TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

Videogames: The Unfashionable Fine Art

17 pointsby bootover 8 years ago

2 comments

belochover 8 years ago
Compare films made in the 1940&#x27;s to those made in the 1910&#x27;s, or earlier. Until the late 1910&#x27;s, film was basically tech demo&#x27;s. Brief shots of regular life, or maybe something a little titillating. No real plots or structure. By the 40&#x27;s, most of the basics still in use today were established. Plot structure, as well as lots of little technical details, such as the 180 rule[1], were developed, and viewers instinctively rely on these even today.<p>However, film was not viewed as art in the 1940&#x27;s. Stage was art. Film was just disposable mass entertainment. Studios churned out massive amounts of film and, in many cases, didn&#x27;t bother to preserve anything. The idea that somebody would want to see Casablanca again in a few decades was alien. Even today, many films aren&#x27;t seen as art. Somebody who says they&#x27;re a lover of art films, especially Michael Bay&#x27;s Transformer series, is going to be laughed at. However, nobody disputes the fact that films can be art today, thanks to classics like &quot;Rashomon&quot; or &quot;Once Upon a Time in the West&quot;, and also thanks to more contemporary art films that challenge as much as they entertain, even if they may not prove to have lasting appeal.<p>Now take a look at the history of gaming. The early games of the 70&#x27;s and 80&#x27;s were, at first, basically tech demos. As the 80&#x27;s wore on, game designers used challenging game mechanics to wring maximum engaged playtime out of extremely limited resources. Games like Pacman or Donkey Kong could certainly eat your time (and quarters), but they seldom provoked an emotional or intellectual response aside from frustration, not at all unlike a Michael Bay film.<p>We are entering an era in video gaming equivalent to film of the 1940&#x27;s. The core mechanics are established and people know them. There now exist games that have appeal beyond the latest technology. If people are still playing Donkey Kong now, how long will games like the Stanley Parable hold up? Despite this, as for film in the 1940&#x27;s, we still think of games as disposable and <i>not</i> as art. This is going to change, as it did for film, but <i>slowly</i>.<p>The important thing right now is for game producers to realize that their source code may be <i>valuable</i> in the future. Preserve that stuff!<p>[1]In many scenes with two participants, such as dialogue, duels in action scenes, etc., most film-makers avoid cutting back and forth between angles that exceed 180 degrees in difference. Breaking this rule usually confuses viewers, as it becomes unclear who is on which side.
andrewclunnover 8 years ago
Movie: 2 hours passive absorption. Must know how to speak the language. Creators have full control of the narrative.<p>Book: 8 hours intellectually engaged. Must know how to read. Creators have control of the narrative, but not the pacing at which it is consumed.<p>Video game: 30 hours actively participating. Must have skills specific to the medium, which often vary by genre. Creators have to allow for disruption and variation of the narrative, often in ways they cannot predict.<p>It&#x27;s not that games can&#x27;t be art in the modernist sense (where the intention is to either convey an idea or evoke an emotion). It&#x27;s just that video games are a less accessible and more complex (and therefore harder to get right) medium. Want to do something only an interactive medium can do? Games are a good choice. Want to tell a story? Games are then an objectively inferior choice.
评论 #13120293 未加载
评论 #13120369 未加载
评论 #13120195 未加载
评论 #13120205 未加载
评论 #13120185 未加载
评论 #13120312 未加载
评论 #13120186 未加载