So I recently posted on my friend's wall about a game called Fez. Another friend of mine saw my curiosity in this game, and ended up gifting it to me. One and a half days into playing it, I was amazed.
Fez is an interesting game concept. You start off as this random guy in a flat world. The villagers around you only know of 2D shapes, one even saying "Cubes don't exist!", another saying "I saw the devil square!", referring to a cube. It's quite adorable, and the atmosphere is only enhanced by the incredible color spectrum Fez includes in the game.
This is just one of the worlds that the game has. Absolutely gorgeous. And the soundtrack is simple yet appropriate and really adds to the experience. An incredible
---------------------------------------------
But I didn't bring this game up to write a review. Hardly any of my friends who read this blog ever play games. So why did I bring this game up?
I want to talk about complexity in regards to the gaming art form.
Before we begin, I'd like to clarify my stance on games as an art form. It is a purposeful combination of visual and audio elements in order to create an experience in its viewers. If we can say cinematography is an art, then I cannot see why video games cannot also be likened the same way.
Complexity is something to be cherished. For the artist to go out of his way, to not take the easy path, and to move us emotionally by some unorthodox method is something that should be appreciated. Yes, we love the cliches, of course want to ship every couple we ever see immediately, in real life or fantasy. And these are why they are cliches. There is a reason these sentiments are popular. But it can be very easy to play on these cliches. How often do you see a kid writing a story, and then they immediately jump to the couple getting married? It is just too easy.
But think of any "classic", almost anything that is forever adored regardless of time. Unless you thought of the Disney classics (I'm not making any shots! They are simply written specifically to be predictable and that is why we love them), then your classic should be praised to a certain extent for its complexity. It is this attention to detail that leaves anything memorable.
But how complex should we make something? Do we simply write complexity for the sake of complexity? Should we always strive to make the rose a symbol, or for the sake of the reader, can't we just say the rose is a rose?
This is the internal strife I have when I play Fez. Because when a game becomes insanely complex, things simply stop. Games are very unique in this nature. When a movie or a book becomes complex, usually you can skim a few minutes, skim a few pages, and everything is usually alright. You won't get the full meaning, but you will at least get the jist, you can get to the ending. This isn't the way it is with games. When you cannot pass a level, it's simply the end of the road. There is no skimming. Until you drastically change yourself (we're omitting the spectating of a video game for the purpose of the discussion), you will never reach a full appreciation of the game.
This interactivity, this personal touch, that video games have is both the bane and blessing of its standing as an art form.
This is not to say that I want all games to appeal to the lowest common denominator. But this whole blog post is simply an exercise. A challenge, if you will, to question the simplicity and complexity of all art and media around us and see how it changes who we are.
With this, I think we can all find little surprises in how much we think our time is worth!
This interactivity, this personal touch, that video games have is both the bane and blessing of its standing as an art form.
This is not to say that I want all games to appeal to the lowest common denominator. But this whole blog post is simply an exercise. A challenge, if you will, to question the simplicity and complexity of all art and media around us and see how it changes who we are.
With this, I think we can all find little surprises in how much we think our time is worth!
