Regarding the whole “games as art” movement, I’ve noticed that what several of its proponents want is for games as they exist today to be considered as “art” by the mainstream. What this really means is that they want cultural acceptance; they want people to stop seeing their beloved hobby as a waste of time, intended only for children. Because they like games that deal with adult things. Like violence. And naked ladies. And using the eff word in every single sentence. And anyone who doesn’t like that sort of thing is the next Jack Thompson.

The thing is, a few exceptions aside, most games are a pointless waste of time. Particularly the most heavily-marketed ones. I say, if games want cultural acceptance, they have to earn it first. If games want to be seen as “for adults” rather than just “for kids”, then they need to be about things adults actually find interesting and emotionally significant, not about things that make teenagers giggle. If we want to prove that games are a storytelling medium on par with all the others, we’ve got to write more than just space operas. If we want people other than adolescent boys to play games, we’ve got to stop making games that are only for adolescent boys. It really is that simple.

If you want people to stop smirking at your favourite pastime, then show them a good example of a game you’ve played that demonstrates true maturity in its subject matter. It works for me all the time; I’ll describe Third World Farmer or Photopia or Psychonauts, and most of the time, I’ll get a “hey, that’s interesting”. Let the games speak for themselves. And if somehow people aren’t convinced that these games you love have anything deep or meaningful to say about the world, because, you know, they’ve actually read books and stuff, accept that they don’t measure up to their standards. Don’t lament and demand that everyone laud them as the pinnacle of artistic expression, and call people names if they don’t. That’s childish.