/lit/ - Literature

I don't know about literature, per se, but I think video games can be considered a legitimate artform if done right. I think highly of "Flower" and "Portal." And I think those Marvel Ultimate Alliance games do an interesting job of blending comic book and video game.

video games are not books....go back to /v/

>>1064008
Visual Novels, maybe.
Normal Video games, nah. Maybe they can be considered art though.

>>1064008
Weeaboo detected. The writing in those games is pretty terrible. Try PS:T.

>>1064027

Period Stains: Trilogy?

I hate women's periods though.

>>1064027
>The writing in those games is pretty terrible.
That isn't the fault of the medium itself. That's like saying that books are shit because some people are shitty writers.
Stop being so closed-minded, if someone can pull it off nicely, the implementation of music can set a certain mood perfectly (and so can some pictures, but I think audio works better) for a story.

>>1064048

He wasn't saying vidya can't be good, he was saying that those ones aren't well written.

Shadow of the Colossus is very subtly told, the atmosphere and loneliness is worth 100 pages on its own, despite having almost no dialogue.

Fahrenheit (PS2), and Heavy Rain (PS3) plus the few ones you quoted
>>1064008

Metal Gear Solid 2.

Is it art just because you hang it on a wall?

is it literature just because there's words in it?

>>1064057

I think you went a little too far left on the last key there

Ninja Gaiden is pretty well written.

>He wasn't saying vidya can't be good, he was saying that those ones aren't well written.
Oh pardon me, I thought he replied to my post

We're kind of stretching the definition of literature.

If games are literature, so are film and TV shows. I don't think that's accurate.

>>1064069
*about Visual Novels.

>>1064060
A parody of old spy flicks is not worthy of being called modern literature. MGS2 is postmodernism and cyberpunk at its best, however.

I don't think any video game can be considered on the level of literature or even radio let alone TV.

Shigesato Itoi's Earthbound is so beautiful...it is literature without a doubt.

The story in Chrono Trigger is terrible.. Video games in general have pretty bad story since it's a bad media for story telling, imo.

FUN FACT:
The guy behind Earthbound wrote a book with short stories together with Haruki Murakami.

>>1064075

I've never understood the love for Earthbound. Cheesey nonsense for 30 hours, and then an awesome ending.

Granted, it's an awesome ending, but it's not worth the trip.

Mother 3, on the other hand...

Also, what does quality have to do with it being literature or not? Is literature just "stuff we like with words" now?

>>1064057

This. You hardly even play Metal Gear, you watch it. I couldn't even understand half the storyline. Was pretty good.

>>1064078
Literary fiction is something that isn't classifiable into a genre. So there are plenty of video games with stories that can be considered literature.

Kojima is pretty interesting with his works....i think Inception was heavily inspired by Metal Gear (note the Shadow Moses at the end of the film as a shout out).

>>1064084

I'm going to have to ask you to define "literary fiction".

>>1064087
Fiction that focuses more on character depth and style than trying to fit into a genre.

>>1064085
Paprika called

Anything with words that you read is Literature.

Not good literature though per se.

>>1064091

And is fiction just "stuff that's made up" in this case?

Anyway:

So how can you tell it focuses on one more than the other?

Is LOTR literary fiction? I focuses an awful lot of building its world, is that 'style' or 'fitting into a genre'?

What about The Sopranos? An awful lot of character development and effort to fit into the mob genre there.

What about a soap opera, say, One Life to Live? How do you put forth effort to fit into the 'soap opera' genre? If it has more character development than effort to fit into the genre, is it literary fiction?

Is grenadine a liquor just because it comes in a liquor bottle.

Riddle me that Batman!

>>1064104
>What about The Sopranos?

Oh shit nigger what are you doing? The Sopranos is probably the worst written show of all time. CONSTANT use of therapy by the writers because they're completely unable to "show", so they have to "tell", idiotic fucking dream sequences ALL THE GODDAMN TIME, etc.

Video games will never be able to compete with literature and movies as a narrative medium, because the 'game' part it presupposes interactivity. In other words, the artistic genius of the author is befouled by the artistic idiocy of the player. This is, by the way, why so many video game stories a told in cut-scenes: you do some gaemin', then you are rewarded with a piece of storytelling and are sent of to the next level.

>>1064122

So because it's badly written it can't be literature?

>Can video games be literature?
>Names three terrible examples.
>Fucking weeaboos.
>myface.jpg

>>1064124

In RPGs you can interact and chat with the NPCs and stuff though.

The writer can create a world, then fill it with interesting people to chat with, and then let the player explore it at their own leisure.

>>1064124

Shadow of the Colossus

>>1064124

The Half-Life series. The entire thing is in first person, the player is always in control, and the story is only glimpsed. Not a literary masterpiece, but an example of a game being able to tell a set story by forcing the player down channels without making it too obvious that it is. Same with SOTC, you have absolute freedom in where to go, and your exploration becomes the story. You write the story yourself without affecting the core narrative. Basically, the player fills in the character while the game provides a narrative framework. That's good design.

>>1064104
Okay, a good example of genre fiction is pulp fiction. The cheap little magazines that have cliche titles and are written like b-movies. Anything that strives to fit into a particular genre to appease fans of the genre itself, rather than to focus on anything else. So most scifi, fantasy, young adult, and horror novels are genre fiction.

>>1064133

Shame that almost all RPGs are terribly written. Mass Effect 2 is fairly well done

>>1064139

Trying to put everything into silly little genres is a waste of time.

it's like trying to put square pegs into round holes.

>>1064140
>Mass Effect 2 is fairly well done

>>1064142
It's true. But even video games do it. The majority of FPS games have stories that could only fit into genre fiction. But that's just because of the subject matter and inflexible nature of their plots and settings.

I cried when Nanami died in Suikoden II.

The story of said game invoked a whole freight train of emotion through me.

>>1064139

Okay then...

>Anything that strives to fit into a particular genre to appease fans of the genre itself

So how can you tell it's doing it just to appease the fans of that genre? Is it something you just 'know'? Can it do the above and still have merit?

>So most scifi, fantasy, young adult, and horror novels are genre fiction.

Have you personally read 'most' of the things written in those genres? Because this sounds like something where you'd have to read the book before you can tell whether it fits your definition or not.

As a medium, video games more resemble the cinema than anything else. I think they have yet to develop a tradition of quality that has made literature, film, and painting an art form.

>>1064148
>So how can you tell it's doing it just to appease the fans of that genre? Is it something you just 'know'?
Yes. You should be able to tell if a book is genre or literary from obvious signs that it is trying to appeal to certain people rather than build a deep narrative.

>Can it do the above and still have merit?
I guess it can have some kind of merit if you're a fan of the genre the book is a member of. Though it isn't literary merit. Just the appeasement of your desire to read a book in a particular genre.

I have never played a videogame whose plot, whose pure writing, is as good as the best novels.

But I've played quite a few videogames where the game itself is complex and meaningful enough to be considered art: Portal, Braid, SoC, the usual suspects.

planescape: torment

>>1064152

>You should be able to tell if a book is genre or literary from obvious signs that it is trying to appeal to certain people rather than build a deep narrative.

Do you have to read it to tell?

>I guess it can have some kind of merit if you're a fan of the genre the book is a member of. Though it isn't literary merit.

You know what I'm going to ask, right?

What is literary merit? If you like the genre that the genre fiction is written in, then it can have merit, yes?. If you like the literary fiction, does it then have merit?

Can Super Mario Bros. be considered literature?

The Longest Journey anyone?

What about System Shock? This guy adapted it into a scifi novel of suprising quality.

http://www.shamusyoung.com/shocked/

Video games with 'stories' are for illiterate troglodytes. There are no good video game stories.

None.

>>1064162
Literary merit is an abstract concept that has no absolute definition. There has to be literary merit for a work to be literary fiction, not the other way around. It is just a quality that certain pieces of fiction have, and that others lack. It's just more obvious when a work lacks it.

>>1064173

How do you tell when a work has it?

>>1064167
Over 1 million lines of text.

>>1064177
when it makes you feel good in your pants, you guys have got so faggy and highbrow in here that you forgot that the subjectivity of literary merit is the entire reason boards like /lit/ exist in the first place


to me any 100 words are of identical value to another 100 words but whatever

>>1064177
Again, it's something that you, as the reader, are supposed to get from reading whatever it is.

>>1064182
I like you.

>>1064186
:3

>>1064186

>Again, it's something that you, as the reader, are supposed to get from reading whatever it is.

I'm supposed to get it from reading. But it has no absolute definition. How will I ever know I'm getting it? How do I differentiate "literary merit" from "I like this book"?

>>1064191
lol shut up stupid

Well, >>1064182 put it very well.

>when it makes you feel good in your pants

>CTRL + F
>INTERACTIVE FICTION
>red field

Got to get around posting that IF thread, get some culture in you cretins. Kudos to Planescape guy, he knows what's up.

>>1064195

So then I was correct when I asked this:

>If you like the literary fiction, does it then have merit?

And if a work must have literary merit to be literary fiction, and since genre fiction, by definition, cannot be literary fiction, literary fiction is then "Something that isn't genre fiction that I like". Of course, figuring out whether it's genre fiction by your definition is a little difficult, but I guess I'm satisfied with this definition.

>People using the phrase "literary merit" as though it actually means anything

>My face

>ctrl-f
>no Legacy of Kain
>wtfamireading.jpg

Photopia. Google, download, enjoy. A stellar example of quality interactive fiction

>>1064058
The answer to your first question is yes.

Anyways, I think some video games have had stories that surpass mainstream or pulp novels. One that comes to mind is Hotel Dusk. Others have a lot of nuance and room for interpretation like Yume Nikki. But I'm not sure if the medium, which generally requires a certain level of interactivity and freedom, could really give a "literature-like" experience.

>>1064238
Will do. I think people should check out Yume Nikki, too. And Hotel Dusk if you have a DS.

>>1064238
Why does it clarify what every word above a third grade reading level means?

"Functioning means it's not broken" NO SHIT. Am I getting this because I said I wanted instructions or something? If I got back and pick "no" will it get rid of these?

>>1064166
>The Longest Journey

Can't believe it took over 50 posts for someone to mention this.

>>1064263

It's part of the story, roll with it. It'll make sense at the end.

>>1064167
Troll harder, nigger.

It's fucking disgusting that no one's mentioned Deus Ex yet.

>>1064276
Reinstalling.

Hey guys are there any sculptures good enough to be considered films??

>>1064278
The ones on the side of the Parthenon would make an awesome movie.

>>1064278
This is a faulty argument. Can you figure out why?

>>1064285

English is your second language and has some words that overlap with your native tongue?

>>1064278
I'm pretty sure there are. There's architecture that's film. See http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0196530/

>>1064278
Andy Warhol's film of a guy sleeping thinks there could be.

>>1064277

>>1064285

No it's not. He's pointing out that sculpture and film are two different things, like how video games and literature are two different things. Just because a video game has a great story doesn't mean it is literature. Movies have great stories. Television shows can have great stories. Neither of these things are literature. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be respected and considered as art forms in their own right. The same goes for video games.

>>1064294
>Just because a video game has a great story doesn't mean it is literature.

Yes. That is because the definition of literature is not "story". It is writing. And games can and do contain writing. Now shut your fucking piehole.

i liked mirror's edge's story, i hope next time they go deeper into the dystopian theme instead of just a personal affair

>>1064295

Why hasn't a TV show ever been considered for the Nobel prize in literature?

>>1064294
Well, yeah. And doubly so that sculpture typically doesn't deal with the dimension of time in the way that film and most other narrative works do. You don't need to play it or turn its pages. It can capture a moment of a narrative, but typically goes no farther than that.

However, there is kinetic sculpture, but I've never seen one with a narrative. ...Actually, now that I think about it, I have, but they're all very simplistic.

>>1064298
Because the nobel prize winners is decided by a bunch of elitist cocks.

>>1064295

So does your post. That doesn't mean it is literature. The fact is video games are not literature. You don't play literature. Literature doesn't throw polygons at you and bombard you with music while you mash buttons over and over. As I said, video games are an art form and should be respected, but they are not literature. Now please fuck off. You're obviously an idiot. Of a fat basement dwelling nerd who can't understand the difference between simple concepts the rest of us take for granted.

>Dear Esther

>"There are headlights reflected in these retinas, too long in the tunnels of my island without a bottom. The sea creatures have risen to the surface, but the gulls are not here to carry them back to their nests. I have become fixed: open and staring, an eye turned on itself. I have become an infected leg, whose tracking lines form a perfect map of the junctions of the M5. I will take the exit at mid-thigh and plummet to my Esther.

>>1064302
It's been brought up before in this thread, but I feel the need to direct you toward Planescape: Torment so that you can learn that not all video games are about the act of playing it. Some are, as strange as this may sound, actually about the story.

Wow, this thread is boring. I don't know about any of you babbling on about whether a video game can be considered literature or not. I know that when I play a video game I do it to PLAY the game not to sit there and read. I want to sit there and numb my brain for hours to get away from the ugly truth of crushing reality. If I wanted literature I would pick up a God damn book.

>>1064307

I'm well aware of the fact that there are video games that have spectacular stories. This may seem odd to hear, but I love playing video games. I've played video games longer than I've appreciated literature. But that doesn't change the fact that video games are not literature. Just like movies are not literature. There are plenty of movies with amazing stories and dialog, but they are not literature.

As I've said before: video games are an art form. So are movies. And both should be respected. But you are making the mistake of equating "good" with literature. That's not the case.

Any Tales of game

>>1064312
But PsT is composed almost entirely of reading. Controls are basically point and click, so as to move from one character to another. Combat, problem solving, and exploration are of minimal importance. The bulk of your time playing the game is actually spent reading, and watching the story unfold through text. The game is basically a book with moving pictures and some choose your own adventure elements in the dialog choices. How is that not literature?

>>1064298
Because TV shows are generally badly written. Good writing doesn't get good ratings.

To demonstrate how fucking retarded you are, playwrights have received the Nobel prize. By your logic, writing for theater isn't literature because it's performed and watched.

>>1064330

Nobody gets the Nobel for how their plays are performed

>>1064331

I don't see your point. Writing is writing, whether its purpose is to be performed on a stage, in front of a camera, or by polygons on your screen.

>>1064326

Because in literature you don't have moving pictures, music, or the ability to choose your own adventure. I will grant you that the dialog script may have the possibility of being considered literature, but the video game in its entirety is not. Work of art: yes. Literature: no

>>1064332

Nobody reads videogame scripts

>>1064323
They see me trollin'

>>1064332
But writing is not acting, that's what you're assuming. It's true, no one gets the Nobel for play writing based on a good performance, it's all about the written script.

>>1064336
It's not that, it's just that the elitist cunts who give out the Nobel Prizes are elitist cunts.

>>1064008
Urgh. This is a debate about labels. I hate labels.

Aside from maybe those "choose your own path" books, gaming elements kind of disqualify something from being "literature". That's if you're going to be using those inaccurate words to define things.

Those are just labels. What if there was a _____ that played on a computer or console, took 10 hours to get through and was all text but required you to play a single game of tic-tac-toe halfway through? Would it be literature or a video game? Sure, officially it'd be a video game, but you could see how that's sorta retarded. And you'd be right. Don't let labels confuse you. In reality it's not all binary.

If there was a slider (0 representing a textless game and 100 representing pure literature), Planescape: Torment would be closer to 100 than to 0.

Language is a piss-poor way to communicate and a retardedly awful way to think. Don't let it limit your thoughts.

Things are what they are, not what you call them.

i know its cliche
but bioshock for sure, but you should read Atlas Shrugged first since a lot of the philosophy in the game was drawn from that book.

also Lost Odyssey had an interesting and thoughtful story and was one of the most meaningful underrated ones i have seen in a game in a long time

>>1064332

When the Nobel committee determines a play script's literary value they don't take the performances, the sets, the direction etc etc into account. In a video game the polygons, the direction, everything is essential to creating the experience.

We judge a movie based on direction, lighting, props, sets, acting, and everything else. We judge a video game on these things plus graphics, controls, multiplayer, and other things. These things are not literature. Writing is literature. Just because something has writing in it does not make it literature. It is the end product that determines whether something is literature or not. Literature gets done with words alone what video games and movies and television shows use actors, directors, and everything else for.

>>1064338

No, it's that videogames are not very good for reading, because they are dumb and shallow

>>1064335
Traditionally, you don't have moving pictures. But you do have things like illustrations. The reason books don't have moving pictures is because they can't have moving pictures, just stationary ones. And you can play music in the background while you read, so I don't see how the game having music means of its own would make it not qualify as literature. The technology that you use as a medium is different, but I don't see how that prevents the game from being literature. If anything, the technology is just opening up new ways for the art to better be expressed.

Also, you seem to be implying that choose your own adventure books can't be literature. Why not?

You should judge games as games, books as books.

If one medium hopelessly aspires to the condition of another it'll never grow its own legs.

Initially, cinema was considered unworthy of the same respect as literature. Over time, this changed and people began to see film as an artistic medium in its own right.

You should never ask if a video game is literary, only if it is a truly good game.

>>1064339

>Language is a piss-poor way to communicate and a retardedly awful way to think. Don't let it limit your thoughts.
>The words don't mean what I want them to mean, therefore language sucks

>>1064340

The fact that you're recommending Atlas Shrugged completely invalidates your opinion.

>>1064336

I bet videogame writers do. Also, as the genre matures and attracts better talent, it's not implausible that a wider audience will start reading video game scripts, too. Also, that's completely irrelevant to the point being discussed here. The popularity of something doesn't dictate its status as literature.

>>1064337
>But writing is not acting, that's what you're assuming. It's true, no one gets the Nobel for play writing based on a good performance, it's all about the written script.

I never assumed anything of the sort, and the point you're making, while true, is irrelevant to the discussion. Nobody said that writing in good games is literature, while writing in bad games isn't. All writing in games is.

>>1064335
>I will grant you that the dialog script may have the possibility of being considered literature, but the video game in its entirety is not

Obviously.

>>1064344

>And you can play music in the background while you read, so I don't see how the game having music means of its own would make it not qualify as literature.

>DERP

>You can cook while watching television, so I don't see how So You Think You Can Dance can't be a nutritious meal.

>>1064350

>>1064350
The music of a game has nothing to do with it. It only serves to entertain your ears while you enjoy the game. You can mute a game and still enjoy the story. One can exist without the other, so the music doesn't change if something is or is not literature.

Video games can't be literature, literature is books you idiots. Video games can be high art though, which I think is what you are all arguing. Vote for Xenogears.

>>1064356

You can enjoy the story of the game with the script, so why bother having the game at all?

>>1064356

>The music of a game has nothing to do with it.

god what terrible things have happened to your brain to make you like this

>>1064356

The music in a game, just like the music in a movie, should be chosen not just to entertain your ears but to set the tone of the area you are exploring. In literature the tone is set exclusively with words.

>>1064358

>Video games can be high art
>Giant robot anime cliche bullshit game

This is why no one takes you "Games are art" guys seriously.

>>1064358

This is what I've been trying to say. But no one seems to want to listen. The people here seem to think saying something is not literature is an insult.

>>1064359
As a medium of presentation. The visuals and music aren't necessary, but that is a way the people who made it wanted to present it. People can publish a story as a paper book or an electronic book these days, but they would still both be literature.

>>1064363

>implying all video games have giant robot anime cliche bullshit

>implying that thousands of books don't have giant robot anime cliche bullshit

>>1064363
You just don't have any consideration for the medium.

Max Payne

Earthbound, Mother 3, Ico and Shadow of the Colossus come immediately to mind as games that have artistic merit in their medium.

>>1064344

>>If anything, the technology is just opening up new ways for the art to better be expressed.

I completely agree with you. But you said it right there: video games are art. They are not literature. Literature, as I've already said, uses words to achieve its goals, whereas movies and video games use visuals and music as well.

>>And you can play music in the background while you read

Yes, you can. But that was not a part of the experience crafted by the author. In video games and music the music is put there purposely.

>>1064371

Yes, because bullet time is a common literary device.

>>1064367

>implying all video games have giant robot anime cliche bullshit

Those may be high art.

>implying that thousands of books don't have giant robot anime cliche bullshit

Those certainly aren't.

>>1064373
Oh, and Psychonauts is also very cleverly designed.
And Bioshock at least takes a stab at philosophizing.

>>1064387

>And Bioshock at least takes a stab at philosophizing.

So does the crazy bum down the street. Is he literature now too?

>>1064379
But I don't see where the line is being drawn. An ebook can be literature, just like a paper one, because of the content, not the medium. A book with pictures can be literature, just like a book without them. So how is it that a story told on a computer, mostly through text, is not literature?

>>1064391
Never said it was literature, just that it's good for its medium.

>>1064396

In the case of Planescape? Because it has a game engine. Because it has visuals that are necessary to the enjoyment of the game. Because it is interactive. If you made a purely text based game where all you did was click to read the next paragraph--then yes, that would be literature. But it's not a "game" at that point. It's basically just an ebook.

>>1064015
>Portal
Oh man, really? Cliche plot, just about zero meaningful character interaction, inconclusive ending. It was just one big poorly done wire-frame to get the player on into the next level. I didn't like it.

>>1064408

>I didn't like it.
>It's bad

>>1064416
So I guess you're saying
>it's bad
>I like it
that makes perfect sense.

>>1064422

No, I was pointing out the absurdity of saying something is bad just because you didn't like it.

>>1064416
Portal has a terrible story. Nobody cares about the good gameplay right now.

>>1064424
Just like I'm pointing out the absurdity of liking something that is bad.
See arguments : >>1064408

>>1064406
But the visuals may not be necessary for enjoyment. What if you took them away? If you took the script and wrote it out, would it magically become literature? If you simplified it and eliminated the choices, would it become literature? At what exact point does it change from one thing into another? Where do you draw the line?

>>1064432

No, not just like that at all. I'm saying your like or dislike has nothing to do with whether something is good or not. You don't like a game? Fine. But that doesn't mean it's bad.

Why would video games want to be literature?

>>1064445
>says how good a game is shouldn't be based on opinions
>despite the fact that opinions are the only way on which to base a game

>>1064439

That's like asking what Pluto needs to do in order to be classified as a planet again. If you took the game's script and wrote it out, would it be literature? Yes. This happens all the time when games and movies are novelized. Those stupid Halo books? Those are literature. Halo itself? Not literature. Literature is the art of words. Video games rely on more than just words.

>>1064445

How do you tell it's bad?

>>1064453

>>despite the fact that opinions are the only way on which to base a game

If that's the case then the game is clearly good, considering critical and public reception has been good. Face it, just because you dislike something doesn't mean it's bad.

>>1064459

Not based solely on how you feel about it. I've watched/read/played plenty of things that I knew were good that I still didn't enjoy.

>>1064454
The idea that something becomes literature by removing parts from it seems to suggest that it is, at the core, literature. PsT conveys the story and all its emotional content through text, but is not literature because it has more than text. But by removing everything but text, it becomes literature. So how is it that something can not be literature, but it can become literature just by removing parts that were superficial to begin with?

>>1064461
>Video games
>getting overwelming critical reaction based on plot and not just gameplay
I take it you just bought the orange box.

>>1064468

I didn't ask how you don't tell it's bad, I asked how you tell it's bad.

What about it, outside your own opinion, tells you it's good or bad?

>>1064470

Once it becomes literature, it ceases to be a game.

Really? People are having the generic opinions-are-subjective debate on /lit/? Shame on us all.

>>1064474

An objective critical analysis.

>>1064471

Not just talking about plot. Neither were you when you said it was bad.

>>1064491

>An objective critical analysis.

And what does that entail? How do you judge a game objectively?

>>1064491
>not reading my response
sure is troll in here

>>1064483
But when does it become literature? When does it become a game? At what point can the two things be told apart?

>>1064470

Because those parts are not superficial. If they were, the creators would have just written a book. Instead they made a game. It has an underlying engine. It has combat. It has artwork necessary to playing the game. These things mean it is not literature.

>>So how is it that something can not be literature, but it can become literature just by removing parts that were superficial to begin with?

The same way a motorcycle is not a bicycle until you remove the motor and add pedals.

>>1064497

It becomes literature when you use words for everything. Literature is the art of written works.

>>1064493

By applying the scientific method. Just like with everything else.

>>1064503
A motorcycle is just a bicycle with a motor to do the pedaling.

If a person writes a book, and includes pictures, the story isn't changed by it. The story is the same, just with pictures. The story is still literature. If something is a work of literature, and the people writing it decide to build a game around the work of literature, it is not a work of literature. This makes no sense.

>>1064517

How do you apply the scientific method to playing a video game?

>>1064519

>If a person writes a book, and includes pictures, the story isn't changed by it.

It is. Literature evokes images with text, pictures are not literature.

>>1064513
And the story unfolds through text. Therefore, by that definition, the story in the game is literature. The images aren't part of the story, so they don't factor into if it is literature or not.

>>1064519

>A motorcycle is just a bicycle with a motor to do the pedaling.

Yeah, and that's what makes it not a bicycle.

>>If something is a work of literature, and the people writing it decide to build a game around the work of literature, it is not a work of literature. This makes no sense.

It makes complete sense. You're just refusing to acknowledge it. A game is not literature. There really isn't much else to be said. Chess is not literature, no matter how intricate of a story you come up with for why black is trying to corner white's king. This is not an insult to chess. Chess is still a great game. But it is not literature. Neither are video games. Why? As I've said over and over, literature is the art of written works. Literature uses words to convey everything--from the characters to their motivations, to the world around them. You do not interact with literature. Literature is a passive experience. Video games are an active experience.

>>1064525
So an illustrated copy of, say, Moby-Dick, would not be literature, while an unillustrated copy would be, even though the text is the same in both? How does that work?

>>1064523

Start by making an observation, then by forming a hypothesis, then by testing the hypothesis. Didn't you go to high school?

>>1064538
pure motherfucking magic

>>1064538

Moby Dick is literature, the pictures are not literature, if you published a videogame from which all images, sounds, and play were removed it could be literature too

>>1064537
But you do interact with literature. Simply by reading it, you interact with it. And chess does not have a story or characters built in. Video games and works of literature do. They have so much in common, and yet they are somehow two essentially different things, simply because of imagery, which can also be present in literary works. There doesn't seem to be any solid support for the claim that one can't be the other.

>>1064538

I have an illustrated copy of Moby Dick. But Herman Melville didn't draw the illustrations, nor did he add them in, nor did he intend for the illustrations to stand in for his powerful descriptive ability. It's the same as your music argument--playing music in the background while reading was not part of the experience intended by the author. Neither are the illustrations in Moby Dick. They are just decoration. Just there to look nice, the same as spinner rims on an Escalade. They have no bearing on how the thing works.

>>1064552
But the illustrated copy is still literature, even if the pictures aren't.

>>1064560
And visuals in a game wouldn't change the writen story. Also, visual designers are rarely the same people who compose the music, so the writer's story must be looked at seperate from things like music and visuals.

>>1064556

I'm sorry you can't seem to grasp that these are two different things, but they are. "d" and "b" have things in common but they aren't the same.

>>1064561

The pictures are not an intrinsic part of Moby Dick. Moby Dick is Moby Dick without them. The images/sounds/play are intrinsic to videogames. The games are not the games without them.

>>1064565

None of that matters. Just because something has a story doesn't mean it is literature. Just like movies and television shows. We've gone over this before. I'm sorry you can't seem to grasp it, but video games are not literature.

>>1064566
But what makes them essentially different? What keeps one from being considered the other when they can have so much in common? Can you point to a specific thing? If not, then how can you claim that they are essentially different?

>>1064574

Literature is text only. Your argument is that because some hamburgers have lettuce, hamburgers are lettuce. Some games have text. Games are not text.

>>1064574

I have already pointed to plenty of specific things. Did you not read them? Literature uses words to convey everything. Everything. Whereas video games do not. If you can't understand the essential differences between a book and a video game I can't help you.

The Path

Less of a game, more of an interactive story

I played it for the first time almost a year ago and it has never left my mind

>>1064579
A text adventure game is a game of nothing but text. It is still a game. Literature is nothing but text. But the text game, by being a game, is not literature. Why not? Is this really such a hard question to answer?

>>1064579

Bitches don't know about my Trade Wars 2000

>>1064580
But a game can still convey the story without the images/music/ect. They aren't necessary for the story. If something is only there for decoration, like the pictures in a book, how does that negate the story's literature status?

>>1064586

It's been answered. Because the text based game has an underlying game engine that allows you to make choices. Literature does not have game engines.

>>1064545

I'm very tired of you dodging my question. I didn't ask what the scientific method is, I asked how you apply it to a video game.

>Start by making an observation, then by forming a hypothesis, then by testing the hypothesis.
>This is fun, Is this fun?, I'm having fun, so it must be fun!

Derp.

>>1064586

No. It isn't. It has play. It has interactivity. It is not just text. The text is not an intrinsic part of gaming. It is one aspect. Just like lettuce in a hamburger.

>>1064584

the path is really fucked up

>>1064589
Books do not have game engines. And you can choose to read them, stop reading them, read something else, ect. Choice exists with respect to books. So how does choice with respect to a game negate its literature status?

>>1064592

Then maybe you should quit getting trolled, you dumb bastard.

>>1064607

>lolitrolu

The last bastion of a moron proven wrong.

>>1064606

These choices have no bearing on your experience of the book, or where the book takes you. You pick it up and passively experience what the author has created. This is not the case with a video game. I'm done debating it with you. If you have more questions, please scroll up and reread what has already been said because by this point all you are doing is asking your questions in different ways once they have been answered.

If the Zelda series was never in videogame format and only a series of books it would be as big as Lord of the Rings.

>>1064584
I second this. As far as symbolism and open interpretation go, I think The Path may be what you're looking for.

>>1064613

You're debating with someone who claims they a value judgment can be determined by the scientific method. Who is the moron?

>>1064619
Reading is an activity. You can only actively experience a piece of literature. Playing a game and reading a book are both activities.

Silent Hill

>>1064625

The one who's wrong.

>>1064630

No. You don't experience a book the same way you experience a video game. In a video game you make choices, you calculate odds, you do all of the things that make video games fun. In a book you sit back and take in what the author has created. This is what I meant by active and passive.

>>1064639

So you then. Glad we cleared that up.

>>1064642

>implying the scientific method can be used to evaluate video games

>>1064620

Zelda IS as big as Lord of the Rings. Hell, my mom plays Zelda.

>>1064640
You take in what the author has put before you but you interpret it as well. Everyone has a different, albeit slightly, opinion on what the author is trying to get through to the reader.

>>1064644

see:

>>1064607

It's painful to watch you struggle like this.

>>1064640
But you do the same with a game. Just because you are playing the story doesn't mean it unfolds the way you want to. It still unfolds the way it was written, and your playing does not alter the way the plot progresses, except in the case of pre-written branching paths, which are still the product of a writer that you get to experience. The plot unfolds the way it is written in both a book and a game, and you must actively engage in the work to make it unfold, be it through button pressing or through page turning.

>>1064646

Forming an opinion is not the same as playing a game.

>>1064649

Except that the pressing of buttons in a video game isn't analogous to turning pages. If it were you'd be reading an ebook, which is not a game.

>>1064656
It is when the button pressing causes new text to be brought up to be read.

>>1064649

Dude, videogames arent books, get over it.

>>1064645
As a book I mean...

>>1064659

If that's all the button pressing does and there are no visuals, music, or choices, then yes, you're right. But as I said, then it is no longer a game. It is an ebook.

>>1064660
I know they aren't books. But that does not mean they aren't literature. After all, eBooks and books on tape aren't books in the traditional sense, but they're still literature.

>>1064661

I understood what you meant. I was just saying that even as things are, Zelda is still as big as LOTOR. I wish Peter Jackson would make a bad ass Zelda movie.

>>1064666

>After all, eBooks and books on tape aren't books

>eBOOKs and BOOKS on tape aren't BOOKS

>>1064663
How is it that it is no longer a game? The choice to continue reading or to stop is still there, so books still have choices that the reader can make. A text game does not need visuals or sounds, and because choice is available to both games and books, then choice is not the deciding factor in if something is or is not literature.

>>1064671
Not in the traditional sense, no. They aren't made of ink on paper. They're still literature, though.

This is a horrible thread and everyone that posted in it should feel bad, I know I do.

>>1064674

Just because you can choose to continue to stop reading doesn't mean it's a game. Wow. Please stop.

>>1064678

Right. But videogames aren't.

Fucking hell get off your high horses...
High art forms and low art forms don't exist.

Yes,
Novels are often considered high art
Video games are often considered low art or not art at all.

When actually...
Both can tell a story.
Both can create a world.
Both can create characters.
Both can immerse the reader/player.
Both can create drama/tension/empathy/emotion.

Yes some video games are bad at story telling. Equally there are many novels that are bad at story telling. That doesn't devalue the entire medium.

There are many games that can be considered modern literature:
Zelda
Eartbound
Final Fantasy
Heavy Rain
Portal

The video gaming industry has become one of the most successful in recent years. More people have began noticing its potential to tell stories and immerse the players. So should you.

/thread

>>1064685
The choice is always open to you. If literature has no choices open to the reader, then they can't decide what they read, when they read it, and when to stop. They do. Options are always open, and just because there are choices with regards to games does not mean they are not literature, because literature also allows you to choose. You need to give some way in which the two things are essentially different if you want to show that games can not be literature.

>>1064687
Why not?

>>1064692
I totally agree!

>>1064692
THANK YOU. That's the point I've been making for the entire time this debate has been going on.

>>1064692

>There are many games that can be considered modern literature:
>Zelda
>Eartbound
>Final Fantasy
>Heavy Rain
>Portal

hahaHAHAHA

>>1064693

I already have. I've given you plenty of ways, you just refuse to accept them. I'm done debating this with you. You want to consider video games as literature? Fine, please do. But you're wrong. And if you want to know why you're wrong all you have to do is read through this thread.

>>1064692

NO THESE GAMES CAN NOT BE CONSIDERED MODERN LITERATURE. THEY CAN BE CONSIDERED WORKS OF ART BUT THEY ARE NOT LITERATURE FOR FUCKS SAKE.

>>1064706
I've read through the thread. I've found holes in your reasons and dismissed them as faulty. You've yet to give a single reason why video games can't be literature that I have been unable to shoot down. Until you present a reason that can't be debunked, you can't claim that you are correct.

>1064708

Ok then, they can be considered as works of art that are as good as modern literature.

>>1064693

Derp. The choices are literally available just like the choice to stop listening to that opera is available, or to start jerking off, or to poop your own pants, but those choices aren't intrinsic parts. Literature does not NECESSARILY involve choice. Games do.

>>1064692

Saying something is "literature" is not a statement of quality, it's a statement of medium. Saying "video games are literature" is like saying "paintings are movies".

>>1064714

You haven't shot down a single thing. All you've done is rephrase your questions over and over. And people, myself included, have answered them. Repeatedly.

>>1064719
But it does necessarily involve choice. You choose what to read, when to read, when to stop, when to start again, when to quit, when to reread, ect. Choice is a necessary part of both, and simply having more options available in one does not mean that it is an essentially different thing from the other.

>>1064730

God, how can you be this stupid? Yes, you have the choice to stop reading or to start reading, but you have no choice over what happens. None at all. You passively experience what the author has created. How can you not understand this? How?

>>1064619
>These choices have no bearing on your experience of the book, or where the book takes you. You pick it up and passively experience what the author has created.
How boring reading must be for you! Who passively reads books with out making interpretations? Have you never picked up a book later in your life and experienced it completely differently? I have. I think most people who love literature have. You IMAGINE the images and read into the subtext. I've also found that picking up a book at different times DEFINITELY changes the way I experience the book.

Now, with that said, I've been lurking, reading this entire debate and I have to say that this is what I've come up with:

The argument that videogames are not literature because they use visual mediums is invalid. To compare videogames to cinema and say that it is not literature because, like cinema, it relies heavily on music, sound effects, and visuals is fallacious. Why? Because videogames, like books, contain TEXT to convey dialog and storyline. This makes a videogame fundamentally different than movies.
Post continued...

>>1064722
I have shown that the things often found in video games (such as images and choices) can be present in literature without changing the fact that it is literature. As of yet, no true difference between the two mediums has been shown.

>>1064741

And it has been proven that just because games share elements with books does not mean games are literature.

>>1064739
And you passively experience the story that the writers of the game have created. You have no choice as to how it unfolds. We've been over this already.

Continues from >>1064740
A more apt comparison would be video games to graphic novels, in fact, I'm surprised no one has mentioned it. Both video games and graphic novels contain text that is read to grasp the storyline, but both utilize visuals. Obviously, a major difference with video games is that it uses moving images and sound, but like comic books, and unlike movies, video games rely on text to convey major elements of character development and story. Most people would consider graphic novels such as Maus literature. This problematizes disregarding video games as literature.

What I would probably argue is that video games are a new medium, which is why we are having difficulty coming to agreement regarding its categorization.
Post continued...

Continued from >>1064748
Not too long ago, many people (and some people still do this) would refuse to consider graphic novels literature because they heavily rely on images, and also because people were closed minded about the capabilities of the medium. Graphic novels are technically a different medium than text-only books, but they can also be considered literature.

Like graphic novels, video games employ other means in addition to text to convey storylines. Obviously, video games, unlike graphic novels, use music and moving images, as well. Further, there is an interactive playing element. But one has to admit that graphic novels differ vastly from traditional books - instead of a narrator, there is a camera that shows us juxtaposed images, instead of descriptions for setting and characters, we see them--visual placements and representations of thoughts, text, and sound effects also differ.

At the very least, it should be conceded that the text in video games is literature, whether good or bad is up for debate. However, I think that the fact graphic novels can be considered literature problematizes the argument that videogames cannot be.

>>1064747

Except that you have choice over where to go and what to do. You're right, we have been over this already and it is infuriating how you refuse to acknowledge the differences.

>>1064730

gefgjsdfka what is wrong with you

KEEP READING Y/N IS NOT A NECESSARY PART OF EVERY BOOK.

THE BOOK DOES NOT ASK YOU TO MAKE THIS CHOICE. YOU MAKE IT YOURSELF. IT IS EXTRANEOUS. IF YOU POOP YOUR PANTS WHILE READING A BOOK, THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT POOPING YOUR PANTS IS AN INTRINSIC PART OF LITERATURE.

yes, i frustrated.

>>1064746
But no essential difference between the two has yet been shown, and therefore nobody can say with certainty that video games are not literature.

>>1064748

>Most people would consider graphic novels such as Maus literature.

They would be stupid, because again, calling something literature says nothing about its quality.

Maus is a comic book. A good comic book.

>>1064740

>Because videogames, like books, contain TEXT to convey dialog and storyline.

DERP.

>>1064756
Choice is choice. Simply being able to make choices is what is important, not the specific choices you can make.
>>1064757
Of course "keep reading" is a necessary choice for every book. I can choose to stop or to keep going with every book I read.

>>1064739
In video games you have no choice over what happens REALLY. Yes you have some choices over what enemy to kill first/working out how to solve a puzzle/which pokemon to carry with you.

But ultimately everyone who plays will follow the same story of defeating ganondorf and saving zelda/becoming the pokemon master/killing all the zombies.

There are exceptions with games that have multiple endings depending on your choices but these can be compared to 'choose your own adventure' books.

>>1064748

>graphic novels

Ignorant, pretentious retard detected.

Text is not what defines comic books. You can have a comic book without text. What defines them is static pictures in sequences, used to convey a narrative.

>>1064769
You don't play a lot of good games do you?

>>1064768

>derp derp derp derp

>IF YOU POOP YOUR PANTS WHILE READING A BOOK, THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT POOPING YOUR PANTS IS AN INTRINSIC PART OF LITERATURE.

>>1064740

>How boring reading must be for you! Who passively reads books with out making interpretations? Have you never picked up a book later in your life and experienced it completely differently? I have. I think most people who love literature have. You IMAGINE the images and read into the subtext. I've also found that picking up a book at different times DEFINITELY changes the way I experience the book.

see:

>>1064640

>>1064777
No, but choosing to read the book is.

>>1064763
I said nothing about quality. I used Maus as an example because it relies heavily on text to convey a story. There are some comics that do not have a contained story--for example, serial super hero comics that are episodic in nature and not considered "graphic novels." Note how the literary term "novel" is used to describe such works as Watchman, Maus, and a work I'm currently reading "Fun Home." In an English class I took in college we read a graphic novel called "Shortcomings" as literature.

>>1064739
It's not as clear cut as games being freeform and literature being linear. Sure, you have choices as to how to kill that headcrab, but ultimately Valve are giving you a directed experience which everyone experiences in a very similar way. For adventure games, it's even more linear: there's only ever one solution. There needs to be some direction, something which pushes you to have a particular experience, or else things as conceptually skeletal as card games could be classed as art.

>>1064779
I don't know about you, but I make decisions all the time when I read. I decide what a character is really thinking, if he or she is lying, or to read a certain gesture, if I should re-read a passage, read the end of the book first, skim over a paragraph quickly or read it slowly. Most video games do not allow you to fundamentally change a story based on the decisions you make. If I play Ocarina of Time and my brother plays Ocarina of Time, we will still read the same text. I might finish before him, but the same thing would happen if we both read the same book. The fundamental elements of Ocarina of Time, it's story, its characters, even its images and setting, do not change.

Let's be real here, guys.

No matter what roundabout arguments you vidya fans employ, they will never be called "literature". Just like movies will never be called literature, and TV shows will never be called literature, and anime, and cartoons, and comic books.

You'll never see a video game win the Novel prize in literature, and you'll never see Tetris being taught in a Russian lit class. We, as a society, know what literature means, and no matter how much you argue details and semantics, nothing will change that definition.

>>1064782

I actually had to read Maus in a literature class I took. You know what struck me about it? The fact that you could read it without looking at the pictures. It was basically a book with the dialog and narration all chopped up and sprinkled everywhere. That's the difference between something like Maus and a video game. You cannot seperate the visuals from a video game.

>>1064793
Why not?

>>1064780

The book does not ask you to make that choice. Period. You will not be able to enter a bookstore, pick up a random book, and find that every five pages there is one that says "Keep reading? y/n". Games ASK you to make choices.

>>1064803
No they don't. Games do not have random "Keep playing y/n?" windows pop up.

>>1064799
Just as you can read a Shakespeare piece as literature, but you're missing out on 90% of the subtlety if you don't get off your arse and act the damn thing out. So much of what happens in Maus is visual, it would hardly be the same text if one took away the pictures.

>>1064806

You're retarded. Choice as in what you DO in the game.

>>1064799
Seriously? If you think that, then you really didn't get the point of that work. What makes Maus so striking is how the people are portrayed visually as animals. The Jews all look the same--indisnguishable, as mice. To disguise as a Polish person, they wear pig masks. These effects could NEVER happen without the visuals. In fact, my professor talked about how he showed his son every great movie and book he could find about the holocaust, but nothing resonated with him. Maus was what finally did it, because the still images force you to grapple with the horrors in a completely different way, especially since the people are represented as animals. It's a core element of the work. To say visuals aren't important is ludicrous: it's what makes that work important. Otherwise, it would be just like the other thousands of holocause accounts.

>>1064800

Because that's reality.

>>1064803
What about adventure games? How do they have choices?

>>1064806

Do you really need everything spelled out in excruciating detail? It's one example among a range of options. You will also never find "Accept Pippin and Merry into your party?" and you will never be able to choose a sideplot to read from a less important character, or to try to catch Black Beauty, or be told that if you figure out the puzzle you get new armor, or any of a range of options.

>>1064815
That isn't a reason. Why not?

>>1064814
Keep being awesome, anon.

>>1064824

Society isn't reasonable.

>>1064810

Right, but if you take the visuals, music, engines, etc, out of a video game you're not just losing out on subtlety, you're losing out on just about everything. The beauty in Shakespeare is the language, whether it's being read silently or aloud. The language is the main tool. This is not the case with video games. Unless you're talking about programming languages.

>>1064799

Uh... wow. You really did not get Maus at all. Spiegelman is pretty well-known for his avant-garde approach to the possibilities of the form and while Maus is definitely less over than his other stuff, there's a ton of stuff in the images that wouldn't be there otherwise.

>>1064832

less overt*

>>1064829
Looks like someone has never heard of text-based video gaming.

>>1064812
But not all games give you choices on how to do things.
Many just have you playing from one area to another, solving puzzles/killing enemies along the way. The only thing you influence is how long it takes or how you kill etc, the story is still very much in tact.

>>1064838

>engines

Also, read the thread.

>>1064832
>>1064814

Yes, I understand these things, and they are great parts of the work. But they are not what makes Maus literature. If they were then countless paintings and sculptures would be considered literature because of their visual allegories.

>>1064843
>>1064843

>solving puzzles/killing enemies along the way
>solving puzzles/killing enemies along the way
>solving puzzles/killing enemies along the way
>solving puzzles/killing enemies along the way
>solving puzzles/killing enemies along the way
>solving puzzles/killing enemies along the way
>solving puzzles/killing enemies along the way

>>1064849

If you don't have the pictures, you don't have Maus.

>>1064849
That's an illogical argument. Those sculptures, etc. do not rely heavily on text to convey any sort of story. This is what prevents them from being literature. Considering Maus literature does not mean we have to consider paintings literature.

>>1064857

That's not what I said. The pictures are not what makes Maus a great piece of literature. It is the language. If you took the language away you would be left with a series of pictures. Series of pictures are created all the time. They're called cartoons. And they're not literature.

was it shatted by a printing press? was it shatted by a printing press? was it shatted by a printing press? was it shatted by a printing press? was it shatted by a printing press? was it shatted by a printing press? was it shatted by a printing press? was it shatted by a printing press? was it shatted by a printing press? was it shatted by a printing press? was it shatted by a printing press? was it shatted by a printing press? was it shatted by a printing press? was it shatted by a printing press? was it shatted by a printing press? was it shatted by a printing press? was it shatted by a printing press? was it shatted by a printing press? was it shatted by a printing press?

>>1064865

Yes, I understand text is what makes something literature. Which is why I said the text is what made it literature. The pictures have nothing to do with something is literature or not. That was my whole point. Thanks for agreeing with me though.

>>1064866

If you injected impressive language into a cartoon, by your own arguments it would then be literature.

>>1064866

No, that's not the argument. The argument is that Maus is not literature, because without the pictures it is not Maus. The script to 2001 is not 2001. You cannot remove the pictures and have it be that work of art. Without the pictures Maus is just another tired memoir of the Holocaust.

Look you guys, I don't think it's even worth arguing about the decisions you make in games because making decisions in games, even if they can change the story like in Fable doesn't preevent games from being literature. There is interactive literature on the internet where people change a story and interact with it. This is still literature. Adventure novels in which you make choices are still literature. This is the definition of literature according to Oxford dictionary:

literature (lit·er·a·ture)
Pronunciation:/ˈlit(ə)rəCHər, -ˌCHo͝or, -ˌt(y)o͝or/
noun
*written works , especially those considered of superior or lasting artistic merit:a great work of literature"

Graphic novels and video games are written works. If books can contain illustrations, to help convey story, so can video games and graphic novels.

>>1064888

>has some words = is made exclusively of words

No. Why do people keep repeating this? My socks are part cotton, there is cotton in my bedsheets, my socks are not bedsheets and neither are cotton plants.

>>1064866
And if you took the pictures away, it would not be a great work of literature. See my post: >>1064814

>>1064888

Written works. Not written works with pictures, sounds, interactivity, etc etc.

By that definition, video game scripts are literature. Comic book scripts are literature. Movie and drama scripts are literature. Not the final product.

>>1064872
I wasn't agreeing with you, silly. A graphic novel, unlike a sculpture, cannot convey what it aims to convey without text. It heavily relies on text, like any other work of literature, to convey character development and themes. A sculpture does not do this.

>>1064624
>>1064624
>>1064624

That is an absolutely beautiful wallpaper.

>>1064912
>>1064872
Also, as I mentioned in other posts, for graphic novels you can't grasp the entirety of its storyline and character development WITHOUT the imagery, just like with video games. The two are sutured, so saying the text alone is literature is ludicrous. I don't know why it's impossible for you to comprehend that the visual and the linguistic can work together and still be considered literature.

>>1064912

>A graphic novel, unlike a sculpture, cannot convey what it aims to convey without text.

The Arrival by Shaun Tan, like half of Chris Ware's work

>>1064912

>A graphic novel, unlike a sculpture, cannot convey what it aims to convey without text.

The Arrival by Shaun Tan, like half of Chris Ware's work

>>1064898
>My socks are part cotton, there is cotton in my bedsheets, my socks are not bedsheets and neither are cotton plants.
I'm guessing by your definition then, children's books that rely heavily on illustrations are not literature?
Also, this is an asinine comparison. The function of the bedsheets and the socks are completely different. However, I can convey a narrative using text in graphic novels, video games, and books.

>good enough to be considered modern literature
>Chrono Trigger
Are you retarded?

>>1064932
I never said there was not such thing as visual art without text. There are comics that convey stories without text just like there's movies that convey stories without text. But the absence of text makes it visual art and no longer literature. I was referring to works that include text. The Arrival would be considered a "Picture Book." Like a painting, it can convey something complex and important, but it isn't literature.

>>1064947
Let me clarify my point slightly: works that rely on text to convey storyline and character development.

Video games are not literature. It's simple.

>>1064932
>The Arrival by Shaun Tan

Hell yeah. One internets for you sir.

>>1064947

No, see, The Arrival is a "graphic novel" in both the pretentious sense that people ashamed to read comic books use it and in the publishing sense of a longer work published altogether (Maus was released in a number of issues and so isn't a proper graphic novel). Graphic novels necessarily involve pictures in sequence, but they don't necessarily have words. You do not understand the medium you are trying to talk about. Maus is a comic book, comic books are not literature, Maus is not literature. You can talk about literary aspects of it in the same way you might talk about musical aspects of The Good, The Bad and The Ugly, but that does not make that film into music.

>>1064935

Yes, children's books that rely heavily on pictures are not literature. They are a hybrid form of literature and visual art.

Both my socks and my bedsheets keep me warm. This is at about the same level of abstraction as "conveying a narrative".

>>1064968
Surely the method of release isn't that consequential: most people now are coming to Maus and reading it as a complete and finished narrative, akin to any other so-called graphic novel.

The term itself is problematic though, it's an honour-by-association thing. Shoving the established term "novel" in your medium gives it a critical bump over the term "comic book" which still has connotations of childhood. I think Chris Ware is the only graphic novelist who actually likes the term, everyone else merely tolerates it.

>>1064008
pieces of art, I'll go along with. A classic videogame to be rivaled with a classic in literature, sure. Can a videogame be literature? That's up for debate.
by definition:
1. The body of written works of a language, period, or culture.
2. Imaginative or creative writing, especially of recognized artistic value: "Literature must be an analysis of experience and a synthesis of the findings into a unity" (Rebecca West).
3. The art or occupation of a literary writer.
4. The body of written work produced by scholars or researchers in a given field: medical literature.
5. Printed material: collected all the available literature on the subject.
6. Music All the compositions of a certain kind or for a specific instrument or ensemble
So perhaps. Depends on who you're talking to. Certainly some videogames include great writing and execution, but just like books you'll get people who go "I didnt like the story/message, so it sucked."

No, it's just not. Literature is print media that conveys a story, requiring absolutely no involvement other than reading.

>>1064978
>>1064968
I concede that works that are considered "graphic novels" may not have text. But I'm primarily concerned with works that do have text for the relevance of my argument regarding video games. A graphic novel without text is not literature in the dictionary definition of literature. See my post: >>1064888. This is the definition I am working with. If you are working with some pretentious high-brow definition of literature, we will never agree.

Give me one decent reason why children's books are not considered literature under the definition I have described. Nothing in the definition rules out works that utilize visual elements. The only qualification is that writing is a major element to convey the story.
Post continued...

Post continued from >>1065014

This is why I would consider comic books and video games literature and movies, cinema, The Arrival not.

Plays are considered literature even though they traditionally incorporate visual medium. What people have pointed out is that movies and play SCRIPTS are the literature, the visual performances aren't. I agree, and this is a central element to my argument.

You can separate the visual elements of a play and a movie from its script and script itself still retains its artistic value. How, might one ask? Because the script is like the score of a symphony, anyone can theoretically take it, and create the movie, play, or symphony. The artistic integrity is intact if you separate the literature from the visual elements.
Post continued...

>>1064997

It's just the difference between the term as something functional and something used to mask a fear of appearing childish.

Post continued from >>1065019

However, for graphic novels, video games, and children's books this is simply not the case. If you separate the text from graphic novels, not only are major thematic and artistic elements lost, but it often becomes difficult or impossible to understand. There often would be chunks of floating dialog and the reader wouldn't understand what was going on.

With video games, this is also the case. Take the dialog out of the game, the reader doesn't know what is happening, they can't replicate the same experience, even on their own, like they could a play script or movie script.

Now, what makes these works literature is that the opposite is also true! If you remove the text from the images, the artistic value is also lost. With graphic novels that DO employ text (these are the ones I'm concerning myself with, I am well aware that there are comics that have no text), the meaning of the work would be unintelligible without the text.
Post continued... (the next one is the last one, I swear!)

Continued from >>1065024

I once new a kid who couldn't read and tried to play video games. Needless to say, he wasn't successful. On the backs of games for kids, it specifies that knowledge of reading is tantamount to the game experience.

This is what makes graphic novels (that convey dialog and other instrumental information with text) and video games literature. They RELY on text to convey their messages.

Whether all graphic novels employ text is irrelevant to my argument. Remember, the core argument is about video games. I was merely using graphic novels that rely on text as an example of how mediums can use both text and illustrations and STILL be literature. There is no logically reason they cannot be.

Post complete.

>>1065027
>>1065024
>>1065019
>>1065014

My computer has copper in it. My computer is not copper.

The human body has water in it. The human body is not water.

My garbage can has been painted red. My garbage can is not red paint.

>>1065027
Sorry, I didn't get much sleep last night, I realize the word "tantamount" is not the word I want here. I'd rather say, "essential" to the game experience.

>>1065031
You are stupid

>>1065031
My computer has electronics in it. My computer is electronic.
The human body has flesh in it. The human body is fleshy.
My garbage can is made of metal. My garbage can is metallic.
Video games contain literary elements. Video games are literary.

>>1065031
Not equivalent. We are talking about ART here. A garbage can does not need red paint to still be a garbage can. Moreover, a garbage can is not conveying anything of artistic value. (Also, a human body without water would be a nonfunctional body, but still a human body, and a computer with copper in it, likewise, it is not intrinsic to its definition). Further, if the definition of literature is a written work, why can't that written work have visual elements? You haven't given me a good reason to accept that.

>Why can't video games be literature? BECAUSE THEY AREN'T! Why not? BECAUSE THEY AREN'T!

Maybe they are, maybe they aren't, but I've yet to see anyone in this thread give a good reason that they can't be considered literature. So, until someone finds a perfect reason why they can't be considered literature, the only reason you can give for not thinking a game could be considered literature is because that happens to be your opinion.

>>1065048
>Literature (from Latin littera; letter), is the art of written works. Literally translated, the word literature means "acquaintance with letters" (as in the "arts and letters"). The two most basic written literary categories include fiction and nonfiction.

Videogames are not written works. They're interactive media made with computer generated images.

>>1065040

>derp

>>1065043

You know that literary doesn't mean literature, right?

People talk about literature being musical, but that doesn't mean it is music.

Literature is exclusively text.

>>1065046

Graphic novels do not necessarily involve text, nor do videogames, much like my garbage can doesn't need red paint. That these are arts means nothing at all, because having a functional definition of a kind of art does not have anything to do with word whether some is art in general.

It can't have pictures because you do not write pictures. It is that simple. Text is literature. Visuals are not.

>>1065051
They contain writing.

>>1065059

>with word whether some is art in general.

herp

with whether or not something is art in general

gotta stop changing sentences halfway through

>>1065059
I'm guessing you didn't read my long post. I specified in the them that I was not including graphic novels without text in my argument. I think it's implied, but if you require my enumerating, that goes for both graphic novel without text and video games without text as well.

You still have not given me persuasive cause to reject the idea that a written work that also incorporates visual media is not literature.

video games are not literature

they are better

>>1065071
Sorry I meant, "I specified in it" --it's technically one post broken up into multiple...

>>1065059
computers need copper
they are not copper but they need it to be a computer

like a video game need text to function as a good video game

you have a shitty argument

>>1065071

Visual media is not text, literature is text, ergo a hybrid is not literature. Just like film is not music, even though it often involves music.

>>1065078

>derp

The argument is not one of quality but of kind. A bad videogame is still a videogame.

>>1065082
This is where you are wrong, again if you would pay attention to my posts: >>1065027 >>1065024 >>1065019 , you would see why.

I can still harvest out the copper out of my computer and it would still be copper. I can separate the copper and it retains its value. However, if I take the text out of the video game it NO LONGER is literature, because it loses its sense value. The text NEEDS the visual elements to be literature in video games and graphic novels. The visual and linguistic elements work together to create a literary piece.

Children's books are often the same. The pictures and words together make the literary work. It might not be a very complex work, but that's not the definition of literature. The definition of literature is a "written work" with or without visuals is not specified.

>>1065106
Not the dude you were replying to, but he has a point. By your argument, if one extracts the music from a film, it's no longer music. Surely that's problematic?

>>1065117

Since when does the music need the film to exist?

>>1065106

That's some nice begging the question, bro. You assume that these media are literature and then go on to argue that if you changed them, they wouldn't be literature.

If you take the text out a videogame it is still a videogame. The text can be literature just like taking the text from a play is literature, but the performance of it is not literature. That they often become nonsensical is not an argument for them being literature--it's the opposite. These forms are so intertwined with other forms of expression that the writing cannot be analyzed without recourse to other, non-literary ideas.

If you extract the sound from The Conversation, it loses all sense. Does this mean it is music?

The definition is a written work, yes. And you don't write pictures.

>>1065106
This is why, at this point, your argument is weaker than mine. You have no basis for asserting that a written work that includes visual elements is not literary. However, the definition of literature as "a written work" supports my assertion. If video games and graphic novels cease to be works without the written element, they are literature. If they cease to be works without the visual elements, we can't take out the text like we do for plays and movies and call that literature. That must mean that the whole is literature.

>>1065129 See: >>1065132
The word "work" is intrinsic to the definition of literature. The text of a video game ceases to be a work when separated from the visual elements. This make sit inherently different than a play or movie, which have textual elements that can stand alone as literature. Also, the visual elements make the text of the video game a literary WORK. This is why it making sense is necessary for some to be literature--it's not just random writing, its writing composed into a WORK.

>>1065120
Well presumably the score wouldn't have been written if the film hadn't been produced, but I see your point.

Another question: if one could, hypothetically, extract the text from a video game and the resulting game was perfectly playable, would the original game then be literature?

I'm being a contrarian because I'm actually planning to write a dissertation on the critical reception of new media and their relationship to print media, so this is a very stimulating thread.

>>1065141
God, sorry about the typos! *this makes it
*this is why sense value is necessary for a chunk of writing to be considered literature

>>1065141
>>1065132

> You have no basis for asserting that a written work that includes visual elements is not literary

I'm not asserting that it is not literary. I'm saying it is not literature. Because, once again, you don't write pictures.

And in any case, you're arguing that because SPECIFIC WORKS can become nonsensical, text is an intrinsic part of those two media. IT ISN'T. You can have perfectly understandable works without text.

Your logic is so painfully and obviously wrong I don't know how you can keep making this error. Having one part of something else doesn't make something that other thing. 5 is not 12 because 5 + 7 = 12.

>>1065141


>The text of a video game ceases to be a work when separated from the visual elements.

AND SO DO THE CAPTIONS OF SILENT FILMS. It doesn't matter that the words are necessary for certain works because WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE MEDIUM.

Films do not have text that stands alone anymore than games do. Games have scripts which give the environments, the gameplay, the characters, everything, just like screenplays do. But just try to separate the visuals of a silent film from its captions and see what happens to both.

>>1065145
>if one could, hypothetically, extract the text from a video game and the resulting game was perfectly playable, would the original game then be literature?
I wouldn't consider that game literature. That game would probably be something like Tetrus or Pacman. A game could only be considered literature if reading the text was requisite for understanding the game as a whole.
A game that doesn't need text could still be art. I think of Flower, for example, but it wouldn't literature.

>>1065161
You're misunderstanding my argument.
>And in any case, you're arguing that because SPECIFIC WORKS can become nonsensical, text is an intrinsic part of those two media. IT ISN'T. You can have perfectly understandable works without text.

The works that are incomprehensible without text are the only ones I'm talking about, I ALREADY SPECIFIED THIS NUMEROUS TIMES. See >>1065162

As I said here >>1065071, I do not consider video games that do not rely on text for sense-value literature. The existence of understandable visual works without text is irrelevant to the points I'm making. If you take the text out of the works this argument is actually concerned with (graphic novels, video games that use text to convey their story lines and character development) they lose their artistic value, they are no longer works. Therefore, they are written works.
Again, you have given me no reason to reject a written work with visual elements as literature.

>>1065162
*wouldn't be literature

>>1065063
So do cans of soda, but I wouldn't consider it literature.

Hey guys, I have a book that uses visual elements and written ones that isn't a graphic novel. It's called Don't Let Me Be Lonely by Claudia Rankine. Google it. Without the pictures, the work wouldn't be the same. They aren't just illustrations. The book is often considered a "lyric essay" -- it's somewhere between memoir and poetry. It's difficult to define, but Rankine uses picture to convey her ideas, too.

>>1065206
Soda is soda with or without writing. Legend of Zelda Ocarina of Time and other games wouldn't be complete without writing. Hardly equivalent.

>>1065206
>Soda cans
>contain writing
>word bubbles

Shit, son, how high are you?

>>1065197

Certain aspects of certain games can be literary. This does not make them literature, much like the sound in certain films does not make those films radio drama (or "audio drama" if you want to be technical), even though without the sound most films make absolutely no sense. Because the part that makes film a distinct medium is the moving pictures. And what makes games a distinct medium is the interactive play, not the text.

> you have given me no reason to reject a written work with visual elements as literature.

You
Don't
Write
Pictures

How do you not understand this? Having one component (that is not even an intrinsic part of the medium at that) does not make that thing that component. Without the carbon to hold it all together the human body would not be a human body. The human body is NOT carbon. It is a mix of all sorts of things. Most videogames are a mix of many elements.

>>1065229
Human body is carbon based.

>>1065241

... Yep. It sure is. And film is made of pictures. But film and photography are different media.

>>1065249
Tell that to the Director of Photography.

>>1065254

Derp.

The director of photographer in film does moving pictures. Photography proper is about stills. You and I both know that's what we are talking about.

>>1065258

director of photography*

>>1065258
Film is nothing but a series of still images presented at high speed.

>>1065261

The illusion of motion is what makes film what it is. Saying it is "nothing but" is disingenuous, like saying that words are "nothing but" certain shapes in certain orders and are therefore the same as paintings.

>>1065265
What the film is is a bunch of pictures.

>>1065274

"Moving" pictures. Mapplethorpe's "X Portfolio" is a bunch of pictures. They don't make a film.

>>1065229 See >>1065213

>>1065229
No one ever claimed anyone "writes pictures." My claim was that some literature may incorporate visual media and use it synergistically with writing. To say literature that incorporates new or visual media isn't literature is like living in the early 20th century and saying the new films coming out that incorporate sound aren't films and should be called something else!

>>1065309

>incorporate visual media and use it synergistically with writing

Yes, exactly, and when it does this it is not literature because literature written. The Treachery of Images has words that are inseparable from the text, but no one has ever treated it as literature.

The writing in these can be (although usually isn't) literature, the visual part cannot, it is a hybrid form. You do not experience comics like you experience literature, you do not understand them in the same way, they don't use the same set of devices, they are fundamentally different, and the same goes for all forms that use words in addition to other methods of expression.

You're being silly. Narratives driven by a combination of pictures and text are fundamentally different from those driven by text only. It does not make sense to yoke together disparate forms because of a partial similarity, and the definition of literature does not include visuals.

> saying the new films coming out that incorporate sound aren't films and should be called something else!

And you're arguing that those silent films are literature because they include text.

>>1064346
Reading comprehension failure, uh? Go ahead, reread >>1064339

I'm not saying that words don't mean what they mean (obviously). I'm saying that things are far more complex than you could describe with a single word. Sure, we do it anyway, for convenience. But it's still inaccurate, imprecise.

Of course I can't possibly even attempt to describe something without using language. As pathetically awful as language is as a mean of communication, it's the best we have. But the language wants you to think it's a Yes or No question. In reality, there's things that are part text and part game, in various percentages.

According to its definition, literature is writing. It's 100% text. Video games include anything between 0% and 99.9% text. This doesn't leave you a lot of room to accurately describe video games.

What's important isn't how things can be described using language. The important things is what things *are*.

1. Tetris
2. Torment
3. A fantasy novel

Oh look. What does Torment resemble more? 1 or 3? Obviously, 3. But in the meantime you're letting arbitrary categories decide how you're going to think of it.

Saying "Planescape: Torment is not literature" is pointless and irrelevant. The definition of literature is far too narrow to be of any use.

"If you want to read a great story, play Planescape: Torment" is much more useful information.

>>1065365

>The definition of literature is far too narrow to be of any use

Why expect words to be so general as to include everything that has even a passing resemblance to something else? You wouldn't expect "food" to somehow give you all of the differences between a bee and a chicken.

>>1065379
That's partly my point. "video game" is very general (it could be Tetris or it could be something that's nearly all text) and "literature" is very narrow.

Thus, you end up with something that's closer to a book than something that's pure game, but it still gets shoved into the "video game" category.

The end result is that it doesn't get the recognition it deserves. We compare literature only with other literature despite the fact that Torment is highly enjoyable to read, more so than most standard novels.

Oh my god...I started this like 10 hours ago and then went to work.

345 is quite a discussion over here. I guess this is a heated issue for some.

>>1064692

this is the most correct answer...

The arguments in this thread remind me of an old Kids in The Hall sketch circa mid nineties. The two hosers argue in the same manner.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DErlW7zw1Gs

>>1065897

Is it "garbage" just because we found it in the garbage!?