Now we have this game, this artifact, this Dragon’s Crown. Rarely is a game considered the singular vision of its visual artist. Though gaming has its share of auteurs usually this singular credit is typically handed to a programmer, to a gameplay designer, or the rare “triple-threat” who does programming, design, and art or sound. Of course, some big-budget titles are also ascribed to their designers: it’s Sid Meier’s Alpha Centauri it’s American McGee’s Alice. Even if I may not agree with the visions of a singular creator such as an Alexander Bruce it is wonderful that they exist, are visible, and have things to say through their artwork. This is one reason why I like to engage with indie games, since their creators are often people we can finger by name. Clint Hocking and I both disagree with Ebert games are, indeed, authored works. I bring this up not to malign Ebert, who was brilliant, and whose opinion was unfairly maligned often, but as a conversation-starter about the idea of games and authorship. This is partially because they are often a result of design by committee, but also because they only “exist” as a conversation between the game itself and its player. Roger Ebert once claimed that games are difficult to consider as “art” because they do not have specific authorship.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |