Legitimacy for Games

Take a look at this Washington Post editorial called "The Rise of Gaming." It uses Nintendo's weekend release of Wii, its newest video game system, to tentatively ask whether video gaming is, in fact, a legitimate form of entertainment-- not just one for geeky teenage boys.

The editorial says that 'social observers' (who are these mysterious observers? paid stalkers?) "are beginning to deem video game design an emerging art form, especially as companies ratchet up production values. Games now come in a range of genres -- from World War II simulators to strategy games to brain exercises. Creating one is almost like producing a film." It's true that as production values improve and there are more different kinds of games produced, games will probably gain even more legitimacy in the cultural world. The Post is almost endearingly hopeful that the present generation of gamers "will eventually demand more than just shoot'em-ups on its Wiis," and I do think that it has the right instinct. The Post just probably doesn't know that things like Facade and other interactives, which make an entirely different use of games and play than shoot'em-ups do, already exist.

p.s. I think the Post's decision to call them 'social observers' maybe reveals a residual hesitancy over whether those who review and play video games can be taken seriously enough to be called 'critics' or, heaven forbid, 'theorists.'