When you think about what is in a game now a day what do you think about. Do you think about what the graphics, controls, story, or something more. Maybe the why. Was there a point the author was trying to make?
Now The last post I made I asked my fellow c-blogers to think about the way they talk and feel about the idea of fun and art as one in the same for the pure fact that art is interesting and thus entertaining, and we all know that what is entertaining is in fact fun. I think we need to stop looking at graphics, controls, story, and why for right now. I think we need to look at the how.
Now by nature, games are made and designed to be entertaining in the same way movies are. They are both a visual and audio media. The only real difference is that one is made to be controlled by the one watching it. Now in my mind’s eye movies are an easier media to achieve artistic greatness. The two reasons for this are so;
Movies are not an experience that requires skill to enjoy thus not limiting it’s target user base. I think the greatest example of this I just encountered was when I sat my Japanese friends down that are avid JRPG players and music game players “Feel like this is the majority of the games Japanese people play, with Fighters and Shmups” to play the demo of the game I am exited to buy, WET. Now when I played through the demo the first time I beat it with out dieing one time. By the third time playing through I video taped it for my friend to see and end up having a run time of 9 min. Every time I play the demo it gives me a feeling like I am watching my favorite seen from “Kill Bill” as well as my friends that said they wanted to play it. But here is where this proves “Movies are not an experience that requires skill to enjoy thus not limiting it’s target user base.” When they got there hands on the game they where confused and dismayed. As I explained the controls to them in Japanese they where filled with question about things that I take for granted. For instance: left analog stick to move run, right to aim. White circle means it is not a valid target red means you can kill it. R1 is to shoot a gun and Square is normally melee. Now I never thought about that before as it most of the games I play have this same set up. As I have now build up the gamer skill do this without any problem, and In fact ended up playing the demo on request 2 more times so my friends could watch it in motion, but as soon as I said “why don’t you try again instead of me playing” the quick reply is “we want to see the game but the game feels to difficult to play.” (Japanese translation is a little bit of but means the same for what they said.)
Two, price and mental investment. The investment for, lets just say one system, and lets say the cheapest (Wii). The Wii is $250 and comes with a game. There you have made the investment to play a game by yourself. That is only one game. Now granted you can get many more hours of enjoyment from a game and system then a ticket to the movies or a the movie on a DVD player. If you think about it, if a ticket is $10.00 and the Wii is $250.00 that’s 25 tickets, and depending on the movies you could get at least 38 to 40 hours of entertainment.
Now most Wii owner are casual and have had there 40 hours of fun. But that is $250.00 right off the bat for a experience of entertainment that can be done in small bursts. We all know that is how it works, a $10.00 is a lot easier to use then $250.00 at one time. And lets factor DVD movies. The player can be picked up for like $100 or less new and DVDs are about $20. So that’s The player plus 7 DVDs or about 10 hours to 12 hours of visual and audio entertainment. This comparison is unfair as you can tell, lets look at it from some one walking in to a store. DVDs are an easy and well understood media. Most people already have a DVD play in there home as the common consensus now a days is it would be silly not to. And chances are that people have already by the time their 20 or so years old have at least seen 15 movies if not 50. The mental investment has already been set in stone and at an early age. Video games do not have that same standards yet. The NES era is what gives me hope for the future for the mental investment hopefully removing this as the second cause and will help progress the video games as art and entertainment.
Let me know what you think.
nightv's blog
follow this blog
subscribe via RSS
send message
invite to meetup+play
A couple things:
Do you think it takes skill and practice to read and understand the works of Shakespeare? Does that imply that his work cannot be art because it's not accessible to some people? Do you think Chinese surrealist art requires a little knowledge of the country's history? If so, does that keep it from being art?
Secondly, you obviously have never bought tickets to a Broadway musical. Shit is expensive. Does that mean it's not art?
I think your argument hinges on the accessibility of video games. Art rarely tries to be accessible. That's what kitsch is for.
You sir are wrong in every way as well as did not read what I wrote all the way.
Shakespeare, Chinese surrealist art, and Broadway musicals all have mental investments and time by there side.
And Shakespeare, while being respected in his time was not considered being one of the best till nineteenth century.
While video games and makers of are respected now for what they do they are much like a "Shkespeare" of today.
Shakespeare was an example. Want me to trot out other classics to prove my point? We can start with Homer and work our way through F. Scott Fitzgerald if you like. And, Chinese Surrealist Art has nothing to do with it getting better with time. It was popular when the movement started and still is today. Maybe you'd rather talk about movements? I could spin you a yarn about the Impressionists. Furthermore, what's the difference between a mental investment in a painting and a video game?
The mental investment argument didn't make any sense to me, so I left it alone. I mean, it's really easy to pick up a PC game for like 20 bucks. And again, your argument has to do with accessibility. Whether or not people has access to an art form doesn't mean it's not art. Jesus.
Bat Country wins.
"Do you think it takes skill and practice to read and understand the works of Shakespeare? "
That's what I was going to say till I noticed you said it.
No I don't think it takes skill and practice to read and understand the works of Shakespeare. You just need to read. It is a basic skill. Only some one who is uneducated would have trouble.
You point makes no sense. Yes lets talk about how you have no idea what a movement is vs art. Movements might produce are but they are not art themselves.
Homer: was a is fictitious by common belief. As well as his works where only considered being one of the best almost 400-500 years after and there is speculation if Homer was only 1 person and not just stories gathered from many.
F. Scott Fitzgerald: had a very hard time showing his works and even mocked him self many times later in his life. I mean jezz you learn this in high school you moron. His works wore also only really looked at as great till after he died.
This almost always happen to artists.
And we are not talking about just the makers of art but the art it self.
If you think its hard to understand these works now then you are uneducated and should not post in this c-blog.
Hey, you know what song I love?
Jive Talking!
I think you not-so artfully dodged my point, good sir. What does the validity of art have to do with accessibility?
The fact that more people can't see it means that more people can't understand it. Once you can see it feel it then understand it, you will see it is art.
Till then its just speculation.
Bat Country Wins. I can't get to the Louvre to see the Mona Lisa, but it's still art. Accessability has absolutely nothing to do with validity.
Also, you are an elitist douchebag. "If you think its hard to understand these works now then you are uneducated and should not post in this c-blog." Really? Your grammar and punctuation are atrocious. Off the high horse, sonny.
1) You buy the game machine.
2) You buy the game.
3) Game tutorials are more than thorough now-a-days
If that is inaccessible, they are an idiot.
Plus, WET is a shit game.
Art is an expression of human creativity. If you're going to argue against games being art, you should start there. There's a lot of valid art that neither of us (nor the mass population) has had access to, but that doesn't keep it from being what it is.
I am for the fact that games are art.
@10bobmarleys "I can't get to the Louvre to see the Mona Lisa, but it's still art."
Nice use of get, but anyway you can always see it in a book or the internet. My point still stands. Grammar and punctuation aside, I just got back from Japan and my education is in Japanese culture and language.
As well as I have proved everything you Bat has said to be wrong on pure fact.
@Bat Country
There is more to art "expression of human creativity"
Art-the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.
Where the hell did you see me saying video games are not art. I said it has not reached the level of pure art. The goal that most of us want to see.
To reach that video games need to have wide spread validation from everyone, not just us who game. That is a fact.
Just because we can see it as art does not mean others do, even if it is. And yes part of that is inaccessibility that holds it back.
@Solgrim
"3) Game tutorials are more than thorough now-a-days
If that is inaccessible, they are an idiot. "
That is the dumbest thing I have ever seen. Why don't you get your parents to play the game and see if it is accessible for them to play and to go through the story and feel anything more the frustration when the control that are not in-grained in to there brain like most gamers, hold them back.