dammit... regretting not getting a 3DS XL when I went to target..
Watch a movie duder. Video games first and foremost are supposed to provide fun.
That's like one of the best new mechanics in Zelda games.
While everyone is all a-flutter about a handheld Nintendo game winning GOTY, it would have been nice to see an award going to something relatively fresh. But I guess if it's Nintendo it's ok if it's the 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000th game in the series.
The question has, basically, been legally settled. That's why I was taking exception to the idea that games are "just toys." If they are, not only is protecting their expression pointless, but it buys into the idea that it can't ever be anything but fun, which I think is bullshit. They're an art form.I thought the question had already been settled legally speaking, but I don't have a problem with the Supreme Court considering games as art if that warrants falling under the First Amendment and leaving it at that, while the rest of the world doesn't give a shit.
Basically let them, it's convenient if it's just from the law's POV and doesn't extend beyond that.
The problem with jazz is that it doesn't provide any social commentary.
Hey guys, I think both The Last of Us and Super Mario 3D World are masterpieces, for different reasons.
Is something wrong with me? Should I see a doctor?
I feel dirty for replying to this , but it really bothers me this " games are supposed to be this and not this, so you are dumb and your opinion is invalid"
You hit exactly the reason why I've been disinterested in these types of games for the last few years. Same reason why I could give two shits abut Mario 3d world and have no desire to play it. To me, these types of games just feel like toys. That's perfectly fine if that's all you're looking for, but for me personally, I want a game to strive to do a little bit more.
Doesn't mean I can't enjoy a game like Zelda for what it is, but it will never stick with me. Or leave me thinking about it in the same a really good piece of art will.
I didn't know art was limited about what it is and not supposed to be. There's more to interactivity than just fun.
Did you just compare Jazz to Nintendo games?
The problem with Zelda winning GOTY is it doesn't provide any social commentary.
Nintendo's entire philosophy is to create games that temporarily draw you away from reality. Games that are essentially created in a vacuum. That's a perfectly fine sort of game to enjoy, and it's possibly why their franchises have aged so well, but they're so abstract nothing can really be gleaned from them.
There's no incite. The player isn't changed by the experience. You turn the game off and move on with your life. You won't hop on the subway and see an elf. You will see GTA 5's Trevor, but you won't understand him.
If in 50 years someone want's to get a feel for what gaming (and life) in 2013 was like, is Zelda really the best example?
I think it's rather funny that we've reached a point where choosing a Zelda game as Game of the Year is seen as an edgy decision.
wut???
Why does a GOTY need to have social commentary? Its a video a game, not a documentary about darfur or something...why do we need to discuss a game once we have beaten it? Or discuss it 20-30yrs from now? Video Games are meant to be played, explored, and completed.
Did you miss the parallel he drew?
we need to get David O. Russell on Zelda, STAT. maybe we can finally get a Zelda game where everyone has psychological issues and screams.
You hit exactly the reason why I've been disinterested in these types of games for the last few years. Same reason why I could give two shits abut Mario 3d world and have no desire to play it. To me, these types of games just feel like toys. That's perfectly fine if that's all you're looking for, but for me personally, I want a game to strive to do a little bit more.
No, he was implying that social commentary isn't necessary to be appreciated in an artistic way. However, that doesn't mean that everything that is void of social commentary is now comparable with Jazz. I actually love Nintendo games and think they're the most consistently great brand in video game history. I also, though, hate this attitude that anything that isn't colorful characters hopping on animal heads is a movie and not a game. The definition of a game is evolving and expanding.
And why it's a "disrespect" to say that you're not on gaming but on interactive experiences?
The problem I see there is that you are the first one to insult what you consider to be the "casual crowd" and so when someone tells you that you're a casual you get offended.
But that's not my case. I've already said it tons of times, everyone is free to play videogames for whatever reasons they want to play them. To me it's fine if you play for other reasons besides gameplay (to experience a good plot, to evade from reality, whatever), it's just that a hardcore gamer is someone who plays because he likes to play, and a hardcore experiencer is someone who plays because he likes to experience.
In other words, when you say that games that don't focus on "a good plot" or on "technology" feel like toys to you, you are explaining us that you consider them inferior experiences based on your tastes.
On the other hand, as a hardcore gamer (which is not anything positive nor negative, just a matter of tastes) I'm telling you that for other people that's not the case.
Maybe what you found offensive is the bit about the industry heading towards destruction. Well then, that's not even an opinion, this technology focused trend has destroyed tons of studios due to the increasing costs of that kind of approaches, and the fact that the prices of the games hasn't grown accordingly.
This is true for movies as well; not many comedies get nominated for Best Picture, so let's not pretend this is exclusively a games issue. That said, games can definitely be art based solely on mechanics because interactive mechanics are what makes a game a, well, game.Some people here should really rethink what they consider art.
I seem to see a correlation between:
A) claims of artistic value and
B) games that pull at your heartstrings with sad stories.
The stronger B) seems to be, the more of A) some think it has.
This is really dumb.
Is not that a Zelda game won, is that a game on the least powerful system available, a handheld at that, won.
How the hell did I insult anybody? Are you kidding me?
Originally Posted by Crafty_
You hit exactly the reason why I've been disinterested in these types of games for the last few years. Same reason why I could give two shits abut Mario 3d world and have no desire to play it. To me, these types of games just feel like toys. That's perfectly fine if that's all you're looking for, but for me personally, I want a game to strive to do a little bit more.
No, he was implying that social commentary isn't necessary to be appreciated in an artistic way. However, that doesn't mean that everything that is void of social commentary is now comparable with Jazz. I actually love Nintendo games and think they're the most consistently great brand in video game history. I also, though, hate this attitude that anything that isn't colorful characters hopping on animal heads is a movie and not a game. The definition of a game is evolving and expanding.
Haven't played ALBW yet, but comments from almost everyone say it's a really weird mix of a lot of old LTTP stuff and new mechanics.
The problem with Zelda winning GOTY is it doesn't provide any social commentary.
Nintendo's entire philosophy is to create games that temporarily draw you away from reality. Games that are essentially created in a vacuum. That's a perfectly fine sort of game to enjoy, and it's possibly why their franchises have aged so well, but they're so abstract nothing can really be gleaned from them.
There's no incite. The player isn't changed by the experience. You turn the game off and move on with your life. You won't hop on the subway and see an elf. You will see GTA 5's Trevor, but you won't understand him.
If in 50 years someone want's to get a feel for what gaming (and life) in 2013 was like, is Zelda really the best example?
What does it matter when it comes to a more "powerful system"? If a game is good, it's good. No matter the system. If the media always had this mindset, hand-held games would never be considered for GOTY.
They're generally not, which I think is why people are pleasantly surprised.What does it matter when it comes to a more "powerful system"? If a game is good, it's good. No matter the system. If the media always had this mindset, hand-held games would never be considered for GOTY.
I foresee myself being irked by two things this voting season:
1) Nintendo fans saying TLOU is a shallow story or a "movie" -- The story is excellent, and the gameplay is also excellent, and its great achievement is striking a balance where it becomes greater than the sum of its parts
2) Sony fans saying ALBW isn't worthy -- It absolutely is. ALBW is true masterpiece of game design and mechanics and pacing and even technical performance, given it runs at a locked 60 fps in autostereoscopic 3D. The game creates this constant buzz that never lets up until you power off the game. The zen-like "flow" is so immediate, so strong and so consistent that it's like you're intravenously being fed pure gaming bliss.
So yeah. Seeing people go #TeamTLOU or #TeamALBW is going to be rough when both games are incredible and neither side should diminish the other.
uh
Oh the irony! To call someone out for limiting "art" to something left for movies when you yourself consider that there is no "social commentary", depth or artistic value on a product mainly focused in interactivity and game design/mechanics.
"Toys" you say. Hmm I'm loving this
So why isn't DOTA2 on more GOTY lists?