Contributing writer for The Artifice.

Junior Contributor II

  • Lurker
  • Sharp-Eyed Citizen
  • ?
  • Articles
  • Featured
  • Comments
  • Ext. Comments
  • Processed
  • Revisions
  • Topics
  • Topics Taken
  • Notes
  • Topics Proc.
  • Topics Rev.
  • Points
  • Rank
  • Score

    Latest Articles

    Latest Topics


    What is the importance of video games as a modern artistic medium?

    People have boasted about the power of fiction and movies in modern culture as a way to teach and inform people about important issues of the past, present and future. Can video games do the same? And if so, are video games seen as less of an art form in the public eye as opposed to movies or literature?

    • I don't think that video games have the same stigma attached to them that they once did. The gaming industry has evolved to the point where even non-gamers are beginning to recognize it as a "legitimate" medium of entertainment. The industry isn't what it used to be, and profits will show that. Especially considering the way games integrate diverse audiences nowadays. The Wii, for example, boasts its family-friendly games, like Mario Party. The Kinect dance games are good for parties and families, too. Think about mobile games also--a "gamer" might not consider Candy Crush a real game, but that's what it is. Games are so different from what they used to be that a large amount of people who play them wouldn't consider themselves "gamers," yet they too appreciate what the industry has to offer. I could go on and on about this. I think it's a good topic. – Christina Legler 8 years ago
    • People take video games much more seriously nowadays and I think that their status is still in the making (ex: the appearance of female characters is still being debated and changing). You could take a look at Nancy Drew interactive games. They show gamers the consequences of their actions and they are educational. I think role-playing video games in general are a good way to help people realize important issues because they are in a character's mind and take things personally. – JennyCardinal 8 years ago
    • The question "are games art?" is still highly debated to this day. Would be very interesting to get the perspective of non-gamers. – MrMuffin 8 years ago

    Sorry, no tides are available. Please update the filter.

    Latest Comments

    Nice article – I am curious how game developers decide their views on how their morality systems are generated. There seems to be a distinct perspective difference between games that use active morality systems that are defined by good or bad as opposed to those who use passive morality where the gamer must choose for themselves. It is also interesting how most people in the comment section state that they have more memorable moments with games that have passive moral choices as opposed to that of active, defined ones. I suppose it goes to show that morality isn’t cut and dry, but just a grey fog.

    I think it is worth exploring how games with active morality systems often have completion achievements to play both sides of the moral coin, as well as the fact that choosing the different moral positions in these games often brings different powers. In the case of the ‘Infamous’ series, choosing the Infamous path gives the player character more destructive power as opposed to the Hero path. Why does evil have this connotation with violent, destructive power? It’s easy to say evil is always destructive, but is that always the case? Is there ever the case that a Hero has to be destructive for the greater good? It could be something to think about.

    Video Games and Morality: The Question of Choice

    The use of the resurrection event in a movie has always annoyed me to no end. In human existence, death is a constant fear, which is a great tension in works of art. When a character dies, that should be considered a great loss for the audience and other characters. The moment you allow a resurrection occur, that tension is lost, the audience can’t connect to the characters any longer, and victory for the characters is inevitable, making it useless to even continue reading/watching/listening/observing the art form any longer. As with anything, there are certain exceptions to this if it is done extremely well, but for the most part, it just dampens the entire movie going/novel reading/TV Show watching experience.

    Gosh, the Main Character Is Dead!? So, When Do They Come Back?

    Great analysis on the tropes of the film industry. I have had similar annoyances with Hollywood and sexuality in film that have no purpose in being there, particularly instances that you have mentioned in ‘Mission Impossible’. When introducing a female character in an action movie, why do they always have to be coming out of some body of water in a bikini? Why every time? Does she just like swimming? Will she mention that later on? Is there just an endless pit of female spies that live underwater, and one just magically appear whenever James Bond/Ethan Hunt/Male Spy Character shows up? It really drags out the movie and deprives it of authenticity.

    Sex in Cinema: Poetry vs. Pornography (Explicit Content)

    I have heard some interesting mentions that ‘Romeo and Juliet’ was not intended to be a romantic tragedy, but was actually considered a comedy in its time. This was because the romance between Romeo and Juliet was considered laughable considering the few days they knew of each others existence, which I am sure many can agree with.

    As well as his plays outside of the ‘Classic 3’, I find it interesting that high school’s do not commonly explore Shakespeare’s sonnets. As well as having great reflections on love and despair, it brings to light interesting things about Shakespeare’s life and mysteries surrounding the Dark Lady and Mr. W.H. With that extra degree of mystery, that could be an interesting way to teach students to sift through classic narratives for deeper knowledge.

    The Obscure Shakespeare