IAM Blog Engine

Rodash contends that video games at this point are not aren’t because they do not  “use the fundamentals of gameplay — giving players challenges to work through and choices to make — in entirely new ways” or “embrace the dynamics of failure, tragedy, comedy and romance…enhancing the player’s emotional and intellectual life.”  I guess this is true.  But that’s only if you define art as something that evokes this emotions or desires in the viewer, or participant.

Rodash contributes a lot of artistic value in the weight of the narrative.  Going as far as to say the games with the deepest narrative were the old 80’s text based role playing games.  Having played my fair share of those (Think early eras of Relms of Hell, dreadful adventures where you /open door, /use potion) I disagree.  However, I would say Halo 3 isn’t art, or maybe, it isn’t good art.  There’s no newness that Halo 3 contributed to the first person genre, or even to online play.

A well-written novel is a work of art, Monet splotching lotus flowers on a strip of canvas, Kid Robot’s graphic t-shirts, a photography exhibit in the 623 building, etc… why not a gorgeous video game?

Forget high art and low art.

art [ahrt] -noun
1. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, November 3rd, 2009 at 6:17 pm and is filed under Game Culture Class, Reading Response. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response.