JDKJ said:
Ukomba said:
JDKJ said:
CosmicCommander said:
Ukomba said:
Why do video games need government money at all?
Because many devs are too lazy to make up the funds themselves, and so push it on everyone else to fork out on their behalf.
I don't think that's the case. Bear in mind that the NEA will only grant funding to "artsy" or "public good" video game projects which are not-for-profit. If you can't profit from your project, then you'll have difficulty funding that sort of venture (you're unlikely to obtain venture capital because there's no for-profit venture involved and therefore no return for investors). That's the main reason for NEA funding.
That's nice. So what you're really saying is government money allows companies to make s***y games. That should be enough reason not to give NEA money to video games.
You can have artsy games just fine, and they have. What you need to balance that with is making the games fun and engaging for people to play. Here are you're two options:
1. You make an artsy game that's fun and people buy it. That kind of game doesn't need NEA money because it's good enough to stand on it's own legs.
2. You make an artsy game that no one wants to play. That kind of game does need NEA money but it would be wasted since, with no one playing it, no one is being exposed to the art.
And do you really want the government deciding what is and isn't a good game? When have they ever shown they were capable of making that derision? Hell, they can't even choose good normal art. Most of NEA money is wasted on pure c***. I say cut off all NEA money and just have artists make things people actually want. Video games have done just fine with out it up to now.
There are examples in England of what you get when government money is put into video games.
I never said "shitty" games. I said "artsy" or "public good" video games that, by their very nature, will never appeal to a broad commercial market. That doesn't meant they're "shitty." In fact, that they don't have mass appeal may very well mean that they have value of some sort. The masses aren't well known for their ability to discern the finer points of anything.
Your two options make no sense. You can't make the artsy game that's either fun to play and people buy it or that no one wants to play and no one buys it. Artsy games don't get private funding and therefore would never get made. Not without public funding
And the NEA has funded many artist who are far from "crap" and have become recognized as Masters. To cite but one example, Robert Mapplethorpe, now recognized as being among the Masters of American photography, wouldn't have flourished without NEA funding. There's very little of his work that was considered "commercial" at the time he was producing it but, ironically, his photographs can fetch upwards of half a million dollars now that he's dead.
A large part of the value inherent in NEA funding of art is that it allows artists to explore taboo subjects that normally would not make much commercial sense to explore. "Piss Christ" by Andres Serrano is a perfect example.
Companies can and do make games right now that don't appeal to a mass market. Portal, for example, was believed to be a very niche game when it was being made. The fact that it was good turned it into a hit. You'll only need NEA money if you're game sucks, and in that case it doesn't deserve it.
The simple fact is, catering to the pretentious gamer isn't going to make gaming better, and really that's the target of this money.
Bull, you can't predict what the world would be like without the NEA. If the NEA existed for video games before, and Portal took some of it, you could be claiming right now that without NEA funding, Portal would have never existed. Robert Mapplethorpe might well have done just fine without NEA money. There are artists right now that don't get it and do just fine. If you want to go into 'what if' territory, which is what you're doing, how about this? Robert Mapplethorpe would have had more success had he not been given NEA funding. He would have had to market his work and, as a result, would have had more publicity and it wouldn't have taken until his death for his works to be come valuable. Your what if scenario isn't any more provable than mine.
All Government money does is distort the market and puts the decision on what's good art and what's not in the hands of the bureaucrats and politicians. Do you honestly believe some senator won't try to get NEA money to a game company just because it's in his state? It's more money for his state, what does he care if they're doing something worth while?
And how much money did Piss Christ cost to make? You could make it with common house hold trash, I doubt he paid for any of it. Not really something that needs money, and certainly would have been created with out it. It's not hard to create, it's not cleaver, and it's not deep. Compare that with anything from the great painters of the Renascence who's works require a massive amount of time, effort, and skill. "Artists" like Andres Serrano are as much of a joke as Terry Pratchett's Daniellarina Pouter.
