Rigamarole

Art systems from code-generated displays, in my opinion, is not art. How can a person place a mod within a system and claim it as their own. The discourse within "An Interview with JODI," is astounding - computer dabblers remove textures from a code in attempt to "reveal" the environment. Their findings are cute, yet simplistic. The point of any entertainment (or serious) game is to be removed from reality. We all know that mobs are just number-generating pixels, activated by movement into radii.

Yes, artists dance around the boarders of law - mock copyright, infringe on property, and vandalize...yet the artist is commonly socially accepted. They personalize. It's nice. But, would an urban artist claim their medium (architecture) as their own? I doubt it. The perspective engines discussed in part 2 of the reading seem to take a step too far...it's merely cosmetic, if that.

I battle gibberish like this in my work. I like to think of myself as an artist - painstakingly investing hours, days, and weeks into the geometric design of stuff that may sometimes be nanometers in length. My specific duties are not unique - just like painting with a brush is not unique. But, its my creativity that allows me to continue my work. It's not unusual to visit a trade show and see my work deconstructed - and the creativity falsely claimed for. This is what I see in these "artists." They have pirated a designer's engine [their geometric/statistical design] (their medium), broken it down, and claimed it as their own.

For the chapter on "interdependent Game Development" - I totally disagree. The same bullshit is in the CAD world - there are billions of posts on forums and blogs concerning the difficulty of CAD and that open source tools suck, are not as good, etc. This is all nonsense - CAD just takes time and a spatially-oriented mind to work in. Same goes for animators - so much bitching in the industry about tools and code. Maya takes 6-10 months to adjust to - where your done, your a professional animator. I'm talking about greater than DVD quality, 1080p stuff, photo-realistic design and even throw in some physics generators.

So "can" the small firms make games? Yes. Can they afford the talent? No. Are they willing to learn themselves? Time will tell.

What??? Art and Game

A very important aspect of art is the "transformation from non-art to art" (27).

Isn't this the basis of all art - the evolution of material or fragments into a space?

"Three different modes of relation between contemporary fine art and games [are] appropriation, modification, and production of original games" (29)

1. Appropriation is validated by the needlessness of "in-depth" knowledge of technology or rules

e.g. "Space Invaders" as depicted on p31

2. Modification is in the form on hacks and alterations of the code to further fancy the piece

3. Production as a "Invention in the Form of Mods and Hacks"




What the heck is going on here. To define art is to remove art. A game designer is an artist. A game hacker is a hacker. A game modder is a modder.

Serious taken seriously

I wholeheartedly agree with Bogost on the seriousness of gaming in contemporary society. The "modern education" (p.320), "commercial development" (321), and family values (as illustrated in chapter 9) discussed in the last few chapters are vivid. The procedural rhetoric that all these themes embody are reinforced in many videogames.

Bogost mounts his claim by noting that "to be useful, a serious game must stimulate and involve all players, not merely a subset of players" (321). No matter the procedure, each required party must not only participate but find "value" in the process.

My question for Bogost surrounds family life. I am interested in his opinion on the future of "famligaming"...since exergaming has taken off so well, and clearly Bogost noted the effects of credit on the family, how game could bring back the family. Does he foresee something much more advanced than Animal Life (??).