Videogame Museum opens in NY

[The 1 2 P]

It sounds cool. New York isn't too far away but I don't travel up there often. Still, it's nice to see our industry continue to take strides forward to gain greater recognition as a superior medium. Superior to what? I don't know, pogs? But it's still nice that we are getting this.

[VG_Maniac]

Gives me yet another reason to go back to NY. I will definitely check it out the next time I'm there.

[Sniderman]

Really? An industry that, since it's "golden era", has typically earned more than the music and movie industry *combined*? An industry that has spun off songs, TV shows, movies, dozens of magazines, hundreds of websites, articles out the wazoo...

Limited... how?

[TonyTheTiger]

And then there's the third possibility: It's retarded to argue that video games don't deserve their own museum when movies and all sorts of other light entertainments have their own.

If games museums don't get started now, future collections will just be tons of busted up crap anyhow.

Did I say that preservation was a bad thing? Did I say that exhibits were a bad thing? I said the word "museum" is strange. Straw man arguments are far more retarded, you know. So I'm going to assert what I said earlier. You're missing my point.

Really? An industry that, since it's "golden era", has typically earned more than the music and movie industry *combined*? An industry that has spun off songs, TV shows, movies, dozens of magazines, hundreds of websites, articles out the wazoo...

Limited... how?

Financial success and contemporary proliferation don't necessarily equate to a social impact. It might be some evidence but it's not outcome determinative. Ed Oscuro does have a point there. In my own defense, however, I originally said "historical significance" not the broader "social impact" that we're currently talking about. I think it's much easier to argue that video games haven't had much "historical significance" than it is to argue that they haven't had much of a "social impact." I could try to argue that "social impact" today develops into "historical significance" tomorrow but I'm not prepared to do that now because I honestly don't know if I can defend that assertion.

But if we are going to follow the "social impact" route then, once more, I'm using "social impact" in the broad sense. If Mario and Sonic showing up in an episode of The Simpsons and having their own Happy Meal toys is what you mean by "social impact" then, yes, games have had substantial influence and that shouldn't be belittled. In the microcosm of the world of modern entertainment video games are damn near at the top of the mountain. But that's not what I mean here. I'm talking social impact in the sense that life today would be fundamentally different had they not existed at all. Ed will correct me if I'm wrong but I think that's what he was saying.

In that sense, they are limited. They're as limited as, like I said, film and board games are. We can say film as a medium (not necessarily just movies) and the concept of games themselves (including board games, sports, video games, etc.) have a profound effect on society. That much is certain. What we can't say with nearly as much certainty are that the particular film Casablanca or the particular game of Chess had some kind of effect. If neither of those things existed, the world would probably not look very differently. If film and games didn't exist as a collective, however, the world would be different.

It's different than something like World War II. We can say without question that the single instance of war in this case had a profound impact on society.

Let's look at Nintendo. If Nintendo never existed, the gaming landscape would certainly be markedly different. But I can't say with much confidence that this change to the world of video games would have led to a domino effect altering other facets of life. Even if video games never revived after 1983, I'm not sure the alternate planet Earth would be much different. Our individual lives might be different but the landscape of our culture probably wouldn't.

But, again, remember that this "social impact" thing is sort of a sidetrack. It's completely removed from the idea of the "game museum" entirely and a completely different argument than what I originally planned. In fact, I didn't plan an argument at all. I just said that the word "museum" puts a different image in my head than a venue for something as contemporary as video games. But I suppose I should have expected to be the enemy for saying that here.

[mnbren05]

I say more power to the museum, sounds like a excellent idea. Why not start preserving items, games, etc for future generations? Regardless of personal take on the subject it is nice to know someone is undertaking the job.

[TonyTheTiger]

Why not start preserving items, games, etc for future generations?

I agree. But apparently my very limited criticism was interpreted as an attack on the very idea of preservation.

[lkermel]

I heard that Stanford University, in California, had started to archive video games... would someone know anything about this ? I live in the bay area and was thinking to contact them if they do... may turn my collection into something more than attic material

[Bojay1997]

Did I say that preservation was a bad thing? Did I say that exhibits were a bad thing? I said the word "museum" is strange. Straw man arguments are far more retarded, you know. So I'm going to assert what I said earlier. You're missing my point.



Financial success and contemporary proliferation don't necessarily equate to a social impact. It might be some evidence but it's not outcome determinative. Ed Oscuro does have a point there. In my own defense, however, I originally said "historical significance" not the broader "social impact" that we're currently talking about. I think it's much easier to argue that video games haven't had much "historical significance" than it is to argue that they haven't had much of a "social impact." I could try to argue that "social impact" today develops into "historical significance" tomorrow but I'm not prepared to do that now because I honestly don't know if I can defend that assertion.

But if we are going to follow the "social impact" route then, once more, I'm using "social impact" in the broad sense. If Mario and Sonic showing up in an episode of The Simpsons and having their own Happy Meal toys is what you mean by "social impact" then, yes, games have had substantial influence and that shouldn't be belittled. In the microcosm of the world of modern entertainment video games are damn near at the top of the mountain. But that's not what I mean here. I'm talking social impact in the sense that life today would be fundamentally different had they not existed at all. Ed will correct me if I'm wrong but I think that's what he was saying.

In that sense, they are limited. They're as limited as, like I said, film and board games are. We can say film as a medium (not necessarily just movies) and the concept of games themselves (including board games, sports, video games, etc.) have a profound effect on society. That much is certain. What we can't say with nearly as much certainty are that the particular film Casablanca or the particular game of Chess had some kind of effect. If neither of those things existed, the world would probably not look very differently. If film and games didn't exist as a collective, however, the world would be different.

It's different than something like World War II. We can say without question that the single instance of war in this case had a profound impact on society.

Let's look at Nintendo. If Nintendo never existed, the gaming landscape would certainly be markedly different. But I can't say with much confidence that this change to the world of video games would have led to a domino effect altering other facets of life. Even if video games never revived after 1983, I'm not sure the alternate planet Earth would be much different. Our individual lives might be different but the landscape of our culture probably wouldn't.

But, again, remember that this "social impact" thing is sort of a sidetrack. It's completely removed from the idea of the "game museum" entirely and a completely different argument than what I originally planned. In fact, I didn't plan an argument at all. I just said that the word "museum" puts a different image in my head than a venue for something as contemporary as video games. But I suppose I should have expected to be the enemy for saying that here.

I'm sorry, but speaking on behalf of myself and millions of other people who spend significant time and money buying, collecting, playing or just occasionally enjoying video games, they have had not only a significant social impact, but also a historical one as well. A whole generation of children has changed the way they relate to the world and each other by virtue of having the option of spending hours playing video games rather than board games or outdoor activities or sports. Is that a good thing? I don't know, but it's certainly socially and culturally significant. If this was 1980, I think you might have more of a point, but video games have been around for almost 40 years now and they have shaped public policy and led to Congressional hearings, the development of a rating system, journalistic criticism on the pages of some of the most prominent newspapers and magazines in the world and attracted the attention and time of some of the biggest celebrities and cultural icons and even the current President of the United States. If video games were no big deal, why would hundreds of newspapers and cable channels bother to discuss the fact that Obama bought his daughters a Wii for Christmas? For that matter, why would local and national news spend lots of time showing footage of people lining up for video game systems at launch or covering the latest A-list game midnight launch? Obviously it's because these are significant events in our culture.

Have you ever spent time at Intel or Apple in the Silicon Valley? They both have pretty extensive museums on their campuses and I don't think you would find many people who think that's inappropriate. Heck, Apple is only a little over 30 years old, much younger than the video game industry in this country.

I agree that if all this museum is going to be is a collection of old systems, maybe an exhibit would be a better name for it, but there is certainly a place for a real video game museum with the kind of artifacts that really very few if any of us own. Things like original development equipment, hand written code and artwork, visual and narrative histories of the early industry, etc...

The fact that you're still relatively young and think that something you grew up with can't possibly be historic is silly. 40 years is well over half the lifespan of a typical human being in modern times, so think about that in the context of your argument and think about the fact that a lot of the people who created these games and systems are probably a lot older than you are, especially if they were the early Atari crew. I'm not interested in waiting until they are long gone to acknowledge and celebrate the historic impact of what they did.

[Trebuken]

They really should have consulted this site first. I can't make out much of the museums collection but there are some people here whose collections are superior in some was to the 'museum'. I like the Arcade they have, but on the console-side they can get some help from DP's members...

[Ed Oscuro]

Did I say that preservation was a bad thing?

No, but you seemed to have overlooked the possibility that museums provide conservation and research efforts that individuals don't often match.

I would like to break away from that silly argument and back up something Bojay1997 just said: The pace at which history is being made seems to be constantly accelerating, and this is evident in many fields. Something as obviously earth-shaking as electronic games (and the incidental things which come along with it - "serious games" i.e. training applications like military simulation and the more recent Full Spectrum Warrior and paramedic training games, interactive movies, and the proliferation of massively parallel computing solutions for PCs and other technology we take for granted which showed up originally in entertainment) shouldn't be measured in terms of how much time has gone by, because of this accelerated rate of progress.

[TonyTheTiger]

snip.

I disagree with such a bold statement. I don't think it's nearly that cut and dry. I'd rather not jump the gun and declare something I can't back up very well.

No, but you seemed to have overlooked the possibility that museums provide conservation and research efforts that individuals don't often match.

If I did that it wasn't intentional. I said before that I used "museum" in the conventional, admittedly basic, way.

I would like to break away from that silly argument and back up something Bojay1997 just said: The pace at which history is being made seems to be constantly accelerating, and this is evident in many fields. Something as obviously earth-shaking as electronic games (and the incidental things which come along with it - "serious games" i.e. training applications like military simulation and the more recent Full Spectrum Warrior and paramedic training games, interactive movies, and the proliferation of massively parallel computing solutions for PCs and other technology we take for granted which showed up originally in entertainment) shouldn't be measured in terms of how much time has gone by, because of this accelerated rate of progress.

If that is true then I'll concede the point. But if the acceleration is happening I still think it's paired with significance. If they cure cancer tomorrow then I'll be damned if we don't call that "making history" because it's so significant. Provided the cure actually works, we don't have to "wait and see" if it's really a historical accomplishment. It's too "big" of a step. Electronic games are fundamentally still games. A unique form of game but a game nonetheless. I'm not convinced this hobby of ours is that much more significant than board games. I think what is significant is the technology that makes video games possible. But that's a bit different than video games themselves.

[Sonicwolf]

Another museum, several thousand kilometers away. *Cries*

[TonyTheTiger]

@TonytheTiger

You seriously think arguing against its historical impact is EASIER? Ok, if you want to change the 'terms' of the discussion to "historical" impact, then let's look at how influencial video games have been on the PC industry, and how the development of faster+more powerful processors, video cards, sound cards, etc have been not only been affected by video games but rather accelerated because of them (how many times has a game been released which requires the latest hardware configuration to fully realize that game's potential?). Hell, look how much non-gaming technology spun out of Atari alone, not to mention how many companies have sprung up as a direct result of Atari's existence. Hell, AOL is the result of a modem-based game delivery system that was developed for the Atari VCS.

As for social impact, I'm not sure anyone can quantify how many lives have been changed/altered/affected by video games, of people both in and outside of the industry. Hell, you're posting on a video game site and going to monthly NAVA meetings at Digital Press - they've certainly had a social impact in your life, haven't they?

This is "social impact" you're arguing, not "historical significance." There might be some blending between "social impact" and "historical significance" but they aren't the same thing. I don't believe for a second that computer technology grew solely because of video games. Video games have always been a piggyback industry. Video games exist because of computers, not the other way around. That's why I think it's easier to argue that video games haven't had much historical significance.

I love video games. But I also like to think critically about them in a way that's not necessarily 100% favorable all the time. I am willing to question whether or not video games are genuinely significant in one way or another. I'm willing to question whether or not video games are art. I'm willing to question whether or not video games are a healthy activity. I know that I'll take heat each and every time I say stuff like this here but I'm willing to do that because I want everybody to step back and think about video games from a completely objective standard uninhibited by our devotion to the hobby.

This is going off topic but what really annoys me about this industry is that there's a profound lack of that objectivity. Roger Ebert says that games aren't art and rather than actually reading his articles and trying to counter his points, all of GameFAQs wanted the man's head on a pike. Sure, that's GameFAQs, what should I expect? But it bothers me that the GameFAQs sentiment seems to be the more common one among the gaming populace. No matter what somebody says or how well they articulate their position, the reaction is always the painfully simplistic, "Games good! If u don't say games good then u bad!"

I know I have a bit of a chip on my shoulder because of this and it's why I very often take the devil's advocate position. I like the "fight" if you want to call it that because I feel this industry is woefully lacking in the intelligent debate department, present company excluded. That's why I like this place. I found more people here I can do that back and forth with than anywhere else.

Musuems are often based on historical events, but you'd have a hard time trying to separate 'social impact' from a historical event because they go hand-in-hand. Musuems such as the Air & Space in D.C., the JFK museum in Dallas, TX, even the Computer History Musuem in Mountain View, CA are full of historical artifacts, but you can't say there's no social impact with any of them. Atomic power, fiber optics and lasers are 'contemporary' technological developments for which musuems exist, so I'm not sure where you'd draw the line as far as time-based requirements go.

I'm willing to accept the broader interpretation of the word "museum." But it's not like I was planning to start an argument or even be in one at all so I didn't go looking for every possible definition of the word prior to making my initial statement.

I suppose so I just don't understand where you're coming from with your criticism against having a video game museum.. and I suppose I never will.

Therein lies the problem. My criticism was far narrower than most people here understood it to be. All I said amounted to, "Museums are usually for old and/or important things, not stuff I have in my basement." Then the torches and pitchforks came out. It caught me totally off guard. This was, ironically enough, not one of those times I was expecting to play devil's advocate for the broad question of whether or not games are historically/socially relevant. If anything, I was arguing about what qualifies as a museum.

[Sonicwolf]

Personally I believe there is enough of a history of videogames to warrant a museum. Hundreds of thousands of games, systems, accessories, variations, rarities, merchandise, oddities etc.

[Bojay1997]

This is "social impact" you're arguing, not "historical significance." There might be some blending between "social impact" and "historical significance" but they aren't the same thing. I don't believe for a second that computer technology grew solely because of video games. Video games have always been a piggyback industry. Video games exist because of computers, not the other way around. That's why I think it's easier to argue that video games haven't had much historical significance.

I love video games. But I also like to think critically about them in a way that's not necessarily 100% favorable all the time. I am willing to question whether or not video games are genuinely significant in one way or another. I'm willing to question whether or not video games are art. I'm willing to question whether or not video games are a healthy activity. I know that I'll take heat each and every time I say stuff like this here but I'm willing to do that because I want everybody to step back and think about video games from a completely objective standard uninhibited by our devotion to the hobby.

This is going off topic but what really annoys me about this industry is that there's a profound lack of that objectivity. Roger Ebert says that games aren't art and rather than actually reading his articles and trying to counter his points, all of GameFAQs wanted the man's head on a pike. Sure, that's GameFAQs, what should I expect? But it bothers me that the GameFAQs sentiment seems to be the more common one among the gaming populace. No matter what somebody says or how well they articulate their position, the reaction is always the painfully simplistic, "Games good! If u don't say games good then u bad!"

I know I have a bit of a chip on my shoulder because of this and it's why I very often take the devil's advocate position. I like the "fight" if you want to call it that because I feel this industry is woefully lacking in the intelligent debate department, present company excluded. That's why I like this place. I found more people here I can do that back and forth with than anywhere else.



I'm willing to accept the broader interpretation of the word "museum." But it's not like I was planning to start an argument or even be in one at all so I didn't go looking for every possible definition of the word prior to making my initial statement.



Therein lies the problem. My criticism was far narrower than most people here understood it to be. All I said amounted to, "Museums are usually for old and/or important things, not stuff I have in my basement." Then the torches and pitchforks came out. It caught me totally off guard. This was, ironically enough, not one of those times I was expecting to play devil's advocate for the broad question of whether or not games are historically/socially relevant. If anything, I was arguing about what qualifies as a museum.

I guess I'm curious to hear how long you think something has to be around to be considered historical in significance since that really seems to be the basis of most of your argument. You mentioned a cancer cure earlier as something that would need some time to be historically significant. Well, Jonas Salk released his Polio vaccine in 1955 and within two years, the majority of children in the United States had been vaccinated and polio was effectively wiped out in the United States and much of the western world. Was it a historic event in 1955, 1957, five years later when few if any additional cases were found or now which is 54 years later and nobody really thinks of Polio as a problem in this country?

I think another part of your argument is a fundamental misunderstanding of what museums are. In the ancient world, museums were places to study and to display the arts. This tradition has continued to this day as there are many museums dedicated to technology, contemporary art, film, television, arts and crafts and even children. There is no requirement that something has to be old to be put in a museum. I will leave you with the definition of museum used by the International Council of Museums, a "permanent institution in the service of society and of its development, open to the public, which acquires, conserves, researches, communicates and exhibits the tangible and intangible heritage of humanity and its environment, for the purposes of education, study, and enjoyment." Video games easily fit within that definition.

[TonyTheTiger]

You mentioned a cancer cure earlier as something that would need some time to be historically significant.

Reread it. I can't argue a point if I keep being misinterpreted.

[Bojay1997]

I heard that Stanford University, in California, had started to archive video games... would someone know anything about this ? I live in the bay area and was thinking to contact them if they do... may turn my collection into something more than attic material

I would say that archive is too strong of a word. What happened is that a man who had probably the largest collection of mostly computer and some video games that I am aware of passed away and his family donated the collection to Stanford. It's roughly 20,000 boxed complete or sealed games. Stanford basically has them in packing boxes at one of the libraries and an intern or two has been going through them and unwrapping them and updating the catalog. The current intern has been doing a blog every month or so showing a selection of the items. I think Stanford really doesn't know what to do with them other than storing them as I haven't heard any indication that they are scanning box and manual images or otherwise backing up the software.

[TonyTheTiger]

No, I was talking about historical significance. I used the continuing advancement of PC hardware as an example. I could have used some software examples (i.e. first game to have multiple screens, first game to have digitized voice, etc). I never said hardware development depended entirely on video games, but that video games have been very influencial on that development, and that fact is undeniable.

With all due respect, how can you possibly argue that the first game with multiple screens or digitized voices constitutes historical significance? Seriously? That's history? It might be "history" within the confines of the video game industry but we were never talking about just the video game world alone. We were talking about how video games impacted the world as a whole. So if you called "first game with multiple screens" history in relation to actual history you'll be laughed at. If you don't see the distinction then I don't know what to say.

Besides, as I said, video games are the result of advancing PC hardware, not the cause. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. As PC hardware improves and becomes more cost effective, video games take advantage of it. The scenario you're presenting is, if not completely untrue, certainly the exception rather than the rule. I think you're letting your subjectivity take hold of your arguments.

As for Ebert's opinion on video games not being art, that's his opinion. I say they are art. But how do you define what is/isn't art? Same with what you think constitutes a museum. If you feel video games don't deserve to have a museum dedicated to them, fine; I say they do.

That's a completely different argument and I won't go into it here. I've gone through pages worth of posts in other threads on this topic if you want to look them up. I'm always up for more.

[code52]

Nice find, I'm from Rochester and I didn't even know about this. I'm gonna have to check this out when I have some time. I was at the strong museum a few years ago, but haven't really followed what they have done since then.

And to add to the ongoing argument about it being too soon for a museum of videogames, you have to realize that the strong museum isn't really your typical museum. Most of the exhibits are interactive and meant to be fun to play around with. I don't know exactly what they plan to do with the video game stuff, but eventually these things will have a historical significance. There's no rule about something needing to be "old" to be on display in a museum.

[TonyTheTiger]

you have to realize that the strong museum isn't really your typical museum. Most of the exhibits are interactive and meant to be fun to play around with.

The touchable museum, eh? I've heard of those before. That's interesting because I'm visualizing an arcade. Would an arcade that seeks to also "preserve" the machines qualify as a museum? I bring this up because if a museum is simply a location where something is put "on display" regardless of what it is or how substantial the collection then, yeah, just about any venue can be a museum. A single display case can be a museum. Though I think if you stop random people on the street and ask them to describe a museum they'll probably have more traditional images pop in their heads.