Planescape: Torment Topic

[Maria Caliban]

I'm sorry, but I hate time limits. I take fun over realism in my video games, thank you very much.

 

Then it's not a game for you. That doesn't make it 'horrible.'

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

Pfft, you should play Lost Planet. Most annoying time limit I've ever seen.

[Mamoulian War]

games is probable older than human species.

 

You know very good i was talking about computer/console games... and they are definately not older than human species

 

doesn't matter what you were talking 'bout. games has been 'round probable back before cro magnon, and games ain't gotten the benefit of doubt as an art form in all that time. makes harder for computer/console games to somehow change.

 

HA! Good Fun!

All right, then.

 

Backgammon: is it art?

 

no. neither is chess or monopoly or poker or any other game we can think of at the moment. maybe some folks consider chess an art, but not most folks.

 

computer games can combine elements o' film and literature, but they is still viewed as games. no matter how good the game there is gonna be some resistance to use o' the art label.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

chess is not art? You cant speak only about game when you do not take into consideration pieces and boards aswell... the quality is questionable but, it is sort of an art!!!

 

few pictures which shows you how chess can be an art...

 

 

 

 

 

[jero cvmi]

Apart from that the issue isn't whether playing a game is art or not, it's about designing/inventing a game.

It's all in the way one defines art of course, and where you draw the line with craftsmanship. For me, it's the motivation that counts: art = craftsmanship that's deployed for the purpose of expression of ideas, feelings, needs...

 

I'm not so sure if games are/were made with expression in mind, or with the goal of finding a way to kill time enjoyably and/or train some skills.

But as far as craftsmanship genious is concerned, if the inventors of chess, backgammon and soccer were known, they'd be up there with DaVinci. Folk games like backgammon, much like folk music, are often looked down upon, just because there's noone to take the credit for them.

[Gromnir]

don't be ridiculous... or more ridiculous. you is talking 'bout individual works o' sculpture. am not suspecting you realize just how silly your observation is... 'cause ANY tangible object has just as much potential to be rendered as art. is not that the game is art.

 

am suspecting you already forgot the call o' the question. when/is computer games gonna be taken serious as an art form. try not to distract yourself.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Mamoulian War]

don't be ridiculous... or more ridiculous. you is talking 'bout individual works o' sculpture. am not suspecting you realize just how silly your observation is... 'cause ANY tangible object has just as much potential to be rendered as art. is not that the game is art.

 

am suspecting you already forgot the call o' the question. when/is computer games gonna be taken serious as an art form. try not to distract yourself.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

the only one distracting here is you, comparing videogames with normal games... they are both games sure but of totaly different kind... it's the same like you would said that movies can't be art because porn was never considered as an art...

Edited September 18, 2009 by Mamoulian War

[Gromnir]

don't be ridiculous... or more ridiculous. you is talking 'bout individual works o' sculpture. am not suspecting you realize just how silly your observation is... 'cause ANY tangible object has just as much potential to be rendered as art. is not that the game is art.

 

am suspecting you already forgot the call o' the question. when/is computer games gonna be taken serious as an art form. try not to distract yourself.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

the only one distracting here is you, comparing videogames with normal games... they are both games sure but of totaly different kind... it's the same like you would said that movies and porn is the same kind of entertainment...

 

one reason why video games is unlikely to be taken serious as art is 'cause they is games. you not get that? apparently not. heck, the word "game" is right there in your video game label. am recalling that chrisA, in an interview talking 'bout crpgs, recognized that you could take the writing out o' a video game and still has a quality game as long as the gameplay were engaging... but reverse were not true. take gameplay out o' the game and keep the writing and you got... nothing. Game not ceases to be a game because is video.

 

and pr0n film is film. pr0n literature is literature. is not totally different at all. the definition o' pr0n changes depending on time, and location, audience and community. maybe you read up on Lady Chatterley's Lover as a start. is 'bout perception. d.h. lawrence book ain't changed, but perception has. is no way that pr0n will be viewed as art, but sometimes what is viewed as pr0n does change.

 

sheesh.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited September 18, 2009 by Gromnir

[Mamoulian War]

You still saying the same, but you never gave enough reasoning, why any game with good gameplay and good writing can't become considered as an art masterpiece. Sorry but your reasoning "Cos' it's game ffs" does not cut it...

 

Some books are, some movies are, there is absolutely no reason, why at some point in time an excellent game could be considered by renown art critics as a masterpiece of art...

[Purkake]

I'm sorry, but I hate time limits. I take fun over realism in my video games, thank you very much.

 

Then it's not a game for you. That doesn't make it 'horrible.'

 

I didn't say it was objectively horrible, I thought it was horrible, because I could never finish it under the time limit.

[HoonDing]

POP 2 was much harder than POP 1. Having a time limit in that game would be torture. Particularly the part with the skeleton on the bridge is one of the most frustrating parts ever designed in gaming. And those flying heads...

[Maria Caliban]

POP 2 was much harder than POP 1. Having a time limit in that game would be torture. Particularly the part with the skeleton on the bridge is one of the most frustrating parts ever designed in gaming. And those flying heads...

 

I remember the first time I hopped on a flying carpet and smashed myself to a bloody paste.

[Hell Kitty]

Assume that in the near future games are recognised as art. I don't mean individual parts of a game being seen as having some sort of artistic value (like individual chess pieces), but a game as a whole. What does that mean? What would that change? What purpose does being labeled "art" serve?

Edited September 18, 2009 by Hell Kitty

[Amentep]

Assume that in the near future games are recognised as art. I don't mean individual parts of a game being seen as having some sort of artistic value (like individual chess pieces), but a game as a whole. What does that mean? What would that change? What purpose does being labeled "art" serve?

 

That would depend on who you are - but I'd imagine that any media (and any of that media's followers) main interest in being described as art is that the label of art still carries some degree of "respect" with it.

[Gorgon]

It's a bit like those people who claim FPS gaming is a 'sport'. It's about recognition I suppose.

[Purkake]

Assume that in the near future games are recognised as art. I don't mean individual parts of a game being seen as having some sort of artistic value (like individual chess pieces), but a game as a whole. What does that mean? What would that change? What purpose does being labeled "art" serve?

 

Boo's life would finally be complete.

 

What we really need is something new so that games wouldn't be the latest cool thing and we could all make fun of that and say how much better games are.

[Oner]

Assume that in the near future games are recognised as art. I don't mean individual parts of a game being seen as having some sort of artistic value (like individual chess pieces), but a game as a whole. What does that mean? What would that change? What purpose does being labeled "art" serve?

 

Boo's life would finally be complete.

 

What we really need is something new so that games wouldn't be the latest cool thing and we could all make fun of that and say how much better games are.

And shake off all the ..ugh.."trendy"... "people" while at it.

[entrerix]

Assume that in the near future games are recognised as art. I don't mean individual parts of a game being seen as having some sort of artistic value (like individual chess pieces), but a game as a whole. What does that mean? What would that change? What purpose does being labeled "art" serve?

 

 

it's mostly about respect to me. I'm tired of telling people it's a hobby of mine and having them reply "But aren't those for kids?"

 

sure video games are for kids. just like movies are for kids. and books are for kids.

 

****ing dip****s

[Purkake]

Assume that in the near future games are recognised as art. I don't mean individual parts of a game being seen as having some sort of artistic value (like individual chess pieces), but a game as a whole. What does that mean? What would that change? What purpose does being labeled "art" serve?

 

 

it's mostly about respect to me. I'm tired of telling people it's a hobby of mine and having them reply "But aren't those for kids?"

 

sure video games are for kids. just like movies are for kids. and books are for kids.

 

****ing dip****s

 

One day you'll show them. You'll show them all.

 

 

[Gromnir]

"Some books are, some movies are, there is absolutely no reason, why at some point in time an excellent game could be considered by renown art critics as a masterpiece of art..."

 

am not recalling where we argued 'gainst your point. lord knows we never claimed that all books and movies is art. what we did note is that in millions o' years, games ain't been able to overcome perception that they can't be art. video games IS games. fact that checkers can be played on a computer not make fundamental different than checkers played with tangible game pieces. fact that millions o' years has produced no games=art not mean that it won't happen in future, but is a damned discouraging for those who is expecting sudden appreciation o' the video game as art.

 

am also wondering if you is willful obtuse. is a reason we bring up D. H. Lawrence and pr0n. as long as Lady Chatterley were viewed as pr0n it weren't gonna be accepted as art by the majority... or even my a noteworthy minority. Lady Chatterley not change since it were written, but perception as pr0n has. as long as video games is seen primarily Games, then we not see much hope for the art label sticking in near future.

 

even so, we gotta thank you for the chess piece ploy... genuine laughed.

 

"What does that mean? What would that change? What purpose does being labeled "art" serve?"

 

for some folks it could mean lots. imagine getting your MFA in video games? heck, become a professor o' video games. am s'posing there would be some grant monies involved. new class o' dweebs is able to terrorize and exploit their grad students.

 

personally, am not caring. call art or not won't change how much we enjoys games. nevertheless, as the question of when/if games will eventual get widespread recognition as art were raised, Gromnir thought it were fun to challenge the rather biased and optimistic pov o' a bunch gamers posting at a computer game developer board.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited September 18, 2009 by Gromnir

[entrerix]

Assume that in the near future games are recognised as art. I don't mean individual parts of a game being seen as having some sort of artistic value (like individual chess pieces), but a game as a whole. What does that mean? What would that change? What purpose does being labeled "art" serve?

 

 

it's mostly about respect to me. I'm tired of telling people it's a hobby of mine and having them reply "But aren't those for kids?"

 

sure video games are for kids. just like movies are for kids. and books are for kids.

 

****ing dip****s

 

One day you'll show them. You'll show them all.

 

 

 

 

lol! I already have! check my freezer... jk.

 

I actually feel better telling people I play dungeons and dragons. once I describe that to them they immediately say "wow that sounds like a great hobby". video games however... no such luck.

[Purkake]

That better not be 4th ed or I might take you up on the no-talk thing

[entrerix]

lol!

 

I tried 4th ed, but my group and i didnt really care for it

 

the character classes all feel too similar and all the flavor went out the window

Edited September 18, 2009 by entrerix

[Humodour]

Assume that in the near future games are recognised as art. I don't mean individual parts of a game being seen as having some sort of artistic value (like individual chess pieces), but a game as a whole. What does that mean? What would that change? What purpose does being labeled "art" serve?

 

It would eliminate the stupid disparity with regard to people considering some creative mediums art, but not another, very similar one which merges two existing ones (literature and film). That's good enough for me. I don't like disparities.

[Humodour]

games is probable older than human species.

 

You know very good i was talking about computer/console games... and they are definately not older than human species

 

doesn't matter what you were talking 'bout. games has been 'round probable back before cro magnon, and games ain't gotten the benefit of doubt as an art form in all that time. makes harder for computer/console games to somehow change.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

You're simply playing semantics, Gromnir. Games these days bear little resemblances to primitive childhood games like hide and go seek other than that they share a mechanic of entertainment. To pretend that today's computer games are no different to the childhood games of cro magnons because we call them both 'games' is disingenuous. Certainly, computer games these days often involve elements of abstraction and storytelling - classic traits of art. I'd be hard-pressed to define hide and go seek as art.

 

Now, don't get me wrong, some computer games are barely worthy of the title 'art', like cheap $1 comics written by somebody studying ESL are themselves stretching the definition of art.

Edited September 19, 2009 by Krezack

[Maria Caliban]

Assume that in the near future games are recognised as art. I don't mean individual parts of a game being seen as having some sort of artistic value (like individual chess pieces), but a game as a whole. What does that mean? What would that change? What purpose does being labeled "art" serve?

 

Increased legal protection. Government funding. Increased support from academia. A greater tolerance for experimentation from consumers, and eventually the expectation and loyal support for that experimentation from a solid base of customers.

 

Alternatively, how does being viewed as the pastime of horny 17-year-olds and maladjusted man-children help games?