I found Montfort’s 5 level method of video game analysis to be very appropriate for the study of videogames. I think this method of analysis really gives us our first look into the debate over whether videogames are art or are something entirely different that stand alone and deserve a different kind of analysis. Montfort clearly believes that videogames deserve a separate technique for analysis of videogames since he outlined his personal method at the beginning of the article. I found it interesting, however, that in the reception and operation portion of the article, Montfort examines Combat similarly to how one would examine a piece of literature or a piece of art, identifying the theme of violence throughout the game, and explaining how the social contexts of the era influence this theme and the way in which it is presented. Even the questions Montfort attempts to answer in this section seem like questions an art critic would ask of a painting: “Is Combat narrative or dramatic? What story does Combat tell?”
Montfort does not claim that we should not analyze videogames as art or literature, however. He says that this is only one step in videogame analysis. To stop at this step would severely limit the amount of understanding we can gain from videogames. Further analysis of the interface, gameplay, game-code, etc. is required, as Montfort suggests. After reading this article, it seems Montfort sits somewhere in the middle of the argument over videogame analysis, and I have to say I sitting right next to him.
This is a bit of a mixed response to what ksteinman has said and what I Carly says later. I completely agree with what is being said here, how Montfort has set out an almost systematical approach on one way to analyze video games. What I noticed, was that unlike analysis of film, literature, or art, I was almost completely unable to understand what was being said about the game, or what conclusions were drawn by this analysis.
This has several implications on the realm of video game studies and analysis as a whole. For some reason, I was unable to understand. This could be for several reasons. The first reason is that I was not making enough effort in my reading, and if I had looked up all of the jargon, I would have understood better. The implications of this are minimal on video game analysis as a whole. Another reason could be that I have in many ways grown up around analysis of art, literature, and film in the same ways we all have. Art and literature are taught in basic schooling, and film is a relatively older form of entertainment. The main implication of this scenario is that clearly video game analysis has not integrated into the public school areas of study. Also, because video games are relatively new, they haven’t been developed to supply for ever single desire in every single demographic the way flim and literature has had the time to do. Finally, the reasoning could be that analysis of video games is something else entirely, and should not be compared at all to the analysis of art, or any basic reasoning models we are used to. The implication of this would be an entire new area and method of study which would probably look like a hybrid between art and science.
I think my lack of understanding is a mix of all three reasons, but there is definitely something to be said about Montfront’s analysis playing with the roles of math and science to create a piece of art.
I know that being a responder means responding mostly to the First reader’s response, but I want to draw on a couple of things that kromero2 noted in his/her post. I too had a hard time trying to understand and visualize what Montefort was trying to say. Perhaps for the very same reasons kromero2 had.
But in class today, our comparison of all three versions of Pac Man really helped bring Montefort’s ideas home. Pac Man is a game; there is no doubt about that. However, play it in a different consol and it becomes a different game each time. I mean, the end result is the same: you eat beads, you avoid the creepy crawlers, and you occasionally catch a cherry…
What makes the games different is that once they’re placed in a different consol, they require different coding and can sometimes take on a different form of play. The interface is also changed if the changes above occur and ultimately the way you receive the information, process it, and operate on it changes as well.
In looking at the sequence of changes that occur from a simple change in platform, you begin to notice who the changer is and what changes were made and how the changes work together or don’t work together.
You begin to notice the sounds, the lighting, the colors, the overall mood and feeling it has on you. (While playing Pac Man on Stella, I wanted to close my eyes and pray I don’t seize while watching the constantly flashing, crazy ghouls that kept chasing me around. On the arcade version, I wanted to sit pretty and keep playing. I liked the speed, the colors, and the fact the little goblins each had a name and weren’t very scary either.)
In noticing these changes, you critique the games as pieces of art. You ask yourself: Do the colors go together? Does the soundtrack being played as I play fit the game? Is the art too sophisticated for such play or is it not sophisticated enough?
I remember in our collaborative quiz today, someone said that some killings games (he named one, but I don’t remember what it was called) are examples of how video games are not art. While playing the games, you don’t think about the complementary colors displayed on the screen, the work that went into creating the game, or the game’s implications on society.
You play to play.
But couldn’t you say the same thing about films? You watch them and you don’t always analyze the nitty gritty. For a lot of films, you watch to simply to enjoy them, but they are considered art.
Ultimately, what I’m trying to get at is something kromeo2 noted at the bottom of his/her post. Maybe videogames do deserve their own criteria for analysis, one not similar to films or paintings because they’re different from films and paintings because they physically involve the audience and take on a different medium.
I think Montefort’s 5 level method is a possible way to analyze videogames and critique them as art as it helps the audience look at videogames in a different light. But what do I know? I didn’t understand the most of the video game vocabulary in the reading and probably got the ideas wrong.
I read this article that said a reason why video games aren’t considered art is because they are experienced competitively. Current forms of art are not experienced in this manner, thus making video games not a form of art.
I thought that this was interesting.
Music is considered an art, but “playing” music can also take on a competitive form. Singers and bands strive to be the best when joining competitions or contests of any kind, yet they are still making music, making art. Perhaps part of the reason why the article mchoeung mentioned does not consider video games an art is because video games are solely competitive in nature. I don’t believe that is the case, though. One of the other First Readers highlighted the creative aspect behind making a video game – creating the code, graphics, etc. In my opinion, that is certainly a form of art. As ksteinman mentioned, Montfort asks what story Combat attempts to tell, in a similar way that is asked of “traditional” art forms. Creating the code for a video game, with a story or narrative in mind, is another reason why I think video games can be viewed as a form of art.