Right. We're all art critics now.

[Kurokami]

Well not all games are art. Much like the movies. Just because something can be art, doesn't mean that it by necessity, is. While some might argue that the qualifications are subjective, it's important to stay objective. Nobody would argue the Micheal Bay or Uwe Boll compendiums are art. In the same fashion, trying to defend every game with the art banner only serves to stretch the banner thin and weaken credibility.

They're all art, some are just much more kitschy than others.

Like comparing Monet to a ceramic garden gnome.

So...What's your definition of art exactly?

 

[Sarge034]

Spoiler: Hold on one sec. I need to don my gear....

Hold on one sec. I need to don my gear....

Ready!

Bioshock and Bioshock 2 depict the inherent flaws in the human condition. The former shows us the inherent instability and corruptibility of a purely capitalistic environment. While the latter shows us the inherent instability and corruptibility of a purely Marxist environment. They both serve to highlight ideological failures, but the truly fascinating aspect is the emphases they both put into the sublime message that power corrupts over time. Plasmids are in themselves the very metaphor of power. The ability to change one's self to become what is considered "better" comes at a price in the long term. That price only coming to pass when the power is used for extended periods of time or in very large quantities during a short period of time. The metaphor of corruption can be seen externally on any splicer with their grossly deformed, yet still human, bodies. The corruption metaphor does not stop there though. It is taken one step further with the mental degradation of the splicers. They are so taken by the power that they don't consciously realize the physical deformation or the current state of their world. These works then add another physiological layer with the masks worn by said splicers. One could surmise that subconsciously the splicers realize what they have become and strive to hide the tale tale signs of their corruption.

Good day sir.
>Takes off monocle and mustache<

Snip

Was that classy enough, or do I have to go too far enough and put on my elitist top hat as well?

 

[Ryu890]

So, uh... Whatever happened to just playing a f***ing game for fun? Those days just seem so far behind now...

I personally dislike this statement. It seems to to imply that you cannot have both.

There's nothing wrong with just playing a game for fun. Just as there's nothing wrong with praising a game that went above and beyond to make a game that was artistic as well as fun.

A game being artsy, and a game being fun, arn't mutually exclusive. You can do both.

That said, you know what really matters to your gameplaying experience? If you're enjoying yourself. If YOU like a game, then everyone else's oppinions don't matter. Heck, I LOVE Final Fantasy XIII. And you can complain or not complain all you want. It won't stop me from enjoying it.


That said, we won't get innovation, or anything above 'just fun', without praising that which goes above and beyond.


An artistic game, is like a cuisine prepared by a master chef. Its expensive, and hard to make, but worth it. However, if thats all you eat, you'll soon find yourself broke.

A 'for fun' game, is like macaroni and cheese. Its certainly passable, and it'll fill you up. But you won't remember it three days down the line. Its just 'a meal', as opposed to 'a delight for the tastebuds'. Does that make sense?

 

[Ryu890]

Games are art within the United States and now the supreme court has made a decision to constitutionally protect games in the same way as other media. Fabulous! Well, time to get to work then. Put on your monocles and follow me. If games are art, then we're the critics.

Now, give me a spoofy sort of artsy critique of a game of your choice, as silly or snobby as you like. You have that power, so let's see something funny.

Not everyone who watches movies is a movie critic...

Oh dear, you're not taking to the whole 'joke' premise, are you?

Rather.

I'm just annoyed cause it pokes fun at the idea that games are capable of having artistic merit, and wasn't even funny.


If people put half the effort they put into spewing these faux critiques into actually attempting to critique games then legitimate game criticism (as opposed to reviews) could actually be kicked off.

Oh, don't be such a party-pooper. It's a forum, not the world council debate.

But it informs attitudes, if we think that games are a joke, they will always be a joke.

All well and good, but this thread is still about joking around. If you want to go make a statement in some kind of a serious way where it will have a definite impact on society, might I just say that this would be the last place to put it? I did say, right out, that this thread was for kidding around. You won't find serious debate here. You'll find inductees to the International House of Monocle-Wearing Badasses.

*dramatically puts on monocle*

You sir, are unfit to wear the monocle which you posses. I challenge you to a duel immediately!


*whips out and wields codfish menacingly*

I must warn you. I've played this game before, sir, and I know how to win it.


Halibut you!

Good, then maybe you shall even be a challenge, have at you!

ATOMIC ULTIMATE MEGA TRANSCENDENT FISH SLAP MARK 12!

*bows head in shame, removing monicle and letting it dangle*

I must apologize. For I mistakenly placed a serious comment upon this honorable thread. I have forever shamed myself, and my family.



And my dog.





And whomever happened to consider me a 'friend'.






And Joe the Plumber.

 

[LuckyClover95]

I think Fallout 3 represents what would happen if we had a nuclear war. Oh wait.... it did.
Personally, I think LittleBigPlanet, on a deep level, represents the Holocaust. Somehow.

I could see them making a 'The Day the Clown Cried' adaptation in LBP2.
"Everyone! Follow the nice Clown into the showers!"
oh jeez.
I blame Cracked.com for making me watch that film.

:O
*mouth drops open*
I read that article yesterday! JUST YESTERDAY! Its awesome when people have read the same things that you have! What a fucking creepy film! I'm guessing its not actually any good, but I thought it sounded like it had potential.

 

[FalloutJack]

Good, then maybe you shall even be a challenge, have at you!

ATOMIC ULTIMATE MEGA TRANSCENDENT FISH SLAP MARK 12!

No no, Geneva outlawed those except in the of Code Cthulhu Emergencies under the Eldritch Abomination Defense Act of 1923. Strange that, considering atomic weaponry wasn't developed 'till much later. Ah well.

-Snip!-

Perfectly fine, good chap! I say...I remember that touty top hats were suppose to be at my sister's wedding, yet I did not see one upon anybody's head!

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

Farmville is obviously a comment on the rampant capitalism and materialism in the modern world today, and Zynga's follow up piece is a focus on the development of it during the 1800s, albeit an abstract one. The ironic audacity to include an in-game store and microtransactions is the best statement made in casual games to date and the sheer success of the store stands as testament to the message the game tries to portray.

 

[Rossmallo]

Oh come on, Half the shit that gets wheeled out as ACTUAL art so blatantly isn't.

I was in a Graphics Design course in college a year or two ago, and we got taken to the Tate Modern (an art gallery.)

At one point on the wall was a wall-height canvas with a single red rectangle.

I later discovered to my pure horror and disgust that this had been rented out for £30 Million, which is approx. $50-55 Million.

Not bought. RENTED.

Im sorry, but how can something I could do in ten seconds in MS Paint be deemed fine art, to the point where it gets rented out for flamboyant amounts of money like that!?

Also, Capatcha - "dating). aylverv" . What the balls? These things are getting weirder.

 

[poiuppx]

Yes, I would argue that Uwe Boll and Michael Bay are art.

Bad art does not make it not art.

The Qualifications for art IS the objective part of art. It's the judging of good and bad which is subjective.

i disagree with this. the fact that its in a movie, game, book, etc does not automatically make it art. i feel like it cheapens art to call a michael bay film art, where its mainly just mindless action and flashy explosions. theres no meaning behind it, no expression. its just a stupid summer movie intended to kill time

If I may, I would argue that undersells the ability of the film-maker. Would you, for example, claim Roger Corman was not an artist? With a shoestring budget and an eye for people far more talented then they were being valued at, he was able to make a vast array of films. And while few were anything even coming close to a commercial hit, he avoided the common holes of his era and the genres he plyed his craft to, creating unique pieces at each step.

Now, we may like to look at the works of Michael Bay and claim them to be nothing more than a series of pleasing explosions and fight scenes, but what we are seeing is the culmination of an artist's craft. To choreograph such intricate battles and make them palatable to the senses is, in and of itself, an art. You may not view it as such, and indeed it pales compared to, say, Apocalypse Now or The Seventh Seal, but does this mean it is not art in and of itself? Does that mean there is no vision, no drive? No, I would dare say! For while a landscape of the artist's home town surely pales before works such as Starry Night, we cannot claim it has no artistic merits at all.

Furthermore, let us consider for a moment the very nature of the 'popcorn summer movie' genre. Much like its video game cousin, the first-person shooter set in a modern or post-modern environment, it has certain strictures which it must adhere to in order to properly meet its objectives. Does this mean it is not art? I would argue against that fact as well, for to do so undersells the value the production team brings to the table. We could easily claim both FarCry 2 and, say, Resistance: Fall of Man were in the same field- big budget games, first person style -but the countless intricacies are where the similarities end and the artistic process begins. The elements of confrontation with shades of grey in a war-shattered land, versus the nature of man's desperate struggle against forces greater than themselves. Could one be so callous as to say to these designers who toiled to tell such tales that their works are invalid? Would one have so quickly derrided the works of Shakespeare as being, as some critics of the time did, too pedestrian?

[removes monocle, puts on Real Person hat]

So, yeah, don't be so snobby, dude. Art's all about interpretation, and the effort poured into crafting what goes before you. A crappy dime novel is still art, it's just art that pales compared to the good stuff. The term you're looking for is FINE Art. The high end stuff museums gut each other's grandmas to get, the stuff that almost universally is seen as impressive or stirring or engaging on some level. And there's far less FINE art in the world than regular art.

 

[poiuppx]

Acursed double post. Ah well, had to happen sooner or later...

 

[00slash00]

[
If I may, I would argue that undersells the ability of the film-maker. Would you, for example, claim Roger Corman was not an artist? With a shoestring budget and an eye for people far more talented then they were being valued at, he was able to make a vast array of films. And while few were anything even coming close to a commercial hit, he avoided the common holes of his era and the genres he plyed his craft to, creating unique pieces at each step.

Now, we may like to look at the works of Michael Bay and claim them to be nothing more than a series of pleasing explosions and fight scenes, but what we are seeing is the culmination of an artist's craft. To choreograph such intricate battles and make them palatable to the senses is, in and of itself, an art. You may not view it as such, and indeed it pales compared to, say, Apocalypse Now or The Seventh Seal, but does this mean it is not art in and of itself? Does that mean there is no vision, no drive? No, I would dare say! For while a landscape of the artist's home town surely pales before works such as Starry Night, we cannot claim it has no artistic merits at all.

Furthermore, let us consider for a moment the very nature of the 'popcorn summer movie' genre. Much like its video game cousin, the first-person shooter set in a modern or post-modern environment, it has certain strictures which it must adhere to in order to properly meet its objectives. Does this mean it is not art? I would argue against that fact as well, for to do so undersells the value the production team brings to the table. We could easily claim both FarCry 2 and, say, Resistance: Fall of Man were in the same field- big budget games, first person style -but the countless intricacies are where the similarities end and the artistic process begins. The elements of confrontation with shades of grey in a war-shattered land, versus the nature of man's desperate struggle against forces greater than themselves. Could one be so callous as to say to these designers who toiled to tell such tales that their works are invalid? Would one have so quickly derrided the works of Shakespeare as being, as some critics of the time did, too pedestrian?

[removes monocle, puts on Real Person hat]

So, yeah, don't be so snobby, dude. Art's all about interpretation, and the effort poured into crafting what goes before you. A crappy dime novel is still art, it's just art that pales compared to the good stuff. The term you're looking for is FINE Art. The high end stuff museums gut each other's grandmas to get, the stuff that almost universally is seen as impressive or stirring or engaging on some level. And there's far less FINE art in the world than regular art.

im sorry but making a movie for the purpose of making a point, and making a movie for the purpose of simply making money and nothing more, are two different things. you make it seem like what makes someone an artist is the fact that they own a video camera. ive said it before and i stand by it. to compare Michael Bay to Darren Aronofsky or to compare ico to dynasty warriors, cheapens the art. theres a difference between skill and art. a skilled person can be artistic and an artistic person can be skilled, but just because a someone is skilled, that doesnt necessarily mean they're artistic and just because someone is artistic that doesnt necessarily make them skilled. im a technical director. i work with artists, but i would not call myself an artist. the designer is an artist, they give their designs to me and i draft out construction drawings and give them to my carpenters. that that requires skill but it doesnt make me an artist, it makes me the tool that artists use to put their vision on stage. michael bay is skilled as making stupid summer action movies, but the fact that he makes movies does not automatically make him an artist

 

[poiuppx]

[
If I may, I would argue that undersells the ability of the film-maker. Would you, for example, claim Roger Corman was not an artist? With a shoestring budget and an eye for people far more talented then they were being valued at, he was able to make a vast array of films. And while few were anything even coming close to a commercial hit, he avoided the common holes of his era and the genres he plyed his craft to, creating unique pieces at each step.

Now, we may like to look at the works of Michael Bay and claim them to be nothing more than a series of pleasing explosions and fight scenes, but what we are seeing is the culmination of an artist's craft. To choreograph such intricate battles and make them palatable to the senses is, in and of itself, an art. You may not view it as such, and indeed it pales compared to, say, Apocalypse Now or The Seventh Seal, but does this mean it is not art in and of itself? Does that mean there is no vision, no drive? No, I would dare say! For while a landscape of the artist's home town surely pales before works such as Starry Night, we cannot claim it has no artistic merits at all.

Furthermore, let us consider for a moment the very nature of the 'popcorn summer movie' genre. Much like its video game cousin, the first-person shooter set in a modern or post-modern environment, it has certain strictures which it must adhere to in order to properly meet its objectives. Does this mean it is not art? I would argue against that fact as well, for to do so undersells the value the production team brings to the table. We could easily claim both FarCry 2 and, say, Resistance: Fall of Man were in the same field- big budget games, first person style -but the countless intricacies are where the similarities end and the artistic process begins. The elements of confrontation with shades of grey in a war-shattered land, versus the nature of man's desperate struggle against forces greater than themselves. Could one be so callous as to say to these designers who toiled to tell such tales that their works are invalid? Would one have so quickly derrided the works of Shakespeare as being, as some critics of the time did, too pedestrian?

[removes monocle, puts on Real Person hat]

So, yeah, don't be so snobby, dude. Art's all about interpretation, and the effort poured into crafting what goes before you. A crappy dime novel is still art, it's just art that pales compared to the good stuff. The term you're looking for is FINE Art. The high end stuff museums gut each other's grandmas to get, the stuff that almost universally is seen as impressive or stirring or engaging on some level. And there's far less FINE art in the world than regular art.

im sorry but making a movie for the purpose of making a point, and making a movie for the purpose of simply making money and nothing more, are two different things. you make it seem like what makes someone an artist is the fact that they own a video camera. ive said it before and i stand by it. to compare Michael Bay to Darren Aronofsky or to compare ico to dynasty warriors, cheapens the art. theres a difference between skill and art. a skilled person can be artistic and an artistic person can be skilled, but just because a someone is skilled, that doesnt necessarily mean they're artistic and just because someone is artistic that doesnt necessarily make them skilled. im a technical director. i work with artists, but i would not call myself an artist. the designer is an artist, they give their designs to me and i draft out construction drawings and give them to my carpenters. that that requires skill but it doesnt make me an artist, it makes me the tool that artists use to put their vision on stage. michael bay is skilled as making stupid summer action movies, but the fact that he makes movies does not automatically make him an artist

I'm still left disagreeing with you. Which, ironically, is part of the point. That we can have such wildly subjective views, to me, helps to define art as being a matter of perspective. Furthermore, I'd argue the difference between art and skill is ultimately only in the execution. Skill is what ALLOWS art to be created, and I would argue your work makes you no less worthy of the title than anyone else. Don't undervalue the importance and ability you possess, good sir. Of all people in the world, you at least should see the effort you put into your work and your drawings. It may be someone else's designs, but it's you who makes those designs come to life. You are no less a part of the artistic process than those who made the designs to begin with.

And also, oi! I LIKE Dynasty Warriors, dude! Low freaking blow...

 

[Haukur Isleifsson]

Well not all games are art. Much like the movies. Just because something can be art, doesn't mean that it by necessity, is. While some might argue that the qualifications are subjective, it's important to stay objective. Nobody would argue the Micheal Bay or Uwe Boll compendiums are art. In the same fashion, trying to defend every game with the art banner only serves to stretch the banner thin and weaken credibility.

Not that I wan't to defend Mr. Boll here but have you seen Postal. I would have to say that it's not half as bad as most of the mans work.

 

[Ghengis John]

Well not all games are art. Much like the movies. Just because something can be art, doesn't mean that it by necessity, is. While some might argue that the qualifications are subjective, it's important to stay objective. Nobody would argue the Micheal Bay or Uwe Boll compendiums are art. In the same fashion, trying to defend every game with the art banner only serves to stretch the banner thin and weaken credibility.

Not that I wan't to defend Mr. Boll here but have you seen Postal. I would have to say that it's not half as bad as most of the mans work.

To be honest and fair, no I haven't. I saw Rampage, BloodRayne and In The Name Of The King (Due to their appearing on netflix streaming) and they were all terrible. To the point that at times I felt embarrassed for everyone involved. In the interest of fairness I guesss I'll check this out but understand I'm not optimistic.

 

[Redem]

Turn out that now one game of pong will cost 500 000$

 

[00slash00]

I'm still left disagreeing with you. Which, ironically, is part of the point. That we can have such wildly subjective views, to me, helps to define art as being a matter of perspective. Furthermore, I'd argue the difference between art and skill is ultimately only in the execution. Skill is what ALLOWS art to be created, and I would argue your work makes you no less worthy of the title than anyone else. Don't undervalue the importance and ability you possess, good sir. Of all people in the world, you at least should see the effort you put into your work and your drawings. It may be someone else's designs, but it's you who makes those designs come to life. You are no less a part of the artistic process than those who made the designs to begin with.

And also, oi! I LIKE Dynasty Warriors, dude! Low freaking blow...

hahaha i wasnt saying dynasty warriors is bad (i mean they have like a dozen sequels, so they gotta be doing something right) however, it is a button masher (based of the little of it that ive played, anyway). however, it would appear we are at an impasse. i shall concede to the notion that we have differing ideas as to what constitutes art. i will admit that going to school for a bachelors of fine art may have skewed by view of the subject a bit

 

[The Good Doctor]

Oh come on, Half the shit that gets wheeled out as ACTUAL art so blatantly isn't.

I was in a Graphics Design course in college a year or two ago, and we got taken to the Tate Modern (an art gallery.)

At one point on the wall was a wall-height canvas with a single red rectangle.

I later discovered to my pure horror and disgust that this had been rented out for £30 Million, which is approx. $50-55 Million.

Not bought. RENTED.

Im sorry, but how can something I could do in ten seconds in MS Paint be deemed fine art, to the point where it gets rented out for flamboyant amounts of money like that!?

Also, Capatcha - "dating). aylverv" . What the balls? These things are getting weirder.

You, good sir, have obviously never seen "White Painting" by Robert Rauschenberg.
Now THAT is a true piece of shit. And I'm not even going to bother checking how much it's worth (Well, I might, now that I've finally remembered the damned thing).

 

[poiuppx]

I'm still left disagreeing with you. Which, ironically, is part of the point. That we can have such wildly subjective views, to me, helps to define art as being a matter of perspective. Furthermore, I'd argue the difference between art and skill is ultimately only in the execution. Skill is what ALLOWS art to be created, and I would argue your work makes you no less worthy of the title than anyone else. Don't undervalue the importance and ability you possess, good sir. Of all people in the world, you at least should see the effort you put into your work and your drawings. It may be someone else's designs, but it's you who makes those designs come to life. You are no less a part of the artistic process than those who made the designs to begin with.

And also, oi! I LIKE Dynasty Warriors, dude! Low freaking blow...

hahaha i wasnt saying dynasty warriors is bad (i mean they have like a dozen sequels, so they gotta be doing something right) however, it is a button masher (based of the little of it that ive played, anyway). however, it would appear we are at an impasse. i shall concede to the notion that we have differing ideas as to what constitutes art. i will admit that going to school for a bachelors of fine art may have skewed by view of the subject a bit

Duly noted and totally understood. Here's for wishing every debate on these boards could go so smoothly.

 

[Pyoro]

Games are art within the United States and now the supreme court has made a decision to constitutionally protect games in the same way as other media. Fabulous! Well, time to get to work then. Put on your monocles and follow me. If games are art, then we're the critics.

Now, give me a spoofy sort of artsy critique of a game of your choice, as silly or snobby as you like. You have that power, so let's see something funny.

Not everyone who watches movies is a movie critic...

Oh dear, you're not taking to the whole 'joke' premise, are you?

Rather.

No

I'm just annoyed cause it pokes fun at the idea that games are capable of having artistic merit, and wasn't even funny.


If people put half the effort they put into spewing these faux critiques into actually attempting to critique games then legitimate game criticism (as opposed to reviews) could actually be kicked off.

I agree, I think there should be a healthy balance between being sincere and incincere. I knew this was going to happen though, simple because the OP began this thread as a kind of joke.

So this is my personal, sincere contribution. If you find it funny, I don't care. If you get something from it, I'm glad. This is what I felt, put into words.


Noby Noby Boy
--------------

There is a strong sense of impotence in NNB...And a huge sense of 'lack'. Most games start you off as 'weak' and you progress to a 'strong' state over the course of the journey, but most games do that on more of a pragmatic level. NNB deals with ideas such as growth and consumption on a conceptual level as well. You do consume an elixir in FFXII, but the game is hardly based on consumption - what you're doing in FFXII is flicking the d-pad in the direction of an option, and pressing a button. In NNB, you're gorging on physical objects, in one visible arena.

NNB is very fun and always ridiculous, but you get to know it on a deeper level by using this "gamers' ambition" to push it. You feel you need to be longer or bigger, and to an extent you do. Growth opens up more opportunities, but the game plays with you; undermines your progressive, ambitious streak. It's like the cops in GTA that come after you if you get too cocky. You'll have an idea and people will innocently just sort of jump on you, or unwittingly stall your progress by forming spectator groups or human barriers; it's almost an attack on the idea of linear progression, or of a world where everything can be logically and cleanly achieved, or won. Of course..This is NNB; it's more of a playful disruption, than an attack.
BOY is a symbol of love, a kind of 'glue' that connects disperate objects. I'm using the term 'love' as in harmony, or 'togetherness', not so much the sentimental meaning of the word. BOY just wants things inside him; he wants to eat, to feel connected to the world. The world is nihilistic though, and morally blank...It is totally up to interpretation.

love makes things mushy.. it congeals and brings together. NNB is about a playfully disruptive, creative love.

I think it's pretty important that in an age of trophies and achievements, one game has the guts to actually be about playing, and not about collecting, or aquiring. NNB is nonsensical, but far from pointless. it is somewhat nihilistic, but doesn't completely abandon the players' desire to progress or succeed.



Metroid Prime 2
----------------

Retro Studios nailed the isolation. They got that down and hammered it down our throats. This isolation is different though. This really is lonely, desperate and cold. Metroid always had a quiet solitude, but it was never completely aesthetically devoted to isolation. But it's not a bad thing. You begin to see that the game was made by fans of the originals (And fans of zelda), and it's an interpretation.
There are some amazing moments...Such as an underwater spherical chamber, linked by a ring that fires samus like a cannon ball around the chamber, or dying and flooded forest-turned bog, now relying on heavy machines to keep it on life support, or an amazing moment in sanctuary fortress where you use the screw attack to wall jump, and penetrate a vertical glass structure; the insides glowing red with pain and anger, but largely irelevent in the midst of a dying and dark world.

If super Metroid was a restraining order on Samus Aran, echoes is like a straight jacket, tying her up until she's completely numb and subdued.


Birds & Beans
-----------------

Pyoro (Or Birds & Beans) tells the story of a creator of a small rectangular world that hovers in space. It's a story about nature's triumph over so-called civilization, or to put it simply, fate. Nature just sits there as the player rushes back and forth trying in vain to improve.

In this little world, you enter the character of Pyoro; a small bird who has a very long tongue and is scripted with a huge appitite for fruit.

The only thing that really happens on this planet is fruit falling from the sky. But this is no ordinary fruit! This is some kind of acidic variety of alien food that upon hitting solid ground, dissolves it into oblivion.
Thankfully Pyoro the bird has a robust stomach that can digest these strange fruits.

The creator appears to be kind of bored of her creation and sets about nonchalantly tossing deadly fruits from the sky as she plays with its inevitable doom.

Enter you, into Pyoro! You play the role of the maintainer of the rectangle planet. your part in the script is to sustain the integrity of the earth by consuming the fruit.

You can never win in this story. You're just surviving and maintaining. But the more you hold off inevitable destruction, the more the world is populated with things, and the world evolves and changes. It's as if the creator is entertained by your optimism and energy.



Super Metroid
-------------

It is difficult to describe, but the way Zebes is constructed is similar to the way I think and the way I feel. I think in a direction in my mind, and I push forward in my thoughts, but at times I think in lots of directions at once. Metroid seems to tap into this and by clearly constructing horizontal and vertical corridors to run and jump in, my mind is at home in this alternate world.

I simulate the process my mind goes through when solving a problem or reacting to something. There is great rhythm to Zebes's X&Y labyrinth, just like there is a tangible rhythm that I found in the streets of New York.

The relationships in SM continue to become more complex though when you think of Samus's relation to her world. Samus grows and awakens as her world does. As she becomes more powerful, the world becomes more hostile. The deeper you explore the more things are hidden from you, until the world clamps up and becomes almost impenetrable.

You must unravel the secrets. It's all about hide and seek. Not only are the items hidden, but the world too. Exploring and finding secrets is fun and exciting. Every door you open in metroid is a present; tearing off the paper to get what's inside.



~

Sometimes I think about these things, sometimes I just focus on playing. But it's usually when I come away from the game that I tend to sum things up like this, intellectually.

BTW: These are sections taken from my reviews.