[...] is good, but focuses a lot more on comics; it also contains a great quote I use when talking about Legitimacy. I recently got Making Comics and hope that is as packed with useful information. (One of the other [...]

The issue of games achieving legitimacy is something I've talked about a few times before. (Example: http://www.psychochild.org/?p=257) I think that this is one of the most important topics facing our industry today.
As I've said before, part of ach...

However, cultural impact and significance matter. And the underlying emotional question is "are video game designers taken seriously?"

Some speak of a charismatic figurehead, but I'm leaning more towards a strong leadership. So my question is "are video games taking a leadership role?" and "who are the leaders?"

I imagine Andy Warhol and the push of pop art movement was a "leader" for the comic book format.

Frank

1. What do you care what other people think?
(with apologies to Richard Feynman).
Or in other words: does legitimacy even matter?

2. If it does matter, in whose eyes are you trying to be considered "legitimate"?
Some media have considerably more "legitimacy" in non-western cultures than others (eg comics in Japan).
Even within a single culture there is a broad spectrum of what is deemed "art" (eg Giuliani and the Brooklyn Mueseum).

3. Since I said the "a" word... Are there any board games that are considered "art"; are there lessons to be drawn from the success/failure of our non-digital brethren?

Part of the issue with a lack of legitimacy in our medium is that we're all still pretty new to this and it's just plain hard. Therefore, we go with the most basic, primal activities - and therefore the seemingly least risky - that have been part of our life since the beginning: sex and violence. Amazingly enough, that goes a long way. People as both consumers and developers can be satisfied by those two things for a really long time. Eventually, though, you get tired/bored of it, and I think that's what is starting to happen now in our industry.

I agree with other comments here in that one of the easiest ways (not the only way) to move forward is to make an obvious statement on society through a game. This would involve being able to connect successfully with a large variety of people either on an emotional level, intellectual level, spiritual level, or some combination of these. To do that, I see a number of hurdles that one must be aware of:

-How to represent a virtual world in a convincing enough way to appeal to a large audience
-How to represent living beings interaction with each other in a convincing way
-How to promote interaction for an extended period of time (addictiveness if you will)
-How to present the final product as a worthwhile experience that can only be gained through the medium of games

I think the first one can be successfully accomplished today, given the current experience and technology of our industry, and even on a lower budget. The second one is moderately difficult, because one of the most successful ways to create an emotional response is through human interaction. And presenting that interaction through virtual characters can be very expensive. That's why it might be better to try to create a more intellectual response, thereby relying more on the third hurdle, addictiveness, which focuses on learning and overcoming a system of challenges. Lastly is the marketing. This one can be very difficult. You basically need to convince non-gamers that this game is worth their time and money. That would involve reaching them first, which would need to be done in non-gaming outlets, and then convincing them. In the retail space, the convincing is done with the box, but I don't think that would work here. You would need to get influential people playing and talking about the game. And then you would need to get an advertising campaign going and presented through a variety of other media. This campaign would need to present the game as an experience in general that is unique, memorable, and only possible as a game.

I think this is quite a challenge, but certainly one worth taking. If there can be a couple successful examples created of this type of game, I think it would start to create legitimacy for games. I wouldn't be surprised if Serious Games started to do this from the "other side." By that, I mean that serious games would start to have enough production value and marketing power to appeal to a large audience. Contrast this to the current games which have production value and marketing power, but not the social message.

As a developer, I really struggle with this idea of legitimacy. In fact, I'm thinking of leaving my current "great opportunity" in the industry exactly because I feel that my current project is not legitimate. It's funny, I was searching for a game developer in Des Moines, which led me to this site. I take it you are from Des Moines, Brian?

The real currency of legitimizing the medium is a game that involves social dynamics. Think about, social dynamics are whats at stake outside, the game, so in order for games to be percieved as socially relevant they have to deal with society in some representative simulacrum. The Sims was slightly sufficient to that effect, with its implied satire of suburbia. We'll see how the Super Columbine Massacre RPG! does as Slamdance.

And, yes, sometimes art doesn't always appear legitimate. But no matter what someone's overactive imagination sees in a Pollock piece, no one can shout loud enough to get the picture banned. Yet, if someone thinks a game isn't appropriate for little Johnny, the politicians fall over themselves to say how they hate games and want to restrict them painfully.

And, as I said above, we already have a bit of commercial legitimacy. We make enough money that games can't simply be ignored in business. Yet, we don't quite have the moral or artistic legitimacy that other art media tend to enjoy. In the U.S., this means being considered free speech by the general population.

Some more thoughts,