5 May, 2006
Today’s challenge is inspired by some recent posts I’ve read:
Are Games Art? over on Make it Big in Games. Pretty much what it sounds like: Jeff Tunnell is wondering why more people don’t see games as the obvious works of art they are.
Shilling for Columbine on Amber Night. She argues that a game based on the Columbine tragedy is horrific, but I argue that if games are to be art we have to face issues like this. Great art makes us think and challenges us.
So, we’re going to get a bit theoretical in this design challenge. How would you prove to someone neutral on the issue that games can be art? For bonus points, how could you convince a skeptic?
Read on for a few of my thoughts.
Being a game creator, I would want to work on creating a game that has “artistic merit”. That means affecting feelings and thoughts, perhaps convincing people of something they didn’t realize before. This game would have to eschew most of the usual tropes of the medium, such as heavy killing and big explosions. I’d want to tell a good story, but focus on the interactive elements so you can’t accuse the game of being a movie where you hit buttons to hear the next line of dialog. This game wouldn’t be created overnight, unfortunately, which is why it hasn’t been done yet. I’d probably let some piece of classic literature inspire me, although I’d have to be careful not to make the game just a rip off of that work.
Okay, even more bonus points for coming up with something actually feasible, and not a bunch of wishful thinking like I have. :)