What’s In A Name?: A Deconstruction Of Gaming’s Cultural Appeal

Plato’s Republic puts into analogy the human body with his ideal, utopic city-state. The head represents the philosopher-kings, tasked with governance. The chest symbolizes the warriors or the military, specifically for the protection of the Republic. The stomach personifies the merchants who are accountable for the flow of resources into the city.

While there is a blatant display of hierarchy, it does not go to say that one is necessarily more important than the others. For while they may be different in levels, they are the same in their goal, that is to ensure the survival of the Republic. Thus, all component parts, while maintaining their individuality, are expected to work together for that one same goal. Much premium is placed upon this goal to the extent that to attempt to multitask on these roles is to put the goal at high risk of falling into utter chaos. Therefore, it is forbidden.

The underlying principle behind this system is that titles aren’t there just for the convenience of identification. Categories are not there merely to be able to sort out things from each other. Titles and categories exist not just to portray some semblance of order, but more importantly, to define roles and responsibilities. Now, this is, more often than not, usually overlooked. But the thing is, names and roles ALWAYS come in a tight package.

Applying that same principle to our everyday existence, we often find it constricting to confine ourselves merely to just one area. Artists need not be just artists, they can be politicians. Professors need not only be able to teach, they can be athletes. Women need not be mere trophies and housewives for their husbands, they may be high-powered corporate executives.

And gaming need not be only frivolous and trivial, they can actually have a higher sense of aesthetic, even pragmatic, value in our existence. That is the battlecry of columnist Ernest Adams, at least insofar as gaming is concerned.

He posits that in the light of the growing clamor for censorship in video games, it brings to mind the fact that although gaming has already niched itself tightly into popular culture, it still remains to struggle for the respect it deserves as an art form. The most apparent excuse would be that video games or gaming has always been stereotyped into the category of entertainment for kids. And kids are almost always never taken seriously. By this mere affiliation, the gaming industry has been deprived by the highbrow end of society  of the proper value it should have.

Don’t we just hate stereotypes?

The full article awaits after the jump!

Plato’s Republic puts into analogy the human body with his ideal, utopic city-state. The head represents the philosopher-kings, tasked with governance. The chest symbolizes the warriors or the military, specifically for the protection of the Republic. The stomach personifies the merchants who are accountable for the flow of resources into the city.

While there is a blatant display of hierarchy, it does not go to say that one is necessarily more important than the others. For while they may be different in levels, they are the same in their goal, that is to ensure the survival of the Republic. Thus, all component parts, while maintaining their individuality, are expected to work together for that one same goal. Much premium is placed upon this goal to the extent that to attempt to multitask on these roles is to put the goal at high risk of falling into utter chaos. Therefore, it is forbidden.

The underlying principle behind this system is that titles aren’t there just for the convenience of identification. Categories are not there merely to be able to sort out things from each other. Titles and categories exist not just to portray some semblance of order, but more importantly, to define roles and responsibilities. Now, this is, more often than not, usually overlooked. But the thing is, names and roles ALWAYS come in a tight package.

Applying that same principle to our everyday existence, we often find it constricting to confine ourselves merely to just one area. Artists need not be just artists, they can be politicians. Professors need not only be able to teach, they can be athletes. Women need not be mere trophies and housewives for their husbands, they may be high-powered corporate executives.

And gaming need not be only frivolous and trivial, they can actually have a higher sense of aesthetic, even pragmatic, value in our existence. That is the battlecry of columnist Ernest Adams, at least insofar as gaming is concerned.

He posits that in the light of the growing clamor for censorship in video games, it brings to mind the fact that although gaming has already niched itself tightly into popular culture, it still remains to struggle for the respect it deserves as an art form. The most apparent excuse would be that video games or gaming has always been stereotyped into the category of entertainment for kids. And kids are almost always never taken seriously. By this mere affiliation, the gaming industry has been deprived by the highbrow end of society  of the proper value it should have.

Don’t we just hate stereotypes?

His solution therefore is to advocate for the development of a new breed of video games, one that would cater to the taste of the elite. Gaming’s Merchant Ivory, as he succinctly puts it. He goes on to rationalize that the reason why gaming never was able to really get out of the box of just gaming is the fact that it lacks credibility as an industry, as an institution. There isn’t enough “serious stuff” to go around, so to speak.

But, he caveats, it doesn’t mean that the fun factor would have to be sacrificed in order to attain this goal of being palatable to the elites, the intellectuals, the serious people. Of course it would still be fun! Although, the definition of fun would then be relative according to who is playing it. (But isn’t that how it actually is?)

Essentially, what he wants to happen is to “uplift” the quality of the games being produced by taking risks and exploring into “interesting and unusual themes”, ie. a game on city planning as exhibited by Civilization IV. In short, routing away from the usual frenzied gun-blasting, territory-invading, alien-killing games that are so in demand today, and branching out to a more “sophisticated” audience would grant the gaming industry the credit it inherently deserves.

Or would it?

The important question to address here is this: is it really necessary to conform to what high culture dictates as acceptable and proper in order to legitimize an industry as specialized as gaming?

I, personally, would have to disagree.

Like Plato’s concept of utopia in the Republic, there is a reason why gaming is alive and kicking today. And that is precisely because its role is to provide for an alternative to all those Merchant Ivory kind of entertainment. Because we have to face it, we cannot really count on high culture to keep us sane. There is, after all, a limited level of tolerance in people for serious stuff. Yes, they do enrich our minds, but at the same time, if bombarded with it by exceeding amounts, it will drown us, or worse, drive us to insanity.

The appeal, therefore, of gaming is precisely that it is a game. A respite from the already uptight world we are living in. In this realm, you can plot and expand your territory accordingly as you please, kill those who’d get in your way, and not be prosecuted for it. You can drive your expensive sports car at a frightening speed of 180kph on the freeway (and with heavy traffic, at that!), make it jump over the bridge and explode on the street below without having to lose your life. And you can even reset it! You can hunt for and horde treasures all you want, with absolutely no threat at all of being indicted for stealing and tax evasion.

It is a fantasy land made virtual and real. That is why fans can’t get enough of it. That is why it is so tempting and palatable. That is why it is so welcomed and embraced, despite of its mundane image. Don’t get me wrong. I am not at all saying gaming’s role is to breed asanine ideas and stupidity. No, not at all.

On the contrary, its role is to preserve and promote that balance between rigidity and versatility, sanity and insanity, fantasy and reality. Gaming is the yang to the Merchant Ivory’s yin. The Dionysian element in an Apollonian  setting, thus creating the perfect setting for a perfect drama.

And like in Plato’s Republic, trying to mess with this order would most probably result in more harm than good. In every corner, there is already something or someone telling us what are the proper and acceptable things to do. Video games are but one of the last remaining oasis of unburdensome entertainment. Why taint it with the serious and highly-intellectual stuff that we are precisely taking a break from?

It would be trespassing, plain and simple.

At the end of day, we just have to realize the integral role that these fantasy and unorthodox games are providing us mere mortals. But that is not without warning that anything in excess would prove detrimental, regardless of how value-neutral it may inherently be.

The gaming Merchant Ivory proposition is noble. But really, we don’t have to bite more of what we should actually chew.