- Joined
- Jun 20, 2023
I'm unwell, stuck in bed, and bored, so....
They are art forms that barely utilize the medium they are in. The unique art of videogames is how their interactivity and mechanics make you part of a story, or add extra depth which non-interactivity can't. I call this concept LudoKino for shits and giggles.
Visual novels and walking sims, to create an analogy, would be like showing me a "movie" that is simply words scrolling up the screen like a Star Wars opening text crawl. No pictures, no animations, just text. You would be correct that, technically, such a "movie" is still a "movie" because it's a series of images being played on a screen giving the illusion of continuous footage, and you use your eyes to engage with it. But it is not in any way taking advantage of what motion picture entertainment as a medium is capable of - the million choices made in direction, editing, casting, lighting, music, etc etc etc which all contribute to the artistic value of movies. These are things movies do that books can't, and even "visual books" like comics and manga can only be pale mockeries of. To suggest the text crawl is a "movie", anywhere close to deserving the respect of an actual complex film, or hell, even just an episode of Columbo, serves only to expose one's ignorance of what makes movies a unique medium.
I'm working on a Mad Max 2015 video because that game has so much fucking LudoKino. As a simple example:
The Fury state changes Max's animations, making him behave more feral, visibly more bloodthirsty, showing a new more disturbing side of his character. It blows out the audio, it fucks with colour and light exposure, it even compromises his defense in favor of offense -- it's literally harder to block/parry in time when in Fury, so it's even affecting the act of 'gameplay', the thing that's unique to gaming as a medium. And that's one low-tier example from one game.
Semantically, sure, you're right. Technically these things are videogames if your ONLY qualifier is that they're available on computers and your hand touches an input device. But in terms of interactive art? Of actually utilizing the medium? Your argument is totally unconvincing. Devoid of true LudoKino appreciation. To me you represent the subwit who does not understand the art form they talk about: an ant pretending to comprehend the entirety of a human while only witnessing the sole of their shoe.
Do not cite the deep magic to me, witch: I was there when it was written. I've experienced so much high-quality engaging interactive LudoKino, I've had to ascend to making video essays just so I can interact even fucking harder with my favourite art form.
Visual novels and walking sims, to create an analogy, would be like showing me a "movie" that is simply words scrolling up the screen like a Star Wars opening text crawl. No pictures, no animations, just text. You would be correct that, technically, such a "movie" is still a "movie" because it's a series of images being played on a screen giving the illusion of continuous footage, and you use your eyes to engage with it. But it is not in any way taking advantage of what motion picture entertainment as a medium is capable of - the million choices made in direction, editing, casting, lighting, music, etc etc etc which all contribute to the artistic value of movies. These are things movies do that books can't, and even "visual books" like comics and manga can only be pale mockeries of. To suggest the text crawl is a "movie", anywhere close to deserving the respect of an actual complex film, or hell, even just an episode of Columbo, serves only to expose one's ignorance of what makes movies a unique medium.
I'm working on a Mad Max 2015 video because that game has so much fucking LudoKino. As a simple example:
The Fury state changes Max's animations, making him behave more feral, visibly more bloodthirsty, showing a new more disturbing side of his character. It blows out the audio, it fucks with colour and light exposure, it even compromises his defense in favor of offense -- it's literally harder to block/parry in time when in Fury, so it's even affecting the act of 'gameplay', the thing that's unique to gaming as a medium. And that's one low-tier example from one game.
Semantically, sure, you're right. Technically these things are videogames if your ONLY qualifier is that they're available on computers and your hand touches an input device. But in terms of interactive art? Of actually utilizing the medium? Your argument is totally unconvincing. Devoid of true LudoKino appreciation. To me you represent the subwit who does not understand the art form they talk about: an ant pretending to comprehend the entirety of a human while only witnessing the sole of their shoe.
Do not cite the deep magic to me, witch: I was there when it was written. I've experienced so much high-quality engaging interactive LudoKino, I've had to ascend to making video essays just so I can interact even fucking harder with my favourite art form.
I have been Asch The Conjurer, your ludokino sommelier for this morning. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to finish taking a shit and have my morning cup of tea.