Something I want to clear up:

In GeOW is it actually "post apocalyptic" or just "war torn"? I don't think they even used Nukes in the game, just those satellite Rays ("Hammer of Dawn") that wipes things out, so plant life should be fine.

ElArabDeMagnifico:

I think what Yahtzee meant is "this game is generic, and it doesn't make the most of what it has".

Gears 2 may do better.

That's...quite an interesting theory about Yahtzee's feelings about Gears. I guess we will have to wait for the review to resolve our difference of opinion. Of either the original or the sequel.

(Oh and yes, Marcus Fenix's name just has to be a coincidence again,

That's a whole lot of coincidences we're starting to stack up here... ;-D

Art is very subjective, a can of soup can be art, but that doesn't really make it "artsy" like that "Guernica" picture I put a few posts up.

Maybe, but, that still leaves the issue of why Gears has come to represent the antithesis of the 'arty game'.

Well we just covered that: it's a bro game.

ElArabDeMagnifico:
Something I want to clear up:

In GeOW is it actually "post apocalyptic" or just "war torn"? I don't think they even used Nukes in the game, just those satellite Rays ("Hammer of Dawn") that wipes things out, so plant life should be fine.

Here's the Gears Wiki article on it: http://gearsofwar.wikia.com/wiki/Emergence_Day

I guess it depends on how you define 'apocalypse'.

Cliff Bleszinski once said that he wanted Gears of war to be like Lunar Silver Star Story. in wich the player at the end has a sense of lost, Bleszinski wanted to present the character as people who lost everything in their lives. He also wanted to have flashback of marcus as a kid playing in the streets that are now killing fields, but i think because the game got rushed all this got lost.

If Gears or War turns out to be a "reimagining" of the Midevil era like Too Human was to "reimagining" Norse Mythology, I'm going to be so pissed...

Personally I think every game is art. Wether its trying to be or not.

My reasoning for this would be,
1.) Art can be defined as something with no practical use painting, films, music and even games have no practical use. And for the sake of the argument entertainment is not a practical use, if it was then nothing could be considered art cause even the driest formalist artwork can still entertain people.

2.) If art is defined as something that makes you feel something then even the simplest games provoke emotion. Space Invaders alone can cause multiple emotional responses. Joy when you clear a level, fear when you don't think you'll be able to clear a level, sadness when you fail.

Now here's the kicker. Just because something is art doesn't mean its good art.

And for the record I consider 'Arty' to mean something that is trying to be really good art. Like Braid.

Art is defined as something which is considered art by a human culture.

How hard is this to understand?

But why and how does a culture consider something art?

Your statment only explains why something is called art it doesn't help define what art is.

Think of it like this, an apple is an apple because our culture calls it an apple but that doesn't tell us what an apple is.

n01d34:
But why and how does a culture consider something art?

Why? There are an incredible diversity of theories as to why humans are predisposed to form cultures which create and appreciate art. I have my own theory for why humans are predisposed to at least create music if you'd like to hear.

How? Go here for an idea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociocultural_evolution

Oh, and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memetics

n01d34:
Your statment only explains why something is called art it doesn't help define what art is.

The only universally definable thing about art is that it is universally indefinable; you can make culturally specific qualifiers, but so far in anthropology, nothing's been agreed upon other than what I've stated.

The problem is that we all have a feeling of what art is, but it's a damn nearly impossible thing to actually validly define. Anthropologists have figured out that losing sleep over a universal definition of art is far less interesting and useful to humanity than being able to create culturally specific models for which to specifically analyze art created in a certain culture.

n01d34:
Think of it like this, an apple is an apple because our culture calls it an apple but that doesn't tell us what an apple is.

Think of it like this: a bunch of sound frequencies played after one another aren't considered music until there's an individual (and a culture) to hear it and consider it music.

Otherwise, it's simply noise.

Or think of it like this: an apple is created by nature. It is a physical and tangible object which exists with or without human culture. It then becomes very easy to define apple regardless of culture.

Art, however, is created by humans and their cultures. Unlike the apple, you cannot isolate it from the culture that fosters it and thus, the only definition that can be validly given is the one I've provided.

Just to add to the debate about what art is in the first place: http://www.pbs.org/howartmadetheworld/

Not only does Peak Shift explain the Gears Bros' massive shoulders, it explains the DOA Girls' massive...yeah.

That looks like an awesome PBS documentary; I love evo psych and all the stuff that branches off from it.

Eggo:
That looks like an awesome PBS documentary; I love evo psych and all the stuff that branches off from it.

It really was a great series and sort of dis-solved a lot of questions by showing that human behavior isn't a question of 'culture vs. biology' but rather 'culture+biology'

Also, I think you and n01d34 are coming at the question of of 'What Is Art' from two different angles. You are talking about the question as an anthropological/descriptive one; n01d34 is approaching it more from a philosophy of aesthetics/normative one.

I didn't find anything very "deep" about Gears of War.

I... never really thought about it this way. Though, you've got a point: the visual style is highly reminiscent of the medieval world burned to the ground, and many of the pieces of the world are similar to medieval equipment.

Though, I don't think that the dev team in Gears of War actually aimed for this, but instead got something from trying to copy Warhammer 40K. It's a great game and all, and this perspective makes the game a lot more interesting, but I really don't think the dev team got this by themselves.

stompy:

Though, I don't think that the dev team in Gears of War actually aimed for this, but instead got something from trying to copy Warhammer 40K. It's a great game and all, and this perspective makes the game a lot more interesting, but I really don't think the dev team got this by themselves.

Granting that for the sake of argument--there's a lot of similarity between the Lancer and the Chainsword, for example--the question remains: what does that say about us as game critics, that just because Xbox Live latched on to the game we're ready to throw under the bus something that draws from as pure and robust a source of geek DNA as the 40K universe?

Psychonauts and Grim Fandango are true art in games, in my opinion.

NOTE: I haven't played Gears of War...yet. But from what I see on the promos, with big guys with big guns and a main character that looks like he sounds like Arnold Schwartznegger, I don't perceive art anywhere.

The thing with Gears, is that it can be described two ways. Both of these have been shown in this thread. It can be described as an arty game. This probably comes from the fine attention to detail in the scenery and settings (as described by Cheeze) and of course the connection to Medieval times.

However it can also be described as a frat boy game due to the swearing, over the top gore and general badassness.

Because of this Gears of War is an arty game but the "Arty game" title that other games wear (so proudly) is removed because of the non-artistic factors.

Personally I like that. Gears of War has the best of both worlds, I can blow off heaps of steam while chainsawing some lizards while also playing a (fairly) intelligent game. Not many (if any) games can deliver the same experience.

minoes:
Well Gears actually had some thought and care put into it, unlike Halo which has no design to it. It was just put together by a bunch of programmers with no aesthetic vision.

With Halo 3 I'd have to agree with you, and to an extent Halo 2. Halo 1 was fairly unique though at the time, and when you think about all the little things like all the Covenant vehicles being named after some kind of ghost, and all the human vehicles some form of animal, it starts to give the series its own little universe. I know other games do it, but there was something about the way Halo 1 did it that made it good.

I'd like to think that Gears of War was more arty than it was. The architecture and levels are art in themselves, but I'm not sure to what extent I'd agree the games as a package is art. When they realeased the "Mad World" trailer, Cliff B even said that the trailer gave way more depth to a game he himself had described as a lot shallower than the advert let on.

Fire Daemon:
Personally I like that. Gears of War has the best of both worlds, I can blow off heaps of steam while chainsawing some lizards while also playing a (fairly) intelligent game. Not many (if any) games can deliver the same experience.

I must have seriously played a completely different game than you :o

I quite like this thread as I think some good discussion has developed. Although we can see that yes, potentially the Gears developers have taken inspiration from the Medieval period, I do not see why this would either a) make Gears of War art, or b) mean that Gears of War wears the 'arty label'.

I do not wish to wage in on the 'games are art' debate, but I tend to agree with the view that you can consider a game art if it is able to move you in some way, to effect your emotions or your thoughts, or to challenge your beliefs. So applying this way of thinking to Gears of War, I believe you are either effected emotionally by the aesthetics of Gears of War (and therefore consider the game art), or not moved, and simply see it as a two dimensional shooter (and therefore don't consider the game art). The fact that you can turn around and show Medieval imagery in the game should not in my opinion influence this decision, and it certainly shouldn't immediately lead us to label the game art. It may perhaps show depth to the visuals, but the decision as to whether or not you can consider a game art should be purely based on how you feel whilst playing the game, and whether or not the experience of playing a game moves you in some way.

Cheeze_Pavilion:

Maybe, but, that still leaves the issue of why Gears has come to represent the antithesis of the 'arty game'.

Probably because we're spoiled with games like W40k and Shadow of Chernobyl that do a much better job at giving the war torn/apocalyptic dull areas have a "soul" - I mean, I saw no stranded playing guitar around a campfire, and there may be one area with a greenhouse boss fight but entire fields in SoC can have vegitation. It may not look as pretty as UE3 engine but when we play gears after playing those, some people may jut see Gears come off as pretentious.

ElArabDeMagnifico:

Cheeze_Pavilion:

Maybe, but, that still leaves the issue of why Gears has come to represent the antithesis of the 'arty game'.

Probably because we're spoiled with games like W40k and Shadow of Chernobyl that do a much better job at giving the war torn/apocalyptic dull areas have a "soul"

I would say two things in response: (1) you've missed the point of _Gears_. The idea was to create a world with *no* "soul." Maybe you don't *like* that world, but, you can't criticize a game for not doing a "better job" of something it wasn't trying to do in the first place. (2) I find that a very implausible explanation. What would being "spoiled with games like W40k and Shadow of Chernobyl" have to do with holding up _Gears_ as the antithesis of the 'arty game'? Maybe a failed arty game, but there's a big difference between a failure in a category, and exemplifying the antithesis of that category, right?

Art-the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.

Again the "eyes of the beholder" thing (I don't think any game is art let alone Gear of Wars(which is a bro game))

Lord Krunk:
Psychonauts and Grim Fandango are true art in games, in my opinion.

NOTE: I haven't played Gears of War...yet. But from what I see on the promos, with big guys with big guns and a main character that looks like he sounds like Arnold Schwartznegger, I don't perceive art anywhere.

That's one of the surprising things about the game--the main character is way more Rutger Hauer than Arnold Schwarzenegger. And way more _Blade Runner_ than like, _Omega Doom_ in terms of quality of Rutger Hauer movies.

Also, one of those big guys with the big guns is Lieutenant Kim, one of the few male Asians characters not portrayed as intellectual at the expense of more physical gifts, or possessing some mystical strength derived from his spirituality. He's portrayed as big and as virile as any Westerner without a hint of computer skills, drunken boxing, or early childhood training by warrior monks. Another area in which _Gears_ is prejudged, as Lieutenant Kim is almost never mentioned in discussions of positive non-Western video game characters.

HSIAMetalKing:
Of course, I dunno. Maybe I'm just too unwilling to believe that a game like Gears, which is played almost exclusively by whooping cockmonglers, could be "arty".

Hehe...cockmonglers...heh.

Jobz:

HSIAMetalKing:
Of course, I dunno. Maybe I'm just too unwilling to believe that a game like Gears, which is played almost exclusively by whooping cockmonglers, could be "arty".

Hehe...cockmonglers...heh.

The funny thing is that I ran into few cockmonglers in playing Gears online. People were kinda nice--nicer than Halo, and even nicer than CoD4. Everyone was *southern* for some reason, but on the whole I didn't have the miserable experience most people tag this game with.

Of course, it was no comparison to _Far Cry: I/P_ where everyone was a Commonwealth type and incredibly polite. That was surreal.

Well, we have an answer to part of the question of whether the inspiration for significant elements of _Gears of War_ was "'medieval' (in a pop culture stereotypes sense of the word)"

_Gears of War_'s look and its aesthetic, for example, were influenced by his [CliffyB/Dude Huge/Clifford Bleszinski] first trip to London, where he climbed to the top of St. Paul's Cathedral and, with "a shitty little camera," snapped a picture of a yolky sun setting over the Thames, the sky streaked with nursery blues and pinks. Bleszinski's London photograph is one of the reasons that much of Gears takes place in twilight--a lighting condition prized by cinematographers but comparatively neglected in video games. Bleszinski asked his artists to create a "sci-fi" hybrid of London and Washington, D.C., but advised them to keep the futuristic well balanced with the historical.

Also, now I know another reason I was specifically reminded of John Boorman's _Excalibur_: those circles on the armor in Gears: they kind of remind me of the circles you see--sometimes with spikes on them--protecting the armpits of the knights in that movie. Also, how *ugly* Uther Pendragon's armor was, and how ugly the armor of the COG's is.

No.

Just as long as the main character of Gears isn't secretly King Arthur.

Also, i'm going to say this is likly a happy coincidence. Much like Star Wars, Gears of War turned out to be a great product IN SPITE of it's completly retarded creator (F**k you Clifford B), not because of it. But then, Star Wars is kept alive by much more creative fans who add their own slant and vision for it which is ten times better then any official content (see the expanded universe novels).

So, maybe the same hope can be held for Gears (doubt it). It'd too bad this probably isn't the real intent, a sort of modern medieval opera would be -great-. I especially have a soft spot for Athurian legend...

I was under the impression that the game design was based on Cliff's experiences with paintball, which in some courses also means using a shield, etc.

Great observation though, it'd be awesome if some art history grad. sat down and traced the giant bulging armor from modern games all the way back to their origin.

minoes:
Well some people think the "sands of time" series are artsy, when all it does is trying to copy the feeling of Ico and Shadow of the colossus.

pretty sure sands of time came out before shadow....

I don't think it was a coincidence that GoW came off as "artsy." In fact they tried to sell it as such from day one, what with the whole destroyed beauty thing going on. However, it had very little to do with the game's success. The game became successful because of what it is... and what it is, is wicked awesome.

I realy think that gears of war is art, i thought it was an amazing game to play through, i loved the dirty grey feel to it, the brutal up close combat, awsome enemies that were hugge and evil, and the sneaking around in cover and i didn't thik the storyline was too bad either,
it might not be art but if it isn't i don't care
i don't play anything online and if i do i don't use a mic set or talk to anyone because of all the screaing dick holes and squeaky voiced american children, and i think that gears (and halo, thats awsome two) have been tarnished by those idiots (i never played any halo game online either, i just don't like socialising while murdering)