Something Else Entirely

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

I don't need to tell you that videogames are an evolving medium. That the interactivity aspect allows for interesting gameplay as narrative (or at least gameplay supportive of narrative). Portal did it well and apparently Journey does it well.

It makes me wonder. Why, in the face of such glimpses of potential, are we still so obsessed with "shooting up/ slashing up the Big Bad"? Habituation?

The thing is, IMO, "physical" destruction of all manner of virtual obstacles as a measure of gameplay and story progression has become an obstacle for the imagination. But it works, it sells, why bother...right?

We should bother because nothing truly fundamental has changed since Halo CE and Devil May Cry were released in 2001. The industry has been in a continuous state of imitation and very gradual polishing (incremental change) for over 10 years. There have been exceptions, of course, but the general trend is undeniable.

This isn't a pacifist rant. That all violence is inherently bad or something like that. This is a rant about how the industry predominantly fails to bring something truly new by remaining firmly lodged in its comfort zone.

Maybe you don't care. Maybe you just sit around waiting to be entertained. Maybe you are easily entertained. It doesn't really matter. What matters is that our beloved medium has been and still is growing increasingly stagnant. Its future is anything but secure. Graphical updates every 6 years or so won't cut it if what we get to play is essentially a prettier version of the old "Kill em cuz they're evil" story and accompanying destructo-gameplay.

People grow up, their standards rise, and their time and money is limited. Also, if games are art (as some claim) and not merely a (man)child's waste of time, where is the industry's response that reflects this? Where is writing that could rival the best in literature and film? Mass Effect? If that's the best we've got we're in deep trouble.

If gaming as a medium is truly worthy to take the place next to literature and film or even surpass them someday, it needs to do A LOT BETTER. It needs to step up. It needs to step out of its comfortable bubble of headshots, dismemberment, gore, splosions, soldiers, zombies, aliens, terrorists, ninjas and so on. It doesn't have to completely leave them behind though. It should just refrain from focussing on them like a bull does on red cloth.

TLDR; Don't be lazy and just read the damn thing.

EDIT: For discussion value; share your vision on the next 10 years of videogaming.

EDIT 2: I have found an answer that rings true to me.

It's more towards the end. Around the 9 min mark and onwards. But you should watch the whole video, it's great.

People need to take more from Deus Ex.

You had the ability to kick major ass but never ever had to use it.

Violence is just an easily-modelled source of dynamic challenge. There are games about base-jumping, city building, making it to Oregon, building structures out of living creatures, and medieval inheritance laws. The violent type just tends to dominate the segment of the market directed at young people, because we tend to enjoy that sort of thing.

depressing slide into MMO after MMO. each of them set in the universe of any single player game that had any kind of a following at all. each one basically the same thing with different art.

simple

there isn't enough money to be made in 'art games', also, its easier to copy/paste an idea then come up with your own, more so if the idea in question makes a bewildering amount of money (yes I'm talking about CoD)

Because as good as games like Journey are (seriously, stop reading this and go play that game, fucking do it).

I wouldn't want every game to be like that. Sometimes I just want to go Son of Sparda tier on some bad guys with cheesy dialogue and a predictable story.

Film still isn't on literature's level. I don't know how someone could think, even optimistically, that video games could be.

Then again, I find the whole argument about video games being art to be stupendously idiotic.

Kaulen Fuhs:
Film still isn't on literature's level. I don't know how someone could think, even optimistically, that video games could be.

Then again, I find the whole argument about video games being art to be stupendously idiotic.

You don't think games can be art?

Do share, because that statement on it's own comes across as utterely pretentious.

Violence (in any form) is easier to emulate in a video-game/interactive structure. Sure, you have games like 'Heavy Rain' and 'Mirror's Edge' but they needed fight scenes to spice it up and keep the player interested.

I don't think there's too much stagnation, it's just that we see the past through rose-coloured glasses and often forget those hundreds of Mario clones and poorly made games just to eat into some of the profits of a popular game. Someday, we'll look back and think of the great games of yester-year and say, 'man, everything is so clone-y now. What happened to creativity?'

If anything, the future is very bright. Due to the internet, Kickstarter and small(er) Indie game developers finally being able to compete with the big boys.

Kaulen Fuhs:
Film still isn't on literature's level. I don't know how someone could think, even optimistically, that video games could be.

Then again, I find the whole argument about video games being art to be stupendously idiotic.

Lucem712:
Violence (in any form) is easier to emulate in a video-game/interactive structure. Sure, you have games like 'Heavy Rain' and 'Mirror's Edge' but they needed fight scenes to spice it up and keep the player interested.

I don't think there's too much stagnation, it's just that we see the past through rose-coloured glasses and often forget those hundreds of Mario clones and poorly made games just to eat into some of the profits of a popular game. Someday, we'll look back and think of the great games of yester-year and say, 'man, everything is so clone-y now. What happened to creativity?'

If anything, the future is very bright. Due to the internet, Kickstarter and small(er) Indie game developers finally being able to compete with the big boys.

Edit:

Kaulen Fuhs:
Film still isn't on literature's level. I don't know how someone could think, even optimistically, that video games could be.

Then again, I find the whole argument about video games being art to be stupendously idiotic.

How can something that incorporates so many facets of art, not be art? Literature, cinematography, and drawing (digital or otherwise) are all in video games.

Daystar Clarion:

Kaulen Fuhs:
Film still isn't on literature's level. I don't know how someone could think, even optimistically, that video games could be.

Then again, I find the whole argument about video games being art to be stupendously idiotic.

You don't think games can be art?

Do share, because that statement on it's own comes across as utterely pretentious.

Holy crap, that was quick.

They are games. I put them alongside the likes of Candyland or Pong. Their sophistication makes them no more artistic, in my mind. Do you consider tennis art?

Daystar Clarion:
Because as good as games like Journey are (seriously, stop reading this and go play that game, fucking do it).

I wouldn't want every game to be like that. Sometimes I just want to go Son of Sparda tier on some bad guys with cheesy dialogue and a predictable story.

That game may be the last push for me to finally get a PS3. I've wanted one for a while but I want that game like a crack addict wants to quit crack, fix his life up, and reconcile with his family.

... I feel like I may have gotten that saying wrong. Ah well, anyway, Daystar is right. I want more games where we don't have to fight, I really do, but sometimes I just want to pop in Darksiders or Halo or a Dragonball Z game and fuck shit up.

EDIT:

Kaulen Fuhs:

Daystar Clarion:

Kaulen Fuhs:
Film still isn't on literature's level. I don't know how someone could think, even optimistically, that video games could be.

Then again, I find the whole argument about video games being art to be stupendously idiotic.

You don't think games can be art?

Do share, because that statement on it's own comes across as utterely pretentious.

Holy crap, that was quick.

They are games. I put them alongside the likes of Candyland or Pong. Their sophistication makes them no more artistic, in my mind. Do you consider tennis art?

Ignorance is bliss, isn't it?

Oh, wait. Life would suck way MORE if video games couldn't make me feel the same way a book, movie, or show does.

Ignorance sucks.

Dude, if you really put something like the aforementioned Journey, or the Mass Effects, or Dragon Age, or Alan Wake, or ANYTHING like that on the level of Candyland or Pong, well... That's just fucked up. I can't think of any other way to put it. It's fucked up.

Lucem712:

Kaulen Fuhs:
Film still isn't on literature's level. I don't know how someone could think, even optimistically, that video games could be.

Then again, I find the whole argument about video games being art to be stupendously idiotic.

Lucem712:
Violence (in any form) is easier to emulate in a video-game/interactive structure. Sure, you have games like 'Heavy Rain' and 'Mirror's Edge' but they needed fight scenes to spice it up and keep the player interested.

I don't think there's too much stagnation, it's just that we see the past through rose-coloured glasses and often forget those hundreds of Mario clones and poorly made games just to eat into some of the profits of a popular game. Someday, we'll look back and think of the great games of yester-year and say, 'man, everything is so clone-y now. What happened to creativity?'

If anything, the future is very bright. Due to the internet, Kickstarter and small(er) Indie game developers finally being able to compete with the big boys.

Edit:

Kaulen Fuhs:
Film still isn't on literature's level. I don't know how someone could think, even optimistically, that video games could be.

Then again, I find the whole argument about video games being art to be stupendously idiotic.

How can something that incorporates so many facets of art, not be art? Literature, cinematography, and drawing (digital or otherwise) are all in video games.

I never understood how that argument stands. If I took apart a car, and put the pieces together so that it would no longer run, but all the pieces were present, would it still be a car? I realize there's a divide between taking things that only function as a whole and reconstructing them so they no longer function, and taking individual things that work on their own, and combining them together into one project, but I still don't understand how simply having aspects of something makes it the thing.

Kaulen Fuhs:

Daystar Clarion:

Kaulen Fuhs:
Film still isn't on literature's level. I don't know how someone could think, even optimistically, that video games could be.

Then again, I find the whole argument about video games being art to be stupendously idiotic.

You don't think games can be art?

Do share, because that statement on it's own comes across as utterely pretentious.

Holy crap, that was quick.

They are games. I put them alongside the likes of Candyland or Pong. Their sophistication makes them no more artistic, in my mind. Do you consider tennis art?

I didn't say all games were art.

There's a big difference between something like Journey and the latest FIFA title.

What is art? Something that invokes an emotional response? Something that makes you look inside yourself and makes you a better person for it (or even a worse person)?

Because games have done that to me, the same way music, film and literature have.

ZeroMachine:

Daystar Clarion:
Because as good as games like Journey are (seriously, stop reading this and go play that game, fucking do it).

I wouldn't want every game to be like that. Sometimes I just want to go Son of Sparda tier on some bad guys with cheesy dialogue and a predictable story.

That game may be the last push for me to finally get a PS3. I've wanted one for a while but I want that game like a crack addict wants to quit crack, fix his life up, and reconcile with his family.

... I feel like I may have gotten that saying wrong. Ah well, anyway, Daystar is right. I want more games where we don't have to fight, I really do, but sometimes I just want to pop in Darksiders or Halo or a Dragonball Z game and fuck shit up.

EDIT:

Kaulen Fuhs:

Daystar Clarion:

You don't think games can be art?

Do share, because that statement on it's own comes across as utterely pretentious.

Holy crap, that was quick.

They are games. I put them alongside the likes of Candyland or Pong. Their sophistication makes them no more artistic, in my mind. Do you consider tennis art?

Ignorance is bliss, isn't it?

Oh, wait. Life would suck way MORE if video games couldn't make me feel the same way a book, movie, or show does.

Ignorance sucks.

Dude, if you really put something like the aforementioned Journey, or the Mass Effects, or Dragon Age, or Alan Wake, or ANYTHING like that on the level of Candyland or Pong, well... That's just fucked up. I can't think of any other way to put it. It's fucked up.

Congratulations, you're going through the first stages of the disequilibrium that results from realizing people have different opinions about things.

For the record, I find Dragon Age and Mass Effect, and games like them, to be landmarks in video games storytelling. Doesn't make them art.

Kaulen Fuhs:

Lucem712:

Edit:

Kaulen Fuhs:
Film still isn't on literature's level. I don't know how someone could think, even optimistically, that video games could be.

Then again, I find the whole argument about video games being art to be stupendously idiotic.

How can something that incorporates so many facets of art, not be art? Literature, cinematography, and drawing (digital or otherwise) are all in video games.

I never understood how that argument stands. If I took apart a car, and put the pieces together so that it would no longer run, but all the pieces were present, would it still be a car? I realize there's a divide between taking things that only function as a whole and reconstructing them so they no longer function, and taking individual things that work on their own, and combining them together into one project, but I still don't understand how simply having aspects of something makes it the thing.

I think it'd be more similar to saying a car is a vehicle, but since a moto-cycle has some similar features but is a different machine all together, it is not a vehicle.

Video games do not hamper either of those to where they do not work. A video game can make you feel, it can inspire and ignite.

Kaulen Fuhs:

ZeroMachine:

Daystar Clarion:
Because as good as games like Journey are (seriously, stop reading this and go play that game, fucking do it).

I wouldn't want every game to be like that. Sometimes I just want to go Son of Sparda tier on some bad guys with cheesy dialogue and a predictable story.

That game may be the last push for me to finally get a PS3. I've wanted one for a while but I want that game like a crack addict wants to quit crack, fix his life up, and reconcile with his family.

... I feel like I may have gotten that saying wrong. Ah well, anyway, Daystar is right. I want more games where we don't have to fight, I really do, but sometimes I just want to pop in Darksiders or Halo or a Dragonball Z game and fuck shit up.

EDIT:

Kaulen Fuhs:

Holy crap, that was quick.

They are games. I put them alongside the likes of Candyland or Pong. Their sophistication makes them no more artistic, in my mind. Do you consider tennis art?

Ignorance is bliss, isn't it?

Oh, wait. Life would suck way MORE if video games couldn't make me feel the same way a book, movie, or show does.

Ignorance sucks.

Dude, if you really put something like the aforementioned Journey, or the Mass Effects, or Dragon Age, or Alan Wake, or ANYTHING like that on the level of Candyland or Pong, well... That's just fucked up. I can't think of any other way to put it. It's fucked up.

Congratulations, you're going through the first stages of the disequilibrium that results from realizing people have different opinions about things.

For the record, I find Dragon Age and Mass Effect, and games like them, to be landmarks in video games storytelling. Doesn't make them art.

I wasn't talking about whether or not you count them as art, and that pretentious comment about "herpderpopinon" was unnecessary. But the simple concept that anyone could put Pong or Candyland on the same level as some of the games that come out nowadays (which you said you did) is an insult to the games, the creators, and the people who love the stories and characters.

I summed that up by saying it was "fucked up".

If you don't see it as art, fine. I honestly don't care. Your loss, in my opinion. But that particular "opinion" of yours is wrong.

Wrong opinions exist.

Daystar Clarion:

Kaulen Fuhs:

Daystar Clarion:

You don't think games can be art?

Do share, because that statement on it's own comes across as utterely pretentious.

Holy crap, that was quick.

They are games. I put them alongside the likes of Candyland or Pong. Their sophistication makes them no more artistic, in my mind. Do you consider tennis art?

I didn't say all games were art.

There's a big difference between something like Journey and the latest FIFA title.

What is art? Something invokes an emotional response? Something that makes you look inside yourself and makes you a better person for it (or even a worse person)?

Because games have done that to me, the same way music, film and literature have.

And I didn't mean to imply that all books or movies were art.

I find it interesting, though, that the very first films are considered artistic, but one couldn't really say the same thing about Centipede or Pong.

To me, it's the medium itself that prevents the label of "art" being applied. Video games are, first and foremost, games used for entertainment. As the medium evolves, we see artistic elements like metaphor, characterization and the like developing.

However, I see these as individual elements taken from other mediums, and don't consider them to contribute to video games having the "art" status.

ZeroMachine:

Kaulen Fuhs:

ZeroMachine:

That game may be the last push for me to finally get a PS3. I've wanted one for a while but I want that game like a crack addict wants to quit crack, fix his life up, and reconcile with his family.

... I feel like I may have gotten that saying wrong. Ah well, anyway, Daystar is right. I want more games where we don't have to fight, I really do, but sometimes I just want to pop in Darksiders or Halo or a Dragonball Z game and fuck shit up.

EDIT:

Ignorance is bliss, isn't it?

Oh, wait. Life would suck way MORE if video games couldn't make me feel the same way a book, movie, or show does.

Ignorance sucks.

Dude, if you really put something like the aforementioned Journey, or the Mass Effects, or Dragon Age, or Alan Wake, or ANYTHING like that on the level of Candyland or Pong, well... That's just fucked up. I can't think of any other way to put it. It's fucked up.

Congratulations, you're going through the first stages of the disequilibrium that results from realizing people have different opinions about things.

For the record, I find Dragon Age and Mass Effect, and games like them, to be landmarks in video games storytelling. Doesn't make them art.

I wasn't talking about whether or not you count them as art, and that pretentious comment about "herpderpopinon" was unnecessary. But the simple concept that anyone could put Pong or Candyland on the same level as some of the games that come out nowadays (which you said you did) is an insult to the games, the creators, and the people who love the stories and characters.

I summed that up by saying it was "fucked up".

If you don't see it as art, fine. I honestly don't care. Your loss, in my opinion. But that particular "opinion" of yours is wrong.

Wrong opinions exist.

Only when based on facts.

And the truth of the matter is that, when it comes to art, almost nothing is based on fact.

Daystar Clarion:
Because as good as games like Journey are (seriously, stop reading this and go play that game, fucking do it).

I wouldn't want every game to be like that. Sometimes I just want to go Son of Sparda tier on some bad guys with cheesy dialogue and a predictable story.

Pretty much this. If a majority of games were as beautifully crafted as games like Journey (is about to go play it and stop commenting off of speculation), then we would be seeing rants like "wouldn't it be great if all we had to do was kill stuff?". If all games were that good, that kind of goodness wouldn't be anything special.

Video games are, in essence, "travel from point 'A' to point 'B'". Realistically, there are rather few ways to fill in the "travel" aspect of games. "Violence" is just an easy way to fill that gap that keeps the player interested because it takes a lot less effort than creating multiple pathways, or to add in complex puzzles that don't grow stale quickly. The worst part is that, since it's harder to pull of well, non-violent games are not only few and far between, but there's even less good ones.

Matthew94:
People need to take more from Deus Ex.

You had the ability to kick major ass but never ever had to use it.

Indeed. There is something oddly cathartic about sneaking around a veritable army, and then telling the boss fuck you by ignoring him, running through a door, and locking it behind you.

Kaulen Fuhs:

ZeroMachine:

Kaulen Fuhs:

Congratulations, you're going through the first stages of the disequilibrium that results from realizing people have different opinions about things.

For the record, I find Dragon Age and Mass Effect, and games like them, to be landmarks in video games storytelling. Doesn't make them art.

I wasn't talking about whether or not you count them as art, and that pretentious comment about "herpderpopinon" was unnecessary. But the simple concept that anyone could put Pong or Candyland on the same level as some of the games that come out nowadays (which you said you did) is an insult to the games, the creators, and the people who love the stories and characters.

I summed that up by saying it was "fucked up".

If you don't see it as art, fine. I honestly don't care. Your loss, in my opinion. But that particular "opinion" of yours is wrong.

Wrong opinions exist.

Only when based on facts.

And the truth of the matter is that, when it comes to art, almost nothing is based on fact.

So... you just didn't read my post, did you?

Or, you just implied that those games are art. You see, my problem with what you said was not whether or not you found them to be art, but how you could someone hold them on the same level as Pong or Candyland. They are very definitely NOT on the same level. That is not a matter of opinion. The only similarities are that they are both interactive games. That alone does not put them on the same level.

Kaulen Fuhs:

Daystar Clarion:

Kaulen Fuhs:

Holy crap, that was quick.

They are games. I put them alongside the likes of Candyland or Pong. Their sophistication makes them no more artistic, in my mind. Do you consider tennis art?

I didn't say all games were art.

There's a big difference between something like Journey and the latest FIFA title.

What is art? Something invokes an emotional response? Something that makes you look inside yourself and makes you a better person for it (or even a worse person)?

Because games have done that to me, the same way music, film and literature have.

And I didn't mean to imply that all books or movies were art.

I find it interesting, though, that the very first films are considered artistic, but one couldn't really say the same thing about Centipede or Pong.

To me, it's the medium itself that prevents the label of "art" being applied. Video games are, first and foremost, games used for entertainment. As the medium evolves, we see artistic elements like metaphor, characterization and the like developing.

However, I see these as individual elements taken from other mediums, and don't consider them to contribute to video games having the "art" status.

If this can be considered art, than I'm pretty sure anything can.

That may be hyperbole on my part, but as you've said, artistic merit is entirely based on opinion.

But, then again, framing your opinion is such a manner

I find the whole argument about video games being art to be stupendously idiotic.

Isn't particularly the best way to get your ideas across.

Kaulen Fuhs:

They are games. I put them alongside the likes of Candyland or Pong. Their sophistication makes them no more artistic, in my mind. Do you consider tennis art?

No, but I consider a tennis racket or a tennis court art. That's because they're things that can be viewed from an aesthetic perspective. "Art" is an incredibly broad category.

ZeroMachine:

Kaulen Fuhs:

ZeroMachine:

I wasn't talking about whether or not you count them as art, and that pretentious comment about "herpderpopinon" was unnecessary. But the simple concept that anyone could put Pong or Candyland on the same level as some of the games that come out nowadays (which you said you did) is an insult to the games, the creators, and the people who love the stories and characters.

I summed that up by saying it was "fucked up".

If you don't see it as art, fine. I honestly don't care. Your loss, in my opinion. But that particular "opinion" of yours is wrong.

Wrong opinions exist.

Only when based on facts.

And the truth of the matter is that, when it comes to art, almost nothing is based on fact.

So... you just didn't read my post, did you?

Or, you just implied that those games are art. You see, my problem with what you said was not whether or not you found them to be art, but how you could someone hold them on the same level as Pong or Candyland. They are very definitely NOT on the same level. That is not a matter of opinion. The only similarities are that they are both interactive games. That alone does not put them on the same level.

I wasn't particularly clear on why I equate them to Candyland, etc.,

It is the medium itself, the fact that it is a game, that limits the artistic credibility. Look at music, literature, and film. All 3 have similarities in their attempt o be artistic, but each has fundamental differences unique to the medium. Music must do something completely unique to itself to be artistic, as must literature and film.

What about video games? All I see are amalgamations of musical, literary, and film(ic?) tropes, put together to enhance what is fundamentally a fun game. Video games have no unique method of artistic expression; all they do is takes from mediums that do. That is why, in my mind, Candyland is fundamentally the same as Mass Effect. Strip away all the things video games take from other medium, and leave it with what it invented for itself, and you're just rolling dice.

Daystar Clarion:

Kaulen Fuhs:

Daystar Clarion:

I didn't say all games were art.

There's a big difference between something like Journey and the latest FIFA title.

What is art? Something invokes an emotional response? Something that makes you look inside yourself and makes you a better person for it (or even a worse person)?

Because games have done that to me, the same way music, film and literature have.

And I didn't mean to imply that all books or movies were art.

I find it interesting, though, that the very first films are considered artistic, but one couldn't really say the same thing about Centipede or Pong.

To me, it's the medium itself that prevents the label of "art" being applied. Video games are, first and foremost, games used for entertainment. As the medium evolves, we see artistic elements like metaphor, characterization and the like developing.

However, I see these as individual elements taken from other mediums, and don't consider them to contribute to video games having the "art" status.

If this can be considered art, than I'm pretty sure anything can.

That may be hyperbole on my part, but as you've said, artistic merit is entirely based on opinion.

But, then again, framing your opinion is such a manner

I find the whole argument about video games being art to be stupendously idiotic.

Isn't particularly the best way to get your ideas across.

Probably not.

But I'm not necessarily the brightest knife in the drawer.

OT: I think people are underestimating the percentage of games that are non-violent. Many popular casual games (Minesweeper, Bejeweled, Solitaire, Farmville, Wii Sports, etc.) are non-violent, and they account for a huge chunk of the games people play. This indicates to me that there is both A) a market for non-violent games, and B) simple mechanics that non-violent games can be built on.

Kaulen Fuhs:
Video games have no unique method of artistic expression; all they do is takes from mediums that do.

Saying "a medium in its current form is derivative" doesn't actually demonstrate that that medium can't be used to create art. TV series are derivative of film, film is derivative of theater, and both theater and literature are derivative of storytelling. This does not erase the fact that TV shows are a medium that can be used for artistic expression.

Kaulen Fuhs:

ZeroMachine:

Kaulen Fuhs:

Only when based on facts.

And the truth of the matter is that, when it comes to art, almost nothing is based on fact.

So... you just didn't read my post, did you?

Or, you just implied that those games are art. You see, my problem with what you said was not whether or not you found them to be art, but how you could someone hold them on the same level as Pong or Candyland. They are very definitely NOT on the same level. That is not a matter of opinion. The only similarities are that they are both interactive games. That alone does not put them on the same level.

I wasn't particularly clear on why I equate them to Candyland, etc.,

It is the medium itself, the fact that it is a game, that limits the artistic credibility. Look at music, literature, and film. All 3 have similarities in their attempt o be artistic, but each has fundamental differences unique to the medium. Music must do something completely unique to itself to be artistic, as must literature and film.

What about video games? All I see are amalgamations of musical, literary, and film(ic?) tropes, put together to enhance what is fundamentally a fun game. Video games have no unique method of artistic expression; all they do is takes from mediums that do. That is why, in my mind, Candyland is fundamentally the same as Mass Effect. Strip away all the things video games take from other medium, and leave it with what it invented for itself, and you're just rolling dice.

Ok, now that I further understand your point, I'll apologize for being so blunt and such.

Maybe you should just be a little more clear next time.

BUT, for one last point, people would (and do) argue that the unique aspect is the player's input.

It has all the other things that music, shows, movies, literature, etc. have, but you also have other people being a PART of the world, interacting with it, sometimes changing it.

And if you strip video games down to their base self, it isn't fair not to do the same to the other mediums.

Painting/drawing etc is just lines on paper or something.

Literature is just written language. Letters, sprawled out in a particular order.

Films are moving pictures.

Music is was originally made for communication.

Take anything down to their building blocks and you take the fantasy, the art, the unique aspects of each individual piece away.

Look at it as a whole, and painted/drawn art is a different view into our world or another world or a representation of the human condition in a visual form. Books are escapes to other lives that draw a picture with the reader's imagination. Films are ways for us to see stories unfold in front of our eyes, even without anything actually being there other than a screen. Music is a beautiful example of emotion given rhythm and harmony and melody, with or without words.

Videogames are other worlds that we step into, that we become a part of, that we see from either an avatar that already existed in the world, or one we create ourselves. We either follow the path, helping the avatar save his world in one way or another, or we etch out our own path, and shape that universe in whatever ways we can.

You want the unique aspect of games?

It's us. The players.

ZeroMachine:

Kaulen Fuhs:

ZeroMachine:

I wasn't talking about whether or not you count them as art, and that pretentious comment about "herpderpopinon" was unnecessary. But the simple concept that anyone could put Pong or Candyland on the same level as some of the games that come out nowadays (which you said you did) is an insult to the games, the creators, and the people who love the stories and characters.

I summed that up by saying it was "fucked up".

If you don't see it as art, fine. I honestly don't care. Your loss, in my opinion. But that particular "opinion" of yours is wrong.

Wrong opinions exist.

Only when based on facts.

And the truth of the matter is that, when it comes to art, almost nothing is based on fact.

So... you just didn't read my post, did you?

Or, you just implied that those games are art. You see, my problem with what you said was not whether or not you found them to be art, but how you could someone hold them on the same level as Pong or Candyland. They are very definitely NOT on the same level. That is not a matter of opinion. The only similarities are that they are both interactive games. That alone does not put them on the same level.

I'm not sure if this was resolved later, but I wanted to chime in on your issue of pong or candyland as the same thing as a current game. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too. Art is a very subjective thing, but the issue here is the medium.

Music, film, tv, painting. All can be considered art, and we have to consider the medium as art. Otherwise you are cherry picking and the concept becomes subjective. I don't think that most of the "reality" tv I see is art, but there have been some fantastic shows that I would consider to be art. You may not agree with my views on which shows should be considered art. Where is the line drawn? Do we consider that the medium is art and that the skill or value of the art is subjective (ie good art or poor art).

If you agree with that line of thought then you have to consider all forms of the medium as art, just to varing degrees of "good". Pong would have to fall into that category (but I guess we could leave the board game version of candyland out).

In the end I have always felt that art is subjective and shouldn't really be applied to the gaming world. Same with tv, music, movies. The reason being that these are forms of business. Views are subjective on all of these, and we all pay money because we like whatever is being shown. So the "artist" can do what they will, but they are in it for the money. So they need to appeal to popular opinion in order to sell their art and make money. All the arguments over what is art and what is not amounts to a whole lot of nothing, since at the end of the day what gets made is what people like. People continue to by the repetative non interesting shooters that are the same thing voer and over with a graphics face lift, but that is what sells so that is what is made.

That sort of tied back into the OP's question. If you want new and intersting titles then all of us need to spend the money on them and not on COD 25. It's all simple economics.

Kahunaburger:

Kaulen Fuhs:
Video games have no unique method of artistic expression; all they do is takes from mediums that do.

Saying "a medium in its current form is derivative" doesn't actually demonstrate that that medium can't be used to create art. TV series are derivative of film, film is derivative of theater, and both theater and literature are derivative of storytelling. This does not erase the fact that TV shows are a medium that can be used for artistic expression.

But storytelling alone does not make art, from my perspective. Theater, and film, do different things from literature in their portrayal of storytelling. Storytelling is just the guideline, you might say, but the true art comes from the expression of that story.

Video games aren't just derivative; they are almost completely without originality in terms of artistic expression. They use the things that films, music, and literature use to convey meaning, the things that make them art, without inventing anything for themselves.

Blade_125:
*le snip*

It did get resolved, but for the record, whenever someone brings me a cake and says it's mine, I eat that motherfucker. :P

I've never, ever understood that saying.

Kaulen Fuhs:

Video games aren't just derivative; they are almost completely without originality in terms of artistic expression. They use the things that films, music, and literature use to convey meaning, the things that make them art, without inventing anything for themselves.

And literature uses the things that epic poetry and storytelling (in this context, people verbally telling stories) use to convey meaning, film uses the things theater uses to convey meaning, photography uses the things painting uses to convey meaning, and so on. All art is derivative. This doesn't make it stop being art.

a lot of art is totally bullshit, not being associated with it is often a good thing. besides, no one has to rely on what someone else's definition of art is, because if it seems important/special to you, then it should be art to you.

Titanic post in 3... 2... 1...

Well i see a number of paths that gaming can take all at once without directly competing with eachother.

"Games as they are" is the most obvious one. But obviously some people arent fine with the yearly editions of Brown Generic Military Shooter being dominant or we wouldnt be having this discussion would we?

"Social Gaming" is the most prominent alternate path at the moment i think. 'Games that are less about the game itself more about meeting people through that game' is my definition. I hope it fails horribly.

"Games as Art" is the controversial one at the moment. 'Games that have a greater reliance on thier visuals to project an experience than normal games do' would be my ideal definition, because i dont believe that something where you pay money only to hold down the W key while your character walks slowly through a cave while the game talks at you can be called a game.

Yes im referring to Dear Esther. It looks great, but if it fails to hook you on narrative its like eating 5 gallons of gruel in one sitting. Youll take a long time to finish and by the time you do youll wonder why you thought it was a good idea in the first place.

"Games turned Multimedia" is a realatively new concept. 'Something that requires interaction as a game does, but is mainly comprised of cinematic sequences' is how i would define this right now. Im trying to come up with a better definition that doesnt make me recall Metal Gear Solid 4.

The only real example i can point to is Asura's Wrath, and im not even sure at this point whether Cyber Connect 2 actually aimed for this or not.

"Games as a learning tool" is an old concept, but one thats been rejected by gamers, teachers and developers with varying disgust. 'Games that provide the interactive experience of a game yet also feed the player with real-world teachings' is my defnition. I know of no examples to point at and just say 'Like that'.

Kaulen Fuhs:

Daystar Clarion:

Kaulen Fuhs:
Film still isn't on literature's level. I don't know how someone could think, even optimistically, that video games could be.

Then again, I find the whole argument about video games being art to be stupendously idiotic.

You don't think games can be art?

Do share, because that statement on it's own comes across as utterely pretentious.

Holy crap, that was quick.

They are games. I put them alongside the likes of Candyland or Pong. Their sophistication makes them no more artistic, in my mind. Do you consider tennis art?

Careful what you reply to him, hes been championing Journey a fair bit recently and hes certainly among those who believe that games can be art without compromise on either of thier definitions.

Also if you had some kind of program that could biuld images out of the motion trails it detects in a tennis match, you could have tennis art with that.

Or you could just make a tennis game and fill it with needless pretty explosions. Its still more innovative than regular sports games at the least.

On a side note, films will never reach literatures level while theyre still compromising. Books dont need a special effects budget, unfortunately films do and thats whats keeping them chained to plots set mostly in the real world.

Basically, production of a novel runs on its writers imagination and parameters, time is only really an issue if you signed a contract with a publisher, otherwise those are limitless. On the other hand, film production runs on time and money, and those are finite.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked