|
Arte farte |
Sunday, 02 May 11:33 pm
|
|
 | I had just finished cleaning my NES inside out (out of boredom, restlessness and necessity, lots of birds with one stone) when I turned on the tv to see that they were talking about video games in RAM. RAM is our program for pretentious art.
I'm one of those nerds that is sort of waiting for this recognition, but thus far whenever I've heard anyone talk about games in an artsy context I cringe. It's not just that it's always women that have to preach. It's this little voice in my head that says 'this bitch wouldn't know the difference between a green and a red mushroom'. |
Tonights RAM had two of these, the (in my opinion) worst one apparently being a professor at the University of Utrecht, teaching (amongst other things?) videogame history (perhaps breun can elaborate?). She's aiming for a Ph-fucking-dee on the subject. The other lady was more representing the art side. Anyway, the general idea of both seemed to be that videogames had tremendous potential, but thus far, suck.
Something I can partly agree with, but it is rather easy to ignore the tremendous progress of this new medium in the past 30 years. The ladies mentioned that the trend seems to be nothing more than just increase (graphical) realism. This shows right away when you compare the graphics of games over the years. Don't need a Ph.d for that. But what about the realism under the skin? How do you pack the world into a view on a tv screen controlled with a few buttons and a joystick? How do you make it a fun and rewarding experience? How do you make it a credible reality? These things need to be in order before any graphics can do their work, and it is here especially where videogames are unique. I know that 95% of mainstream games (as they would sneeringly call the millions of first person war simulations) have only the tiniest amount, if any, inovation in them, and mostly just jack up the graphics. But we really didn't go from wolfenstein to counterstrike just because hardware is becoming more and more powerful, and that is why games like goldeneye deserve everybody's respect.
If I understand the ladies view correctly, goldeneye would be just another one of those yawn affairs. Lone good guy against evil yada yada yada. The only news it brought was better graphics. It's nothing but a money making mainstream game and is not progressive in any way. This may seem true on the surface, but anyone who's played the game, and played the games that came before and the ones that came after, know that this game was a turning point in history. This game is a school example of innovation in interactivity and immersion. And it's not the only one of corse. While the majority of games repeat what has been done before, there wouldn't have been any progress without a huge amount of inovative games.
No, those shitty games amateurs put on the internet that are about bush and osama, that's art, because it has a message. Well, if it is that easy, let me be an artist for five seconds. Here's my message: No one will remember those games in two years. These games didn't bring shit to the world and haven't influenced anyone. Whooh. I should apply for other peoples tax money now, what with me inspiring people to think and all.
The true story is, that you can not touch a first person shooter without seeing what goldeneye has done for it. And that is where the art lies. Sure, you can see a videogame as a combination of story, drama, and audiovisual arts, and there are improvements to be made here. However, stating that you think people that are involved in theater should be more involved in game development might sound nice, but it doesn't automatically bring a progressive game. In fact, all you seem to do is taking the focus away from what really matters. It could make a good game even better, but you are shooting the same dead bird as you would be when you are only just continuously pushing the graphics. The result would probably be some shameful release that fake intellectuals might discus once over a good glass of whine and then disappears into oblivion.
Stating that you think more progressive games will come out once there are no graphical boundaries to push anymore is a blatant insult to the many games that are either totally unique, or have managed to push their own genre forward. Videogames are young, that's why at least every other year something comes out that is unlike anything that came before it. Cliche story or not, totally besides the point!
Maybe it's just too impossible to explain the general VPRO public just why videogames are the shit of the century. Maybe these women do spend every waking hour playing videogames. To me it seemed like the only experience they had was watching their boyfriends play from over their shoulder.
Perhaps I would rather stay in my own little nerdy niche, now that I've seen what worldwide recognition can bring.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
Posted by | two comments, already
|
Permanent link |
|