Future Cinema

Course Site for Future Cinema 1 (and sometimes Future Cinema 2: Applied Theory) at York University, Canada

Separating wheat from the chaff

Anthropy’s dream of an egalitarian model of video game production—one where anyone who wants to make video games has access to the tools to do so—promises a glut of games, good and bad, from countless new voices. As she acknowledges, though, most of these games will be “mediocre,” citing YouTube as a similar democratizing resource that made it possible for anyone to make “content” (ugh), even though most of them are “boring, familiar, or unwatchable” (11).

In this model of video gaming scene, is there no role whatsoever for “gatekeepers” of any kind? Who determines the “value” of the games—or identifies and articulates the value different games may have for different players? (This is presuming, of course, that reaching more than a handful of players is the developer’s goal.) Since publishers and developers have too much of a vested interest in making sure certain titles earn back their investment, does an equal-opportunity video game industry as envisioned by Anthropy still require a critical body to ensure worthwhile games find players? Is the existing network of online sites, blogs, and critics sufficient?

Fri, October 20 2017 » Future Cinema, games