1. From Roger Ebert’s perspective, video games are not art. To him, art is able to teach more about the experiences, thoughts and feelings of other people. He states of the forms of art he has been most effected by, “They could instruct me about life, love, disease and death, principles and morality, humor and tragedy. They might make my life more deep, full and rewarding” (Ebert). Although he did not play video games at the time of the blog entry, he felt that he could not personally experience his definition of art through video games. He also however, could not define the artistic experience that makes something like music compelling, so he did leave a little room for the “to each his own” argument.
Ian Bogost, on the other hand argues that since the era of avant-garde, there has been no universal definition of art so trying to define video games as “art” or “not art” is a struggle no one will win. Instead, he believes that games should be seen for the specific type of modern art they represent, or as he puts it: “the developing conventions, styles, movements through which games are participating in a broader concept of art” (Bogost 12). An example of such categories are proceduralist games, which favor both immediate gratification and external action causing the player to reflect on the themes of the game without the need for resolution. While I find cinema to be a richer artistic experience than video games personally, I tend to agree with Bogost in this argument. I believe that Ebert is being a little stubborn and unfair in his views, especially considering he refuses to give video games a shot himself. What may not be a rich experience to one person may be incredibly compelling to another, so just because one person does not see something as artistically compelling does not make it any less “art” in general.
2. I believe that video games are absolutely a legitimate art form. Their settings, characters and storylines have evolved to the point that it takes an incredibly talented team of visual and computer artists to construct them, and just like the many other forms of art, from fine art to abstract to music, they offer the consumer an emotional and possibly informative experience through visual stimulation. For me, “Depression Quest” does not a powerful experience on the same level as cinema. Cinema is the ultimate emotionally compelling experience to me. Video games have always been something of a boredom hobby for me; something to do to pass time and find some entertainment but not much more. However, I believe that art is extremely subjective. For others, I can easily see video games being an experience as powerful or maybe even more so than cinema. Just like film critics will disagree on whether a certain film is “good,” it’s all a matter of preference.
3. “Depression Quest” is something like video games meet literature. Yes, you are guiding the main character throughout a created world and what happens depends upon your choices, but it does not come in the CGI heavy, 3-dimensionally created visual world of today’s most popular video games. Instead, you are relying on narrative prose to create the visuals of the story in your head and you chose among a series of written options for what to do next.
Empathy plays a big part in the way certain games are experiences. For example, in “Darfur is Dying,” we are forced to empathize with the characters due to their extreme humanity; we are able to put ourselves in their shoes much more easily than the often epic situations of characters in other video games. In the game, “weakness is all the player ever gets. There is no magic to invoke, no heroic lineage to appeal to; strength adequate to survive is simply inaccessible” (Bogost 19). As a result, the character’s situations are easily felt for and empathized with, creating a different, and possibly more evocative gaming experience.
No comments:
Post a Comment