and physics in their brains, and I do take a serious background in computer languages as granted, who spend a lot of time working out the game.

And then, nobody will buy it. It doesn't carter the fast food generation gamers, who want a quick, fun game to rush through and then go on to the next. And, as stated before, people who are looking for entertainment with depth, meaning and message are not looking for it in computer games.

Re:Very simple answer

[Opportunist]

I dare to repeat myself (not your fault, was the answer to a different statement and done after yours), there is no "prior art". Nothing so "old" that it's revered as the "good ol' days" when games were truely art. No Mozart, no Shakespeare, no Van Gogh, no Fritz Lang. There's nothing where snobs can look at and nod their head, saying "yeah, that was true art".

Even if you create a true masterpiece now, it would not be taken serious until the gaming culture had its three generations. It would simply not be recognized, and in about 50 years, you'd be celebrated as the grandfather of true computer games art.

Your games may even be sought after (and people would maybe pay millions to just get a copy), the few remaining originals would probably travel under tightest security from one museum to the next, but you'll die in poverty.

Re:Very simple answer

[PriceIke]

Oh I disagree.

Games like M.U.L.E., Seven Cities of Gold, Mail Order Monsters, Tetris and the brilliant Infocom series of games were masterpieces of gameplay, craftsmanship and ingenuity. Games today have much better graphics, but originality and creativity? That can be argued.

My kid sister (who is 29) and I still regularly fire up the old Commodore to play M.U.L.E. Ah, the 640K floppy disk, no entering mystic serial numbers and checking with the company server to grant you "permission" to play your game .. those were the good ol' days.

Re:Very simple answer

[Golias]

I put it to you that video gaming does have a history. Just as movies draw from the theater tradition, before there was Quake (or even Pac Man or Pong) there was pinball, pachinko, magnet-driven football, air hockey, Stratego, Connect 4, and endless other distractions which one could set up in a parlour room, alone or against an opponent, to pass idle hours. There were even handheld games (cup and ball, for example).

I recall a Star Trek toy I received as a child. It had a "screen" which was really a scrolling screen made of a big hidden wheel which simulated motion. To play, you had to navigate around various obstacles like planets and Klingon ships. Similar race-car games were around in the 70s. These, along with similar childhood amusements, are the true tradition that video games grew out of, and I doubt it will ever be regarded as high art.

Art is essentially a medium of communication, from the artist to the audience. The best art conveys feelings and notions which can not be conveyed with literal descriptive language alone. The interactive nature of gaming, almost by definition, excludes it from being regarded as an art form, beyond the creative trappings of the game's "eye candy" and music soundtrack.

Re:Very simple answer

[timster]

Art is essentially a medium of communication, from the artist to the audience. The best art conveys feelings and notions which can not be conveyed with literal descriptive language alone. The interactive nature of gaming, almost by definition, excludes it from being regarded as an art form, beyond the creative trappings of the game's "eye candy" and music soundtrack.

This is a very sophisticated notion, and the greatest challenge for gaming designers and critics today. I do not agree with it, but it's not trivial to refute.

Part of the problem is that video games are not homogenous in an artistic sense. Most art forms are, and thus they can be placed in a fairly straightforward conceptual box: film consists of moving pictures and sound; music in essence consists of sound only; sculpture consists of arranged and constructed objects; literature consists of language only; etc.

A video game always contains music, and it may contain cinematic sequences, and it will certainly contain still images of some sort. Many games include some amount of text material and a story. Certainly all of these can be art in and of themselves, but they all have their own history, so it's tempting to strip them away and examine the game without these "tacked-on" elements.

There are only a few games which betray this notion with clarity, and many of these are not well known. Rez is the best example I know; while it is indeed futile to consider Rez without its music, the game also adds something that the music doesn't have on its own. (Go play Rez now, if you care about art. I'll wait.)

Games like Rez can be regarded as unique, though, if you consider the game side of the experience a mere hypnotic device designed to increase mental immersion and thus increase the effect of the music. Also, this example doesn't apply so easily to a game like Super Mario Bros. However, I feel it is a good starting point to show the fallacy of the notion that interactivity excludes artistry by definition.

To go from there, I argue that the nature of art in a video game in general is what I call the "constructed experience". Traditional art can discuss and portray what it's like to be a pirate, or a race-car driver, or a spider; video games aspire to replicate the experience itself, within various limitations.

Of course, the real-world experiences are more or less dull, so we throw in a princess or two to spice things up (just like painters rarely paint the many dull scenes that they would see). Actually, this has led to the more imaginative practice of inventing the experience out of whole cloth, so that you too can spend a day in the life of the Prince of All Cosmos as he rolls up anything and everything to make new stars. When we hear talk of "gameplay", this is what it means -- the creativity and hard work that goes into creating a meaningful and textured new experience for the player. In a great game, this communicates something more than mere "fun", and that is where the art is.

Re:Very simple answer

[Elemenope]

I'm sorry but this struck me as pretty silly. Mozart wasn't 'high-brow' (i.e. intellectually and asthetically sophisticated) because tickets cost a lot of money; he was, like Beethoven and especially Bach a musical genius who made sophisticated, complicated and beautiful musical constructions. That the people who were predisposed to like him were educated and therefore also predominantly wealthy (in order to get that education) is quite literally a coincidence, a correlation which you confused with causation. That any Joe can pick up a Mozart CD does not mean any Joe can understand and appreciate said CD; music of all genres and categories requires an extant cultural setting and prior aesthetic vocabulary to be appreciated. But, any Joe with exposure and time may learn, like many people with a classical education already had an opportunity to do, to appreciate his works.

Re:Very simple answer

[Haeleth]

Let's face it, though, that the computer culture is, so far, a short one. It's a very new medium, unprecedented by anything it developed from that could be viewed as the "heritage" of it. Music developed during the ages. Even movies had their roots in theatres and plays. Computer games have nothing to draw from.

True, that. How can games ever hope to be taken seriously? It's not like there are ancient traditions of gaming with deep roots in our culture or anything. No serious intellectual would dream of wasting his time on a frivolous pursuit of the working classes, like chess, or go, or bridge.

Re:Very simple answer

[Elemenope]

I singled out Bach in my post for being particularly ingenious, and certainly some of the asethetic value of Bach's stuff can be appreciated without a prior explicit understanding of what's going on in the piece; I would submit to you, however, that your friends' musical backgrounds was closer to Bach than you might imagine. Rock and Alternative Rock borrow heavily from old blues, it is true, but also from Classical music, particularly its tonal structure, and also its peculiar use of meter (which is not present in a suprising number of other musical traditions), and some of the instruments would sound familiar...at least more familiar than, say a sitar, or liuqin (Chinese lute) which are based on different tonal scales.

If you were to play that same Bach piece to someone who grew up with a different tonal scale, like a 5-tone Chinese scale, I doubt you would get the same reaction as you did with your friends; the gap is far wider, and the music does not transmit emotion with any accuracy. I just (odd coincidence) finished reading an essay by Theodore Gracyk who describes an experiment he runs in his class every year, playing westerm music of various contexts and purposes and then playing eastern music of similar contexts and purposes; the students can easily pick out in the western styles which is meant to be somber and which joyous, which secular and which religious, but have no luck guessing what emotion or purpose is meant to be conveyed by the eastern works.

What I was trying to make clear in my post was that these sorts of cultural contexts (which are present in some extent even in popular music) frame our understanding of music and our appreciation of it; formal education and training reveals the explicit structuers behind the music and also helps to create a reservoir of experience with whcih to compare works and search for similarities.

Re:Very simple answer

[snuf23]

"And, as stated before, people who are looking for entertainment with depth, meaning and message are not looking for it in computer games."

Here's a question for you: why should a game have meaning and message? Why do you judge an entirely different form of entertainment by criteria you associate with film or music? Film and music are passive entertainments. You absorb them and if they are good reflect on them. Games are played and if good you reflect on them. Not necessarily on the meaning or message (although that does happen) but on the experience of playing them.
Is Tetris less brilliant because it has no message? Does Civilization lack depth because it doesn't have a singular message? Consider, Civilization illustrates many of the changes that technology, expansion and cultural clashes have wrought upon mankind since the beginning of time. There is no single "this is good, that is bad" message. It's up to the player to take what they will from the game because being a game it is about interactivity.
When someone, be it random blogger, industry expert or Roger Ebert states that games "are not highbrow" entertainment or "are not art", people bring forward examples of games that reflect other mediums. "This game is art because it has a good story". I don't think this is the right approach. A good story in a game is pointless if it renders the game non-interactive and artificially restricts action from the player. I believe games should be judged on their own merits, not compared to passive mediums (music, film, paintings whatever) that they at most only superficially resemble.

Re:Very simple answer

[Bing Tsher E]

Rich people in the past have commissioned a lot of really horrible, TERRIBLE dreck in the name of art. 'Artiste types' are wily critters and they'll do some pretty outlandish things to get loot. There are paintings and sculptures and sonatas and operas that hopefully will NEVER AGAIN be inflicted on the public. But there has also been this marvelous filtering process throughout history, so that the really good stuff, like Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, etc. can be enjoyed and will be enjoyed forever by discriminating music listeners.

Re:Very simple answer

[Mindspider]

I love Tetris, but nobody should consider it high art. Besides some fairly simple strategy, it isn't exactly intellectually complex; emotionally, I may feel excitement or frusteration, probably a touch of nostolgia, but I don't get an insight into anything more then that. One thing you have to remember is that most of what is defined as "timeless art" doesn't have a singular message either. They're open to interpretation, and are able to sustain the analysis of generation after generation. That's precisely why great art is timeless- the "message" can't become out-dated. I'd consider Tetris to be timeless too, but in a very different way. I totally agree, though... people need to stop comparing games to movies and literature and start comparing games to games. At the same time, though, I think that gameplay is still immature as an art form. Don't get me wrong, I love games, but as a high art form I don't think they're "there" yet.

Re:Very simple answer

[Opportunist]

Don't forget that a large part of the fondness the high class crowd has for those games is tied to their social aspects. When you play bridge, you don't just play cards. You talk, you interact, you eat (really crappy cookies), you show off your new attire and whatnot. All of that is lacking in computer games.

A good deal of the motivation for the upper class to go to some events is not to see what is shown there, but to be seen and show themselves. First, to show off that they are interested in culture and events. Second, to show off themselves and their new toys (cars, jewelry, whatnot). And finally, to engage in conversations with peers. Akin to a con, but with more people having a shower before attending.

High Brow

[Deliveranc3]

You mean that they focus on emotional problems in a deep and meaningful manner?

People don't like to do that, they like to watch other people fail at doing that.

As far as high brow goes, we have Patrician, Total War, Civilization, and the Sims.

All of which offer some pretty interesting insights if you look deeply into them.

One of the largest factors is probably that in a book a grammatical mistake is something from the author that might lead you to think about something diffrently, a bug in a game totally spoils your ability to analyse the small points that are so important for real understanding of the artist.

There are...

[Tanmi-Daiow]

I believe there are highbrow games out there. You just have to look. I am considering a high brow game to be one that is fun, deep and has the ability to move you. For Example, Call of Duty for PC. That game gave me goose bumps. It was immersive and deep. You couldn't just run in and kill everything, you had to hold back and fight like it actually was a war and not a deathmatch. Even multiplayer had this feel. You would be dead in an instant if you ran into a room with guns blazing. Also games such as Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic would be in this category. It has a very epic feel too it and above all, it was supremely enjoyable to playthrough. These are highbrow games to me.

Does it matter?

[Richard Steiner]

How many people who are into "high brow" activities would bother to use a common technology like a video game?

Are gaming consoles or personal computers themselves socially acceptable to that type of person?

If the device is seen as "low brow", the actual content present on that device becomes far less relevant.

Re:Does it matter?

[Thyamine]

"High Brow" activities aren't mutually exclusive with other activities. I enjoy going to the art museum, I enjoying reading, I enjoy theatre, and I enjoy video games. I'm sure there are plenty of others here who enjoy those activities as well. Enjoying something high brow doesn't require you to have a butler and live in an estate where you don't have to interact with the common man. In fact I used to play the violin, currently practice martial arts, and this weekend I put up drywall. Go figure, I'm not just a computer geek ready to be pigeonholed for my entire life. Sorry if this sounds a bit aggressive, but I dislike how people have the notion that someone can't cross boundaries. If you use computers you don't know how to use a hammer, you work on cars so you can't be intelligent, or you like video games so you can't be mature.

Same reason most modern films are rubbish

[also-rr]

We don't want good ones! Look at the reaction to Elephant's Dream - the plot of which covered an abstract look at the internet - on Slashdot. Total mockery. Even Wikipedia doesn't bother to mention the story.

Can you immagine the Slashdot comments if ED was used as the basis for a game, exploring the nature of the internet?

Couple that with the fact that naturally creative types are pushed away from/dont want to touch programming or the 'hard' subjects that go along with video game design and you end up with the situation we have today.

Ico

[Anonymous Coward]

got the low sales to prove it too.

Pointless article...

[Jerf]

This is a pointless article... but I'm probably not saying that for the reason why you think I'm saying that.

The problem is that "highbrow" is not defined. Classical music, perhaps the definitive example of "highbrow", was actually the pop music of the time; it enjoyed widespread popularity amoung all classes. One can profitably argue that this is because it had no real competition from 100 genres like today and it was about the only real music available of any kind beyond folk songs, but it was still popular music.

Is highbrow merely a synonym for "pretentious and boring"? I can't find it in me to cry about "pretentious and boring" not being well represented in gaming.

Is highbrow something like "acquired taste"?

Is highbrow "difficult to understand"?

Depending on how you really define what you're talking about, the answers vary widely. In the absense of such a definition, this essay is simply content-free, alluding to some vague idea in your head that may or may not resemble some vague idea in the author's head, which may or may not actually correspond to reality in any particular sense. It may make you feel warm and fuzzy to say something insightful like "we need highbrow games", but that's the totality of the value of the statement: warm fuzzies.

Re:Pointless article...

[Anonymous Coward]

Classical music, perhaps the definitive example of "highbrow", was actually the pop music of the time; it enjoyed widespread popularity amoung all classes.

Not really. It was primarily the music of the church and the court, gradually catching on with the bourgeoisie, and once in a while a catchy tune would trickle down to even the lower classes (most of whom of course did not live anywhere near an opera house, and couldn't have afforded to go anyway). Folk music has always been the music of choice for the lower classes, that is to say the vast majority.

Re:Pointless article...

[cgreuter]

Classical music, perhaps the definitive example of "highbrow", was actually the pop music of the time; it enjoyed widespread popularity amoung all classes.

Not to dispute your original point, but this statement isn't true. Classical music (specifically, symphonic music and opera--the Classical era runs from 1812 to 1900-ish (IIRC, and I may not)) was generally funded by wealthy patrons (i.e. nobility) and performed for them and their guests. Common people's music was ditties that could be played by one or two musicians and sung along to. This is what we now call "folk music". The concept of "pop music" didn't really come about until the early twentieth century when it became possible to distribute recordings.

A better example would probably be literature. Shakespeare, for example, wrote plays that everyone could enjoy. He had dirty jokes for the aristocrats and flowerly language for the peasants.

Oops

[The MAZZTer]

Bah I thought it said "Homebrew" not "Highbrow". Now I look like an idiot.

what is this guy smoking

[Wornstrom]

from TFA: And before yet another idiot pipes up with Standard Asinine Comment #1 ("but FUN is the only thing that matters!"), let me just say: No, it's not. Shut up and grow up. Our overemphasis on fun--kiddie-style, wheeee-type fun--is part of the reason we're in this mess in the first place. To merely be fun is to be unimportant, irrelevant, and therefore vulnerable.

I can't take this guy seriously. fun IS the only thing that matters in a "game". if it weren't fun, it would be a simulator or learning tool of some sort.

says you.

[penguinstorm]

I consider Myth high brow.

Merchant Ivory films are melodramatic garbage

[elrous0]

Merchant Ivory films aren't "high art," they're pretentious fluff aimed at airhead elites who think that "great actor" is synonymous with "actor with a posh English accent." If you get beneath the surface of most of those films, you'll find writing little better than that of a predictible soap opera. In the world of truly serious filmmaking, it takes more than a classical soundtrack and posh English actors (or Americans faking posh English accents) to cut the mustard.

The kind of people who think of Merchant Ivory films as "high art" are the same kinds of himbos and bimbos that think that "George" magazine was the height of political commentary. They are the kind of people who celebrate classical music and ballet because they think they're SUPPOSED to, not because they truly enjoy either. They're the kind of pompass asses who laud the brilliance and insight of an Italian opera even though they don't speak a word of Italian and, consequently, have no fucking clue what the Hell was even going on onstage.

Yes, it is true that there are many great, brilliant, insightful films out there. And, yes it is true that there is a derth of sophisticated, clever, original, and intelligent video games. But film as a medium has been around for over 120 years now. And it wasn't until "Birth of a Nation" (25 years later) that anyone even BEGAN to expand that medium's horizons. It took 60 years into the medium to produce Citizen Kane, and 90 years for serious films outside of the strident studio system to become widely accepted.

Video games can indeed become a more serious artistic form, and they are already beginning to take those strides. But it's hardly fair to compare it with more mature forms, and downright pig-headed to bring crap like Merchant Ivory into the comparison (when it doesn't even represent a mature form of its OWN medium).

-Eric

Re:Merchant Ivory films are melodramatic garbage

[steveo777]

or Americans faking posh English accents

Then have I got a movie for you!
Prince John: And why would the people listen to you?
Robin Hood: Because, unlike some other Robin Hoods, I can speak with an English accent.

Much better than the feminine Robin Hood that Cosnter portrayed. Pansy.

Re:Merchant Ivory films are melodramatic garbage

[sielwolf]

And it wasn't until "Birth of a Nation" (25 years later) that anyone even BEGAN to expand that medium's horizons.

While composing most of the elements that now make modern filmmaking, it would be more accurate to say that The Great Train Robbery was one of the first films to explore film as a long form different than drama (1903, so 13 years after). It utilized "parallel editing, double exposure composite editing, camera movement and on location shooting" as well as pioneering the theory that the element of a film was a shot (as compared to a scene, the unit of a play, which dominated filmmaking thinking up until then).

One could also say that in this modern communication era where the length between flash and bang is much shorter and that it should be reflected in the maturation of a medium. There are Eisners for webcomics and humanities departments are embracing blogging and hypertext. While those are just extensions of existing media, they've still matured very quickly.

Of course I'm in the camp that what makes a game a game is a competitive element (either PvP or Player v. Machine) which is absent from art (even the interactive type). A game can be profound just as art can demand something of its audience but by needing to satisfy that element it is wholly seperate from art (unless using the most liberal use of the word where we could discuss the art of the fast ball or the art of running the pick and roll). But Merchant Ivory isn't the way to think about making better games. Merchant Ivory is just yuppie porn like Architecture Digest. "Highbrow" is what folks throw out when their only measure for entertainment is if it is something that "someone like me" should do. It is completely perpendicular to the concept of quality.

Re:Merchant Ivory films are melodramatic garbage

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

They're the kind of pompass (sic) asses who laud the brilliance and insight of an Italian opera even though they don't speak a word of Italian

People who are fans of opera tend to be fairly familiar with the librettos so Italian really isn't a prerequisite.

I should add that you state your case in a way that isn't likely to win you any kind of meaningful support, despite your points having some validity. I like many Merchant Ivory productions and believe them to be better than most Hollywood productions. But I'm not so much of a fool as to think that a film is good simply because it features genteel Englishmen and women. I would never have chosen Merchant Ivory as examples of "high art" in film. But I'm almost tempted to say that you dismiss their productions because they feature genteel Englishmen and women - just as egregious an error.

Good movies can be about flesh-eating aliens from outer space or about well brought up young women making their debuts in 19th century England.

The closest thing to high-brow...

[entmike]

The closest thing to high-brow for video games that you are going to get will be things like Silent Hill, Shadows of the Collosus, ICO, Killer 7, and maybe something like Siren.

I don't think any of these games or type of these games will ever generate as much revenue as Madden Roster Change 2008 or the like.

I'd love to have a *GOOD* mystery game or something that challenges my brain rather than my dexterity. Nostalgia aside, the text adventures (sans terrible text parsing) is a good example in my opinion. Hell, put a GUI on it but figure out a way to give that great problem-solving feeling to it.

Hell, even let me eat the apple at the beginning.

There are some "High-Brow" games

[XxtraLarGe]

Chess and Bridge come to mind. Those are two games that are often played by the literatti...

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

No interest in high art that doesn't elevate.

[dominion]

Anybody remember Grim Fandango? Brilliant stuff.

But to be honest, I don't know if I can take somebody seriously who says something like 'Suppose the only music in all the world were rap or heavy metal.'

I mean, honestly, has the guy never heard of Saul Williams?

I am that timeless NGH that swings on pendulums like vines through mines of booby trapped minds that are enslaved by time. I am the life that supersedes lifetimes, I am. It was me with serpentine hair and a timeless stare that with a mortal glare turned mortal fear into stone time capsules. They still exist as the walking dead. As I do, the original suffer-head, symbol of life and matriarchy's severed head: Medusa, I am. It was me, the ecclesiastical one, that pointed out that there was nothing new under the sun. and in times of laughter and times of tears, saw that no times were real times, 'cause all times were fear. The wise seer, Solomon, I am. It was me with tattered clothes that made you scatter as you shuffled past me on the street. Yes, you shuffled past me on the street as I stood there conversing with wind blown spirits. And I fear it's your loss that you didn't stop and talk to me. I could have told you your future as I explained your present, but instead, I'm the homeless schizophrenic that you resent for being aimless. The in-tuned nameless, I am. I am that NGH. I am that NGH. I am that NGH. I am a negro. Yes, negro from necro, meaning death. I overcame it so they named me after it. And I be spitting at death from behind and putting "kick me" signs on it's back, because, I am not the son of Sha Clack Clack . I am before that. I am before. I am before before. Before death is eternity. After death is eternity. There is no death there's only eternity. And I be ridin' on the wings of eternity, like yah, yah, Sha Clack Clack.

Hell, even Tupac wrote books of poetry, and with artists out there like Mos Def, Talib Qweli, Outkast, etc., it's hard to understand how somebody could use rap music collectively as an example of "low art".

But then again, given his examples of high art being the kind of things that wealthy white people put on tuxes to clap softly to, I'm not sure I'm particularly interested in what he has in mind.

It's a cultural thing

[Kohath]

High brow means "we're better than you are because of our choice of entertainment".

There are no high brow videogames because the people you think are the better people don't talk about how they're better because they play Y videogame instead of Z videogame.

In other words: STFU you pompous, pretentious snob.

Entertainment isn't high brow or low brow. Different people are entertained differently by different things and no one is better or worse because of their entertainment choices.

Chess programs

[Animats]

Chess programs qualify as "highbrow games".

Order Fritz or Junior from ChessBase. Play chess against the machine. Unless you've been on the cover of Chess Life, you're going to lose. Chess programs are very strong now. "Deep Blue" is obsolete; now multiprocessor PCs are beating grandmasters. You can buy and run PC programs that have beaten Kasparov.

Now that chess programs do better than people, nobody really cares outside the chess world. One of the leading chess programmers made a comment that explains what's happened. Analyzing grandmaster games, he discovered that, about once in every ten moves on average, grandmasters choose a suboptimal move. Not a really bad move, but one where a better option existed. That's the base human error rate, and that's enough to give computers a fundamental edge at the higher levels.

Re:Wait a second...

[jpatters]

Frontier House.

Image is what it's all about...that and money

[Vokkyt]

Simply put, a "high brow" game, as TFA seems to try to define it, simply would not sell because conceptually it does not work for a game. If we take the intended definition of high brow as touching emotions and addressing subjects that are not usually handled by the low brow media, then in order to do so, a large focus of the game needs to be shifted to the story telling and the content rather than the gaming itself, which should be a factor. A large reason that it's hard to tap the deep emotions that most humans have is because of the freedom in games; take sandbox style RPGs like Oblivion which are the most likely candidates for the title of "High Brow" games. There are surely a lot of deaths in the game, but do the players feel any remorse over the death of these characters? Not really, because they have more control over it than the game does over them. Players are able to kill relentlessly with the only penalty being that they will be struck down by the wrath of the town guard, or have to pay a fine. Also, the all important save/load allows them to control the story in such a way that everything can turn out perfect in the end. Inevitably, it seems, the player will never have an unsatisfactory ending, since they are simply manufacturing the story as they see fit. True, the gamer can manufacture a story in which not everything is perfect, but whether the game can react to this is a completely different story.

On the contrary to that, however, it is often said by those who lament for the games of yesteryear that the stories and the lack of control over the plot is what makes the games golden. I'm mainly thinking about Chronotrigger and it's fan-base; often times, I see people saying how the story in Chronotrigger actually made you feel something simply because some things you did actually had an adverse affect on the game's ending. By the definition of high brow from the article, Chronotrigger is a high brow game in that case...but only to a certain degree, and even then, to experience what makes it high brow you need to commit a considerable amount of time to do so.

What it boils down to, I think, is that no one is really willing to dedicate the time to show that there are "high brow games" by the connotation of High Brow. To experience a game can take days; a movie or music can take a matter of hours, or less. Most people are not willing to dedicate that much time to experience a high brow item, or to rate it. On top of that, there is still the hurdle that needs to be overcome; we're talking about games here. Granted there are some masterpieces of visual and audio design, along with the coding, but it's still for a game. You can call it a bias if you wish, but I can understand while this is a difficult thing to get past when trying to discuss games in terms of low brow and high brow.

Highbrow definition

[Chemisor]

> Is highbrow merely a synonym for "pretentious and boring"?

Sometimes it is, though it may be due to hypocrisy rather than intent. The culture of the elite is supposed to portray the best traits of humanity, its noblest and worthiest virtues, its most beautiful aspirations, and the perfection of taste. One might contrast this with the culture of the "proles", which tends to glorify mediocrity and small aspirations, encouraging its consumers to adhere to a "steady-state" life of simple wants, of "living for today", of thinking as little as possible, and generally enjoying what they have.

The danger of striving for perfection lies in the inability of some people to objectively judge their own abilities and achievements. The culture of the elite naturally incorporates the belief that a man can better himself, and unless this man knows what "better" means, he could simply assume he is already "better" than everyone else. These are the "highbrow" types that we normally call "prudes".

> Is highbrow something like "acquired taste"?

It is a taste acquired when a man acquires the set of moral values that goes with it.

> Is highbrow "difficult to understand"?

If you do not possess those moral values, then it is impossible to understand. Likewise in this situation, the "highbrow" type will find it impossible to understand your culture because he will not have your moral values.

Hello? WING COMMANDER!

[LordKazan]

Exlcuding the movie that I think Chris Robert's must have been smoking some strongy wacky tobaccy while making - Wing Commander is an absolute classic. Only a moron would not consider it "high brow" - it tells a much better story across it's first 4 games than even Peter Jackson could manage in 9 movies!

Critique of the Critic

[0biter]

To summarize the brilliant and nuanced argument of our critic friend at Gamasutra: videogames are not recognized by the bourgeois, therefore videogames need to be bourgoise.

Can anyone take this man seriously?

The problem isn't that the games are not complex, meaningful or full of value, but that the critics who review them and re-present them to the wider public have no understanding of why or how this is the case. Like the rest of his journalistic ilk, this "critic" seems oblivious to the importance and meaning of digital entertainment as a completely new communicative and experiential medium. As a result, the greatest justice he can do to it is to compare it to ancient art forms like literature, cinema, dance, and painting. But if the best analysis of the value of games is by analogy to other media (much less their "elitist" forms) you've already sold games out.

There is, in fact, a massive wealth of deep artistic, sociological, psychological and political meaning in many of the games produced today. But what do people learn of this in the reviews and "analysis" that we read everyday in the mainstream gaming media? Not a damn thing. To sum up the total contribution of mainstream video games analysis is trivial because this journalism is trivial: "Oh look! A technological novelty slightly more novel than last year! 8/10." Thats basically all we get. As such, the critics and journalists have failed to do their job and have thus failed games.

Honestly, it won't be bourgeoisie elitism that saves games because what is adopted as bourgeoisie taste is what was artistically avant garde five years earlier. Rather, we need to recognize that right now we are living in an era of the digital avant guard! The best thing that could happen to digital art is for all these lazy journalists and "critics" to get off their asses and read some philosophy of the digital and critical experience. I can happily recommend Gilles Deleuze, Jean Baudrillard, Jean-Francois Lyotard, Roland Barthes, Jean-Luc Nancy, and Slavoz Zizek among others. Of course, you would also do well to start with the classics of art criticism such as Denis Diderot and Charles Baudelaire. You know, the guys who were responsible for making all that "classical high brow" art high brow in the first place?

Re:Re-Elected for a 3rd Term

[Lord Kano]

If I see President GW at a 50 cent concert I'll vote him for a 3rd term.

I'd vote for him again if he could run. Then I'd go to a 50 Cent concert.

LK

someone needs a chill pill

[Kunta Kinte]

Merchant Ivory films aren't "high art," they're pretentious fluff aimed at airhead elites who think that "great actor" is synonymous with "actor with a posh English accent."

Relax dude. Of course there are lots of posers out there, but have it occurred to you that many people enjoy these films? Looking at their filmography, I at least think that The Remains of the Day and Howard's End were great films. In fact I like most of Anthony Hopkin's movies.

And it wasn't until "Birth of a Nation" (25 years later) that anyone even BEGAN to expand that medium's horizons. It took 60 years into the medium to produce Citizen Kane, and 90 years for serious films outside of the strident studio system to become widely accepted

This is where you really lost me though. "Birth of a Nation" did pioneer some special effects technics, true. But to consider it the beginning of an era in film is controversial at best. Here are some notable movies pre-1915 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_film#Before_19 15

So relax a little, it's art remember? :) Everyone's going to have their own take.

Planescape: Torment

[Anthony Boyd]

I always felt that Planescape: Torment was high-brow. It's a game that is very text-heavy and wouldn't be enjoyed by a typical action-oriented gamer. Although you always end the game in the same place, you can get there various good and wicked ways. There are many moral quandries, and the entire game revolves around assuming the role of a man who has done horrendous evil. As the game unRavels, you realize the extent of malice your character has displayed, and how it has ruined the lives of people around you. Many decisions are ambiguous -- you do not choose good or evil, but try to find the best path among many imperfect paths.

In the end, when the game ended for me, I wept. I wept because there was no happy ending, only a bittersweet "best I could manage guys, sorry" ending. It felt very true to life, with consequences for each decision I made. When I was done, I felt that I had learned many life lessons, that I had been exposed to viewpoints contrary to my own and had come away better for it, and that sometimes the best way out of a bad situation is to be a better person from the start.

-Tony

Elite games

[paulxnuke]

The closest thing to an "elite" game I know of is interactive fiction (start with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interactive_fiction ). It has a small but passionate community that produces most of its own games, because, as you may have guessed, they don't sell well enough to be commercially viable, and community standards are too high for hack jobs.

Most IF'ers disdain any graphics, sound, etc: the sentiment has a religious as well as aesthetic side. This keeps production costs low but requires vastly greater quality (in terms of story, program stability) than most mass market games achieve (more than they could achieve, probably, by simply hiring programmers.) Passion is the basic qualification, before technical ability even matters.

Not their time yet

[thelost]

There's a simple reason and it's to do with acceptance. Take for instance animation. Generally speaking Western cultures up until recently animation was considered a childish thing, because on the whole animation was made mainly for kids. If you look at Japan to take an obvious example, animation is not simply aimed at children, nor are comics. They are cross generation mediums which appeal to people in Japan of many ages. There isn't the same snobbery to animation by adults as there is here.

However our attitude towards animation is changing, in part due to the adult themed animations coming from Asia. With deep searching themes and adult discussions of sometimes very tough subjects these are certainly not Mickey goes to the beach animes.

It's the same with games. In the future games will gain a foothold among an adult audience. Our generation might be the one leading that assault, as we are so completely embedded in a gaming culture. However these things will take time. Don't expect it to take place over night.

"High Brow" means inaccessible

[Kunta Kinte]

The problem is that "highbrow" is not defined

I agree with your point, but my theory...

I think "High Brow" means inaccessible. It's a socio-enconomical class marker; In many ways, it is often legitimate.

The upper socio-enconomic classes have more money to educate and entertain themselves. These people thus are introduced to a variety of forms and influences. Sometimes, allowing them to develop a more 'nuanced' taste. This has nothing to do with the person's natural abilities, which are equal across classes. This is all nurture.

The elite, now 'learnt', begin to take interest in different things. Everyone else 'below' this elite socio-economic class begin to follow suite because it is ingrained in us to 'improve' our socio-economic class. It's a bain hardest felt by the middle class.

So why 'dig' inaccessible things? Exclusivity is one yes. But these forms of art may also simply provide enjoyment to people who prefer to invest more into their enjoyment, and choose to do so in that fashion.

Generational Disconnect

[Phoenix666]

Video games aren't kicked around by pols because they're low-brow. If they did that, they'd lose 90% of their constituencies. Video games are kicked around because they're a convenient whipping boy for demagogues who want to appeal to the 'think of the children!' crowd. It's no different than Elvis and Rock 'n' Roll were back in the day--a convenient scapegoat for shysters who want your vote and money.

But Rock 'n' Roll is now considered mainstream because those darn kids grew up. Video games are almost there, given how many adults play them too now. Let's see how long politicians continue to slam video games once 80% of their audience pipes up and says, 'hey! i play video games and they rock and you have your head up your ass.'

A definitive list of (commercial) highbrow games.

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

1. A Mind Forever Voyaging

Admittedly it's not a very long list, but it's accurate, complete, and most importantly of all, non-empty.

Roguelikes and Darwinia

[adam.skinner]

Darwinia is an example of a highbrow game. So are r@guelikes.

Re:Because of the lack of highbrow people

[poot_rootbeer]

Who are all of those people I see lined up at the symphony, bookstores and museums, Mario Mushrooms?

If you live in a place large enough for there to be people lined up at the symphony, bookstores, and museums -- a place large enough to HAVE a symphony or museums -- then you live in a place large enough that even if there's 5,000 people in attendance, that's still only a tiny tiny percentage of the city's entire population.

I would bet that Major League Baseball fills more seats in a single game day than all of the United States' orchestras do in an entire month. "Highbrow" pursuits are, simply put, not very popular compared to other pastimes. Why should video gaming be any different?

I should think the answer is obvious

[hey!]

It's all about market segmentation. The high brow market is not as large as the 15-25 year old males who want to see the movie on opening weekend. So you're upside is limited. On the other hand, it's cheap to produce films for them. Seriously, how much did Vanya on 42nd Street cost to make?

The sweet spot is a high end of the middlebrow segment, that will flock to a movie like Sense and Sensibility to see Ang Lee's take a novel they had to read in college. You don't blow huge amounts of money on post production, don't have any megastars unless they're anti-slumming for some artistic cred, in which case they aren't charging on the same payscale as they do for Titanic.

I'm not sure that there is an analgous way to produce a cheap, high brow game.

Re:Umm No..

[prakslash]

High brow doesnt mean "we are better than you".

Usually high brow means entertainment that requires a little higher intelligence level to enjoy it.

The term "high brow" comes from "high brow or high forehead" which used to be seen as a sign of intelligence.

To use an example from the comedy genre:

"High brow" comedy may involve dialog containing witty puns, word play and/or other clever situations. On the other hand, "Low brow" comedy involves hitting someone in the crotch with a bat.

After seeing someone hit in the crotch with a bat few times, some people tend to get bored and want something more. It is this group that needs the so-called "high brow" entertainment. Doesn't mean that people who can't get enough of bats-to-the-crotch are a lower form of life. As long as they enjoy it and are having fun, that is great. The problem is that the some people do not enjoy it anymore and want more. It does not make them better than anybody else. At the same time, they should not be called snobs either.

What the guy in the article is lamenting about is not that he would like to see high art or some pretentious art. Nor is he implying that he is better than others. It is just that he would like to see something that he can enjoy more. And for that, it has to be more intellectually stimulating for him. Nothing wroong with that.

Problem is what he wants, he labels as "high brow" which to some people means he is being snobbish although that is not what "high brow" means.

Obviously, the author of this article...

[monoqlith]

Has never come home from a long day at work and settled down to a nice game of Shakespeare vs. Dante: An Interactive Post-Modernist Reconstruction of Hendecasyllabic Meter as Practiced Circa 1315

It may remind you of the robust Dance, Dance Revolution, only much less...hmm...how to say this without sounding like a snob....plebian.

Instead of contorting your body on a sweaty mat likely recycled from vagrant filth, you simply recline in your accent chair by the fire, light up a pipe, and compose eloquent verse in sync with the metronome, sprinkling it with chiasmus, litotes, synecdoche, elision and other poetic technique as the television screen instructs.

Sadly, it may no longer be on the market - though you may be able to borrow it from Oxford's archives. You might want to check out the sequel, Joyce's Dubliners: The Re-Imagining of Early 20th Century Literature

  A fetching game indeed, my good man. /takes a puff from his pipe

"High brow," no, culture yes...

[mrraven]

I wish I had mod points to mod you up, but alas I don't. While highbrow may be an elietest and pretentious term it does contain a kernel of truth which is that cultural artifacts should attempt to touch our deepest emotions and have qualities that transcend the time and place where they were written and not just appeal to the puerile base glandular responses of excitement, hate, or lust. For example a novel like Brothers Karamazov by Dostoevsky makes us reflect on deep issues of spirituality, the rights of the basest and most vile people, and what it means to be a decent person in a world of strife and conflict. This IS different than a t.v. program like E or a video game like Grand Theft Auto which mainly appeal to twitch and glandular responses and not only don't involve reflection but actively discourage reflection.

I personally believe some video games do reach the level of art like Myst that was mentioned before, I also think games like Sim City encourage us to think about things from architecture, to the quality of life in a cit,y and if they aren't exactly art at least qualify as a culture product.

I also agree with the parent that you don't have to be of a particular class to enjoy "high brow" art, I make less than the U.S. poverty level and enjoy both Mozart and Tool, and see no inherent contradiction there at all. Perhaps what we need is a less loaded term for art and other culture that engages us at a higher level than the kitschy trash pop that Americans seem to produce to such excess. Not all culture has to be "high brow" there is of course a place for mindless escapist entertainment, but if a society ENTIRELY lacks culture that forces a person to reflect then we are probably in deep trouble at a level that can scarcely be expressed in human language.

To paraphrase Mark Twain

[gtmaneki]

"A classic is something everyone wants to have played, but no one actually wants to play."

-- The other Dr. Phil

Highbrow Games

[leoPetr]

People are mentioning Civilization as an example of a high brow game, but it is mere beer-and-pretzel Gilbert and Sullivan compared to more intellectual games such as Imperialism (1997) -- an abstract game of 19th century strategy -- Europa Universalis II (2001) -- a wonderful game of 15th-19th century history with ~200 active countries and realistic diplomacy -- Crusader Kings (2004) -- a medieval dynasty simulator with inbreeding, inheritance, and assassination on a grand strategic map -- Victoria (2003) -- a seriously hardcore game of economy and realpolitik -- and Hearts of Iron II (2006) -- a WW2 war game of strategic envelopment, pincer movements, and blitzkrieg.

There are many other fine games, but these are the ones I think of when I think of sophisticated gameplay and claim to highbrow status.

Re:The problem is even simpler

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

Oh yeah, very classy.

You really don't get it do you? You think that 'classy' has something to do with quality. You think that by knowing that Shakespeare wrote dick jokes you've somehow burst some kind of bubble and revealed that Shakespeare was as trashy as any other playwright. You are very mistaken. One of the greatest pieces of literature in the English literature, Ulysses by James Joyce, was censored because it contained things like extended sections like someone going for a crap. Despite the obscurity of some of the language, nobody who rates that book highly is confused by what these scenes are about. Nobody who has any sense thinks that because a piece of trashy literature might refer to bodily functions this somehow means it's as good as Ulysses. Same goes whether its a play by Aristophanes, a poem by Chaucer, a painting by Manet or a novel by Thomas Pynchon.

Whether a piece of art is about dicks or courtly love, whether it was produced by starving students or for commercial gain, these things are completely orthogonal to the quality of a work of art. And games aren't crap art because they're made by companies out for profit or because they're about aliens and big cars. They're crap art because...well...they're crap art.

Watchmen

[NickFortune]

When someone, be it random blogger, industry expert or Roger Ebert states that games "are not highbrow" entertainment or "are not art", people bring forward examples of games that reflect other mediums. "This game is art because it has a good story". I don't think this is the right approach.

mmm... interesting.

Anyone remember Watchmen?. Moore and Gibbons' series played a big part in rehabilitating comics from being regarded as a junk medium. The made a point of using every literary device they knew in the series. They wanted a graphic novel that had every hallmark of a "proper" novel. Along with Art Speigleman's Maus and Scott McCloud's Understanding Comics, they changed the way that comics are regarded in the west.

A good story in a game is pointless if it renders the game non-interactive and artificially restricts action from the player.

On the other hand, Watchmen is as fine a superhero story as anyone is ever likely to read. They did it without abandoning the format or the conventions of the genre. So maybe we can find some similar fusion in the gaming world.

Is Tetris less brilliant because it has no message?

Is Gary Larson's The Far Side less than brilliant because it lacks plot development? Of course not. Nevertheless, it's possible to have a comic that works on many more levels than Larson's did - if only because of the restrictions of the one-panel format.

I believe games should be judged on their own merits...

That's fair enough...

... not compared to passive mediums (music, film, paintings whatever) that they at most only superficially resemble.

... but I don't think that is. Of course you can make cross genre comparisons. The "breaking the fourth wall" idea in comics harks back to Bertold Brecht and before that to Shakespere, and probably on back to the chorus in various greek plays. Comics also borrow a lot from cinema (Paul Gulacy springs to mind in particular). In computer games, MORGs like WoW have their roots in face to face roleplay, which hs obvuious referents in drama and equally valid ones in areas like improvisational jazz.

I think, ultimately, a computer game should aim to engage the player on all those levels. Which is to say it should have the involvement of Tetris, the depth of civ, the story of Planescape: Torment, the realism of Far Cry and in the process hit as many literary and dramatic benchmarks as it can.

Not becuase Tetris is a bad game - it isn't. But because we can take the medium so much further.