If you make a game with Edvard Munch or M.C. Escher visuals, it’s a game about art, not a game that is art. So how do you do it? And why should it matter that games are art?

I have yet to see a “living” video game, one that will literally have unlimited replay value because it’s designed in such a way that its gameplay mechanics change or get smarter. It could be considered artificial intelligence, but that shouldn’t be the goal of the design anyway.

I was digging Red Dead Redemption’s seemingly limitless terrains. It’s really quite spooky playing as a lonewolf cowboy riding his champion steed through a rainy desert alone. And these maps loaded seamlessly! So we take this aspect of unlimited, non-linear environment and we place some kind of goal into it.

What if we could fish in a beautifully rendered lake? The hunting aspects were pretty fun. But it got old after the upteenth time easily killing a bear, still hard, but it takes away any sense of mortal danger. I have yet to see a successful game where you just mow down hordes of zombies (Dead Rising) with ease in the first play through. If there’s no challenge, then the consumer can’t relate as a human.

The player has to feel like there is a sense of accomplishment.

Art direction probably isn’t even important. I want to start seeing games that are truly hand-drawn, made by one person. Just like the advent of webpages. Web designers started to make their own pages very personalized. So if the game development process was simplified enough, we can start seeing some truly individualized games. This is the start of the video game renaissance.

“Professional” game developers will still be around with their big, million-dollar budgets, but now they have to compete with the indie developers just like Hollywood does with their indie filmmakers. The likelihood of any indie developer making a big impact isn’t likely, but it has to be done.

Ah, I’m rambling today. Video game renaissance is what’s going to usher in the true art games.