Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

asimo77 wrote:Also Samus is just like Master Chief! Boring as hell.

How dare you insult thy Lord Chief!

Samus is a biiiit deeper than Master Chief. Comes from having far more material to draw upon.

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.

A bit like Rainbow Six Vegas 2. Bishop and Knight could be a bloke or a lass.

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.

Monster Rain wrote:

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.

/thread

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.

Meaningless symbolism and allegory doesn't make for art. If anything those are more like homages, tributes, and easter eggs.

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.

Neither does most so-called "art".

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.

LordofHats wrote:

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.