Legitimacy and the Citizen Kane of Gaming

I told myself that I was not going to write about this topic, but here we are. Back to video games.

In the last month or so, there has been some debate about whether or not we have seen the Citizen Kane of gaming. Both Bioshock Infinite (snort) and The Last of Us have been mentioned as recent contenders to this title. There are others. Many, many others.

In the name of Kane, in the name of Kane...

The idea is that a game will come along one day (or has come along already) that will redefine games the way that Citizen Kane was supposed to have redefined and legitimised cinema as an art form -- one that could stand up to its more recognised peers. Now, others have (rightly) argued that comparing a games to films is a mistake that does a disservice to the medium. There is a common idea that we need that one true gaming masterpiece, not just to be the medium's centrepiece, but to legitimise gaming as a whole. Comparisons between apples and oranges aside, that's a lot of work for one game to do.

The use of Citizen Kane as a go-to point for the legitimacy of gaming as an art form is interesting. A bit of history: while the film was critically praised, it was not necessarily popularly recognised as the immortal, genre-defining work that we know it as today. Not until it was brought to France a few years after its release receiving praise there by several famous figures, including Jean-Paul Sartre, and held up as an example by influential critics such as André Bazin, whose works are used to train cinematographers even today.

So, was the influence of Citizen Kane on cinema simply a result of its existence, or a result of its legitimisation? It may very well have been both, as a work of quality was probably necessary to elicit this kind of response, but without it, would Citizen Kane still be considered the best film ever made? The general acceptance or praise of a work as something to aspire to is not only the result of its quality -- the context in which it is received has to be ready to accept its influence, and needs to be prepared to praise it. The right people may be needed to draw the 'right' (influential, literate) public's attention to it. There is a lot of art that really is before its time, and when society is ready to accept it, influential voices sometimes return to the work of a struggling, unrecognised artist and then give it the praise it deserves. Or it is simply lost forever.

You may be wondering why I went off on that tangent to explain what made Citizen Kane 'great', when my point was supposed to be about games. What I wanted to highlight is that being good does not make something  genre-defining, influential or even commonly known. I don't really believe in universal masterpieces anyway*. Legitimacy comes from outside of the ordinary masses who consume the art. It also doesn't just come from art critics' and famous philosophers' endorsements. What art mostly needs in order to gain legitimacy is time, a social environment that will accept it (which may come with the passing of time), and a whole lot of luck. And we already have a certain social environment that accepts games. Should we then still try to court those in the ivory tower? Should we just wait? I don't know. We should just try to make the best games we can, and support what we like.

I can say honestly that good games alone will probably not give wider legitimacy to games as an art form (if that is what you are really after). And that being said, seeking legitimacy for the games that we play will not make us make or play better games. Innovation, if not legitimacy, comes from within, and not from seeking approval from those whose opinions are confined by what already exists. We don't need a feature on Minecraft in Time Magazine to legitimise gaming among ourselves. We don't need to scramble for the attention and affection of people who do not like what we like, because that way, we give the power to decide what is good to them. Games sell, people like them, people are trying new things (they are), and people who quietly appreciate and have appreciated games before are becoming more and more visible.

I'm also not trying to argue the part of the misunderstood genius here, sulking because The Man doesn't get the art I like. Then again, maybe I'm wrong, and games are now in the process of being legitimised. I'm also not going to get in the way of anyone discussing and appreciating something that they consider to be genius. I love that sort of thing. These kinds of broad, sensational statements just need a little questioning, that's all.

*Full disclosure: I still really, really like Citizen Kane. But maybe you don't.