/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.1769400]

http://news.cnet.com/video-games-are-art-eligible-for-your-tax-dollars/8301-17938_105-20061941-1.htm
l

>One man's Boticelli is another's Duke Nukem Forever. That's the view of the National Endowment for the Arts, which announced this week that "interactive games" will be just one of the new media eligible for federal funding through the NEA's "Arts in Media" program. That's right, the agency that's brought you countless Shakespeare, ballet, and classical music productions is trying to get hip with all the stuff the kids are into these days.

It's over, literature is finished.

[Anonymous No.1769405]

nothing substantial will happen

[Anonymous No.1769406]

[Anonymous No.1769407]

you mean its just begun.

[Anonymous No.1769411]

>u.s. government has no money
>vidya is now eligible for government money

[Anonymous No.1769415]

They should put taxes on video games and make commercials about how terrible they are like with cigarettes.

[Anonymous No.1769421]

I'd say it's the right time for it:

games are getting ambitious finally with plot and character which is bringing the emotional and narrative innovation up with the technical innovation.

Also, the independent game market is really beginning to kick off where people are creating games that are gorgeous, meaningful and often joyous.

People said the same thing about film at one point and yes while the vast majority of games are absolute shit that don't qualify for art the same can be said about most novels, poems, music and films made every year.

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1769437]

video games have received funding from the arts council here for years.
doesn't mean they're art.

[Anonymous No.1769440]

>>1769437
Yes it does. Prove me wrong.

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1769447]

>>1769440
>>1769440

[Anonymous No.1769450]

>>1769447
>sages a thread
>still stays in it
your not existing point is invalidated

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1769451]

>>1769450
>>1769450
>thinks i give a shit about threads or the state of /lit/ in general

[Anonymous No.1769457]

>>1769451
Never seen this photo before.

Cool that you're so witty and cutting edge and never recycle stuff from other /b/oards, /B/rown/b/ear.

[Anonymous No.1769458]

>>1769451
>posts retarded macro images
>cares enough to rename them properly
>has an insecure trip and a secure trip for no reason

[Jim Profit No.1769459]

>>1769451

>acts like he doesn't care about a forum where he devotes more hours than a full-time job

somebody is really mad about something!

>yeah *sniffle sniffle* well I don't care!

cheer up brownbunny!

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1769464]

>>1769459
>>1769459
>4chan
>forum
>uses Jim Profit as a name

>>1769457
>>1769457
>doesn't like having his images easily searchable

>>1769457
>>1769457
>thinks /b/ made that image when it was made on /v/

[Anonymous No.1769469]

Good on them, OP. Some games employ some fantastic storytelling techniques. Pic related comes to mind.

[Anonymous No.1769472]

>>1769421
>games are getting ambitious finally with plot and character which is bringing the emotional and narrative innovation up with the technical innovation.

Games have been like that for a couple decades now. If anything the writing has actually spiraled downwards and narrative games in general have just increasingly taken to ripping off a movie like structures and shitty generic Hollywood movies at that.

[Anonymous No.1769476]

>>1769464
>can't even quote people properly

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1769479]

>>1769476
>>1769476
>doesn't post images on an imageboard

[Anonymous No.1769483]

>>1769479
>implying I don't make my own images

[Anonymous No.1769490]

>>1769472

[Anonymous No.1769492]

>>1769469
>storytelling techniques
>Braid

Dude what? The levels had absolutely nothing to do with the story. The whole plot was told in the books at the start of a chapter. That's not clever storytelling techniques, that's just... telling a story. While solving time puzzles and hopping on goomba-looking things.

Though the twist in the final levels was kinda cool.

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1769493]

>>1769483
>>1769483
>implying i even implied that

[Anonymous No.1769496]

>implying the contents of an item should be judged by the arbitrary title it is given


If literature wasn't considered art, would that immediately supersede the accomplishments of past authors? Would all books be unworthy of anyone's time, or considered trash shilled out by people who simply do not give a damn? No.


So who cares. Art or not, there are still plenty of games worth looking at and praise.

[Anonymous No.1769502]

>>1769492

But I didn't even say anything about the levels..

[Anonymous No.1769504]

>>1769490
video games r deep

[Anonymous No.1769506]

>>1769464
Confirmed for loser.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1769509]

>>1769506
Everyone look at this butthurt anonyfag

[Anonymous No.1769514]

>>1769509
I bet you actually say things like "butthurt" in real life.

You know, trips, everyone knows how often each of you are here. You can't even pretend to have lives. We all know.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1769516]

>>1769514
Everyone look at this butthurt anonyfag

[☿ !Rrxa7zePwI No.1769517]

ok kids no fighting in the kitchen please.

[Truman Capote !!cO9KVBDtkqQ No.1769522]

>>1769517
are you aware that everyone dislikes you?

[Anonymous No.1769528]

>>1769522
I dislike her, it's true, but I dislike most of you tripfags.

[☿ !Rrxa7zePwI No.1769532]

>>1769522
communicative distance i suppose. then again, maybe you just feel inferior, so when i declare that i amm superior to you you actually resent it rather than fighting back with your credentials.

although, it is difficult for me to understand the feeling of hating someone because she is better than you. i suppose self destructive thoughts like this is more widespread amongst the young.

[Anonymous No.1769544]

>Tripfag CircleJerk

[Truman Capote !!cO9KVBDtkqQ No.1769546]

>>1769532

I readily accept that you have a superior knowledge of philosophy. This doesn't make you superior as an entity. The burden of proof on that front is upon you, you know that I don't have to prove a negative.

All you have proven with your posts is that you are a crazy useless bitch.

[Jim Profit No.1769550]

>>1769532

>fat
>ugly
>pedantic
>loser

sure is superior in here

[☿ !Rrxa7zePwI No.1769556]

>>1769550
i know you are but what am i.

[☿ !Rrxa7zePwI No.1769554]

>>1769546
idk truman, stop using 'proof' like you know what you are doing.

[Virginia W00F !!GThm5VqxqDi No.1769557]

>>1769532
>>1769546
If I get a couple of plane tickets will you guys have a boxing match at a venue of my choosing?

[☿ !Rrxa7zePwI No.1769560]

>>1769557
i dislike fighting. but i like to pick on people.

[Truman Capote !!cO9KVBDtkqQ No.1769561]

>>1769550

>fat
>ugly
>pedantic
>loser

I don't care about these things, this isn't what makes her for me the worst poster on /lit/, maybe even in all of 4chan.

The reason why she is so bad is precisely because she is so knowledgable about philosophy yet she wastes all her energy on being disruptive, condescending and generally being absolutely useless.

Onionring is the tragedy of /lit/.

[Anonymous No.1769570]

>>1769561
No, the tragedy of /lit/ is that it's filled with elitist pricks and has been since its inception.

[Jim Profit No.1769574]

>>1769561

It's ok, she'll wind up alone in an apartment with 11 cats. I know her kind.

[Anonymous No.1769575]

>>1769400
>because she is so knowledgable about philosophy

Yeah, because naming Wittgenstein and Gödel makes her a genius. I've never seen a contribution to a thread by her that was actually insightful.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1769578]

>>1769570
>elitist pricks
>fantasy & sci fi, ayn rand, classic american fiction

this board would be a lot better off if that was actually the case.

think of it /lit/, we'd burn neckbeards at the stake every night and talk about the formal qualities that constitute literary texts and their critical evaluation, not wasting any time on this 'story' waffle

[Jim Profit No.1769579]

>>1769570

Actually, it wasn't early on. We talked about Harry Turtledove, David Brinn, all kinds of fun shit. Cum guy was here, none of the trips you despise had invaded yet, and a ton a faggots were still penned up in the confines of r 9k. That's all over now, though.

[Jim Profit No.1769580]

>>1769578

I'd like to push a shank into your soft belly.

[Anonymous No.1769586]

>>1769578
yeah, its too bad people like to talk about those things you don't like.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1769588]

>>1769586
Yes, it is too bad there are stupid people who don't know a lot about literature or enjoy it for what it is, in the world, and we have to suffer their ignorance and incompetence

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1769590]

>>1769580
>>1769580

[Truman Capote !!cO9KVBDtkqQ No.1769589]

>>1769588

what's worse is to be not ignorant but still incompetent.

[Anonymous No.1769594]

>>1769588
No, you suffer that by choice, otherwise you wouldn't be here.

>and enjoy it for what it is
I've often seen you rail against reading for personal enjoyment.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1769600]

>>1769594
>No, you suffer that by choice, otherwise you wouldn't be here.
you've got that right anyway

>I've often seen you rail against reading for personal enjoyment.
That's not the same as enjoying literature for what it is. And I don't rail against it, I just point out to tards the fact that a PhD in lit is "reading for enjoyment" just as much as clueless joe soap, the former happens to be capable of appreciating the object at hand on a much higher, fuller level. Now people who think that sort of thing takes the fun out of reading obviously don't really enjoy what literature actually is, they want a "good" story and to be entertained. Nothing wrong with that of course, just don't make it out to be anywhere near the equivalent of having an ability to appreciate what a literary text is and how it's composed.

[Jim Profit No.1769605]

>>1769600

>this is what I'm quoting
This is my verbal masterbation in the pretext of social, political and economic factors that lead to the theological debates on understanding the historical quotations of momentous gatherings and movements throughout the distinct periods of history. I am Herp & Derpy, try the lobster, I'll be here all week (month, year, etc. I never leave).

[Anonymous No.1769607]

>>1769600
This post isn't as vitriolic as your posts tend to be, and I appreciate that. Yes, there is a difference between being able to appreciate and understand literature analytically, and merely appreciating it at its face value, or as mere entertainment. Both of those things are similar in one respect, however, and that is that they are both topical to this board.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1769608]

>>1769605
But I wasn't even here yesterday.

[Anonymous No.1769615]

this isn't the apocalypse. people will still read literature. more people than ever are reading thanks to ereaders and high literacy rates.

there may be a fusion somewhere but literature, as we know and love it, will live on.

[Anonymous No.1769622]

Don't mind me, just being the best post-modern narrative ever constructed.

[Anonymous No.1769628]

http://fcl.digitaleventpics.com/PeteFryvogelPhotography291Web/

private gallery login: Ocean City

[Anonymous No.1769632]

Why? Video games have always been forms of expression. Now they'll just be forms of, according to the government, "artistic" expression. Deal with it.

Also I agree with >>1769622 for the most part.

[Anonymous No.1769850]

>>1769600

Only artists can truly appreciate art.

The enjoyment you describe is artificial at best.

[Anonymous No.1769903]

Well, let us consider this: what games can be considered art?
I can think of the following:

Yume Nikki (+ brilliant fan sequels)
Which
One Chance
Every Day The Same Dream

If a program like this can help small developers produce brilliant works such as these, I'm ok with this.

[thewholesystemisawholesystem !19/MTb7X0g No.1769906]

>>1769400

and thank fucking god. backward-thinking artistically stunted troglodytes can go to hell.

[Anonymous No.1769913]

I'll just leave this here.

[♥ !Rrxa7zePwI No.1770028]

truman dear, you realize i am teaching you a lesson here right. for every aggressive post you make, you should expect me to continue to be mean to you. the only way for you to win, is to give up your stupid little pride and listen.

[Anonymous No.1770049]

>>1769903
Barkley Shut Up and Jam: Gaiden.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1M0FLAXXvRU

We need more of the above and less dog shit shooters and sports games that get pumped out year after year without undergoing any meaningful evolutions.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1770060]

>>1769903
>Yume Nikki (+ brilliant fan sequels)
>Which
>One Chance
>Every Day The Same Dream

Those are all really shitty games, especially the last 3

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1770069]

>>1770049
>Barkley Shut Up and Jam: Gaiden.
shit game as well, bunch crappy ironic references, lame art that looks like it's on the super nintendo.

>We need more of the above.
We need more games that pretend they were made in the 90s?

>dog shit shooters and sports games that get pumped out year after year without undergoing any meaningful evolutions.
when's the last time chess underwent a any meaningful evolutions? when's the last time football underwent any meaningful evolutions? Maybe you just don't like shooters and sports games all that much dumbass

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1770100]

>dog shit shooters and sports games that get pumped out year after year without undergoing any meaningful evolutions.
This complaint by gamers in particular baffles me because the demands are so ludicrous. Take a computer football game, for example.
What sort of evolution could you possibly want for a football game if it gets down all the rules of football and mechanics with which to play an entertaining game of football. I mean, jesus, what more is there to football, really? I guess you can add bits and pieces like a "stat" progression system and manager modes and all of that, but at the end of the day football is football, and you either like football or you don't, and there's only so much a game of football can do if it's to be about football. Same goes for shooters; you can mess around with tacticool or sci-fi or ww2 themes and cover and health mechanics but at the end of the day you're pointing at someone else and shooting them. That's just what you do in these games. If you're not entertained doing either of these things MAYBE YOU DON'T ACTUALLY FUCKING LIKE SHOOTERS OR SPORTS GAMES ALL THAT MUCH. You can switch up the mechanics to a certain extent if you get bored of doing the same thing again and again, as is done with fighting games and fpses, but the core of the games are going to remain the same.

1/2

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1770102]

So people who cry about the fact that fps games and sports games don't reinvent the wheel with every sequel fail to understand what's fundamental to these games in the first place, and they certainly don't have any appreciation for these sort of games to begin with. People who truly love fps games and sports games are going to play well designed games regardless of whether they do or don't "evolve" their mechanics, so really what these people appreciate in their games is what any afficionados tend to want; more teams, up-to-date rosters, current seasons etc for sports games, better hitboxes, balanced weapons, nicely designed maps for fps games. none of these things demand an "evolution" in the genre.

It's typically the people who little appreciation for what the game is that demand innovation, reinvention and so forth, especially when it's not needed in something; because as consumer scrubs they just want to be entertained, they want a new novelty until the next novelty comes along.

2/2

[Anonymous No.1770104]

>>1770060
Yume Nikki is cool but obviously you wouldn't like it. I agree that the fan games suck, tho.

[Anonymous No.1770108]

>Shadow of the Colossus
>Okami
>not art

[BrianHerbert !!k1TdMbiPA/h No.1770111]

>video games not art

I beg to differ.

I think there are two reasons many people have trouble considering video games as art:
1) it is a relatively new medium
2) people think all games are either Battlefield 2, Call of Duty 4, or Mario

[BrianHerbert !!k1TdMbiPA/h No.1770117]

>>1770108
I want to brofist you so hard right now.

>>1770111
(adding some detail to #2....)
Most people would agree that movies can certainly be art, but would also agree that James Cameron's films are not while David Lynch's are.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1770122]

>>1770111
>1) it is a relatively new medium
>electronic games are a new medium
chess is pretty old, the ability to play it on an electronic screen using controllers does not make it a new medium. Games, electronic or otherwise, are not by any means a new medium.

[Anonymous No.1770127]

>>1770122
Chess doesn't fit in with the majority of modern video games. You can't play Psychonauts on a chess board and the like. Bad example.

[Anonymous No.1770128]

>>1770111
>implying games like Super Mario Galaxy aren't art.

[Anonymous No.1770133]

>>1770128
>missing the point and/or trolling

[BrianHerbert !!k1TdMbiPA/h No.1770137]

>>1770122
That's like saying film was never a new medium because theater has always existed.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1770154]

>>1770127
>Chess doesn't fit in with the majority of modern video games
Sure it does. It's a set of rules that are played by.

>You can't play Psychonauts on a chess board and the like
I'm not talking about chess boards. I'm talking about the game of chess. Chess is a set of rules. That's what a game is.

>>1770137
Except film is animated pictures. Which theatre isn't. Photography isn't even animated pictures. You couldn't for example, watch a film as a series of pictures, or listen to a film. Then it wouldn't be a film, or motion picture. You can play chess on a screen, or on a board, or without a board even if you're careful enough. You can watch a film on a big screen, television screen, projected on a wall, etc. You couldn't do any of these things before the Lumiere brothers in like 1890 or whatever. Chess, or games have been around long before 1890, and long before you could play them on a screen.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1770156]

Also, people are getting confused about games as art in this thread. Let me make this clear, I am by no means saying that games are art, or that art is anything remotely useful as a word. But if games WERE to be rightly considered art, they wouldn't be for any of the reasons so far presented in this thread. Yume Nikki, Shadow of the Colossus, Killer 7, faggot art game #307, might all have good stories/art direction/whatever, but to say of any of those things that that is what makes those games art is to completely misunderstand what a game is. Because those wouldn't be critical evaluations of the game itself, those would be literary, or artistic (I use this in the specific painting, drawing, or computer design sense) criticisms, which are not criticisms of the actual object of critical evaluation: the game. A similar analogy would be a stradivarius violin with a hello kitty design. Imagine someone saying; THIS VIOLIN IS THE GREATEST VIOLIN EVER, BECAUSE IT HAS A HELLO KITTY DESIGN. That person would be making a completely inappropriate judgement. Just as someone who says BRAID IS ART, BECAUSE IT HAS A LITERALLY MASTERFUL STORY, is making a completely inappropriate judgement about games. The actual appropriate object of critical evaluation in games are games mechanics. THE ACTUAL APPROPRIATE OBJECT OF CRITICAL EVALUATION, OR THE THING THAT WOULD PROPERLY MAKE GAMES ART, ARE THE GAME MECHANICS. Story, art direction and so on and so forth of course influence our relation to the object, just as I'm likely to not touch any violin with hello kitty on it. But it would be misguided of me to say that the hello kitty design makes it worse as a violin, maybe I don't like hello kitty, that's a matter of taste.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1770171]

hmm all this arguing is making me hungry for crackers and cheese

[Anonymous No.1770180]

>>1770156
A Hello Kitty design would make a violin worse as a violin even if it sounded like the voice of angels, sorry

[Anonymous No.1770181]

>>1770154
You're still missing the point: a video game is more than just a game. It has a visuals, sound, and often a story.

Gah, I'm being trolled

[Anonymous No.1770182]

>>1770154
If a game is a "set of rules" then Molecular biology is a game, because it has a set of rules. The universe is a game. The universe has a set of unchangeable rules. Therefore, the universe is a game. Doesn't follow.
>>1770156
A game is what it's composed of. The game mechanics certainly play a part, and I see no reason why solid game mechanics couldn't be considered art.
That's much too broad a definition to define a game.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1770199]

>>1770181
>You're still missing the point: a video game is more than just a game. It has a visuals, sound, and often a story.
So is a book, but literary evaluation does not give a shit about page texture or binding. Just as game evaluation doesn't to the extent that game mechanics aren't influenced.

>>1770182
>If a game is a "set of rules" then Molecular biology is a game, because it has a set of rules. The universe is a game. The universe has a set of unchangeable rules. Therefore, the universe is a game. Doesn't follow.
All games are sets of rules (onionring don't see this plz plz jesus) but not all sets of rules are games.

>A game is what it's composed of.
What's what composed of?

>That's much too broad a definition to define a game.
How is nailing down what makes a game a game broad?

[Anonymous No.1770205]

>>1770199
>literary evaluation does not give a shit about page texture or binding
wrong, bitch

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1770209]

>>1770205
you are probably a butthurt old or middle english scholar. Let me rephrase it as "textual evaluation"

[Anonymous No.1770210]

>>1770156
Everyone who disagrees with this misses the point: yes, a video game can be the showcase for several truly excellent artistic works, but, for it to be a truly artistic work itself the essential element of the video game must be the artistic component. INTERACTIVITY is this element. The adage of the game design community is "do, not show."

Consider it analogous to a play. If we go to the play and we are handed the text of the play, there are people on stage wearing costumes in front of a set picking their noses, and we sit and read -- we don't call that a play. Why? The essential element is acting. (We might still call that art, but it's entirely beside the point.)

[BrianHerbert !!k1TdMbiPA/h No.1770213]

>>1770199
>So is a book, but literary evaluation does not give a shit about page texture or binding. Just as game evaluation doesn't to the extent that game mechanics aren't influenced.

[BrianHerbert !!k1TdMbiPA/h No.1770224]

>>1770210
> a video game can be the showcase for several truly excellent artistic works

The "art" of the game (models, textures, etc) isn't what makes a game art. Games that are art can evoke an emotional response from the player as well as any other medium. A single aspect doesn't evoke the emotional response, but the game as a whole (gameplay, story, visuals, music, etc) do.

[Anonymous No.1770231]

stupidest thread that ive ever seen.

i just want you all to pat yourselves on the back for that monumental accomplishment.

[Anonymous No.1770232]

>>1770224
I agree with the spirit of what you're saying but using a term as broad as "emotional response" probably isn't a good idea. Apathy is a perfectly valid emotional response.

[Anonymous No.1770247]

>>1770232
Then what kind of emotional response would you require? Art doesn't always make people go 'awwww'.

[Anonymous No.1770257]

>>1770247
I prefer to let the artist apply the word art to pretty much anything they'd like. The weight then rests on the goodness or badness of a thing. I think this dissolves a lot of uninteresting semantic arguments.

However, that said, I would say any emotional response excluding apathy.

[deleted No.1770306]

The end of literature? Fuck no, this is the end of gaming

[♥ !Rrxa7zePwI No.1771047]

>>1770180
>>1770156
>hating on hello kitty
you guys should take that back

and d&e you know better than to game rules etc. whatever

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1771166]

>>1771047
>d&e you know better than to game rules etc. whatever it's not like I can't get away with it with these idiots