266: Videogame Myths Debunked

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

AngryMongoose:

Scobie:

Kellerb:
only 7 percent of conversation is the words themselves, the rest is tone of voice, body language, facial expression and the like.

Only 7% of in-the-flesh conversation is verbal. 100% of online conversation is made up of speech (including tone of voice) or whatever we can get to show on the screen

And 63% of statistics are made up. Far, FAR, more than 7% of communication is verbal. The most you can get accross with tone and body language is basic emotion; something that can be effectively, often better, transfered through words. Various artforms are devoted to this. Everything other than that basic emotion is communicated through words; just try communicating without them.

You should probably be quoting the guy I quoted rather than me. I have no idea if what he said is accurate or not, so I decided to take his word for it. I was just arguing that it doesn't really matter, since whatever we lose in online conversation we can make up for in other ways.

JEBWrench:

mjc0961:
Anyone who says Braid doesn't have artistic merit needs to take another look. It has plenty of artistic merit... What it lacks is gameplay merit. Someone should have told those guys that a rewind time button isn't an acceptable substitute for proper level design.

In order for a game to have artistic merit, its gameplay must help achieve its artistic vision.

SonicWaffle:

C J Davies:

Braid. Shadow Of The Colossus. Portal. BioShock. Ocarina Of Time. Five titles that destroy this myth completely. Games are art, just as gravity pulls you to Earth and water quenches your thirst. It's not even debateable.

Well, clearly it is debateable. Did you not see the whole debate? I agree with you that games are self-evidently art, but there are a lot of people (gamers included) who disagree.

Debate here! Portal? It's a quirky, funny puzzle game. A work of art? Not even close. Just being different doesn't make it art. Ocarina of Time? Immersive. Excellent game. Solid narrative. Doesn't make it a work of art. Same with BioShock.

Good graphics, music and/or narrative do not make games artistic. None of those games I mentioned (Having not played Braid of Shadow of the Colossus) have gameplay which helps acheive an artistic vision. The closest games I've played have been Ico and I Wanna Be The Guy.

Presenting a list of games without an analysis of what makes those games art or any analysis of what art is, and then declaring the issue closed, is idiotic (this is in reference to the article, by the way). I believe that it is self evident that games can be art, but that is because my definition of art is broad. I would call it "elements intended to be arranged in such a way as to arouse strong emotions and present challenging concepts to those who experience them". This probably covers a whole lot of things that most people would not intuitively call art, and I would say that this is because we have put art on a pedestal as some sort of holy grail. We assume that a game that is art has to be good.

I think it's entirely possible for art to be bad - it can communicate poorly, or the concepts it presents can be shallow or just wrong. Take Bioshock as an example: due to its references to Objectivism, I would call it art - but it's bad art, poor and shallow because its exploration of its themes lack any depth or proper consideration. That isn't to that it's a bad game, just that it's bad art. As I've said before I think that many gamers, in their keenness to validate their chosen hobby, seize on games such as Braid, Limbo or Bioshock that are self-consciously artsy, but not necessarily art. Being art does not make a game good, and being a good game, such as OoT, does not make a game art. What we should be looking for is examples of great art, not just art, and not just artsiness, and of course on this front we will never be able to agree. While I would say that games do not need to have their gameplay integrated into their message in order to be art, I do think that it is very likely to make them much better art. Example: Call of Pripyat. I've never heard anyone else advance the view that this game is art, possibly because it doesn't have pretty cartoon artwork and doesn't shove meaningful-sounding quotes in your face. But its entire structure, including its gameplay, is devoted to the experience of sending the player out to survive in a hostile place and then returning home. It's a sort of miniature monomyth every time you go outside.

But yeah. Imagining you can point to Braid and say "Games are art, I'm going home now" is dumb. Sorry for the random and tangential post. I think I just took what you said as an excuse to spew all my feelings about games as art all over everything.

Not G. Ivingname:

Nincompoop:
snip

While I do agree with you that just spouting examples without giving them context or further explanation, I also disagree with your idea that something isn't art just because it has utility use and "clams us down" (I can think of tons of calming music).

Music that is calming is not art, by being calming, if that makes sense. If you would create a tune which would invoke a certain feeling, I wouldn't call it art. Neither is music art by definition, and using that, combined with examples of music that can be used as an application, isn't a valid argument in my opinion.

I would argue my self, but since your argument was the same as Roger Ebert's ill fated reasoning, and I don't think I can word this better, I will post the Game Overthinker's (aka moviebob's) respounce to him as my counter argument. http://screwattack.com/videos/TGO-Episode-35-A-Response-to-Roger-Ebert

After watching the video, I can only say that I simply don't think of art the same way. I wouldn't call a movie art, and I am partially to the side where there shouldn't be a collaboration of talents and minds when it comes to art.

Having said that, I do find that, perhaps, one specific idea in a game could be called art. Like a specific model (where it comes down to sculpture), or maybe a specific gameplay mechanic, or soundtrack.

But I will never see an entire movie or a game as art. And frankly, it's not as if I put art above anything. In no sense is it derogatory when I say that I don't think games are art.

Also, if I were to publish a big game, and people referred to it as art, I would feel insulted, as art (for me) implies creativity and vision, more than hard work, careful thought, skills and intelligence.

JEBWrench:
[quote="bglamb" post="6.224769.7622317"]

Having been a gamer of all sorts for the past 20+ years, I think I can debunk the "you need to play more games" thing.

From the indie game scene, The Path and World of Goo come close, as does the aforementioned I Wanna Be The Guy. Miegakure looks extremely promising.

As for the Mona Lisa, like any paint on canvas, there's more than just the picture. There's the use of broad vs. narrow brush strokes, the blending of color, the choice of what kind of paints. Direction of strokes, orientation and perspective of subjects.

Well I definitely count World of Goo as a commercial game, both from it's gameplay, the way it was marketed and the amount of money spent on it. If you've played all the the amazingly artistic games out there, including ones which literally do force you to question why you're pressing x to jump, and whether you really should, then I don't know why you disagree with me. I can only assume you are not playing the right games.

I also don't understand why you think World of Goo is more artistic than a hundred other games I could mention. I am coming to the conclusion that you have no taste.

But I can't seriously take your point about the Mona Lisa. Whilst I accept that it has many hidden qualities (far more than I can appreciate), you claimed that it takes "full advantage of the medium", like nothing that's happened in the art world in the last hundred years or so can add anything to the medium that wasn't already present in the Mona Lisa.

bglamb:

I also don't understand why you think World of Goo is more artistic than a hundred other games I could mention. I am coming to the conclusion that you have no taste.

I also enjoy the Myst series, so you wouldn't be the first to say that. As for what I was referring to, its gameplay was very much crucial to what the game was trying to convey, even if it was borderline psychotic dark comedy.

But I can't seriously take your point about the Mona Lisa. Whilst I accept that it has many hidden qualities (far more than I can appreciate), you claimed that it takes "full advantage of the medium", like nothing that's happened in the art world in the last hundred years or so can add anything to the medium that wasn't already present in the Mona Lisa.

Taking full advantage of a medium does not mean that the medium cannot be added to. Metropolis is a fine film that took full advantage of the medium, however plenty has been added to the medium since then. It doesn't degenerate Metropolis though. Technological and social factors are also an important part in assessing artwork.

For the record: I'm not saying games cannot be art. I'm saying they haven't quite reached that point yet. And there are lots of games I haven't played, but since I haven't played them, I'm not going to let that change my opinion one way or the other.

Nincompoop:

Not G. Ivingname:

Nincompoop:
snip

While I do agree with you that just spouting examples without giving them context or further explanation, I also disagree with your idea that something isn't art just because it has utility use and "clams us down" (I can think of tons of calming music).

Music that is calming is not art, by being calming, if that makes sense. If you would create a tune which would invoke a certain feeling, I wouldn't call it art. Neither is music art by definition, and using that, combined with examples of music that can be used as an application, isn't a valid argument in my opinion.

I would argue my self, but since your argument was the same as Roger Ebert's ill fated reasoning, and I don't think I can word this better, I will post the Game Overthinker's (aka moviebob's) respounce to him as my counter argument. http://screwattack.com/videos/TGO-Episode-35-A-Response-to-Roger-Ebert

After watching the video, I can only say that I simply don't think of art the same way. I wouldn't call a movie art, and I am partially to the side where there shouldn't be a collaboration of talents and minds when it comes to art.

Having said that, I do find that, perhaps, one specific idea in a game could be called art. Like a specific model (where it comes down to sculpture), or maybe a specific gameplay mechanic, or soundtrack.

But I will never see an entire movie or a game as art. And frankly, it's not as if I put art above anything. In no sense is it derogatory when I say that I don't think games are art.

Also, if I were to publish a big game, and people referred to it as art, I would feel insulted, as art (for me) implies creativity and vision, more than hard work, careful thought, skills and intelligence.

Would you define indie games developed by one person as art? There are plenty, like Castle Crashers was entirely programmed by one person while another did ALL the art work. If you need examples of stuff done by ONE person, and ONE person alone, check out Newgrounds.com, which has plenty of great works done by a single entity.

JEBWrench:
For the record: I'm not saying games cannot be art. I'm saying they haven't quite reached that point yet. And there are lots of games I haven't played, but since I haven't played them, I'm not going to let that change my opinion one way or the other.

There are games out there that are art. Play more games. Look deeper. Dig. Find stuff. Go to blogs. Check out indie game sites. Don't pay for games. Don't play things your friends have played. Discover. You'll be amazed.

http://secondpersonshooter.com/2010/07/17/press-x-to-continue/

EDIT: Here's a tip, go play Loved. (http://www.kongregate.com/games/AlexanderOcias/loved)

This is a game that I would call real art. It's not about the gameplay, the graphics, the sound. These are just tools to convey it's message. but vital tools. Play it, then play it again, then sit down and think about what it is trying to tell you.

Why does it treat you the way it does.
Why does it ask/tell you to do the things it does.
Why do you choose to do/not do them?
What does that mean?

Then come back and tell me why it's not art.

There are a thousand parts of the video game medium that aren't used. But the one that is used (your interactivity) is the one that matters. That's the one that sets games apart and allows them to convey thoughts and feelings in a way that other mediums can't.

Not G. Ivingname:

Nincompoop:

Not G. Ivingname:

Nincompoop:
snip

While I do agree with you that just spouting examples without giving them context or further explanation, I also disagree with your idea that something isn't art just because it has utility use and "clams us down" (I can think of tons of calming music).

Music that is calming is not art, by being calming, if that makes sense. If you would create a tune which would invoke a certain feeling, I wouldn't call it art. Neither is music art by definition, and using that, combined with examples of music that can be used as an application, isn't a valid argument in my opinion.

I would argue my self, but since your argument was the same as Roger Ebert's ill fated reasoning, and I don't think I can word this better, I will post the Game Overthinker's (aka moviebob's) respounce to him as my counter argument. http://screwattack.com/videos/TGO-Episode-35-A-Response-to-Roger-Ebert

After watching the video, I can only say that I simply don't think of art the same way. I wouldn't call a movie art, and I am partially to the side where there shouldn't be a collaboration of talents and minds when it comes to art.

Having said that, I do find that, perhaps, one specific idea in a game could be called art. Like a specific model (where it comes down to sculpture), or maybe a specific gameplay mechanic, or soundtrack.

But I will never see an entire movie or a game as art. And frankly, it's not as if I put art above anything. In no sense is it derogatory when I say that I don't think games are art.

Also, if I were to publish a big game, and people referred to it as art, I would feel insulted, as art (for me) implies creativity and vision, more than hard work, careful thought, skills and intelligence.

Would you define indie games developed by one person as art? There are plenty, like Castle Crashers was entirely programmed by one person while another did ALL the art work. If you need examples of stuff done by ONE person, and ONE person alone, check out Newgrounds.com, which has plenty of great works done by a single entity.

How can you lynch to that specific line and disregard the rest? It's not like that was the cornerstone of my message.

But I probably still wouldn't call it art, as it consists of multiple genres of art. And I will never call hard work, intelligence and skills art. You said the code was done by one, and artwork by another? (That's how I understood it, but I wasn't sure). All the artwork, like the models, pictures, soundtrack, or whatever was in it, I would call them, alone, art. I wouldn't call the programming code art, as it was a result of planning and hard work, and I most certainly wouldn't call both of them together art.

I always want to know where these stats are for 40% of gaming people are girls.

Because I've heard 2 girls in all my gaming time (who are actually playing as opposed to talking with the gamer).

2.

(Oh and there was one playing CoD4 on MachinmaRespawn. And another who plays with TehBirdz)

One of them was in Halo 3 Custom games on the Xbox of course.
And another on Modern Warfare 2 on the PS3.

So, if there are 40% girl gamers, then where the fuck are all their mics?

I always think that these polls are done on Farmville, or some such thing.

What I really want to see is Information from Microsoft on what genders were chosen on the Xbox, and the same on PS3. When that happens I'll believe that 40% nonsense.

Edit: Your single source comes from one consumer survey. No wonder the people were old.

Causal gaming is killing design and polish perhaps not killing the industry but it is effecting game qaulity. I do not consider most of today's AAA titles o be A+ more like C-, with mechanics still taking a back seat to the quasi film expedience devs are mindlessly pouring into today's games, the casual plague is still a plague its just not quite casual games are replacing other games its casual and cheap designs that are replacing more quality and polished design emphasis .

Also being social means getting out of the house and being around people doing it via quasi methods dose not count unless you are surrounded by people either friends playing the same game in the same room or a group doing a lan party.

Nincompoop:

Not G. Ivingname:

Nincompoop:

Not G. Ivingname:

Nincompoop:
snip

While I do agree with you that just spouting examples without giving them context or further explanation, I also disagree with your idea that something isn't art just because it has utility use and "clams us down" (I can think of tons of calming music).

Music that is calming is not art, by being calming, if that makes sense. If you would create a tune which would invoke a certain feeling, I wouldn't call it art. Neither is music art by definition, and using that, combined with examples of music that can be used as an application, isn't a valid argument in my opinion.

I would argue my self, but since your argument was the same as Roger Ebert's ill fated reasoning, and I don't think I can word this better, I will post the Game Overthinker's (aka moviebob's) respounce to him as my counter argument. http://screwattack.com/videos/TGO-Episode-35-A-Response-to-Roger-Ebert

After watching the video, I can only say that I simply don't think of art the same way. I wouldn't call a movie art, and I am partially to the side where there shouldn't be a collaboration of talents and minds when it comes to art.

Having said that, I do find that, perhaps, one specific idea in a game could be called art. Like a specific model (where it comes down to sculpture), or maybe a specific gameplay mechanic, or soundtrack.

But I will never see an entire movie or a game as art. And frankly, it's not as if I put art above anything. In no sense is it derogatory when I say that I don't think games are art.

Also, if I were to publish a big game, and people referred to it as art, I would feel insulted, as art (for me) implies creativity and vision, more than hard work, careful thought, skills and intelligence.

Would you define indie games developed by one person as art? There are plenty, like Castle Crashers was entirely programmed by one person while another did ALL the art work. If you need examples of stuff done by ONE person, and ONE person alone, check out Newgrounds.com, which has plenty of great works done by a single entity.

How can you lynch to that specific line and disregard the rest? It's not like that was the cornerstone of my message.

But I probably still wouldn't call it art, as it consists of multiple genres of art. And I will never call hard work, intelligence and skills art. You said the code was done by one, and artwork by another? (That's how I understood it, but I wasn't sure). All the artwork, like the models, pictures, soundtrack, or whatever was in it, I would call them, alone, art. I wouldn't call the programming code art, as it was a result of planning and hard work, and I most certainly wouldn't call both of them together art.

So if its planed its not art?

Art is books,literature,comics, film ,TV any audio and or visual or even tactile(is smell tactile or something by itself) experience that a person or group makes for others to enjoy, that IMO is the essence of art trying to make a thing to experience for other(s) to enjoy.

Myth: Games Have No Artistic Merit

Braid. Shadow Of The Colossus. Portal. BioShock. Ocarina Of Time. Five titles that destroy this myth completely. Games are art, just as gravity pulls you to Earth and water quenches your thirst. It's not even debateable.

No, it is completely debatable.

Video games can be art, but just because something is a video game does not automatically make it art. Shadow I would agree with you on, maybe Portal, but Bioshock and Ocarina you'd need to convince me on. Braid I have minimal knowledge about so I can't judge one way or the other.

But lets look at counter examples: Grand Theft Auto: (Insert Location Here). Duke Nukem. Sonic the Hedgehog (2006 version). Bomberman: Act Zero. Superman. Five titles that give this "myth" credibility.

It gets even worse when people specifically try to make video games for the purpose of art and forget that they're trying to make a video game, focusing more on 'vision' and 'artistic quality' than on the most important part of every video game: Gameplay. When people then try to defend these games and say we're supposed to praise them, enjoy them, and buy them to show our support for them because they're art makes it simply infuriating.

Before a game can be art, it must first succeed as a video game, and thus must succeed in it's ability to provide gameplay. THEN, if the designers are up for it, it has the possibility to become art, but even that isn't guaranteed.

EDIT:

bglamb:
EDIT: Here's a tip, go play Loved. (http://www.kongregate.com/games/AlexanderOcias/loved)

I played the game twice around when it went up on Kongregate, and I say that rather than being art, loved is exactly the kind of game that I'm talking about that worries more about art than gameplay.

bglamb:
This is a game that I would call real art. It's not about the gameplay, the graphics, the sound. These are just tools to convey it's message. but vital tools. Play it, then play it again, then sit down and think about what it is trying to tell you.

If it's not about the gameplay, then it shouldn't be a video game.

bglamb:
Then come back and tell me why it's not art.

Because in it's first responsibility it has failed. It's not a good game.

"You Have to Burn the Rope" is a better example of art than loved, and I'd debate whether that's art or not too.

The main problem with Loved is that it's trying too hard to be art.

ZippyDSMlee:

Nincompoop:

Not G. Ivingname:

Nincompoop:

Not G. Ivingname:

Nincompoop:
snip

While I do agree with you that just spouting examples without giving them context or further explanation, I also disagree with your idea that something isn't art just because it has utility use and "clams us down" (I can think of tons of calming music).

Music that is calming is not art, by being calming, if that makes sense. If you would create a tune which would invoke a certain feeling, I wouldn't call it art. Neither is music art by definition, and using that, combined with examples of music that can be used as an application, isn't a valid argument in my opinion.

I would argue my self, but since your argument was the same as Roger Ebert's ill fated reasoning, and I don't think I can word this better, I will post the Game Overthinker's (aka moviebob's) respounce to him as my counter argument. http://screwattack.com/videos/TGO-Episode-35-A-Response-to-Roger-Ebert

After watching the video, I can only say that I simply don't think of art the same way. I wouldn't call a movie art, and I am partially to the side where there shouldn't be a collaboration of talents and minds when it comes to art.

Having said that, I do find that, perhaps, one specific idea in a game could be called art. Like a specific model (where it comes down to sculpture), or maybe a specific gameplay mechanic, or soundtrack.

But I will never see an entire movie or a game as art. And frankly, it's not as if I put art above anything. In no sense is it derogatory when I say that I don't think games are art.

Also, if I were to publish a big game, and people referred to it as art, I would feel insulted, as art (for me) implies creativity and vision, more than hard work, careful thought, skills and intelligence.

Would you define indie games developed by one person as art? There are plenty, like Castle Crashers was entirely programmed by one person while another did ALL the art work. If you need examples of stuff done by ONE person, and ONE person alone, check out Newgrounds.com, which has plenty of great works done by a single entity.

How can you lynch to that specific line and disregard the rest? It's not like that was the cornerstone of my message.

But I probably still wouldn't call it art, as it consists of multiple genres of art. And I will never call hard work, intelligence and skills art. You said the code was done by one, and artwork by another? (That's how I understood it, but I wasn't sure). All the artwork, like the models, pictures, soundtrack, or whatever was in it, I would call them, alone, art. I wouldn't call the programming code art, as it was a result of planning and hard work, and I most certainly wouldn't call both of them together art.

So if its planed its not art?

Art is books,literature,comics, film ,TV any audio and or visual or even tactile(is smell tactile or something by itself) experience that a person or group makes for others to enjoy, that IMO is the essence of art trying to make a thing to experience for other(s) to enjoy.

Butt out of this. If you would have followed the discussion, you would have seen that this is my personal opinion.

EDIT: Now you changed it to personal, well, you are welcome to have that opinion. That appears to be what most people think. I just think of art differently.

Until the day comes when we can all agree on the same definition of art (which is extremely subjective; the question of "What is art?" is another topic that's been going on for who knows how long?), of course we're going to continue finding flaws in each others' arguments of what art is and arguments supporting that games are/aren't art when their perception/definition of art is different from our own to begin with.

I personally don't think games are art, but that's just with MY opinion of what art is -- if you have a different opinion of what art is and what qualifies as art, then by your own definition, games could very well be art. By how I think art is defined, which unfortunately, doesn't seem as easy as looking up in the Webster's Dictionary, videogames aren't art. I'm not going to justify or explain my reasoning because that would make this post like 2x longer.

I'm not saying "Your truth is your truth and my truth is my truth" and we should just leave it at that, I'm just saying how can we expect this debate to go anywhere unless we realize how much these lenses and these filters affect us?

But here is my response to the author, and if you get anything from this tl;dr, I want it to be this:

You make the point that games aren't social. I'm not saying I agree or disagree at this point. It intrigued me that you said, "The question is: What's wrong with that?"

Games aren't art. The question is: What's wrong with that? So what if games aren't art? Why does it matter so much to us, why are gamers so offended at what Roger Ebert has to say about gaming when it's no different than if their grandmother peeked over their shoulders during playtime and said "Games aren't art; they're a waste of your time"?

People go out and have a blast at the bar or at a soccer game -- do they have to justify or defend their hobby/passion/past time as art? In the end, does it matter that much?

Again, this reply is not so much in response to whether games are or aren't art (there are plenty of other places to discuss this and if this goes further maybe I'll elaborate my opinions further) so much as the question why do we care so much? It really doesn't matter, I don't think it's of too much consequence that Roger Ebert (who has never be a part of our gamer culture) should criticize our hobby so.

I'll totally respect anyone's opinion that games are art but in the hope they're not being defensive or indignant about it. This doesn't just apply to Roger Ebert or critics of videogaming who don't count it as art, but basically the opinions of many people who don't understand why we enjoy gaming or whatever. Hope this all made sense, I feel like the way I structured this post was a bit dodgy and I'm probably leaving out some important detail I wanted to mention but right now I'm good. (:

Sure, online multi-player isn't very social, but what about local multi-player, which you never bring up? I think that's pretty social, since you're...y'know...playing with other people in the same room.

Interesting article I guess, but... aren't we preaching a little bit to the choir here? Sure, there's enough evidence in these comments alone that some of your points are a little controversial, but I've heard pretty much all those myths before and I already know the truth behind them (and in some cases, I am proof disproving those myths).

I imagine the majority of people who read the articles on this site at least as knowledgable on these matters as I am, so I can't help but wonder... what exactly was the point of the article? What were you hoping to accomplish?

commasplice:
I think Scobie brings up a pretty good point. Still, it was an interesting article. When it comes to cloud gaming, though, the deal breaker for me is the fact that my games could be taken from me if the mods decided to ban my account. It doesn't really matter how "convenient" the system is if I can't use it. :/ Same could be said for people who don't have internet.

Or have slower internet - the loading times would be much greater. Same thing if you access from too many places (I know i reinstalled a digital distro splinter cell on my PC too many times due to system reinstalls), it could stop you from doing it again.

I like the myth breaking, and absolutely didn't know that as many as 40% of gamers are girls.

However I didn't like his sources contradicting themselves - he says that bioware is telling smaller companies to turn from bigger games on consoles to casual ones, then says that casual gaming is not killing real gaming and provides a blockbuster title.

If taking all this evidence into account then the "middle ground" really is dying - or in a wider sense becoming threatened with extinction therefore it needs to adapt.

Nice article. And agreed. PC gaming isn't dieing and won't anytime soon. Although Publishers seem to be trying their hardest to kill it with shoddy ports and stupid DRM.

I would agree with the "games aren't social" idea presented here, which a few others seem to take issue with. Unless someone is physically interacting with you in some way, then I don't believe it counts as "social". Someone spending a lot of time on MSN cannot say they are "socialising" and neither can a group of people playing COD4 online. about 90% of socialising is nonverbal and I think from that you could easily argue that only being face to face with someone can possibly count as "socialising". No, I believe the whole "multiplayer is social" argument is just an excuse people throw out in an attempt to debunk the "sad lonely gamer" theory.

Here's the thing about games as art: some games people consider art think so because of the great cutscenes that have so much story in them. Well, cutscenes are basically movies. For games to really be considered art, they have to do so in the actual "game" part of it. It's kind of like considering a book to be great literature because of the pictures and diagrams.

Kind of hard to say what I'm trying to say, but hopefully someone will get it.

Nincompoop:

ZippyDSMlee:

Nincompoop:

Not G. Ivingname:

Nincompoop:

Not G. Ivingname:

Nincompoop:
snip

While I do agree with you that just spouting examples without giving them context or further explanation, I also disagree with your idea that something isn't art just because it has utility use and "clams us down" (I can think of tons of calming music).

Music that is calming is not art, by being calming, if that makes sense. If you would create a tune which would invoke a certain feeling, I wouldn't call it art. Neither is music art by definition, and using that, combined with examples of music that can be used as an application, isn't a valid argument in my opinion.

I would argue my self, but since your argument was the same as Roger Ebert's ill fated reasoning, and I don't think I can word this better, I will post the Game Overthinker's (aka moviebob's) respounce to him as my counter argument. http://screwattack.com/videos/TGO-Episode-35-A-Response-to-Roger-Ebert

After watching the video, I can only say that I simply don't think of art the same way. I wouldn't call a movie art, and I am partially to the side where there shouldn't be a collaboration of talents and minds when it comes to art.

Having said that, I do find that, perhaps, one specific idea in a game could be called art. Like a specific model (where it comes down to sculpture), or maybe a specific gameplay mechanic, or soundtrack.

But I will never see an entire movie or a game as art. And frankly, it's not as if I put art above anything. In no sense is it derogatory when I say that I don't think games are art.

Also, if I were to publish a big game, and people referred to it as art, I would feel insulted, as art (for me) implies creativity and vision, more than hard work, careful thought, skills and intelligence.

Would you define indie games developed by one person as art? There are plenty, like Castle Crashers was entirely programmed by one person while another did ALL the art work. If you need examples of stuff done by ONE person, and ONE person alone, check out Newgrounds.com, which has plenty of great works done by a single entity.

How can you lynch to that specific line and disregard the rest? It's not like that was the cornerstone of my message.

But I probably still wouldn't call it art, as it consists of multiple genres of art. And I will never call hard work, intelligence and skills art. You said the code was done by one, and artwork by another? (That's how I understood it, but I wasn't sure). All the artwork, like the models, pictures, soundtrack, or whatever was in it, I would call them, alone, art. I wouldn't call the programming code art, as it was a result of planning and hard work, and I most certainly wouldn't call both of them together art.

So if its planed its not art?

Art is books,literature,comics, film ,TV any audio and or visual or even tactile(is smell tactile or something by itself) experience that a person or group makes for others to enjoy, that IMO is the essence of art trying to make a thing to experience for other(s) to enjoy.

Butt out of this. If you would have followed the discussion, you would have seen that this is my personal opinion.

EDIT: Now you changed it to personal, well, you are welcome to have that opinion. That appears to be what most people think. I just think of art differently.

Ok I think I get what your saying you have media which is a very lite and shallow artistic medium and then you have "Art" which is above and beyond laymens scope and understanding like a force of nature.

Something like that?

It dose sound a bit snobbish but I am the same way with video games, video games should be built around mechanics not visual drool...you are not interfacing with drool dammit!

ZippyDSMlee:

Nincompoop:

ZippyDSMlee:

Nincompoop:

Not G. Ivingname:

Nincompoop:

Not G. Ivingname:

Nincompoop:
snip

While I do agree with you that just spouting examples without giving them context or further explanation, I also disagree with your idea that something isn't art just because it has utility use and "clams us down" (I can think of tons of calming music).

Music that is calming is not art, by being calming, if that makes sense. If you would create a tune which would invoke a certain feeling, I wouldn't call it art. Neither is music art by definition, and using that, combined with examples of music that can be used as an application, isn't a valid argument in my opinion.

I would argue my self, but since your argument was the same as Roger Ebert's ill fated reasoning, and I don't think I can word this better, I will post the Game Overthinker's (aka moviebob's) respounce to him as my counter argument. http://screwattack.com/videos/TGO-Episode-35-A-Response-to-Roger-Ebert

After watching the video, I can only say that I simply don't think of art the same way. I wouldn't call a movie art, and I am partially to the side where there shouldn't be a collaboration of talents and minds when it comes to art.

Having said that, I do find that, perhaps, one specific idea in a game could be called art. Like a specific model (where it comes down to sculpture), or maybe a specific gameplay mechanic, or soundtrack.

But I will never see an entire movie or a game as art. And frankly, it's not as if I put art above anything. In no sense is it derogatory when I say that I don't think games are art.

Also, if I were to publish a big game, and people referred to it as art, I would feel insulted, as art (for me) implies creativity and vision, more than hard work, careful thought, skills and intelligence.

Would you define indie games developed by one person as art? There are plenty, like Castle Crashers was entirely programmed by one person while another did ALL the art work. If you need examples of stuff done by ONE person, and ONE person alone, check out Newgrounds.com, which has plenty of great works done by a single entity.

How can you lynch to that specific line and disregard the rest? It's not like that was the cornerstone of my message.

But I probably still wouldn't call it art, as it consists of multiple genres of art. And I will never call hard work, intelligence and skills art. You said the code was done by one, and artwork by another? (That's how I understood it, but I wasn't sure). All the artwork, like the models, pictures, soundtrack, or whatever was in it, I would call them, alone, art. I wouldn't call the programming code art, as it was a result of planning and hard work, and I most certainly wouldn't call both of them together art.

So if its planed its not art?

Art is books,literature,comics, film ,TV any audio and or visual or even tactile(is smell tactile or something by itself) experience that a person or group makes for others to enjoy, that IMO is the essence of art trying to make a thing to experience for other(s) to enjoy.

Butt out of this. If you would have followed the discussion, you would have seen that this is my personal opinion.

EDIT: Now you changed it to personal, well, you are welcome to have that opinion. That appears to be what most people think. I just think of art differently.

Ok I think I get what your saying you have media which is a very lite and shallow artistic medium and then you have "Art" which is above and beyond laymens scope and understanding like a force of nature.

Something like that?

It dose sound a bit snobbish but I am the same way with video games, video games should be built around mechanics not visual drool...you are not interfacing with drool dammit!

Maybe, except that art isn't above anything. If anything, I regard art as something less in most cases. 'Art' is f**king overrated. People who dare utter the words "but it's art" should all die a painful death, and have insects eat their carcass. But seriously, I have a bit of a narrow criteria for art, but in no way is it superior to anything, au contraire, in most cases I personally find it ridiculous. Gaming should be happy when I say it's not art <.<.

Captain Booyah:
Whoever wrote that article for the Telegraph gave me rage. They're the kind of women who give the rest of us a bad name, by obsessing over falling in love and white weddings and eventually having 2.1 children. I'm not saying that anything about this is wrong (albeit annoying), and that there's not genuine gaming addicts out there ruining relationships, but by God, they don't half support the stereotype that anything outside that realm of domestic perfection is shockingly outrageous.

Gee, lady, ever think that your husband just wants to escape to a world that doesn't contain his nagging wife?

More OT: That thing about around 40% of the gaming market are girls. Is that entirely accurate? Because I'd imagine that for some girls, qualifying as a 'gamer' would be mostly playing games like FarmVille, Wii Fit, etc.

yeah, this right here.

also, when you say male gamers play 7.6 hours a week playing video games? in the summer it's easily 50 hours and i still have a busy social life at night.

but then again, during the school year it makes more sense, i guess...

JEBWrench:

Helmutye:
Ultimately, Art is just a word, and this whole debate is a silly dispute over word definitions. And regardless of what anyone else thinks, games are art to ME. I suppose you can make your own decisions about that. But I would argue that, at this point, games exhibit so many similarities with other accepted mediums of art that it is up to someone to prove why games are NOT art.

Except that, and this is where Portal falls flat:

The Gameplay itself is still separated from the artistic experience. Cinema manages to make the collective experience of group viewing be an integral part of the artistic experience.

Games as of yet fail to take advantage of their single greatest difference between other media.

How is gameplay separate from the artistic experience? Gameplay IS the artistic experience! If you read the rest of my post above, I establish how playing through Portal gives you an artistic experience. If you're going to refute it, fair enough, but I'm going to need more of an argument than just 'Well, no.'

C J Davies:
Myth: Game Testing Is An Awesome Job

Ever had to proofread an essay, meticulously checking for spelling errors and inaccuracies? Chances are that job wasn't much fun. Now consider that process when applied to videogames. It's a tester's job to find flaws within games, which means painstakingly plowing through them over and over again until they are unfun and tedious. That incredible opening level of Modern Warfare 7: Explosions And Stuff won't seem as amazing once you've played it eight hours a day for two weeks straight. And while a veteran game tester can earn a decent salary, those on the lower rungs of the ladder can expect a much more humbling wage.
image

None of this is to say that game testing is a bad job (sweatshop workers in Indonesia would presumably be very happy to switch places with Activision's new recruits). It just isn't the digital Shangri-La of popular perception.

I would just like to point out that I do a job just as tedious as game testing, and make more than $10k less than the average low man on the totem pole.

So to me, game testing looks to be an attractive career, even if it is as boring as the shitty auto manufacturing job I have now.

Ahlycks:
yeah, this right here.

also, when you say male gamers play 7.6 hours a week playing video games? in the summer it's easily 50 hours and i still have a busy social life at night.

but then again, during the school year it makes more sense, i guess...

Easy for you to do, I work a full time job and have a wife and daughter. The average age of the gamer is closer to my age (27) than it is yours (16 or 17, I presume).

I mostly agree with this article, except on the social part.

Considering I'm a nerd, a gamer, and an engineer, I'm surprisingly social. I like nothing better than to hang out with a group of my closest friends, talking, playing board and video games, and anything else we can do together as a group.

Just like you can be antisocial in a crowded party, you can be social doing something that would normally be a solitary activity. Playing video games is a great example: my friends and I regularly get together and play video games together. Sometimes we're playing the same game, taking turns or discussing strategies with the driver. Sometimes we are all playing different games, but chatting back and forth, checking out each other's progress and challenging each other's scores. Sometimes we play multiplayer games in co-op or competitively. Whatever the case, we aren't just several bodies in the room without interacting, which is more than you can say for getting a group together to watch a movie or going to a party and not talking to anybody.

That same social experience can extend to online. When my girlfriend plays World of Warcraft, she spends most of her time talking with her friends while the game itself becomes a distraction. In fact, the game is merely the reason they met and continues to be the cornerstone that brings them together at the same place and time, but she plays entirely for the socialization, which she doesn't do a lot of normally. When I play a game like Team Fortress 2, I'm not just playing against other avatars that happen to be controlled by people, I'm actively working together with them, discussing everything from strategy to the newest changes to the game to what the weather is like up here. I've met people, learned their names, and kept up relations with them. Sure, we may have never seen each other's faces, but we keep in contact, socializing in essentially the same ways as I would with somebody in real life. Is that not social?

Somewhere earlier, somebody said that communication in a game isn't social because using words is only 7% of communication. I'm not sure where you got that statistic, but I'd also ask, why does it matter? Is writing letters with a pen pal not social for the same reason? Is talking on the phone with your girlfriend not social for the same reason? Socialization has to do with a lot more than just interpreting words and body languages. Socialization happens at many levels, from something as simple as interpreting somebody's words and body language, to responding appropriately for desired effect, to building rapport and relationships, to forming entire social structures with leaders and followers. All of these things exist just as much in video games and on internet forums as they do in a group of people in close proximity to each other in real life. So long as people are able to communicate with each other, social relationships can exist; it doesn't require eye contact and body language to be truly social.

However, I will concede that it isn't healthy for a child to avoid direct communication and overemphasize online communication, because there are social skills we learn in the real world that don't exist in the virtual world. Body language, which makes up a significant part of our ability to communicate in real life, doesn't work online, so a child who doesn't spend enough time experiencing that and practicing that will be at a disadvantage when it comes time to communicate in-person. But this has nothing to do with games not being social, they just don't exercise all of the same communication methods.

In summary, video games can be just as social as card games, board games, and talking on the telephone. Being social is completely unrelated to the activity itself; one merely has to socialize while performing that activity. Games actually offer a great opportunity to be social because they act as an ice breaker, giving people a reason to begin talking.

H0ncho:
A better title for this piece would be:

7 THINGS I AM VERY UPSET ABOUT

In order to call something a "myth debunk" you should have pretty incontrovertible evidence on your side. The author claims several things that are based upon loose definitions, such as the "games as art"-problem, are myths.

Also he repeats piss poor statistics, like those on the gender issue. Not to mention that he thinks hardcore gaming isn't dying because Red Dead Redemption sold well...

All in all an interesting opinion piece but nothing like myth-debunking.

This, unfortunately. What bugged me a lot is that not only did he not compare /what/ sort of games female gamers play (which may be different, or may be similar, when compared to that of male gamers), but for the violence aspect, nothing was actually sourced. It read less like a debunked myth and more of "IT'S COMMON SENSE THAT THEY AREN'T VIOLENT UNLESS THEY'RE VIOLENT IT'S NOT VIDEO GAMES I LOVE THOSE THINGS".

Also, regarding social games:
Games can be social just as easily as they can be solitary. Even single-player games can be fun to play with people; I had a great time playing Silent Hill 3 with a friend just a few days ago, even though it's supposedly a solitary experience. (Sure, it wasn't as scary as it should have been, but it was also broad daylight.)

Helmutye:

JEBWrench:

Helmutye:
Ultimately, Art is just a word, and this whole debate is a silly dispute over word definitions. And regardless of what anyone else thinks, games are art to ME. I suppose you can make your own decisions about that. But I would argue that, at this point, games exhibit so many similarities with other accepted mediums of art that it is up to someone to prove why games are NOT art.

Except that, and this is where Portal falls flat:

The Gameplay itself is still separated from the artistic experience. Cinema manages to make the collective experience of group viewing be an integral part of the artistic experience.

Games as of yet fail to take advantage of their single greatest difference between other media.

How is gameplay separate from the artistic experience? Gameplay IS the artistic experience! If you read the rest of my post above, I establish how playing through Portal gives you an artistic experience. If you're going to refute it, fair enough, but I'm going to need more of an argument than just 'Well, no.'

As another example, look at Braid. The entire theme of the consequences of controlling time tie directly into the core mechanic: controlling time. At first, it's just a mechanic -- you control time because that's how you solve the puzzle. But as the story unfolds, you being to realize that you are controlling time and consider what you would do if you could control time in real life. What would the consequences be? The narrative thread throughout the game, tied together wonderfully in the end, makes the player consider time travel in a way that other arts such as film can't do: the player isn't just watching it and thinking to themselves, they are actually experiencing it as a direct result of their actions. That is art experienced through interaction.

Certainly most games don't take advantage of this ability, the same way many films barely manage to tie together a complete narrative, but games are certainly capable of being artistic and some games do actually graduate from being a toy or entertainment into the realm of art.

It's quite funny, but my brother's vision has actually IMPROVED by playing on the Xbox 360.

Seriously, he went to his optician, who told him his vision had gotten a LOT better since last time he'd been there.

Myth: Gaming Is Social

Well, games certainly aren't "anti-social" either.
This isn't so much as "debunking a myth" as it is debunking a broad generalization.

Take a little game called World of Warcraft - a PC & Mac juggernaut pulling in over $100 million per month in revenue.

Actually, I contend that WoW doesn't really have gameplay; just endless grind. So it can't be a game because grind isn't gameplay. If I wanted to do boring menial tasks, I can go work in the shipping industry. Or flip burgers. Or work in retail.
Bragging about having a level 80 with leet gear in WoW is like bragging about your unpaid overtime.

Although I do agree with the conclusions (not all of it, but most of it), I don't really think it was well written or had many actual facts. One thing is that about ninety percent of the "Myths" aren't myths at all, but matters of opinion. Such as the whole thing about games as art. I believe that, although games can be art, they aren't, as no one has made a game that is "art" quite yet.

Another thing is that an article shouldn't talk down to it's readers, as this one did. I honestly felt that, as the article went on, it was just someone trying to restate the obvious and shove their opinion down our throats. Yes, we know game testing isn't fun, there's something on that every flipping issue, and we know games don't make kids violent. We get it. We discuss this all the time.

I'm not blaming the writer for the myths that where chosen or the fact that they are discussed quite often, I don't blame anyone, I do blame the writer for the condescending tone and the fact that he stated opinion as fact.

Myth: Videogames Make You Smarter - I flunked out of college because of WoW

Myths: Girls Don't Play Games - My girlfriend plays video games.

Myth: Gaming Is Social - Im very confused how this is a myth. Ive been in 3 gaming clans, and am currently apart of one that includes a forum. Im constantly on Ventrilo. When I was on World of Warcraft I talked all the time in between instances. How is it not social?

Every game enthusiast should keep a link to this handy to doll out to any doubters or naysayers :) Great stuff Mr. Davies.

Love this article. THANK YOU for not even giving the "games aren't art" myth more than a couple sentences. Because seriously, it's not debatable. Art (graphics) + Art (sound/music) + Art (story/narrative) = 3Art. BASIC MATH.

HOWEVER

I take serious issue with "Games aren't Social". Yeah, maybe you kids today and your Xbox Live crap and fancy "internetz" aren't social, but for me multiplayer gaming is still all about having somebody within punching distance of you. I'm a dying breed, but for me nothing competes with split-screen and LAN play. As far as I'm concerned, the internet killed true multiplayer gaming, with few good exceptions (brb SC2).

I can directly thank gaming for probably more than half of my real-life good friends.

Since he didn't mention it I can only assume there really is a landfill in new Mexico full of E.T. cartridges.

Nincompoop:

Not G. Ivingname:

Nincompoop:

Not G. Ivingname:

Nincompoop:
snip

While I do agree with you that just spouting examples without giving them context or further explanation, I also disagree with your idea that something isn't art just because it has utility use and "clams us down" (I can think of tons of calming music).

Music that is calming is not art, by being calming, if that makes sense. If you would create a tune which would invoke a certain feeling, I wouldn't call it art. Neither is music art by definition, and using that, combined with examples of music that can be used as an application, isn't a valid argument in my opinion.

I would argue my self, but since your argument was the same as Roger Ebert's ill fated reasoning, and I don't think I can word this better, I will post the Game Overthinker's (aka moviebob's) respounce to him as my counter argument. http://screwattack.com/videos/TGO-Episode-35-A-Response-to-Roger-Ebert

After watching the video, I can only say that I simply don't think of art the same way. I wouldn't call a movie art, and I am partially to the side where there shouldn't be a collaboration of talents and minds when it comes to art.

Having said that, I do find that, perhaps, one specific idea in a game could be called art. Like a specific model (where it comes down to sculpture), or maybe a specific gameplay mechanic, or soundtrack.

But I will never see an entire movie or a game as art. And frankly, it's not as if I put art above anything. In no sense is it derogatory when I say that I don't think games are art.

Also, if I were to publish a big game, and people referred to it as art, I would feel insulted, as art (for me) implies creativity and vision, more than hard work, careful thought, skills and intelligence.

Would you define indie games developed by one person as art? There are plenty, like Castle Crashers was entirely programmed by one person while another did ALL the art work. If you need examples of stuff done by ONE person, and ONE person alone, check out Newgrounds.com, which has plenty of great works done by a single entity.

How can you lynch to that specific line and disregard the rest? It's not like that was the cornerstone of my message.

But I probably still wouldn't call it art, as it consists of multiple genres of art. And I will never call hard work, intelligence and skills art. You said the code was done by one, and artwork by another? (That's how I understood it, but I wasn't sure). All the artwork, like the models, pictures, soundtrack, or whatever was in it, I would call them, alone, art. I wouldn't call the programming code art, as it was a result of planning and hard work, and I most certainly wouldn't call both of them together art.

Your opinion is just so different from what I have heard, I am just trying to counter your argument. I have heard many justifications for why video games aren't art, but your two part "one, it is an application and two, that parts are art, the whole isn't" is just so different from every argument I have heard. I won't pretend to understand it, I don't, but I will respect it.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here