Dr.Finger
06-26-2007, 06:18 PM
An interesting discussion with Horror legend Clive Barker, currently working on his newest game Jericho for Electronic Arts. He has some very intersting things to say about whether or not games are art. From Gamasutra (http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=14478). Next, Barker addressed the intriguing question - does making a game mean you give up some control over it's narrative since there is interaction involved?
He noted: “I think that Roger Ebert’s problem is that he thinks you can’t have art if there is that amount of malleability in the narrative. Shakespeare couldn’t have written Romeo and Juliet as a game, because it could’ve had a happy ending. If only she hadn’t taken the damn poison! And I think Ebert’s problem is, if something is so malleable, so full of possibilities that aren’t under the artist’s control, then it can’t be art."
Not so much: "And that’s where he’s wrong. Because the artists have put all those options in. Shakespeare might very well have written Romeo and Juliet, and maybe Romeo is gay, runs off to Venice, has a nice civil wedding…anything’s possible! I’m saying we should be looking at stretching the imaginations of our players, but also ourselves, and saying ‘let’s try to make everything possible'." And a little bit on the upcoming Jericho But what about the story of Jericho made it suitable for games? Barker noted: “The concept of Jericho? is that there’s this evil f*ck that lives in the Sahara... [the plot involves] an assassination attempt upon a creature that gives the devil the shivers.”
He grinned: “It would make a f*cking terrible novel. It really would, it doesn’t work! It screams out to be something other. Maybe if games hadn’t existed, I would’ve made it a movie. But I much prefer the idea of having twenty hours to play this world, to enter this labyrinth than the two hours or the way movies are going now. I don’t know what it is with people, my bum gets sore! I like pirates and all, but jeez!” It's refreshing to see someone with so much mainstream influence approach gaming as a real medium and not just another way to get a royalty check. And to see someone smackdown the Roger Ebert for his ignorant comments about gaming.
He noted: “I think that Roger Ebert’s problem is that he thinks you can’t have art if there is that amount of malleability in the narrative. Shakespeare couldn’t have written Romeo and Juliet as a game, because it could’ve had a happy ending. If only she hadn’t taken the damn poison! And I think Ebert’s problem is, if something is so malleable, so full of possibilities that aren’t under the artist’s control, then it can’t be art."
Not so much: "And that’s where he’s wrong. Because the artists have put all those options in. Shakespeare might very well have written Romeo and Juliet, and maybe Romeo is gay, runs off to Venice, has a nice civil wedding…anything’s possible! I’m saying we should be looking at stretching the imaginations of our players, but also ourselves, and saying ‘let’s try to make everything possible'." And a little bit on the upcoming Jericho But what about the story of Jericho made it suitable for games? Barker noted: “The concept of Jericho? is that there’s this evil f*ck that lives in the Sahara... [the plot involves] an assassination attempt upon a creature that gives the devil the shivers.”
He grinned: “It would make a f*cking terrible novel. It really would, it doesn’t work! It screams out to be something other. Maybe if games hadn’t existed, I would’ve made it a movie. But I much prefer the idea of having twenty hours to play this world, to enter this labyrinth than the two hours or the way movies are going now. I don’t know what it is with people, my bum gets sore! I like pirates and all, but jeez!” It's refreshing to see someone with so much mainstream influence approach gaming as a real medium and not just another way to get a royalty check. And to see someone smackdown the Roger Ebert for his ignorant comments about gaming.