They take over your brain and let you get lost in them.
Video games are kind of like musical instruments in that they're an artistic object designed to be used and "gotten lost in". You may or may not consider them art in their own right, but the real point is to play them. We've spent a long time figuring out how to make art with musical instruments, but making art with games is very new. With fewer constraints and the right game design, I think technical performances like speedruns and TASes could develop into something like a true art form.
I can agree that it's in theory possible that a videogame becomes as expressive as a musical instrument, but in reality I don't see that happening in at least the next 30 to 50 years.
A musical instrument is much more direct. Want to play grumpy and loud? You play grumpy and loud. Want to play soft and singingly? You can do that. Every nuance is controlled by you, down to the finest grain. It might sometimes not sound exactly like you want it, but then you can still train to get it right. There's no limits.
Videogames on the other hand are much more digital/binary. You can't swing your sword in the exact way that you want to swing it. Instead you usually just either swing it or don't swing it.
You might get something akin to a melody, for example in an RPG you build your character's story by choosing to swing your weapon or not (as well as other such things), but a melody by itself, without artistic interpretation, is hardly art in the same sense.
I can agree that it's in theory possible that a videogame becomes as expressive as a musical instrument, but in reality I don't see that happening in at least the next 30 to 50 years.
I'm by no means professional guitar player, but I do play for fun quite a lot. I also love multiplayer starcraft 2 because of the same things I love guitar playing. It already feels like instrument to me. It's a way to express yourself in a social environment.
You can play macro, choosing one of the safe buildorders and building on that adding small changes in response to your opponent and sometimes on a whim or to throw him out of a loop. You can play risky focusing on early attack and better control of individual units. There's hundreds of proven tactics you can build upon, and with experience of few hundred games you can invent your own (most probably not viable on proffesional level but who cares).
You can switch from one to another tactics mid-game trying to surprise your opponent. Even things as simple as controlling your army have very deep possibilities of customization, because there's tousands of factors and not enough time to focus on everything, so it's a balancing act. Professional players often have their recognizable style (I love how Nerchio outflanks terran oponents, it's magic - everybody knows he does this and yet they fall for it time and again). Korean bio-terrans splitting their marines make one of the cheapest unit kill the units that are expected to be a counter to them (high templars, banelings), all while growing economy, harrasing, etc. Other players prefer chess-like mech playstyle, where you set up lines of defensive tanks and slowly move them along maps - it's like very slow tango - one player moves his tank forward while the other has no scan, the other player must move his units back a little or counterattack, but can't go too far or his units will be killed by the other tanks of the first player. Eventually one player makes a mistake and the army turns to shreds in a few seconds. Or you can just abuse the immobility and attack in a different place while the enemy army moves (but it tends to lead to both players killing each other base in parralel, and whoever is faster wins).
Starcraft is 100 decisions every second, the most important decision is "what decisions are the most important now". And there are lots of viable ways to do these decisions.
I think there's a lot of room for nuance in 60 inputs per second. The sword example is "digital/binary" because of how long it takes to swing. But you're usually given direct, continuous control over your character's movement. These movement mechanics can allow a lot of expressivity, especially if there are multiple mechanics which can interact. Take a look at the movement in Super Smash Bros. Melee if you want a concrete example.
"A musical instrument is much more direct. Want to play grumpy and loud? You play grumpy and loud. Want to play soft and singingly? You can do that. Every nuance is controlled by you, down to the finest grain"
That is answered by choosing classes and character builds, item-setup and gameplay strategies. There is far more gameplay variety than several choices of what to play on a single instrument. Video games allow more flexibility than choosing to swing the sword.
You pick skills, choose where you play, choose which items and artifacts you use, which quests to complete, what clans to join, which server/shard to migrate to, which players to fight, which players to ally/party, what to sell, what to buy, where to explore, what to seek. I advice playing a few MMORPGs before considering the genre an simplistic linear story.
That is answered by choosing classes and character builds, item-setup and gameplay strategies.
Speaking as a formerly avid and still somewhat interested gamer, and also as an amateur tuba player who misses his horn, I really can't agree with you here. Both forms of expression have value. But they are not really comparable with one another.
If you have a PS4 available, play Bound. It's an avant-garde ballet performance of a video game. A shame the various expressive moves become almost completely useless when you finish the game and try speedrunning it.
Thats a perfect description of what artistic genre it is.
Video games are creating their own virtual worlds, where the world itself a piece of interactive art viewed from various player perspectives(the roles they take).
"Getting lost in" is actually expirience of immersion(the gameplay flow) and belonging(with social circles/engagement with virtual characters and other players). Good games are meta-narratives which engage players as pieces of the world(background) completing the narratives(as the protagonist of quests/events).
Like a grand painting where the main character is you and your virtual "social circle".
Comments
They take over your brain and let you get lost in them.
Video games are kind of like musical instruments in that they're an artistic object designed to be used and "gotten lost in". You may or may not consider them art in their own right, but the real point is to play them. We've spent a long time figuring out how to make art with musical instruments, but making art with games is very new. With fewer constraints and the right game design, I think technical performances like speedruns and TASes could develop into something like a true art form.
I can agree that it's in theory possible that a videogame becomes as expressive as a musical instrument, but in reality I don't see that happening in at least the next 30 to 50 years.
A musical instrument is much more direct. Want to play grumpy and loud? You play grumpy and loud. Want to play soft and singingly? You can do that. Every nuance is controlled by you, down to the finest grain. It might sometimes not sound exactly like you want it, but then you can still train to get it right. There's no limits.
Videogames on the other hand are much more digital/binary. You can't swing your sword in the exact way that you want to swing it. Instead you usually just either swing it or don't swing it.
You might get something akin to a melody, for example in an RPG you build your character's story by choosing to swing your weapon or not (as well as other such things), but a melody by itself, without artistic interpretation, is hardly art in the same sense.
I'm by no means professional guitar player, but I do play for fun quite a lot. I also love multiplayer starcraft 2 because of the same things I love guitar playing. It already feels like instrument to me. It's a way to express yourself in a social environment.
You can play macro, choosing one of the safe buildorders and building on that adding small changes in response to your opponent and sometimes on a whim or to throw him out of a loop. You can play risky focusing on early attack and better control of individual units. There's hundreds of proven tactics you can build upon, and with experience of few hundred games you can invent your own (most probably not viable on proffesional level but who cares).
You can switch from one to another tactics mid-game trying to surprise your opponent. Even things as simple as controlling your army have very deep possibilities of customization, because there's tousands of factors and not enough time to focus on everything, so it's a balancing act. Professional players often have their recognizable style (I love how Nerchio outflanks terran oponents, it's magic - everybody knows he does this and yet they fall for it time and again). Korean bio-terrans splitting their marines make one of the cheapest unit kill the units that are expected to be a counter to them (high templars, banelings), all while growing economy, harrasing, etc. Other players prefer chess-like mech playstyle, where you set up lines of defensive tanks and slowly move them along maps - it's like very slow tango - one player moves his tank forward while the other has no scan, the other player must move his units back a little or counterattack, but can't go too far or his units will be killed by the other tanks of the first player. Eventually one player makes a mistake and the army turns to shreds in a few seconds. Or you can just abuse the immobility and attack in a different place while the enemy army moves (but it tends to lead to both players killing each other base in parralel, and whoever is faster wins).
Starcraft is 100 decisions every second, the most important decision is "what decisions are the most important now". And there are lots of viable ways to do these decisions.
I think there's a lot of room for nuance in 60 inputs per second. The sword example is "digital/binary" because of how long it takes to swing. But you're usually given direct, continuous control over your character's movement. These movement mechanics can allow a lot of expressivity, especially if there are multiple mechanics which can interact. Take a look at the movement in Super Smash Bros. Melee if you want a concrete example.
"A musical instrument is much more direct. Want to play grumpy and loud? You play grumpy and loud. Want to play soft and singingly? You can do that. Every nuance is controlled by you, down to the finest grain" That is answered by choosing classes and character builds, item-setup and gameplay strategies. There is far more gameplay variety than several choices of what to play on a single instrument. Video games allow more flexibility than choosing to swing the sword. You pick skills, choose where you play, choose which items and artifacts you use, which quests to complete, what clans to join, which server/shard to migrate to, which players to fight, which players to ally/party, what to sell, what to buy, where to explore, what to seek. I advice playing a few MMORPGs before considering the genre an simplistic linear story.
Speaking as a formerly avid and still somewhat interested gamer, and also as an amateur tuba player who misses his horn, I really can't agree with you here. Both forms of expression have value. But they are not really comparable with one another.
If you have a PS4 available, play Bound. It's an avant-garde ballet performance of a video game. A shame the various expressive moves become almost completely useless when you finish the game and try speedrunning it.
Thats a perfect description of what artistic genre it is. Video games are creating their own virtual worlds, where the world itself a piece of interactive art viewed from various player perspectives(the roles they take). "Getting lost in" is actually expirience of immersion(the gameplay flow) and belonging(with social circles/engagement with virtual characters and other players). Good games are meta-narratives which engage players as pieces of the world(background) completing the narratives(as the protagonist of quests/events). Like a grand painting where the main character is you and your virtual "social circle".