⊹ ࣪ ˖ elizabeth 's profile picture

Published by


Category: Art and Photography

⤹ video games as a medium of art II

Hello hello! This is Zabeth with the second part to my previous post on video games as a medium of art, if you need a link to go to the first post here it is: ⤹ video games as a medium of art I
For now let's continue this beast as I need sleep lol, Enjoy Reading!~

The Industry and Practices

But, let's talk about the third and most systemic point on the operations of video games. Like every other medium, games are insular to the industry in which they operate, and the basic practices of games in their industry seem to do far more harm than good. The game industry unfortunately seems to just place barriers in the way of genuine innovation, and yet, they engorge games as a whole that can really only disgust the damage that they do.

More than any other medium, video games have a shelf life. There's the obvious hindrance of video games only being able to be played on old or in some cases archaic hardware because, as we said, video games are intertwined with their technology.

But for many, they're trapped on a single console which if you don't have, you can't experience. Imagine if old films were only possible to be screened on a television. The fact is, once video games hit a certain age, they become nearly impossible relics to hump. For video game archivism has yet to reach a sophisticated enough level where we can protect games from being lost and allow people to experience them as once.

Most of them hit a certain point rather than finding ways of continuing a mainstream distribution. They're remastered in an attempt to make the original obsolete. But there's also the case that many games have a literal shelf life. Some games are online only, and when those servers are gone, those games disappear forever. The same goes for games with downloadable content or entire games themselves that exist on specific stores. And when those stores are closed, those games are gone.

Something that was just of its time, a product, something to be consumed as a passing piece of entertainment. This tells us that games are comparable to an art or industry like that of fashion. It's relying on the new trends and being cutting edge for a brief period until its time has passed, and then it's only relevant for those collectors. It's a world built on rabid consumerism with a handful of URs that people would like to bring up to legitimize the medium.

It's a surprise to me that for the highest grossing entertainment industry with such an evidently passionate fan base, there's not much effort in the protection of the works that people seem to love so much. Games that will disappear forever, some of which are made just a few years prior, doomed to a minuscule life cycle. This doesn't sound like how people should treat art, and so this is the foundation that makes it so such an enigma of how we view video games.

But I also believe that these things can be reconciled if there were to simply be employed a quality measure of archiving where in games will not lock down to a single system or alternatively make backwards compatibility universal so if you own a game you can still operate it on newer pieces of hardware. Then the majority of the industry treatment of games is nullified. But as things stand, this will only further the argument that games will never be treated as art.

We've spoken about the mechanics and logistics that games operate in, and there's probably more things I haven't discussed here than I have. I understand that in many ways games are still a birthing medium and one who is more reliant on technological evolution than most. Although again, I believe that in order to make a successful game, you don't necessarily need more evolved technology. Otherwise, all games of the past would become obsolete, and there would be no space for simplicity in games, which if anything seems to be what more people are drawn to.

Games as an art on the mechanical level is achievable. It would simply take a reassessing of what it is that the art of video games has to offer and perhaps a keener eye from the player on what they are receiving from it. Is it just passive entertainment or something more? And perhaps we should raise our standards slightly to synthesize both worlds, a virtuous creativity and unbridled artistry, which should segue us very nicely into our second category, the art of video games.

Lack of Reference

Games are an experiential piece; games are storytelling. These are the two domains in which video games seem to operate, and the ideal being at the intersection where both of these two states of being overlap. That is what separates a piece of art from a piece of entertainment. If we were to discuss the pinnacle of what an individual video game has achieved so far, what would happen if it were to be measured alongside other mediums of art? We've yet to find a game that could measure in importance to the likes of the Sistine Chapel, The Divine Comedy, Citizen Kane, and so on. 

There are a variety of reasons for this. One of the simplest is time. Video games are still a new art form, one of the newest as a matter of fact. Coupling this with the fact that the development of video games is tied to the development of technologies and the mass influx over time makes it far more difficult to discern what will achieve the status as a classic and retainer. Then there's the added element of general perception. Although people are more open to the idea of video games as an art form, a general canon can only truly be formed by some type of collective agreement.

The same reason that Ishmael and Hamlet remain characters among the pantheon of literature is not exclusively limited to the fact that their stories they ha from are considered important. They're considered important also because of their historical significance, and you would have to say that, as a generalization, most generations that have preceded video games have not looked upon the medium with the openness to such an idea.

Video games have thus remained in the realm of a pastime, perhaps even an interesting hobby, but not within the conversation of art yet. Most of these are external factors that are a byproduct of the medium of video games themselves. But we must come to what I believe to be the most damaging element of why video games are difficult to talk about and perhaps the main reason why they're not seen as art: examining the general attitude and discourse around the medium of video games, you'll be exposed to the largest chasm in any artistic medium towards reference to high art.

I've stated many times before that the natural growth of the human species is to build upon what came before it. You need to have read Shakespeare to understand where we've come as humans, but in the realm of video games is where this discord sadly is at its lowest. Did I just do that? Well, definitely with my assistance, I did not just do that. We did. I just moved with my mind. We can justify this if we examine games as a purely mechanistically fueled medium. The craft of the majority of video game development is based in coding and design. You don't necessarily need an artistic or storytelling background to create a great game. 

Super Mario Brothers might still be seen as the one video game that brought games into households and showed just how much of a cultural shift they'd be. But what story did it aim to tell? A princess is missing, and the hero must save her. Repeat eight times, and then she thanks him. Now, there's nothing wrong with archetypical storytelling. The hero's journey has been implemented across a variety of stories throughout human history. However, we have to say it for what it is. Much like how there are ways to design a game mechanically that you know work, the same can be said for telling a story without any kind of transgression or innovation of new methods of storytelling. You meet the same beats and cliches that make the story work, except it then becomes rather uninspired.

However, games like Mario never needed this, and the series can still be in many ways perceived as one of the pinnacles of the medium for its mechanics and design because that is the major goal of the people creating games. Their skills don't need to be aligned with artistic reference because they're designers and coders. Their goal was to create something fun for people to play. The people creating games do not need an extensive reference of art in order to create a game, which means that the players also don't need such a reference in order to understand the creators. But this has set a precedent for how games are read by players. For so long, it's never needed to be a medium in which artist reference was required, and so over the years, that's how it's developed.

Now, I'm not claiming that you necessarily need to have the exact same level of understanding that an artist has when examining their creations. However, it certainly helps in comprehending their works. The more knowledge that you have in that field, if you've played Metal Gear Solid, you may have a deeper appreciation for the game. If you know its similarities to Moby Dick, you can enjoy the game without that reference, but it certainly helps by being closer to the artist's perspective. Without that reference, you can only delve so far. But some may think that creating a video game is an intrinsically artistic endeavor. It requires 3D modelers, concept artists, and so on, absolutely. The same way that film needs to run on a crew of people that are specialists within their fields. However, for most projects, although they're collaborative, they're typically tied to one creative vision. If that creative vision is too inept or shallow, then the end result is something subpar, especially considering the level of talent that's around them. And in video games, we still, unfortunately, have not bypassed the hard truth that many of them are made from a juvenile perspective.

Now, this isn't to be prudish or dismissive. Again, I think there's incredible creativity in the Mario games, and I've played and enjoyed them numerous times. I want to establish that there's a great difference between something being family-friendly, something designed with children in mind, and something being immature. Hayao Miyazaki creates some of the grandest masterpieces in animation, and he creates them specifically with children in mind. However, you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone that would call these works immature. But this isn't a criticism of whether games are or aren't for children. People have played games throughout history in a variety of different ways, and within video games, there are many that have a deep complexity. Of course, sometimes people must consider that perhaps what they engage with shouldn't be so consistently tied to the work of children. But I'm not primarily speaking of this when I speak of immaturity. I'm more often speaking to those pieces that are not directed towards children. Grand Theft Auto is a fantastically written character study about the criminal underworld workings of multicultural America. Grand Theft Auto is an attempt at satire that obnoxiously points at a big silly word and calls it parody.

Sunset Overdrive is a fun game, but the moment it attempts to write comedic dialogue, it consists of stating the thing, repeating that, yeah, that's actually the thing, and then an awkward declaration of how weird that was. This is a juvenile perspective because this is your art reflecting your reference. A character saying something sarcastic like that something is good when it's not is typically not a very astute observation. It's cheap, and it's lazy. And sadly, this runs the gamut in video games. Your technique is tied to your reference. Again, you may be an artist or an illustrator with incredible skill. However, if the only images that you can recall from memory are poorly written comic books, fan art, and other video games of that caliber, then your technique can only take you so far. And so, for most games, they're resigned to avoiding the difficult themes and stick

"To what they know be fun but to be honest, I would often rather this be the case. Because one of the main issues with video game writing is most highlighted when they try to be artistic. You'll see it's really simple, it's kind of like a video game. Have you ever played a video game, Mrs. Morrison? No? Ah, it doesn't matter; you're going to do fine. The most... 

Now I'm going to be very blunt and objective in this section, and although I don't know exactly why this happened, I'll attempt to explore some of the reasons and theories behind my statements. The fact of the matter is that when you measure the writing of the average video game against any other medium, the level is so bad, it's terrible, it's cringe-inducing. And this is taking the so-called pinnacles of video game storytelling compared to the eloquent pros and depth of character that permeate Disco Elysium. Life is Strange looks like the ramblings of a psychopath, jumping from one awful decision to the next and justifying it armed only with the weapon of confusion. 

This song __ rules, can't dance hippy, come on rock out, girl. Yes, break it down, Max. And this is the case for a lot of games. And it's also the case because writing for a video game is far more different than writing for any other medium. It should probably be stated that the idea for writing a video game seems like an incredibly difficult task. Not only do you need to consider the pacing of what you're writing and how that may be reached at different times by different people, you also have to balance the game design and locals with the story itself. 

Two separate teams attempting to find a synthesis with one another with how the story progresses. The design of video game levels serves like chapters to a story, and then it's the writer's job to find how they all interconnect. This isn't an easy task; it's a constant balancing act. But even removing that unique facet of writing for a video game, the basic principles of good writing—character depth, thought-provoking dialogue, inciting incidents, and how they interplay with one another—even these basics are done so poorly, there's no way I would anticipate the more complex things to be done well. 

At that moment, I couldn't think, I couldn't breathe; all I could do was replay the scene of her being pulled into obscurity by nothing. They're one second and gone the next. It just looks like games can't write good dialogue; their characters are dull; their ways of propelling the narrative feel like excuses. And a lot of this stems back to video games as a fun medium. When you're trying to make something fun and enjoyable, it's often at ends with things becoming cohesive. 

But when the game is fun, we tend to give it that pass. It also doesn't help that a lot of people who claim that video games are an avenue for unique forms of sophisticated and mature storytelling don't do the medium any favors by choosing to play the garbage that gives the medium the very reputation they aim to avoid at all costs. Again, I truly believe that if you go and read works like Blood Meridian, things like Oxenfree will stop seeming so impactful. 

There's so little genuine discourse at a high level across the medium. I rarely tend to mention contemporaries that I feel offer something to a medium; however, games are in dire need of that. And so, I feel that someone like Joseph Anderson is able to dissect a video game with care and attention, and someone like Matthew Mosis is the closest that I can conceive of someone with a depth of writing that coincides with his knowledge as a legitimate video game theorist. So if you are to give some people your attention, give it to them. 

Now, I know that large negatives have been spotlighted, so let's move to the opposite end of the spectrum. When it comes to a piece of generational art to emerge from the medium, the general consensus points to Dark Souls and the works of Hidetaka Miyazaki and FromSoftware. I also wouldn't necessarily refute this; just their influence alone may be enough to instantly place them near the top of the canon of video games. 

However, from an artistic perspective, these are aesthetic achievements. And though I know that that word is wrongly overused nowadays, I mean aesthetic in the sense of the great tradition. To me, Miyazaki's work stands alongside the work of any artist, and people often point to these works when referring to games that are staples of games as art. But how does one declare something as artistic if one has no reference in the arts? 

The works of FromSoftware and Miyazaki, to me, are the equivalent of the works from the Renaissance or The Godfather. It's something that's so immediately recognizable in its greatness, even by those unfamiliar with the medium. A person completely illiterate in images can enjoy The Godfather, even if at its heart, they're unable to comprehensively read the images in front of them. 

The average person that doesn't understand how cinematography, montage, and the language of cinema works can still see that The Godfather is a masterpiece. It's the same with the artistry of Dark Souls; many know it's good, but they can't explain the sheer depth of why. It's not that I don't think Dark Souls deserves the praise; I just feel that the praise it deserves needs to be deeper. 

To me, it's such a shame when I see the limit of the reference of these games fall as shallow as Berserk. And that's not to say Berserk also isn't a high form of art, but again, much reference to that method of storytelling is also lost, never considering cinema, animation, art technique, poetry, architecture, and the array of inspiration that they draw from. 

That is their true understanding of art. That's the real reason why these games shine, because they have a mastery of approach that many games just don't. And it's such a shame that this passes by so many people unnoticed. It's the reason why most of their imitators can't capture its magic, because while FromSoftware is drawing from a deep well of artistic reference, the others are just drawing from Dark Souls. 

Mind you, the mantle of Lord interests me none, the Fire Linking Curse, the legacy of Lords, let it all fade into nothing. We've done quite enough. Now have your rest. It makes you think that many of the people designing or writing games don't even consider the form they're using to tell their story. 

They're telling a story that just happens to be a game. I'd like to show a statement from Robert Kitz, the creator behind Disco Elysium. He said, 'CRPGs are an incredibly modern idea, but for me, they're a modern tool and mutually complimentary approaches to literature and storytelling that completely blow linear storytelling out of the water.' 

This is an instance of someone utilizing the medium to its benefit, rather than crafting a linear perspective within a video game. The narrative of the video game unfolds precisely as and how you choose to explore, with an array of choices all fantastically written. 

He's making a story that can only be exclusively told in this medium. But compare that to any other story from most games; they can most likely be told in any format. They're not exclusively tied to that interactivity. And quite frankly, the designers and creators probably haven't even considered that this would be an issue at all. 

It's just a story, and you just happen to be controlling the main character. This is because the pinnacle that a game can achieve now is to be cinematic. The irony of games celebrated for their cinematic qualities to me is absurd, as though just the detail of taking elements from traditional cinematography, employing visual spectacle through less conventional camera angles, is supposed to make the art form richer. 

All it does is display the dichotomy in that they had to stray further from their medium's tenets to tell their story. Their story is a film shoved into a game. All right, well hello friends and fans, it's beyond awesome to have you guys all back this year. Um, first off, I gotta say I'm super excited to welcome all my pals back to the annual Blackwood winter getaway. 

How many huge AAA titles have you seen that have been described simultaneously as walking simulators and cinematic? You wouldn't call a sculpture cinematic just as it wouldn't be perceived as a heightened compliment if you thought of a painting like a video game. All you're really saying is that it's disguising itself as another medium by hiding the flaws of its own. 

Most of the time, this is done to help with the writing so that they can tell a cinematic story, as it has less logistic complexity than a video game story. Then you result in the high linear Uncharted games, which are spectacles in and of themselves, but I wouldn't think of them as bastions of an interactive medium. 

And sadly, when the story is legitimately good, most of the time it comes from the source of all good stories: literature. Those games, the ones that are constantly pointed towards as examples of good storytelling, most of them are adaptations: Spec Ops, Bioshock, The Witcher, I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream. 

Not all, but many games seem to have a lack of originality when creating a story. There seems to be a clear disconnect between the writing and design of video games, especially as the reliance on larger scopes in games is paradoxically requiring more siphoned manners of development. 

So the result for the rest of them is to make stories inspired by what they know best: pretty mediocre films. And so ends my diatribe on the quality of artistic reference in video games. Although this isn't exclusive to this medium, I wouldn't hesitate to say that it's in this art form that it's most damaging for its growth. There isn't much.

To say beyond this, other than people that play and make games need to traverse out of this juvenile stage and deepen their understanding of other arts. Just to ensure that this isn't a claim that things can't be foolish and fun games like the Persona series and the works of Platinum Games. I want these to exist. I like that these exist. It would just benefit the medium if the opposite could exist alongside it, because as of now, the references have less to do with the journey of Odyssey. Instead, they're inspired by Marvel. And although many would say that these are the mythical beings and references of our time, yeah, but they're wrong.

When we talk about art, what springs to mind? Odds are it's the Mona Lisa or perhaps a litany of those culturally significant paintings, the ones that everybody knows. High art, perhaps. It's a combination of figures who, even if you aren't familiar with their work, you know their stature and their frame: Beethoven, Shakespeare, Da Vinci. They're entities tied to eternity, both isolated to a point in time yet universal to all of humanity. Sadly, video games don't seem to carry that weight. Video games are tied to the now, particularly at the time I'm creating this essay.

I mentioned earlier that they're similar to fashion and that they need to service the needs of now. What are the new trends? How can we capitalize on the current market? How do we not miss our chance? When anything is created like that, or at the least prioritizes this kind of thinking, it almost instantly removes it from any kind of artistic process. At that point, it's a product first that just happens to have some artistic people on board. It's content.

This, in many ways, returns us to the practices of video games but from a more current climate. We've seen a monetization process surreptitiously integrate with games over the last decade to the point that the very industry itself appears to be a knat's breath away from collapsing. When a film is created, sometimes certain sacrifices are made so that the film can return a profit to those that help financially in making it a reality.

Crossover promotions, clever marketing, product placements. I don't think that films or any art should put a dent in the pockets of those that help facilitate it. However, the truth is that many of the people who do fund these projects don't care about the content. It's just a matter of their return, and the same goes for games. Games, like cinema, are being made with ludicrously large budgets and need to make a return.

That's fine. However, I'm inclined to believe that this has become less about making a return and more about using games as a front for money-gouging. If for the player, games have to be fun, then for the studio, games have to make a profit. And the tragedy is that the hyper-monetization of video games in their most recent iteration absolutely annihilates any other form of predatory consumer practices across any format. Locked-out content on a game discourages people to pay extra for that which they technically already own.

Battle passes say that those who pay more for the game deserve more, regardless of how much they enjoy the game, their skill level, or the time spent with it. The lack of quality wherein games are encouraged not to be fully completed or even in a functional state upon their launch. Unfortunately, I have to mention that this wasn't always the case. Games used to prioritize their quality, as good reviews and word of mouth was the best way a game could hope to sell well.

However, now that there are avenues of making a game a live service or something wherein there's no such thing as a completed product, have enabled new ugly practices that are implemented time and time again. If people were not to buy into this, then the market would dictate that these things stop. However, as I said, video games are also a consumable product, and sadly, the majority of people engaging with it are not art enthusiasts; they're consumers.

So sadly, as easy as it is to see a solution to this, I'm pessimistic in people's inability to avoid their appetite for material need. So although this is more of a tangent on the quality of video games as games, I think it should be highlighted to show just how much time and effort is put into this area of production. If the foundation for art and creativity is collaboration and conceptualization, then so much time is diverted away from that into these practices which are exclusively in the domain of business.

And as the area grows and grows, it just seems that games are evolving into a pastime, which there's nothing wrong with. It would just be a shame if that pastime were co-opted by the greedy corporate types as everything else is nowadays. But then again, what else do you really expect? 

So here I am, attempting to treat games as art, but is this me attempting to force a square peg into a round hole? Is my perspective one that's not shared by most people? The people want games to be more than they are. We're placing video games within an isolated sphere, but are they just one branch of games rather than a branch of the arts? Maybe they're both. Maybe some games have the potentiality for art, but maybe they're just a form of escapism, and perhaps some of them do it better than others. And it's our subjective perceptions and interpretations of those experiences that ring true. Maybe subjectivity is the cornerstone of video games, which makes it difficult to slot into the more objective world of art.

So then, there are games like hide-and-seek. Is a game? Or like chess, is a game. But they're not really the same thing, are they? Some would say that there is an art to chess, although the correct way to express it is that there is an intensely honed and constantly shifting craft to chess. One in which a player is constantly adapting between offense and defense. Like pong, games have existed for millennia, and it seems that the art for most of them is in the mechanics of puzzle solving. They're an alternative to sports, although sport is a game, and all of them can be enjoyed exclusively at the spectator level.

But we have this idea that when someone achieves a level of proficiency in that craft, we call them an artist. There's a documentary of footballer Zinedine Zidane titled "Zidane: A 21st Century Portrait". All it is is a regular league game by Zidane while he's playing for Real Madrid, yet filmed in a manner that it seems to act more as an art installation than a man playing a game of football. One game among the hundreds that he played, nothing particularly special or memorable about it. And yet when observed through this lens, it almost transcends the game itself. A human being reaching the peak of his medium, one to inspire others to new avenues once thought impossible. Isn't this the very nature of art? To expose the transcendental, to offer new avenues of thought?

People that play games, people that partake in sport, perhaps only a few can reach this pinnacle wherein the craft transposes into something more. Yet they are the ones we remember. We curate their legacy within their own medium when we transcribe the history of humanity. Ancient Rome did modern culture the service of creating the works of the ancient Greeks, and perhaps once the dust is settled, that may be the same for all mediums.

Video games are primarily a tool for passive entertainment, and perhaps it's the art that is the exception. And yet once time has passed and we have to choose those that we canonize, those that spoke to something deeper within us, maybe then is the legacy and the importance truly revealed to us. Just as not every athlete is remembered for being great, just as not every film touches you to your soul, not every game is worthy of discussion. And although I'd argue that this is the case for most games, I may even argue that this is the case for most things.

Perhaps games should be treated as art from the get-go. Maybe all I'm really calling for is a more acute eye to those things that are truly valuable, those things that we should offer more appreciation to while we have the opportunity to experience them in the present before they become a relic of the past. They are out there. We just need to celebrate them while we still have the chance.


When I was originally thinking of this essay, I started with the idea of why don't video games have their own dōjō. We've established a medium wherein a game director is now seen as a creative ur rather than just a designer. Yu Suzuki, Hideo Kojima, Suda Isushi, Inaba, regardless of what you feel about their approaches in relation to video games, it's clear that these are people that have a singular and unique vision. Outsiders to traditional video game design that gives their work a character and flare so idiosyncratic that they can't be mistaken for anyone else.

Individual creations such as this may be the building blocks needed in order to reach the point that there will emerge someone from the medium that can comfortably reach the level of a dōjō. The fact of the matter is that most mediums are not made up of their dōjōs or their Shakespeares or their Tarkovskis. But perhaps we should refocus and make those our priority and truly assess the level of those things we interact with.

Silent Hill, Metal Gear Solid, Sons of Liing Li, Disco Elysium, Planescape Torment, "I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream" - these are the games that I would not hesitate to place among any other piece of high art, and I encourage people to treat them as such. It's very easy to overstate the impact artistically that many games have, but it's equally as simple to downplay the importance that these games can have. They're some of the most well-written, deeply transgressive works of art that I've ever encountered, and they would easily be at home standing side by side with a dōjō.

The diversity of what a game can be is so amazing to me. The fact that within cinema, we can distinguish between narrative and art cinema. In the medium of video games, you have games that may not even be games - simulators that serve as one-for-one replicas of intensely complex systems, from piloting an aircraft to building and operating a rocket. And then you can go completely off-course and look at things like DCH in the Giant and Aquanauts Holiday with no definitive purpose to what the goal of the game is, to LSD Dream Simulator in which the rules of the game are tied to some loose idea so that the player can traverse these psychedelic experiences.

Even after all this, the fact that every definition that I gave to games could easily be dismantled or refuted with another example just makes me excited for the innumerable possibilities that the medium can offer. I would like to see the corporatization of the industry collapse, but then I'd also like that for the monopolization of cinema and the hyperinflation of pricing in the fine arts. This isn't exclusive to video games, but the potential for the medium is so high I would hate to see it fall so short so soon.

I don't typically think of leaving with a final conclusion for this essay, as the very definition of games we've realized to be such a tenuous thing, and their sprawling and diverse nature suggests to me that we've only scratched the surface of the art form. But even with everything that I've critiqued, I do still perceive it as an art form, even if I believe that for it to achieve its absolute potential, a complete rethink and reform has to occur on the part of both creators and players.

For those that partake in the medium of games, measure it as you would a painting. Analyze its artistic integrity, and don't be afraid to be critical. Critique is the bedrock of legitimate progress in any form. You pick things apart now so that we may avoid them in the future. So you can carve a divine path for the medium to hopefully build upon. Take time to evaluate its intentions and measure it against the principles of storytelling and thematics that you've encountered throughout humanity.

There should be no reason as to why a game cannot be measured against the work of a dōjō. If it could be better, treat it as such. And lastly, but most importantly, elevate your references so that you're better equipped to dissect what's in front of you. Raising your own level only encourages those around you to raise theirs. And of course, to the designers, don't diminish the incredible medium it is that you're working with. This isn't film nor is it clay nor marble. This is something unique that you have to figure out the tools at your disposal to morph, discover something within its form that nobody has done before and nobody outside of your medium could do. Games are fun, and though they may tell you otherwise, art is too. Treat games as art.

Thank you for reading this! Took me hours of editing, writing, revising, and hopefully these posts reach the right eyes.

With matsalab,


8 Kudos


Displaying 0 of 0 comments ( View all | Add Comment )