I’d like to explain a few threads of thought that have been milling about in my head for the last year or so. This may appear to be a bit more long-winded and entangled than my other “rants”, but I’d urge you to bear with me – if only for the selfish reason that I think that these are interesting subjects. (and you might find so too)
It’s also important to note that I’m going to be using a very complicated topic to explain a much simpler topic, and while this may seem counterproductive, I still submit that it is interesting enough to warrant the long walk.
Do human beings have souls? This question permeates our culture to the very core. I’d guess (and pardon my lack of scientific research in this regard) that most people believe to some degree that they are “special”. They probably also believe that the people around them, their friends and family for example, are “special”. They may even extend that belief to all of their fellow human beings. The concept of a “soul” is one way to represent this “specialness”.
Previously I’ve “ranted” about games-as-art, simply stating that I believe them to be art, while explaining that I don’t believe that to be a pretentious statement.
Amanda Palmer, being awesome
I feel that what causes some people to run screaming from games-as-art discussions is a combination of exaggerations and misinterpretations. One side in a debate might overstate their case, while the other seizes on that, characterizes it and perpetuates it – for example. The sad thing is, as far as I can see it, there really isn’t a need for this “rift”.
The definition of “art” that I subscribe to is a very open one. For example, it doesn’t require something to be “good” (ranked above and beyond other works) and it could be said of almost any medium.
One of the reasons I don’t include “good” in my definition of art, is because “good” is subjective. I think “good” is one of the points where debates about art become pretentious. The question is: is there an objective way to evaluate art?
Fear or Faith? What motivates you to do what you do?
When you sit down to work, do you feel confident in yourself and assured that you will eventually create something that you and others will appreciate? Or do you feel intimidated at the prospect of all the external forces that will eventually judge you and your work?
I’ve been dwelling on this difference for some time, because I alternate between experiencing both of these powerful motivators.
I want to take some time out from working on “Marian” and getting ready for the “Aquaria” soundtrack release to talk a bit about what indie games can be, and how they are made.
What are Games?
We all believe we know what games are, although our definitions probably vary greatly. I would argue that “games” are a new form of multimedia, that combine existing mediums with the new element of interaction. They’re not specifically only about interaction, they’re also not specifically about their individual components. What is truly interesting to me about games is how all the different components work together as a unified whole.
This definition of games opens up interesting possibility, for example: making a game that has limited interaction for a specific purpose, or creating a game that has no visuals or no audio but still works as a whole.
Instead of picking apart games and ranking them based on their individual components, let’s think about games as whole. Let’s look at the connections between the different mediums.
This (rather lengthy) Rant is Continued after the Break…
