2D Boy: Gaming Hasn't Seen a True "Masterpiece"

[boholikeu]

It all depends on how you define masterpiece. I guess I'll have to see The Wire before I can say whether or not I agree with 2D Boy.

Nice idea. Financially, it's unsound though.

People with money got that way by not taking risks.

It's not financially unsound. Giant movie studios essentially do the same thing all the time with their "arthouse" divisions.

I don't cite Valve games because, while great games, they don't really advance the humanity of the art. What does HL2 say? What does Portal say about being a person? Nothing that other media have not ignored.

I personally feel like Minecraft is headed in the right direction... a set of rules defines what makes a game. Nearly everyone has the same first Night in Minecraft... evoking fear and excitement and curiosity... the rules of the game, not scripted sequences or narrative, evoke these emotions--that is the true use of gaming--where the ruleset and logic of the design evoke real emotion, not scripted sequences or narratives.

I think you'd be surprised how much HL2 and Portal actually have to say, and how much of that message is actually contained within the game mechanics.

Also I don't see why games need to forgo narratives in order to be "true to the medium". That's a bit like saying that films need to be all about visuals in order to be their best.

LOL, actually [sub]some[/sub] PC gamers have seen more than one. There are two games: Pathologic and The Void, both games by the Russian indie studio Ice Pick Lodge. Truly great games, though the most hard and stressful ones as well, you know, just like everything is.

They are great games, but I would still say they fall short of masterpieces in other mediums. Pathologic for one is quite crippled by some pretty bad bugs, brilliant as it is.

Sure, we could say that "There are loads of 'masterpieces' in games!" and start listing off the ones we think are said "masterpieces", but that's moot. Most of the games we would list would only be great inside the video game industry, few if any people know what the hell Planetscape: Torment is, let alone Shadow of the Collosus, Portal, Half-Life, Okami, Bioshock, whatever.

That's my take on it anyway, but I still vehemently believe that we need an "Orson Wells" or "Stanley Kubrick" of gaming before we can get a "Citizen Kane" or "A Clockwork Orange" kind of impact on the world through a game.

Actually this is probably the best definition of a masterpiece that I've seen here yet.

 

[Femaref]

I think we have seen a "masterpiece." It's called World of Goo.

ninja'ed. That game is indeed a masterpiece.

 

[Casual Shinji]

I think he is absolutely true, no video game has really come close to achieving "Citizen Kane" status, or "A Clockwork Orange", or "Bladerunner", or "Shindler's List" status, or any other number of hugely influential movies. Sure, Shadow of the Collosus was great n' all, but it did not have such a worldwide impact and unfortunately remains a cult classic rather than a reknowned work of art.

But before we can get the "Citizen Kane" of gaming, we need the "Orson Wells" of gaming. [sup]*coughMecough*[/sup] There needs to be that one game that transcends "just a game" status in the eyes of the public and truly transforms gaming into a well respected artform. I doubt it'll happen over night, and in fact it may take several games like that, but I am truely confident that somewhere, someday, someone is going to rise up to the challenge.

[sup]*ehem....me? perhaps? Seriously, I know what I'm doing, I swear![/sup]

Games are never going to reach such a status in the world today. Movies have been around alot longer and are all around more well respected. The majority of people see games as toys and if games like Silent Hill 2, Okami or Shadow of The Colossus won't change their minds, nothing will. In their opinion, they're holding a controler hence it's a toy, not to be taken seriously.

 

[Danpascooch]

YES! We NEED a bit of risk taking!

 

[esperandote]

Wasn't that idea mentioned in Extra Credits?

 

[HellsingerAngel]

Games will never be taken seriously as Art until gamers, critics and the industry alike drop this line of reasoning.

Portal is Art, SotC is Art, and I could list others. To dismiss them as somehow not worthy because they don't deliver the same kind of experience as a non-interactive medium is idiotic and speaks volumes about the inferiority complex the industry suffers from.

Start judging games as games first and last. Otherwise it's like dismissing a novel because the reader doesn't have any control over the direction of the story.

The unfortunate thing is that games will never be art. I think the definition for art being wholely non-interactive is one based upon certainties. When was the last time you felt some ping of emotion for a movie? If you can quantify it, is it the same as when you last felt the same for a video game's narative? The problem is that when you invest yourself in an activity that takes multiple facets (logical problem solving and emotional story reading) one mutes the other, as they take from two seperate parts from the brain. In the case of a gamer, it tends to be the latter because the "game" portion of the experience is most prevelent.

Now, it could certainly be argued that more experienced gamers gain a greater exeprience because the "game" portion is more muscle memory than anything, but that destroys the entire basis of the medium right there. Saying that you need to be good at art to experience it is something that will always seperate games from real art, which can pull out emotions from anyone or anything, so long as they have invested interest into the presentation.

Being a toy isn't bad. It just invokes different emotional responces. Nostalgia, memories and good times are just as important as feeling for a particular character.

EDIT:

I do agree that we've had a few masterpieces in our time, but few and far between. I think for a game to qualify as a masterpiece though, we can't exactly hold it to the same standards as other medium, or else gaming will never be allowed to stand on its own as art. If we look at a game and just say "Wow that has great writing." well, that's great if the game was a book; that's all a book is. Movies can't even be based on just the writing because it's also dependent on camera angles, lighting, music, acting, etc. For a game to be a masterpiece, it needs to incorporate the gameplay and/or mechanics as a major aspect of what it is. I'd be just as willing to call the original Super Mario Bros. a masterpiece as soon as Bioshock, among a few others have mentioned.

This. I would say the farthest we've come are titles like Super Mario Bros. where the game mechanics are the central point. Everyone knows it, everyone loves it, everyone can agree it is a great game. I'm not sure what else we'd need to say "this is a gaming Masterpiece" but there you go.

 

[Falseprophet]

Nice idea. Financially, it's unsound though.

People with money got that way by not taking risks.

It used to be more common. A lot of the big American corporations in the 1960s and 70s used to establish research parks. They'd hire a bunch of brilliant engineers and basically let them create--with the stipulation that the parent company got dibs on all the patents.

Some of the most revolutionary advances in personal computing happened at Xerox PARC in the 1970s. Yes, the GUI, WYSIWYG, and Ethernet came out of a group funded by a photocopier company. The Extra Credits guys sort of suggested this in their video about big publishers funding indie game studios, in a sort of 20th Century Fox/Fox Searchlight arrangement.

Unfortunately, most industries seem to be driven solely by the bottom line these days, and long-term vision is rare. But companies used to be in the hands of the same people for decades; now they seem to change hands every other year.

 

[rsvp42]

In an interactive medium like this you cannot use the same guidelines for a masterpiece that are used in fields like movies, books and such because the situation at any moments notice and in multiplayer you need to have every player be on an even playing field even when players have often have access to different options available to them and to me a game like Starcraft deserves to call itself a masterpiece.

Starcraft is derivative to the point of abject cliche. Everything in it has been tried (give or take) 5 or 6 times elsewhere before, and the themes in it are just hokey sci-fi tropes that have been going as long as we've been making films about swarms of aliens vs empowered humans vs spindly elfin humanoids. It's polished, sure, and it's fun, but I'll say it once: THAT'S NOT ART.

But the Starcraft franchise has had such an massive impact, that the question "Is it art?" almost seems trivial. The same goes for a lot of games, really. I don't think we should get hung up on the question of art when there's so much more to what games provide. If developers spend all their time trying to create art, they'll just end up with a lot of pretentious crap, but if they spend their time focusing on fun and engaging experiences, then a real masterpiece can come out of that. And if not, then we at least get great games. Starcraft is a great game and it's not meant to be experienced in the same way you watch a movie or look at a gallery.

 

[Jumplion]

I think he is absolutely true, no video game has really come close to achieving "Citizen Kane" status, or "A Clockwork Orange", or "Bladerunner", or "Shindler's List" status, or any other number of hugely influential movies. Sure, Shadow of the Collosus was great n' all, but it did not have such a worldwide impact and unfortunately remains a cult classic rather than a reknowned work of art.

But before we can get the "Citizen Kane" of gaming, we need the "Orson Wells" of gaming. [sup]*coughMecough*[/sup] There needs to be that one game that transcends "just a game" status in the eyes of the public and truly transforms gaming into a well respected artform. I doubt it'll happen over night, and in fact it may take several games like that, but I am truely confident that somewhere, someday, someone is going to rise up to the challenge.

[sup]*ehem....me? perhaps? Seriously, I know what I'm doing, I swear![/sup]

Games are never going to reach such a status in the world today. Movies have been around alot longer and are all around more well respected. The majority of people see games as toys and if games like Silent Hill 2, Okami or Shadow of The Colossus won't change their minds, nothing will. In their opinion, they're holding a controler hence it's a toy, not to be taken seriously.

People today, yes, of course, as evidented by the attempted restriction of their sales in the Supreme Court. But I'm one of those hopeless optimists that always looks to the future, and someday, somehow, someone is going to change that view.

[sup]I still think it should be me.....okay I'll stop now[/sup]

Sure, we could say that "There are loads of 'masterpieces' in games!" and start listing off the ones we think are said "masterpieces", but that's moot. Most of the games we would list would only be great inside the video game industry, few if any people know what the hell Planetscape: Torment is, let alone Shadow of the Collosus, Portal, Half-Life, Okami, Bioshock, whatever.

That's my take on it anyway, but I still vehemently believe that we need an "Orson Wells" or "Stanley Kubrick" of gaming before we can get a "Citizen Kane" or "A Clockwork Orange" kind of impact on the world through a game.

Actually this is probably the best definition of a masterpiece that I've seen here yet.

People tend to think too small when it comes to video games and their impact on the world. You can't have one "masterpiece" movie that nobody outside a few dozen hundred thousand people know, that's just a "cult classic", though I'm sure you could get technical with that.

With video games, we've had plenty of games that shook the foundation of the video game industry, but few if any impacting the world. I guess Halo and Call of Duty could count, though those aren't the kinds of "impact" I'd like.

While Shadow of the Collosus, Okami, ICO, Portal, etc... are all great games in their own right, they're just cult classics ('cept maybe Portal, more people bought that than the other 3 combined sadly...) They've had impact within the industry, but nobody outside "the know" will know about them. It's silly to call them "masterpieces" when the definition is limited to just in the industry, I mean, sure, I guess they are, but "world-renowned masterpieces"? I don't think so. I mean, even if you hate world impacting movies like "Citizen Kane" and "A Clockwork Orange", or books like "Harry Potter", or TV shows like "The Wire" (apparantly), you have to admit their impact, and that's what makes them "masterpieces" or whatever you want to call them.

But I've ranted enough for now, tally ho!

 

[rsvp42]

With video games, we've had plenty of games that shook the foundation of the video game industry, but few if any impacting the world. I guess Halo and Call of Duty could count, though those aren't the kinds of "impact" I'd like.

So why are we separating "people who play games" and "the world"? I feel like that's a false dichotomy that's just muddying things up. An impact on the games industry is an impact on the world. Sure, maybe more people know or have heard about about the masterpieces of film than they have the masterpieces of gaming, but that's just because film has been around longer and has had more time to ingrain itself into our collective consciousness, thereby making its triumphs more widely newsworthy. Gaming just needs more time, that's all.

I'm not saying we shouldn't keep striving for more. We should. But we shouldn't act like games haven't mattered yet just because we keep striving for the "Citizen Kane" of gaming, whatever the hell that even means.

 

[SonofSeth]

I was asking myself the same question. I actually believe Blizzard and Valve, 2 of the most influential "systems" game companies are experimenting with stuff, but we don't see any of that work so it could be used in the future.

Who knows, we'll see when Episode 3 and Blizzards new MMO get announced.

 

[Jumplion]

With video games, we've had plenty of games that shook the foundation of the video game industry, but few if any impacting the world. I guess Halo and Call of Duty could count, though those aren't the kinds of "impact" I'd like.

So why are we separating "people who play games" and "the world"? I feel like that's a false dichotomy that's just muddying things up. An impact on the games industry is an impact on the world. Sure, maybe more people know or have heard about about the masterpieces of film than they have the masterpieces of gaming, but that's just because film has been around longer and has had more time to ingrain itself into our collective consciousness, thereby making its triumphs more widely newsworthy. Gaming just needs more time, that's all.

I'm not saying we shouldn't keep striving for more. We should. But we shouldn't act like games haven't mattered yet just because we keep striving for the "Citizen Kane" of gaming, whatever the hell that even means.

I see what you're saying and I see how my post could be interpreted that way, but I don't think I quite made that connection. I didn't really try to make it seem that only gamers are affected, and nongamers aren't, but it's just that no game has yet to break that barrier between them. Something that both game-afficionados and game-waddlers can enjoy.

Before "Citizen Kane" or whateverthehell made the big boom, nothing but family-friendly musicals, and comedies, and romances and all that other stuff was really being produced. Sure, the masses were pleased, but the movie buffs at the time were probably lacking. The smart movies at the time were probably praised by critics, but failed in the box office because people just wanted something to waste their time, they didn't go to the movies that often anyway. Then something that was intelligent, thought-provoking, and not a musica-roman-tedies, that everyone could enjoy on some level. Not everyone liked it, but it did have a huge impact on the film industry as well as the world. Hell, this model still goes on today.

I don't mean to say that impacting the industry and the world should be two separate dichotomies, but few games have shaken "the world" as opposed to just the industry. The only ones I can think of that rocked the whole world in some way are the recent Call of Duty's and Halo, and those are akin to movie block-busters, no more than action fliks.

Bleh, I'm sorry if I'm not forming a coherent post, I just hobbled over and recently got home, but hopefully you get the idea.

 

[House_Vet]

The unfortunate thing is that games will never be art. I think the definition for art being wholely non-interactive is one based upon certainties. When was the last time you felt some ping of emotion for a movie? If you can quantify it, is it the same as when you last felt the same for a video game's narative? The problem is that when you invest yourself in an activity that takes multiple facets (logical problem solving and emotional story reading) one mutes the other, as they take from two seperate parts from the brain. In the case of a gamer, it tends to be the latter because the "game" portion of the experience is most prevelent.

Now, it could certainly be argued that more experienced gamers gain a greater exeprience because the "game" portion is more muscle memory than anything, but that destroys the entire basis of the medium right there. Saying that you need to be good at art to experience it is something that will always seperate games from real art, which can pull out emotions from anyone or anything, so long as they have invested interest into the presentation.

Being a toy isn't bad. It just invokes different emotional responces. Nostalgia, memories and good times are just as important as feeling for a particular character.

EDIT:

I do agree that we've had a few masterpieces in our time, but few and far between. I think for a game to qualify as a masterpiece though, we can't exactly hold it to the same standards as other medium, or else gaming will never be allowed to stand on its own as art. If we look at a game and just say "Wow that has great writing." well, that's great if the game was a book; that's all a book is. Movies can't even be based on just the writing because it's also dependent on camera angles, lighting, music, acting, etc. For a game to be a masterpiece, it needs to incorporate the gameplay and/or mechanics as a major aspect of what it is. I'd be just as willing to call the original Super Mario Bros. a masterpiece as soon as Bioshock, among a few others have mentioned.

This. I would say the farthest we've come are titles like Super Mario Bros. where the game mechanics are the central point. Everyone knows it, everyone loves it, everyone can agree it is a great game. I'm not sure what else we'd need to say "this is a gaming Masterpiece" but there you go.

@spunkyweazle
You realise that a novel has to create lighting, music, behaviour and the rest of what we perceive (or don't normally) as well as what you so restrictively call 'the writing' which I guess is what you're calling dialogue? Just checking.

@HellsingerAngel
To play devil's advocate for a sec, and I think there is truth in what you're saying, wouldn't you say that someone who understands the romantic movement can more fully appreciate Kubla Khan by Samuel Taylor Coleridge? Ok, so they're better at this form of art than your average Peggle player no? So, saying that one cannot improve one's self to better interact with art is just untrue. Sorry, but all art forms have their experts. Whether you value their opinion or not, they are trained to get the most out of the art and see things in it others don't.

Also, I've found some remarkably compelling stories within games' mechanics - in left 4 dead when you can see the saferoom, the screen's black and white, you're on 1 health, a sole hit will kill you and you're all outta ammo and yet still, somehow, you kill a diving hunter with a pistol shot and hobble into safety... that's pretty bloody compelling - it evokes fear, frustration, anger, determination and hope all at once. That changes my afternoon - because of a game mechanic. That, for my money, is not what I get from your average game of jump-rope.

 

[MikailCaboose]

"Masterpiece" is an arbitrary statement. I'm sure some people consider Sonic '06 to be a "masterpiece", and yet I vehemently disagree...

 

[rsvp42]

With video games, we've had plenty of games that shook the foundation of the video game industry, but few if any impacting the world. I guess Halo and Call of Duty could count, though those aren't the kinds of "impact" I'd like.

So why are we separating "people who play games" and "the world"? I feel like that's a false dichotomy that's just muddying things up. An impact on the games industry is an impact on the world. Sure, maybe more people know or have heard about about the masterpieces of film than they have the masterpieces of gaming, but that's just because film has been around longer and has had more time to ingrain itself into our collective consciousness, thereby making its triumphs more widely newsworthy. Gaming just needs more time, that's all.

I'm not saying we shouldn't keep striving for more. We should. But we shouldn't act like games haven't mattered yet just because we keep striving for the "Citizen Kane" of gaming, whatever the hell that even means.

I see what you're saying and I see how my post could be interpreted that way, but I don't think I quite made that connection. I didn't really try to make it seem that only gamers are affected, and nongamers aren't, but it's just that no game has yet to break that barrier between them. Something that both game-afficionados and game-waddlers can enjoy.

Before "Citizen Kane" or whateverthehell made the big boom, nothing but family-friendly musicals, and comedies, and romances and all that other stuff was really being produced. Sure, the masses were pleased, but the movie buffs at the time were probably lacking. The smart movies at the time were probably praised by critics, but failed in the box office because people just wanted something to waste their time, they didn't go to the movies that often anyway. Then something that was intelligent, thought-provoking, and not a musica-roman-tedies, that everyone could enjoy on some level. Not everyone liked it, but it did have a huge impact on the film industry as well as the world. Hell, this model still goes on today.

I don't mean to say that impacting the industry and the world should be two separate dichotomies, but few games have shaken "the world" as opposed to just the industry. The only ones I can think of that rocked the whole world in some way are the recent Call of Duty's and Halo, and those are akin to movie block-busters, no more than action fliks.

Bleh, I'm sorry if I'm not forming a coherent post, I just hobbled over and recently got home, but hopefully you get the idea.

I can see what you're saying. I guess I just hope game developers don't waste all their time trying to pursue art-with-a-capital-A if it doesn't also include making fun games that are worth the money. I don't want everyone iterating on the Heavy Rain idea ad nauseum because of some inferiority complex over movies. I don't want game developers to overlook innovation in gameplay and player enjoyment in the pursuit of being "deep" for the sake of being deep.

 

[adafuns]

Its quite amusing to see so many people try to set up an objective meaning to such a staggeringly subjective concept such as "art" or "masterpiece".

The reality is that video games have already meet any and all requirements that qualifies them to be "art" and to the few, "Masterpieces". The only people you need to convince are old hard headed morons or pretentious art heads, and to both I say, fuck them.

The last thing I want is for video games to be accepted into the art culture. With the exception of a few, most of the art community are morons who are easily duped by no talent artists who sell their piece of shit based mostly on deeper meaning and emotion. I know Ive said its all subjective but the bottom line is that art should require skill. Otherwise any moron with a good agent or a smooth talking con man can come up with bile and sell it to gullible fools under the guise of deep art.

I recall there was an occasion where an empty room was given some kind of art award and several thousand dollars prize. Wish I had a link, but I'm to lazy atm to find one. Anyways to conclude, I like mostly what was said and game companies should be taking risks if it means a higher chance of really good games coming about, but to say that gaming hasn't had a true masterpiece is ignorance at its best.

 

[Jumplion]

I can see what you're saying. I guess I just hope game developers don't waste all their time trying to pursue art-with-a-capital-A if it doesn't also include making fun games that are worth the money. I don't want everyone iterating on the Heavy Rain idea ad nauseum because of some inferiority complex over movies. I don't want game developers to overlook innovation in gameplay and player enjoyment in the pursuit of being "deep" for the sake of being deep.

I've seen this thought plenty of times, and I can tell you right now that it's completely unnecessary.

Artsy games (with a capital A) will never become the majority, don't you worry. There will always be the good ole, classic "fun" games, but if we can improve and perfect the "Arsty" games then we can have a perfect balance between those types of games.

And I, for one, loved Heavy Rain to bits, one of the few games that innovated in the storytelling department, and the fact that it's deeper than 80% of the crap produced every year, but that's another debate for another time. You could make the same argument for the samey-sequel-itis FPSs that come out ad nauseum because of their own inferiority complex over movies, overlooking gameplay innovation to just make a quick buck they know will succeed at least somewhat.

But I'm ranting again, I tend to do that.

 

[boholikeu]

Also I don't see why games need to forgo narratives in order to be "true to the medium". That's a bit like saying that films need to be all about visuals in order to be their best.

There are actually people who think that about films (although not very many, really), and they do have a point that the moving visuals is what makes film unique as opposed to something that stage plays can also do.

This is true, but I regard them as just as crazy as people that say games can't have a narrative.

With video games, we've had plenty of games that shook the foundation of the video game industry, but few if any impacting the world. I guess Halo and Call of Duty could count, though those aren't the kinds of "impact" I'd like.

Good point. So in short we may have had our "Birth of a Nation", but probably not our "Citizen Kane" or "Godfather" yet.