Playstation made videogames mainstream. Playstation brought videogames into the mainstream. Playstation brought videogames to the mainstream audience. Chances are you've heard at least one of these statements uttered by gamers on forums or in conversation. So goes the cliche. But a cliche is only a cliche because it's true, goes the, erm, cliche. Only, this time it is false. In truth, the collection of words is used only because of it's convenience - why go on about the Playstation's real effect on videogames when you can just sum it up simply in a few words?

I consider the term 'to go mainstream' to be a definite one, in no way continuous. Therefore something either is mainstream or it isn't. It cannot be a bit mainstream, or partly mainstream; it is a binary term. One or Zero. Is or isn't. With that established, one has to ask whether videogames have gone all the way, whether they are indeed mainstream. Collins Dictionary defines mainstream as a "n prevailing cultural trend"; have videogames become a prevailing cultural trend? Are they part of our culture now? With such a heavy question, the answer can only be no, even if we'd like to believe differently.

While I consider videogames to have as much cultural validity as any other form of art, something briefly expressed in my last GameOff, I am sufficiently realistic to know that I am in the minority. Society as a whole does not recognise the cultural value of videogames, and it is society as a whole that the definition is concerned with. Films, fiction and art are all mainstream, because they have all been universally accepted as culture. With videogames, I believe it is only a matter of time. Films began in America in the 1920's, so people have had almost a century with them. At first, they were only considered cheap entertainment - an easy and affordable way to escape the hum-drum nature of their lives. It took time for films to become part of culture in other countries, only being so quick in the USA because the nation was relatively young, and so had no real culture of their own. And when the first novel was written a few centuries ago, it was scoffed at by the higher classes. They considered it cheap, trivial and insignificant. A bit like the view of many older people on videogames? But with time, and certain literary masterpieces (Jane Austin's work for example) the novel was accepted as an important piece of expression.

Videogames have only been around for almost half a century. It may seem like ages, but it really isn't that long. It would be untrue to think that in this time they have become part of mainstream society. In the medium's lifespan, there have been various short-lived instances of games becoming popular trends. Things like Space Invaders and Pac-Man infested the mind of society at large, with massive merchandise sold, ingraining their images into the era's pop culture. Some point to these examples as evidence of the cultural impact of videogames, but culture is much more than flashes of popularity - it's something that carves itself into society permanently. We can't mince words here, because they carry a lot of weight; videogames have not went that far, and have not had such a great effect.

Videogames have become mainstream when you can chat to someone at a bar about the new first-person shooters coming out. When they become topics for watercooler chat at the office. When in arcades you are just as likely to see businessmen, lawyers and doctors playing Time Crisis as the nomadic teenagers. When Newsnight Review discuss the new Zelda, and with as much authenticity as criticising new plays, art shows and flicks. When the news reports a big console manufacturer dropping hardware. When public perception shirts from regarding videogames as trinkets for the amusement of kids, with as little credence to be called 'art' as Teen Big Brother, to serious recognition of their cultural validity and worth. Until that happens, we cannot call videogames 'mainstream'.

But will it happen? Looking at the saturated genres, starved innovation and seemingly prolific reliance of licenses and franchises glaringly present in today's market, it is easy to be cynical and claim that the breakthroughs in actual game design which would be needed for the medium to be accepted into culture will never come. I, however, remain more optimistic, It would be unfair to paint all game developers with the same brush, to regard every one as soulless assembly-line workers devoid of any originality or passion. There is a great cynicism among gamers in regard to the state of games, and unwarranted pessimism when the future is concerned. The fact is, however, that there will always be talented people who want no part in by-the-numbers gameplay, join-the-dots design or failsafe licenses. People who want to push the boundaries and advance the medium. As long as there are those people developing games, then videogames will have the chance to prove themselves to society, and perhaps more of these people will emerge once games development becomes less risky and more secure. However, ironically, it is the complete opposite which appeals to the shallow, casual, younger gamers. Games like Fifa, which know not the meaning of originality, and may seem a hindrance to gaming gaining some higher value, are what sell videogames to many younger gamers. The concept of them being some sort of 'art' is totally alien to those who scoff ignorantly at plays, poems, paintings and yes, even novels. But in order for videogames to 'become mainstream' their acceptance by the lowest common denominator is necessary. There is a point to all those sports games you know. Acceptance by the higher forms of society is more important though, and thus more difficult. Although I certainly can't prove it, I have this feeling that the acceptance by the lowers forms is somewhat essential for it to happen.

It is apparent to me while writing this, that the Japanese seem to have accomplished this. Now, I have never been to Japan, nor am I well-versed enough in their society to be able to make any kind of judgement on their culture. But from what I've read about the country, including tales of businessmen obsessed with Virtua Fighter in the arcade, they're definitely way ahead of the West. I distinctly remember hearing how there was a national holiday on the day a certain Dragon Quest game came out, although I can't verify it.

So then, if the Playstation didn't make games mainstream then what did it do? Games were already gradually moving towards being mainstream, Sony's machine just speeded up the process. it used the same tactics as Sega's Genesis before it to win over people who otherwise wouldn't really be interested in games. Although other consoles around it sported better games, the PS had a healthy selection of sport and action games, as well as others that succeeded in being 'cool'. But infinitely more important was The Image. The Playstation was geared towards an older demography, and greatly changed many perceptions of games. The slick nature of the console and the marketing accelerated videogames' procession towards mainstream, but it would be folly to think that it solely accomplished the act.

Perhaps I have too much faith in videogames' ability to be considered in the same breath as 'culture'. Perhaps our medium is destined to languish in the purgatory it's in now - ever slowly advancing towards being mainstream, but never accomplishing it. Or perhaps they already are mainstream, and I place on the word too heavy a weight. But I don't think so. I fully believe in the huge power of the word, and of videogame's potential to meet that power. Because of this, I find the frequently frivolous use of the term ill-thought out and misconceived.

Maybe one day society will consider the cultural validity of videogames as I, and others, do. But until that day, let's put a stamp on this false cliche, alright?

[email protected]