How do Eisenstein's theories in Film Sense reflect on the possibilities of game development? With this in mind, and using a critical and theoretical awareness, how might this result in a newly developed language for games?
Guy Williams
Abstract:
It is generally noted that the medium of computer games exists in a state of little directed development. Although the technical development has been considerable the evolution of game content has made little use of such advancement. Game development appears to be defined by what has been achieved before rather than what might be in the future. It is possible to observe that the medium has existed without any real theoretical or critical thought that might have prompted a more informed progression. The lack of critical understanding has been made worse by the premise that games are fundamentally different and are essentially void of influences from all other communicative forms. Interactivity is what defines the diversity of games medium, but does this mean the development of games should be treated entirely differently?
Comparisons have, and should be drawn with film. A relatively new medium cinema has undoubtedly experienced informed development before reaching its current acceptance as a valid art form and means of expression. It is not merely chance that development of film has progressed from once being considered merely pornographic to its current complexity. Theoretical and academic thought have influenced film, the foundation of which are fundamentally the work of the Russian film maker Sergei Eisenstein. This prompts the thought that the medium of interactive computer games needs 'an Eisenstein for games'. Rather than considering 'who' this vital theorist might be, there is the more useful and practical question of 'what' this individual would be required to do. What essential grounding or modus operandi is missing that would instigate this games revolution.
Files:
Similar Projects
Fay Hancocks
David Fletcher
Luke Bailey
