pallandrome (pallandrome) wrote,

Games Vs. Movies

I was reading an article by Ebert, arguing that games cannot be "High Art" (Yeah, I'm sure you've heard of this little fiasco).

Of course, I disagree, and would cite Bioshock, Eco, Planescape Torment, Call of Duty 4, and even certain independent smaller titles such as

(and yes, I do love the Gamers with Jobs website)

But what I see in most games is not art. It's potential. Many games COULD be art, were it not for a select few flaws, just like much art could be entertaining, were they not so rigidly strictured. It's a rare thing to find both art and entertainment in the same package. The most common source for this is in the story. The story could be told any number of ways, from across a campfire, on a live stage, on the shining silver screen, or even with the glow of a computer console, but the method is essentially unchanged. Each of these mediums is just another way to tell a story, and the aspersion that one method is inherently more flawed than another is lacking a certain mental flexibility.

What games CAN do, that movies sometimes have difficulty with, is be art, and be entertaining, WITHOUT telling a story. This is something that has come more and more to the foreground of the casual gaming market of late, and I suspect it will grow quite a bit to be a standard industry offering in just a few short years. Nintendo will likely be the first to bring such pieces mainstream, with their casual friendly console so lacking in the usual hard-core gamer staples.
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic
    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.