Reading Response 9
November 6th, 2009 by adm.illionaire…Ok, first of all its so refreshing to read an article that isn’t praising games for their amazing hidden values in regards to whatever. you know what i mean…
This article effectively says many of the things i feel about games as an artistic medium while also acknowledging the fact that not all games need to be art. i was especially fond of radosh’s point about graphics distracting developers form creating artistic games – this is something i have been pushing for a while now. we, as game designers, have an obligation to not concern ourselves with graphics – even the shittiest games can have great graphics, but graphics are merely representational even at their highest level and have nothing to do with effectively entertaining gameplay. the focus of games need to trnasiton from new-age to creative – the blockbusters, as they are called, are going to start selling less because gamers will become sick of the content. somehow, a game like need for speed shift sells 100 million copies, but crap games with good graphics and a stolen narrative aren’t about to keep selling in an environment where gameplay is the focus. i believe we must explore the ludology of games as designers and from that exploration, the artistic ideas will begin to flow naturally. the best art is discovered and then perfected rather than forced.
On the other hand, ive never felt like games are failign to achieve their potential. i dont need art games, i need fun games. mindless fun is a supreme art form and i think people become distracted by an argument over artistic value when in fact the truth is games have legitimacy regardless of their artistic value - we can call a game good or bad based on so much more than its trancendant aspects. i dont have any idea where the need to call games art dervies from, but if we as designers maintain fresh and fresher gameplay, the art will reveal itself after the medium begins to become exhausted in terms of entertainment value.
Finally, “…once Halo 3’s initial thrill wears off we will be left with a vague dissatisfaction, and once again we will ask ourselves, Is this really as good as video games can be?” yea, i never experienced any lack of satisfaction (though i do admit my fanboyism). halo’s multiplayer gives it unlimited replay value in the same way the super smash bros brawl can also be played for 100 hours a week between me and my roommates and still be fucking unbelieveably fun. replay value is the esscence of good gameplay. solitare and monopoly arent something you play through once and never touch again – we’re so goddamn distracted by narrative and artistic value that we fail to notice that a narrative demands linearity, and linearity means only so much can be derived from a game. i only play through Bioshock twice in my lifetime because i dont care for it after that. do i love it? absolutely, but its not a game that you can always return to. i appreciate games like this but i don’t want all games to be trying to achieve artistic excellence, that shit just sounds frustrating. art is a venue meant for viewing, because ‘playable’ art would have to lead players to a conclusion or a transcendant moment, meaning the objective of the (art) game is to make players realize something outside of the game rather than continue playing it. if as a game designer you choose to make games that explain to players meanings of life, fuckin go for it i guess but the only difference in objective between games and video games is the video. video doesn’t mean art, it means non-physical representation. so on that note, im going to keep my focus where i believe it belongs, on making fun ass videogames, and and i believe your ignorant if you believe that makes me in any way unintelligent. i will explain this to anyone who inquires.