Something Else Entirely

[Manji187]

I don't need to tell you that videogames are an evolving medium. That the interactivity aspect allows for interesting gameplay as narrative (or at least gameplay supportive of narrative). Portal did it well and apparently Journey does it well.

It makes me wonder. Why, in the face of such glimpses of potential, are we still so obsessed with "shooting up/ slashing up the Big Bad"? Habituation?

The thing is, IMO, "physical" destruction of all manner of virtual obstacles as a measure of gameplay and story progression has become an obstacle for the imagination. But it works, it sells, why bother...right?

We should bother because nothing truly fundamental has changed since Halo CE and Devil May Cry were released in 2001. The industry has been in a continuous state of imitation and very gradual polishing (incremental change) for over 10 years. There have been exceptions, of course, but the general trend is undeniable.

This isn't a pacifist rant. That all violence is inherently bad or something like that. This is a rant about how the industry predominantly fails to bring something truly new by remaining firmly lodged in its comfort zone.

Maybe you don't care. Maybe you just sit around waiting to be entertained. Maybe you are easily entertained. It doesn't really matter. What matters is that our beloved medium has been and still is growing increasingly stagnant. Its future is anything but secure. Graphical updates every 6 years or so won't cut it if what we get to play is essentially a prettier version of the old "Kill em cuz they're evil" story and accompanying destructo-gameplay.

People grow up, their standards rise, and their time and money is limited. Also, if games are art (as some claim) and not merely a (man)child's waste of time, where is the industry's response that reflects this? Where is writing that could rival the best in literature and film? Mass Effect? If that's the best we've got we're in deep trouble.

If gaming as a medium is truly worthy to take the place next to literature and film or even surpass them someday, it needs to do A LOT BETTER. It needs to step up. It needs to step out of its comfortable bubble of headshots, dismemberment, gore, splosions, soldiers, zombies, aliens, terrorists, ninjas and so on. It doesn't have to completely leave them behind though. It should just refrain from focussing on them like a bull does on red cloth.

TLDR; Don't be lazy and just read the damn thing.

EDIT: For discussion value; share your vision on the next 10 years of videogaming.

EDIT 2: I have found an answer that rings true to me.


It's more towards the end. Around the 9 min mark and onwards. But you should watch the whole video, it's great.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Violence is just an easily-modelled source of dynamic challenge. There are games about base-jumping, city building, making it to Oregon, building structures out of living creatures, and medieval inheritance laws. The violent type just tends to dominate the segment of the market directed at young people, because we tend to enjoy that sort of thing.

 

[Verzin]

depressing slide into MMO after MMO. each of them set in the universe of any single player game that had any kind of a following at all. each one basically the same thing with different art.

 

[Lunar Templar]

simple

there isn't enough money to be made in 'art games', also, its easier to copy/paste an idea then come up with your own, more so if the idea in question makes a bewildering amount of money (yes I'm talking about CoD)

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Because as good as games like Journey are (seriously, stop reading this and go play that game, fucking do it).

I wouldn't want every game to be like that. Sometimes I just want to go Son of Sparda tier on some bad guys with cheesy dialogue and a predictable story.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Film still isn't on literature's level. I don't know how someone could think, even optimistically, that video games could be.

Then again, I find the whole argument about video games being art to be stupendously idiotic.

You don't think games can be art?

Do share, because that statement on it's own comes across as utterely pretentious.

 

[Lucem712]

Violence (in any form) is easier to emulate in a video-game/interactive structure. Sure, you have games like 'Heavy Rain' and 'Mirror's Edge' but they needed fight scenes to spice it up and keep the player interested.

I don't think there's too much stagnation, it's just that we see the past through rose-coloured glasses and often forget those hundreds of Mario clones and poorly made games just to eat into some of the profits of a popular game. Someday, we'll look back and think of the great games of yester-year and say, 'man, everything is so clone-y now. What happened to creativity?'

If anything, the future is very bright. Due to the internet, Kickstarter and small(er) Indie game developers finally being able to compete with the big boys.

 

[Lucem712]

Film still isn't on literature's level. I don't know how someone could think, even optimistically, that video games could be.

Then again, I find the whole argument about video games being art to be stupendously idiotic.

Violence (in any form) is easier to emulate in a video-game/interactive structure. Sure, you have games like 'Heavy Rain' and 'Mirror's Edge' but they needed fight scenes to spice it up and keep the player interested.

I don't think there's too much stagnation, it's just that we see the past through rose-coloured glasses and often forget those hundreds of Mario clones and poorly made games just to eat into some of the profits of a popular game. Someday, we'll look back and think of the great games of yester-year and say, 'man, everything is so clone-y now. What happened to creativity?'

If anything, the future is very bright. Due to the internet, Kickstarter and small(er) Indie game developers finally being able to compete with the big boys.

Edit:

Film still isn't on literature's level. I don't know how someone could think, even optimistically, that video games could be.

Then again, I find the whole argument about video games being art to be stupendously idiotic.

How can something that incorporates so many facets of art, not be art? Literature, cinematography, and drawing (digital or otherwise) are all in video games.

 

[ZeroMachine]

Because as good as games like Journey are (seriously, stop reading this and go play that game, fucking do it).

I wouldn't want every game to be like that. Sometimes I just want to go Son of Sparda tier on some bad guys with cheesy dialogue and a predictable story.

That game may be the last push for me to finally get a PS3. I've wanted one for a while but I want that game like a crack addict wants to quit crack, fix his life up, and reconcile with his family.

... I feel like I may have gotten that saying wrong. Ah well, anyway, Daystar is right. I want more games where we don't have to fight, I really do, but sometimes I just want to pop in Darksiders or Halo or a Dragonball Z game and fuck shit up.

EDIT:

Film still isn't on literature's level. I don't know how someone could think, even optimistically, that video games could be.

Then again, I find the whole argument about video games being art to be stupendously idiotic.

You don't think games can be art?

Do share, because that statement on it's own comes across as utterely pretentious.

Holy crap, that was quick.

They are games. I put them alongside the likes of Candyland or Pong. Their sophistication makes them no more artistic, in my mind. Do you consider tennis art?

Ignorance is bliss, isn't it?

Oh, wait. Life would suck way MORE if video games couldn't make me feel the same way a book, movie, or show does.

Ignorance sucks.

Dude, if you really put something like the aforementioned Journey, or the Mass Effects, or Dragon Age, or Alan Wake, or ANYTHING like that on the level of Candyland or Pong, well... That's just fucked up. I can't think of any other way to put it. It's fucked up.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Film still isn't on literature's level. I don't know how someone could think, even optimistically, that video games could be.

Then again, I find the whole argument about video games being art to be stupendously idiotic.

You don't think games can be art?

Do share, because that statement on it's own comes across as utterely pretentious.

Holy crap, that was quick.

They are games. I put them alongside the likes of Candyland or Pong. Their sophistication makes them no more artistic, in my mind. Do you consider tennis art?

I didn't say all games were art.

There's a big difference between something like Journey and the latest FIFA title.

What is art? Something that invokes an emotional response? Something that makes you look inside yourself and makes you a better person for it (or even a worse person)?

Because games have done that to me, the same way music, film and literature have.

 

[Lucem712]

Edit:

Film still isn't on literature's level. I don't know how someone could think, even optimistically, that video games could be.

Then again, I find the whole argument about video games being art to be stupendously idiotic.

How can something that incorporates so many facets of art, not be art? Literature, cinematography, and drawing (digital or otherwise) are all in video games.

I never understood how that argument stands. If I took apart a car, and put the pieces together so that it would no longer run, but all the pieces were present, would it still be a car? I realize there's a divide between taking things that only function as a whole and reconstructing them so they no longer function, and taking individual things that work on their own, and combining them together into one project, but I still don't understand how simply having aspects of something makes it the thing.

I think it'd be more similar to saying a car is a vehicle, but since a moto-cycle has some similar features but is a different machine all together, it is not a vehicle.

Video games do not hamper either of those to where they do not work. A video game can make you feel, it can inspire and ignite.

 

[ZeroMachine]

Because as good as games like Journey are (seriously, stop reading this and go play that game, fucking do it).

I wouldn't want every game to be like that. Sometimes I just want to go Son of Sparda tier on some bad guys with cheesy dialogue and a predictable story.

That game may be the last push for me to finally get a PS3. I've wanted one for a while but I want that game like a crack addict wants to quit crack, fix his life up, and reconcile with his family.

... I feel like I may have gotten that saying wrong. Ah well, anyway, Daystar is right. I want more games where we don't have to fight, I really do, but sometimes I just want to pop in Darksiders or Halo or a Dragonball Z game and fuck shit up.

EDIT:

Film still isn't on literature's level. I don't know how someone could think, even optimistically, that video games could be.

Then again, I find the whole argument about video games being art to be stupendously idiotic.

You don't think games can be art?

Do share, because that statement on it's own comes across as utterely pretentious.

Holy crap, that was quick.

They are games. I put them alongside the likes of Candyland or Pong. Their sophistication makes them no more artistic, in my mind. Do you consider tennis art?

Ignorance is bliss, isn't it?

Oh, wait. Life would suck way MORE if video games couldn't make me feel the same way a book, movie, or show does.

Ignorance sucks.

Dude, if you really put something like the aforementioned Journey, or the Mass Effects, or Dragon Age, or Alan Wake, or ANYTHING like that on the level of Candyland or Pong, well... That's just fucked up. I can't think of any other way to put it. It's fucked up.

Congratulations, you're going through the first stages of the disequilibrium that results from realizing people have different opinions about things.

For the record, I find Dragon Age and Mass Effect, and games like them, to be landmarks in video games storytelling. Doesn't make them art.

I wasn't talking about whether or not you count them as art, and that pretentious comment about "herpderpopinon" was unnecessary. But the simple concept that anyone could put Pong or Candyland on the same level as some of the games that come out nowadays (which you said you did) is an insult to the games, the creators, and the people who love the stories and characters.

I summed that up by saying it was "fucked up".

If you don't see it as art, fine. I honestly don't care. Your loss, in my opinion. But that particular "opinion" of yours is wrong.

Wrong opinions exist.

 

[Fleetfiend]

Because as good as games like Journey are (seriously, stop reading this and go play that game, fucking do it).

I wouldn't want every game to be like that. Sometimes I just want to go Son of Sparda tier on some bad guys with cheesy dialogue and a predictable story.

Pretty much this. If a majority of games were as beautifully crafted as games like Journey (is about to go play it and stop commenting off of speculation), then we would be seeing rants like "wouldn't it be great if all we had to do was kill stuff?". If all games were that good, that kind of goodness wouldn't be anything special.

 

[wintercoat]

Video games are, in essence, "travel from point 'A' to point 'B'". Realistically, there are rather few ways to fill in the "travel" aspect of games. "Violence" is just an easy way to fill that gap that keeps the player interested because it takes a lot less effort than creating multiple pathways, or to add in complex puzzles that don't grow stale quickly. The worst part is that, since it's harder to pull of well, non-violent games are not only few and far between, but there's even less good ones.

People need to take more from Deus Ex.

You had the ability to kick major ass but never ever had to use it.

Indeed. There is something oddly cathartic about sneaking around a veritable army, and then telling the boss fuck you by ignoring him, running through a door, and locking it behind you.

 

[ZeroMachine]

Because as good as games like Journey are (seriously, stop reading this and go play that game, fucking do it).

I wouldn't want every game to be like that. Sometimes I just want to go Son of Sparda tier on some bad guys with cheesy dialogue and a predictable story.

That game may be the last push for me to finally get a PS3. I've wanted one for a while but I want that game like a crack addict wants to quit crack, fix his life up, and reconcile with his family.

... I feel like I may have gotten that saying wrong. Ah well, anyway, Daystar is right. I want more games where we don't have to fight, I really do, but sometimes I just want to pop in Darksiders or Halo or a Dragonball Z game and fuck shit up.

EDIT:

Film still isn't on literature's level. I don't know how someone could think, even optimistically, that video games could be.

Then again, I find the whole argument about video games being art to be stupendously idiotic.

You don't think games can be art?

Do share, because that statement on it's own comes across as utterely pretentious.

Holy crap, that was quick.

They are games. I put them alongside the likes of Candyland or Pong. Their sophistication makes them no more artistic, in my mind. Do you consider tennis art?

Ignorance is bliss, isn't it?

Oh, wait. Life would suck way MORE if video games couldn't make me feel the same way a book, movie, or show does.

Ignorance sucks.

Dude, if you really put something like the aforementioned Journey, or the Mass Effects, or Dragon Age, or Alan Wake, or ANYTHING like that on the level of Candyland or Pong, well... That's just fucked up. I can't think of any other way to put it. It's fucked up.

Congratulations, you're going through the first stages of the disequilibrium that results from realizing people have different opinions about things.

For the record, I find Dragon Age and Mass Effect, and games like them, to be landmarks in video games storytelling. Doesn't make them art.

I wasn't talking about whether or not you count them as art, and that pretentious comment about "herpderpopinon" was unnecessary. But the simple concept that anyone could put Pong or Candyland on the same level as some of the games that come out nowadays (which you said you did) is an insult to the games, the creators, and the people who love the stories and characters.

I summed that up by saying it was "fucked up".

If you don't see it as art, fine. I honestly don't care. Your loss, in my opinion. But that particular "opinion" of yours is wrong.

Wrong opinions exist.

Only when based on facts.

And the truth of the matter is that, when it comes to art, almost nothing is based on fact.

So... you just didn't read my post, did you?

Or, you just implied that those games are art. You see, my problem with what you said was not whether or not you found them to be art, but how you could someone hold them on the same level as Pong or Candyland. They are very definitely NOT on the same level. That is not a matter of opinion. The only similarities are that they are both interactive games. That alone does not put them on the same level.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Film still isn't on literature's level. I don't know how someone could think, even optimistically, that video games could be.

Then again, I find the whole argument about video games being art to be stupendously idiotic.

You don't think games can be art?

Do share, because that statement on it's own comes across as utterely pretentious.

Holy crap, that was quick.

They are games. I put them alongside the likes of Candyland or Pong. Their sophistication makes them no more artistic, in my mind. Do you consider tennis art?

I didn't say all games were art.

There's a big difference between something like Journey and the latest FIFA title.

What is art? Something invokes an emotional response? Something that makes you look inside yourself and makes you a better person for it (or even a worse person)?

Because games have done that to me, the same way music, film and literature have.

And I didn't mean to imply that all books or movies were art.

I find it interesting, though, that the very first films are considered artistic, but one couldn't really say the same thing about Centipede or Pong.

To me, it's the medium itself that prevents the label of "art" being applied. Video games are, first and foremost, games used for entertainment. As the medium evolves, we see artistic elements like metaphor, characterization and the like developing.

However, I see these as individual elements taken from other mediums, and don't consider them to contribute to video games having the "art" status.

If this [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/116426-Artist-Uses-Urine-to-Draw-Iron-Man] can be considered art, than I'm pretty sure anything can.

That may be hyperbole on my part, but as you've said, artistic merit is entirely based on opinion.

But, then again, framing your opinion is such a manner

I find the whole argument about video games being art to be stupendously idiotic.

Isn't particularly the best way to get your ideas across.

 

[Kahunaburger]

They are games. I put them alongside the likes of Candyland or Pong. Their sophistication makes them no more artistic, in my mind. Do you consider tennis art?

No, but I consider a tennis racket or a tennis court art. That's because they're things that can be viewed from an aesthetic perspective. "Art" is an incredibly broad category.

 

[Kahunaburger]

OT: I think people are underestimating the percentage of games that are non-violent. Many popular casual games (Minesweeper, Bejeweled, Solitaire, Farmville, Wii Sports, etc.) are non-violent, and they account for a huge chunk of the games people play. This indicates to me that there is both A) a market for non-violent games, and B) simple mechanics that non-violent games can be built on.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Video games have no unique method of artistic expression; all they do is takes from mediums that do.

Saying "a medium in its current form is derivative" doesn't actually demonstrate that that medium can't be used to create art. TV series are derivative of film, film is derivative of theater, and both theater and literature are derivative of storytelling. This does not erase the fact that TV shows are a medium that can be used for artistic expression.

 

[ZeroMachine]

Because as good as games like Journey are (seriously, stop reading this and go play that game, fucking do it).

I wouldn't want every game to be like that. Sometimes I just want to go Son of Sparda tier on some bad guys with cheesy dialogue and a predictable story.

That game may be the last push for me to finally get a PS3. I've wanted one for a while but I want that game like a crack addict wants to quit crack, fix his life up, and reconcile with his family.

... I feel like I may have gotten that saying wrong. Ah well, anyway, Daystar is right. I want more games where we don't have to fight, I really do, but sometimes I just want to pop in Darksiders or Halo or a Dragonball Z game and fuck shit up.

EDIT:

Film still isn't on literature's level. I don't know how someone could think, even optimistically, that video games could be.

Then again, I find the whole argument about video games being art to be stupendously idiotic.

You don't think games can be art?

Do share, because that statement on it's own comes across as utterely pretentious.

Holy crap, that was quick.

They are games. I put them alongside the likes of Candyland or Pong. Their sophistication makes them no more artistic, in my mind. Do you consider tennis art?

Ignorance is bliss, isn't it?

Oh, wait. Life would suck way MORE if video games couldn't make me feel the same way a book, movie, or show does.

Ignorance sucks.

Dude, if you really put something like the aforementioned Journey, or the Mass Effects, or Dragon Age, or Alan Wake, or ANYTHING like that on the level of Candyland or Pong, well... That's just fucked up. I can't think of any other way to put it. It's fucked up.

Congratulations, you're going through the first stages of the disequilibrium that results from realizing people have different opinions about things.

For the record, I find Dragon Age and Mass Effect, and games like them, to be landmarks in video games storytelling. Doesn't make them art.

I wasn't talking about whether or not you count them as art, and that pretentious comment about "herpderpopinon" was unnecessary. But the simple concept that anyone could put Pong or Candyland on the same level as some of the games that come out nowadays (which you said you did) is an insult to the games, the creators, and the people who love the stories and characters.

I summed that up by saying it was "fucked up".

If you don't see it as art, fine. I honestly don't care. Your loss, in my opinion. But that particular "opinion" of yours is wrong.

Wrong opinions exist.

Only when based on facts.

And the truth of the matter is that, when it comes to art, almost nothing is based on fact.

So... you just didn't read my post, did you?

Or, you just implied that those games are art. You see, my problem with what you said was not whether or not you found them to be art, but how you could someone hold them on the same level as Pong or Candyland. They are very definitely NOT on the same level. That is not a matter of opinion. The only similarities are that they are both interactive games. That alone does not put them on the same level.

I wasn't particularly clear on why I equate them to Candyland, etc.,

It is the medium itself, the fact that it is a game, that limits the artistic credibility. Look at music, literature, and film. All 3 have similarities in their attempt o be artistic, but each has fundamental differences unique to the medium. Music must do something completely unique to itself to be artistic, as must literature and film.

What about video games? All I see are amalgamations of musical, literary, and film(ic?) tropes, put together to enhance what is fundamentally a fun game. Video games have no unique method of artistic expression; all they do is takes from mediums that do. That is why, in my mind, Candyland is fundamentally the same as Mass Effect. Strip away all the things video games take from other medium, and leave it with what it invented for itself, and you're just rolling dice.

Ok, now that I further understand your point, I'll apologize for being so blunt and such.

Maybe you should just be a little more clear next time.

BUT, for one last point, people would (and do) argue that the unique aspect is the player's input.

It has all the other things that music, shows, movies, literature, etc. have, but you also have other people being a PART of the world, interacting with it, sometimes changing it.

And if you strip video games down to their base self, it isn't fair not to do the same to the other mediums.

Painting/drawing etc is just lines on paper or something.

Literature is just written language. Letters, sprawled out in a particular order.

Films are moving pictures.

Music is was originally made for communication.

Take anything down to their building blocks and you take the fantasy, the art, the unique aspects of each individual piece away.

Look at it as a whole, and painted/drawn art is a different view into our world or another world or a representation of the human condition in a visual form. Books are escapes to other lives that draw a picture with the reader's imagination. Films are ways for us to see stories unfold in front of our eyes, even without anything actually being there other than a screen. Music is a beautiful example of emotion given rhythm and harmony and melody, with or without words.

Videogames are other worlds that we step into, that we become a part of, that we see from either an avatar that already existed in the world, or one we create ourselves. We either follow the path, helping the avatar save his world in one way or another, or we etch out our own path, and shape that universe in whatever ways we can.

You want the unique aspect of games?

It's us. The players.