So, I bought Epic Yarn through Ebay what seems like a long time ago, but recently, it got tied up in the post office. Long story short, I have it now, which is good, since that was the whole point of buying it. And now for an unrelated wall of text that I wrote last night and decided "Instead of posting it to my blog, I'll wait until I can combine it with the Epic Yarn entry". So I did. So, here it is.

Video games are capable of being an amazing thing. Unlike other forms of art, the user actually directly interacts with them. While paintings may be beautiful, while music may be beautiful, video games are capable of transcending that, since they can have visual art, music, and immersion. A perfect example of this would be a game like Trine, which takes all three and merges them into one experience that pulls the observer in.

Art, to me, has more substance if one can interact with it. A picture of a flower is nice. A game where you can interact with that flower, watch the wind blow through it, can be better. It adds a whole new dimension to it. It is not just a still image. It is a thing. Not a real thing, sure, but still a thing in a sense.

Many games hold a high level of artistic value in my opinion, though, just like there are "bad" pieces of art from other mediums, there are bad video games, that lack what people call soul. Do I even need to list these? Generic military shooters, etc. etc.

The problem is that many people let these things tear down the entire medium. People can't see past the Call of War of whatever MCXVIIs to see the Braids and the Bastions and the Cave Storys.

Sadly, this will always be the case for the most part. These days, most of the so-called "AAA" companies just want to pump out another "soulless" hot seller. In the earlier days, there were more artistic games available "mainstream", such as on consoles. Titles such as Donkey Kong Country and The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past are examples of this. I'm can't say this for certain, but I believe, and no, this is not so-called "nostalgia goggles", that back then, developers were allowed more creative liberty when the industry was as young as it was. They weren't always expected to pump out a generic "guaranteed hot seller". They were allowed to do as they wished to an extent, and as such, there was a different level of dedication to certain aspects such as the visuals. Now, for the most part, you really only see such things in indie games.

I believe that there are two large culprits here: Advancements in graphical technology, and the massive increase in popularity of gaming. As 3D graphics have become the norm, they seem to be used as a quick-fix for blandness. Sure, there can be nearly-photorealistic trees and such, but they lack that so-called soul. As video games have become more popular, many people are satisfied with mediocrity, so instead of making the game visually interesting, they just make it look more "realistic", to attempt to cover the lack of creativity. The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim is an example of this. Sure, it has some great scenery, but tell me when playing through it you never thought "This is really bland".

I think for the most part, games shouldn't aim for realism. What is more important is the visual style. Example: Kirby's Dream Land 3 is more pleasing to look at than Gears of War. Sure, the sepiatone glossy musclemen are more "advanced", but they are boring. The colorful landscapes of Kirby's Dream Land 3 are much more pleasing to the eye.

Instead of aiming for realism, developers should be using the advancements in graphical technology to make the visual styles more complex. Why have a generic grizzled army man we've seen a thousand times, when you could have a brilliant, painted-look first-person puzzle-type game? The latter would have far more merit.

With that, I conclude this little wall of text. I would appreciate hearing opinions, and I'm especially interested in hearing what those who are more on the military-shooter side of things have to say.