So what can games do then to advance themselves? How can they become art?
Well, if we go waaay back to the start, with my basic working definition of art being something that provokes a reaction, and we get a new generation of critics more open to the medium behind it, I think that games can finally start getting noticed as valid works of art by doing what they do best; letting people DO stuff in a way that makes them think, debate and be inspired.
Imagine a game where the player as revolutionary can topple an unjust government through legitimate means such as running for office, to more radical means such as full on revolution.
Imagine a game where the player as revolutionary can topple an unjust government through legitimate means such as running for office, to more radical means such as full on revolution.
Imagine a game where the player forges relationships with other characters that grow and change, where the character remembers things the player did, admires some actions, disapproves of others, answers some questions with total conviction and others with doubt.
Imagine a game where long, sustained relationships are possible, where feelings can be hurt, old wrongs remembered, and any building, organization or individual you affect can affect you back.
Imagine a game where the story that is being told is told your way, at your pace, affected by your decisions.
We are a long, LONG way from having any single game or system that can accommodate the near limitless choice that an active human imagination can inflict on an environment, but I think that ultimately what games need to do to separate themselves from the more traditional media, to truly become an art, is to understand that the greatest strength games have is the ability to not just provoke an audience, but BE PROVOKED by that audience and respond, creating synergy between art and audience that no traditional form thus far can do.
Read The Art of The Game at RagnarTornquis.com
Post a Comment