The point you’re missing is that games are a whole new animal: interactive visual/audio storytelling adventures. They don’t need to be some kind of sophisticated, subjectively and philosophically evocative piece of art or literature. They’re videogames. They tell their own stories, and people react to the stories as they play, even become attached to the characters, the stories, or the world for whatever appeal they may hold to the player. Others don’t, and simply want a fun interactive experience, i.e. they don’t give a shit about cutscenes, story, or even the character. And yes, many games may have an absent or sub-par story, but not all, and people may still care about them on a heartfelt level. People hated Sonic Unleashed, but I liked it, and I enjoyed its story because it was pleasant and entertaining. Bam.

You know how people don’t like a certain painting (or book or movie) while others think its a fascinating expression of human emotion? Guess what: the same happens with videogames, and now is the time where a trend of cynicism has manifested itself in [internet] society, where the hardcore gamers will argue back and forth on the quality of certain games, or lack thereof. What happened to enjoying them? When did we start caring about “games as art forms”? Wasn’t that implicit when you started liking the characters and the worlds enough as they evolved in their respective storylines and franchises? So now we’re trying to justify and evaluate the quality of videogames based on other already accepted forms of entertainment, art or not. Before ‘art’ can be ‘art’, they need to grab your attention, and if no one cares to look at it, then it fails to be anything.

Games are like art. They’re up to the eye of the beholder, for the most part, but they ought to be fun to play. The experience of fun is a little more universal than artistic taste, although both can complement each other.

You know what? Fuck art: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TrueArt

Values determine what we attempt to preserve. If a society in general values a unit of culture then it will naturally be preserved through reproduction, either physically, electronically, orally, whatever.

Ability is the crux of the matter. If a society desires the unit of culture yet doesn’t have the ability to reproduce it sufficiently then it will fall into history. This is often the case involving things with proprietary formats and things which are not readily reproduced.

For example, right now science is generating a huge amount of data, data which is very useful and really ought to be preserved. However, the amount of data is astoundingly large; in the range of thousands of terabytes. This means the data will not be preserved just because we don’t have the ability.

Another example is Literature. Particular instances will never survive forever just because of the nature of materials. Eventually things will disintegrate. The same goes for ideas, eventually they will become irrelevant and left behind. Literature will also change over time as languages evolve; the finer points of connotation being lost little by little.

As well, as paper becomes more scarce a commodity there will be choices made as to which pieces of literature are reproduced. Those other pieces will dissolve into history.

So, while your argument is interesting, I don’t think it gets to the heart of the matter in that values and ability truly determine what will and will not be preserved, and that ultimately, everything we know and love and value now, will eventually turn to dust as the world around us changes.

And the reason that movies have become timeless much easier than video games is not so much the visual advancements, but instead it is the human attachment to story. Movies have a strong advantage in the form of human characters. Watching Luke Skywalker find out that Darth Vader is his father or seeing Michael Corleone transform into a man before our eyes is more effective when we watch it happen to a real person and not a computerized avatar. In time, as video games begin to cross the uncanny valley and developers begin to weave intricate stories that match those of the literary and film classics, we will see video games compared to these other forms of media in terms of their lasting impact on society.

I must apologise, though, because my thinking has led me to disagree with you.

Gaming’s own “art” is buried in its agency; it’s the unique ability to influence that makes it stand out on its own. What makes a true enduring classic is something close to the perfection of agency.

Tetris is one example of a timeless game; I, and the world, replay it constantly. And not in remakes, to truly see how addictive Tetris is you should play it on the Gameboy — the greatest incarnation of the series.

Someone on Digg’s mentioned Super Mario Bros. Mario has always had near-perfect controls. It doesn’t matter that the graphics age, or the sound ages, because what matters is that the graphics, sounds, and whatever works — letting the gameplay work. I can still play Super Mario Bros relentlessly today (which can be said for most of the core Mario series).

I’m writing an essay here, and could go on longer, but i’ll cut myself off to a paragraph or two more.

There’s also timeless film that hasn’t been remade, but instead re-released onto the new formats such as DVD. Why? Because people will always want to see them.

So that’s my thoughts, and, admittedlly, I know i’m making a general sweep (some games have merit outside control) but I need to so I don’t spam up your column with a huge comment. If you’re making people think with your writing then you’re doing pretty well; I’d like to see more of this.

One word: Pong