to be honest the first 3 lines sounded like you were mocking game 'analytics' again because of the pretentious use of adjectives but it picked up after that. Great video.
I think this is one of your weaker videos. You make a lot of assumptions here, the most egregious and blatant one being that Schopenhauer was right. Later works of Nietzsche deliver a pretty complete refutation of Schopenhauer without trying or needing to disprove the Will, but rather showing that the Will is simply part of the human condition and does not need to be apologized for, suppressed, or otherwise held in contempt in the realm of art. A lot of this video's content is doing just that, though: arguing that art requires the refutation and absence of Will, then trying to backpedal and argue that despite relying on Will (and to be fair, I don't think that any interaction whatsoever implies the presence of Will) that games can somehow refute the Will and be art anyway. Also, when you argue that games' settings and plots compliment gameplay to provide artistic merit, you seem to go against Schopenhauer's argument that the still life is 'true' art because it denies the audience context. Indeed, setting and plot are there to provide the game context, to provide your actions and the gameplay context, even if the context is 'nothing matters, this is mindless fun' like in the case of Hotline Miami. I do appreciate the change in format and a more academic look at a popular topic, but I think this effort in particular failed in large part because of your reliance and analysis of Schopenhauer. But then, I also think that Moriarty's speech was rather juvenile and not really worth replying to in the first place, so do take my opinion with a grain of salt. Looking forward to see another video and I'm curious to see where you go from here.
youdungotgriffed I agree. He also relies quite heavily on a lot of abstract sentences and the content of the video swings from "what if" to "is" rather quickly. I am inclined to think this is satire.
youdungotgriffed I don't think he's actually assuming that Schopenhauer is right, it seems to me like he's just trying to say that even if you use Schopenhauer's definition of art, games can still be just that. It's a refutation based on the assumption the original arguer made, probably.
youdungotgriffed I'm not saying Schopenhauer is right or the true lens to see art through; just a very useful one that includes and excludes most things I would and wouldn't consider art. Other philosophers who wrote on aesthetics and art also ring true to me. Nietzsche did offer some pretty scathing critique of Schopenhauer, but it's far from enough to put Schoppy to bed. Most of Nietzsche's indictments of his old mentor's thinking depended on accepting a lot of his own premises, for example that a strong person should not waste time sympathizing with the suffering of other people. Schopenhauer thought suffering was more integral to our humanity more than I would say, but it's about as universal as it comes. If you're not suffering yourself, you can observe others suffering around you. Schopenhauer allows us to recognize the value of a movie like "Shoah" or "Grave of the Fireflies" in a way that Nietzsche doesn't because he views suffering as something to step back from and understand instead of to ignore. Yeah, denying the will to the extent Schopenhauer does is kind of silly, but there seems to be a pretty evident tension between the Will and the intellect in the real world.
TMTLive I think that if you use something you disagree with as the basis for your argument you should always preface the argument with something along the lines of "even if we assume...". As is the video indicates no disagreements and as such this is still a flaw.
youdungotgriffed Dude, brutal even implied that a well put together action scene can be art in itself in the last video. He wasn't saying Schopenhauer was 100% right, just that even by that logic games can still be art.
Nujabes in the background. Academic analysis of video games that doesn't come off as horse shit clickbait. Eloquence in wording while remaining monotone. Shh. Shh. MrBtongue we get it. You use a lot of voice modulators.
I think the criticism surrounding this video in regards to your eloquence misses the point of your previous video. From the impression I got, "Separating Gameplay From Art" discussed the common videogame critic's habit of using eloquent wording to describe "deep" themes as a way to push the idea that the themes and characters in videogames is what gives the medium artistic merit, mostly because the critics these days don't know how to discuss gameplay without treating it as a supplement to the themes and characters. The use of the words in the beginning of the video, while being overly flashy of me to sincerely expect from you, do well to describe the games. As for the video itself, it's interesting how games can make you reflect on yourself in ways that other mediums struggle to. If I'm being completely honest, I haven't grasped the point of this video as your previous work but I think you raise some interesting questions about videogames and the nature of art.
I think the question is becoming less "are video games art" and more "can video games be considered fine art." The Ebert espoused idea of video games having no authorial intent due to their interactivity is something that kind of folds when you have experience playing things like Pathologic or Dark Souls, their themes are meant to be oppression by a force beyond control and isolation (respectively), and their mechanics uphold their themes fairly well. In Pathologic, understanding the antagonist doesn't bring you any understanding of the perceived evil behind it. The three separate lenses you have to view the world all play out in vignettes fairly removed from each other, representing science, faith and commonality. Likewise in Dark Souls, your journey is spent in solitude. Everyone you know dies, and what help you have is motivated by impersonal factors that have nothing to do with you. The world itself is fairly disinterested in the player character; it has existed since long before you and will function whether or not you participate, succeed, die, fail or give up altogether. I think what makes the situation hairy is that video games have intersectionality between technology and expression that separates it from traditional forms of art. It's easy to listen to a symphony by Tchaikovsky and understand it's fine art, while Satan Worshiping Doom by Bongripper... not so much. However, it's precisely the interaction of netcode and game systems along with the fact that I just got invaded in the fucking Tomb of the Giants that creates the psychology of the moment, the threat of danger that I cannot see coming and the oppressive blackness cloaking monsters that dwarf me, this is where the evocation of terror and desolation comes from. I wouldn't argue that it's high art at all, but I would argue that this were purposeful machinations of the director and team behind it, and that it's an example that succeeds in ways that games like Dear Esther cannot. I dunno. Good video either way.
Seriously, good video. To say that our base desires have no place in the realm of art is absolutely ridiculous, and it's good to see someone tackling that really well. Also, Hiji Zuru Style is the shit.
Hmm, i just want to state that i will enjoy looking to the forward months/years and seeing how both you and this channel grows. I sincerely hope that you see enough reward in this and that you keep doing it. Somehow it brings me joy that this is your hobby. :) Take care.
Games are at their best artistically when they present conflicts of emotions and perceived value vs cold hard logic and facts. Do you choose let's say character A who's useless but you like him or trained him to be less shit or character B who's useful, but has an ugly personality or appearance or whatever.
