The reading for this week was thought provoking and appropriate, but it seemed rather cursory, and i felt like several points of clarification.
For one, it is important to make the distinction that games like Super Mario Bros, while referred to as "2D," are in fact, not. While they may not display perspective, they nevertheless utilize depth cues and overlapping. Furthermore, Flynn's arguement seems to interpret techonological constraints, such as the 2 dimensional fiends of early games, or the statement that "Doom and Quake use a restricted horizontal and vertical viewpoint to drive the player into the Z spatial axis," as deliberate decisions. And Jenkin's article seems like a well-intentioned (albeit unnecessary) attempt to justify games as art.
I think that the point that is missed in critical assessments of videogames is that these games, whether commercial or indepentant, educational, etnertainment, or art, all of the space exists in the player's (and, of course, the designers') head. The action that takes place on the screen HAS NO DIMENSION. The entirety of the experience takes place in electrons and photons (though one could easily argue that this is no different from the 'real' world). As such, videogames are not confined to any of the rules that would otherwise apply. These rules become mere courtesy; signposts to remind the player that they are still in Kansas.What defines videogames, just like what defines cinema, is their BREAKS with reality, not their similarities. Cinema was defined by the cut; the fracture of time. Videogames are fortunately less hindered. Anything may be fractured. Be it place (PORTAL), time (PB Winterbottom), control (Eternal Darkness), life(Super Mario Brothers), avatar (Messiah, Geist) or even player (Second Player Shooter), nothing is sacred in videogames. Embrace it, for all bets are off...