Game as Art, that’s what it’s all about

2001child2.jpg

Hi. I’m what you can call a cinema enthusiast. I eat and drink, but only so I can watch “2001” for the billionth time. I’m also a movie critic of the worst kind (the ones who think highly of their opinions), so pardon me if I seem arrogant. Since criticism is a part of me, I love to be criticized; so you can have your revenge in the comments page. I myself, see criticism as the only way to improve oneself, so go ahead.

I’m also in love with videogames, ever since they started to become a more “artistic” medium. I have little doubt that they are a new and exciting form of art, and will eventually replace cinema as an audiovisual medium for the masses. Games are still young and immature, but they are also bursting with creativity and new ideas, which makes them much more exciting than other mediums.

So, this is my game blog. Here, I will review games and write about games’ artistic trends, history and future. In my reviews, I will take a different approach than most media outlets and magazines. I will take a closer look into games’ art design, plot and narrative, level and gameplay design. The authors behind the games will also be a special point of interest. Graphics, length, and other aspects will be completely overlooked, since I find it ridiculous to evaluate art on a mere technical or value standpoint. Movies and records are never criticized for having small budgets, being too short or not being “fun” enough. They are evaluated for the quality of their workmanship, art, ideas and meanings. So should games.

Advertisements
  1. És um cinéfilo extraordinário e um “jogatanador” como não há igual!!!
    És o meu herói!!!

    • Rafael ..::Celta::..
    • March 30th, 2008

    Até se me vieram lágrimas aos olhos!!!!!!!!!!
    Keep up the good work 😉

    • Rez
    • May 24th, 2008

    I agree with Roger Ebert. Movies are a far more superior medium than games. Most game storylines are just generic varations of other plots. Bioshock is basically Roger Corman.

    • ruicraveirinha
    • May 25th, 2008

    “I agree with Roger Ebert.”
    Well, first up, let me say I’m a big fan of Roger Ebert… as a movie critic. When it comes to games, he clearly knows nothing about what his talking about. Did he ever play a game on his own? Probably not. Did he ever play (or even watch somebody play) the best games in the means? Surely not. When he describes games, he dismisses much of the elements that make the experience unique and interesting. It’s like a theater critic bashing on cinema, without ever being to a movie-theater – would you believe that person? No matter how valid an opinion can be, if it lacks proper justification, it means nothing. And in Ebert’s case, it lacks.
    “Movies are a far more superior medium than games.”
    No means can be seen as superior to another. In my opinion there’s no possible comparison, because each artistic mean uses different semiotic vehicles to express their author’s ideas. Can you compare literature to cinema? Sure, you can say that literature has far more complex narrative structures, dialogs, and whatnot, but Literature lacks the impact and beauty of image and sound. So how do you compare? Music with literature? Theater with Sculpture? How? It’s simple, you can’t, they’re different languages, with different expressions, different focuses, different motifs, different genres, different everything! To compare just seems silly to me.
    Now, what I do admit, is the comparison between means when it comes asserting the fulfillment of their potential. In that regard, I can see film as “superior” medium, but that is to be expected, it has had more than 100 years of history to perfect the craft, as opposed to 30 in the gaming means…
    Most game storylines are just generic varations of other plots.
    That afirmation is just completely generic and reductive, and the same can be said about most works of art. I bet I can reduce any movie to a composition of others works of art, and the same can be done with any other piece, because every bit of art that exists is always a product of previous works, either directly (when it is in the form of an adaptation), or indirectly, (when you can sense the artist’s influences and references). Artists are human beings and thus, a product of their means. They always take something from the past and use it to create their own unique expression. But that doesn’t make it unique, it makes it slightly different than his influences, but never detached from them. Art scholars do just that: examine a piece of art and conjure up the net of influences that rise behind and beyond.
    So, when you say that “Bioshock is basically Roger Corman.” you’re probably right, but it is far from being detracting to the piece, quite on the contrary, it means its authors have good references and know how to translate them into other means, with added value and expression. Reducing “Bioshock” to a single influence, forgetting all of its brilliant art-deco flair, carefully woven script, claustrophobic ambiance and beautiful soundtrack is mean and unjustified, and I think you can understand why. I could say the same about “1984”, “Brave New World”, “Metropolis”, or any other work of art, and it would always be unfair. So be careful when you say… “A” is “B”, don’t you go forgetting what “A” really is.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: