Slashdot Mirror
Game/Movie Comparisons Raise Art Question Again
Via Game|Life, an article on the Variety site that sees something rather novel: a film writer defending games. Unhappy reviews of the film 300 sometimes cite the film's 'game-like' nature as a measure of it's poor quality, and Variety writer Ben Fritz calls those authors out on their poor grasp of modern media. Ron Gilbert, at the Grumpy Gamer site, has a few words of commentary on this issue. Coincidentally Gamasutra chose today to post a discussion of games as art which begins with the phrase "here we go again".
I believe that games would do better to become more 'movie-esque' than vice versa. It seems to me that there aren't many games that feature characteristics more closely associated with film or even literature, such as good characterisation or plot. Most mainstream games are all about plopping you straight into the action with little regard to back-story and expect you to be satisfied 1607 dead stormtroopers later. The oft-repeated mantra, common on Slashdot, that 'games should be fun' seems disingenuous to me. I mean, if the gamers among us want the industry to be legitimised as a 'proper art form' and move beyond the nerd kids in the bedroom stigma, why does there seem to be such a lack of 'adult' (not necessarily in the boobs and gore sense) titles, of intellectual titles, in the local game shop? Do we say that 'films should be fun'? Yes, while many are indeed fun, there are also many that are shocking, dark, depressing, thought-provoking. Where are the 'head scratcher' games - the ones you try and figure out with your friends at the pub like after the movie theatre? Where are the games in black and white?
Yes, there are obvious differences in format; movies are non-interactive and last a couple of hours, games are naturally controllable and generally last at least ten hours. I'd like to see more of a fusion between the two art forms. I'd like a game that was short by game standards, but was beautifully written, had a tight storyline and was populated by intelligent, deep and interesting characters. I'd like to see games where you have to put some thought into what you are doing and the decisions you make. I'd like a game where you hardly fire your gun. I want a game to make me cry.
I'm not saying that such games aren't to be found or that there should be no shallow, time-waster games. It just seems an under-represented niche.
Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
I never got this either; why doesn't anyone call video games art? Movies and music are both used in video games, and both are considered art forms. What makes video games so special that they are not? Are they not aesthetically pleasing? Are they not capable of evoking emotion?
It seems to me that art is all about providing an experience for the viewer, for evoking emotion from the viewer even if it is just the simple pleasure of viewing something beautiful. Video games possess both an aural or visual component for doing this, but they also have an additional dimension that most art pieces cannot; interaction. The player is directly inovlved in the experience, and can make choices to affect its outcome. It seems to me that uniquely engaging pieces could be created taking advantage of these three areas. I would argue that several already exist.
Perhaps it's the name of the medium? Should we switch to calling it "interactive digital simulation" to make it more appealing?