Archive for month: October, 2009
During the upcycle of a trend, it’s rare to see a quote from someone at the COO level that isn’t blue-sky / this-is-the-future / one-billionty-percent-growth-forecasted balloon juice. Which is why Dean Takahashi’s VentureBeat piece last Wednesday, in which John Schappert is quoted as opining that the current “social gaming bubble” resembles the “mobile games hype” of yesteryear, warms my heart.
(Even if, as Dean points out, Schappert’s comments could be designed to help EA achieve a better price for any companies they might want to acquire. A little late for that to be useful if rumors like the Playfish deal turn out to be true….)
“Are games art?” has always seemed like a silly question to even ask. I’ve been to exhibits featuring an old toaster someone fired an arrow at — if that qualifies I’m comfortable suggesting that the definition is fairly broad.
But therein lies what is probably the best litmus test for art of any sort: Do you think it’s art?
Or, better yet: Did the person making it think it was art?
On any game I’ve worked on, I’ve thought it was art. Not art-art. Not I-dress-in-black-and-wear-a-beret art. Not frame-hanging-on-the-gallery-wall art. But “art”. I had something I wanted to get across, something I wanted you to experience.