I'll take his word for it when I finally play a Twisted Metal game I enjoy or actually looking at his resume, any game of his I enjoy.
Jaffe: Games Industry Needs to Get Over Itself
- Thread starter Logan Westbrook
- Start date
Well, I'd say the Final Fantasy series. Starting with 7 they decided they're much less interested in making games and really think it's awesome to make bad-story-and-weird-fetish delivery vehicles. that's artsy-fartsy.SonOfIkaros said:
Heavy Rain has been mentioned, there's another one.
Artsy-Fartsy, in my opinion, means any game where neat-o graphics and fanfic storyline are what the developers focus on, and by which the actual playing of the game suffers so we can gobble down more of their pointless artwork and shitty swiss cheese plots. Games that forget they're supposed to be PLAYED and think that they need to prove that, gosh, games can be art! And as soon as they head out the door on their way to proving that point, promptly jettison the parts of making a game that actually are making a game and instead pack only the pretentiousness of fanfic and fanart creators. just great.
He's not really telling us his opinion this time, he was answering a question a fan asked him on Twitter and it got picked up as news.The DSM said:
That said, I have to agree with him. There is no problem in trying to appear artistic so long as the game doesn't suffer for it.
I'll have a moderately competent artsy fartsy game over an incredibly well made generic shooter any day.
But please don't stop making your generic shooters over me, nooo. That'll kill the industry, right?
But please don't stop making your generic shooters over me, nooo. That'll kill the industry, right?
This quote I can agree with. As for everyone saying it's "all about gameplay". Its not JUST about gameplay. It's about the overall experience. The gameplay, story, graphics, and sound all need to mix together nicely to create the best experience possible. I'm sure that all of you saying "its only about gameplay" are extremely unintelligent twats who are either stuck in the 80's when all video games could do was gameplay or an FPS playing tosser who only cares about multiplayer and how many people you can murder in games.More Fun To Compute said:
JackRyan64 said:
Y'see, here's the thing. Games are supposed to be fun to play. Not fun to listen to, that's music. Not fun to watch, that's movies, or, yanno, traditional art or something.
Take a look at the recent terrible special-effect-extravaganzas that have hit the box office. Exactly how much fun is it to watch a TEERRRRIIIIBBBLLE movie with good effects? I don't know, but I've seen SW:Ep1-3, and I sorta think the answer is "not at all fun".
Games aren't any different. You can dress a bad game up any way you like, it's still a BAD GAME. Any time you sacrifice good gameplay for good graphics, YOU'RE JUST MAKING YOUR GAME BAD. That is not a decision that should ever be made. Period. There's absolutely no discussion on this. It's completely comparable to movies in this regard, and I think that's something that's been long-settled. Bad movies with neat effects are about as interesting as watching a powerpoint presentation of some art nerd's portfolio. Sure, neat stuff, but still YAWN.
Your point there is debatable. I'd argue that point and click games such as Monkey Island, Grim Fandango, Longest Journey etc (the last one happens to be my favourite game) thrive despite having gameplay one wouldn't describe as fun. It's the story and characters that make the game worthwhile.warmonkey said:
The games industry is huge and lots of different facets. There's space for purely visual experiences as well as more gameplay orientated products.
That being said I share Jaffe's rage over certain obnoxious 'art' games. Particularly anything by tale of tales. There's a huge difference between art and 'arty' I think.
Wii Sports has absolutely nothing going for it. It's shallow even on its own, and no amount of dressing could possibly save it. Smash Bros is all about fanservice, so it needs the cosmetic stuff like graphics and sound to be a fun experience. And what do you know, it has that stuff.Racthoh said:
I understand what you're saying, and I know it can't be ALL graphics and sound, but they're still vital IN ADDITION to great game design to make the best experience possible.warmonkey said:
Consider Shadow of the Colossus. Would that game be nearly as memorable without the plot, the great soundtrack, or the beautiful art design? It'd still be a damn fine game, but it was made even better by all of the other things mentioned. Would Portal be as beloved without GLaDOS's wit? Would Braid be as memorable without its gorgeous art? These would still be solid games without either, but because the other elements were present they were even better. I still stand by that every aspect of a video game needs to come together to provide the most memorable experiences.
Oh and...
You need to go away forever. Just saying.Zing said:
The difference being... his own personal opinion? I'm sorry, but you can't have your cake and eat it, too. Either you think games need to stop being artsy, or you're okay with developers trying something artistic. Maybe he has a legit reason, and I'd like to hear it, but otherwise you can't say "Games need to stop being artsy... oh except for that game, because I like it, so it's okay for that game to be artsy, but no one else is allowed."Logan Westbrook said:
SotC really didn't much plot -- what it did have could be summed up in a good sentence or two, really. No more than a paragraph. Portal was the same way, and that one I can sum up in a sentence: You're trapped in a series of training rooms by a computer which gradually reveals itself to be evil, at which point you break out and defeat it.JackRyan64 said:
Portal really doesn't get in to more plot than that. Who are you? Where did you come from? What about all the people? None of that actually matters, so there's no point in drawing you away from the game for some boring exposition. Where did *Mario* come from, for that matter?
I'm not saying good music, good art, and good storytelling have no place in games.. but overwhelmingly it seems new games try to make their music, art, and plot good but forget they're making a *game*. If at any point more care is taken to make a scene pretty than making it fun to play, well, game failure. A good game can stand on its own two feet, without needing anything else, but good gameplay is the soul of a game. Ya lose that, or sight of that, well why the hell are you making a game? Make a movie! Gameplay's fun? Well then, get to work making it sound nice and look pretty -- just so long as at no point does any of that ruin the fun you have playing the game.
I've been tossing this one around for a while and I think you're right. They're fun games to play, but I don't know if the gameplay itself is fun.Grey Carter said:
There's really not many of those sort of games that have become classics, though.. so I think that it might be a case where a lot of care was taken to make everything really good, all around.
Dunno. They did make you think, though, and that's pretty nice. When's the last time a game actually made you think through a solution to a problem like those games did? 'cause.. I can't really think of much.
Gameplay is the main, fundamental part of the video game. I don't know why you are looking down your nose at 80s games. They were restricted by technology but in terms of coming up with new gameplay and creating exciting game worlds the best ones were pretty amazing.JackRyan64 said:
Ah, those are some pretty good examples actually. And you've got a valid point, a game is, after all, a game, not a painting. It should first and foremost be entertaining to the player, and with most people it's the gameplay that they find entertaining.warmonkey said:
However, I think we should also consider that different people are attracted to different things in games. Many people will play a game with mediocre, or even bad, gameplay if it has an amazing story and completely unique characters/character arks. Obviously something like this doesn't appeal to everyone, but that's just the point, it's not supposed to. People who want extraordinarily fun and fast-paced gameplay will naturally like different kinds of games, like Jaffe's own Twisted Metal series.
Likewise, I'm sure there are people who would play a game simply because of it's artistic graphics/atmosphere. I don't find Braid's gameplay all that entertaining, not compared to some of my other favorite games, but the atmosphere and the artistic layout of the game is more than enough to make up for it. Add to that the ethereal and other-worldly feel the game's story has, and you've got yourself one of these so-called "artsy-fartsy games", though it's one I like a whole lot.
The point is, I think, that different strokes appeal to different folks. People look for different kinds of things in games and that's just as it should be. There'll always be companies that prioritize graphics and atmosphere, and then there'll be companies to prioritize gameplay. The most awesome thing is when a company combines those two aspects, though, and create a game that is wholly unique in several ways. A shame such games are hard to come by.
Sorry, that got a bit long. I have a bad habit of letting myself go with these sorts of things, I'm afraid.
Whoever said this is an idiot. In game design, gameplay is the art. Anyone who thinks that art and gameplay are two separate things is stupid.