So I thought it was interesting how the author mentioned: "Art in this case has nothing to do with the concepts of high art/low art, or “are games art”." When I think of games, the first thing that comes to mind is the art. With such a subjective word, art can be anything, even essays. As someone who, almost religiously, plays Roblox's My Hello Kitty Cafe, I'm aware it's made for CHILDREN! I'm aware! My love for Pompompurin knows no limits! I think seeing the art is the first thing that attracted me. Everything is rounded and small- made to look cute. It's all pink and pastels- a clear target for girls. I love how they mentioned the properties their works contain:
specific, personal, small
idiosyncratic
built around a single idea
no effort to communicate in a mainstream way
big impact on a small audience
To be strange or personal, sure. Like I can see that working. Take the little Roblox cafe I mentioned. It's personal to a lot of people considering Sanrio was our childhood in the early 2000s. I don't know about it being strange, although NPC cats and dogs walking around can get creepy. It was built around the idea of a cafe- so I understand. I'm a little confused on communication. There's a chat box to talk to other players, but I'm not sure what they meant here. As for impact, the Sanrio lovers aren't a small crowd and the cafe doesn't really have an impact. It's more of a time waster. Overall, the article was pretty fun to read. It was interesting to know how much work goes into even thinking about games.
Comments