-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Tim Rogers: "they've (Nintendo) set us (gaming) back a generation WAAAAAAH"
- Thread starter Weisheit
- Start date
Pureauthor
Member
Safe Bet said:
Okay, back up. Given the ridiculous assumption that games are art, your argument makes no sense whatsoever in that case.
If we're barely starting to 'paint on other things besides cave walls', that means our understanding of art and culture is so utterly limited that we can't tell one way or the other which way it will go. In which case what right do you have to call any system more 'toy-like' than the other?
Under your own arguments, you either accept all game systems as art (in which case your earlier post in this thread becomes meaningless), or all game systems as toys (in which case why are you even posting?).
Pureauthor
Member
Safe Bet said:
AHAHAHAHAHAHA WHAT
Safe Bet said:
The Transformers greater than Citizen Kane, CONFIRMED.
Michael Bay had better tools, right?
Or to use your analogy, I'll give Leonardo Davinci a stick and some berries, and I'll sit you at a modern pc with Illustrator and Photoshop. Who is going to produce the greater work?
MrNyarlathotep
Banned
This is the best post in this thread.Amir0x said:
Also, it's obvious that some games are art. After what happened to the elitist opinions of former times which maintained that photography or later movies would never be art, one would think that people would be less inclined to repeat the same mistake.
radioheadrule83
Banned
MrNyarlathotep said:
My word O_O
I think that might be the most impressive thing I can hope to see today
MrNyarlathotep
Banned
Durante said:
I don't dispute that games can be art.
I dispute that currently games are art rather than toys.
Saying something currently is not, does not preclude something in future being.
Safe Bet said:
You need to grow a thicker skin when debating. I'm not being an asshole, I'm disagreeing with you.
You're changing the argument. You initially stipulated that the Wii is a toy, yet the PS3 is not. My point: They both are, or neither are. You can create art with both. Just because you think one set of tools is better, does not mean the other set is invalid.
MrNyarlathotep
Banned
That's why I asked for some examples of games that can stand alone as a work of art.
Because I've never played anything I would consider to be a work of art, but obviously have never played every single game ever made.
Something like Darfur Is Dying is the closest I have yet seen on a conceptual level, although its execution lets it down somewhat.
Because I've never played anything I would consider to be a work of art, but obviously have never played every single game ever made.
Something like Darfur Is Dying is the closest I have yet seen on a conceptual level, although its execution lets it down somewhat.
radioheadrule83
Banned
If all games are toys, then surely we can agree that many of them employ art or are in some way artistic.
I won't fall into the trappings of talking about low art vs high art, because it's a waste of time. Something being popular, or thematically, conceptually or artistically simple might devalue it in the eyes of a harsh critic, but there's no automatic correlation to it's gameplay value or the developers skill in creating a solid piece of entertainment.
I won't fall into the trappings of talking about low art vs high art, because it's a waste of time. Something being popular, or thematically, conceptually or artistically simple might devalue it in the eyes of a harsh critic, but there's no automatic correlation to it's gameplay value or the developers skill in creating a solid piece of entertainment.
Safe Bet said:
So you're saying that Da Vinci could do "better" art with Photoshop than with paintbrushes? Wow just wow.
The point is that each set of tools is different, and different artists work better with different tools. For example, Intelligent Systems do far more appealing animation and artwork for Fire Emblem within the ghetto GBA hardware than the Gamecube or Wii. Your statement is meaningless because you assume all games benefit from more polygons or lighting effects or whatever.
Of course your form of debate is calling everyone an asshole so this post was a waste of my time.
In all fairness, there is a bit of a difference between video games and movies/photography. Video games are rather unlike anything we traditionally refer to as art, in as much as their essential nature is interactive (like a toy or game). I don't see how you can say that disparaging the potential "artistic" nature of a video game is the same as doing that to photography or film. With that being said, I think games can be art, but not really in the same way as films, plays, books, music, and the like; Tetris seems a better example of a game as art than anything else I can think of, at the moment.Durante said:
I always found proper capitalization, spelling, and punctuation to be a sense of personal satisfaction; I'm not quite seeing how it impacts GAF when you omit it. Granted, I'm the guy that always writes square Enix to emphasize the fact that Square got run into the ground, bought out by Enix, and no longer exists in any meaningful way, but that's really my petty hatred of faux-movie gaming at work.Drinky Crow said:
MrNyarlathotep said:
It sounds like you are looking at games as being art in the same context as other media, when in my opinion, it makes more sense to view it in context other games. A beautiful chess board for example, is a game and a piece of art. Video games are at the core, nothing more than a chess board, a visual representation used for recreation and education.
titiklabingapat
Member
I happen to prefer charcoal and good 'ol oil paint over digital art.Safe Bet said:
Durante said:
I think none are art.
At least none of the games lately or even in this gen. The last game i'm willing to describe as art was Shadow of Colossus. Where as every act done enhances the feelings derived from the art rather than serves as an distraction from it.
I'm not saying games can't have art tho, it's just that it's hard if not impossible to be art as a complete package.
titiklabingapat
Member
Inafune is still having trouble getting 360 centric titkes off the ground even though they've been rewarded with million sellers. Im presuming that it's because the cost-profit ratio is still a problem when everything cost significantly more to make.Prine said:
Mgoblue201
Won't stop picking the right nation
Videogames are a bit different because they're bonded directly with the technology used; where as the same tools for painting have worked fine for thousands of years. Better technology makes for a more fully realized vision. However, that won't solve anything. The technology itself is far outpacing the maturity of the industry. We are at a stage now where the technology is fine, and yet the ideas and visions haven't quite grown at the same rate.
And I think this entire art thing is bullshit. The problem with art is that it seems to be this holy grail. Would I consider Mario art? Not really, but it doesn't need to be. As long as it's beautiful, as long as it inspires my imagination, as long as it forces me to think deeper about myself and the world around me, I don't care what the hell it's called. I think the biggest problem right now is that developers make games that are pretty, and they're fun to play, but they're ultimately shallow experiences. Give me BioShock, give me Mario, give me Psychonauts, but at least make it imaginative and creative. Make it an experience. I'm not going to think that the NES was a perfectly fine tool for creating beautiful experiences, but the 360, PS3, and Wii all have their places and can all do things differently. All three are perfectly fine. If we keep wanting more and more power, then we're gonna miss what can be done now.
And any person that goes out of their way to blame the Wiitards or Xbots or whoever for turning this thread into a shit storm needs to realize that it's all three sides that are the problem. Jesus, this is one of the worst threads I've ever read.
And I think this entire art thing is bullshit. The problem with art is that it seems to be this holy grail. Would I consider Mario art? Not really, but it doesn't need to be. As long as it's beautiful, as long as it inspires my imagination, as long as it forces me to think deeper about myself and the world around me, I don't care what the hell it's called. I think the biggest problem right now is that developers make games that are pretty, and they're fun to play, but they're ultimately shallow experiences. Give me BioShock, give me Mario, give me Psychonauts, but at least make it imaginative and creative. Make it an experience. I'm not going to think that the NES was a perfectly fine tool for creating beautiful experiences, but the 360, PS3, and Wii all have their places and can all do things differently. All three are perfectly fine. If we keep wanting more and more power, then we're gonna miss what can be done now.
And any person that goes out of their way to blame the Wiitards or Xbots or whoever for turning this thread into a shit storm needs to realize that it's all three sides that are the problem. Jesus, this is one of the worst threads I've ever read.
MrNyarlathotep
Banned
Tobor said:
The level of interaction that games bring as a new medium means that a genuine work of art could be produced, and could stand on its own two feet as art, regardless of comparison to other media.
Also, beauty or aesthetic virtues are not necessarily the same thing as art.
Guernica for example is aesthetically quite displeasing (deliberately so), but is also one of the most important works of art of the twentieth century.
Something like Rez or Lumines skirt around the potential of Games as Art, with their synaesthesic qualities, but then they are at heart quite conventional gametypes (an on rails shooter and a block puzzler respectively).
Planescape Torment is a well written RPG, but is admired because it brings competent writing to an otherwise artistically barren medium - the other topic about just how bad the majority of writing quality is in gaming, means even a competent piece of writing garners praise. It does not stand by itself outside of the medium, which imo any genuine piece of art would.
Film can be considered art work as a purely visual medium, despite other visual art such as sculpture and painting also existing.
Likewise film can be considered as art from a purely narrative perspective, despite there also being literature and drama to 'compete with'.
Film can stand by itself against other mediums, in other words.
For a game to be considered a work of art, it would need visuals that can directly stand comparison to other visual mediums, and would also need narrative that can also stand alone when taken in comparison.
However, a game should also have some method of interactivity not possible in any other medium that is also in and of itself a work of art; if you just have a top-notch narrative combined with artistic visuals, you've made a movie, not a game.
tl;dr - games aren't art yet. They might be in the future.
EDIT:
Agree completely, but this debate sparked from a poster claiming that he doesn't post in threads about toys, and others pointing out that all games are toys by their nature.Mgoblue201 said:
Mgoblue201
Won't stop picking the right nation
I knew someone would point that out. That's an "or" statement. Mario falls into the imaginative category, not the "think deeper about yourself" category. That's one thing that videogames have not mastered. You're much better off reading a book or even watching a movie if you want to be moved on that level.Sol.. said:
titiklabingapat
Member
I consider Vibribbon, Katamari, mainline Mario(except sunshine), Nights, flow, Samorost, portal and a few others as art.
There's just something about these games that twlls me they're art. It's probably the degree of abstraction involved.
There's just something about these games that twlls me they're art. It's probably the degree of abstraction involved.
radioheadrule83
Banned
Like I was trying to say with my last post, this talk of games being a work-of-art is certainly interesting, but it's probably largely irrelevant.
There's no real demand for art-house games at the moment. I'd say we're getting more abstract attempts all the time -- something like Killer 7 for example -- which was routinely bizarre and imaginative (at least presentation-wise) from beginning to end.
The mere fact that games find it hard or are unable to find themselves respected as art, does not preclude them from being deemed as damn fine entertainment by one and all. And to touch on the Wii vs PS3 debate that Tim Roger's spiel has spawned...
Thematically, conceptually or artistically simpler games might lose value in the eyes of some critics -- it's fair enough when something doesn't appeal to someone on those grounds. And if you're a tech-head, and like to be on the bleeding edge of things, the Wii does have certain inherent graphical and computational limitations compared to the higher end consoles, there's no doubt of that. That's not to say beautiful looking things can't be realised on the Wii. There's no automatic correlation between hardware power and gameplay value or the capability of developers in delivering a solid, enjoyable piece of entertainment either.
In an industry that was once dominated by Tetris, where J2ME versions of Puzzle Bobble, Pacman and Tetris sell by the bucketload, where GameFreak have thrived off the visually simplistic Pokemon craze, and downloadable retro games are all the rage at the moment -- I'd of thought that much would be obvious.
There's no real demand for art-house games at the moment. I'd say we're getting more abstract attempts all the time -- something like Killer 7 for example -- which was routinely bizarre and imaginative (at least presentation-wise) from beginning to end.
The mere fact that games find it hard or are unable to find themselves respected as art, does not preclude them from being deemed as damn fine entertainment by one and all. And to touch on the Wii vs PS3 debate that Tim Roger's spiel has spawned...
Thematically, conceptually or artistically simpler games might lose value in the eyes of some critics -- it's fair enough when something doesn't appeal to someone on those grounds. And if you're a tech-head, and like to be on the bleeding edge of things, the Wii does have certain inherent graphical and computational limitations compared to the higher end consoles, there's no doubt of that. That's not to say beautiful looking things can't be realised on the Wii. There's no automatic correlation between hardware power and gameplay value or the capability of developers in delivering a solid, enjoyable piece of entertainment either.
In an industry that was once dominated by Tetris, where J2ME versions of Puzzle Bobble, Pacman and Tetris sell by the bucketload, where GameFreak have thrived off the visually simplistic Pokemon craze, and downloadable retro games are all the rage at the moment -- I'd of thought that much would be obvious.
I think one of the problems that people have with calling video games "art" is that they're purely commercial ventures created by committee -- whereas things like painting, photography and sculpture are often individual efforts and often done simply for art's sake.Safe Bet said:
Video games for the most part are the interactive equivalent of the disposable summer blockbuster, as opposed to the indy art film.
Hey - some of the greatest games ever made were games by individuals! I do agree, however, that the transition from "games as the work of an individual" to "games produced by a large team" has had an impact on that, although films are much the same in that regard.mcgarrett said:
The other problem is that there really isn't a single, concise definition of what "art" is.
radioheadrule83
Banned
Quick question: if all hardware was frozen at PS2 level for the next ten years, do people here think the well of compelling ideas would dry up? I think developers and publishers would find a way to make games and sell them.
The fact of the matter is -- hardware isn't frozen. There's a whole spectrum of gaming hardware now -- mobile phones, dedicated handheld systems, different consoles with different specs and unique differentiators, variable spec PCs... This has been a tiered industry for a couple of decades now and today is as varied and as exciting as it's ever been. For all I know, this is the golden age of gaming!
I see it like this: handhelds were routinely used as the cheaper development platforms, and now there's a new tier for home console gaming. A new tier for developers to consider, and a new tier for the buying public to consider. I think thats entirely appropriate and positive... it maximises the amount of accessible entry points into this hobby -- into this new generation of gaming. It's fair enough if you don't want to play games on Wii, or if you think the Wii is ripoff hardware and the games have no substance. You're entitled to that opinion. But forgive me if no-one gives a shit if vast swathes of people disagree with you, and are catered to with one or two software exclusives.
The only reason anyone took issue with it in this past week or so is because a game some people wanted to see on PS3 went to the Wii. I'm sure there will be lots of other exclusive games announced for all three consoles that some people will have wanted on their portable or console of choice. We should probably get used to back-and-forth threads like this.
Games that can't be done on Wii, won't come out on Wii. If a dev or publisher thinks they can put something out on it that will be good and saleable (which hopefully translates as 'fun'), then that'll happen as well. Can we really deny that shit games and good games have come out on all three systems so far?
What is most disappointing to me personally, about this whole debacle, is how so many seem prepared to throw benefit-of-the-doubt right out of the window. The common sense approach of waiting until you know more about something before you write it off now plays second fiddle to hardware preference on this forum.
The fact of the matter is -- hardware isn't frozen. There's a whole spectrum of gaming hardware now -- mobile phones, dedicated handheld systems, different consoles with different specs and unique differentiators, variable spec PCs... This has been a tiered industry for a couple of decades now and today is as varied and as exciting as it's ever been. For all I know, this is the golden age of gaming!
I see it like this: handhelds were routinely used as the cheaper development platforms, and now there's a new tier for home console gaming. A new tier for developers to consider, and a new tier for the buying public to consider. I think thats entirely appropriate and positive... it maximises the amount of accessible entry points into this hobby -- into this new generation of gaming. It's fair enough if you don't want to play games on Wii, or if you think the Wii is ripoff hardware and the games have no substance. You're entitled to that opinion. But forgive me if no-one gives a shit if vast swathes of people disagree with you, and are catered to with one or two software exclusives.
The only reason anyone took issue with it in this past week or so is because a game some people wanted to see on PS3 went to the Wii. I'm sure there will be lots of other exclusive games announced for all three consoles that some people will have wanted on their portable or console of choice. We should probably get used to back-and-forth threads like this.
Games that can't be done on Wii, won't come out on Wii. If a dev or publisher thinks they can put something out on it that will be good and saleable (which hopefully translates as 'fun'), then that'll happen as well. Can we really deny that shit games and good games have come out on all three systems so far?
What is most disappointing to me personally, about this whole debacle, is how so many seem prepared to throw benefit-of-the-doubt right out of the window. The common sense approach of waiting until you know more about something before you write it off now plays second fiddle to hardware preference on this forum.
mcgarrett said:
If we can call art to movies, we can call art to games. If you have blockbuster games like Halo3 or Super Mario Galaxy, you'll also have "indie" games like No More Heroes or Okami. The art is creation. If it is a movie, a game or a piece of sh*t hanging on a wall (literally), it's just the different languages you can use.
The question here is if we all have to use the latest technical achievments to make a game great, and I'm completely against that idea. We can see right now in movies directors with all the money in the world making black & white pictures (Shindler's List, Good Nigh and Good Luck), european directors like Lars Von Trier creating movies with just one camera, no special effects at all, at what he called the Dogma movement, which several other directors followed.
Besides that, that are still other directors that make movies in Super 8 (Vincent Gallo's 'Brown Bunny'), or use specifically 70's old film reels to give their movies the feeling they want.
The big issue here isn't technical limitations, and everyone blaming Nintendo for not having their next-gen sequel is very nahive to think that way.
Jon of the Wired
Member
The games that I consider coming closest to art were all made six or more years ago (which is depressing), so this thread totally fails. Maybe better tools could result in better art in some other context, but when it comes to gaming the vast majority of what is produced is so far from having any artistic merit whatsoever that the entire debate is a joke. What's the point of a paintbrush when we're still using the berries and sticks exclusively for profane graffiti?
GhettoGamer
Member
Gaming is art?
Video game consoles arent toys
Lol only on Gaf, only on Gaf.
Why is so hard for some people to understand that aslong as the 360/PS3 is on the market the "hardcore" will never go away. The 360 is selling good, and according to some PS3 fanboys 2008 will be the year the PS3 sells.
In the end NIntenod, Sony, and MS are making money off of everybody, while random people on the internet bitch about whos doing what.
Video game consoles arent toys
Lol only on Gaf, only on Gaf.
Why is so hard for some people to understand that aslong as the 360/PS3 is on the market the "hardcore" will never go away. The 360 is selling good, and according to some PS3 fanboys 2008 will be the year the PS3 sells.
In the end NIntenod, Sony, and MS are making money off of everybody, while random people on the internet bitch about whos doing what.
Maybe we'll end up like Pompei and our profane graffiti will be admired as art.Jon of the Wired said:
Frankly, the only "artistic" game that I foresee having any longevity is Tetris. In 100 years, I can't definitively say that anyone will be playing, much less remember Mario, Ico, or Katamari. But I know Tetris will still be going strong.
There's something beautiful about creating such a complicated, compelling game out the simplest of building blocks. And rather than trying to emulate the storytelling of film or TV, Tetris is wholly new and completely dependent upon the digital medium to experience.
But how many commercial films are truly considered to be artistic? Pretty much anything that comes out of Hollywood these days has been altered/sanitized/influenced by several layers of management. The primary motivating factor behind making them is to generate money for the studio, not to create something artistic -- and the same goes for any retail game you'll buy for the 360/PS3/Wii.kurosawa said:
I wouldn't consider Okami to be an indie title -- you still have a corporation (Capcom) telling the artists what can or can't be in the game, and it must be approved by the console maker (Sony). The fact that a game using a painterly art style is considered mind-blowingly "artistic" just illustrates the general lack of creativity in the industry today.
PepsimanVsJoe
Member
Games as art huh?
You can show me a picture of a game and call it art and I'd believe you.
You can show me a movie from a game and call it art and still I'd believe you.
You can play music from a game and call it art and again I'd believe you.
You show me a game and call it art but I will still call it a game.
That's just my take on it.
I play games not only for fun but for an understanding of game design. Everything else is just cake frosting imo.
You can show me a picture of a game and call it art and I'd believe you.
You can show me a movie from a game and call it art and still I'd believe you.
You can play music from a game and call it art and again I'd believe you.
You show me a game and call it art but I will still call it a game.
That's just my take on it.
I play games not only for fun but for an understanding of game design. Everything else is just cake frosting imo.
I don't really think games at this stage are art in the sense that we might consider Chaplin's work as art. As long as the focus is on visceral primal emotions, it's going to be about on the same level as the vaudeville 'move-ies' of the early 20th century when it was pure novelty and fun to watch.
Games needs to find it own voice. and it may very well be that the Ico and Zelda games we have today is really where games are all about, as both franchises seem to throw the baggage of the cinematic and created compelling stories and adventures placing the player squarely as the hero, without the need for too much wordy voice acting or exposition.
Games needs to find it own voice. and it may very well be that the Ico and Zelda games we have today is really where games are all about, as both franchises seem to throw the baggage of the cinematic and created compelling stories and adventures placing the player squarely as the hero, without the need for too much wordy voice acting or exposition.