I’ve seen the argument online, I’ve had it in person, and it repeats in my dreams: the term videogames (or video games, whatever) needs to be replaced. Games are supposed to be fun, but the interactive computer-assisted medium can’t be an art form if it HAS to be fun. Last autumn I saw an original Kiki Smith piece, and I didn’t have fun. Once I read King Lear. It wasn’t fun (despite what the mainstream media says, I, the video game player, did not derive pleasure from such things as an old man having his eyes gouged out), but I liked it. Watching Loves of a Blonde wasn’t fun, either. But it was worth it.
I had a conversation with Matthew Gallant recently about the term “video games” and how it’s useless and paints the entire medium into a corner. I mean, clearly the video part needs to go. There are entirely auditory games. I heard about an XNA one recently where you have to sue your speakers to evade a monster of some sort. He brought up “interactive art” or “interactive entertainment” but who’d say something like that? I think at a certain point we decided that, since it’s software, and it’s art, why not software art?
The thing about software art is that it works insofar that you might refer to filmmaking as “the cinematic art.” Or, you know, when you’re in school and you have to study “language arts.” That’s not what we need, though. We need a good, solid noun.
So, I decided to do a little research: where did other media get their everyday names from?
BOOK: From Old English bōc { Proto-Germanic *boks, probably related to *bōk- (“beech”) (perhaps originally used to make writing-tablets). Cognate with Dutch boek, German Buch, Swedish bok. Compare beech. — Wiktionary
Right, so the book is probably named after that which they were originally put on. That makes sense, right?
MUSIC: Now, hold up a minute. Music isn’t the product that you have. You have singles, or albums, or MP3s or whatever, right? Let’s look at album, here. From Latin album (“blank white writing tablet”) { albus (“white”). That’s Wiktionary again. So, it seems like the musical album was informed by the more traditional book-like album, which is a word for what it’s on. Again. I am seeing a trend here.
FILM: A film is on film. I never call it a movie anyway. It sounds like a kid’s word. Besides, film supports my argument.
Books, albums, and film are references to what they’re on. What’s a “videogame” or “video game” or “piece of interactive entertainment/art” or “software art” on? Well, probably a number of things, potentially. A punchcard. A USB key. A GD-ROM. A hard drive. A website.
Thing is, it’s always on memory.
So what if we called them “mems?” It’s short, catchy, doesn’t pigeonhole itself by explaining only one facet of itself, and refers to the one thing it needs to exist: the memory upon which it is imprinted.
Don’t get me wrong: I don’t think this is going to happen. I just needed to put a cease fire on the war going on between my blog and the massive writer’s block in my head. I banged this out in… well, by the time I finish this paragraph, 20 minutes. I needed to make sure my blog still works. Or I can still press buttons on a keyboard. Or something.
So, yeah. MEMS. It’s the new slang. Someone tell Michael Abbott, Ian Bogost, N’Gai Croal, and Geoff Keighley to start saying it– they’ve got the blog, academic, enthusiast media and mainstream media pretty much locked down. Those four are like the Voltron of changing our lexicon. I implore you, gents: MEMS.
Friday, 24. April 2009
Of course memory == binary, so that’s another direction you could take.
Friday, 24. April 2009
There is history here; see Chiptunes, 8-bit, 16-bit.
Naming it after the memory makes it feel static, like data. Naming it after the processor makes it dynamic, which is what games are typically all about.
Compare also to processes, executables, etc.
Friday, 24. April 2009
also note:
video games are about graphics
computer games are about numbers
most players don’t care about the other stuff :P
Friday, 24. April 2009
And then there’s ‘movies’, or ‘moving pictures’.
I think ‘videogames’ is fine. It’s inextricable. All it takes is exposure for people to respect the medium.
But I still like what you’ve attempted here.
Saturday, 25. April 2009
in the middle days of Infocom, they decided that the moniker “interactive fiction” was too clunky to go on, and announced a contest to have it renamed.
The contest ended without a winner, nobody was able to come up with anything decent.
Saturday, 25. April 2009
The problem goes beyond nomenclature. The medium of which we speak is largely composed of, yes, games. It is to games that we look when we want to make some kind of critical artistic analysis.
Can a game be art? Is chess an art? What about Puerto Rico? Is good game design an art form - establishing balanced choices and keeping players entertained and stimulated throughout? What about playing a game - is there art in being a mindboggling Street Fighter expert? Does that mean polevaulters and gymnasts are artists too?
There is a philosophical distinction between “design” and “art,” one that only became pronounced after classical times. Building a beautiful chair that is like a minimalistic sculpture is surely art, but building a GOOD chair became delineated from that. Some would suggest that the gap between them is narrowing again.
Beyond that, should “video games” remain in the arena of gaming, or should there be attempts to move beyond entertainment to a more artistic realm? As you say, most art is not “fun” in the same sense of the rest of its medium. I have fun reading a good entertaining story, but when I read Joyce or Faulkner it’s not “fun.” It’s satisfying, it’s engaging, it’s fulfilling, it’s mind-broadening, but not fun.
But how else can people be motivated to engage in something so interactive? How else can their interest be gained, especially in terms of a medium so deeply embedded in our minds as a game? The video game is so closely tied to the engine of industry, and so young, that I don’t foresee it breaking away from being fun - usually mindless, shallow fun - for profit. Of course, film and books and music are massively profit-based as well. There exists still a strong current of “art” film and “literature,” at least, which is driven by artistic needs and desires rather than entertainment = money.
I really don’t foresee the imminent success of a game that isn’t “fun” to play, but on the other hand we are seeing some now - the one where you play a grandmother walking through a cemetery, and all you do is walk and wait to potentially die, for example. Probably not “successful” but it has been published and received news stories from various major websites.
Saturday, 25. April 2009
Another way to look at this:
That games are associated with fun is more a commercial/entertainment thing, no? It’s not something that is inherent to the medium.
Games of poker, chess, football, war, the heart…. with money, pride, life or love on the line, all games contain anticipation, drama, conflict, hope, tragedy, catharsis. There’s always a context, a history; there are colorful characters, their developments and revelations. To win or lose is simple and pure; but it provides a reason, and a meaning to everything that surrounds it.
Games aren’t supposed to be fun because they are fun, but because that’s what can sell to people who just want to have… fun! Trying to distance oneself from games not because of what they are but how they’re sold is kind of meh.
But yeah, we could probably do with removing the ‘video’ qualifier at the front.
Sunday, 26. April 2009
Why is a sale the endgame, though? People are making games for free simply because they find the interactive medium more powerful for the type of expression they’re going for. And people are playing them because they crave that. People aren’t prepared to pay for it yet but perhaps someday they might be. The point is, though, that whether or not it’s saleable is beside the point; the sheer fact that a program can be _made_ and people might _use_ it is reason enough to have a proper bit of terminology.
Sunday, 26. April 2009
‘Game’ is the perfect word though. My argument is that the only reason it seems like an improper term is because the markets, media and even academia, have co-opted the term to suite their needs. To rebel against the word ‘game’ because of how they use it, is to implicitly buy into their worldview.
I sincerely like how you say “Why is a sale the endgame”, because it reminds that this is also a game that we are playing. The rules and goals are fuzzy, it is not necessarily fun, but it is a game, and I find it fascinating as a game.
To allow them to keep the word ‘game’ for their own uses is to lose, and I believe that we should play to win.
Sunday, 26. April 2009
I think that “video game” (or videogame if, like me, you prefer) comes close to describing what they’re usually “put on”, since they’re usually on some sort of video screen.
I also think that the conventions around memory say that something is stored “in memory” rather than on memory derails your argument a bit.
What’s wrong with ‘Computer Games’? That *is* what they are played/put on, after all - some kind of computer. In fact, ‘computer games’ used to be my defacto term for video games before I picked up that convention.
Monday, 4. May 2009
There’s the constantly ongoing bitchfight between consoleros and PCgamers wether you’re talking computer- OR videogames, since one term supposedly doesn’t fit the other’s contents.
Going in the “Movie” direction, the term “Interactive” could be coined there, since that IS the common element of these.
“Yesterday I watched a movie and played some online interactives.”
Yeah still sounds a bit like a 70s sci-fi version of today.
Wednesday, 29. July 2009
How about digital games?