Notgames Forum

http://www.theowatson.com/site_docs/work.php?id=45

I have found it through notgames blog. The thing is impressive in terms of technology and the message (that I personally agree with). Let's show people and learn children that there is a natural world out there that we should take care of as we are devastating it on a daily basis while enjoying our daily ecstasy. And this part is interesting and speaks to me. Nature through technology. Focusing on something forgotten thanks to junk pop culture and media manipulation through the medium that strongly participates in junk pop culture and is exploited as a brainwashing machine.

However, what always strikes me when I see this sort of things is that the experience is so artificial. If I would have kids (or participate in an ecosystem) I would prefer them to enjoy the real experience and teach them about the beauty of natural world. Or perhaps let them spend two hours on watching "Nausicaa" (and at this point I'm kinda... doubting). Nausicaa is j-animation that is a medium just like interactive. What makes the difference for me? I just asked myself. And the only thing that comes to my mind is that Nausicaa has been made with hand-painted celluloids, while interactive ecosystem is a man-and-machine made thing.

Anyway (sorry for digression), I would prefer my child to play in real woods than watch a movie or play interactively in a room.

Isn't the difference between the film and the interactive piece, a difference in narrative wealth? The abstract forest thing is pretty, but there's not much in it for people to connect with (at least not on first sight: interacting with it might be different). But a film like Nausicaa contains many many references to human nature and culture and history, etc. There's just a lot more in that piece for our brains to crunch on. There's no reason why interactive works cannot be this rich (apart from the fact, perhaps, that they are usually made by engineers and not artists).