Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Leafsnail]

I'd think that there is clearly a secret mastermind Cathy.

[Puck]

Video games are, in this sense, as much a medium as art itself.  The primary purpose is for the player to express themselves (at least in most games that are fun to play). The game may have a tight plot that it follows, but a plot alone isn't art until it's story is told. That is the players job. The player takes the role of an author, actor or director (depending on the game), albeit one with tight constraints on how they explore the telling.

Because video games require more audience participation one might argue games are an even "higher" form of art than the ones already accepted.

Seriously, playing per se is a pretty high form of existance, imho. Can free the mind in a way Van Gogh could only dream of 

[Grakelin]

Dramatists have been doing this shit for decades, video games didn't pioneer audience involvement.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

But they do allow you to do it in the comfort of your own home, and in a more shiny manner.

[Grakelin]

Yes, you can do it in your own home (I'll even discount DVDs that let you change the story progression, because most of them are trashy and that's not really the audience-actor connection you need in live theatre).

I don't even know what 'being shiny' means. I have seen many plays which were more aesthetically pleasing than video games. Sometimes there are performances which are focused entirely on that (like when Colm Feore played Macbeth in the 2009 Stratford season. Damn, that was just a bunch of fiery explosions and then a jeep came out holy shit).

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I don't really know if the aesthetic value of video games and plays can be compared. They both have the potental to be exellent in that department, but when they are the effect seems different. The same goes for paintings and sculptures. It just isn't the same for any of them.

[Grakelin]

You're diverging from the point that video games are unique for the participation factor.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I am not attempting to diverge from anything. Puck claimed they were unique in the participation factor. My only argument is that they are the most accessible and widely used art that involves audience participation.

[Grakelin]

You're not actually backing that point up or attempting to validate it in response to my argument in the contrary, though.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Well, on the whole, people don't really go and see theater. The participation brought by games can be done in other ways, but most people do not. Art and entertainment are changing to accomodate the lowest common denominator. The vast majority of the population, if asked to reflect on a play you made them see (as there is no chance in hell they would do so of their free will), would most likely say somthing that could be boiled down to "lol gay". Video games are enjoyed by almost everyone, including the uneducated masses. This is the reason I think that video games have underwent a shift to entertainment instead of art in the recent years. It became accepted. The generation that started on video games as new media grew up. They accepted in in ways those who came before them did not.

Thus, things like murder mystery games and interactive theater are no longer given any attention by the vast majority. Video games are, and they have began to suffer for it. It is odd. For example, I would argue that the campaign of Call of Duty 4 was art. It told a tragic and shocking story, ending with assuring the player that all the death and suffering the characters went through would go unknown and unappreciated by the public. Its plot follows the formula of the modern tragety to the letter. Normal men, in this case soilders, brought down from what little they had. But then, there's the online. That is pure entertainment, mass competition. It has no artistic value.

[Grakelin]

Well, on the whole, people don't really go and see theater.

Decided not to read the rest of your post after this sentence, because I'm just going to assume everything that comes after it is equally nonsensical.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Assumptions are bad for you. I see theaters all over my city closing en mass, as they are not making profit. This leads me to think that people are not going to see them. The people around me certainly don't seem to care about theater, if asked. It isn't nonsensical, it is only what I see occuring around me.

[Grakelin]

What city are you in, and are the people around you 15 years old?

[Leafsnail]

Yeah, noone has a good definition for art.  That is the real crux of the problem here.

Any definition seems to exclude something that obviously is art, or include things which aren't.  To be honest, I'd have to say it's a subjective term.

And I do go to see theater now and again, if there's something interesting on.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Raliegh, and the people around me are 14-18. My interactions with them tell me that my generation cares nothing for theater. The mass closing of theaters tell me the previous generation dosen't care either.