The subject of games as art, art as media with deeper meaning, is a long
heated debate. The debate have multiply facades, staring with the
terminology itself and with the question “What is a game?”,
question that till these day perplexing many due to the different
world and ways to communicate that each game present within itself.
Although
terminology can be hard, it is almost a non-issue. Answering
this question might help to progress the discussion, but its clearly
apparent that one clear definition can't be achieved, due to
the inherent nature of the subject. It seems much as open to change, both
by the perception of the player, and by the creators.who unlike other mediums have far more open space in the design of the message.
The
second issue people struggle with is the way the message being conveyed. unlike other art
forms, the message portrayed in the game is far more subtle and less focused. even if it tries to be more apparent, its interactive nature makes the language of the message harder to recognize by known tools form previous media, such as cinema, as they're inherently different.
This
interactivity and direct player involvement so inherent to the game
as media that none of the other media forms can help explaining the
message themselves, and when looking for it, there need to be look
within the game itself and after it, see how does outsiders media
help it.
Furthermore
just like in paintings, music and other media we consume, not every piece
try to have a meaningful message. Its might have some message, but
definitely not something as deep or even engaging. People, who claim that every game has meaning often get a rightful response that certain titles lack this deeper meaning being talked about in the overall premise.
That
of course not saying there is no message. Its might be
insignificant one or pointless, but every game does have some story
to it, and some goals that drive the players. The difference tends to
happen because the interactive nature, which change for example the story from closed
story, with begging, conflict and ending to open and forming story. This can be seen even in the
simple games such as “Pong” or “Tetris”, which often come as an
example. The story within them is the progress of the players, and
through it, the game invoke many emotions in order to push the player
just a little further.
I do
see where people against this look are coming from, especially
through the mangled use of “art” in such a pointless manner from
many critique, which use the term just to attack it on the cultural
level but without giving clear indication on the deeper questions
that need to be ask, within such definition.
What
I can't see is the attempt to reduce games to a meaningless activity.
Yes, not every game have definite meaning, and even if its have some
meaning, its can turn to be more on the relative to the person. But
in all cases people don't play games just to play games, we have a
drive to play through them, its can be from the story and character
interaction or even to the challenge, and the personal improvement in
the mechanics compare to one self or the community. And statements such
as “Game is only entertaining\ for fun” or the general reduction
of the merit are just as fallacious and missing the point game.
In
the end, the discussion around the issue its not inherently bad even
if some use it, and its certainly can expand the look we have on
games and the ways we can evaluate them. A more moderate look can
certainly help to make a more fruitful investigation and less to
pollute the initial look from non-interactive media.
