you also have to consider this:

if Gears is art, than why is it all coming to the surface now, when the sequal is just a few months away? Why would people wait untill the sequal is almost here and then start bringing this up?

One word: "publicity"

how good will gears 2 look when all of this "Artsy" stuff comes to light on the first one? pretty good I say.

Edit: don't get me wrong, I agree with all of the things you are saying here, it's just that the timing is a little funny to me

SargentToughie:
you also have to consider this:

if Gears is art, than why is it all coming to the surface now, when the sequal is just a few months away? Why would people wait untill the sequal is almost here and then start bringing this up?

One word: "publicity"

how good will gears 2 look when all of this "Artsy" stuff comes to light on the first one? pretty good I say.

EDIT: don't get me wrong, I agree with all of the things you are saying here, it's just that the timing is a little funny to me

As far as I'm aware, the OP came up with this theory on his own. Are you saying that he is part of a publicity campaign?

BardSeed:
As far as I'm aware, the OP came up with this theory on his own. Are you saying that he is part of a publicity campaign?

for all you know, he could have had this theory of his for months, which is quite likely, considering how in-depth it is.

the theory makes sence, and I like the thought of Gears being artistic, but it's deffinately possable that his posting it here and now is somehow related to gears 2, directly or not.

Sorry but I dont get it...even IF all that medieval stuff was copied on purpose-why should that be ART? Come on...get real! Not everybody that takes a pencil and tries to paint/copy the mona lisa is an "artist"! Is the game "Gun" art because it copies old western movies? Is castle crashers art because it has castles in it?
Even if all the ideas mentioned in the 1st. post were true:What does it show? That the programmers/designers were tooo lazy to create their own little universe, instead they took a bunch of elements out of their original conext and gave them new names/surroundings-thats all ;)

Now go ahead and kill me ;)

Altorin:
I kind of hate to say it.

If someone thinks its art.. it's art.

people have the right to disagree, and they do, very vocally, but that's how art works.

it's in the eye of the beholder.

Glad to know that my cat is an artist as I think what he poops is in exquisite taste and some of the better examples of modern art today!

I agree with a lot of this, but you have to admit, 95% of the people playing Gears over Xbox live are a bunch of hooting morons. Lots of games are very deep if you're willing to dig, but most people aren't. Any art in games not titled "Final Fantasy" is lost among the target audience. I, for one, try to dig deeper into a lot of games (for instance, Half Life 2 set me off on a maraton reading spree where I read everything from 1984 to Animal Farm (Yes, I like Orwell)). Any game that can get me thinking like that, and even inspire me to dig a little into the universe and it's inspirations is gold in my books.

Still, I'm not so sure if CliffyB intended the similarities or not, but they are definitely there.

I don't quite think anything truly can be called art if something isn't. Everything in life is art, the kind that isn't called art on a daily baisis (or hourly) is art in it's purest form, because it hasn't been tainted by thoughts of misinterpitation, for example a tree is a tree which can be a resource for life, nobody bothered to say it's target audience is idiotic, it's target audience could care less as long as they can live to better the world(i.e. that's how I see animals, they reproduce creating (for predators)control and(for evrthing else) resources to keep control.

I think Gears was more based on WH 40k than anything else.

Since 40k is based on the Middle Ages that's where these comparisons come from, and various archetypes that unintentionally go in for the target mood.

SargentToughie:

BardSeed:
As far as I'm aware, the OP came up with this theory on his own. Are you saying that he is part of a publicity campaign?

for all you know, he could have had this theory of his for months, which is quite likely, considering how in-depth it is.

the theory makes sence, and I like the thought of Gears being artistic, but it's deffinately possable that his posting it here and now is somehow related to gears 2, directly or not.

Heh--the only reason I'm posting it here and now is because, well, I just got my posting rights back after a week of being banned :-D

Well, that and this is the first chance I got/first time I've been motivated to sit down and compose something beyond just a comment after seeing the demo of the game during TV coverage of E3--any doubts I may have had went away after seeing that there would be a shield you plant in the ground in Gears 2. In fact, I think the screenshot I found just before writing this is that same enemy from the demo, only now his flail is emphasized.

So yeah--I've had the idea for a couple of months, and I'm not evil.

I always thought the artistic direction in the game was fantastic, and this just gives me another thing to repeat in order to sound intelligent to my frat-boy-type friends.

"Yeah, you know the lancer is actually heavily influenced by a medieval weapon of the same name, and those shields you're using? Archers deployed them to, uh, shield themselves. I thought of that all on my own."

Seriously though, there's a lot more depth to the Gears universe than some like to admit, despite the shoddy storytelling from the original. It's nice to see someone looking beneath the surface on this.

Maybe I'd have given more credit to GeOW if most of it wasn't blatantly copied off of DoW and then added the "grizzled space marine" into it, not to mention that Cliffy B. and the design team at epic talk about the game, making every bit of depth people like to point purely nothing but coincidence.

I guess it's all in the eye of the beholder and the paradigm, because Cheeze Pavillion sees it as a "medivel and visceral" game while the actual creator of the game sees it as "badass game with lots of blood and pretty graphics." Adding cave trolls to your sequel doesn't make you artsy, they are just trying to get more violence into the game, is that bad for gears of war? No, of course not, it's gonna be awesome when they kill you, but it's not like they are trying to recreate medieval times in the future with the UE3 engine, CP just sees it that way.

ElArabDeMagnifico:
I guess it's all in the eye of the beholder and the paradigm, because Cheeze Pavillion sees it as a "medivel and visceral" game while the actual creator of the game sees it as "badass game with lots of blood and pretty graphics."

I hardly think that's fair; sure, the public image they're trying to send out is one of "badassery...awesomeness" (did I just make a word up after myself?) but that hardly means that there can't be more lurking beneath the surface. Sci-fi novels are well known for trying to project an image of being based mostly around alien tits and big laser guns (in the 80s, anyway) in order to attract their target audience, but that doesn't mean every novel published with that marketing strategy is based purely around those things.

TheBadass:

ElArabDeMagnifico:
I guess it's all in the eye of the beholder and the paradigm, because Cheeze Pavillion sees it as a "medivel and visceral" game while the actual creator of the game sees it as "badass game with lots of blood and pretty graphics."

I hardly think that's fair; sure, the public image they're trying to send out is one of "badassery...awesomeness" (did I just make a word up after myself?) but that hardly means that there can't be more lurking beneath the surface. Sci-fi novels are well known for trying to project an image of being based mostly around alien tits and big laser guns (in the 80s, anyway) in order to attract their target audience, but that doesn't mean every novel published with that marketing strategy is based purely around those things.

Well sure, Ninja Gaiden 2 probably has more than "Gore and Tits" going for it, those venice levels look pretty and they put some 'artistic talent' into the weapons and such - we're ripping people apart with wolverine claws and glass scythes -, but overall gears and NG are pretty much games going for the shock value, and the "fun" factor in killing things, not really "Artsy" - I mean, is a ball and chain grenade and a "Pavise" really what classified Gears game as "arty"?

There's always more to something, like God of War and it's Greek Mythos, but it's purpose is so we can kill everything in Greek Mythology, I mean, we kill the SISTERS OF FATE in the second one!

That doesn't mean the game isn't art, but it isn't trying to wear the "arty" label, Gears wants to be a game that bathes in blood and nothing else, it wants to be brutal, and it wants you to have fun doing it.

poleboy:
It's an interesting thought... I would think that others would have noticed too, though. Has no games journalists poked at this in interviews with the devs? One would also think that they (devs) would have talked about their inspirations for the game at some point.

As for others noticing it, I'd say two things:

(1) Never underestimate the power of expectation to influence one's perception;

(2) People have gotten very close to noticing. This post started as a comment (linked at the top) on an article that contains this observation:

Gears' COG troops...[have] something of the "'80s-metal album cover come to life" in it.

And if there's one thing that screams 80s metal, it's Ronnie James Dio with some big ass medieval sword and fur-lined boots, right?

Also, there's this criticism linked (from that article) on Eurogamer:

John: There's something very peculiar about seeing this running on a big widescreen hi-def TV: it's one of the ugliest games I've ever seen...it just looks awful....the artists just didn't know what to do with [the impressive graphics]. Their attempt to create haunting ruins has failed woefully, resulting in a dull and bland world, a land without a soul.

Which yeah--remember Camelot during the 'sick king' part of John Boorman's _Excalibur_? The land--like the king--has lost it's soul. To me, the world of _Gears_ echoes that kind of dull and bland and ugly and soul-less landscape, and does so for a reason. The artists knew exactly what they were doing: they were using the landscape to communicate just how dire the situation humanity found itself in is. Especially with the ironic use of the party lights by the Stranded--what was once used for celebrating into the night is now used to get through a night that is feared and unwanted.

As for the devs talking about this? That perplexes me too--it's almost like why hasn't something occured along the lines of that scene in _Chasing Amy_ where the Bluntman & Chronic fan goes "They're like Bill and Ted meet...Cheech and Chong!" and Holden replies "I kinda like to think of them as Rosencrantz and Guildenstern meet Vladamir and Estragon."

ElArabDeMagnifico:

That doesn't mean the game isn't art, but it isn't trying to wear the "arty" label, Gears wants to be a game that bathes in blood and nothing else, it wants to be brutal, and it wants you to have fun doing it.

Why can't it do both?

In fact, _Gears_ was intended as a shot across the bow of games where you just have fun killing things--the intent was to make a more tactical shooter where the circle strafe had no place: that's one of the things CliffyB (I know he doesn't use that name anymore, but I like the juxtaposition of "CliffyB" and "Pavise" in the same sentences) advertised as an improvement in _Gears 2_ multiplayer: they've tweaked it based on watching how the original played to make it even more like a professional paintball match and less like the average shooter.

ElArabDeMagnifico:

TheBadass:

ElArabDeMagnifico:
I guess it's all in the eye of the beholder and the paradigm, because Cheeze Pavillion sees it as a "medivel and visceral" game while the actual creator of the game sees it as "badass game with lots of blood and pretty graphics."

I hardly think that's fair; sure, the public image they're trying to send out is one of "badassery...awesomeness" (did I just make a word up after myself?) but that hardly means that there can't be more lurking beneath the surface. Sci-fi novels are well known for trying to project an image of being based mostly around alien tits and big laser guns (in the 80s, anyway) in order to attract their target audience, but that doesn't mean every novel published with that marketing strategy is based purely around those things.

Well sure, Ninja Gaiden 2 probably has more than "Gore and Tits" going for it, those venice levels look pretty and they put some 'artistic talent' into the weapons and such - we're ripping people apart with wolverine claws and glass scythes -, but overall gears and NG are pretty much games going for the shock value, and the "fun" factor in killing things, not really "Artsy" - I mean, is a ball and chain grenade and a "Pavise" really what classified Gears game as "arty"?

There's always more to something, like God of War and it's Greek Mythos, but it's purpose is so we can kill everything in Greek Mythology, I mean, we kill the SISTERS OF FATE in the second one!

That doesn't mean the game isn't art, but it isn't trying to wear the "arty" label, Gears wants to be a game that bathes in blood and nothing else, it wants to be brutal, and it wants you to have fun doing it.

Sure. But, like in God of War, I think there's much more to it than meets the eye. Whether its what the developers wanted to be the most obvious aspect of it is irrelevant, as the general design clearly had huge amounts of thought put into it, and--

Hang on, before I continue can someone post a definition of the word arty? I doubt there is one, but right now we're debating over an abstract concept which seems a little ridiculous until we have a concensus on what arty actually means. After all, you said that something can be "art" but isn't "arty" and while I think I understand what you mean this is all ridiculously subjective.

edit: To keep this post from sounding way too serious, considering we're talking about a game where one of the main weapons is a chainsaw... tits are awesome.

TheBadass:

Hang on, before I continue can someone post a definition of the word arty?

My definition, the one I was working with when I wrote this, is whatever the definition you get out of Yahtzee's latest review of the game _Braid_ where he says something like "it wears the Arty Label" accompanied by the usual hilarious visuals. I was specifically thinking of that review because he singles out _Gears of War_ as a kind of shorthand for everything that an 'arty game' isn't.

I think we agreed on the first page that the viewer defines art.

Cheeze_Pavilion:

ElArabDeMagnifico:

That doesn't mean the game isn't art, but it isn't trying to wear the "arty" label, Gears wants to be a game that bathes in blood and nothing else, it wants to be brutal, and it wants you to have fun doing it.

Why can't it do both?

Didn't say it "couldn't" - it can if it wanted to.

EDIT: Oh blimey you edited your post, give me a minute.

Cheeze_Pavilion:

Why can't it do both?

In fact, _Gears_ was intended as a shot across the bow of games where you just have fun killing things--the intent was to make a more tactical shooter where the circle strafe had no place: that's one of the things CliffyB (I know he doesn't use that name anymore, but I like the juxtaposition of "CliffyB" and "Pavise" in the same sentences) advertised as an improvement in _Gears 2_ multiplayer: they've tweaked it based on watching how the original played to make it even more like a professional paintball match and less like the average shooter.

Eh, can't comment actually, I know nothing about Gears of War two's multiplayer. Maybe the second one is actually trying to be more tactical this time, the "Human Shield" CTF will require a lot of teamwork.

BardSeed:
I think we agreed on the first page that the viewer defines art.

But apparantly "art" doesn't neccesarily mean "arty."

Basically, I feel that if something accomplishes its objective of being a good game in its genre (Braid as a platoformer, for instance) but then goes above and beyond to add stylistic flair past a technical level and tries to make the consumers actually think (as it obviously did to you, Cheeze Pavillion) then sure, why the hell can't it be classed as arty.

ElArabDeMagnifico:

Eh, can't comment actually, I know nothing about Gears of War two's multiplayer. Maybe the second one is actually trying to be more tactical this time, the "Human Shield" CTF will require a lot of teamwork.

The original was trying to be as tactical as possible (while still being fun) as well--here's what he had to say about the game back in '05:

So here's the thing about doing a game that's all about cover. A game that's not a run and gun. It changes your perception about other games, movies, all of your standard pre-learned thoughts about what it means to sling lead at your enemy must be re-worked...Current shooters are the firefight equivalent of a water pistol battle...dancing around in a circle...

Game design doesn´t have anything to do with being artsy, photorealistic scenery means nothing when it has no soul.

Gears was pretending to be tactical, at it's heart it IS a run and gun action title, putting cover in your game doesn't make it "tactical" - it didn't work for Killswitch -, but instead of pressing the crouch button behind a car you press A to magnetize to it, the multiplayer is also just a frag fest, people racing to get to the sniper rifle, and everyone else running around with the Shotgun. Games like Team Fortress 2 seem more tactical and strategic than Gears of War. Gears of War's "tactics" are very basic, and are pretty much in every other shooter with multiplayer in it, it's not gonna "change our perception". Call of Duty has that "regenerating health" but if you run out Rambo style you'll get mowed down, so "sitting behind something and pressing "lean" " is your best bet.

Only games I've played that really tried to be tactical (non-RTS and certain RPG games) and did a great job is Metal Gear Online, and Full Spectrum Warrior.

As for the topic at hand, if we don't even know what the hell "Art" is, what are we talking about? Gears may have some Medieval based design and brown sunlight and wreckage to show us that "the world has no soul" but is it really going for the "artsy" label or just trying to set the mood? I mean, what "post apocalyptic wrecked area" doesn't seem "dull"? CP you just really see something in Gears of War that is spectacular that so many others think are just "meh" - you see the armor and think "Excalibur!" while the guy who designed the thing just thought "Big detailed space armor! Fuck yeah!"

EDIT: OH, forgot the Original Rainbow Six games as well.

(actually scratch that "double edit" - bad examples...)

I think it's up to the creator, not the viewer, to determine if it's art or not. However, it's up to the viewer to determine whether it is GOOD art...

I don't think they sold Gears with a big "Art" sticker on it, so I wouldn't go as far as to call it an artsy game. That doesn't mean it can't be considered art, just that it didn't intend to be classified as such.

Simon_TR:
I think it's up to the creator, not the viewer, to determine if it's art or not. However, it's up to the viewer to determine whether it is GOOD art...

I don't think they sold Gears with a big "Art" sticker on it, so I wouldn't go as far as to call it an artsy game. That doesn't mean it can't be considered art, just that it didn't intend to be classified as such.

I don't recall Picasso's painting having a big sticker with the word Art written on it either. What's your point?

ElArabDeMagnifico:
Gears was pretending to be tactical, at it's heart it IS a run and gun action title, putting cover in your game doesn't make it "tactical" - it didn't work for Killswitch -, but instead of pressing the crouch button behind a car you press A to magnetize to it, the multiplayer is also just a frag fest, people racing to get to the sniper rifle, and everyone else running around with the Shotgun. Games like Team Fortress 2 seem more tactical and strategic than Gears of War. Gears of War's "tactics" are very basic, and are pretty much in every other shooter with multiplayer in it, it's not gonna "change our perception".

All of that though doesn't prove that Gears was pretending; isn't the better explanation--granting what you say for the sake of argument--that it tried and failed? Kind of like the difference between lying and being mistaken?

As for the topic at hand, if we don't even know what the hell "Art" is, what are we talking about?

The way in which we put Psychonauts/Ico/Portal at one end of a spectrum, and Halo/CoD/Gears at the other--why do we do that? And what are the consequences?

Let me give one: _Ico_'s combat system is underrated. It's simple, but that doesn't mean it's not excellent. There's plenty of strategy in how you decide to fight the shadows, and because we pigeonhole the game as 'arty' we fail to recognize how good the gameplay is, in the same way we pigeonhole a game like _Gears_ that's all about headshots in a way that precludes us from recognizing the more 'arty' aspects of it

Gears may have some Medieval based design and brown sunlight and wreckage to show us that "the world has no soul" but is it really going for the "artsy" label or just trying to set the mood? I mean, what "post apocalyptic wrecked area" doesn't seem "dull"?

Bartertown! There was nothing "dull" about Aunty Entity or the Wheel of Punishment.

Really, aren't most "post apocalyptic wrecked areas" anything but dull? Ruined, maybe, but usually everyone has a three-foot purple mohawk and a chain from their nose ring to their nipple piercing. Also, those areas are usually ruined versions of our own world or of some technologically superior future; the world of _Gears_ on the other hand seems much more full of stone than the typical "post apocalyptic wrecked area," doesn't it?

CP you just really see something in Gears of War that is spectacular that so many others think are just "meh" - you see the armor and think "Excalibur!" while the guy who designed the thing just thought "Big detailed space armor! Fuck yeah!"

Okay, granting that for the sake of argument: why did I see all this and everyone else sees "meh"? Even if these are all lucky coincidences, it's not like people were pointing them out before--they weren't even acknowledging they existed (even when they were actually really close to doing so). What does that say about us and the preconceptions we have about games?

BardSeed:

Simon_TR:
I think it's up to the creator, not the viewer, to determine if it's art or not. However, it's up to the viewer to determine whether it is GOOD art...

I don't think they sold Gears with a big "Art" sticker on it, so I wouldn't go as far as to call it an artsy game. That doesn't mean it can't be considered art, just that it didn't intend to be classified as such.

I don't recall Picasso's painting having a big sticker with the word Art written on it either. What's your point?

No, it does wear the big metaphorical sticker:

It seems more "artsy" that way, even though a screenshot of Gears of War can still be "art".

Man this thread is confusing, I just can't find a better way to put anything.

Also, Cheese, I think you see it simply because you have an big interest in that subject, if it reminds you of excalibur you jut relate it to excalibur, and therefore it just means more to you.