The Case Against Media Convergence In Games

A few weeks ago, Leigh Alexander made the case for media convergence in the gaming industry — now she's back making the case against. With the talk of user-driven worlds, personalized content, more media cross—overs than you can shake a stick at (because 95% of games-cum-movies or movies-cum-games are oh—so—successful, yes?), there is a downside — and is this what we really want?

Wait, wait -- letting users take the helm of stories is good, right? Letting them contribute content, take ownership of it, guide the direction of a game world's evolution? You want to have that kind of input and control, don't you? Maybe you do, but think of this -- to have that, you'd have to give the same right to every idiot, unimaginative automaton, disruptive teenage jerk and mouth-breathing drag you've ever played a video game to get away from. As I pointed out in the case in favor, games have always been a closed world. And that's how gamers wanted it.

The cases for and aganst will be worked out eventually, and media convergence isn't ever going to go away — just maybe people should be careful what they wish for.

The Case Against Entertainment Media Convergence [GameSetWatch]


Comments

    I agree with this side of the argument, I play games to enjoy an epic story line, save the galaxy/world, get the girl etc. Sandbox games to me seem so damn meandering, and just let people be arsehats in general.

Join the discussion!