There's a difference between the culture of literature and the culture of gaming. I think it boils down to the difference between reviews and criticism. Games, for the most part, get reviewed. Reviews are functional and focused on consumption. A review seeks to answer a few questions about its subject: Does it work as intended? Is it entertaining? Is it a good value?
Books, on the other hand, sometimes are subject to criticism. Criticism explores, interprets, and analyzes. It asks "why" and "how" questions. The best criticism expands and changes its subject. Literature as a culture has its roots in both original work and criticism. Almost as soon as there were works to read, there was literary criticism. (The Talmud springs to mind as an early example.) Certainly, most readers and many critics are more interested in reviews than criticism, but the feedback from criticism has been fundamental to the development of literature.
This balance makes literary culture much different from gamer culture. Even with games aspire to be art, the reviews go like this:
The game explores themes of identity and abandonment. Who are we and how are we separate from each other? It might be art. The controls are a bit laggy and the game is only two hours long, which isn't great value for $10. I give it an 8 out of 10.
I've read a few game reviews that go farther but these are few and far between. Maybe the recent controversies will start us down a new path.
The big disagreement I have with your argument is this: sure, games for the most part get reviewed -- the same is true of literature. There is criticism, as opposed to review, of both games and books, but most readers, like most gamers, are interested in consumption first, and, if any external analysis at all, consumption-focussed reviews more than explanatory criticism.
For either medium, the community engaged in critical review (largely academic) is not actively followed by either most consumers or most producers of the works in question -- there's some feedback (in both literature and games), because some consumers and some producers in each medium also engage in, or at least follow, criticism and let it influence how they consume or create works.
You make a good point, so I'm going to try to refine mine. You're right that a small minority of readers and gamers actually follow criticism compared to reviews. I think the influence of criticism on authors is much much larger than the influence of criticism on game designers, though.
It has to do with the way we train people to write books as opposed to how we train people to make video games. English degree programs often spend as much time on literary theory as they do on the practical aspects of composition. Most CS and video game design programs are almost entirely practical. I think this has allowed literature to move alongside and even in front of the culture at large while video games lag the rest of the culture.
Maybe this explains why we've gotten used to plenty of topics and themes in books that are still stunning in video games. Think about how shocking it was to some people that we could play a gay character in Fable or Bully. Nobody even notices when a best seller has a gay protagonist.
> I think the influence of criticism on authors is much much larger than the influence of criticism on game designers, though.
I don't think that's particularly true of computer games in general as compared to books; OTOH, I think it is true of of AAA games compared to books, for the same reason its true of big budget movies compared to books (but not so much of film more generally compared to books) -- the things with a big up-front cost that are funded by firms looking to make a big return on that up-front cost are going to be driven strongly by what the market wants, and less by artistic concerns that are independent of what is going to produce the returns that investors are looking for.
Books, on the other hand, sometimes are subject to criticism. Criticism explores, interprets, and analyzes. It asks "why" and "how" questions. The best criticism expands and changes its subject. Literature as a culture has its roots in both original work and criticism. Almost as soon as there were works to read, there was literary criticism. (The Talmud springs to mind as an early example.) Certainly, most readers and many critics are more interested in reviews than criticism, but the feedback from criticism has been fundamental to the development of literature.
This balance makes literary culture much different from gamer culture. Even with games aspire to be art, the reviews go like this:
The game explores themes of identity and abandonment. Who are we and how are we separate from each other? It might be art. The controls are a bit laggy and the game is only two hours long, which isn't great value for $10. I give it an 8 out of 10.
I've read a few game reviews that go farther but these are few and far between. Maybe the recent controversies will start us down a new path.
EDIT: I wish HN had a preview button.