RANDOM VIDEO GAME NEWS THREAD!

[Orogun01]

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/...Form-in-the-USA

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

 

I suppose that this it's good news for anyone trying to make it in the game industry, but the price it's too high. Now every self absorbed **** that can program will be calling themselves an artist. Will the NEA ever stop devaluating that term?

[Morgoth]

Nobody gives a damn whether you can program or not. The end result is what matters. That's where we can evaluate the art in it.

[Volourn]

Games aren't art. Movies aren't art. Books aren't art. Poetry isn' art. Art is art. Just because something is creative doesn't make it art. The term art has gotten so broad it's ridiculous that it can conceivably cover anything if you want to push it.

[Morgoth]

Games aren't art. Movies aren't art. Books aren't art. Poetry isn' art. Art is art. Just because something is creative doesn't make it art. The term art has gotten so broad it's ridiculous that it can conceivably cover anything if you want to push it.

This gotta be the most stupid thing I've ever heard.

 

Carry on, Volo.

[Nightshape]

Nobody gives a damn whether you can program or not. The end result is what matters. That's where we can evaluate the art in it.

 

When a game plays badly that's bad code...

[Volourn]

"This gotta be the most stupid thing I've ever heard.

 

Carry on, Volo. "

 

Insulting me like a little crybaby troll doesn't change the truth, dude. take your lumps and deal with it. Games aren't art. I don't care if they are super awesome and 'deep' like PST or as shallow as a puddle ala POR2. Their games not art. Mona Lisa (which i don't cae for) is true art. The hand painting my nieces make is true art. BG2 is not.

[Nightshape]

"This gotta be the most stupid thing I've ever heard.

 

Carry on, Volo. "

 

Insulting me like a little crybaby troll doesn't change the truth, dude. take your lumps and deal with it. Games aren't art. I don't care if they are super awesome and 'deep' like PST or as shallow as a puddle ala POR2. Their games not art. Mona Lisa (which i don't cae for) is true art. The hand painting my nieces make is true art. BG2 is not.

 

Well, your opinion, and truth ain't the same thing Volo. I know that to you it seems that way, but there are other people with other opinions, like them or not.

 

And sadly you saying "Games are not art", isn't an arguement, that's you speaking gob****e.

 

And the reason why video games being considered art is a good thing, be that you agree or not, has more to do with the kind of subject matter they can cover.

 

And the only reason I can see Morgoth would troll you by calling you stupid, is, because, yet again Volo... You've demonstrated stupidity.

Edited May 7, 2011 by Nightshape

[greylord]

"This gotta be the most stupid thing I've ever heard.

 

Carry on, Volo. "

 

Insulting me like a little crybaby troll doesn't change the truth, dude. take your lumps and deal with it. Games aren't art. I don't care if they are super awesome and 'deep' like PST or as shallow as a puddle ala POR2. Their games not art. Mona Lisa (which i don't cae for) is true art. The hand painting my nieces make is true art. BG2 is not.

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/art

 

2art noun \ˈ

Edited May 7, 2011 by greylord

[Purkake]

This is truly a wondrous place, art gets you more heated debates than religion or politics.

[Volourn]

"2art noun \ˈ

[C2B]

"2art noun \ˈ

[Wrath of Dagon]

http://forums.obsidian.net/index.php?showt...t=0&start=0

[Purkake]

http://forums.obsidian.net/index.php?showt...t=0&start=0

Old much?

[Orogun01]

For short: Art is a craft that carries both emotional and intelectual depth. This doesn't cover "everything" nor the big bulk of games that are pretty mindless. (Is also the reason why I take so many issues with the Smitsonian selection)

Ok let's put it this way, the number one reason that videos aren't art it's because they are competitive and their measure it's not based in aesthetics. Making games may have artistry, all of the artistic pipeline of making the characters and the environments. Playing games has no art whatsoever to it, therefore games are not art because they are interactive.

[Nightshape]

For short: Art is a craft that carries both emotional and intelectual depth. This doesn't cover "everything" nor the big bulk of games that are pretty mindless. (Is also the reason why I take so many issues with the Smitsonian selection)

Ok let's put it this way, the number one reason that videos aren't art it's because they are competitive and their measure it's not based in aesthetics. Making games may have artistry, all of the artistic pipeline of making the characters and the environments. Playing games has no art whatsoever to it, therefore games are not art because they are interactive.

 

I don't think that anyone is claiming playing games are art, but you're experiencing art when you do...

 

I sit firmly in the art camp, but I would say that not all games are art - Call of Duty isn't art, in the same way the latest hollywood blockbuster isn't art, or the latest crappy pop tune to surface from the bowels of commercial hell or lady gaga's decrepid man muff, or the picture I drew of a turd with a pen and some postits.

 

But there are games which are art, they are emotive, and they take us on genuine emotional journeys.

 

That is simply opinion, the fact is, in order to cover more subject matter, and I really hope games start to... We're struggling with sex, and relationships, darker grittier things also, but in order to start pushing into those realms of creation, games have to be considered art, if only to be secure in a legal fashion, be that you believe it or not.

[Orogun01]

I don't think that anyone is claiming playing games are art, but you're experiencing art when you do...

Plays,music, movies, they all unfold before the audience. Games are the only medium which requires active participation from the spectator, they are also not judged in term of aesthetics but on performance. Games are closer to being a sport; since there already are championships, than an art.

I sit firmly in the art camp, but I would say that not all games are art - Call of Duty isn't art, in the same way the latest hollywood blockbuster isn't art, or the latest crappy pop tune to surface from the bowels of commercial hell or lady gaga's decrepid man muff, or the picture I drew of a turd with a pen and some postits.

 

But there are games which are art, they are emotive, and they take us on genuine emotional journeys.

There may be lower forms of art or higher, the point it's that they all are part of a medium that it's art. Games; no matter how evocative, are not an artistic medium.

That is simply opinion, the fact is, in order to cover more subject matter, and I really hope games start to... We're struggling with sex, and relationships, darker grittier things also, but in order to start pushing into those realms of creation, games have to be considered art, if only to be secure in a legal fashion, be that you believe it or not.

Something that I agree on, I would like to see it happen without it necessitating to be art regardless.

 

The fact it's that what its holding the industry back is 2 things; first there isn't a model for writing for games. Most writers come from a different medium and fail to account the fact that games are interactive, simply putting dialog and creating a setting it's not enough. There it's a very pervasive element to dialog when you want actions and get info dumping instead.

The second one would be the immaturity of the audience and the lack of supportive publishers. I see this as the same problem because it has the same result, the M ratings are for boob obsessed teenagers and has nothing to do with actual maturity. The mandatory romantic interest, the same twists, plots and settings. The publishers treat games as a business because that's their business, and they are going to keep pushing crap because crap it's what sells.

 

This it's the #1 reason that games are not art, because everyone making that claim will go out and buy a bunch of blockbuster crap and never ask for more artistic games. They all take art at face value, and it's becoming a ****ing buzz word.

Edited May 8, 2011 by Orogun01

[Hell Kitty]

"Art" is often used to label something as important or meaningful in some way without bothering to explain why, and without explaining why the label is as meaningless as labels such as "awesome" or "crap".

[Nightshape]

I don't think that anyone is claiming playing games are art, but you're experiencing art when you do...

Plays,music, movies, they all unfold before the audience. Games are the only medium which requires active participation from the spectator, they are also not judged in term of aesthetics but on performance. Games are closer to being a sport; since there already are championships, than an art.

 

The experience does unfold infront of the Audience. Saying any different seems crazy to me.

 

You are correct that multiplayer gaming, is more sport than art, in which I agree.

 

That doesn't mean that games as a whole aren't art, it just means some aren't. As I said earlier.

 

I sit firmly in the art camp, but I would say that not all games are art - Call of Duty isn't art, in the same way the latest hollywood blockbuster isn't art, or the latest crappy pop tune to surface from the bowels of commercial hell or lady gaga's decrepid man muff, or the picture I drew of a turd with a pen and some postits.

 

But there are games which are art, they are emotive, and they take us on genuine emotional journeys.

 

There may be lower forms of art or higher, the point it's that they all are part of a medium that it's art. Games; no matter how evocative, are not an artistic medium.

 

When you can tell me why not we'll continue this conversation. This isn't a response, its you saying "Games aren't art, because I say so".

 

Games are a genuine artistic medium, hell, one could even argue that even the cheapest nastiest mass market games like CoD have artistic points in their narrative, its bad art, its even crass, but its art, alot of it exists purely for that purpose. Environmental arrangements that tell stories, interactive story sequences, etc... etc... There are alot of elements to games, but to say they're not Art? May aswell join Volo and state for something to have any artistic merit, and be art, it has to be a picture... It may be draw with my own piss, fecal matter, and ****, a demonstration of the bodily fluids streamed across a piece of paper, and that alone is what makes art art. *sigh* The sad eventual result of a tiny mind.

 

So yeah, please offer up an arguement as to why games are most certainly not art, because the process of creating the experience, well... I'd say that's art, and if you've ever felt anything playing a game, I'd say its succeeded.

 

That is simply opinion, the fact is, in order to cover more subject matter, and I really hope games start to... We're struggling with sex, and relationships, darker grittier things also, but in order to start pushing into those realms of creation, games have to be considered art, if only to be secure in a legal fashion, be that you believe it or not.

Something that I agree on, I would like to see it happen without it necessitating to be art regardless. The fact it's that what its holding the industry back is 2 things; first there isn't a model for writing for games. Most writers come from a different medium and fail to account the fact that games are interactive, simply putting dialog and creating a setting it's not enough. There it's a very pervasive element to dialog when you want actions and get info dumping instead.

The second one would be the immaturity of the audience and the lack of supportive publishers. I see this as the same problem because it has the same result, the M ratings are for boob obsessed teenagers and has nothing to do with actual maturity. The mandatory romantic interest, the same twists, plots and settings. The publishers treat games as a business because that's their business, and they are going to keep pushing crap because crap it's what sells.

 

This it's the #1 reason that games are not art, because everyone making that claim will go out and buy a bunch of blockbuster crap and never ask for more artistic games. They all take art at face value, and it's becoming a ****ing buzz word.

 

I don't think Lady Gaga is art, or whatever this weeks blockbuster is... These types of games, the call of duties of this world, they're the same... They're all the same.

 

But is Limbo not artistic, or Another World? What about Planescape : Torment... Ico? I could go on. From what I've experienced of Portal 1, I don't know about Portal 2, I'd say that has some artistic elements, and infact asks the gamer to be creative, while wooing them with dark humour.

 

A blockbuster is a blockbuster, it may be fun, but usually I find the experiences empty. This is why I can sit here and say "HL 2 was a chore", it was an empty confused experience in my eyes.

 

Developers don't treat games as just business, sometimes they have to, especially the larger ones, but not all. Publishers on the otherhand, they don't make anything... They're the same as a record label or a movie studio like say paramount.

 

Crap sells, because people are told that this crap is must have crap, and they must have this particular crap... The problem is the system, not the games themselves... Most of the best games, don't do well commercially, they do have a massive influence on what others do mind.

 

There are concepts in games design, which imitate concepts you find in art, such techniques spread through genres, same as techniques have spread through the art world.

 

I think games still have a way to go, its a young industry, which has had moments of brilliance, and shown some artistic integrity. I hope that over the next 10-20 years I'm proven right, and games become considered art, by everyone, in the same way movies, music and such other forms of entertainment are... Am I so wrong for wanting more from games?

[Orogun01]

The experience does unfold infront of the Audience. Saying any different seems crazy to me.

 

You are correct that multiplayer gaming, is more sport than art, in which I agree.

 

That doesn't mean that games as a whole aren't art, it just means some aren't. As I said earlier.

Without interference from the audience, games on the other hand require that interference. They don't make you a spectator, they make you the center around which the whole story revolves.

I wasn't referring to multiplayer gaming only, achievements, in-game scores, percents of completion. Games are measured on proficiency, they require you to have a certain amount of skill in order to progress. But this skill its measured by score and not artistic/aesthetic value.

 

When you can tell me why not we'll continue this conversation. This isn't a response, its you saying "Games aren't art, because I say so".

 

Games are a genuine artistic medium, hell, one could even argue that even the cheapest nastiest mass market games like CoD have artistic points in their narrative, its bad art, its even crass, but its art, alot of it exists purely for that purpose. Environmental arrangements that tell stories, interactive story sequences, etc... etc... There are alot of elements to games, but to say they're not Art? May aswell join Volo and state for something to have any artistic merit, and be art, it has to be a picture... It may be draw with my own piss, fecal matter, and ****, a demonstration of the bodily fluids streamed across a piece of paper, and that alone is what makes art art. *sigh* The sad eventual result of a tiny mind.

 

So yeah, please offer up an arguement as to why games are most certainly not art, because the process of creating the experience, well... I'd say that's art, and if you've ever felt anything playing a game, I'd say its succeeded.

No need to get offensive, I thought I gave enough reason when I stated that games are judged on performance and not aesthetics and the fact that they are interactive. Just because people see modern art being devaluated doesn't mean that the door its open for every pretty new thing to become an art. Playing games its not an art and playing its required in order to experience them.

 

I don't think Lady Gaga is art, or whatever this weeks blockbuster is... These types of games, the call of duties of this world, they're the same... They're all the same.

 

But is Limbo not artistic, or Another World? What about Planescape : Torment... Ico? I could go on. From what I've experienced of Portal 1, I don't know about Portal 2, I'd say that has some artistic elements, and infact asks the gamer to be creative, while wooing them with dark humour.

 

A blockbuster is a blockbuster, it may be fun, but usually I find the experiences empty. This is why I can sit here and say "HL 2 was a chore", it was an empty confused experience in my eyes.

 

Developers don't treat games as just business, sometimes they have to, especially the larger ones, but not all. Publishers on the otherhand, they don't make anything... They're the same as a record label or a movie studio like say paramount.

 

Crap sells, because people are told that this crap is must have crap, and they must have this particular crap... The problem is the system, not the games themselves... Most of the best games, don't do well commercially, they do have a massive influence on what others do mind.

 

There are concepts in games design, which imitate concepts you find in art, such techniques spread through genres, same as techniques have spread through the art world.

 

I think games still have a way to go, its a young industry, which has had moments of brilliance, and shown some artistic integrity. I hope that over the next 10-20 years I'm proven right, and games become considered art, by everyone, in the same way movies, music and such other forms of entertainment are... Am I so wrong for wanting more from games?

Only one of those games from this year, this should tell you how artistic the medium really is. Even so when you look at it the most permanent games, the ones that had an impact on the industry are all because of technological reasons and not artistic ones.

 

This brings us to another point: permanence, Mozart is as great now as he was on his time. New generations find Mozart and realize his talent. PS:T its hardly revised by new generations, now most of the classics stand a chance at survival thanks to GOG. But despite being available the game won't reach many people due to the fact that we are technology obsessed. In a few generations a lot of these games, even the current ones will be obsolete and with no impact other than whatever engine was used to create it.

 

Crap sells so more crap its made, that's the famous invisible hand. I like art, so I will support an artist that only I enjoy because only I perceive his genius; that's Theo Van Gogh. That's taking a chance on the artistic merits of someone despite the fact that there won't be any financial reward. The game industry it's profit driven, and the sad part is that game developers need the industry.

 

Just because a lot of artistic mediums are involved in the making of games doesn't make them art. Look at illustration or comics, games are very close to comics in regards to public opinion.

[LostStraw]

Without interference from the audience, games on the other hand require that interference. They don't make you a spectator, they make you the center around which the whole story revolves.

There are plays where the audience plays a large role in how it develops, are they not art? There are art installations that require interaction and make the user(s) the center around which the piece revolves, are they not art?

 

http://www.mam.org/act/index.htm

[Orogun01]

Without interference from the audience, games on the other hand require that interference. They don't make you a spectator, they make you the center around which the whole story revolves.

There are plays where the audience plays a large role in how it develops, are they not art? There are art installations that require interaction and make the user(s) the center around which the piece revolves, are they not art?

 

http://www.mam.org/act/index.htm

Whilst they do require interaction, it's their beauty which it's being observed. Nobody cares about how good the participants are, they care about how beautiful it's the effect that they create.

Games do not follow the same measure, they follow performance based on score rather than beauty.

 

I feel like a broken record here.

[Labadal]

It is funny Ico was brought up. Fumito Ueda, the mind behind Ico, The Shadow of the Colossus and The Last Guardian do not consider his games to be art, and was even annoyed in an interview when that question was brought up.

 

I do think there are art assets in games, but I don't know if games themselves are art.

[Purkake]

It is funny Ico was brought up. Fumito Ueda, the mind behind Ico, The Shadow of the Colossus and The Last Guardian do not consider his games to be art, and was even annoyed in an interview when that question was brought up.

 

I do think there are art assets in games, but I don't know if games themselves are art.

Ueda doesn't want female protagonist either, because they "lack grip strength", so yeah.

[Labadal]

I still agree with him that videogames are not art. The backgrounds and soundtrack is the closest thing one gets to art in games.

[Nightshape]

Video games as art is something I've spoken to many about... I personally think some games are works of art, specifically the first I can recall and be 100% certainly that I felt and experienced it as art, is Another World. I may be alone in that.

 

The best opinion I've come across so far though, and I love it... I think it cuts to the very core.

 

"Art will never be games. F*** them."