Rants about digital arts, photography and university.

It’s interesting to note how Oblivion mirrors The Lord of the Rings. I had never really thought about that connection, even though it’s quite obvious.  The towers in Oblivion quite clearly mirror the landscape of Mordor and the environment of the entire game pretty much goes hand-in-hand with the imagined aesthetics of Middle-Earth.  It does, however, more explicitly depict the 19th century-like world that it represents.

The article suggests that it’s odd that one would spend the time and effort to create a character personalized to the extent that is possible and never see the character’s face in game.  It does go into the experience this offers players that are fans of the genre, but personally, I didn’t even really know what the genre was about when I first played Oblivion and I still enjoyed the level of control in the character creation.  I think it helps to create a relationship with the digital model, knowing that it’s personalized to such an extent that it’s unlikely that anybody else playing the game has a character that is exactly the same.  Also, I think the fact that the main character isn’t fleshed out is a good thing.  It allows the player to feel like they are the character, instead of controlling a character.

The discussion of the landscape makes a lot of sense.  Part of the appeal of games like Oblivion is that the environment is so vast that the player really develops a relationship with it through exploration.  The fact that it is so immersive and that it is split up into two distinct worlds creates an interesting dynamic where the player feels excited about seeing new parts of the world.  The fact that the player almost seems to play against the landscape of Oblivion is also quite satisfying.  There are, in a sense, boss battles within the world of Oblivion, but once an Oblivion gate is closed it truly does feel more like the gate and the world on the other side were the opponents, rather than the characters within them.  The commentary against the industrial landscape is pretty obvious too.

I don’t know why we look at any sort of change in technology, or in my case art, as aberrant.  I think changes in videogames, as in any other medium, are just a form of evolution and aren’t necessarily good or bad.

To say that one form or aesthetic is better than another doesn’t really make sense to me, especially in the realm of arts and entertainment. In reality, these things are incredibly subjective and can’t be evaluated in such strict terms.  As video games progress, we probably will see mainstream games increasing their use of high resolution models and textures, reaching for the apex of realism, whilst others will push the technology in other directions, focusing on the mechanics and dynamics of the game, using the hardware to process interaction rather than aesthetics.

We will probably also see changes in the interfaces we use.  That isn’t to say that the NES’s old, gigantic joystick is a bad thing, or even its regular game pads, it just means that we’re capable of doing other things as well, and that these new technologies may or may not be fun and interesting to use.  I personally don’t mind playing Mario on a d-pad and two buttons, but who knows, I might find it fun to do the jumping for real every once in a while.

Conservative and progressive viewpoints are pretty much irrelevant, in my opinion, when it comes to art, games and entertainment, if for no other reason than people wanting new, interesting things and companies wanting to turn a profit. Just because the kinect is out and the wii fit is replacing your gym doesn’t mean you have to throw out your N64.  I still love playing Super Smash Bros. for N64, regardless of how much “better” the new consoles are.