- Joined
- Dec 1, 2024
- Messages
- 642
- Level up in
- 357 posts
- Reaction score
- 1,299
- Points
- 2,477
I just wanted to point out that you are actually gatekeeping here, and this is the negative kind.I don't even want to talk about people who 'got into gaming' to pervert it and have it serve their political causes. They were never gamers to begin with.
All in all, I don't like the idea of gatekeeping the hobby.
There is nothing wrong with art getting political. George Orwell, Kurt Vonnegut, and Toni Morrison made art with politics in it, and they're considered to be some of the greatest writers in the history of the English language. The entire genre of cyberpunk, regardless of if it's in book, film, or game form, is political. Dystopian sci-fi is usually political (and tends to be kind of garbage when it isn't). Even superhero comics get political often; how do you write X-Men without politics? (Yes, I know about the pre-Claremont era, and nobody bought it then because X-Men sucked without politics. Even the non-political entries in the X-Men movie series usually suck.)
Granted, political art can suck. People who start at political grandstanding, don't even try to make good art because they never even studied art before making it, and just throw out a diatribe that they think will sell on nothing but the fact that it has their political ideology's brand on it, are just trash makers. But people who actually try to make art by learning how to do it first, working on an actual art project, and then add politics to it, are not necessarily making trash. (And note I'm not even saying they have to start off making non-political art before the political stuff; Orwell wasn't a fiction writer before he wrote his political novels.) There's a difference between political art and propaganda, and the former shouldn't be instantly discounted just because the latter exists.
So that takes us to "they were never gamers to begin with." This is toxic gatekeeping. You don't know the life stories of every single artist who has done work in the genre. You are just making a blanket statement about them just because you don't like a particular aspect of high art. (And yes, having political meaning actually is something that can separate high art from low art.) Chances are, they got into gaming because they were already into it. And they, like artists from other genres before them, decided to do something deeper than "save princess, get kiss." That's not a bad thing; the genre is never going to progress if we can't have anything new and thought-provoking done with it. There's no need for gaming to stay as low art just because some people don't like what can potentially be done with high art.
Post automatically merged:
Just to add a few things that came to mind: George Orwell was not a novelist, but a journalist who just happened to have a few really good metaphors for the things he wrote about. David Lynch was not a film maker, but a painter who realized his paintings would look better with motion and a theater sized canvas. Shigeru Miyamoto was a cup-and-ball style novelty toy designer who just thought "what if Popeye, but ape?" You don't have to begin with an art genre to succeed in it.
Last edited: