I read this Gamasutra article more than a year ago:
The title makes reference to Merchant Ivory films, it's status as high culture films, and how video games don't have yet the same status as "high culture" and thus are vulnerable to slander.
This provocative article sparkled a series of letters to the editor, some considering classic games as an example of merchant Ivory, games like Pac-man, Frogger, Galaxian, surely have transcended through generations, it is said that if an artist's work manages to break the generational barrier and stay in the taste of new generations, then it can be considered as art and culture, yet not a single game can be labeled as culture.
Actually I would be the one to differ with the above statement, nobody wants to play a game that is boring, likewise watching a film that is.
The real question would be: What is fun? I think fun can come from just more than slapstick comedy or blowing stuff up, like the article later says:
There are many examples of the above, but I think that the core issue is that we are confusing the term fun with entertainment. Entertainment can come from many ways: When we enter to a spook-house, we go there to fell frightened not to amuse ourselves, likewise how many times we have seen people crying over a soap opera or a film? Does that make them masochists? No, they are there to experience entertainment.
One can define entertainment as experiencing a wide range of emotions to distract ourselves from the problems of the real world, the saying says: "Art is entertainment." I couldn't agree more with that.
In describing what would a Merchant Ivory Game would look like the article specifies:
a) Top notch art and design.
b) Very, very user-friendly interface.
c) Lot's of politics, human nature and social issues.
All this combined to create a living world in which we can interact and entertain ourselves. The article also speculates a little about why there are no Merchant Ivory Games, citing economical interests and that sometimes it "sacrifices it's principles to appeal a wider audience", I would add another one: As video games are fully technology dependent, the landscape is constantly changing, faster than other media like books, films or music.
Everyone remembers the revolution of film's visual FX with the advent of GC, and before that there was the revolution of technicolor and sound, but those where changes that came far between them. Video games on the other hand are undergoing massive changes: From the standard 8 color palette to physics in FPS, everything new became another tool to develop the work. And older games without them where simply "demoted" or in the case with blockbuster hits become susceptible to "enhanced remakes".
Who knows what's next for video games? Maybe speech recognition so that you can directly speak through you avatar with the NPC in a game, and respond accordingly even allowing you to have conversations. All those would help to make a real Merchant Ivory Game at least until a new technology comes.
The title makes reference to Merchant Ivory films, it's status as high culture films, and how video games don't have yet the same status as "high culture" and thus are vulnerable to slander.
Video games are an easy target because, unlike the movies, games have no powerful friends and no beautiful film stars to argue for them. But there are many other reasons for our lack of cultural credibility as well. Some of them aren’t our fault, but a surprising number are, and recently I’ve thought of another one: We don’t have any highbrow games.
This provocative article sparkled a series of letters to the editor, some considering classic games as an example of merchant Ivory, games like Pac-man, Frogger, Galaxian, surely have transcended through generations, it is said that if an artist's work manages to break the generational barrier and stay in the taste of new generations, then it can be considered as art and culture, yet not a single game can be labeled as culture.
Now I know from long experience that a certain percentage of you are making derisive snorts of contempt because you personally care nothing for high culture and see no reason why anyone else would either. But even if you don’t like it, you still need it. And before yet another idiot pipes up with Standard Asinine Comment #1 (“but FUN is the only thing that matters!”), let me just say: No, it's not. Shut up and grow up. Our overemphasis on fun—kiddie-style, wheeee-type fun—is part of the reason we’re in this mess in the first place. To merely be fun is to be unimportant, irrelevant, and therefore vulnerable.
Actually I would be the one to differ with the above statement, nobody wants to play a game that is boring, likewise watching a film that is.
The real question would be: What is fun? I think fun can come from just more than slapstick comedy or blowing stuff up, like the article later says:
Whoever thought that city planning could be fun? Or knowing the progression of social, technological and political developments that lead to different forms of civilization?
There are many examples of the above, but I think that the core issue is that we are confusing the term fun with entertainment. Entertainment can come from many ways: When we enter to a spook-house, we go there to fell frightened not to amuse ourselves, likewise how many times we have seen people crying over a soap opera or a film? Does that make them masochists? No, they are there to experience entertainment.
One can define entertainment as experiencing a wide range of emotions to distract ourselves from the problems of the real world, the saying says: "Art is entertainment." I couldn't agree more with that.
In describing what would a Merchant Ivory Game would look like the article specifies:
a) Top notch art and design.
b) Very, very user-friendly interface.
c) Lot's of politics, human nature and social issues.
All this combined to create a living world in which we can interact and entertain ourselves. The article also speculates a little about why there are no Merchant Ivory Games, citing economical interests and that sometimes it "sacrifices it's principles to appeal a wider audience", I would add another one: As video games are fully technology dependent, the landscape is constantly changing, faster than other media like books, films or music.
Everyone remembers the revolution of film's visual FX with the advent of GC, and before that there was the revolution of technicolor and sound, but those where changes that came far between them. Video games on the other hand are undergoing massive changes: From the standard 8 color palette to physics in FPS, everything new became another tool to develop the work. And older games without them where simply "demoted" or in the case with blockbuster hits become susceptible to "enhanced remakes".
Who knows what's next for video games? Maybe speech recognition so that you can directly speak through you avatar with the NPC in a game, and respond accordingly even allowing you to have conversations. All those would help to make a real Merchant Ivory Game at least until a new technology comes.
No comments:
Post a Comment