This week I will be attending not one, but three lectures on video games given in an academic context. And none of them will be conducted as part of games studies programs. It’s part of a rise in the subject of ‘digital humanities’, but I think it’s happening specifically to video games because of the stellar year 2011 was for game design. 2011 proved that video games makers are conscious of the limitations and possibilities of their medium, styles and strategies have matured and are being pushed, and culturally meaningful expression can be seen all over the industry.

The debate over whether or not video games are art is meaningless. Video games do not need to define themselves by terms that are owned by elitist and irrelevant, exclusive in-groups. When many people try to argue that games are art, the main thrust of their argument is that mature, skilled game designers are able to do startling, beautiful and meaningful things with their medium. 2011 proved that this is definitely the case. For me, that’s enough. I don’t care whether the art world agrees.

The games industry has more ground-breaking triumphs ahead, although emerging platforms will make 2012 a year of experimentation and perhaps we will see a lower density of masterworks released. But the cultural value of video games is now obvious, and following that success the academic posturing has begun in full force.

The question is, can academia contribute meaningfully to the industry? Can it help designers to push their medium in a way that’s relevant and inspiring? Dear Ether, originally produced in an academic context, shows that it can. However, with a crisis of confidence palpable in Game Studies, it’s clear that academic criticism of games has to work harder, complicating existing narratives and investigating the whole network of production and consumption, to be able to give real insights to makers.