The Paradox of Authenticity in Video Games | Deception and Lies in Art and Play 

Firstly, great work on the video. There is one thing I think is crucially overlooked here regarding the modern trend of remakes/remasters, that being the value of preserving the original creators work as it was initially envisioned. What I mean is, games are craft and all the elements of that craft should be preserved as they originally were. Warts and all. Blurry textures and input latency, everything that constrained the original creators are important to our understanding of that game as a work. While we could say that those remastering/remaking games are artists in and of themselves, I think this is being extremely charitable in the case of 99% of game remakes. These remakes, such as SotC '18, constantly reassure us that they're passion projects made by those who love the original. However, as mentioned in the video, the discussion easily slips into "this remake is the BEST version of SotC," which really highlights the problem I have with remakes like these. They're often seen as a replacement, an update so we don't have to "suffer" the original game's dated graphics and gameplay. To me, this signals just how immature we still are with regards to appreciating games as genuine works of art. These remakes aren't a statement about the original, they don't have anything of value to contribute to the discussion of SotC other than "this is how a bunch of guys in Texas think SotC should look and play like." This is why I personally loath comments such as "the remake captures how the game looks in my mind." Sure, we all have our own image of SotC in our mind, but the game also stands on its own outside our subjective memories. The work of the original creators is stored on that PS2 disc, all the "outdated" textures and animations and controller schemes. It's all valuable on its own, and should be preserved in its original state or as close as possible to its original state. Again, great video overall, I just can't agree that remakes such as SotC or Demon's Souls offer anything of real value. Unlike fan remakes which are not meant to be a replacement of the original, these big-budget remakes are pale imitations of the original that seek to replace the original. Between preserving the PS2 original of SotC or the PS4 remake, I think we all know which one Sony is going to officially carry into the future for generations to play.

What a lovely video . I don’t have much to add right now but I’ll dwell and come back to this .

This is an interesting topic. I remember watching one of the Monogatari series (Nisemonogatari I believe) and one scene always stuck with me. In this scene two characters argue about this question: "What is worth more: something that is wholly original or an indistinguishable copy of said thing?" One of the characters argues that of course, the original is worth more, simply because it's the original. The other, however, maintains that a perfect fake, in its deliberate attempt to imitate the original, has more value than the original itself. I always found that perspective very intriguing. Great video!

I appreciate how you don’t just give us all the answers in your videos. You put some responsibility on your audience to continue the discussion and think about our feelings on the topic.

Great video man!

interesting topic, really resonates with me cause yeah that feels very true and weird, that art by it's nature becomes inauthentic as soon as their is some other motive for creation beyond the creation itself.

I struggled through the middle section of this video but you drove it home in the conclusion. I think part of the difficulty in discussing such topics is how fluid some of the key terms are. I don't feel like we have a useful or concrete definition of "authenticity," for instance. It's got that "I know it when I see it" vibe, but for the cultural critic what is, or is not, authentic is incredibly messy to discuss because of its lack of definition. Likewise, what does it even mean for something to be "fake?" You propose at the start of the video that all art is fake to some degree, but such a totalizing statement almost makes it meaningless. I mostly try to not worry about authenticity when I consume media, because it's this grey area that doesn't really give you anything. Do you enjoy a work of art more if you know it was made by a starving artist in a room? Should you? The conditions of the art influence that art, to be sure, but to some degree it needs to stand on its own merits too.

3:19 _Braid_ is art. No game is art.

Art exist in the mind of the one who is consuming it, physicality in art is not mandatory, therefore the fact of a game been 0 and 1 and that can be replicated is not something that could be used to argument what is and what's not art.

That was very well put together. A bit fast, and hard to absorb all the condensed pieces of high-intensity information, so hard to process what I just watched. But I think the bottom line of your vid is that you inescapably will be "faking" or copying, or being inauthentic, when creating, and this in different forms. And to this of course, the best answer is: "Only God creates"...

a girlboss winning brought me here. good content. very interesting