VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

Funny video with (to me) a more serious discussion behind it.

While I disagree on the use of the term “graphics” I fundamentally agree with the implicit point, which is also the reason behind Artsygamer.com’s starting out. I don’t think it’s about graphics though, but I do think it’s about “content”. Sure, gameplay can be viewed as content too, but I’m talking more about the more traditional forms of content like story/music/mood/architecture/environments/set design…

It is interesting and exciting though to see modern games presenting things in such an easy way that everybody can get it at a glance, but even if one went back to old games, say you went back to text mode games, so there’s no “graphics” at all, I think even back then one could make this separation: I’ve played text adventure games written by the great funny scifi writer Douglas Adams himself… and I’d call that content that can move people in a deep way, and content that somebody coming from a traditional “reading books” world can get, as opposed to games of that same era that were about reflexes, bouncing dots, moving/fitting shapes and reacting which I don’t see as being able to play in the same field. Not saying they’re not fun, or can’t also trigger attachment, I just see a fundamental difference between these two and by far value one over the other even on a theoretical level.