So I've been researching for my final paper and I've found that there has been little done in the field of Video Game Theory, at least towards developing a language similar to the one found in animation and film theory. It is my personal belief that not all objects can be art unless put into the proper context. In most cases of traditional art, that context is within a gallery setting and the paradigm of art criticism. But video games are particularly problematic. It's difficult to even truly pin down exactly what a video game is. It's such a broad term for many, many different kinds of interactive media.
I do not believe that Counter Strike or Street Fighter are art. I don't believe this because I know they do not fulfill several very important elements that all art share. But I do believe that Shadow of the Colossus and Half-Life 2 could be art. I say could be because I'm not sure how to place them within the art paradigm- how to actually analyze them as art. These objects are not created as art, they are created as pop-culture. But in the same vein that film theorists can speak about popular film, we should be able to analyze and interpret these games through theory. But what sets these games apart from the first batch is they are narratively driven, with a goal that is not about winning so much as it is about 'completing.' I don't think anyone would say that Football is an art, and even if someone did make that claim I highly doubt they could actually support it. Well, I would say competitive games are more akin to sports in this case, and as such are not to be discussed as art. The same goes for most 'arcade' game classics, though if placed in a gallery I'm sure we could find something to say about them. I just doubt it would be derived from the gameplay.
So what does everyone else think? When analyzing games, should a specific set of games be set aside for consideration? Should we do away with the term video game altogether to find a more fitting name for non-competitive games?
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Happy easter everybody!
I'm posting from my phone, as I'm riding back to carbondale, so sorry for the brief post.
So I was preparing for my final paper, and I started reading up on video game theory. The field is largely undeveloped when compared to film and litterary theory, and as such there still is a lot of work to do when it comes to defining the unique properties that games have. So, I have a question for everyone: what makes games unique from other mediums? Can you define it? How would you go about describing and analyzing it?
I'm posting from my phone, as I'm riding back to carbondale, so sorry for the brief post.
So I was preparing for my final paper, and I started reading up on video game theory. The field is largely undeveloped when compared to film and litterary theory, and as such there still is a lot of work to do when it comes to defining the unique properties that games have. So, I have a question for everyone: what makes games unique from other mediums? Can you define it? How would you go about describing and analyzing it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)