4 ms·
I think we really are at the beginning of video games as a medium, though I hope some of us will be alive long enough to see a real masterpiece. People watch mo
by bbctol 10y ago
I think we really are at the beginning of video games as a medium, though I hope some of us will be alive long enough to see a real masterpiece. People watch movies made 60 years ago and appreciate them on their own merit; they rarely watch movies made 100 years ago, though, except to comment on their impact. The technology underlying games is still progressing rapidly, and hasn't hit the relative plateau that film did. A movie shot in 1975 may use different technology behind the lens, but its similar enough in form (colors, scenes cutting between each other, sound) that we can appreciate it even if we've grown up with the films of today, whereas when watching a jerky black-and-white silent film from 1923 we simply can't get into it.
No matter how good Ocarina of Time is, anyone playing it today can feel the lack of depth and poor graphics putting up a wall between themselves and enjoyment. Most games are still improving on a couple of simple models, and the only games that people really seem to revisit are ones so simple they can't be improved on (Tetris is a perfect game, if not a particularly deep piece of art) or truly different in a way that hasn't been met since (people are still getting into Portal a decade later.) The design of most video games means that more depth, points of interest, and complexity make the game more fun, which means more processing power will always improve the game. If nothing else, this is because most video games are simulations of reality, and reality is always more complex than the computer. I fully enjoyed the most recent Hitman, but still ran up against points where the game logic interfered with my intuition about how the world works, and the next iteration with better tech will inevitably improve on it. Not until gaming hardware and basic principles of game design reach a slower level of development will we see an enduring masterpiece.
- MattRix 10y agoBraid is pretty timeless, and I think The Witness will be too. They are both examples of "sublime art". The goal of emulating reality perfectly is fine for some kinds of games, but hardly necessary to create an enduring work of art.
- specialist 10y ago"...they rarely watch movies made 100 years ago" Hmmm. It's about the experience. The medium is the message and all that. Art out of context barely makes sense. We rarely get to see those films as they were meant to be seen. Buster Keaton on the silver screen with a live organist is a completely different experience than watching it on your TV. It's the same, for me, with old video games. I recently got on a tactics kick, wanting to relive the glory days. Tried to play thru an emulator; hated it. Ended up buying an old GBA.
- UncleMeat 10y agoGames have been around for 40 years. When can we stop saying that the medium was in its infancy? 40 years after the development of commercial motion pictures, several of the movies that are considered to be the greatest of all time had been produced.
- neves 10y agoIs 92 years enough? I've just gathered a bunch of 10 yo kids and we all had a lot of fun watching Chaplin classics. The Gold Rush (1925) was a great hit. City Lights (1931) is true masterpiece
- AlexandrB 10y ago> No matter how good Ocarina of Time is, anyone playing it today can feel the lack of depth and poor graphics putting up a wall between themselves and enjoyment. This is an interesting example because the N64 era is a very awkward one. Along with the Playstation the N64 is the dawn of mainstream 3D gaming, but these games still very limited graphically and designers are in the process figuring out how to make a 3D games work. If you look a generation back, games like Super Metroid are still immensely enjoyable today - the lack of graphical/gameplay depth you mentioned is a non-issue as 2D gaming was quite mature at this point.