Shadows on the Screen: What does it take to be culturally relevant?

I write about all sorts of Ivory Tower topics. Games as art, protected expression, or taboo breakers. It is particularly interesting (and debilitating) to me when one of these issues holds practical value. So, let’s ask: are all games culturally relevant?

I know, that hardly seems less philosophical (or at least sociological) than my normal fare. But while counting how many 8-bit angels fit on the head of a pin (that’s a philosophy joke, for the uninitiated) has no real life value, the cultural relevance of games has not only socially mandated worth, but a hard currency value as solid as gold. That is to say: if a game is culturally relevant, its development can be (at least in part) publicly financed. At least in some places. As you can guess, every project manager and comptroller in every dev studio from here to Timbuktu wants some of those greenbacks. It should be no surprise that the man I’ve elected voice-of-the-industry (for my convenience) Guillaume de Fondaumiere thinks that all games are culturally valuable. The Quantic Dream executive and head of the European Game Developers Federation responded to strict “cultural relevancy” requirements by saying:

The cultural test is a problem… When you look at [European Union] rules, you have to ask: ‘Actually, what is culture?’ It’s a national decision, so it’s kind of weird that we, as the videogame industry, have to work with standards that other cultural areas don’t have to follow.

To me, all games are cultural. Videogames aren’t just a form of entertainment, but a true form of cultural expression, and I think that in twenty years’ time this will be a given. No one will dispute that any more…

We know that tax breaks are extremely effective in stimulating an industry, and I think again that Montreal and Quebec have shown us the way…

So I think it’s high time for governments, and the EU, to understand that money given in the form of tax breaks to the industry is not money thrown away. It’s an investment with a very high return, so it’s time that we had those breaks.

(Text from GamesIndustry.biz, via GamePolitics)

De Fondaumiere makes more than one argument here, but the one I’m concerned with is the one that slaps anyone with humility across the face. “All games are cultural.” Of course they are cultural, but that isn’t what the EU demands.  To be fair, let’s start by giving him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he misunderstood the requirements, or meant to phrase this differently. While they are all certainly “culture,” all cultural artifacts are not culturally relevant. That second word, “relevant,” has meaning that de Fondamiere is either selectively ignoring or honestly (and regrettably) failing to comprehend.

But I’m a good sport. What if I say that he’s right. That, yes, in so far as they exist in and as culture, they are loosely culturally relevant. Well, if there was an unlimited amount of money set aside to allot to culturally relevant games then De Fondaumiere would have a real point. But money is a limited resource, and these governments need to determine where to put their money. When the European Union makes the decision that there will be financial incentives for “culturally relevant” games (or films, or songs) they mean something. They mean that they will give money for the development of games that are relevant enough.

And yes, it is hard to define exactly what meets those standards for relevancy, but to not try and answer it at all is the response of the coward and the lazy. There is precedent here. Much like questions of “What is art” or “What is literature?” we can start by creating some bookends (Shakespeare is literature, my VCR manual isn’t, or at least when I say “literature” the majority of people will not think I’m talking about the latter.) So where do we make the sharp cut?

Well, the far “obviously relevant” end is easy to give examples for. Two titles that would easily fall into the realm of American cultural relevance are Aspyr Media’s BCFx, a game centered around the culture and history of African American universities and their football teams, and a proposed title aimed at exploring the underground railroad. On a more global level, titles like The Sims 3 (with its ability to create such a variety of user experiences from comedic sadism to a compelling look at extreme poverty) would make my list. Even though they don’t specifically target or embody one’s national culture, they speak toward the global human condition.

That was the easy part, though. No one says Shakespeare isn’t literature unless they’re contentious or high (like that girl in class that one time. What a jerk.) But plenty of people want exceptions on the “Not” side of this list. And if I have to be, I’ll be the guy who says “No. Halo 3, Gears of War 2, Final Fantasy XIII, and Devil May Cry 4 don’t get dispensation from the tax paying public.” I wouldn’t give Michael Bay money for the next Transformers sequel, either. Valuable or not, art or not, these titles aren’t culutrally relevent enough to qualify.

There is a tough gray area that is left behind whenever you try to define something through example instead of denotation. What about Fallout 3, which sets out to create an Americana-gone-radioactive future filled with questions about sociology, religion, and egalitarianism. Or Mirrors Edge, a title that slide-tackles an authoritarian dystopia with every element, even its minimalist art design. Is Flow a game about consumption, or science, or both, and should it be funded? The system is set up to handle the approval on a case-by-case basis, and I believe that titles like these each deserve a complete examination.  Decisions could be made about a game in whole, not just in part (Yes, Prototype gives a very interesting look at a city in hysteria over a bio-terrorism attack, but that one element doesn’t make the title relevant enough for funding.)

I know I speak in absolutes. I do so to be authoritative, so that you’ll keep reading me. But this isn’t a simple problem. There are some issues with the way things are now.

Why make the cut at all? Why not give all game studios a tax rebate or other financial compensation? Like de Fondaumiere asks: why not follow Canada’s example and give hundreds of millions away to studios just for their ability to create jobs and support a local economy. Is it the government’s position to decide how much and what kind of meaning a cultural artifact has, even if it is certainly their position to decide who to give tax breaks to? What if my appreciation for our democracy was changed when I saw the governments in control of Mass Effect‘s Citadel Station. How can a governing body make these sorts of judgments at all while a game is still in production? Ken Levine famously developed the central setting and story of BioShock in the last segment of that game’s production. Should this sort of incentive be offered as a reward to games that (when completed) meet a certain level of relevancy?

Even if I sounded cut and dry above, I know that “cultural relevance” issue isn’t so clean. Games, like music, film and comics, are a tricky medium. They do more than just tell stories, they utilize a number of mediums to create a whole.

For weeks (including above) I’ve been building a straw man: Games aren’t impressive even if they are art because their fiction is less personally affecting. I’ve been purposefully ignoring the mis-en-scene of a game, which may mean more for our hobby of choice than it does even for film. There are games without any narrative that are a blast to play, or that make me react emotionally and intellectually. Not all exceptional songs have lyrics comparable to the poetry of Thom Yorke, and not all films create worlds as alive and narratives as complex as those of the Cohen brothers. Pet Sounds is filled with pop soundscapes with basic words about young love. Tarkovsky’s Solaris tells a very simple story, but the director’s ability to create mood is paralleled only by the other so-called auteur film makers. I hate reviews that are broken down into “Controls,” “Sound,” ‘Graphics,” “Online,” “Fun factor,” etc. They illustrate this point beautifully. Even though you can break a game down into these categories, it’s not so easy to dissect a title’s value, economic, cultural, or otherwise.

So, if it seems like I’ve spent 1400 words setting up a stalemate, it’s because I did. This issue isn’t dead, and will be the topic of the next Digital Discourse (One Last Continue’s premiere podcast.) I hope some of the other writers will chime in with editorials of their own, and look forward to hear the arguments of my podcast guests. Stay tuned, it should be entertaining.