That being said, I re-read over your sources and thesis, I thought that the least I could do was offer a few avenues of argument for your paper. I suppose I should warn you though, because I cannot guarantee that I won't plagiarize these suggestions and use them myself...Anyways, they are as follows:
Players As Actors—I'm sure you already had this in mind, but I just wanted to emphasize the importance of it. The strength (and challenge) of video games lies in the fact that WE are the actors in the drama. Unlike all other mediums, the audience does not WATCH the character developing and changing the world; the audience IS the character. I think the possibilities and implications of that aspect alone are remarkable. This is displayed with this into. I know this is probably the least serious game out there, but the idea is that each "character" is ideally a player, acting in that character's role. And that role is—by design—tailored to the player's desires.
Applied Design—Often the dramatic and rhetorical aspects of games are the only aspects one considers when evaluating a game's artistic merits; what about the technical side? There's a lot of hate for graphic design in today's art world (check out this article about the latest Oscars), yet the amount of time and effort and creativity it takes to make a digital world makes the Sistine Chapel look like a refrigerator hangup. The vistas of Bethesda games frequently take my breath away; that's less than I can say for the Mona Lisa.
 | ||||
| ART. |
 |
| ...art? |
Anyways, I have no idea if this is remotely useful to you. If there's anything more specific you need, I'd be glad to help!
Thanks, Britton! I really think that, like theater or film, video games aren't just one instance of art, but a conglomeration of arts--artists, writers, designers, and actors (or, in this case, players). There's really something there, I think.
ReplyDelete