Something Else Entirely

[Blade_125]

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'm not sure if this was resolved later, but I wanted to chime in on your issue of pong or candyland as the same thing as a current game. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too. Art is a very subjective thing, but the issue here is the medium.

Music, film, tv, painting. All can be considered art, and we have to consider the medium as art. Otherwise you are cherry picking and the concept becomes subjective. I don't think that most of the "reality" tv I see is art, but there have been some fantastic shows that I would consider to be art. You may not agree with my views on which shows should be considered art. Where is the line drawn? Do we consider that the medium is art and that the skill or value of the art is subjective (ie good art or poor art).

If you agree with that line of thought then you have to consider all forms of the medium as art, just to varing degrees of "good". Pong would have to fall into that category (but I guess we could leave the board game version of candyland out).

In the end I have always felt that art is subjective and shouldn't really be applied to the gaming world. Same with tv, music, movies. The reason being that these are forms of business. Views are subjective on all of these, and we all pay money because we like whatever is being shown. So the "artist" can do what they will, but they are in it for the money. So they need to appeal to popular opinion in order to sell their art and make money. All the arguments over what is art and what is not amounts to a whole lot of nothing, since at the end of the day what gets made is what people like. People continue to by the repetative non interesting shooters that are the same thing voer and over with a graphics face lift, but that is what sells so that is what is made.

That sort of tied back into the OP's question. If you want new and intersting titles then all of us need to spend the money on them and not on COD 25. It's all simple economics.

 

[ZeroMachine]

*le snip*

It did get resolved, but for the record, whenever someone brings me a cake and says it's mine, I eat that ************.

I've never, ever understood that saying.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Video games aren't just derivative; they are almost completely without originality in terms of artistic expression. They use the things that films, music, and literature use to convey meaning, the things that make them art, without inventing anything for themselves.

And literature uses the things that epic poetry and storytelling (in this context, people verbally telling stories) use to convey meaning, film uses the things theater uses to convey meaning, photography uses the things painting uses to convey meaning, and so on. All art is derivative. This doesn't make it stop being art.

 

[poodlenoodles]

a lot of art is totally bullshit, not being associated with it is often a good thing. besides, no one has to rely on what someone else's definition of art is, because if it seems important/special to you, then it should be art to you.

 

[gigastar]

Titanic post in 3... 2... 1...

Well i see a number of paths that gaming can take all at once without directly competing with eachother.

"Games as they are" is the most obvious one. But obviously some people arent fine with the yearly editions of Brown Generic Military Shooter being dominant or we wouldnt be having this discussion would we?

"Social Gaming" is the most prominent alternate path at the moment i think. 'Games that are less about the game itself more about meeting people through that game' is my definition. I hope it fails horribly.

"Games as Art" is the controversial one at the moment. 'Games that have a greater reliance on thier visuals to project an experience than normal games do' would be my ideal definition, because i dont believe that something where you pay money only to hold down the W key while your character walks slowly through a cave while the game talks at you can be called a game.

Yes im referring to Dear Esther. It looks great, but if it fails to hook you on narrative its like eating 5 gallons of gruel in one sitting. Youll take a long time to finish and by the time you do youll wonder why you thought it was a good idea in the first place.

"Games turned Multimedia" is a realatively new concept. 'Something that requires interaction as a game does, but is mainly comprised of cinematic sequences' is how i would define this right now. Im trying to come up with a better definition that doesnt make me recall Metal Gear Solid 4.

The only real example i can point to is Asura's Wrath, and im not even sure at this point whether Cyber Connect 2 actually aimed for this or not.

"Games as a learning tool" is an old concept, but one thats been rejected by gamers, teachers and developers with varying disgust. 'Games that provide the interactive experience of a game yet also feed the player with real-world teachings' is my defnition. I know of no examples to point at and just say 'Like that'.

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?

Careful what you reply to him, hes been championing Journey a fair bit recently and hes certainly among those who believe that games can be art without compromise on either of thier definitions.

Also if you had some kind of program that could biuld images out of the motion trails it detects in a tennis match, you could have tennis art with that.

Or you could just make a tennis game and fill it with needless pretty explosions. Its still more innovative than regular sports games at the least.

On a side note, films will never reach literatures level while theyre still compromising. Books dont need a special effects budget, unfortunately films do and thats whats keeping them chained to plots set mostly in the real world.

Basically, production of a novel runs on its writers imagination and parameters, time is only really an issue if you signed a contract with a publisher, otherwise those are limitless. On the other hand, film production runs on time and money, and those are finite.

 

[Blade_125]

*le snip*

It did get resolved, but for the record, whenever someone brings me a cake and says it's mine, I eat that ************.

I've never, ever understood that saying.

Ha. I never understood it either. What else do you do with cake.

 

[ZeroMachine]

*le snip*

It did get resolved, but for the record, whenever someone brings me a cake and says it's mine, I eat that ************.

I've never, ever understood that saying.

Ha. I never understood it either. What else do you do with cake.

You're on the internet.

Go Google it and then NEVER SPEAK OF THE RESULTS.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Video games aren't just derivative; they are almost completely without originality in terms of artistic expression. They use the things that films, music, and literature use to convey meaning, the things that make them art, without inventing anything for themselves.

And literature uses the things that epic poetry and storytelling (in this context, people verbally telling stories) use to convey meaning, film uses the things theater uses to convey meaning, photography uses the things painting uses to convey meaning, and so on. All art is derivative. This doesn't make it stop being art.

Epic poetry IS literature.

O.O

You do realize that epic poetry is an medium that predates literature, right? Right?

I don't think we're going to agree on this thing anytime soon...

And I think I may have found out why.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Careful what you reply to him, hes been championing Journey a fair bit recently and hes certainly among those who believe that games can be art without compromise on either of thier definitions.

When did I ever give the indication that games are art without compromise?

I'd be the first to admit that video games still have a long way to go in order to be formerly recognised as an art form, but hey, there's still time. Our medium is still very young.

But every so often, a game does come along that convinces me that we'll get there *cough*Journey*cough. You have to spread a lot of shit to grow roses.

I know I've been talking a lot about that game, and I apologise if it's getting on people's nerves, it's just that I want everyone to try it, to feel the way it made me feel.

It's a labour of love.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Video games aren't just derivative; they are almost completely without originality in terms of artistic expression. They use the things that films, music, and literature use to convey meaning, the things that make them art, without inventing anything for themselves.

And literature uses the things that epic poetry and storytelling (in this context, people verbally telling stories) use to convey meaning, film uses the things theater uses to convey meaning, photography uses the things painting uses to convey meaning, and so on. All art is derivative. This doesn't make it stop being art.

Epic poetry IS literature.

O.O

You do realize that epic poetry is an medium that predates literature, right? Right?

I don't think we're going to agree on this thing anytime soon...

And I think I may have found out why.

If you mean books, strictly, than yes.

But that is not my understanding of literature

Whoops, my bad. Saw that you meant verbal, specifically. But surely you aren't arguing that writing is exactly the same as verbal speech?

I'm arguing that written works are derivative of spoken works.

But this is a derail of a derail. You seem to have a definition of art that differs from the definition normal people use. Whether or not you think that video games don't fit the definition of art that you made up doesn't make them stop being art.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

*le snip*

It did get resolved, but for the record, whenever someone brings me a cake and says it's mine, I eat that ************.

I've never, ever understood that saying.

Ha. I never understood it either. What else do you do with cake.

Once you eat the cake, you no longer have it....

Unless...

[HEADING=1]To the time machine![/HEADING]

Then we call all have tasty tasty cake that's already been eaten while the Omniverse collapses in on itself from the temporal paradox.

 

[ZeroMachine]

*le snip*

It did get resolved, but for the record, whenever someone brings me a cake and says it's mine, I eat that ************.

I've never, ever understood that saying.

Ha. I never understood it either. What else do you do with cake.

Once you eat the cake, you no longer have it....

Unless...

[HEADING=1]To the time machine![/HEADING]

Then we call all have tasty tasty cake that's already been eaten while the Omniverse collapses in on itself from the temporal paradox.

Spoiler: I'm not a Doctor Who fan, but I feel that this is totally necessary

 

[Vigormortis]

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?

That's a bit misleading, don't you think? At this point, video games have grown and expanded enough that calling them "video games" is almost a misnomer. Many of them have become interactive story telling devices. Something akin to a film you yourself are acting in or a novel you are actually living.

Video games are no more or less "artistic" than film, music, or literature. They are forms of entertainment, expression, and story telling. (not all, of course. but then do you consider all films and novels to be works of art?) If you can sit there and proclaim literature and film are "art"; because of what goes into making them; then it's highly disingenuous to proclaim video games can't be art, considering much of what goes into game creation is the same as with film, music, and literature.

I'll grant, it's still a very young art form. As such, we've had only a few handfuls of what one might consider to be a "masterpiece", but the potential within the medium is vastly greater than that of other art forms. Namely because it takes all other art forms, combines them, and adds viewer interaction.

My point is, simply dismissing video games as an art form because it has the word "games" in it's name is unfair and illogical.

[edit]

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.

That, again, is unfair. You say, "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."

Well, okay. Let's continue this logic shall we?

Let's say we take away everything in film that was created by other art forms. That would include sound tracks, sound effects, scripts, prose, and just about anything narrative related.

What are we left with? A relatively silent film about people sitting around, doing day-to-day things while ad-libbing dialog. I don't know about you, but that sounds incredibly boring and very non-artistic. Seems to me, then, that we really only have one or two "true" art forms, by your definition.

Or maybe..just maybe..the art forms we know are ALL amalgamations of other forms of expression. That maybe art is working within the means and mediums present to create something new, engaging, and unique in it's own right.

 

[Kahunaburger]

ANYTHING can be art. If I take a crap on a Twilight Book and then take it to a Gallery and explain that I wish to convey my feelings about mainstream literature (or something equally stupid) I guarentee that someone will legitmately see something more then a book that I shit on.

In a nutshell. A Twilight book is a creative work, as is a Twilight book with a turd on it. Therefore both are art. Nobody says art has to be deep or particularly meanignful.

Incidentally, I think that the fact that (for whatever reason) some gamers have not yet caught up with the notion that creative works are inherently art is what gives us things like Dear Esther and The Path. Those strike me as someone who sees art as pretentious and boring designing a pretentious and boring game because he or she thinks that's the only way the game can be legitimate art. (Okay, maybe that's a little unfair.)

 

[josemlopes]

I had an idead to make a somewhat "social" game, everything would be seen from an FPS point of view (kind of like Half Life 2), and would be about some guy and a phase of his life (either college, work, or something else), his goals would be to the best outcome of that phase possible (you couldnt have a game over, you could end the game with the worst possible situation though like ending alone with no future and a shit load of people mad at you) and the gameplay would consist of a mix of Mass Effect dialog system with an in-depth control over the environment (you would have a lot of freedom to do whatever you wanted like interact with most objects and shit), no QTE though, that ruins everything.

Catherine ruined everything when most of the gameplay is a puzzle game.

I dont know, it could be cool and diferent, but I agree with you, games need to overcome this mentality.

Oh, and what about licensed music? The only game that used it to improve the game was Alan Wake, the rest only uses original soundtrack and while I know that most game do work better with original soundtrack sometimes a song that hits more closer to home can have a very good effect (like Alan Wake did).

Skip to 0:50 (this song isnt exactly a good example of licensed music but you get it)


Another good use

 

[HardkorSB]

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?

Because most people use games as a form of entertainment and relaxation. Shooting up/slashing up the Big Bad, no matter how mindless, can be very entertaining.

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?

Well, yes.
It works and people like it. People want what they like. Companies make things that people want.
Quite easy, actually.
People also like artsy things so sometimes they get their Shadow of the Colossus or something but the number of such people is relatively low so they don't get those things as often as larger groups.

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.

How about that Shadow of the Colossus thing I've mentioned.
And that's a big budget example. There is a lot of indie games that are waaaaaaaaaay different than anything else. You just have to look for them because they don't have marketing campaigns with ads on every gaming website. Just like you have to dig through tons of movies to find the rare good stuff. The same with books, music, paintings, any form of art.

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.

You know, I could agree with you BUT I hear the same shit about movies, books, music, everything.
"OH, it's sooo bad. Why can't everything be deep and meaningful and poetic and blah blah blah."
Here's a secret:
Humans are simple and primitive creatures. Despite their occasional breakthroughs, we're still savages. Simple creatures require simple pleasures.
We like to get deep from time to time but most of the time, we're just looking for a distraction from the boredom of our existence. That's why we have all the various forms of entertainment, most of which are quite simple.
That's why Wii was such a huge success. They made simple and entertaining games and people bought them to get simple entertainment.

Another thing:
It's hard to create something really simple that's really entertaining. That's art as well.
"Pong" is both of these things. It still can be a lot of fun and it probably will be even 100 years from now. It's not visually impressive and it's the least deep gaming experience I can think of but it doesn't matter - it's fun.

 

[ZeroMachine]

Basically, films, literature, music, etc., all have elements that distinguish them in the artistic realm; things that set them apart from other mediums. Video games have no such elements, they just take from other mediums and call it a day. Maybe one day this will not be the case, and video games will be distinct, but for now, I don't see it.

Yeah, I guess this is where we disagree. I can give you a lot of examples of games which use their medium to their advantage:

We all say that Mass Effect is great in terms of story and characterisation, but that's not the end-all. The fact that we could make our own Shepards and influence the galaxy directly made her (or him) infinitely more relatable - and the same goes for the universe, same goes for the other characters.

Then we have games like Morrowind which have levels of depth in the fact that you can explore the world that are unparalleled by any other medium. If you want to expand a movie, or a linear game like Halo, you have to resort to expanded universes. Games like The Elder Scrolls series contain their expanded universes.

And finally, the stuff that is so far apart from any medium (apart from minimalism) that saying it just borrows off of other art forms is plain ridiculous. I'm a pretentious twat, so I've played one hell of a lot of weird indie games... so yeah, a couple of examples may be in order. All free, of course.

Test Subject Infinity [http://www.lockeddoorpuzzle.com/site/works/tsi]
Don't Look Back [http://www.kongregate.com/games/TerryCavanagh/dont-look-back]
The Stanley Parable (think you need HL2 to play it) [http://www.moddb.com/mods/the-stanley-parable]
And just for fun, Socially Awkward Conversationalist. [http://www.glorioustrainwrecks.com/node/2420]

Agree or disagree, I hope I at least made you think about it a little more ^_^

... Well. I'm gonna have to finally give Stanley a try. I've been putting it off too long. NO MORE!

 

[gigastar]

Careful what you reply to him, hes been championing Journey a fair bit recently and hes certainly among those who believe that games can be art without compromise on either of thier definitions.

When did I ever give the indication that games are art without compromise?

I'd be the first to admit that video games still have a long way to go in order to be formerly recognised as an art form, but hey, there's still time. Our medium is still very young.

But every so often, a game does come along that convinces me that we'll get there *cough*Journey*cough. You have to spread a lot of shit to grow roses.

I know I've been talking a lot about that game, and I apologise if it's getting on people's nerves, it's just that I want everyone to try it, to feel the way it made me feel.

It's a labour of love.

I meant that in the way that a work could be both a game and art without compromising on what would define them as either. Not in the way that you read it.

Also i specifically used a hypothetical because Journey and Rayman: Origins proving that the concept can work isnt going to make things like Dear Esther go away in a hurry.

And im not particularly sick of you going on about Journey either. I just knew you would respond with that, before i spent half an hour wirting down a load of wild mass guessing.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Careful what you reply to him, hes been championing Journey a fair bit recently and hes certainly among those who believe that games can be art without compromise on either of thier definitions.

When did I ever give the indication that games are art without compromise?

I'd be the first to admit that video games still have a long way to go in order to be formerly recognised as an art form, but hey, there's still time. Our medium is still very young.

But every so often, a game does come along that convinces me that we'll get there *cough*Journey*cough. You have to spread a lot of shit to grow roses.

I know I've been talking a lot about that game, and I apologise if it's getting on people's nerves, it's just that I want everyone to try it, to feel the way it made me feel.

It's a labour of love.

I meant that in the way that a work could be both a game and art without compromising on what would define them as either. Not in the way that you read it.

Also i specifically used a hypothetical because Journey and Rayman: Origins proving that the concept can work isnt going to make things like Dear Esther go away in a hurry.

And im not particularly sick of you going on about Journey either. I just knew you would respond with that, before i spent half an hour wirting down a load of wild mass guessing.

Ah right, glad we cleared that up then

But yes, stuff like Dear Esther (while an interesting experiment) certainly compromises gameplay to be 'arty', and it doesn't have to be like that.

Something can be both a great game and a piece of art.

Careful what you reply to him

That's the bit that threw me off, but I guess that's just a bit of the old persecution complex kicking in

 

[Kahunaburger]

The Cherry isn't Art, if I had been creating art I would have actually put some real effort into it. There are no tears or sweat in that cherry, there is no message, that is no meaning. It's just a cherry.

None of those things are necessary for something to be art. Art is, by definition, a creative work. Come on, people, the rest of the world figured this out quite some time ago. This is not a difficult concept.