The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
With the introduction of any form of media, there comes a certain boundry between that and what has come before.
When massmarket books were first created, I'm sure they would never have been seen as art in themselves- it was the skills of the story-teller that were the true art in books.
However, slowly books became their own form of art- based on the way the author used the language to evoke great emotions and ideas, and reach into people in a way oral communication could never achieve.
The same has happened with films and photographs- originally simply a "recording" tool, films and photos are now use their visual communication to make points and imagages in a way never before achieved.
So, will gaming ever achieve the same level as the above pursuits? After all, gaming possesses many of the features of "art"- originality, conceptualism and emotions are now making their stand in the medium.
However, there is one striking difference between gaming and different forms of "art"- games are interactive. How can a game designer possibly come up with a game that will leave the player with a massive emotional outburst if the player is the one in control of the action? I doubt games will ever possess the power of books- being able to cause revolutions and end wars.
But an even better question is raised in one word that I have just used- games are used by "players". Players. People who pay games for fun, and not to explore a deeply profound subject in the same way films based on the Vietnam war might. Instead, games glorify almost everything- killing, fighting and waging wars are never questioned to be "bad" in games.
And this is where games will fall whort of being art. They may introduce new styles of graphics and representations of emotions, but they will never reach the hearts of the player. They will never cause the player to make their stand in the world against tyrany or poverty. They will never explore deep issues like war or death. They will forever be relegated to the depths of the casual hobby.
Sonic
When massmarket books were first created, I'm sure they would never have been seen as art in themselves- it was the skills of the story-teller that were the true art in books.
However, slowly books became their own form of art- based on the way the author used the language to evoke great emotions and ideas, and reach into people in a way oral communication could never achieve.
The same has happened with films and photographs- originally simply a "recording" tool, films and photos are now use their visual communication to make points and imagages in a way never before achieved.
So, will gaming ever achieve the same level as the above pursuits? After all, gaming possesses many of the features of "art"- originality, conceptualism and emotions are now making their stand in the medium.
However, there is one striking difference between gaming and different forms of "art"- games are interactive. How can a game designer possibly come up with a game that will leave the player with a massive emotional outburst if the player is the one in control of the action? I doubt games will ever possess the power of books- being able to cause revolutions and end wars.
But an even better question is raised in one word that I have just used- games are used by "players". Players. People who pay games for fun, and not to explore a deeply profound subject in the same way films based on the Vietnam war might. Instead, games glorify almost everything- killing, fighting and waging wars are never questioned to be "bad" in games.
And this is where games will fall whort of being art. They may introduce new styles of graphics and representations of emotions, but they will never reach the hearts of the player. They will never cause the player to make their stand in the world against tyrany or poverty. They will never explore deep issues like war or death. They will forever be relegated to the depths of the casual hobby.
Sonic
Page:
Games aren't exactly art. Like you said, they'll never make us feel any real emotion or do something serious.
Except maybe destroy the console and game after a bad gaming experience! I know someone who once threw his NES out the window, and many people on here have broken controllers and damaged consoles and games in rage.
Players will never really take games too seriously because they are just 'games'! And they're like films, as many of them are based on fiction, with great imagination and fantasy used.
Except maybe destroy the console and game after a bad gaming experience! I know someone who once threw his NES out the window, and many people on here have broken controllers and damaged consoles and games in rage.
Players will never really take games too seriously because they are just 'games'! And they're like films, as many of them are based on fiction, with great imagination and fantasy used.
With the introduction of any form of media, there comes a certain boundry between that and what has come before.
When massmarket books were first created, I'm sure they would never have been seen as art in themselves- it was the skills of the story-teller that were the true art in books.
However, slowly books became their own form of art- based on the way the author used the language to evoke great emotions and ideas, and reach into people in a way oral communication could never achieve.
The same has happened with films and photographs- originally simply a "recording" tool, films and photos are now use their visual communication to make points and imagages in a way never before achieved.
So, will gaming ever achieve the same level as the above pursuits? After all, gaming possesses many of the features of "art"- originality, conceptualism and emotions are now making their stand in the medium.
However, there is one striking difference between gaming and different forms of "art"- games are interactive. How can a game designer possibly come up with a game that will leave the player with a massive emotional outburst if the player is the one in control of the action? I doubt games will ever possess the power of books- being able to cause revolutions and end wars.
But an even better question is raised in one word that I have just used- games are used by "players". Players. People who pay games for fun, and not to explore a deeply profound subject in the same way films based on the Vietnam war might. Instead, games glorify almost everything- killing, fighting and waging wars are never questioned to be "bad" in games.
And this is where games will fall whort of being art. They may introduce new styles of graphics and representations of emotions, but they will never reach the hearts of the player. They will never cause the player to make their stand in the world against tyrany or poverty. They will never explore deep issues like war or death. They will forever be relegated to the depths of the casual hobby.
Sonic
When massmarket books were first created, I'm sure they would never have been seen as art in themselves- it was the skills of the story-teller that were the true art in books.
However, slowly books became their own form of art- based on the way the author used the language to evoke great emotions and ideas, and reach into people in a way oral communication could never achieve.
The same has happened with films and photographs- originally simply a "recording" tool, films and photos are now use their visual communication to make points and imagages in a way never before achieved.
So, will gaming ever achieve the same level as the above pursuits? After all, gaming possesses many of the features of "art"- originality, conceptualism and emotions are now making their stand in the medium.
However, there is one striking difference between gaming and different forms of "art"- games are interactive. How can a game designer possibly come up with a game that will leave the player with a massive emotional outburst if the player is the one in control of the action? I doubt games will ever possess the power of books- being able to cause revolutions and end wars.
But an even better question is raised in one word that I have just used- games are used by "players". Players. People who pay games for fun, and not to explore a deeply profound subject in the same way films based on the Vietnam war might. Instead, games glorify almost everything- killing, fighting and waging wars are never questioned to be "bad" in games.
And this is where games will fall whort of being art. They may introduce new styles of graphics and representations of emotions, but they will never reach the hearts of the player. They will never cause the player to make their stand in the world against tyrany or poverty. They will never explore deep issues like war or death. They will forever be relegated to the depths of the casual hobby.
Sonic
Page: