Games Will Never Be As Deep

[Chickenlittle]

Halo 3 is a game as art.

In the Campaign, other than Achievements, that's all that's good about it.

 

[Imitation Saccharin]

You mean like actual painted art?

No. Actual painted art is a completely different kind of art to what I'd like to discuss.

Jeez, it's harder to get people to stay on topic then some really heavy thing from going down a really steep incline....with oil...

 

[AntiAntagonist]

The "playing" aspect of games will forever make them inferior to movies as art. Simply because the average player isn't comparable to the masterful strokes and insightful jabs of a good director.

Hence the medium itself lends toward the story being a framework for the gameplay, and although games can be deep, they will need a schtick to "play".

The first time you've seen Luke blow up the Deathstar, it's an emotional high. The 92nd time you TRY to blow up the Deathstar, the response is "Fuck this!" followed by much controller throwing.

In summation, it is my opinion games as art should not be attempted, and games as fun should be the ideal*.

I'm aware of the contentious nature of this post, so I'll post Jill's Song to appease your animal revelries.

This topic has been covered before.

Interaction is not the limiting factor of video games. It's the problem of so many disciplines that need to come together to make a finished product. A massive hurdle that has been overcome in the past.

If we subscribe to the limiting definition that 'the player must feel connected with the character' then we also disallow types of art that are not concerned with character development. All of the above titles are art by the definition set forth, however I believe it is a limiting definition. Ironic considering the subject.

 

[Imitation Saccharin]

All of the above titles are art by the definition set forth, however I believe it is a limiting definition.

Ya know I didn't actually think I'd have the chance to say this, but you are wrong. flOw is not art by the definition I provided.

 

[AntiAntagonist]

Ya know I didn't actually think I'd have the chance to say this, but you are wrong. flOw is not art by the definition I provided.

Please further explain.

My understanding of it came from the character (organism) living in the wilds. Eventually growing to such proportions that it becomes cumbersome to move around, reminded me of people complaining about how old and bloated they feel.

One thing I would like to ask: does art need to have an immediate reaction in the viewer to be categorized as such or does it also allow for specific instances of media that must be considered at length before a conclusion is reached?

I ask the above since there is eventually some debate on that subject.

EDITED for grammar and redundancy that hurts my eyes.

 

[Imitation Saccharin]

Please further explain.

My understanding of it came from the character (organism) living in the wilds.

Plural.

One thing I would like to ask: does art need to have an immediate reaction in the viewer to be categorized as such or does it also allow for instances of media that must be considered at length before a conclusion is reached on any specific instance?

Either.

 

[AntiAntagonist]

Please further explain.

My understanding of it came from the character (organism) living in the wilds.

Plural.

I'm confused... Is this in reference to the definition using the word "characters" instead of "character"? If there's a need for multiple characters for a piece of media to be art I guess a number of plays can be thrown out of the definition as well.

I'm hoping that that type of semantics isn't what is meant.

 

[Imitation Saccharin]

If there's a need for multiple characters for a piece of media to be art I guess a number of plays can be thrown out of the definition as well.

Probably.

I'm hoping that that type of semantics isn't what is meant.

It has to be or the debate is over before it starts as "art" is redefined by every poster wanting to get smarty points, and nothing interesting happens.

 

[Nordstrom]

Imitation Saccharin, if you wanted the thread to stay on topic, you would have done better to leave out the word "art". Otherwise, it kick starts the "are videogames art" debate that flames up every few months. Your concept of art is very personal and that word obfuscates the debate.

Rather than bringing art into it, just ask:

Will videogames ever match the deep emotional resonance that is sometimes felt with characters in movies or books?

My answer is I don't know. I haven't personally experienced it yet, but it could happen some day.

Tangent:
I personally feel like paintings are one of the highest forms of art and they don't contain much, if anything, in the way of character development. I see art in videogames as the creation of a world. That art is experienced in the interaction of the player with that world. For me, a videogame would be considered art if the creation of that world is extremely well executed, or if it creates a deep or unique response in the player.

There are few videogames or movies that I would consider art in a profound sense. Most videogames and movies are mostly entertainment. Art is involved, but art rarely takes center stage.

Edit:
I think that videogames will become accepted as art when they can be judged for what they are rather than comparing them to other mediums. Otherwise, we're asking ridiculous questions like, "which is better: oranges or crescent wrenches?" Which is more art: paintings or music?

 

[PrinnyGod]

By your definition games as art already exist. Grim Fandango and Full Throttle for two. Character development and resonance can occur within mechanics

My arguement is they could always be better achieved with alternative medium, as they must be worked into the mechanics rather then being the soul of the work.

What if you created something?

Then I'm a director. But the twists won't surprise me, the emotions wouldn't be as fresh.

I mean there's a pretty good reason we don't write our own books so we can enjoy reading them later.

Uhm, have you ever tried writing a book? I'm in the beginning part of the story for mine and there a lot of twists me as the write don't see coming because I notice things in the writing and ideas pop in my head. There is something to be said about the creation of something or a character.

In game terms, DnD...

Anyway, there are many examples of character development that isn't ruined by mechanics of the game, as many people have pointed out but apperently have been ignored...

 

[implodingMan]

Please. No one else has?

I'm talking to you specifically.

Good. That means I've got your attention. Now then, how about you address the points that I've posted. I've written two different paragraphs for you, which you have completely avoided in favor of selectively quoting a single part of my point. Do you even have a rebuttal? You keep posting one sentence (or one word) responses to what people are saying.

How about you actually try responding to people properly.

ex:

Please further explain.

My understanding of it came from the character (organism) living in the wilds.

Plural.

One thing I would like to ask: does art need to have an immediate reaction in the viewer to be categorized as such or does it also allow for instances of media that must be considered at length before a conclusion is reached on any specific instance?

Either.

What the hell is that? How about instead of saying "plural" you could expand upon that and actually give some examples of how that doesn't apply to what you are talking about. Are you saying "plural" because he is only talking about one character and your thread is about relations between multiple characters? He even started his statement with "please explain" and then you don't.

This thread isn't going anywhere and I'm done with it.

 

[Imitation Saccharin]

Good. That means I've got your attention. Now then, how about you address the points that I've posted. I've written two different paragraphs for you, which you have completely avoided .

Because they are off-topic to this thread.

Continue in this vein and I will be forced to report your posts as spam.

 

[Imitation Saccharin]

Anyway, there are many examples of character development that isn't ruined by mechanics of the game, as many people have pointed out but apperently have been ignored...

My arguement is they could always be better achieved with alternative medium, as they must be worked into the mechanics rather then being the soul of the work.

I honestly don't know why I'm trying.

Fine go crazy. I hope you feel very clever.

 

[AntiAntagonist]

Good. That means I've got your attention. Now then, how about you address the points that I've posted. I've written two different paragraphs for you, which you have completely avoided .

Because they are off-topic to this thread.

Continue in this vein and I will be forced to report your posts as spam.

"Video games as art"

If I take away any mention of the word "art" from the posts I made does it conform with the above? Why is "art" a forbidden word? If the subject of the thread is "Games Will Never Be As Deep" then art is a related and intertwined topic as art is often also defined by "depth".

My arguement is they could always be better achieved with alternative medium, as they must be worked into the mechanics rather then being the soul of the work.

How is "soul" defined then? I dislike semantics, however my brief study of film led me to believe that cinematography (lighting, editing, focus, framing, etc) are themselves mechanics. How are they different from the mechanics of a video game?

When I watch Kurosawa I think about the framing and lighting and the pace of the story. Is this much different from looking at the rendering algorithms of Spore when considering usability and contrast between the organism VS the world around it?

EDITED for grammar

 

[Imitation Saccharin]

You were warned Anti.

 

[karmapolizei]

I couldn't disagree more with the thread thesis.
First of all, I wouldn't consider most movies, records or indeed PRACTICALLY ANYTHING you can stick your head into out there as art, simply for the fact that it's mostly crap. Luckily, there's the 1% per cent of records and movies and books and what have you that are indeed ART, simply for the fact that they do SOMETHING to YOU.
So to be fair, we have to direct our attention from all the crappy shooters, anally retarded flight sims and grind-based rpgs out there and to the rare games that get it right.

Secondly, your definition is just way too narrow. By your definition, music is NOT art. No characters there, are there? So let's just drop them, which leaves us with emotional resonance.

And nobody can argue that games, good games, DON'T trigger emotional resonance, and that said resonance can't be deep. The key is, as many have already put out, immersion - no other art form has that. I has the same goal as the depersonification you experience when you're watching a movie and identify with the characters. In games, you don't only identify - you ARE the character, and that's so much stronger. Let me give you a few examples.

Let's think of war games. Just take the Call of Duty series as an example - I guess you can't get more close to the horror of war without actually being subjected to it than in a well crafted war game like CoD. Remember that Stalingrad level in CoD 1? When I first played it, I could literally feel the horror a Russian soldier must have experienced in that situation, what with all the shell shock and all. (And the fact that you're still having fun doesn't take away anything of this, but that should be discussed elsewhere *making mental note for future reference*)
And I don't think we're even close to what kind of experience we can have in that field, you'll see. By the way, I've heard that CoD4 is of a similiar ilk in that nuclear explosion scene, but I haven't played it yet.

Or remember how you played Half-Life for the first time, particularly those of you who were there when it came out. Wasn't it freaking you out? Wasn't it unlike anything you had ever seen in movies, books or even games itself? And it was true experience, you could experience a world hanging out of its hinges.

Now tell me, where else do you get that? And isn't that ART? Isn't that DEEP?

 

[AntiAntagonist]

You were warned Anti.

Considering that the "topic" of this thread has changed from "Videogames as art." (the first line of the first post) to a changing definition of the thread I don't see how this can be debated successfully for either party.

If this was a troll, I must say it was interesting. However I don't believe that this is a valid discussion if the whims of a poster can change the debate floor without others being able to disagree with the change.

I have not reported you and am uninterested in making threats.

 

[huntedannoyed]

All art is interpretive, so video games are in fact one of the most artistic mediums avaliable to us. Because we cannot move, or experience the game in the exact way that the developers want us to is what makes it art.

 

[Imitation Saccharin]

Secondly, your definition is just way too narrow.

That was the point. I swear to god it's like willful ignorance.

 

[The Lyre]

...

...*picks up Bioshock.*

...*points at Bioshock.*

...*looks smug.*

As has already been said, your definition is awful;

There are paintings of a singular cow in a plain, empty hill. Strikes no deep emotional response within us, but it is paint on canvas, created by an artist - it is art.

Your definition SHOULD have been; a personal expression through the conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements.

At which point, Idirect you to video games. In particular, how they very easily meet this criteria.

Games can be art.

Some art is more expressive than some games, and vice versa - I'll take Bioshock over a cow in a field, for example.

Fallacious premise is fallacious.