Games and stupidity

[Orogun01]

The relevance of this point is that if a game consist of nothing more than see object, track object, hit object, then two things happen. Firstly the degrees of freedom you have to interpret it are absolutely minimal. Secondly that interpretation must necessarily be almost identical to every other game which uses the same task basis. You have not created a new game, you are copying an older game. You are putting mask on grandma.

 

I don't see that as too relevant. Every other Renaissance painting is a crucifixion - without a wealth of options for interpretation. Yet only a handful of painters are considered the best, while others have faded into obscurity.

The themes were similar but the execution was diverse this was always true of art. The same can be said about games, the themes and storylines repeat amongst titles but the core gameplay differs. You can have the crucifixion of Christ renaissance style and neoclassic style, the differences become evident even to the untrained eye.

 

@Tigranes: Sorry if the tone of my post came too harsh, what I meant by it was that games are defined by gameplay. I don't mean to say that gameplay should be central but it needs to complement the script.The best of stories can be ruined by lousy controls and like I said I haven't played many games where it's obvious that story precedes gameplay. Can you recommend any?

[Calax]

Geez. Again with the extremes. "Story 'getting in the way' of gameplay" is very different from "All story no game". Really, surely we can have a more nuanced discussion between games enthusiasts.

 

There are games where there is decent gameplay, but it is clearly built to service the story or setting or other artistic elements, or where the gameplay is fairly enjoyable, but really pales in comparison to the striking story/setting. There is absolutely nothing 'wrong' with that. They aren't destroying games, or making other people look stupid, or being pretentious, or not being 'games'. It really only applies to the few games where they went overboard, or there were errors made in production, so that gameplay is shockingly poor or haphazard - Torment or Bloodlines wouldn't even fit in that category, because they both made faithful and significant efforts to construct coherent, entertaining and structured gameplay content.

 

Seriously, it's really simplistic to just say "every game should go for gameplay doesn't matter bout story i play games to have fun stories aren't fun". Things like the later Metal Gear Solids having hours of non-interactive movies with 3 minutes of minimal player input in the middle? Yeah, you can ask how that should be done better. But there's no point drawing up a general scale of 'arty posh' to 'fun trash' and talking about what's what.

I suppose the "art"(using the term differently) of game making now a days is getting the story and gameplay to mesh well. On one end of the spectrum you've got Doom, and on the other you've got Metal Gear.

 

Anyway, the original article, I believe, was trying to make the point that shoe horning a gameplay style or segment into the game to change the pace on the player, often leads to the player being stuck and bored because this was not what they picked up the game for. I recently stopped playing Rainbow 6 Vegas 2 because at one point about 2/3 the way through the game, your team leaves you (to go play the first game basically) and you have to run solo in a complex with a small army of goons. Problem with this is that the game is almost entirely designed around having two other AI allies that shoot back at the goons so that one level becomes artificially hard (to the point of frustration) and thus not fun.

[Walsingham]

The relevance of this point is that if a game consist of nothing more than see object, track object, hit object, then two things happen. Firstly the degrees of freedom you have to interpret it are absolutely minimal. Secondly that interpretation must necessarily be almost identical to every other game which uses the same task basis. You have not created a new game, you are copying an older game. You are putting mask on grandma.

 

I don't see that as too relevant. Every other Renaissance painting is a crucifixion - without a wealth of options for interpretation. Yet only a handful of painters are considered the best, while others have faded into obscurity.

 

Interesting point. I'm not sure if that contradicts me or merely reinforces me. After all, aren't the really famous ones the ones with loads of interesting stuff happening in the background?

[RPGmasterBoo]

The relevance of this point is that if a game consist of nothing more than see object, track object, hit object, then two things happen. Firstly the degrees of freedom you have to interpret it are absolutely minimal. Secondly that interpretation must necessarily be almost identical to every other game which uses the same task basis. You have not created a new game, you are copying an older game. You are putting mask on grandma.

 

I don't see that as too relevant. Every other Renaissance painting is a crucifixion - without a wealth of options for interpretation. Yet only a handful of painters are considered the best, while others have faded into obscurity.

 

Interesting point. I'm not sure if that contradicts me or merely reinforces me. After all, aren't the really famous ones the ones with loads of interesting stuff happening in the background?

 

Uh, no. Its definitely not the amount of content that sets them apart, though I suppose if you drew Jesus as a stick man you could hardly complain at being left out of art history.

 

The point was, the reason games "aren't" art probably does not reside in their content.

[Orogun01]

Uh, no. Its definitely not the amount of content that sets them apart, though I suppose if you drew Jesus as a stick man you could hardly complain at being left out of art history.

 

The point was, the reason games "aren't" art probably does not reside in their content.

The problem with any kind of digital art is that it fails to fit the already existing characteristics for art. But since the definition has become wider ever since the modernist movement, games could be art if you see them that way or games, movies and music could have fallen out of the grace of the muses and into corporate limbo. A piece of art is a one of a kind item, it's unique. This was part of the original requirements for fine arts, all paintings were unique, a composition changed depending on who played it, a performance was always different, and food could not be served or prepared the same way twice.

 

Still games bear the same purposes and motives of art, so the argument as I see it is 50-50 with personal preference tipping the scale.

[WorstUsernameEver]

My 2 cents about the whole storytelling/gameplay thing.

Two of the games Calax mentioned 'Shadow of the Colossus' and 'Ico' are actually a lot different from what people think when they hear 'lots of storytelling and no gameplay'.

First of all, their gameplay is rather good (almost excellent at points in 'Shadow of the Colossus'). Second, their storytelling isn't done through the obnoxious 'stop the game! I've got a story to tell and you can't interact in any way!' but rather through environmental storytelling (a buzzword, especially considering how many developer get this wrong) and with little to no dialogue.

So, the way to make the story more interesting for me is to make it more interactive, to make it a real element of the game and not just a script that has taken over the game like a tumor.

There are very few exception to the rule 'cutscene-heavy game == major suckage' and I don't feel they belong to the category 'bad gameplay' anyway.

If anything, I'd still find Metal Gear Solid 2 fun when skipping all the cutscenes... no, WAIT.

I find it MUCH MORE FUN.

[RPGmasterBoo]

Still games bear the same purposes and motives of art, so the argument as I see it is 50-50 with personal preference tipping the scale.

 

Do they? I think this was the point all along. Games appear to be created exclusively to entertain, which doesn't fit with other definitions of art.

[Orogun01]

Still games bear the same purposes and motives of art, so the argument as I see it is 50-50 with personal preference tipping the scale.

 

Do they? I think this was the point all along. Games appear to be created exclusively to entertain, which doesn't fit with other definitions of art.

Art can be created solely for the purpose of entertainment. Check it

Edited May 12, 2010 by Orogun01

[Gorth]

Still games bear the same purposes and motives of art, so the argument as I see it is 50-50 with personal preference tipping the scale.

 

Do they? I think this was the point all along. Games appear to be created exclusively to entertain, which doesn't fit with other definitions of art.

That means so many millions people, musicians, poets, writers, singers, painters, actors etc. have been wrongly classified over the years. They weren't artists, they were... something else. Poor Shakespeare and Michelangelo