JCalCGM
07-24-2006, 12:18 AM
FiringSquad chats with Dr. Henry Jenkins, Director of the Comparative Media Studies Program at MIT, about his views on the game industry, his upcoming books and other subjects. You can check out the interview right here (http://www.firingsquad.com/news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=11302). Here is a snip:
FiringSquad: In terms of comparing it to other forms of media and enterainment like movies, TV, theater, music, art and literature do you see video and PC games as still in their embryonic stage?
Dr. Henry Jenkins: Such metaphors always get us into trouble. I am not saying that games have not already shown a track record of aesthetic and cultural accomplishment. Or that the games we play today are somehow primative. Or that the more technologically advanced games are somehow superior to the simpler games of earlier periods. I think it is significant that large number of people are playing so-called "retro" games at Game Tap, say. It suggests that games have already produced "classics" that will withstand the test of time.
But, given all of that, yes, what games are now is a mere suggestion of what games will be in the future. Go back to what I said above about the dramatic changes between Donkey Kong and Super Mario Brothers. And then choose any other five to ten year period in the history of the medium and you will see dramatic progress in our understanding of what this emerging medium can do. We are still exploring the basic properties of games, still mapping the range of potential genres, still imagining new ways of interacting with the medium. Will the introduction of the Wii be as fundamental to this medium -- introducing haptic interfaces at a whole new level -- as the coming of sound was to cinema or the coming of color was to television? Perhaps.
FiringSquad: In terms of comparing it to other forms of media and enterainment like movies, TV, theater, music, art and literature do you see video and PC games as still in their embryonic stage?
Dr. Henry Jenkins: Such metaphors always get us into trouble. I am not saying that games have not already shown a track record of aesthetic and cultural accomplishment. Or that the games we play today are somehow primative. Or that the more technologically advanced games are somehow superior to the simpler games of earlier periods. I think it is significant that large number of people are playing so-called "retro" games at Game Tap, say. It suggests that games have already produced "classics" that will withstand the test of time.
But, given all of that, yes, what games are now is a mere suggestion of what games will be in the future. Go back to what I said above about the dramatic changes between Donkey Kong and Super Mario Brothers. And then choose any other five to ten year period in the history of the medium and you will see dramatic progress in our understanding of what this emerging medium can do. We are still exploring the basic properties of games, still mapping the range of potential genres, still imagining new ways of interacting with the medium. Will the introduction of the Wii be as fundamental to this medium -- introducing haptic interfaces at a whole new level -- as the coming of sound was to cinema or the coming of color was to television? Perhaps.