This was really off-topic and it was suggested we move it here.
asimo77 wrote:She's [Samus Aran] 1-dimensional and a video game character
Whether or not she is one dimensional is debatable, as you see glimpses of a more complex personality throughout the storyline of the games-- you just have to pay attention.
But more importantly, I have to ask... so what?
It was a simpler time, that era of gaming. You didn't need an insanely complex story. You just needed a problem... and someone who was willing to try and fix it. The heroes of said era were simply those who, when faced with a challenge, stood up and overcome it, or at least tried their damndest. Sometimes they failed... and failed hard. Not all endings were good, and many victories were bittersweet. You could apply whatever personality you wanted to the hero, they were an extension of you-- the player. But the most important aspect of their personality was their willingness to give it their all for the sake of victory.
This does not necessarily make for a bad character. I think that nowadays I would much rather take a silent protagonist struggling against the doom of the galaxy over the overly complex, whiny little bastards that are produced by modern writing conventions.
Really, this is why I still put up with Marines, despite not really being attracted to their concept. If you ignore some of the dumber aspects of the fluff, this is kinda what they're supposed to represent.
Silent Protaganist is better i fell in most cases as the player puts a little of their personallity into the game.
Of course if a pre-made character suits better (IE Eddie Riggs from Brutal Legend) and does the job better than a nameless/voiceless one then that is acceptable or better.
I also agree with your points on Samus although I like her as a character.
She is a bit motherly towards the last metroid, fighting to protect it no matter what. Sure, she has other reasons for doing it, but I like to think she had an attachment to it, as she realized that Metroids weren't truly evil...
Sometimes a character who simply exists is better than a character (either created by the game developers through the use of voice acting, cut scenes, etc, or through some kind of pick and choose background/stats/etc system such as in Fallout 3).
Lets you just get stuck into the game. Sometimes characters get in the way - either by being annoying or by not fitting into the game very well (usually in the case of player created characters).
Melissia wrote:She is a bit motherly towards the last metroid, fighting to protect it no matter what. Sure, she has other reasons for doing it, but I like to think she had an attachment to it, as she realized that Metroids weren't truly evil...
Well she can't do the right thing and kill it as Nintendo would have to think up a new name for the franchise. Instead it has to be stolen from the galatic federation by space pirates and cloned or something.
(I lol'd the first time I saw the instruction book for my NES Metriod. It's set in the year 2000!)
VikingScott wrote:Well she can't do the right thing and kill it
Could you murder a child in cold blood, as it looks up at you and calls you mommy (or daddy, in your case)?
Would you?
Nevermind that it was determined that Metroids actually had a great potential for scientific advancements, if only they could be studied and protected. But instead, they had to go extinct because of the greed of the space pirates.
The fact that she didn't kill it shows an unseen depth of character. Hints at a deeper character are more powerful than just outright stating said character.
VikingScott wrote:This must be something I've missed because every metriod I've come across has tried to eat me. Not call Samus "mummy"
And then she came across one that did, a newly hatched metroid which wasn't hostile. It didn't try and kill her... it hugged her and protected her as best as it could, clung to her like a babe to its mother.
Things improve. I like that games generally have more of a story and fleshed out characters in the old days. Certainly I can give Samus some credit for being one of the first (the first?) female presence taking center in stage in game. At the same time I wouldn't really say she qualified as an actual character for most of the Metroid games. Of course my opinion on Samus specifically might be colored by the fact I've heard nothing buut negatives about the first real attempt at putting a fleshed out narrative in the games (The Other M).
If you're just talking about cool female characters in games though, Samus wouldn't be at the top of my list. She might be near the top of the list of female main characters, but only by virtue of their being so very few of them and even fewer that aren't just weak excuses for fanservice*.
I think Gordon Freeman is another character whose LACK of being fleshed out really helps him.
This compared to the whiny little bastards in the new FF game like Hope. I swear to the He On His Golden Throne that the little douchebag fills me with such rage that I want to personally crush each of his individual digits, then smash his legs and arms in joint by joint, and then finally rip his skull apart using a rusty hook in the bastard's eye sockets.
Fleshed out characters only work if they aren't stupidly written. Most are.
Melissia wrote:I think Gordon Freeman is another character whose LACK of being fleshed out really helps him.
This compared to the whiny little bastards in the new FF game like Hope. I swear to the He On His Golden Throne that the little douchebag fills me with such rage that I want to personally crush each of his individual digits, then smash his legs and arms in joint by joint, and then finally rip his skull apart using a rusty hook in the bastard's eye sockets.
Fleshed out characters only work if they aren't stupidly written. Most are.
Well I wasn't able to get more than about 10 minutes into FF13, so I can't really challenge you on that particular example. So I'll just take your word for it that whoever that "Hope" fellow was, was a crappy character. However I'd say on the whole I've noticed characters I've liked in video games more than ones I haven't.
Hope was hardly as bad as Titus--or even Cloud, for that matter. JRPG may not be a good genre to look for strong females in overall, however, given their reliance on anime stereotypes.
Manchu wrote:Hope was hardly as bad as Titus--or even Cloud, for that matter. JRPG may not be a good genre to look for strong females in overall, however, given their reliance on anime stereotypes.
No game genre is really all that good, to be honest. JRPGs are hardly way above the curve when it comes to female characters that aren't exactly great. Especially if you don't count player stand-in type characters.
Off the top of my head, the Valkyries of the Valkyrie Profile were fairly decent. Even if they did have boobie-armor.
EDIT: Which isn't to say any of them were terribly complex characters. They were all fairly flat by modern standards honestly. Still pretty neat though.
Melissia wrote:This was really off-topic and it was suggested we move it here.
asimo77 wrote:She's [Samus Aran] 1-dimensional and a video game character
Whether or not she is one dimensional is debatable, as you see glimpses of a more complex personality throughout the storyline of the games-- you just have to pay attention.
But more importantly, I have to ask... so what?
It was a simpler time, that era of gaming. You didn't need an insanely complex story. You just needed a problem... and someone who was willing to try and fix it. The heroes of said era were simply those who, when faced with a challenge, stood up and overcome it, or at least tried their damndest. Sometimes they failed... and failed hard. Not all endings were good, and many victories were bittersweet. You could apply whatever personality you wanted to the hero, they were an extension of you-- the player. But the most important aspect of their personality was their willingness to give it their all for the sake of victory.
This does not necessarily make for a bad character. I think that nowadays I would much rather take a silent protagonist struggling against the doom of the galaxy over the overly complex, whiny little bastards that are produced by modern writing conventions.
Really, this is why I still put up with Marines, despite not really being attracted to their concept. If you ignore some of the dumber aspects of the fluff, this is kinda what they're supposed to represent.
Yay, a thread about me
A main character should shut the hell up and kill things, like samus, or link, or mario. Or any character that doesn't talk and does what they have to do.
NOTE: All good video games main character doesn't talk much. This makes YOU feel like your the character. The supporting Characters are the most importent/most complex.
Sadly, the gaming population seems to be filled to the brim with... people who will flame you for even asking if you can play a female character in a game. Especially FPS games. Or asking for female characters who aren't just sex objects to stare at. Metroid broke the trend long before it began to really take root in the industry... and it was a great game to boot, especially the SNES version, but heck, even the gamecube and Wii games (well, to be fair, I've only played up to Corruption) were better than most of the other games on the consoles.
A pity noone's really even trying to create the next Samus Aran. They want to create the next Bayonetta instead. *gags*
I'm more of a fan of Characters that you the player can flesh out and make ( Elder Scrolls, Fallout, DnD,The Warhammer Fantasy tabletop RPG that maybe 100 people on this forum remembers) that way the player can make them as complex or as simple as they like (and can make the character as strong or as weak as they like from the personality they give the PC [ like going though ES4 with leather armor and a steel dagger at best because you have an extreme hatred of magic and distrust anything that wasn't Imperial made]) But if I can't make my own, then a silent and simple PC beats an overly complicated one that talks to damn much.
And since Melissa mentioned Gordan Freeman: I have trouble playing Half-life now because of Freeman's Mind. Every time I pick it up, I end up going to Youtube and spending the rest of the day watching Freeman's Mind.
Melissia wrote:Sadly, the gaming population seems to be filled to the brim with... people who will flame you for even asking if you can play a female character in a game. Especially FPS games. Or asking for female characters who aren't just sex objects to stare at. Metroid broke the trend long before it began to really take root in the industry... and it was a great game to boot, especially the SNES version, but heck, even the gamecube and Wii games (well, to be fair, I've only played up to Corruption) were better than most of the other games on the consoles.
A pity noone's really even trying to create the next Samus Aran. They want to create the next Bayonetta instead. *gags*
I think you may perhaps be giving metroid a bit too much credit. The incentive for doing well at least in the nes and snes ones was seeing her in bathing suit. The orginal metroid had a cheat code to strip her down to her very pixilated undies.
Which was nothing more than a little easter egg/bonus for beating the game. That's like saying that Dragon Age is bad because it has mods which let you see the characters nude.
Melissia wrote:Which was nothing more than a little easter egg/bonus for beating the game. That's like saying that Dragon Age is bad because it has mods which let you see the characters nude.
Really? Too bad I have an Xbox, I wouldn't mind getting in on that Wild Wild Witch
I have to slightly disagree with you, Melissia. I think the best Non-silent protagonists are Eddie Riggs from Brutal Legend, and the Master Cheif from Halo: CE (Who, as I should mention, is actually supposed to be you in Halo: CE). Also, Ezio Auditore is a pretty well written character. Anya from Gears of War is pretty beleivable as a female in her situation.
But yeah, mostly the Silent Protagonists are the best. On the top of my head I can think of Point Man/Micheal Beckitt being my favorite from the F.E.A.R. series. New Recruit from the Ghostbusters video game was awesome, too bad you didn't actually get to customize him though Jack from Bioshock was a lot better than a Non Silent, though we will have to see how Irrational Games handles Infinate with a talking protagonist.
There are a few Non Silent Protagonists that are pretty good, it really all depends on how they are written.
Manchu wrote:Hope was hardly as bad as Titus--or even Cloud, for that matter.
Hey hey hey...
I'll put up with people insulting Jesus on this forum, but let's not cast aspersions on Cloud. FFVII had some of the best characters in video game history, and I say that as someone who as a rule doesn't much care for JRPGs.
Except for Chrono Trigger and Secret of Mana of course.
I liked the FFIV cast the best. Cloud was too whiny and indecisive--and he was neither the first or the best example of this, so I can't say much for him. He's no Cecil, that's for sure.
Manchu wrote:I liked the FFIV cast the best. Cloud was too whiny and indecisive--and he was neither the first or the best example of this, so I can't say much for him. He's no Cecil, that's for sure.
FFIII was actually my all-time favorite.
I didn't really think Cloud was whiny though. Doesn't that imply that what he was going through was sort of trivial? He has his entire worldview destroyed over the course of the game, and watches Sephiroth gut-stab his girlfriend! That's pretty brutal!
Slarg232 wrote:
I have to slightly disagree with you, Melissia. I think the best Non-silent protagonists are Eddie Riggs from Brutal Legend,
But yeah, mostly the Silent Protagonists are the best. On the top of my head I can think of Point Man/Micheal Beckitt being my favorite from the F.E.A.R. series. New Recruit from the Ghostbusters video game was awesome, too bad you didn't actually get to customize him though Jack from Bioshock was a lot better than a Non Silent, though we will have to see how Irrational Games handles Infinate with a talking protagonist.
There are a few Non Silent Protagonists that are pretty good, it really all depends on how they are written.
Boom. Totally agree with the Eddie Riggs point.
And I am slightlt aprehensive about Infinate too.
Manchu wrote:@Slarg: Master Chief is a . . . complex character?
More of "Not Silent" was what I was going for. He does have a few (read: 2) lines, you know.
One of which was "Thought I'd try shooting my way out, mix things up a little."
Although despite that line being literally true, he also says it to comfort his pseudo-girlfriend AI who's just been minderaped by an extragalactic parasite. So I think he's a little more complex than first glance would suggest, even without taking into account the vast array of non-game media.
Melissia wrote:Fleshed out characters only work if they aren't stupidly written. Most are.
QFT.
There are some characters who really help (Being well written may not be necessary, but they need to be engaging or entertaining). Dante is one of the high points of DMC for many a fan even though half (okay almost all...) his dialogue is taken from the list of the most corny things to say at any given moment. His personality and character makes the game for some people. Then you have folks like Link, whose very name is a reference to the role he play's in the player-game relationship.
It depends on the game and the strength of the story. FFXIII was the first FF I actually played, and after years of hearing people hype how awesome the Final Fantasy series is at story and character, I have to say. Those people who told me that were playing a much better story, cause FFXIII pretty much ran on melodrama, angst, and bad storyboard.
EDIT: Master Chief is a very interesting character but I'd never call him strong. He speaks just enough to make him feel alive and endear him to the player as a character in the universe, but not enough to really make him feel like a character in himself without the player there (there really was a book written on this believe it or not). Even in the expanded universe, Master Chief is very shallow compared to some of the other characters in the series (most of the Spartans are the only exception jumping to my mind being Kurt).
I thought the emotions in FFXIII came across as pretty genuine. Angst can be an important facet of character development and melodrama is a type of style, not a necessarily a flaw in style. Saying you don't like a story is one thing; saying a story is bad or poorly-told is another.
Manchu wrote:IAngst can be an important facet of character development and melodrama is a type of style, not a necessarily a flaw in style.
Except when Angst is the only thing driving the story. That is a bad thing. People complaining for ten hours about how much their lives suck is not a good story when it's the only thing going on (Even if there are some nicely done cutscenes in between).
EDIT: Someone send this to Stephine Meyer. She should hear this too.
I found the main theme of character development in FFXIII to be overcoming the suffering and loss in your life that results from forces beyond your control. As such, the characters tend to be on the brink of various shades of despair throughout. Although I can't claim to be an anime aficiando, I would say this is a pretty common trope in that genre and especially in its extension into console-based railroad RPGs. American games, by contrast, have very little emotional range. I can completely understand why your first experience with FF left you feeling like you'd just watched ten hours of daytime television.
Manchu wrote:I found the main theme of character development in FFXIII to be overcoming the suffering and loss in your life that results from forces beyond your control. As such, the characters tend to be on the brink of various shades of despair throughout.
From what I understand that's one of the central themes of the FF series, which isn't a bad thing. But there wasn't any other character development (if I would call what happened development). The voice acting was good, the graphics were nice, the combat system entertained me but all the character "development" was one tracked with many of them behaving in what came off as a pattern of asinine decision making. Had there been other more intricate character developments going on, I wouldn't have minded so much. They tried with Vanille and Sazh, but Sazh spends almost as much time being down as Hope, and Vanille was annoying as . There was plenty of room for a great story. It just never seemed to materialize.
As the game is, the character I enjoyed most was chocobo, just because the little guy wasn't complaining every moment of his screen time...
Although I can't claim to be an anime aficiando, I would say this is a pretty common trope in that genre and especially in its extension into console-based railroad RPGs.
I don't generally like those anime's either There are too many emo angsty characters, and most of them just seem to come off as clones of one another with a few who manage to stand out because the emo angsty part isn't over emphasized to the point of annoying the viewer.
Character development is a hard thing to get right. Emphasize an aspect too much (and it's easy to do so accidentally) and the characters can come off as one tracked even when they're not. Emphasize the angst and "my life sucks" aspect too much and you develop the 'Sasuke Complex' (that's just what I call it) where after a while, people become accustomed to the character constantly whining and start to completely disregard that character as an annoyance to the story especially when they don't seem to learn anything from previous events. When all you're characters have Sasuke Complex, you can very easily kill a story because such characters are extremely polarizing. People love them or hate them. FFXIII eventually pulled itself out of that rut for the most part, but it took ten hours, and by then I already hated every character to death.
I'd actually say that as a safety measure, under emotional characters perform better than overly emotional characters, simply because they don't annoy the crap out of the viewer/player/reader if they become to one tracked. The trick is to find some way to endear an under emotional character to a player, which I think Master Chief pulled off very well for a lot of people. That said, I think the best characters are somewhere in the middle. They're not too emotional but they have plenty of emotion (not to be confused with personality) but they are very hard to pull off.
I thought the characters in FFXIII were pretty good. Yeah, they complained a lot. I would say that living in a genocidal dystopia would give one a lot to complain about, and then you add in the fact that these sleeping Gods would arbitrarily decide to put a mark on you that made you an enemy of mankind.
Cherry-picking elements of a game to find something to complain about seems... well... I better not say.
When you start a JRPG, you better have already accepted that there will be whining and lost of it. Even when you think you're prepared for it, it can still be overwhelmingly annoying. Same for the hyper-cute character, in this case Vanille. When she was introduced, I consciously decided to like her. If you don't, she'll easily grate on your nerves.
I am a sucker for cute girls with Australian accents, however, so maybe it was easier for me.
Melissia wrote:Which was nothing more than a little easter egg/bonus for beating the game. That's like saying that Dragon Age is bad because it has mods which let you see the characters nude.
I think you're overstating my position a bit. I'm not saying it's bad by any means, but it's far from the holy grail of female game protagonists. Which was sort of the tone of I was getting from your praise of it, if that was wrong I apologize.
It's also a bit different than a mod, as it is a default part of the game. It's also a reward for doing well, which is a also a bit different from incidental content. Simply having someone in a bathing suit is different from them being in a bathing suit as a prize, at least in my mind.
Metroid is certainly a fine series and above average as female presence goes, I just wouldn't be giving it any medals is all.
When you start a JRPG, you better have already accepted that there will be whining and lost of it.
I think this is a bit of a strong statement. I can think of quite a few JRPGs that aren't dominated by whining. A few examples off the top of my head:
Suikoden II
Final Fantasy Tactics
Phantasy Star IV
Wild Arms III
Front Mission IV
EDIT: All of the above also contain some cool female characters too. Though not all of them were entirely fairly treated. Perhaps it's just nostalgia speaking but Alys Bragwin (Phantasy Star IV) is still one of my favorite female characters from a video game, shame they had to shove her in a damn fridge.
Those are just ones that come into mind immediately. My memory isn't good enough to declare them "Whine Free" but they certainly aren't dominated by in the way a lot of the modern members of the numbered Final Fantasy Series are 7,8,10,12(kinda... not really, only in some parts) - that I've played.
Some take an interesting spin on it. Persona 4 had a fair amount of whine, but the whole point of it was so the characters could be told "Stop your whining actually deal with your petty issues".
Fair play, Chongara. I think people who have played more than a few of these kinds of games, however, develop a much higher threshold for it than someone coming from BioWare and Bethesda RPGs.
Manchu wrote:I liked the FFIV cast the best. Cloud was too whiny and indecisive--and he was neither the first or the best example of this, so I can't say much for him. He's no Cecil, that's for sure.
Manchu wrote:I liked the FFIV cast the best. Cloud was too whiny and indecisive--and he was neither the first or the best example of this, so I can't say much for him. He's no Cecil, that's for sure.
FFVII had the best character death.
I always found Aeris' death to be pretty "Meh" as character deaths go. I guess I just didn't feel attached. There have been plenty with more impact both before and since.
Slarg232 wrote:- Poor graphics and designs.
- Boring and sometimes awkward gameplay.
- No innovation of any sort. (To be fair, that characterizes all BioWare games since the first KotOR.)
These three I disagree with:
The graphics were designed to be less cartoony, and I thought they did that pretty well. (oh why, oh why, oh WHY couldn't I find a decent Headpeice for my Bloodmage though?!?)
I thought the gameplay was kinda fun if you actually planned ahead, layed traps, and the like. Of course, I've been described on this board as "easily amused", too.
I thought the way they twisted some of the concepts were pretty cool, too. Like how the dwarves were "honorable" and yet constantly sceaming, and the Templars were basically Witch hunters.
LordofHats wrote:
Melissia wrote:Fleshed out characters only work if they aren't stupidly written. Most are.
QFT.
There are some characters who really help (Being well written may not be necessary, but they need to be engaging or entertaining). Dante is one of the high points of DMC for many a fan even though half (okay almost all...) his dialogue is taken from the list of the most corny things to say at any given moment. His personality and character makes the game for some people. Then you have folks like Link, whose very name is a reference to the role he play's in the player-game relationship.
Actually, it's not the fact that Dante is corny, it's the fact that you have Daemons, gothic settings, and the world about to end daemons, but in the middle of it is this wise ass dude with two guns and a sword. Dante is just totally different than what you would expect someone in his situation to be, and to me (and a few people I have talked to) that's what makes him such a strong character. Giant bird thingy is attacking him, he's telling it to "Flock off, Feather Face!".
Now, if Vergil had been the main character, the Devil May Cry series would never have been the same, to me, at least.
on jrpgs:
suikoden I and II had strong characters as a rule even the background characters were written well.
a lot of people hated Nanami but then they forget that shes a (pre?) teen girl. That, or they just didnt have sisters :| or reminded them of their sisters a little too much.
Vandal Hearts(I and II) also had some very real, very flawed characters as heroes and villains. I'm actually having a hard time categorizing this as a JRPG because it just didnt feel like one. It felt more like a Western High Fantasy novel more than anything.
on a different note Bioshock had awesome characters (of the speaking and non speaking variety). KOTOR I and II also had very well written characters. Kreia is one helluva a character. Hard not to admire her.
on jrpgs:
suikoden I and II had strong characters as a rule even the background characters were written well.
a lot of people hated Nanami but then they forget that shes a (pre?) teen girl. That, or they just didnt have sisters :| or reminded them of their sisters a little too much.
Vandal Hearts(I and II) also had some very real, very flawed characters as heroes and villains. I'm actually having a hard time categorizing this as a JRPG because it just didnt feel like one. It felt more like a Western High Fantasy novel more than anything.
on a different note Bioshock had awesome characters (of the speaking and non speaking variety). KOTOR I and II also had very well written characters. Kreia is one helluva a character. Hard not to admire her.
Really? People disliked Nanami? I found the character to be very endearing. She was supposed to be 14-15 in the game iirc. They did a very good job of making her act in a way that was believably nonadult without being a useless brat. Probably my favorite character in trhe game tbh, well maybe Viktor he was cool too.
Hold the phones did I inadvertantly cause a topic to be created?
Honestly making stories for video-games are is almost always a waste of time. Keep it lite on the story beef up the gameplay. All the so called masterpieces in gaming storytelling are about as good as a mediocre, melodramatic novel.
I used to play (J)RPG's and other story centric games, then I realized how silly it all was. I'll read a book or watch a movie if I want a story.
The one thing that games do that other mediums cannot is create an atmosphere that pulls you in, simply because you are the controlling character. There's also other interesting narrative tricks like Mass Effect's save imports or Heavy Rain's dynamic storytelling. Then again I rather have a game with actual gameplay than all that nonsense (note: Maass Effect has good gameplay), and no matter how gimmicky the narrative tricks are the story itself is usually sub-par anyway.
This is why puzzle games and RTS are the best genres, though admittedly the former can sometimes seem to have little point to them.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also I have no problem with silent protagonists, I have a problem when people claim they have expanded storytelling in the industry in leaps and bounds i.e. Samus. She's more of a step forward for emotionless robots than women. Not that it matters either way really.
asimo77 wrote:Also I have no problem with silent protagonists, I have a problem when people claim they have expanded storytelling in the industry in leaps and bounds i.e. Samus. She's more of a step forward for emotionless robots that women. Not that it matters either way really.
She's more of a step forward for emotionless robots
asimo77 wrote:Hold the phones did I inadvertantly cause a topic to be created?
Honestly making stories for video-games are is almost always a waste of time. Keep it lite on the story beef up the gameplay. All the so called masterpieces in gaming storytelling are about as good as a mediocre, melodramatic novel.
I used to play (J)RPG's and other story centric games, then I realized how silly it all was. I'll read a book or watch a movie if I want a story.
The one thing that games do that other mediums cannot is create an atmosphere that pulls you in, simply because you are the controlling character. There's also other interesting narrative tricks like Mass Effect's save imports or Heavy Rain's dynamic storytelling. Then again I rather have a game with actual gameplay than all that nonsense (note: Maass Effect has good gameplay), and no matter how gimmicky the narrative tricks are the story itself is usually sub-par anyway.
This is why puzzle games and RTS are the best genres, though admittedly the former can sometimes seem to have little point to them.
I dunno, Batman: Arkham Asylum did pretty well for itself in terms of decent characterisation and story. Then again, it had about 70 or so years of comic character history on which to do so, so perhaps it's not the best example.
im going to go out on a limb here and say that one of the best characters in gameplay history was captain price from the modern warfare series. now wait before you all come down on me. im not a fanboy, i just think that he was really well fleshed out and genuinely believable.
as female leads go. samus aran is beyond the best, she is one of the coolest characters in video gaming. female none leads has got to go to moria brown from fallout 3, you either love her or hate her and i loved her.
Nurglitch wrote:Braid is a fantastic example of mixing the story, graphics, and game-play. These aspects of a game need to be harmonized, not prioritized.
True, but if they HAD to be prioritized, that up there is my priority list.
Nurglitch wrote:So basically if wheels were square, you'd stack them like that?
Sure.
I mean, Bioshock is a prime example of having all three, graphics, gameplay, and story meshed together, and I would buy another game like it in a heartbeat, but how many games are of Bioshock Quality? Seriously, If there are any out there, I haven't really heard of them (For Xbox, any way).
camboyaz wrote:NOTE: All good video games main character doesn't talk much. This makes YOU feel like your the character. The supporting Characters are the most importent/most complex.
I don't understand this point of view. If I was the main character I would be doing more interacting than nodding my head or looking surprised. The communication from your end is completely insufficient in most RPGs. it always annoyed me when I was playing some RPG and an NPC would say "so you don't talk much huh?" when the designer could have made the character say something the he or she would understandably say given the circumstances. It would also be nice to be addressed as something other than "you" or "hero" or "lieutenant".
I would rather have the game supply a personality (like in brutal legend) then play a character that has none. Until a game comes along that lets you choose a demeanor to begin with and makes your character follow it in dialog I would rather have my personality supplied.
Problem is all these games with succesful stories don't have anything really special about their story. You could get the same message as Bioshock from reading Ayn Rand, and get it better (though why would you want to read Ayn Rand....) Braid was self-indulgent, pseudo-intellectual, hipster/indie crap, and honestly when is indie stuff not self indulgent, pseudo-intellectual crap?
Of course they are not bad games, but people should realize that these are just ok stories, not amazing ones like so many people seem to think. There is a priority for enhancing gameplay first, and I have no problem when a game successfully does both. I just have to be aware that even games that synergize their gameplay and story only have decent stories in the end. What annoys me is when people compare video games to things with actual literary merit, and dare I say....art?
Melissia wrote:Having a good story doesn't need to be about reading some message in it.
Most games don't have a message, and so are mostly mediocre at best. A good video game story might be engaging, have interesting characters but you havent changed the way you think about the world at all in the end. Something that can do that would have a good story, and I suppose could be considred art. It's more entertainment than anything else, so I'd say that games are great for entertainment, and have entertaining stories, but not meaningful ones.
wikipedia wrote:According to a survey done in 2004 by the Entertainment Software Association, 25 percent of console players and 39 percent of PC game players are women. Also, 40 percent of online game players are women; however, these numbers also include casual games.
That nugget is sourced as well. If you're going to factor Farmville into these numbers, they mean exactly nothing in the context of "Girl Gamers" and FPS or other more male oriented genres.
asimo77 wrote:Problem is all these games with succesful stories don't have anything really special about their story. You could get the same message as Bioshock from reading Ayn Rand, and get it better (though why would you want to read Ayn Rand....) Braid was self-indulgent, pseudo-intellectual, hipster/indie crap, and honestly when is indie stuff not self indulgent, pseudo-intellectual crap?
Of course they are not bad games, but people should realize that these are just ok stories, not amazing ones like so many people seem to think. There is a priority for enhancing gameplay first, and I have no problem when a game successfully does both. I just have to be aware that even games that synergize their gameplay and story only have decent stories in the end. What annoys me is when people compare video games to things with actual literary merit, and dare I say....art?
QTF once again.
Video games have not yet reached the point where I'd feel comfortable calling them art, and I would think anyone claiming a video games story can stand side by side with the likes of those found in books hasn't read enough books. Video games will probably get there someday, but not yet. Some genre's however probably never will. No one ever played an FPS so the developers could preach to them the evils of dictatorships and how we should stick by our friends when the going gets rough. People actually play them to shoot pseudo-bullets at their friends.
asimo77 wrote:Problem is all these games with succesful stories don't have anything really special about their story. You could get the same message as Bioshock from reading Ayn Rand, and get it better (though why would you want to read Ayn Rand....) Braid was self-indulgent, pseudo-intellectual, hipster/indie crap, and honestly when is indie stuff not self indulgent, pseudo-intellectual crap?
Of course they are not bad games, but people should realize that these are just ok stories, not amazing ones like so many people seem to think. There is a priority for enhancing gameplay first, and I have no problem when a game successfully does both. I just have to be aware that even games that synergize their gameplay and story only have decent stories in the end. What annoys me is when people compare video games to things with actual literary merit, and dare I say....art?
QTF once again.
Video games have not yet reached the point where I'd feel comfortable calling them art, and I would think anyone claiming a video games story can stand side by side with the likes of those found in books hasn't read enough books. Video games will probably get there someday, but not yet. Some genre's however probably never will. No one ever played an FPS so the developers could preach to them the evils of dictatorships and how we should stick by our friends when the going gets rough. People actually play them to shoot pseudo-bullets at their friends.
Video games have not gotten there for sure, and I hope they don't strive to be. Video games should not be innovating or pushing the envelope in terms of storytelling. The innovation should be happening in gameplay since thats where the medium excels. Leave innovation of narratives/stories to books and movies, since that's their job. In other words devs need to make strides in the realm of gameplay before they try to make strides in our plots.
What video games should do is entertain their players.
Any other requirements violates the purpose of a game.
Not all gamers, of course, are entertained in the same way, which is exactly why we have different kinds of games even within a genre (For example, Metro 2033 is extremely different from Team Fortress 2).
LordofHats wrote:QTF once again.
Video games have not yet reached the point where I'd feel comfortable calling them art, and I would think anyone claiming a video games story can stand side by side with the likes of those found in books hasn't read enough books. Video games will probably get there someday, but not yet. Some genre's however probably never will. No one ever played an FPS so the developers could preach to them the evils of dictatorships and how we should stick by our friends when the going gets rough. People actually play them to shoot pseudo-bullets at their friends.
I don't know about FPS games, but I do know that in RTS games (according to people from both Relic and Gas Powered Games, though I admit to being too lazy to search through relicnews and gpg's forum to find the exact quote) single player and single player skirmish are both more popular than multiplayer.
camboyaz wrote:NOTE: All good video games main character doesn't talk much. This makes YOU feel like your the character. The supporting Characters are the most importent/most complex.
I don't understand this point of view. If I was the main character I would be doing more interacting than nodding my head or looking surprised. The communication from your end is completely insufficient in most RPGs. it always annoyed me when I was playing some RPG and an NPC would say "so you don't talk much huh?" when the designer could have made the character say something the he or she would understandably say given the circumstances. It would also be nice to be addressed as something other than "you" or "hero" or "lieutenant".
I would rather have the game supply a personality (like in brutal legend) then play a character that has none. Until a game comes along that lets you choose a demeanor to begin with and makes your character follow it in dialog I would rather have my personality supplied.
Because they want people to relate to the character and when the character already has it's own personality etc, it's just not possible to feel like I am the character, I feel like i'm playing the character. Kind of confusing but that's just from my perspective.
Melissia wrote:I don't know about FPS games, but I do know that in RTS games (according to people from both Relic and Gas Powered Games, though I admit to being too lazy to search through relicnews and gpg's forum to find the exact quote) single player and single player skirmish are both more popular than multiplayer.
It'll depend on the genre and the way the market grows (the standard FPS for example will never reach it imo because there are very explicit reasons why people play FPS games). There are a number of ways for video games to become their own art form separate from others through the interaction of the player with the game world, but right now the technology to do that adequately doesn't exist, though some games like Indigo Prophecy have made forays into playing with this concept. Interaction is what makes games stand apart from film and literature, and that's where it'll find it's way of being artistic, but we're probably going to have to wait awhile to reach that point.
Quite a few FPS games, such as Metro 2033, Bioshock, Quake 4, and Half Life 2 to name a few of the ones that come to my mind, have story to draw people in. It works.
I mean if I wanted an FPS game that's only multiplayer I'd just play TF2, which is about as polished, balanced, and with as much variety as you could expect from an FPS multiplayer-only game. I got Metro 2033 because its premise and story looked nice. I bought Bioshock for the same reason. Quake 4 I bought because I like the Quake series, but its story was nicely written, tying in its various gameplay elements and environments with few flaws. And Half-Life... I absolutely adore the series' setting and story, from the initial game of the first to the most recent episode of the second.
A game can't stand on its gameplay elements alone anymore.
Melissia wrote:A game can't stand on its gameplay elements alone anymore.
Depends on the game, honestly.
L4D, for instance, has a story, but honestly, who is playing it for the story? Almost everyone plays that solely for the gameplay.
Most people play Devil May Cry for two reasons: The airtight gameplay, and Dante. Most people don't care about the story.
Resident Evil 5 is a very popular game, mostly due to it's gameplay. It sure isn't because of it's story, at least.
However, those few games with story really have catipulted above their competition, even if their stories are "sub-par" (no comment) compared to other mediums.
Bioshock, Assassin's Creed, Gears of War, Fallout. Most people know the names at LEAST, even if they have never played them.
I would however, like everyone to define "Story" in this thread. It's just something I want to see, I'll explain afterward.
Melissia wrote:Quite a few FPS games, such as Metro 2033, Bioshock, Quake 4, and Half Life 2 to name a few of the ones that come to my mind, have story to draw people in. It works.
Metro had a good idea for a good story that flushed out into a horrible story. Lets just get that out of the way now. Never played quake. Bioshock and HL2 had good stories by game standards, but by the standards of every story that has ever been told their on par with B movies. And the story isn't what made Bioshock and Half Life 2 good. They were supplements to a strong gameplay aspect, that along with those decent "at least they don't suck" stories made the games stronger. Gordon Freeman is also a stellar example of a silent protagonist who does his job well for translating the player into the game world.
I said there were exceptions, but the exceptions don't just have story, they have gameplay, which makes or breaks games. They probably could have had bad stories, and still would have done fairly well because their gameplay was strong. Plenty of games stand only on gameplay. Unreal has never had good story. Neither have most action games or most FPS games.
What makes and breaks games is gameplay. The story is just a backdrop for the setting to provide an excuse to put your friend on the other team (with Rcon) and pwn him/her. Many great games have great stories by game standards, but throw in so much as a good movie, and sudden Halo Reach's story line seems rather shallow and uninspired, which it is, but by a game standards Halo had a good story and one that people can enjoy greatly if they forget how shallow it is and focus on the gameplay with the story as a backdrop.
Well Samus Aran is a blonde, and is awesome. She has put an entire world to the flame and she has tight under armor and as bad ass as Master Chief. And she was basically screwed up by the game that recently came out, yeah she wins the awesome award.
I love female badass characters in video games. Especially from gears of war.
As a gamer. I believe of all the greatest video game gods and complexity of characters Samus aran is from a shadowy past as she has alien dna with-in her and she not only that but she is also given special armor and such. Which kinda sounds like a space marine
http://metroid.wikia.com/wiki/Samus_Aran She is well thought out I can give her that. But apart from that she is a gaming goddess.
Melissia wrote:Samus is a biiiit deeper than Master Chief. Comes from having far more material to draw upon.
Samus has lots of back story, but playing the Metroid games, she doesn't have much personality or character. Neither does Master Chief. From an objective stand point, both are very weak characters (I've already covered how shallow most of Halo's spartans are). From a video game stand point however, they do their job very well. Their strong characters from a video game stand point, weak from all others.
If I honestly had to pick on as better, I'd pick Chief just because he actually has something to say, which is more than I can give Samus. Even in the universe outside their games, Samus is a very annoying teenies-bopper like character (in the Metroid manga, which I abandoned about six chapters in?) while Master Chief and other Spartans at least put on a facade of character depth whenever the Halo EU deals with them.
They are good video game characters, but not good charcters in any other sense. I'm not familiar with any of the Metroid material outside of the games, but most metroid games seem to be run around and shoot at stuff.
Apparently Other M tried to inject some character into her but it turned out disatrously, not that it matters to me. On one hand she's just fine being dull and silent because it works almost like a simulation that way; you are Samus/Gordon/Master Chief and so on. On the other hand some characterization could be nice. It's a shame though that they did such an awful job what with the dialogue in that game *vomit*. But the story shouldn't be an issue in a gameanyway.
The biggest beef I have with Other M bashers is people who somehow believe that Other M destroyed the character of Samus. She had no character to begin with, people just impress their own image of her onto Samus
asimo77 wrote:They are good video game characters, but not good charcters in any other sense. I'm not familiar with any of the Metroid material outside of the games, but most metroid games seem to be run around and shoot at stuff.
Apparently Other M tried to inject some character into her but it turned out disatrously, not that it matters to me. On one hand she's just fine being dull and silent because it works almost like a simulation that way; you are Samus/Gordon/Master Chief and so on. On the other hand some characterization could be nice. It's a shame though that they did such an awful job what with the dialogue in that game *vomit*. But the story shouldn't be an issue in a gameanyway.
The biggest beef I have with Other M bashers is people who somehow believe that Other M destroyed the character of Samus. She had no character to begin with, people just impress their own image of her onto Samus
Most Metroid games are actually adventure games. The emphasis is not so much on your abilities as a FPS player but your creative-thinking and problem solving skills, as well as the inevitable boss battles. But therein lies the appeal of Metroid; sure, it's stuck to the same format in terms of general game theory, only hanging it's viewpoints once or twice, but it does it so well (bar Other M) that it's become a standard in adventure-combat games.
As to the character of Samus, she's no different to many other game characters, really. The only real difference is she's a woman kicking ass in a way totally non-standard to most games. I mean, the girl's a walking Exterminatus.
Oh when I said "run around and shoot stuff" I didn't mean it literally, Metroid does have an interesting gameplay style, albeit it hasn't really clicked with me but that's beside the point and just my personal gaming taste.
"As to the character of Samus, she's no different to many other game characters, really. The only real difference is she's a woman kicking ass in a way totally non-standard to most games. I mean, the girl's a walking Exterminatus."
This is exactly why I don't get why women like her so much then. She does very little to advance the role of women in games. Shouldn't the ideal female heroine not be a gender neutral robot (I find there to be very little that's feminine about Samus) but rather a heroine who kicks butt, saves the day, is complex, all the while having and retaining her feminity?
It's the difference between the genders that make us interesting, I think having a heroine who has those differences but still manges to save the day as well as the male hero is far better for females in gaming than someone who acts like a robot but happens to be biologically female.
asimo77 wrote:The biggest beef I have with Other M bashers is people who somehow believe that Other M destroyed the character of Samus. She had no character to begin with, people just impress their own image of her onto Samus
That's honestly why I think Chief and Samus work so well as game characters. Video games are in a unique position in regards to story. Story isn't the focus. The interaction is. A blank slate character on whom the player can impress themselves is a very effective way to trap the player in the game world. These are weak characters from an objective stand, but depending on the approach of the developer, the strongest for a video game.
I agree with that, impressing yourself onto a character is something only really done in games. I was complaining about people who have these false ideas that character such-and-such has the traits x,y,z while in reality they have no characterization. Which is actually a good thing. It just annoys me when peple think these very same characters are written well or something.
I liked that about games, to be fair. It's what I liked about Halo: Reach best, that the main character was entirely of your creation. It really made him/her feel like your own.
Wow, I'm afraid I have to vehemently disagree with some of the statements being thrown about in this thread. Allow me to elaborate.
Some video games have, without a doubt, achieved the status of "art". Not many, to be sure, but there is no question that there are games out there that touch your soul and alter your perception of the world. Keeping in mind that different pieces affect people differently, I'll proffer some personal examples.
Silent Hill 2: James and Angela are two of the strongest characters I can think of that have been presented in any media, much less the simple restriction to video games. James reconcilliation with his personal demons is as powerful a character change as can be asked for. Angela so perfectly embodied a woman shattered by life's unfortunate circumstances that I ached during some of her scenes. The first time I viewed the "It's hot as Hell in here" scene remains a profound, life-shifting event in my mind. It's simply powerful.
Final Fantasy Tactics does a beautiful job of addressing "What happens when an cause withers and dies?". Names fail me due to the passage of time, but "Ramus" (I think?) and the characters he meets and the changes they undergo ring as true as any.
Final Fantasy 6 (SNES 3) has some of the most powerful moments in gaming as well. The opera scene is striking. While it may be borderline message-wise, I think the argument can be made.
Castlevania Symphony of the Night is such a delight for the eyes and ears, what can you call it but art? What level of delight and appreciation must be achieved before we give so lofty a title?
I guess I'd like to proffer Kant as my defense. In a very simpliistic summary, "What is something's identity until it is precieved by something else?" Is art some fundamental quality that is determined simply by existance, or is it required that somebody see/smell/taste/touch/hear it and determines it to be such? What is the critical mass of gamers that need to be moved by a mere moment of a game for it to be considered art?
The reason I wouldn't qualify most games as art is because most of them have no artistic value. What is the symbolism of mario stomping on goomba? Art has to mean something to be art. Most games don't really mean anything. RPG's likely come the closest and many games attempt to achieve something artistic, but for the most part the genre just isn't. It's simple entertainment. It needs more time to develop before we can appropriately label video games as an art form along side music, painting, etc.
Video games are a mixed medium that includes almost every other art form to some degree in some way (music, literature, picture, film) but the combination of these mediums is not yet developed enough to say that the medium has artistic value. Individual games can probably be discussed, and I have heard lots said about Silent Hill, but we can't really discuss the entire medium as artistic.
I'm not sure if you're kidding or not, especially when you quoted Kant.
Anyway Silent Hill 2, interesting for sure but mostly hampered by awful voice work, and an overly ambigous and often vague plot. TBH it's such a long time since I played Silent Hill 2 that I don't feel confident enough to go into specifics. However, I was never moved by whatever the hell Silent Hill is supposed to be, it is a fun series though.
Final Fantasy Tactics takes the bland overused idea that "our organized religion is actually evil, oh noes!" and executes it poorly. It throws countless of pointless characters around and tries to survive on it's pseudo-Rennaisance European flair, much like period shows/movies. Talking like Shakespeare =/= good writing. It doesn't help that the game itself was ugly and not too fun. It did however have an interesting setup, what with the entire game being like a history book or something.
Symphony of the Night has excellent music and graphics but that doesn't make it art. Also you are a miserable pile of secrets. Seriously the dialogue man...
LordofHats wrote:The reason I wouldn't qualify most games as art is because most of them have no artistic value. What is the symbolism of mario stomping on goomba? Art has to mean something to be art. Most games don't really mean anything. RPG's likely come the closest and many games attempt to achieve something artistic, but for the most part the genre just isn't. It's simple entertainment. It needs more time to develop before we can appropriately label video games as an art form along side music, painting, etc.
Video games are a mixed medium that includes almost every other art form to some degree in some way (music, literature, picture, film) but the combination of these mediums is not yet developed enough to say that the medium has artistic value. Individual games can probably be discussed, and I have heard lots said about Silent Hill, but we can't really discuss the entire medium as artistic.
I would without a doubt support you in your statement that MOST video games are indeed drek. Realistically though, most doodles on a scrap of notebook paper are drek too. The ones that shine though, are they not a species apart?
I'm sorry that Silent Hill 2 didn't move you Asimo - it was quite profound for me. Are you correct and I'm incorrect, or is it the other way around? That's the nature of art, is it not?
I seem to recall it being said that there are something along the lines of 6 original stories in the existance of mankind. I felt that FFT did a wonderful job of (painfully slowly, damn the non-speed reveal text) of showing how someody moves on after realizing something that they're willing to die for was all a farce. It wasn't simply the main character, almost every main character I can recall had such a situation. The game may or may not have been ugly and no fun. I found it to be aesthetically sufficient and a blast to play. I'll concede it's a borderline case. I found it moving. I doubt most folks would get from it as much as I did.
My two most vibrant memories of SotN are the music (which was simply haunting) and the boss that was a sphere composed of bodies (which was simply disturbing). I dwell on both from time to time. The music moreso than the boss, but both have their place.
Was the Texas Chainsaw Massacre pop fluff or art? It was loud and garrish, but the memory of Leatherface dancing with his chainsaw at the end remains. I think it boils down to what one considers art. If you're willing to define such a thing at all, I think you'll have trouble arguing that some games achieve the title.
I will admit I do have very high standards when it comes to this stuff, probably because I'm so damn cynical and jaded. Also, so I don't sound like a crochety old man, I do enjoy video games, apart from FF tactics, all those games are great. Just clarifying is all.
I guess there's the whole subjective versus objective definition of art; honestly I don't think anyone wants to go down that discussion. So, some people like this other, people like that, and it's a wonderful thing that there's such a variety in tatses, but I don't think I'll argue about it much more.
Not to mention I get enough sophistry, shenanigans, and the like everyday seeing that I'm a philosophy major. Not that I'm accusing anyone of the high crimes of sophistry or shenangans here. Though just remember tomfoolery is punishable by death.
Slarg232 wrote:I would however, like everyone to define "Story" in this thread. It's just something I want to see, I'll explain afterward.
To put it very generally, I think that "story" is why I should care why the character is doing what they are doing.
See, I disagree. I think that "Story", in the case of video games, includes not only the plot, but the setting, which has a lot to do with the plot of games.
How different would Bioshock have been if it hadn't been set in Rapture, for instance?
I mean, the reason I think Setting is as much of story as Plot in games, is because your actually the one getting to explore the setting. With movies you get to see maybe a glimpse of an area, with books, you see only as much as your imagination lets you, but with games, you really get to see where all this is taking place.
Borderlands, for instance: If you go to Skag Valley, you can look out into a vast expansion of wasteland: you can tell that it isn't just a single valley that is wasteland: your truely on a wasteland planet with barely any life.
Just my $0.02 on it, anyway.
Automatically Appended Next Post: We seem to be asking "Are video games art?" now. I respond like so:
"Hey look buddy, I'm an Engineer, that means I solve problems. Not problems like 'What is art?' Because that would fall under the purview of your conundrums of philosophy.
Slarg232 wrote:"Hey look buddy, I'm an Engineer, that means I solve problems. Not problems like 'What is art?' Because that would fall under the purview of your conundrums of philosophy.
LordofHats wrote:The reason I wouldn't qualify most games as art is because most of them have no artistic value. What is the symbolism of mario stomping on goomba? Art has to mean something to be art. Most games don't really mean anything. RPG's likely come the closest and many games attempt to achieve something artistic, but for the most part the genre just isn't. It's simple entertainment. It needs more time to develop before we can appropriately label video games as an art form along side music, painting, etc.
Video games are a mixed medium that includes almost every other art form to some degree in some way (music, literature, picture, film) but the combination of these mediums is not yet developed enough to say that the medium has artistic value. Individual games can probably be discussed, and I have heard lots said about Silent Hill, but we can't really discuss the entire medium as artistic.
I disagree that art has to mean something. To me, art just has to provoke a response, and "Whoah, that's cool" is a good enough response for me. Also, I'd disagree that RPGs come the closest to being art, as most stray into the realms of pretension, and that just gets annoying after a while. In effect, any great game of it's type or genre could be considered art. After all, you say that games are simple entertainment, but in the end isn't that what art is ultimately meant to do? It'd be pretty dull if art wasn't entertaining in some way.
Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:I disagree that art has to mean something. To me, art just has to provoke a response, and "Whoah, that's cool" is a good enough response for me. Also, I'd disagree that RPGs come the closest to being art, as most stray into the realms of pretension, and that just gets annoying after a while. In effect, any great game of it's type or genre could be considered art. After all, you say that games are simple entertainment, but in the end isn't that what art is ultimately meant to do? It'd be pretty dull if art wasn't entertaining in some way.
Not everything that provokes a response is art. Not everything that is entertaining is artistic. Art is usually both these things as I know it, but just because a video game provokes a response and is entertaining doesn't make it art. A game of tag does both those things, but I doubt anyone would qualify a game of tag as artistic.
Art is a cultural expression. It involves symbolism and really does have to mean something. What is the symbolism of Link hurling a lightning bolt back at Ganondorf? Or of Master Chief plowing a room full of grunts into blueberry jam? Most games don't reflect anything cultural. RPG's are very story intensive, which is why I say they come the closest. They are more intricately involved in deeper themes and ideas because there is more room in that genre to explore them. FPS games, don't typically have the latitude to explore anything meaningful (exceptions exist of course). Video games as a medium are far to young to be qualified as art. They will get there some day but the medium today just isn't there yet due to technological and corporate limitations.
Actually, there is a great deal of symbolism in the Zelda games. Perhaps not in the actual actions and combat or whatever, but in the cleverness of the puzzles, the names and places, and even the very items you use. I would say that making music a key part of the game in the later titles is artistic.
But maybe that's just me reading too much into it, eh?
Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:Actually, there is a great deal of symbolism in the Zelda games. Perhaps not in the actual actions and combat or whatever, but in the cleverness of the puzzles, the names and places, and even the very items you use. I would say that making music a key part of the game in the later titles is artistic.
I wouldn't say you're reading into it too much. Zelda is one of those games that I think at times manages to boarder the line of what is art. Just don't confuse the elements of the medium with the medium itself. That a game contains music doesn't make it artistic even if the music is used in a inventive and artistic fashion. Video games are a mixed medium. The whole show comes together to make them, but right now the whole show doesn't mean much. We could actually probably discuss Zelda (an excellent example of what you're saying actually) as a piece of art. But there isn't much room to discuss the whole of the video game medium as an artistic venue.
asimo77 wrote:"As to the character of Samus, she's no different to many other game characters, really. The only real difference is she's a woman kicking ass in a way totally non-standard to most games. I mean, the girl's a walking Exterminatus."
This is exactly why I don't get why women like her so much then. She does very little to advance the role of women in games.
But that's exactly what most women want (at least, in my experience)
Samus Aran kicks ass inside of an advanced suit of power armor, cleverly solving puzzles and trying to save the galaxy.
Oh, and Samus a woman.
This compared to the industry standard: "she's a woman, look here's some tits. Oh, and she might kick some ass maybe, but more importantly, here's an ass shot."
The reason I wouldn't qualify most games as art is because most of them have no artistic value.
Asimo's point is that Samus is only a woman in image. The character doesn't have any character (not necessarily a bad thing for a video game mind you) but that Samus is female is for all intents and purposes completely irrelevant to anything she does. The same is true of most video game protagonists. Gender is not an issue most video games address in any meaningful way, so that Samus or Laura Croft are female, is somewhat pointless. That most characters are male is somewhat pointless. Their gender never means anything to story in almost all cases.
Ergo, getting worked up over this issue really is silly. There are more productive things that can be done for video games right now.
Melissia wrote:
The reason I wouldn't qualify most games as art is because most of them have no artistic value.
Neither does most so-called "art".
Which is why I am critical of a lot of modern art. I'm sorry, but a bunch of a random brush strokes on a canvas is not the artist letting out his inner soul, it's garbage. The Mona Lisa is art. An abstract painting that looks like a five year old did it belongs on a refrigerator, not an art gallery.
I don't even really see much appeal in the Mona Lisa.
There's some, sure, it's a nice portrait, but it's not really spectacular to me.
But then, I'm not a part of the "high-class art" world, because I'm not pretentious enough
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote:Ergo, getting worked up over this issue really is silly. There are more productive things that can be done for video games right now.
I disagree entirely with your conclusion about his post. The fact that they don't make a huge deal out of gender and just say "badass who happens to be female" is exactly what makes them appealing as a female action figure.
But regardless, I have to ask in response to this: Such as?
I don't think making games more accessible to fully half of the human population is unproductive.
Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:Actually, there is a great deal of symbolism in the Zelda games. Perhaps not in the actual actions and combat or whatever, but in the cleverness of the puzzles, the names and places, and even the very items you use. I would say that making music a key part of the game in the later titles is artistic.
I wouldn't say you're reading into it too much. Zelda is one of those games that I think at times manages to boarder the line of what is art. Just don't confuse the elements of the medium with the medium itself. That a game contains music doesn't make it artistic even if the music is used in a inventive and artistic fashion. Video games are a mixed medium. The whole show comes together to make them, but right now the whole show doesn't mean much. We could actually probably discuss Zelda (an excellent example of what you're saying actually) as a piece of art. But there isn't much room to discuss the whole of the video game medium as an artistic venue.
Ah, but neither could you say that every drawing created was art! But, I think, at the end of the day, art is too subjective to be given specific boundaries. One man's art is another's messy bed, and all that.
But then, I'm not a part of the "high-class art" world, because I'm not pretentious enough
I know what you mean. People read into some of this new fangled art way too much.
Melissia wrote:But regardless, I have to ask in response to this: Such as?
I don't think making games more accessible to fully half of the human population is unproductive.
Obviously they already are somewhat accessible otherwise you wouldn't be playing them now would you?
There are in fact bigger problems, like the new wave of invasive DRM, stagnation of ideas, mega publishers, and technological limitations that currently keep games from taking advantage of their unique attributes to become art. Sorry. Gender relations doesn't strike me as much of an issue for video games right now. It's not even an issue really worth an active attempt to solve. It'll solve itself, and I know it will because it already is. I have bigger concerns that are more immediate imo.
Obviously, gender of the main characters isn't a big enough issue to outright stop you from playing a game, and I doubt it'll stop most people. Indeed, anyone who will refuse to play a game, simply because of the gender of the main character, would need to be pretty thick headed when the gender of characters is so irrelevant to anything.
While the new wave of DRM is an important issue, it seems to be starting to die out as companies are attempting to find a happy medium with their customers.
Meanwhile, with more women getting into gaming than ever before (and I am not using hyperbole here, the ESA's numbers support this), the gaming industry has a chance to market to a new and large demographic.
Eventually, I'm hoping, they'll catch on, and we'll see even more women in the various genres. Most gamers play casual games nowadays (regardless of gender, despite what some trolls would claim), as quite frequently that's how gamers are introduced in the first place (think about how simplistic arcade games are, for example-- that's how gaming in general was introduced). The industry is still learning how to tempt them into more involved games, and they need to learn as fast as they can.
To do this... they need games with interesting premises and characters. Which doesn't necessarily mean complex ones, mind you. It rather blends in with the stagnation of the various genres in a sense, as old ideas are constantly rehashed. Yet new ideas (such as female characters that aren't just sex objects) are constantly resisted.
Man, Lordofhats your opinions are so dead on with mine I'm starting to think we might be long lost twins.
Anyway, like I said before, gender roles, story, art, and so on shouldn't be the focus of a developer. They shouldn't try to push the boundraies of storytelling nor challenge cultural norms, that's what real art is for aka movies and books.
Games should push the boundaries of innovative gameplay and tackle the problems facing the industry today like Lordofhats said: DRM, creative stagnation, overly streamlining games, and so on.
Also modern art is pretty much the worst thing ever.
asimo77 wrote:Anyway, like I said before, gender roles, story, art, and so on shouldn't be the focus of a developer. They shouldn't try to push the boundraies of storytelling nor challenge cultural norms, that's what real art is for aka movies and books.
Bull****, movies aren't art, certainly no more than games. Most of them barely even qualify as entertainment.
asimo77 wrote:Anyway, like I said before, gender roles, story, art, and so on shouldn't be the focus of a developer. They shouldn't try to push the boundraies of storytelling nor challenge cultural norms, that's what real art is for aka movies and books.
Bull****, movies aren't art, certainly no more than games. Most of them barely even qualify as entertainment.
ಠ_ಠ
Have you ever seen a movie? A lot are bad but the funny thing is a melodramatic B-movie is as good as a bioware plot.
Melissia wrote:While the new wave of DRM is an important issue, it seems to be starting to die out as companies are attempting to find a happy medium with their customers.
You obviously aren't paying attention Ubisoft is still using Uplay, despite a lot of complaints, and EA and Blizzard continue to push the need of a constant internet connection (EDIT: Activision is pushing it now too). If they keep doing so, others will start following, especially when mega publishers already produce so many games.
Meanwhile, with more women getting into gaming than ever before (and I am not using hyperbole here, the ESA's numbers support this), the gaming industry has a chance to market to a new and large demographic.
And they are changing. It is literally happing right now. The problem is you're making the assumption that they must have more female main characters to attract female players. We both know that isn't true. Gender isn't enough of an issue that females won't play a games with a male lead, nor enough to keep males from playing a female lead. The real issue is the presentation of women, which video games have a rotten record on, but even that is changing. General interest and cultural saturation of games means more to bringing in more people that the unimportant gender of the lead character.
EDIT: Some movies are art. I'd say some don't qualify (Mega Shark vs Giant Octopus? Obviously a reference to the struggle of black americans in the late nineteenth century). And yes Asimo, modern art sucks.
Yes, I have seen movies. I am an American after all, and it's almost impossible to be an American without having watched a few somehow.
And most of them sucked. I can really only name a few I would consider truly good, and it's not because they'r artistic... it's because they're entertaining somehow.
You ARE separating artistic and entertaining right? But then, to me, a piece of "art" that is boring isn't really artistic. And games which entertain are artistic in their entertainment. Portal comes to mind, as does Trine, and other independent games. Meanwhile paintings aren't very artistic to me because they're usually pretty boring. Oh gee, another painting of a forest with a lake. Uh. Right. Moving on now.
LordofHats wrote:You obviously aren't paying attention Ubisoft is still using Uplay, despite a lot of complaints, and EA and Blizzard continue to push the need of a constant internet connection (EDIT: Activision is pushing it now too). If they keep doing so, others will start following, especially when mega publishers already produce so many games.
Either that or I'm poor and I can't buy every single game that comes out every year. But I haven't run into DRM issues the last two years like I did before.
The problem is you're making the assumption that they must have more female main characters to attract female players.
I would separate art and entertainment. You can be both but I think you can have art that's not necessarily entertaining. I don't think something can be so entertaining that it becomes art (even though Trine is pretty much one of the best games ever made ever )
Also I suggest just watching more movies I guess. The trick is to avoid Hollywood while at the same time avoiding indie garbage. Both ends of the spectrum suck hard.
Art can be boring. Generally I don't think that anything excludes entertainment from being art or art from being entertaining but something can be one or the other.
Not in the manner that it's being deployed here. The merit of art--or entertainment for that matter--is not only relative to the particular perspectives of the audience members but also to the medium. To claim that video games cannot be art or even that they currently have not "ascended" to that level (Roger Ebert) is to close your mind off to the intrinsically open-ended and relativistic definition of art.
Manchu wrote:To claim that video games cannot be art or even that they currently have not "ascended" to that level (Roger Ebert) is to close your mind off to the intrinsically open-ended and relativistic definition of art.
Can we go with the spaghetti definition of art, as I am hungry right now.
It is a weak argument as that notion relates to video games. Just because video games can do things that art can do doesn't make them artistic (yet), because they still aren't able as a medium do other things art does. If art were defined that broadly then almost anything could be art, and the term becomes useless and without any significance.
Oh god dakkadakka has become like school! Quickly someone do some mathammer! Someone ask about female marines! Someone complain about their codex! We have to stop the philosophical debates!
Oh yeah and on-topic: relativism almost never works anywhere.
I need help with mathhammering an effective choice of Fem TH/SS Terminators from the new Femarine Codex (which some are calling OTT). Can you help me asimo77?
asimo77 wrote:Oh god dakkadakka has become like school! Quickly someone do some mathammer! Someone ask about female marines! Someone complain about their codex! We have to stop the philosophical debates!
Oh yeah and on-topic: relativism almost never works anywhere.
I think the subject of art is one of the the exceptions.
To say that something like art appreciation isn't subjective is just plain silly. How's that for a non-relativist comment?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Emperors Faithful wrote:I need help with mathhammering an effective choice of Fem TH/SS Terminators from the new Femarine Codex (which some are calling OTT). Can you help me asimo77?
There's no such thing as female space marines. It's impossible, according to fluff canon.
asimo77 wrote:Oh god dakkadakka has become like school! Quickly someone do some mathammer! Someone ask about female marines! Someone complain about their codex! We have to stop the philosophical debates!
Oh yeah and on-topic: relativism almost never works anywhere.
I think the subject of art is one of the the exceptions.
To say that something like art appreciation isn't subjective is just plain silly. How's that for a non-relativist comment?
I feel completely and utterly lost here.
Hence a Calvin and Hobbes cartoon about Relativism:
Monster Rain wrote:Yeah, that comic applies to morality, not art appreciation.
Some things are wholly opinion based, it's just a fact.
Alright FINE.
Here is one dedicated to art:
EDIT: Image removed. Essentially, it showed a person of the Muslim faith drawing a crude picture of a person of the Jewish faith, and a Danish man drawing the picture of a cute looking Muhammad picture. The person of the Arab faith is critical of the picture of the Prophet of Islam.
Art in large part is a deliberate relativizing of concepts in various media. (The metaphor is a pretty basic example of that.) The idea that video games somehow are excluded is absurd.
Video games aren't excluded from being art or allowing to become art. They just haven't yet.
"Jeez....well, I took it down since the person I was aiming to please saw it. "
Is this supposed to be in reference to me? I didn't see the pic but I know of it.
"To say that something like art appreciation isn't subjective is just plain silly. How's that for a non-relativist comment?"
"I need help with mathhammering an effective choice of Fem TH/SS Terminators from the new Femarine Codex (which some are calling OTT). Can you help me asimo77?"
Well your first problem is you aren't playing chaos lady marines, it is the superior codex
Also Calvin and Hobbes FTW, though slightly irrelevant
I really should figure out how to quote properly...
asimo77 wrote:Only reason I thought the pic might be for me was because I come from a Muslim background.
The good news is that the internet is blind to everything except a person's prejudicial assumptions and what you are willing to give a person in terms of background information.
For instance, I did not know up until now that you were of the Muslim faith. I apologize if the image was too threatening to your beliefs or viewpoints regarding depictions of the Prophet or how others view a stereotypical view of your world view.
asimo77 wrote:Well I wouldn't call myself muslim but my family more or less is, hence the background. But regardless that's a totally different topic.
Not trying to put you into the spolight or anything though so don't worry about it.
There is something to be said about respectability on a forum. Sometimes humor can cross lines that shouldn't be crossed. I do my best to be entertaining and also respectful at the same time.
Manchu wrote:Can paintings one day be art? Yes. Are they art yet? No.
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. Though I'm glad you finally accepted me and Lordofhats as masters of all that is arty. It's about time really.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
WarOne wrote:
Manchu wrote:Can paintings one day be art? Yes. Are they art yet? No.
Can there be a transitive paradox condition where they become half-art, half-not art?
Manchu wrote:Maybe one day. When LordofHats and asimo77 give the okay.
No. A question must be valid to be okay'd
Something can be too immature to be art. Painting is an established form that has been around since before civilization. You're comparison fails to address the current question. You're definition works for a dictionary but fails in a proper discussion of the subject because it is to broad (as many dictionary definitions are). One of the things that separates a film like Lake Placid from one like Rebel without a Cause is that Lake Placid doesn't give us anything of significant cultural value. It means nothing, as do almost all video games if not all. Art is defined less by what it is and more by what it does. Video games don't yet do what art does. Art encourages deeper thought of the world or an examination of what the world is.
When I play Halo, I don't think about the meaning of life. I think about killing aliens. Video games thus far are incapable of effecting society in a meaningful way, though they are getting closer and closer and some have had huge cultural effects. What video game has said something meaningful about the world that goes deeper than a shallow puddle or a sound bit from a bumper sticker?
I disagree with Ebert, as he is of the position video games will never be art, which I disagree with. I think they can be. It's actually ironic a film critic says such a thing, cause there was a time when film was in the same position. The medium just hasn't developed enough to reach that point. Video games contain art, but are not art themselves as the medium has nothing artistic to offer us yet. Give it time. Video Games will have their time, and then the paintings and the sculptures that mocked us shall pay!
LordofHats wrote:EDIT: Master Chief is a very interesting character but I'd never call him strong. He speaks just enough to make him feel alive and endear him to the player as a character in the universe, but not enough to really make him feel like a character in himself without the player there (there really was a book written on this believe it or not). Even in the expanded universe, Master Chief is very shallow compared to some of the other characters in the series (most of the Spartans are the only exception jumping to my mind being Kurt).
I think Master Chief is a good example of exactly how much character I want out of the main, next to none. The reason is simple, when I play the game I am the main character. I control their every action. So to have some of that control taken away by someone else trying to give them personality is jarring. Even worse when they take actions or make statements that are completely contrary to how I see the character. It brings all immersion into the game to a screeching halt and can ruin and further investment I make in the perception of the character as I'm now waiting for the next stupid things the devs will have them say. Now there's nothing wrong with simple statements like the Chief's that are humorous, and at appropriate places they can have dialogue, but let me select it. Let me control the character from start to finish.
Nurglitch wrote:Braid is a fantastic example of mixing the story, graphics, and game-play. These aspects of a game need to be harmonized, not prioritized.
I can't speak to Braid specifically but I agree that you don't need to prioritize one element over the others. Amazing graphics won't sell me a game if the game itself sucks. An excellent story can be totally mucked up by gakky game play. A great and solid game can stand alone (the Sim City series) but that's largely outside the genres I think we're discussing. The moment you start injecting characters into the experience you'd better be ready to give them something interesting to say.
Wraithlordmechanic wrote:I don't understand this point of view. If I was the main character I would be doing more interacting than nodding my head or looking surprised. The communication from your end is completely insufficient in most RPGs. it always annoyed me when I was playing some RPG and an NPC would say "so you don't talk much huh?" when the designer could have made the character say something the he or she would understandably say given the circumstances. It would also be nice to be addressed as something other than "you" or "hero" or "lieutenant".
I would rather have the game supply a personality (like in brutal legend) then play a character that has none. Until a game comes along that lets you choose a demeanor to begin with and makes your character follow it in dialog I would rather have my personality supplied.
I can see your point of view but I just can't share it. Either give me the ability to shape my attitude as I chose or give the character none at all. Supplying me with a personality and no way to change it is to me the worst solution to the problem.
asimo77 wrote:Most games don't have a message, and so are mostly mediocre at best. A good video game story might be engaging, have interesting characters but you havent changed the way you think about the world at all in the end. Something that can do that would have a good story, and I suppose could be considred art. It's more entertainment than anything else, so I'd say that games are great for entertainment, and have entertaining stories, but not meaningful ones.
Deus Ex, full stop. Great (for its time) graphics, amazing game play, and a story that was top notch.
LordofHats wrote:And the story isn't what made Bioshock and Half Life 2 good. They were supplements to a strong gameplay aspect, that along with those decent "at least they don't suck" stories made the games stronger.
Oh please. HL2 is a FPS, full stop. The gravity gun is the only thing that even breaks the standard FPS mold even a little bit. Purely considered as a game HL2 is completely unremarkable. It's only after you add in the story that it stands out and anyone cares about it.
Ok maybe it's shoot the aliens and their naughty Combine friends. Oh and you're part of rebellion and the extra ugly aliens are actually on your side this time, because why not.
The problem is that people are still confusing elements of a video game with the video game itself. HL2 isn't just a story. It has visuals, sounds, and gameplay. It's a bloody good game, but those variables just don't come together in an artistic fashion (Still fun a bojangles).
What does HL2 have to say that has real meaning? Absolutely nothing.
Melissia wrote:"In the face of adversity, persevere."
And how does this help us in a real world sense? It doesn't, because it's a bumper sticker statement. It sounds nice but it doesn't have much practical meaning.
Most art doesn't say anything, it just looks pretty-- and even then only sometimes.
Take an Art History or an Appreciation of Art class... Or say that to an artist (have some insurance).
Art isn't about things which have meaning. That's philosophy.
LordofHats wrote:Take an Art History or an Appreciation of Art class... Or say that to an artist (have some insurance).
Take a game history or an Appreciation of GAming class... oh wait, they don't exist.
Just because the art community is too stuck up in its own backside and too behind the times to realize that gaming is developing into its own art form does not mean that it is so.
Melissia wrote:Just because the art community is too stuck up in its own backside and too behind the times to realize that gaming is developing into its own art form does not mean that it is so.
This is true, but just because someone is a snob about something doesn't make them wrong. Sadly I see a lot of people with Ebert's opinion, which seems very narrow minded.
And there are people that will not refer to comic books as "sequential art" because they oppose the idea of comics as an art form. Because as we all know, it's impossible to combine writing and visuals in a way that makes for actual art. Hell, there's people that refuse to call anything art except for "high art", stuff which was produced decades or centuries ago.
Screw those people.
While I admit to being a bit clumsy in expressing this opinion, I firmly believe gaming is an art form. Certainly, it's not perfect, it's young and developing, but that also means it's more exciting to participate in. And I never said all games were works of art, but certainly quite a few are.
The one that immediately springs to mind is The Path. The Path is a great piece of sequential storytelling, using images, mood, and music to tell a story in place of words to retell the story of Little Red Riding Hood in a completely new way, and how the old story can apply to the modern world.
Penumbra is another one, though it is a series of three games. It is a great horror game based on a FPS style control system, but it has no real weapons (the first game does, but they're weak enough that you're obviously not intended to actually go around killing enemies but to avoid them and use the weapons as tools rather than weapons) and very few "jump out of a window and bite your face" type horror moments. It is a more subtle horror, and even at the end when the wool in front of your eyes starts to unravel... it only becomes more terrifying, not less.
Meanwhile, other games are artwork not because of their storytelling and visuals, but because of what they do with their interactive elements. Trine, Portal, World of Goo, Doc Clock and the Toasted Sandwich of Time, and to a lesser extent Red Faction Guerrilla are all examples of this. It is not a visual or storytelling medium which they take to an art form.. it is their interactive medium that they do. The first four because they do lots of interesting and cool things with the limited resources they have-- portal is the most obvious example of this which most people would know of, due to its popularity. The last one I mention because of its physics engine, forcing the designers to make real buildings because buildings have materials w/tensile strengths and etc, and this means that the art form is that of blowing things up and seeing how they react.
It's a different medium, and its artform is different than other mediums. That does not make it non-art.
Melissia wrote:And there are people that will not refer to comic books as "sequential art" because they oppose the idea of comics as an art form. Because as we all know, it's impossible to combine writing and visuals in a way that makes for actual art.
I forgot about comics. They have been in this situation in the past. They kind of still are. We've had many comics (V for Vendetta, Sandman, Watchmen) that for sure are artistically valuable. The weekly issue of Superman though? Meh. Nor so sure.
Hell, there's people that refuse to call anything art except for "high art", stuff which was produced decades or centuries ago.
Screw those people. Yeah. I'm not a fan either.
It's a different medium, and its artform is different than other mediums. That does not make it non-art.
That's not what I'm arguing (though some people have made that argument against games and film alike). I'm merely arguing that the medium isn't mature enough.
Melissia wrote:And there are people that will not refer to comic books as "sequential art" because they oppose the idea of comics as an art form. Because as we all know, it's impossible to combine writing and visuals in a way that makes for actual art.
I forgot about comics. They have been in this situation in the past. They kind of still are. We've had many comics (V for Vendetta, Sandman, Watchmen) that for sure are artistically valuable. The weekly issue of Superman though? Meh. Nor so sure.
I'd argue that the average issue of a comic is a hell of a lot more artistic than many people would give them credit for. Batman in particular is a very good example of this, with it's dark undertones and notable links with the Gothic. Superman? Maybe. I don't read enough of Supes to make a judgement on that.
All I know is that, as I've stated before, art is a very subjective medium, and as a result I'm having to stick to my own guns here.
Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:I'd argue that the average issue of a comic is a hell of a lot more artistic than many people would give them credit for.
I would definitely agree with that. Video games and comics have gotten this unfair reputation as childish, which if you take a step into a store that sells either for more than ten minutes, you find out isn't necessarily true.
In all honesty I haven't followed comic books in a LONG time. I'm not quite up to date on what is currently going on. I got a little excited when I heard they killed Bruce Wayne and thought that maybe they were finally mixing things up, but then I remembered that for comic book super heroes, there is no death, and he'd be back soon enough, and I was right
Comic book death can bite my butt. If you're gonna kill someone, have the guts to keep them dead.
Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:I'd argue that the average issue of a comic is a hell of a lot more artistic than many people would give them credit for.
I would definitely agree with that. Video games and comics have gotten this unfair reputation as childish, which if you take a step into a store that sells either for more than ten minutes, you find out isn't necessarily true.
In all honesty I haven't followed comic books in a LONG time. I'm not quite up to date on what is currently going on. I got a little excited when I heard they killed Bruce Wayne and thought that maybe they were finally mixing things up, but then I remembered that for comic book super heroes, there is no death, and he'd be back soon enough, and I was right
Comic book death can bite my butt. If you're gonna kill someone, have the guts to keep them dead.
Well, there's quite a few heroes I can think of who've stayed dead, as well as various villains.
Starman, Hourman (I think), the original Question, Jade, Katma Tui and various veteran Green Lanterns.
Black Mask I, Ra's Al Ghul, Copperhead, KGBeast, Orca, Magpie, the original Ventriloquist, the Floronic Man (I think...)
By the way, being resurrected as a Black Lantern does not count, just so you know.
But I can see what you mean. Still, technically there was a new Batman, in the form of Dick Grayson, at least for a short while. And some of the villains are no longer villains; Riddler is now a detective, for example.
Captain America has died and been replaced a few times. There's been multiple Spidermans, but I doubt anyone really wants to get into the Clone saga again.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:All comics are art. They all have hand drawn pictures. A comic may not be good but that doesn't invalidate it as art.
Being a picture, drawing, or simply pretty isn't what art is about. If a comic isn't good then it hasn't made any meaningful impact upon society. If it hasn't done that then it isn't art. It's sort of like saying "bad art" isn't even art if that makes sense.
I also think what most people think is art within in videogames is just atmosphere and gameplay mechanics. For example Penumbra does an excellent job at scaring you but after that, so what? All the interactive elements of a game are great because they are unique to the medium, but what they enhance is gameplay and immersion, not its artitistic value. Could interactivity be a vehicle for art in the future? I think so, but we're not there yet. And I hope that the interactive quality of games is used to create a vehicle for better gameplay rather than art.
Games are form of entertainment more than anything else, and they entertain well. I have of course no problem with something being entertaining and art, but games don't need to be art to be successful, presently. They should worry about other problems in the industry first. And if you look at all the games that have been succesful recently like, "Meatboy" for example you'll have proof that games are doing fine without being artitsitc.
Also I don't know how you get art out of a physics engine letting you blow stuff up...
Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:I'd argue that the average issue of a comic is a hell of a lot more artistic than many people would give them credit for.
I would definitely agree with that. Video games and comics have gotten this unfair reputation as childish, which if you take a step into a store that sells either for more than ten minutes, you find out isn't necessarily true.
In all honesty I haven't followed comic books in a LONG time. I'm not quite up to date on what is currently going on. I got a little excited when I heard they killed Bruce Wayne and thought that maybe they were finally mixing things up, but then I remembered that for comic book super heroes, there is no death, and he'd be back soon enough, and I was right
Comic book death can bite my butt. If you're gonna kill someone, have the guts to keep them dead.
Well, there's quite a few heroes I can think of who've stayed dead, as well as various villains.
Starman, Hourman (I think), the original Question, Jade, Katma Tui and various veteran Green Lanterns.
Black Mask I, Ra's Al Ghul, Copperhead, KGBeast, Orca, Magpie, the original Ventriloquist, the Floronic Man (I think...)
By the way, being resurrected as a Black Lantern does not count, just so you know.
But I can see what you mean. Still, technically there was a new Batman, in the form of Dick Grayson, at least for a short while. And some of the villains are no longer villains; Riddler is now a detective, for example.
They'll be back. There's only one permanent death in comics: Uncle Ben.
asimo77 wrote:Being a picture, drawing, or simply pretty isn't what art is about. If a comic isn't good then it hasn't made any meaningful impact upon society.
If that's your definition, then almost nothing is art.
Games are making a big impact on society. The Wii is a household name, as is Halo, and World of Warcraft. If you merely judge based off of the impact something has on society then games are far more artistic in the modern era than classical art.
You have yet to actually define "artistic value" in a way that means anything.
Personally, I don't find any real artistic value in Picasso's paintings. I think that if only art majors can enjoy it then it's not very artistic to begin with.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:All comics are art. They all have hand drawn pictures. A comic may not be good but that doesn't invalidate it as art.
Being a picture, drawing, or simply pretty isn't what art is about. If a comic isn't good then it hasn't made any meaningful impact upon society. If it hasn't done that then it isn't art. It's sort of like saying "bad art" isn't even art if that makes sense.
Yes, well that's exactly the opposite of what i'm saying. Bad art is art. Who can say what's good or bad. For example I think picasso sucks balls. However I'll admit its art, highly over rated though it may be.
asimo77 wrote:Being a picture, drawing, or simply pretty isn't what art is about. If a comic isn't good then it hasn't made any meaningful impact upon society.
If that's your definition, then almost nothing is art.
That's actually the most formal definition of art, and probably the most useful for aesthetics.
I don't know if this has been made clear enough, but I honestly couldn't care less what the art community thinks.
No, really, I don't think it is possible for me to care less about the subject. My own exposure to said community has been extremely negative, and hell, most of them would mock you for playing 40k or collecting/painting the models.
I don't know if this has been made clear enough, but I honestly couldn't care less what the art community thinks.
No, really, I don't think it is possible for me to care less about the subject. My own exposure to said community has been extremely negative, and hell, most of them would mock you for playing 40k or collecting/painting the models.
That's essentially claiming that in regards to physics you don't care what a physics professor thinks. I know their douche bags, but their douche bags who specialize in this kind of talk. It's their life. They'll probably keep saying video games aren't art even after they've achieved that status (some people still argue films aren't artistic). But that doesn't mean their knowledge is invalid. Their meanies but their meanies who happen to be correct (EDIT: eh, probably most correct). This is assuming everyone agrees with that given definition, which all don't.
It is interesting seeing the differing view on art between those who are artists, those who study art, and those who just casually engage in it.
Unlike art, physics is a science. Art is entirely subjective. The laws of physics are not (at least outside of quantum physics, but that's a subject most people don't even remotely understand anyway until they get a masters).
People should stop that. Art being good or bad is subjective. Being Art is less a matter of subjective value judgements and more defining what the attributes of art are, and those attributes can be objectively determined.
And yes. Denying an experts opinion in their given field is basically the same thing no matter what the field is.
Also, I consider myself a casual artist. I occasionally draw object or portraits using my various pencils (most people don't even know there's pencil grades other than number two to begin with). I enjoy art in general, but classical art bores me.
I should haven been more specific about the description of art,, admittedly. I was trying to address how many people think something being a painting immediatley makes it art.
When I say impact society, I mean that there is a significant shift in cultural schemas. Very good art paves the way for other pieces like itself, it not only has to say something important but the idea has to be big enough for other people to expand on it.
As for people bashing what is classically taken to be art: Look at the Mona Lisa for example, it may be pretty, ugly, whatever but it has become a symbol for art itself. Throw up a picture of the Mona Lisa and people immediatley know you'll probably be talking about art.
However, in my definition of art I'm usually thinking in literary terms though, because I don't want to say that anything that becomes a symbol is art, then like you said, the Wii could be artful.
Also it's more than just impacting society. Technology has had a large impact on society, but would you call penicillin art?
I don't see why I need to answer the question directly anyway, considering that noone really agrees on what makes art.
For myself, I think the best definition of art is the first one given by Princeton: "the products of human creativity". Wikipedia's definition is also good: "Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way to affect the senses or emotions."
But I think some people in this thread would say that this is overbroad
LordofHats wrote:And yes. Denying an experts opinion in their given field is basically the same thing no matter what the field is.
No.
I get this all the time, mostly because all my friends are doing computer science, physics, and engineering while I'm the only one from my entire highschool doing philosophy and history. I have successfully combined esoteric and useless into one doubly un-lucrative double major :(
I always get a ton of "why don't you study something real" and "who cares about that" I don't talk about any of that stuff in casual conversation, but when philiosophy does get brought up everyone seems to want to ignore the philosophy major :(
Well something that causes an entire society to rethink, complicate, or expand pre-established values and in some cases create new ones or eradicate old ones.
LordofHats wrote:And yes. Denying an experts opinion in their given field is basically the same thing no matter what the field is.
No.
I get this all the time, mostly because all my friends are doing computer science, physics, and engineering while I'm the only one from my entire highschool doing philosophy and history. I have successfully combined esoteric and useless into one doubly un-lucrative double major :(
I would love to do that however "doubly un-lucrative double major" is the perfect description for it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
asimo77 wrote:Well something that causes an entire society to rethink, complicate, or expand pre-established values and in some cases create new ones or eradicate old ones.
That's excessively lofty. You putting art on a......pedastol.
Anyways, the thing is a child playing with hand paints is art.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:and what are your "attributes of art"?
I've gone over it in the thread. And their not really mine. I do not study aesthetics, I'm a history major. I did a paper on this very subject a year or so ago, and am mostly repeating the various information I put together for that.
A better question would be what are your attributes of art? EDIT: Rather, what standard would you use to qualify something as art?
Melissia wrote:Also, I consider myself a casual artist. I occasionally draw object or portraits using my various pencils (most people don't even know there's pencil grades other than number two to begin with). I enjoy art in general, but classical art bores me.
I write fiction, but nothing I write is really artistic. I don't play with language, nor do I have anything meaningful to say. I do it because I doze off and start day dreaming way to easily
Melissia wrote:
LordofHats wrote:And yes. Denying an experts opinion in their given field is basically the same thing no matter what the field is.
No.
Yes. You can't deny the position and knowledge of an expert just because you disagree with them (even if they are douche bags). They amy very well be wrong, but so far you've done little to prove them wrong.
Art is subjective. Even what makes up art is poorly defined.
No. Art is complicated to discuss. What makes it up is very difficult to determine because it is a vast and varied field and unlike math, not easily quantifiable. That doesn't make it subjective. This is basically philosophy 101. Not being emperical does not make something subjective, just bones hard confusing.
Melissia wrote:I would call the science behind the production of chemicals such as penicillin an art form.
Today we would call that... science. And the practice of science is a craft (which at a time in history was considered the same thing as art but for the past few centuries we've chosen to draw a distinction between art and craft).
Melissia wrote:I don't see why I need to answer the question directly anyway, considering that noone really agrees on what makes art.
No one agrees but no one has every proposed "art is what I say it is" and been taken seriously. It's called making an argument.
But I think some people in this thread would say that this is overbroad
Indeed. But come now. It is an interesting discussion
I do admit I have very high standards and I think that a medium must have several seminal pieces produced to consider the entire medium as an artform.
I would think that a child's painting is more of a sign that he or she is developing cognitive and motor skills at the expected pace. Of course I should tell that to that kid's mother and see what I get...
asimo77 wrote:I do admit I have very high standards and I think that a medium must have several seminal pieces produced to consider the entire medium as an artform.
By your standards only a dozen human beings on the planet are capable of art. That is simply not true. Most people are capable of art. Art does not have to redefine civilization. Art can be my Imperial Guardmen.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Damn you quote function! You've bested me again.
LordofHats wrote:Yes. You can't deny the position and knowledge of an expert just because you disagree with them
Yes I can. They are not an expert in a scientific endeavor. They're "experts" in a field of subjective study, where one person's art is the next person's trash.
LordofHats wrote:Yes. You can't deny the position and knowledge of an expert just because you disagree with them
Yes I can. They are not an expert in a scientific endeavor. They're "experts" in a field of subjective study, where one person's art is the next person's trash.
Really. Philosophy is not a field of subjective study. People learn this in any introductory philosophy class.
Man this sounds like a dick thing to say, but I would imagine that IG guys, even those painted pretty damn well, doesn't constitute as art. I don't think anyone will change their perceptions on anything when they look at a model, mostly just "wow awesome scheme" Again I mean no disrespect to your painting abilities.
And yes I do think only a few people have really produced great works of art. Consider how many classics are ever covered in schooling for example. A single book can have a huge impact.
Man this sounds like a dick thing to say, but I would imagine that IG guys, even those painted pretty damn well, doesn't constitute as art. I don't think anyone will change their perceptions on anything when they look at a mode, mostyl just "wow awesome scheme" Again I mean no disrespect to your painting abilities.
And yes I do think only a few people have really produced great works of art. Consider how many classics are ever covered in schooling for example. A single book can have a huge impact.
ah, but is not the man who sculpted it an artist? Sculpting is a dwindling art form kept alive mostly by our favorite hobby.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:I would argue that one cannot be an expert of Art.
Your argument is that there is no such thing as an expert in philosophy? That no one can have sufficient knowledge to be an authority on a subject that is not empirically quantitative? And that something that is not empirically quantitative is subjective? Seriously?
KamikazeCanuck wrote:I would argue that one cannot be an expert of Art.
Your argument is that there is no such thing as an expert in philosophy? That no one can have sufficient knowledge to be an authority on a subject that is not empirically quantitative? Seriously?
I didn't say anything about philosophy. Your putting words in my mouth err keyboard.
Man this sounds like a dick thing to say, but I would imagine that IG guys, even those painted pretty damn well, doesn't constitute as art. I don't think anyone will change their perceptions on anything when they look at a mode, mostyl just "wow awesome scheme" Again I mean no disrespect to your painting abilities.
And yes I do think only a few people have really produced great works of art. Consider how many classics are ever covered in schooling for example. A single book can have a huge impact.
ah, but is not the man who sculpted it an artist? Sculpting is a dwindling art form kept alive mostly by our favorite hobby.
After seeing the new deldar Jes and Jaun are goddamn muses
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh ok by expert you meant someone who has studied the field. I thought you meant an expert at creating art.
Man this sounds like a dick thing to say, but I would imagine that IG guys, even those painted pretty damn well, doesn't constitute as art. I don't think anyone will change their perceptions on anything when they look at a mode, mostyl just "wow awesome scheme" Again I mean no disrespect to your painting abilities.
And yes I do think only a few people have really produced great works of art. Consider how many classics are ever covered in schooling for example. A single book can have a huge impact.
ah, but is not the man who sculpted it an artist? Sculpting is a dwindling art form kept alive mostly by our favorite hobby.
After seeing the new deldar Jes and Jaun are goddamn muses
Yeah frikkin awesome. But like Melissia said they would be mocked in traditional art circles for making alien toy soldiers.
These experts whose positions you are calling subjective are philosophers. I'm not talking some tour guide in an art museum. I'm talking Professor Happersnapserwhip (yes I did make that name up) who wrote a dissertation on what is art and is an expert in the field of aesthetics, which is the study of art and where we turn to to find out what art is.
You did just call philosophy subjective because there is in fact a scientific field dedicated to its study and it is not subjective.
Well they look hella nice, but do the models say anything significant about the human condition? That they don't doesn't mean they deserve to be ridiclued though.
These experts whose positions you are calling subjective are philosophers. I'm not talking some tour guide in an art museum. I'm talking Professor Happersnapserwhip (yes I did make that name up) who wrote a dissertation on what is art and is an expert in the field of aesthetics, which is the study of art and where we turn to to find out what art is.
You did just call philosophy subjective because there is in fact a scientific field dedicated to its study and it is not subjective.
Dude, have fun defending a position no one challenged. It shall surely be an endless debate.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
asimo77 wrote:Well they look hella nice, but do the models say anything significant about the human condition? That they don't doesn't mean they deserve to be ridiclued though.
So I understand your position: you would say that the models do say something significant and thus are art? Or that being really sweet looking is an art making property?
KamikazeCanuck wrote:Dude, have fun defending a position no one challenged. It shall surely be an endless debate.
Does no one read what they say on this forum?
Melissa wrote:They're "experts" in a field of subjective study, where one person's art is the next person's trash.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:No she's right.
I would argue that one cannot be an expert of Art. You can be an expert in the history of art.
Both of you claimed that a field of philosophy in subjective. If that is not what you meant to say, you shouldn't have said it, because that is in fact what you said.
asimo77 wrote:So I understand your position: you would say that the models do say something significant and thus are art? Or that being really sweet looking is an art making property?
I'm saying they do nothing significant yet are art. Furthermore, the sweetness of said piece or lack of aforementioned sweetness has no bearing on its arthood.
LordofHats wrote:Both of you claimed that a field of philosophy in subjective.
No.
Do not try pushing a strawman argument on me if you want to keep this conversation civil.
VERY few things piss me off more than strawman arguments.
Really?
Aesthetics is a field of philosophy specializing in the study of art. You claim that the study of art is subjective. You just called philosophy subjective. I've been putting forward the positions of aesthetics this whole discussion and you dismiss them as subjective. This is not a straw man it is what you said.
I don't want to live on this planet anymore... Very few things piss me off more than people saying something and then acting like they never said it.
LordofHats wrote:Both of you claimed that a field of philosophy in subjective.
No.
Do not try pushing a strawman argument on me if you want to keep this conversation civil.
VERY few things piss me off more than strawman arguments.
Really?
Aesthetics is a field of philosophy specializing in the study of art. You claim that the study of art is subjective. You just called philosophy subjective. This is not a straw man it is what you said.
I don't want to live on this planet anymore...
look up association fallacy while your pretending to know about philosophy.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:look up association fallacy while your pretending to know about philosophy.
Look up what an association fallacy is before you throw it around. Then go back through the thread, read your comments, and apply some critical reading skills.
No, jI didn't.
I said art is subjective.
Why do I have to keep going back and quoting people who say things and then act like they never said them?
They're "experts" in a field of subjective study, where one person's art is the next person's trash.
YES. You did. Those experts are in the field of philosophy.
There is nothing else of value to say on this subject. Drop it.
I'ma be stubborn and say no and provide no valid argument for my position.
You can lie, manipulate, and twist words all you want, but that does not lead to you putting forth a respectable argument or being a respectable poster. I said "art is subjective". That is all I said. I said nothing about philosophy, and your lying, manipulating, and twisting of words to attempt to place such meanings in my posts does you no credit.
Melissia wrote:I said "art is subjective". That is all I said. I said nothing about philosophy, and your lying, manipulating, and twisting of words to attempt to place such meanings in my posts does you no credit.
omg. I have quoted you twice now. Are you really that dense? You get no credit as a respectable poster because you can't even seem to keep track of your own words and what they mean. There is no twisting. I brought up the field of Aesthetics awhile ago, referencing what people in the field have produced. And you responded by saying they are not experts because they are in a field of subjective study. There is nothing to twist manipulate or lie about.
asimo77 wrote:I think what he meant is you're saying "art is subjective" the study of art falls under philosophy which is an objective field.
No. I'm not even talking about that comment. I'm talking about this one, which I have quoted three times now:
They're "experts" in a field of subjective study, where one person's art is the next person's trash.
I mean come on. This isn't rocket science it doesn't take a page and half to go over what someone has said and what it means. It's right there. How can this possibly be misunderstood as meaning anything else than exactly what says.
Then obviously I disagree with him on that measure, because I did not make the statements he claims I made. No matter how much he lies about it, I still did not say anything about philosophy.
Melissia wrote:Then obviously I disagree with him on that measure, because I did not make the statements he claims I made. No matter how much he lies about it, I still did not say anything about philosophy.
Forth time. This is your post. Quoted word for word:
Melissia wrote:
LordofHats wrote:Yes. You can't deny the position and knowledge of an expert just because you disagree with them
Yes I can. They are not an expert in a scientific endeavor. They're "experts" in a field of subjective study, where one person's art is the next person's trash.
Did you not bother reading anything I said prior to this? Do you just respond blindly without at all considering what has been said? Read before you speak. And actually read what I say before calling me a liar.
""experts" in a field of subjective study,"
Ok if the field of study you are referencing here is Aesthetics then I understand where Lordofhats is coming from.
Aesthetics is what I've been talking about this whole time.
Whenever new artforms emerge, people claim that they are not actually art and go on and on about the preservation of meaningful art. It's the same mediocre, anti-art response every time.
Also kudos to Nurglitch for the link, Kant's definition for art was in here:
“a kind of representation that is purposive in itself and, though without an end, nevertheless promotes the cultivation of the mental powers for sociable communication.”
This is a fairly good description I would say. Sometimes I find myself wholly agreeing with Kant and sometimes I hate him. But not more than Hume! Get that foo out of your sig!
Manchu wrote:Whenever new artforms emerge, people claim that they are not actually art and go on and on about the preservation of meaningful art. It's the same mediocre, anti-art response every time.
No one is saying that, I think most people have agreed games can be art or will eventually. Just nothing has done so yet.
Automatically Appended Next Post: "Aesthetics is what I've been talking about this whole time."
I meant what field Melissia was referencing, which seems to be anything that isn't a science
I'll live. My reading skills are actually sufficient to you know. Read. As long as I have that, I'll be okay, because the instructions on the life support machine make sense
I'm still trying to figure out how this happened twice in one day. I admit I probably read into whatwhat's post too much, but THIS is ridiculous.
Manchu wrote:"Not yet" is a shade less arbitrary than "never"?
Not really I think most people can look at the history of cinema and even comic books as have been mentioned in this thread, and see how they evolved into what they are today. Or hell, look at cave scrawlings and what's in museums now, albeit the cave scrawlings are probably there too.
LordofHats wrote:I don't want to live on this planet anymore... Very few things piss me off more than people saying something and then acting like they never said it.
Oh, you get used to it in one of "these" threads.
Step 1: Make patently false, outlandish claim.
Step 2: When challenged, deny saying it even when quoted. Accuse people pointing out your inaccuracy as "derailing the thread."
Step 3: ...?
Step 4: Profit!
Manchu wrote:Whenever new artforms emerge, people claim that they are not actually art and go on and on about the preservation of meaningful art. It's the same mediocre, anti-art response every time.
I totally agree. I've heard art experts denounce everything from comic books to web design as either not being art at all or even more condescendingly, low art. It seems to fly in the face of everything that I would imagine that these "experts" would consider art to represent.
The whole basis of hat guy's arguement is that we said art is subjective. Then he's like well art falls under Aesthetics a "branch of philosophy" so all philosophy is sunjective. We don't accept that.
Just because all Xs are Ys doesn't mean we ment all Ys are Xs. That's the last I'm going to participate in this faux debate.
Manchu wrote:Whenever new artforms emerge, people claim that they are not actually art and go on and on about the preservation of meaningful art. It's the same mediocre, anti-art response every time.
I totally agree. I've heard art experts denounce everything from comic books to web design as either not being art at all or even more condescendingly, low art. It seems to fly in the face of everything that I would imagine that these "experts" would consider art to represent.
Indeed. It seems that when people do this, it's less about what art actually is and more about the snobbish idea that something new cannot be art, precisely because it's new. This is always what I glean from people who have made this argument, with the exception of Asimo back there.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:The whole basis of hat guy's arguement is that we said art is subjective. Then he's like well art falls under Aesthetics a "branch of philosophy" so all philosophy is sunjective. We don't accept that.
Just because all Xs are Ys doesn't mean we ment all Ys are Xs. That's the last I'm going to participate in this faux debate.
Well the quote said "they are experts in a field of subjective study, yadda yadda yadda" the field in question is not subjective.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:The whole basis of hat guy's arguement is that we said art is subjective. Then he's like well art falls under Aesthetics a "branch of philosophy" so all philosophy is sunjective. We don't accept that.
Just because all Xs are Ys doesn't mean we ment all Ys are Xs. That's the last I'm going to participate in this faux debate.
Did you bother reading anything? I brought up Asethetics awhile ago. Before the 'experts' in a subjective field thing even came up.
See this post:
LordofHats wrote:
Melissia wrote:
asimo77 wrote:Being a picture, drawing, or simply pretty isn't what art is about. If a comic isn't good then it hasn't made any meaningful impact upon society.
If that's your definition, then almost nothing is art.
That's actually the most formal definition of art, and probably the most useful for aesthetics.
Your argument has no basis. You plug your fingers into your ears going no no no no, and apparently seem incapable of reading. I've been talking about the field of Aesthetics for awhile. I've been talking about the people who work in the field, the experts in art you both claim do not exist because their field is subjective. Far as I can tell, neither you nor Melissa even bother reading what I said, or lack the capacity to understand it and would rather blabber on with your fingers in your ears than produce a valid response.
EDIT: The fact you're trying to apply a false association fallacy only makes it sadder, because I've gone over this a half dozen times now, and you're still incapable of realizing what happened.
Just as an aside, it's probably not a good idea to start using insults in your posts.
Oh, and Melissia is female. I don't know if you were referring to her as "that guy," but remember that you're meant to refer to women as "she," if you aren't referring to them by name.
Just because we said experts in the subjective field of art aren't worth listening too doesn't mean we said experts in all subjective fields aren't worth listening too. I'm tired of saying the same thing over and over.
I had to go back over my post and delete a lot of stuff about you Lordofhats that I realized would get me banned.
I've never had to use the ignore function before. You shall be the inaugural press. Be proud of that.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:Just because we said experts in the subjective field of art aren't worth listening too doesn't mean we said experts in all subjective fields aren't worth listening too. I'm tired of saying the same thing over and over.
How do you think I feel? I keep talking about an objective field of philosophical study and you keep calling it subjective while at the same time claiming you never did so which you've just managed to do both in a single sentence. Bravo.
I've never had to use the ignore function before. You shall be the inaugural press. Be proud of that.
I guess you still have your fingers in your ears. They do say ignorance is bliss.
Just because we said experts in the subjective field of art aren't worth listening too doesn't mean we said experts in all subjective fields aren't worth listening too. I'm tired of saying the same thing over and over.
You're claiming it's subjective right here. The second bolded part is a bit confusing. What are these other subjective fields? You don't mean philosophy do you?
Just because we said experts in the subjective field of art aren't worth listening too doesn't mean we said experts in all subjective fields aren't worth listening too. I'm tired of saying the same thing over and over.
You're claiming it's subjective right here. The second bolded part is a bit confusing. What are these other subjective fields? You don't mean philosophy do you?
Philosophy was never even mentioned by me or Melissia. That guy whose name I can't remember just came out of the blue and said we attacked philosophy or something and then debated himself. As she said: a strawman.
asimo77 wrote:Half Life 2's story: shoot the aliens
Deus Ex's story: shoot the conspiracy theorists.
Gee, thanks for actually giving a reasoned argument rather than just ridiculously simplifying things and dismissing them out of hand. Explain to me how Half-Life is such a success when from a purely gameplay perspective both installments are run of the mill FPS's with graphics that are just par for the course when they're released. The only thing either installment of HL have had going for them that separated them from the rest of the games out there was setting and story. That's it. Look at the trends in the industry. You get companies that go out and develop game engines and create a simplistic game with them, decent enough for what it is but forgettable. Then another company comes along, licenses the engine and instead of blowing dollars reinventing the wheel they sink that money into the artistic aspects of the game like story, setting, environments, etc. and those games are hits. Quake was a decent, fun, game. Half-Life, using the quake engine sold 9.3 million copies because it took the gameplay aspect and then took it farther by giving it more than just shooting an endless stream of bad guys.
As for the ranting of the last three pages, LoH, it's fairly easy to see how Melissa's statement might have nothing to do with Aesthetics specifically. Be it on purpose or by missing that addition its fairly obvious she might very well have still been speaking of art in general which is what she and asimo were discussing. You're the one that brought Aesthetics into it. Should she re-read it and either amend or clarify what she said? Probably? does it necessitate the three page jihad of smashing your face into a brick wall that the last couple pages were, not really. TL;DR, you're both equally wrong and obstinate.
Oh yes video games, what this thread was supposed to be about!
You're asking why any shooter is succesful really. It's ideally due to AI, slick controls, variation in gameplay and so on. All the CoD's are practically the same and yet they are succesful, it's not because of their Tom Clancy knock-off plots. You also seem to be confusing style and presentation with story. HL doesn't have a meaningful story but it gives a purpose and motive to the characters, like an entertaining action film.
As for the second part, if we're talking about art how is Aesthetics not involved? It's like saying that "experts in the study of existence are losers". Then when someone says "how can you claim ontology isn't a respectable field?" People go "but I never said that!"
Also sorry for keeping things terse, I have an exam in a little bit so my posts are probably not too well thought out, what with being pressed for time and all.
To be honest, Asimo, I lost the plot a long while ago.
Anyway, video games. I would have to agree in the case of the CoD series; the storylines, though enjoyable, aren't exactly classics. It's more about the way the game plays that makes the series a success. Indeed, this is probably the case with many games, though occasionally you will get a series of games, or even just one game with a really good plot and story (which technically aren't the same thing) which really adds to the game. Sure, they're uncommon, but they do exist.
asimo77 wrote:Oh yes video games, what this thread was supposed to be about!
You're asking why any shooter is succesful really. It's ideally due to AI, slick controls, variation in gameplay and so on. All the CoD's are practically the same and yet they are succesful, it's not because of their Tom Clancy knock-off plots. You also seem to be confusing style and presentation with story. HL doesn't have a meaningful story but it gives a purpose and motive to the characters, like an entertaining action film.
And again, I'll point out that HL was a purely run of the mill FPS that didn't significantly innovate anywhere in terms of gameplay of the genre. The COD/MW franchises keep cranking out new iterations of the same game because the people who play them are after flashy graphics and the ability to shoot another guy online with a rifle. They have to keep making new iterations of the same game with minor improvements because if they don't the person who does will capture market share quickly because there's nothing holding the gamers to that title. They don't care about it.
And I'm not confusing style and presentation, I'm adding them to the discussion. I'm not trying to say that the storylines in HL or Deus Ex were equivalent to War and Peace, they are at their heart just extra long action movies, but there is a story there that is far more complex than, "Shoot the XXXX" and that's one of the things that separates them from the games that are actually just, "Shoot the XXXX" style games like Doom or Quake. Style and presentation were brought in because this seems to have morphed into a discussion about art and at least in the case of HL the production values were one of the things that set it apart from its roots in Quake but far from the only thing.
As for the second part, if we're talking about art how is Aesthetics not involved?
Read what Melissa wrote, consider that her entire argument had been about art to that point. Hats brings in the specific field of Aesthetics. It is entirely possible that Melissa did not catch the Aesthetics inclusion and continued talking about art. I pointed out that Melissa probably needs to re-read what he wrote and consider it and is no more right in this case than Hats. It went from a somewhat interesting thread about characters, and artistic value of games to Melissa and Hats smashing their faces against their respective brick walls for three pages over one rather simplistic misunderstanding.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:Philosophy was never even mentioned by me or Melissia. That guy whose name I can't remember just came out of the blue and said we attacked philosophy or something and then debated himself. As she said: a strawman.
And now I demonstrate my lack of a life. Lets go back through the thread and take a looksie at the conversation that Canuck here has never bothered reading!
LordofHats wrote:That's actually the most formal definition of art, and probably the most useful for aesthetics.
Aesthetics is a field of philosophy. If you're asking what is art, you are asking a question that falls under this field. Asethetics is clearly the subject being discussed.
Melissia wrote:IE, noone that really matters?
I don't know if this has been made clear enough, but I honestly couldn't care less what the art community thinks.
Obviously someone is participating in a discussion they know nothing about, as the art community was never mentioned. The field of aesthetics was. That's an actual straw man for those of you who like throwing around things you don't understand. Nevertheless, I attempt to rectify this confusion here:
LordofHats wrote:That's essentially claiming that in regards to physics you don't care what a physics professor thinks. I know their douche bags, but their douche bags who specialize in this kind of talk. It's their life. They'll probably keep saying video games aren't art even after they've achieved that status (some people still argue films aren't artistic). But that doesn't mean their knowledge is invalid. Their meanies but their meanies who happen to be correct (EDIT: eh, probably most correct). This is assuming everyone agrees with that given definition, which all don't.
Which definition? Probably the one being discussed. The one that comes from Aesthetics.
Melissia wrote:Unlike art, physics is a science. Art is entirely subjective. The laws of physics are not (at least outside of quantum physics, but that's a subject most people don't even remotely understand anyway until they get a masters).
Here we see a blatantly ignorant statement, made by someone who still doesn't know what their talking about. Still. My patience remains and I attempt to correct the mistake:
LordofHats wrote:People should stop that. Art being good or bad is subjective. Being Art is less a matter of subjective value judgements and more defining what the attributes of art are, and those attributes can be objectively determined.
And yes. Denying an experts opinion in their given field is basically the same thing no matter what the field is.
Obviously these experts are in the field of Aesthetics, the only experts that I have discussed or mentioned, and regardless of Milissa's lack of understanding for what these people do, who she is ignorantly talking about.
Melissia wrote:
LordofHats wrote:And yes. Denying an experts opinion in their given field is basically the same thing no matter what the field is.
No.
Art is subjective. Even what makes up art is poorly defined
This is the part where fingers go into ears.
LordofHats wrote:No. Art is complicated to discuss. What makes it up is very difficult to determine because it is a vast and varied field and unlike math, not easily quantifiable. That doesn't make it subjective. This is basically philosophy 101. Not being emperical does not make something subjective, just bones hard confusing.
At this point, it's getting a little annoying, as certain people, I forget her name, apparently lacks reading comprehension and can't figure out what someone else is talking about. So, we fall back on the age old answer to these problems, saying something blatantly incorrect!
Melissia wrote:
LordofHats wrote:Yes. You can't deny the position and knowledge of an expert just because you disagree with them
Yes I can. They are not an expert in a scientific endeavor. They're "experts" in a field of subjective study, where one person's art is the next person's trash.
And here is where the third party enters, apparently not bothering to read or understand the previous discussion and simply blindly agrees with incorrect statement:
KamikazeCanuck wrote:No she's right.
I would argue that one cannot be an expert of Art. You can be an expert in the history of art.
Still don't get it Canuck? Meh. Doesn't matter. *Hands in resignation* I hereby resign my position as one capable of intelligent conversation and will now only respond to individual sentences that exist in the black void of space blindly without any consideration for the context of the discussion they exist in. And giving a reason for my conclusions? Why bother? I can just stick my fingers in my ears and go no no no no sounding like a broken record and become instantaniously correct!
In the words of some band I heard on the radio once, "So long and good night!"
And again, I'll point out that HL was a purely run of the mill FPS that didn't significantly innovate anywhere in terms of gameplay of the genre. The COD/MW franchises keep cranking out new iterations of the same game because the people who play them are after flashy graphics and the ability to shoot another guy online with a rifle. They have to keep making new iterations of the same game with minor improvements because if they don't the person who does will capture market share quickly because there's nothing holding the gamers to that title. They don't care about it.
I guess the point is all shooters are nearly identical in gameplay and storytelling. The same reasons why each CoD, as similar as they are, is successful is why any shooter is successful. They seem to succeed not by setting themselves apart but by imitation. Half Life is no different, it has the same quality of gameplay as most (successful) shooters which include: paper thin story, good controls/mechanics, and decent AI. Successful shooters do well because the same people keep buying them. In other words shooters don't have to set themselves apart to be successful, it's the most stagnant genre.
And I'm not confusing style and presentation, I'm adding them to the discussion. I'm not trying to say that the storylines in HL or Deus Ex were equivalent to War and Peace, they are at their heart just extra long action movies, but there is a story there that is far more complex than, "Shoot the XXXX" and that's one of the things that separates them from the games that are actually just, "Shoot the XXXX" style games like Doom or Quake. Style and presentation were brought in because this seems to have morphed into a discussion about art and at least in the case of HL the production values were one of the things that set it apart from its roots in Quake but far from the only thing.
If you're asserting that the stories of HL and Deus Ex are not that spectacular, then we are in agreement. I would however say that these stories are only marginally more complex than "Shoot the XXXXX", like an entertaining action film as you said. HL does separate istelf from the rest of the genre through style, setting, atmosphere, and so on. A video game can create an immersive atmosphere better than any other medium, and if two games have identical gameplay this is the next area to evaluate when making any sort of critical comparison. However this sense of style or atmosphere is different from a story. Take Oblivion for example, there's a lot of effort and imagination put into the world making it more engaging and real, as it were. However, the story is simply "demons are coming, you gotta kill em". In other words it's "Shoot the demons (with a bow)".
Read what Melissa wrote, consider that her entire argument had been about art to that point. Hats brings in the specific field of Aesthetics. It is entirely possible that Melissa did not catch the Aesthetics inclusion and continued talking about art. I pointed out that Melissa probably needs to re-read what he wrote and consider it and is no more right in this case than Hats. It went from a somewhat interesting thread about characters, and artistic value of games to Melissa and Hats smashing their faces against their respective brick walls for three pages over one rather simplistic misunderstanding.
She did ask what the definition of art was, but perhaps we shouldn't go much further into that side of the thread.
Really? If you want the kind of stuff that Bioshock tried to convey why not just read Ayn Rand, then promptly kill yourself for having read Ayn Rand. Or better yet go to the wikipedia page on Objectivism, because it's about as deep Bioshock went into the subject.
However, the setting, style, and mood of Bioshock was stellar, which is more important to a game than it's story, because you can get good stories in books and movies, but finding truley engaging, immersive atmopsheres is hard to find in other mediums.
I don't think good presentation is what constitutes art. Though perhaps Bioshock, may have come the closest to being art, but only scratched the surface of the themes it was dealing with. And that's more than enough exposition for a video game, couple that with fun gameplay and you get why Bioshock was so successful.
asimo77 wrote:Really? If you want the kind of stuff that Bioshock tried to convey why not just read Ayn Rand, then promptly kill yourself for having read Ayn Rand. Or better yet go to the wikipedia page on Objectivism, because it's about as deep Bioshock went into the subject.
However, the setting, style, and mood of Bioshock was stellar, which is more important to a game than it's story, because you can get good stories in books and movies, but finding truley engaging, immersive atmopsheres is hard to find in other mediums.
Indeed, it's really the setting and atmosphere of a game that makes it something I want to play. Hence my love of the Total War series; they do make you feel like a Roman general/shogun commander/whatever to play.
Total war might be my favorite RTS series ever. I always felt underhwlemed by controlling just 100 or so guys in other RTS's. But when you get 1000's of doodz it feels like a real army.
asimo77 wrote:I don't think good presentation is what constitutes art.
I don't think art needs to dramatically effect society.
In fact, I would go so far as to say that it takes more artistic talent to create a good, immersive game the likes of Bioshock than it does to make a painting or sculpture.
Paintings and sculptures aren't automatically art either. Though I think the Sistine Chapel was probably a wee bit harder to create than Atlas Shrugged the game.
If something isn't "earth altering" then in the long run you could say it's pointless, which sounds snobbish I guess, but that's beside the point.
Again I think Kant has got a few things right in his definition: "a kind of representation that is purposive in itself and, though without an end, nevertheless promotes the cultivation of the mental powers for sociable communication."
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also I think you might be making the assumption that I beleive what is classically considered as art, such as paintings, scupltures, theatre, and other older forms of expression are the only things considered art.
That isn't true, I think nearly any medium can become artful, it just takes a while.
"Also I think you might be making the assumption that I beleive what is classically considered as art, such as paintings, scupltures, theatre, and other older forms of expression are the only things considered art.
That isn't true, I think nearly any medium can become artful, it just takes a while"
I just said that isn't true. It's not my fault the industry is more concerned with making money than making art right now. Do you think cinema was immediatley an artform. Also there's no reason to continue this thread Wrexosaur summed it up pretty well.
Your honesty and reasoning has been quite refreshing, asimo. Thanks for the interesting read.
@Melissia
It's not actually that silly. While there are many styles of art which can be reasonably considered "anti-art", they are art because of the amount of time and energy expended to make them recognizable.
Perhaps that is all it is, but one can easily argue about how much time is involved in such a change. Intellectualizing art kind of bugs me to be honest. Nothing ruins my experience of a work of art more than a group of people discussing why it is art. I just want to enjoy it. Call me crazy, but whatever.
Not hating, just expressing my opinion of art critics in general, and I certainly don't consider the entire community to be so... well, annoying really. There is a certain point, as is the case with developing something into an art, where intellectualism really does ruin the experience. It breaks it into pieces and attempts to remove the ability to have a personalized experience. Much of what I have read concerning the study of aesthetics, while not necessarily wrong, is incredibly leech-like. I understand it is a profession, but it bugs me that some critics have so much goddamn influence.
Melissia wrote:I wasn't referring to your post when I said that, but Asimo's.
I understand that, and I also understand your position on this subject. Overall, I am really ambivalent about much of what is discussed concerning art when it strays from the study of technique far into the realm of abstract interpretation combined with professional analysis. I don't call it being open minded, rather, I consider it the reason that I enjoy art.
My definition of art is rather open-ended, but it is definitely hard to argue against someone who really studies the intellectual side of that subject. If you really take the time to read through some analysis you will find that most critics aren't employed for no reason, especially when you consider how territorial they are. They maintain their positions by happenstance on some occasions, but mostly it really does boil down to intelligence and skill. Some will manipulate the market, and it is hard to argue that the vast majority aren't in that "some". I'm not sure how much it really matters when you take a look at most successful artists. They are also employed because they are really quite good at what they do, no matter how you want to define what that is.
asimo77 wrote:Oh well I never expected this from the internet! I'm quite flattered, thanks.
Coincidentally your pics have also been quite refreshing!
I don't think there needs to be any time elapsed for a new form of art to actually be artistic.
Art does not need to be complex or have a deeper meaning, indeed, simplicity is often an important aspect of some of the more famous and beautiful pieces of art.
Melissia wrote:I don't think there needs to be any time elapsed for a new form of art to actually be artistic.
Art does not need to be complex or have a deeper meaning, indeed, simplicity is often an important aspect of some of the more famous and beautiful pieces of art.
Maybe, maybe not. Many pieces of art that appear simple have an awful lot of experience and technique behind them. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure that many of them started as doodles of some kind. Not that it makes much sense to me to separate the doodle from the final concept, though.
There does need to be time involved in the establishment of a new art form, and for no reason beyond necessity. Art critics are in many ways a defense for the art community whether they like it or not. While the defense may also be mildly detrimental it is not possible to establish oneself as an artist without standing on the shoulders of your predecessors. Art critics in their own way, protect those before you, and what the art community is capable of. Not that I am saying they are benevolent, but they do serve a purpose within the field when you take the whole picture as it stands.
asimo wrote:bedtime now, you guys will have to somehow figure out what art is without my infinite, unending, undeniably awesome wisdom.
Good luck biscuitheads, you'll need it!
P.S. I wonder if Wrexosaur will recant his compliment after this
That simply raises the question of what a biscuit is... and the fact that I can't find any good biscuit heads.
Melissia wrote:I don't think there needs to be any time elapsed for a new form of art to actually be artistic.
This is extremely hard for people to understand because art is not really a concept in pop culture but rather a label. I think there is an explanatory note on this Art Label. It reads: "things that are safe to ignore." Things that are not safe to ignore, however, get the third degree as garbage, filth, commercialism, pretension, blasphemy, etc, etc, etc until they lose enough of their vital relevance to be "art."
Asimo, something that might help your argument would be to take widely recognized pieces of "art" and explain precisely why they would be considered art under your definition.
For instance the David by Michelangelo. It's an amazing piece of sculpture but going by your definition it has to say something and influence the culture. I don't really see how it's saying anything besides being a very well done religious decoration and I don't really see how it's had any influence on the culture outside of possibly influencing other sculptors. I consider it art but going by your definition... I don't really see how it is. Same thing with Monet or Pollock. I love both those artists but looking at much of what they've done I'm not seeing the message or the cultural influence that you seem to indicate would make them actual art. When I look at their works I'm not hearing a message or feeling my thinking shift, except maybe to buy a print in the gift shop. They are aesthetically pleasing, interesting to look at, their techniques are fascinating and then end result is to me art.
Some clarification with real world examples would go a long way towards expressing your point.
Melissia wrote: Art does not need to be complex or have a deeper meaning, indeed, simplicity is often an important aspect of some of the more famous and beautiful pieces of art.
I would agree that works of art do not have to be complex, and yes, simplicity can be the key to the beauty and poignancy of a work.
But simplicity does not necessitate a lack of meaning.
Art without meaning is not art.
In fact, creating something that evokes emotion and meaning; that resonates deeply within those who see it, read it, or listen to it, while maintaining a sense of simplicity, is one of the hardest things to do. The idea that art does not need meaning or that simplicity involves a lack of meaning, is simply wrong.
Also, simplicity in appearance, especially in regards to art, often belies underlying complexity.
For example: The Road not Taken, by Robert Frost. It is not bewilderingly complex, as some poetry can be, nor is it describing anything particularly esoteric or outwardly profound. The rhyme scheme is simple and elegant, and there are no confusing schemes or tropes to slog through to get to the meaning of the poem. It is as straight-forward as you could possibly ask for.
Read literally, the speaker is simply relating a personal experience. But if you look past the simplicity, if you read for a deeper meaning, you will find far more contained within the lines of that poem than you would with a simple cursory reading.
The beauty of it is in the idea that behind a simple exterior, there can be profound and complex meaning.
That is the elegance behind the idea of simplicity.
Simplicity for simplicity’s sake is just that. Simple. It is simplicity in appearance with complexity beneath the surface that should be striven for. That is what makes simplicity elegant and beautiful.
Melissia wrote: In fact, I would go so far as to say that it takes more artistic talent to create a good, immersive game the likes of Bioshock than it does to make a painting or sculpture.
Go jump down an elevator shaft.
Who do you think the gaming companies that make games like Bioshock hire to create the game? Artists. Painters, sculptors, they hire artists to create what you love about your games.
They hired artists to paint and draw and sketch out the world the game takes place in. They hired artists to create three dimensional models and sculptures of the characters.
The artistic talent that it takes to create paintings and scultptures; the talent that you're knocking; is the the SAME artistic talent that is behind the games.
The game itself is not a work of art. The game is nothing but a product. It is entertainment, designed to give you something to do for a few hours, and designed to make the gaming company money.
"That simply raises the question of what a biscuit is... and the fact that I can't find any good biscuit heads"
The fact that you can't figure out what a biscuithead is only proves you guys need my infinite, unending, undeniably awesome knowledge to guide you!
@ Manchu, I'm not going to lie I don't really know what you just said but my guess would be: art is safe to ignore and everything else is just trash anyway?
@ Tyyr First let me just mention that I have never taken a class on Art History, Art Appreciation, Aesthetics, or any of that kinda stuff (and honestly I never want to), so when I think of art, I usually think in literay terms, so my examples of art would be all the great classics and so on.
Asking about scupltures, paintings and visual arts is probably a question fo Aesthteics. However, as one philosopher put it, (and I can't remember his name unfortunately) the visual arts can be classified as beauty rather than "art". Beauty is related more to eroticism and is tied to our physiology. Or in other words, what we find empirically attractive is due to our biological/sensual urges.
I would imagine that Michelangelo's David, Monet's work, and other paintings, and what have you could be considered art because they represent artistic movements/trends of their time and have become icons of their respective time periods. Not only are they quintessential examples of what art was back then, they are symbols of the idea of art today. However that would mean all symbols could be art, which I don't think many people would agree with.
Honestly I would categorize most of those under the beauty definition, they simply please the senses, entertainment for your eyes. So maybe they aren't art?
Also I think the burden of proff would be on you guys, no? Provide a significant amount of examples of which games are art and why. Personally I don't think there are many.
Like I said, art related philosophy is far from my area of expertise, but if you want to talk about ethics then we---wait nevermind, never talk about ethics on the interent!
Also it's possible that these seemingly simply aesthetically pleasing works have actual cultural value, and thus still fit my definition. But you would need to talk to an expert in the field to determine that. Not having studied the field it's very possible that I am unaware of the real significance of these pieces. Video games on the other hand is a far easier subject to casually study possibly because it is so new, and I feel qualified, and so are the rest of you guys, in making judgements and assertions about the industry.
Melissia wrote:
Art does not need to be complex or have a deeper meaning, indeed, simplicity is often an important aspect of some of the more famous and beautiful pieces of art.
I would agree that works of art do not have to be complex, and yes, simplicity can be the key to the beauty and poignancy of a work.
But simplicity does not necessitate a lack of meaning.
Art without meaning is not art.
In fact, creating something that evokes emotion and meaning; that resonates deeply within those who see it, read it, or listen to it, while maintaining a sense of simplicity, is one of the hardest things to do. The idea that art does not need meaning or that simplicity involves a lack of meaning, is simply wrong.
Also, simplicity in appearance, especially in regards to art, often belies underlying complexity.
For example: The Road not Taken, by Robert Frost. It is not bewilderingly complex, as some poetry can be, nor is it describing anything particularly esoteric or outwardly profound. The rhyme scheme is simple and elegant, and there are no confusing schemes or tropes to slog through to get to the meaning of the poem. It is as straight-forward as you could possibly ask for.
Read literally, the speaker is simply relating a personal experience. But if you look past the simplicity, if you read for a deeper meaning, you will find far more contained within the lines of that poem than you would with a simple cursory reading.
The beauty of it is in the idea that behind a simple exterior, there can be profound and complex meaning.
That is the elegance behind the idea of simplicity.
Simplicity for simplicity’s sake is just that. Simple.
It is simplicity in appearance with complexity beneath the surface that should be striven for.
That is what makes simplicity elegant and beautiful.
Melissia wrote:
In fact, I would go so far as to say that it takes more artistic talent to create a good, immersive game the likes of Bioshock than it does to make a painting or sculpture.
Go jump down an elevator shaft.
Who do you think the gaming companies that make games like Bioshock hire to create the game?
Artists.
Painters, sculptors, they hire artists to create what you love about your games.
They hired artists to paint and draw and sketch out the world the game takes place in.
They hired artists to create three dimensional models and sculptures of the characters.
The artistic talent that it takes to create paintings and scultptures; the talent that you're knocking; is the the SAME artistic talent that is behind the games.
The game itself is not a work of art. The game is nothing but a product. It is entertainment, designed to give you something to do for a few hours, and designed to make the gaming company money.
The art is what goes into the making of the game.
That makes no sense. So once the art becomes interactive it ceases to be art? Fortunately, you Ebert are in the minority these days.
"The art is what goes into the making of the game."
That's more like craftmanship, which takes an admiarble amount of effort and work no doubt, but I think it has been separated from art (except in our dictionaries) Expanding on that you coud say the visual arts are also craftmanship pieces.
asimo77 wrote:"The art is what goes into the making of the game."
That's more like craftmanship, which takes an admiarble amount of effort and work no doubt, but I think it has been separated from art (except in our dictionaries) Expanding on that you coud say the visual arts are also craftmanship pieces.
I don't separate craftsmanship from art.
A beautiful house is a work of art. It also needs to be functional. A beautiful house that is nonfunctional is worthless and nobody wants it. A gorgeous car is a work of art. It also needs to be functional, because almost nobody wants a car that goes nowhere. A master-work gun is a work of art. It also needs to be functional, even if it's never going to be used.
Just because something is functional does not mean it is not art.
What I mean by craftsmanship is that it's like a trade. Functionality doesn't necessarily have to be taken into account. A (good) sculpture is considered art traditionally and has no functionality.
Also if something's purpose/function is to entertain then it's art? I think there are plenty examples of entertaining but unartful things.
I just don't see where functionality came from, I meant craftsmanship more like a trade. Think of the models we paint and glue, we could loosley be considered artisans/craftsmen, the models have no real function outside of gaming/entertainment and aren't really art.
Also I can't believe this thread keeps getting reported, things seemed pretty civil for the past few posts.
Automatically Appended Next Post: OK nvm just re-read "go jump down an elevator shaft"...
asimo77 wrote:Also if something's purpose/function is to entertain then it's art?
Yes.
A beautiful piece of art is entertaining (in the classical sense). For example, in times past many parties were thrown at an artist's studio, so that guests could come and look at the artwork and be entertained by the works of art they saw there.
FFVII had some of the best characters in video game history, and I say that as someone who as a rule doesn't much care for JRPGs.
. There was plenty of room for a great story. It just never seemed to materialize.
Samus is a Necron. 
