Does /vr/ believe that games can be art, or should be dissected in the same way that literature or film can be? I ask this because it seems like some people get very angry when you try to interpret some games as artful, and look for deeper meanings.

File: 39 KB, 385x477, 208454Mel_Gibson.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sun Dec 8 15:46:55 2013 No.1257160 [Reply] [Original]

Does /vr/ believe that games can be art, or should be dissected in the same way that literature or film can be?

I ask this because it seems like some people get very angry when you try to interpret some games as artful, and look for deeper meanings.

Anonymous Sun Dec 8 15:56:24 2013 No.1257194

>Does /vr/ believe that games can be art
Yeah
>should be dissected in the same way that literature or film can be?
If it makes you feel good
>
I ask this because it seems like some people get very angry when you try to interpret some games as artful, and look for deeper meanings.
Unfortunately games tend to attract a lot of edge-culture, which tends to oppose sensitive, emotional, and non-factual things like personal interpretation and emotional responses. It's best just to ignore these kinds of people and do what feels good for you :)

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 15:57:25 2013 No.1257203 >>1257160 >video games >art gtfo edgy hipster teen faggot xD

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 16:01:24 2013 No.1257218 since art can be fucking anything, yeah games can be art

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 16:02:24 2013 No.1257224 Art doesn't impress me. A urinal is art. A literal can of shit is art. I don't care if games are art or not. I care if games are good.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 16:05:24 2013 No.1257231 >>1257224 >A urinal is art. A literal can of shit is art. I love this because it's forcing you to engage with it even if you don't like it.

Anonymous Sun Dec 8 16:06:55 2013 No.1257235

>>1257160
games can be art

most aren't though, and by most i mean 98%. majority of games are kitsch. they're a piece of media produced to make money. the people involved are generally, if not always, failed at the legitimised side of their profession (journalists, writers, artists etc.).

few people are in this industry because they love games, even fewer are making games for the game itself.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 16:08:24 2013 No.1257236 >>1257231 It's tryhard faggotry. But I guess it's better than lazy crap like Rothko's works.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 16:11:24 2013 No.1257247 >>1257236 >It's tryhard faggotry. But I guess it's better than lazy crap like Rothko's works. lol yr so ignant

Anonymous Sun Dec 8 16:13:54 2013 No.1257251 [DELETED]

>>1257247
You're probably one of those retards who claim it's actually detailed if you view it in person because you can see the brush strokes. You can go to any art college and see the same fucking thing. It's not special, it's not clever, it's nothing but conspicuous consumption.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 16:14:24 2013 No.1257253 >>1257251 >retards not gonna listen to someone using such offensive slurs

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 16:15:54 2013 No.1257256 >>1257253 >offensive slurs gtfo back to tumblr

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 16:16:55 2013 No.1257259 You can make art with the same technology as games but it won't be a game.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 16:17:54 2013 No.1257261 >>1257256 wow rude i was winding you up mate chillax

Anonymous Sun Dec 8 16:19:54 2013 No.1257265

I've heard it said that in video game chronology, we're at the equivalent of The Jazz Singer. I don't think this is the case. More like, we're at the equivalent of Life of an American Fireman.

I say this because at the beginning of film history, many titles were little more than stageplays on camera (compare this to the number of video games that imitate the cinematic aesthetic). As its own medium, we're only now beginning to explore the possibilities. And as the distinctions between film and video games are becoming more apparent, we're bound to see the medium come into its own.

At which point, yes, you will have art.

Anonymous Sun Dec 8 16:24:54 2013 No.1257272

>>1257265

This is not to suggest that there haven't already been examples of video games that could be considered art. But in such a nascent form, they will be remembered in the same way that we remember Antigone, or A Trip to the Moon; we will remember them as early examples of greatness yet to come.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 16:31:24 2013 No.1257280 I don't like people dissecting literature or movies. I prefer to take things as they are instead of searching for some deep message.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 16:32:25 2013 No.1257289 >>1257280 Why does your personal preference translate to not liking when other people do it?

Anonymous Sun Dec 8 16:32:54 2013 No.1257284

>>1257160
That's not what an OR does op. Those aren't two opposing states.
Aren't isn't something that isn't dissected.

The best way to handle art is to realize without it inferring or telling you what it means, it doesn't mean shit so you apply your own meaning but that doesn't make it the meaning. That's just what you want it to mean.

Just like how people call Pollocks art. They can talk about meaning all they want but no meaning has been transferred through drip painting even if it was painted with a meaning in mind. Because abstraction and symbolization is noise not signal, meant mostly for ego masturbation. Games, can be amazing signal carriers or terrible signal carriers depending on the game design. Books are also that way, you can make abstract novels that don't really say anything of value or you can make textbooks which are nearly entirely devoid of meaning or you can make textbooks which are entirely composed of only meaning in the most direct way. So it depends on what each game is doing. Video games as a general medium is like saying paper and ink are art. No they're not. They're mediums which art can be made.

Anonymous Sun Dec 8 16:34:12 2013 No.1257294
File: 11 KB, 204x246, wogierehnhrehe.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1257280

I think there's a limit.

When a work of expression hits you on some deep level, it's human nature to ask why. But when you scrutinise it to the point where you give its creator more credit than is due, then you have a problem.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 16:35:12 2013 No.1257297 >>1257296 But why do you care about other people enjoying something in a way that you don't?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 16:35:42 2013 No.1257296 >>1257289 I think video games can be artistic but I don't think they should be dissected because of that.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 16:36:42 2013 No.1257298 >video games that try to be art http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9lmvX00TLY

Anonymous Sun Dec 8 16:37:42 2013 No.1257303

>>1257289
It probably translates that way for him because their dissecting is typically banal and unfounded. It's essentially apophenia. You're plug is not an actual face no matter how much we can see what you're getting at and no matter how hard you dissect it. The same is true of the plot.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 16:37:42 2013 No.1257305 >>1257297 Because they forced me to do the same.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 16:38:42 2013 No.1257306 >>1257298 I thought you were gonna post a John Cage composition.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 16:40:12 2013 No.1257312 >>1257306 John Cage is fiery though http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRHoKZRYBlY

Anonymous Sun Dec 8 16:41:42 2013 No.1257313

>>1257265
I don't think that's a fair comparison. Early movies are unwatchable crap. Even popular stuff like Citizen Kane isn't anything great if you judge it by modern standards.

Space War however is better than most modern games. Simple 1vs1 competition, pure test of skill with no story to waste your time. Of course competitive/skill based games are still being made, but if you look at "indie" games or any game that's promoted as artistic they are universally shit.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 16:42:42 2013 No.1257314 >>1257312 Oh yeah. His pieces for prepared piano were marvellous. But his spoken word and music concrete compositions were insufferable.

Anonymous Sun Dec 8 16:43:12 2013 No.1257315

>>1257298
To be honest, that is artful. There is meaning to be had there, it's just the meaning is derived from the act. It means there's a bunch of people who are idiots. It demonstrates people will sit there and watch that kind of retarded shit and bother with it. It says something about our culture and the world. It doesn't reinforce a hidden meaning the performer might have intended it too.

If I intend to write a story but instead I abstract it with colors and my final color is purple and I paint a few of those colors combining with purple what I did not do is write a story on a canvas. What I did do was paint some color strokes. Color strokes themselves convey no inherent meaning without contextual inference. But I still painted some colors and people might like the colors and you can still watch as people try to discuss meaning about it with no chance whatsoever of determining it.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 16:43:12 2013 No.1257317 >>1257313 >Early movies are unwatchable crap Nobody though that at the time though. We're in that time now.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 16:44:42 2013 No.1257321 >>1257298 The only good performance art is self-immolation.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 16:45:12 2013 No.1257323 >>1257317 The nail on the head is what you hit.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 16:45:42 2013 No.1257326 >>1257313 >Early movies are unwatchable crap >has never seen metropolis >has never watched a chaplin movie

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 16:46:42 2013 No.1257327 >>1257321 >Edge-culture

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 16:47:12 2013 No.1257331 >>1257321 epic memeage

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 16:47:42 2013 No.1257329 >>1257326 Or Buster Keaton, or Sergei Eisenstein, or Vsevolod Pudovkin, or The Phantom Carriage, or...

Anonymous Sun Dec 8 16:48:13 2013 No.1257335

>>1257284
>Video games as a general medium is like saying paper and ink are art. No they're not. They're mediums which art can be made.
But that's wrong. Paper and ink are materials; in videogame world that would be level design, graphics or something like that. A videogame is a finished product of a creative process, like a book or a movie.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 16:48:13 2013 No.1257336 >>1257265 Yeah, basically this

Anonymous Sun Dec 8 16:48:13 2013 No.1257337

>>1257326
Those are top tier old movies, but imagine if they were released for the first time today. Nobody would take then seriously. They don't have the pacing or visual spectacle of modern movies.

But that is not the case with top tier old games. Robotron: 2084 is more intense and exciting than 99% of modern games.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 16:50:42 2013 No.1257340 >>1257337 >Robotron: 2084 is more intense and exciting than 99% of modern games. There are people who would say the same about old films. Anyway, the gap between old and modern games and old and modern films is significantly different.

Anonymous Sun Dec 8 16:52:12 2013 No.1257348

>>1257337

When you're comparing movies, you have a century's worth of them to compare one against another.

With video games, it's about 20-30 years, depending on your definition.

What this means is, while older films may not stack up against modern examples (though I disagree), early video games may be comparable to modern ones, since they haven't had the same amount of time to progress.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 16:53:13 2013 No.1257353 >>1257340 >>1257348 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glDGAo9SIqs

Anonymous Sun Dec 8 16:53:42 2013 No.1257352

>>1257340
And the people talking about old film would be wrong.

But Robotron played on the correct hardware (Which means a large CRT and dual arcade sticks. Note that the small sprites on a plain black background shows a CRT at its absolute best and an LCD at its worst) is objectively more mentally demanding than all but a tiny minority of modern games.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 16:54:42 2013 No.1257356 >>1257352 How can an opinion be wrong?

Anonymous Sun Dec 8 16:56:12 2013 No.1257358

>>1257352
>And the people talking about old film would be wrong.
Nah they would have different opinions to you.

>>1257352
Being more mentally demanding doesn't make it a better game. It's cool if it's your favourite though :) Do you also watch the most mentally demanding films, listen to the most mentally demanding music and read the most mentally demanding books?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 16:56:42 2013 No.1257360 >>1257356 By being based on incorrect facts or being developed through faulty logic.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 16:57:12 2013 No.1257362 >>1257360 >By being based on incorrect facts or being developed through faulty logic. People who speak like always have some kind of learning difficulties.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 16:57:42 2013 No.1257363 >>1257360 That, in itself, is opinion.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 16:57:42 2013 No.1257365 >>1257356 By being based on incorrect facts or being developed through faulty logic. When opinions contradict facts it's generally the case that your opinion is wrong.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 16:58:12 2013 No.1257371 >>1257368 Is this post a joke

Anonymous Sun Dec 8 16:58:43 2013 No.1257368

>>1257356
Intense and exciting requires at a minimum:
Fast pacing (measurable by average cut length)
Visual novelty
Feeling of immersion (actually all full length movies except arguably The Hobbit fail this because of the low framerate, but old movies are especially bad because of the shoddy special effects).

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 16:59:12 2013 No.1257372 >>1257368 "The Hobbit fail this because of the low framerate, but" stopped reading there. If you don't know what you're talking about,how can you expect to be taken seriously?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 17:01:12 2013 No.1257376 >>1257371 I can't take it as anything else.

Anonymous Sun Dec 8 17:02:42 2013 No.1257380

>>1257368
The framerate thing is iffy. It's generally that people have untrained perception and don't really pay attention.
In the same way that that watching a play in pitch dark with night vision goggles is immersive for you, it's not very interesting for people without night vision.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 17:03:42 2013 No.1257383 >>1257380 What the fuck am I reading? Is this real life?

Anonymous Sun Dec 8 17:05:12 2013 No.1257387

>>1257160
>or should be dissected in the same way that literature or film can be?
I don't believe any media should be dissected the same way that literature and film are. The people that do this more often than not do it for the sole purpose of feeling better about being able to apply meaning to something that may or may not be true.

That being said, I think video games can be art in a different way than other media.

For example, and I know people may not very much agree with my example, Diablo I.

Great game. I consider it art because the visuals, the music (and sound in general), the subtle unobtrusive storytelling, and the very gameplay complement each other to create a sort of dark gothic experience.

It's not really a scary horror game, but it's obvious it was crafted around an experience. I bring up the gameplay because if the game was the exact same, but they changed the gameplay as follows:

Ability to run very quickly
Ability to do significant AOE damage as each class
Linear questing enforced

I don't think it would complement the rest of the game well, and it's the reason I have a beef with the sequels.

Anonymous Sun Dec 8 17:07:12 2013 No.1257392

>>1257160
>Does /vr/ believe that games can be art, or should be dissected in the same way that literature or film can be?
Yes. This isn't a matter of belief either, it's just how videogames are. They have always been an artistic expression ever since they were invented. Now more than ever. It's really stupid to argument against this.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 17:08:42 2013 No.1257393 File: 179 KB, 500x333, tumblr_locpfw4Rsv1qdskhvo2_500.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1257380 WELP THATS ENOUGH 4CHAN FOR TODAY

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 17:13:42 2013 No.1257405 I dunno, video games never came off as a form of expression to me.

Anonymous Sun Dec 8 17:14:13 2013 No.1257408

>>1257356
Here's a question, how can opinions be right?
If an opinion CAN be right, then it can also be wrong. If an opinion can be neither right or wrong then an opinion holds no meaning. Opinions are judgement calls about things which are not entirely clear. Which means when you use abstraction and fill it in with false data to form that opinion, it becomes a wrong opinion.
Opinions that only have a basis in factual subjectivity are immune to that. IE, the way you taste things is based on your physiology. They're actually not opinions and declarations of facts unique to you. Saying some arbitrary food item tastes awful is a factual statement about how that item interacts with your physiology. In that way it's true when you declare that fact for yourself. But if you then come to the opinion that if you don't like it others must not like it, you may find you're completely incorrect, thus your opinion is fucking wrong because you filled in the gaps with incorrect information to make that call.
But if you happen to find statistically that your tastes match other peoples taste and you suggest that it will sell well, your opinion is most likely going to be correct. It could still be wrong, but it's likely not to be.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 17:15:12 2013 No.1257414 >>1257408 I like you.

Anonymous Sun Dec 8 17:18:12 2013 No.1257419

>>1257372
I said except for The Hobbit. You fail at reading. And 48fps is a shitload better than 24fps but still not really enough.

>>1257380
It takes training to see the difference between 100fps and 200fps. It takes not being blind to tell the difference between 24fps and 60fps. 24fps is disgustingly low. It really harms enjoyment of action movies, which is a shame because action is the only genre movies are uniquely suited to. If you want drama and character development go read a novel.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 17:18:12 2013 No.1257425 >>1257387 >Ability to run very quickly I don't see how this doesn't compliment the game well. Especially when running away from difficult situations is more logical than speed walking away.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 17:24:12 2013 No.1257442 >>1257408 That's so wrong on so many levels, I don't know where to begin. So instead, I'll just leave you to think about why it's wrong,and hope you possess the cognizance to realise it for yourself.

Anonymous Sun Dec 8 17:26:13 2013 No.1257453

>>1257387
>Great game. I consider it art because the visuals, the music (and sound in general), the subtle unobtrusive storytelling, and the very gameplay complement each other to create a sort of dark gothic experience.

I disagree because the visuals and aesthetics are fairly poorly done. The animations are fairly rigid, the color palette is limited in a way that isn't good. The contrast of map UI overlay is also terrible. The music is produced well but repetitive and poorly implemented anyway since it cuts. The sound effects are fine. The gameplay is needlessly paced slow, the mechanics behind the actions are inherently flawed.

If they gave you the ability to run quickly, it 'could' improve the game if the game also relied on having enemies do similar. That is to suggest that you could run while everything else stayed the same would break things. But giving the option to increase the monotony of sections is better.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 17:28:12 2013 No.1257459 >>1257442 I know why I'm wrong, to you, because your opinion is wrong and you should feel bad.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 17:28:12 2013 No.1257460 >>1257425 Running in general makes the game more fast paced, which I don't think it should be. Your character walks everywhere because he's careful and stoic.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 17:29:12 2013 No.1257462 God damn /vr/ you're even more retarded than I thought.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 17:30:12 2013 No.1257464 >>1257337 >They don't have the pacing or visual spectacle of modern movies >visual spectacle of modern movies >Has never seen Metropolis

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 17:31:12 2013 No.1257465 >>1257442 Uh, ok.

Anonymous Sun Dec 8 17:31:42 2013 No.1257468

>>1257453
Sounds like you just don't like game, rather than thinking it was made poorly.

It's supposed to be slow. The color palette was intentional as was many other things you described.

I also take offense to you saying the music was repetitive. In what ways? The tracks were long enough to not sound extremely repetitive. You're expecting a lot from a PC game from 1996.

Anonymous Sun Dec 8 17:42:12 2013 No.1257507

>>1257468
The worst part about being slow is in town. There's no actual need for that.

The color palette was more in the usage for clarity, the same issue with the map. That's poor design. I'm not saying it can't be dark, it but it should be far clearer.

>You're expecting a lot from a PC game from 1996.
You're not expecting enough from a PC game from 1996 and even in 1996 it was disappointing.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 17:45:30 2013 No.1257510 Just out of curiosity, what graphically stunning PC games from 1996 are you compared Diablo 1 to? I ask this because I sure missed out on them. Diablo 1 looked so amazing that I upgraded to Windows 95 just so that I could play it.

>>	i ain't tripfagging !!UCnc1JMdFaF Sun Dec 8 17:53:15 2013 No.1257545 i believe so. always did. posting this too. I believe he words it very well and goes into depth regarding the question as to if video games are indeed art. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK-HYNXdIJI

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 17:56:15 2013 No.1257551 OP here. I'm surprised at the amount of responses. What games does /vr/ consider art then? I consider Conker's Bad Fur Day and Majora's Mask to be art right off the bat. There are plenty of others, but I want to hear what /vr/ says.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 17:56:45 2013 No.1257550 >>1257507 >You're not expecting enough from a PC game from 1996 and even in 1996 it was disappointing. I seriously hope you're not basing this on 3D games of that time.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 18:02:16 2013 No.1257558 >>1257551 >What games does /vr/ consider art then? Either all games are art, or none are. And I REALLY hope you're not operating under the idiotic sentiment of "art = good."

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 18:02:16 2013 No.1257561 >>1257551 None of them. I've never played a game that made me contemplate, well, anything.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 18:04:16 2013 No.1257564 >>1257551 All of them. Most of them aren't very good in my opinion though.

Anonymous Sun Dec 8 18:04:46 2013 No.1257565

>>1257510
This guy is talking out of his ass. Sounds like he has something against the whole franchise.

>>1257507
The color palette was honestly awesome. You're out of your fucking mind. Due to 256-colors. Artists post-processed everything manually. The second game had blatant 3d-render with some objects looking out of place, and they were colored using multitexture-like crap.

The color palette was chosen due to the atmosphere it was trying to create.

Anonymous Sun Dec 8 18:06:46 2013 No.1257574
File: 247 KB, 1280x720, 201195-2aj9nbn.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1257337
>Robotron: 2084 is more intense and exciting than 99% of modern games.

Bizarre Creations would tend to agree with you...pic related: it's a Charlie chaplain film reshot using a modern HD camera, and special effects by michael bay

i ain't tripfagging !!UCnc1JMdFaF Sun Dec 8 18:12:16 2013 No.1257585

>>1257551
just curious, but, why conker? I found nothing special about that game. I was so excited to have finally gotten a cartridge, but when I played it, it was just a EHHH platformer with "dirty humor" that would make a 13 year old laugh. I was expecting south park raunchiness.

Anonymous Sun Dec 8 18:12:46 2013 No.1257586

>>1257160
Games can definitely be art, but I wish people would stop comparing them to literature or film.

I feel that stories are actually getting WAY invasive in recent games. Developers try to be artistic by having artsy/complex designs or universe and complicated stories, but the gameplay will always fall short and be just more of everything that already exists... when it's not just "press X to watch the rest of the movie" type of QTE.

I think there's definitely an art to creating an interactive experience and I wish developers would think about this further than "hey, let's do this thing which could be a movie, but you control the protagonist!". Like, I get that it's satisfying and more easy to get into when the game feels close to something that you already know or that is easy to perceive as entertaining/cool (war games, zombie games, all that shit), but I don't know. I feel there's some missed potential in more... abstract type of games that could exist?

Don't know how to explain it because I, myself, don't have any idea what is the incredible experimentation I wish game developers would do.

Anonymous Sun Dec 8 18:15:16 2013 No.1257595

>>1257586
>I feel there's some missed potential in more... abstract type of games that could exist?
I feel like right now we're at the period in the olden days where everyone was painting people mad realistic and shit and we've reached this peak of realism now where sooner of later people are going to have to go in other aesthetic directions which will be great.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 18:15:16 2013 No.1257603 >>1257405 All art isn't about expression. It can be about the aesthetics or entertainement.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 18:15:46 2013 No.1257598 >>1257585 It is a Post Modern Absurdist masterpiece with shades of Vonnegut in my opinion. People who stop understand it at the shit humor just don't get it.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 18:18:47 2013 No.1257613 >>1257603 If it's about aesthetics and entertainment, then ok, video games are art. In my opinion, most of them aren't good artistically speaking.

Anonymous Sun Dec 8 18:19:16 2013 No.1257618

>>1257595
Yeah, I kind of agree with this. Game engines can only get so realistic before people start not even seeing a difference anymore - or caring.

I don't think I meant "realistic" only in term of aesthetics and appearance, but even in term of gameplay - so far it seems gaming in general has evolved towards creating an experience that seems as close to reality (or a fictional reality) as possible. There aren't really any games I can think of where the creators try to build something completely new in term of world, objective, way to achieve the objective...

I'm not sure I'm explaining this well, but yeah. I wish there was more focus on the "interactivity" aspect rather than the immersion.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 18:22:17 2013 No.1257627 >>1257618 Yeah I feel you. I think we're only really scratching the surface, which makes sense as all other art forms took a while to get going. Just out of interest, what are your favourite games?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 18:23:47 2013 No.1257632 >>1257613 Well, in my opinion, most of every art isn't good artistically speaking. I mean, if you count every single book ever written as literature, every piece of music ever recorded or even performed.... most of everything is shit.

Anonymous Sun Dec 8 18:26:17 2013 No.1257649

>>1257632
Although to be fair to literate and music, there has always been a steady stream of quality even if there has been a lot of bad stuff. This contrasts pretty heavily with video games where there have only been a handful (arguably) that have aimed for something "higher", whatever that means.

Anonymous Sun Dec 8 18:31:47 2013 No.1257667

>>1257627
>Just out of interest, what are your favourite games?
Hm, Super Mario 64, Yoshi's Island, Banjo-Kazooie, Tomb Raider I, II & III, Team Fortress 2, Crash Bandicoot, Donkey Kong Country, Sim City 4, Megaman X... a lot more that I'm forgetting.

This probably has absolutely no coherence with what I've been saying earlier, haha! The truth is, I'm actually having quite a bit of trouble finding games that *really* interest me, these days. And I just don't know that many games, honestly.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 18:35:47 2013 No.1257684 >>1257649 Well, video games have existed for less than 50 years, in my opinion it's pretty amazing that games have gotten this far in so little time.

Anonymous Sun Dec 8 18:38:47 2013 No.1257696

>>1257667
Oh, and Portal too. I really love these puzzle/platform type of games that rely on some big concept that is used in many, many variations throughout a game, with the whole thing built around it, generally speaking.. Just the idea of a Portal and its implications in terms of physics, the game pretty much creates itself from this idea. Quantum Conundrum was very enjoyable too, in the same spirit.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 18:39:17 2013 No.1257697 >>1257337 Please tell me some what you consider to be top-tier modern movies.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 18:40:17 2013 No.1257704 >>1257667 >>1257696 You should really take a look at /vr/'s recommended games list. I'm sure you'll find a lot of games that will interest you.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 18:41:17 2013 No.1257706 >>1257551 Earthbound and Link's Awakening.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 18:42:17 2013 No.1257709 >>1257598 This post is so euphoric that my laptop just became a fedora.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 18:43:17 2013 No.1257712 >games can be art duh >or should be dissected in the same way that literature or film can be? No, that's fucking retarded.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 18:45:17 2013 No.1257716 >>1257704 Hm, can't find anything in the sticky. Did you mean /v/'s recommended games list (and not /vr/), or am I retarded?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 18:49:17 2013 No.1257731 >>1257709 Whatever, I actually know what Post Modernism and Absurdism mean. I'm sorry if I'm not a Cowwa Dooty fag.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 18:51:17 2013 No.1257745 >>1257716 I swear there was a /vr/ one, but maybe I'm the retarded one. Check out /v/'s though.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 18:52:17 2013 No.1257751 >>1257745 >Check out /v/'s though. Ignore this faggot and pray that he meets a swift death.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 18:54:47 2013 No.1257756 >>1257751 Have you even looked at it?

Anonymous Sun Dec 8 18:58:04 2013 No.1257768

>>1257160
>are videgames art?
Thread hidden.
The answer is "Sometimes" and anyone who argues anything else is wrong. Period.

Don't bother responding to this post either with your horseshit sophistry because I've hidden the thread and won't see it and won't feed into your stupid fucking troll bait.

Anonymous Sun Dec 8 19:16:04 2013 No.1257814

>>1257598
>It is a Post Modern Absurdist masterpiece with shades of Vonnegut in my opinion. People who stop understand it at the shit humor just don't get it.
Oh, blow it out your ass, you pretentious fuck.

You only cooked up the ridiculous interpretation because Conker is "omg so rare it mus b good 2deep4u".

Grow the fuck up and get with the program.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 19:43:34 2013 No.1257883 File: 15 KB, 153x173, 1335361598065.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1257814 I'm pretty sure he was just joking.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 19:44:35 2013 No.1257884 >>1257814 Fuck off pleb. I've had it and player it long before it became a cult hit.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 19:48:34 2013 No.1257891 >>1257884 >i was doing it b4 it was cool! Yeah yeah, I bet. Also, nobody uses the word "pleb" here. Because we're not fucking retarded try-hard autistic faggots like you. I think the board you're meant to be on is here: >>>/v/ Cock smoker.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 19:53:35 2013 No.1257908 >>1257891 Nah, you're just a simple minded man child.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 19:59:34 2013 No.1257917 >>1257160 >Does /vr/ believe that games can be art Yes. End of the line. The only people who think that they can't are people who think art is synonymous with "good" It's a neutral adjective, people.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 20:21:34 2013 No.1257984 Games CAN be art. but most are simply vapid entertainment products, like Adam Sandler movies or those cheesy romance novels that all have Fabio on the cover.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 20:30:04 2013 No.1258015 >>1257908 >simple minded man child Because I disagree with your underdeveloped and misled opinion of a puerile video game? Tell you what, kiddo, once you graduate highschool come back here and we'll talk about games for real. Thread hidden, faggot.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 20:33:34 2013 No.1258025 >>1257160 >should be "dissected" = not "art" >literature and film = not art >Games, art? >OP = potato

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 20:44:34 2013 No.1258054 Games are definitely art but "art games" can fuck right off.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 20:45:34 2013 No.1258058 >>1257984 Are you saying actor/comedians like Adam Sandler aren't artists? Because comedy is definitely art bro.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 20:52:40 2013 No.1258072 >>1258058 >Adam Sandler >comedy you havin a giraffe there m8

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 20:59:10 2013 No.1258081 >>1258072 Yes, it is indeed comedy. You just don't find it funny.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 21:16:10 2013 No.1258109 Yes, and anybody that thinks otherwise doesn't know what the fuck they are talking about.

Anonymous Sun Dec 8 21:21:40 2013 No.1258126

Not in the same way, but it is a form of art, like chess or backgammon or other games.

Videogames can have "art" of the conventional form in them but I always considered it sort of separate from the actual game in the same way you could play chess on a board painted with some impressionistic version of the squares and pieces that are hand-carved and painted pieces of art. In the end, even though you have all that, it's still the exact same game you'd have if you played on a generic board with simple pieces. Same with games, the graphics and sound and music and story are just there to enhance the experience of the game but the game remains the same no matter what you add to it.

Anonymous Sun Dec 8 21:30:40 2013 No.1258148

>>1258126
Video games represent a style of storytelling you can't find in any other medium. The strongest style of this is that of immersing the player in a world, and allowing them to make decisions.

Tell me sneaking around in Metal Gear isn't art, I won't believe you.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 21:41:40 2013 No.1258173 >>1258148 The strongest style of gaming involves manipulating fast moving objects better than other players (either direct competition or indirectly by score/time). It doesn't really matter if the objects are supposed to represent things or not.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 21:42:10 2013 No.1258180 >>1258173 >The strongest style of gaming involves manipulating fast moving objects better than other players what

Anonymous Sun Dec 8 21:44:40 2013 No.1258184

>>1258148
>Video games represent a style of storytelling you can't find in any other medium. The strongest style of this is that of immersing the player in a world, and allowing them to make decisions.

None of that is unique storytelling. You ever hear of Choose Your Adventure books? Same deal: you make the decision. Immersion doesn't mean anything to storytelling; that's an atmospheric denotation.

The means in which videogames tell stories are still either through writing [text], or cutscenes [mini-movies]. It's not doing anything unique with storytelling that hasn't been done by film or literature. Videogames need to stop focusing on being story-centric and get back to being gameplay-centric.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 21:45:10 2013 No.1258187 >>1258184 CYOA isn't really comparable There's no interaction beyond deciding what to read next. Video games are controlled in real time, whereas books are not.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 21:46:10 2013 No.1258189 >>1258180 FPS, RTS, shmup, fighting game, etc. The competitive genres. Doesn't matter if you're flying a spaceship or an anime girl, it's just decoration. The rules are the important part, and the rules are abstract.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 21:49:10 2013 No.1258194 What is 'art'?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 21:51:10 2013 No.1258201 >>1258189 That's silly. You also discount things like strategy games and whatnot. Gameplay is more than just execution.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 22:05:59 2013 No.1258225 >>1258201 I discount strategy games because if you like that kind of game you might as well play Chess or Go. Same experience but stronger competition and bigger prizes available.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 22:10:29 2013 No.1258238 >>1258225 >I discount strategy games because if you like that kind of game you might as well play Chess or Go. This is silly. All strategy games =/= chess or go, not to mention you're ignoring strategy games that AREN'T chess and go.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 22:13:59 2013 No.1258249 >>1258238 Checkers Shogi Scrabble Bridge Poker Backgammon Mahjong Magic the Gathering etc. All with competitive pro tournament scenes. All better than turn based computer games, simply because you'll have no difficulty finding high quality competition.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 22:15:29 2013 No.1258257 >>1258194 Anything that you like a lot

Anonymous Sun Dec 8 22:18:59 2013 No.1258268

BTW, I play Go casually and a close game can be as much a rush as DoDonPachi or Quake 3. But I don't find Chess very exciting because unlike Go it only takes a single blunder from either player to effectively end the game and at casual skill level blunders are common.

If you fuck up in Go you'll lose some territory but there's lots more to fight for. Chances are your opponent will fuck up too, you can still win.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 22:21:29 2013 No.1258272 >>1257731 There's a time and place for everything. 4chain is not the place to be using "Post Modernism" and "Absurdism" in a non-sardonic manner.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 22:24:00 2013 No.1258281 Anything can be "art". Unfortunately, pretty much all art made within the past century or so is a bunch of wank. So I guess what I'm saying is that Gone Homo really was an art game.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 22:27:29 2013 No.1258289 >>1258281 >Unfortunately, pretty much all art made within the past century or so is a bunch of wank. This is the "art" equivalent of a "I was born in 1998 and apologize what my generation has done to music" comment on youtube.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 22:30:29 2013 No.1258303 >>1257306 >>1257312 Hold the phone, Johnny Cage exists in real life?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 22:30:59 2013 No.1258306 >>1258303 Of course he does. Where do you think they got the inspiration for the MK character?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 22:33:29 2013 No.1258319 >>1258194 Various branches of creative activity

Anonymous Sun Dec 8 23:20:08 2013 No.1258430 [SPOILER]

File: 169 KB, 1032x1454, 137522361094[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Video games can be art, but it's very difficult to do so; you can't just tell the player a story like you would in a film or novel, you have to make the player feel like his actions actually matter.

A good example is the end of Metal Gear Solid. If Kojima just said "and then the girl dies" then it wouldn't have much of an impact because it's not your fault. Instead, Kojima designed it so that if the girl dies it's because you, the player, were too weak-willed/apathetic to save her and took the easy way out.

A good example of how NOT to make an artistic game (if you'll excuse the notretro for a moment) would be Spec Ops: The Line; the player is aware that he's being railroaded, so he doesn't feel responsible for his character's actions and thus doesn't give a fuck when the character does all sorts of horrible things.

Pic somewhat related (spoiler for notretro). It's far from the only requirement, but it's certainly one of the more important ones.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 8 23:55:32 2013 No.1258485 >>1258430 Thanks for that picture.

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 00:08:03 2013 No.1258531

The only games that could have been art so far would be those providing a strictly ludological experience like Mario. For something to be art, everything has to work as a coherent package. There can't be any shittiness or inconsistency.

MGS would be laughed out of the cinema or even as a TV show (the translator of MGS2 said so herself). Uncharted and TLOU would only receive lukewarm ratings if they were movies. Indie games are probably the worst. They try so hard to be deep or edgy they come off as extremely pretentious and just make non-gamers laugh. Roger Ebert said that Braid's story was fortune-cookie tier.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 00:10:03 2013 No.1258536 >>1258531 >For something to be art, everything has to work as a coherent package. Uh...no. Why would you think this.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 00:14:33 2013 No.1258546 >>1258536 I'm saying the art can't be spoiled. Taking a literal shit on the Mona Lisa doesn't make it art, unless there's a serious message in there.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 00:18:33 2013 No.1258559 >>1258430 you basically just said that all games with linear story outcomes are badly written. You've either got some serious balls to say that or a blabbering idiot who doesnt even understand your own words implications.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 00:20:33 2013 No.1258563 >>1258546 >Taking a literal shit on the Mona Lisa doesn't make it art If the creator deems it so, I would say that it's art. There doesn't really have to be a message in art. Whether or not it's a good piece of art is another discussion entirely.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 00:20:33 2013 No.1258564 In order to ask 'can games be art' you have to define the word art otherwise you are asking a nonsense question Its like asking can game be qwertizical and never explaining what qwertizical means.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 00:23:33 2013 No.1258574 >>1258563 >If the creator deems it so Incorrect. It's what the public deems is art is actually art. If an artist made something and nobody thought it was art, does it make it art? It doesn't, because art doesn't exist outside of the human mind.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 00:23:33 2013 No.1258575 >>1258430 >the game directly tells you what you should be feeling through vocalization by your character Huh, that seems more like how the character is feeling, not me.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 00:26:03 2013 No.1258581 >>1258574 >It's what the public deems is art is actually art. Uh, no. Why would you think THIS?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 00:27:03 2013 No.1258583 >>1258574 >It's what the public deems is art is actually art. You mean academia, not the public.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 00:29:03 2013 No.1258590 >>1258575 Except you're literally seeing things through his eyes. The game forces you into his point of view.

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 00:29:03 2013 No.1258592

>>1258581
>>1258583
Because art is actually democratized whether academics, or you, like it or not.

If everybody in the world hated something, and you liked something, and you are the self-proclaimed smartest person in the world, it doesn't make you right because your opinion will be totally ignored and amount to nothing.

There's no objective 'rightness' just prevailing attitudes.

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 00:30:03 2013 No.1258594

Video games are definitely art. They can be bad art, they can DEFINITELY be formulaic and uninspired at many, even most levels but at SOME level in every game SOMEBODY'S artistic vision is being realized.

Will a great game like Super Mario World someday be looked back on as great art? Maybe some day years from now when we're probably dead, and only depending on the state of culture.

People thought Lovecraft was just another pulp author when he was contemporary. Even HG Wells and Jules Verne were just seen as pop novelists in their time.

Art must be seen through the lens of time to be accurately judged, but it looks good for video games because they definitely have an effect on culture.

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 00:31:03 2013 No.1258598
File: 24 KB, 270x220, 1375283527741.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1258531
>For something to be art, everything has to work as a coherent package. There can't be any shittiness or inconsistency.
I don't think you know what art means and what it tries to accomplish.

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 00:31:34 2013 No.1258597

>>1258592
>If everybody in the world hated something, and you liked something, and you are the self-proclaimed smartest person in the world, it doesn't make you right because your opinion will be totally ignored and amount to nothing.

...what.

>There's no objective 'rightness' just prevailing attitudes.

No one is making this argument.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 00:32:03 2013 No.1258604 >>1258590 But it isn't me. I can't self insert in video games.

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 00:34:03 2013 No.1258608

>>1258592
>Because art is actually democratized whether academics, or you, like it or not.

The whims of the public are extremely ephemeral. We don't read the popular literature of the 19th century, of which there is quite a bit, but that which academia considers artistically important. History is what makes something art.

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 00:36:33 2013 No.1258616

>>1258608
Academics are nothing but lobbyists for public opinion. Academics sometimes spend their entire life trying to convince the public of certain things. Sometimes they are successful, and sometimes they are not.

Something doesn't become art until the public have accepted it. Van Gogh's works were not art during his lifetime. They only became art after he died.

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 00:39:33 2013 No.1258624

>>1258616
>Academics are nothing but lobbyists for public opinion.

No they aren't.

>Academics sometimes spend their entire life trying to convince the public of certain things.

Perhaps some do. But there's often good reason for this.

>Van Gogh's works were not art during his lifetime. They only became art after he died.

Jesus Christ, what. That's not how it works. Your popularity does not determine your status as an artist. By using your same silly logic, nothing Poe wrote was literature until after he died.

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 00:44:03 2013 No.1258635

>>1258624
This may be uncomfortable for you to hear (as I am redpilling you), but there is no objective measure for art beyond popularity. Of course it's a poetic tragedy, as much as we are humans we would like to believe that there is greater intrinsic worth in some things over others, but it's simply not true.

So called 'experts' have tried to form criteria or structures through historical research and other methods, but in the end it is bound by no true authority.

It is just like there is no true measure for the worth of a game beyond sales (which also a democratic process). Reviews are formed through subjective opinions. Sales offer true quantitative statistical data which can be actualized.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 00:45:04 2013 No.1258639 >>1258635 >but there is no objective measure for art beyond popularity. Who are you talking to? No one is arguing this.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 00:48:03 2013 No.1258646 >>1258639 And yet it is being implied over and over that academic experts are able to objectively define art, and that their opinion matters and not the public.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 00:55:54 2013 No.1258661 >>1258189 This is me >>1258148 And I will agree the abstract side of gaming is also very strong. There is nothing at all like a fighting game out side of video games. It is a unique art form.

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 00:57:24 2013 No.1258665

>>1258559
No, I didn't say that. I said that the player has to *feel* like his actions are significant. The MGS endings were just a convenient example; you can make the player feel the same range of emotions without actually giving him any meaningful control over the outcome, it just needs some very careful design (see: Shadow of the Colossus, which manages to achieve a whole range of emotions despite being entirely linear).

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 00:57:54 2013 No.1258668

>>1258184

Choose your own adventure is an extremely weak comparison. We're comparing a half dozen choices made every few minutes between literally thousand of micro-decisions being made constantly, which add up to a unique experience each time and for each player.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 01:26:12 2013 No.1258728 >>1257284 >there is no such thing as referential meaning Fuck off

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 01:42:42 2013 No.1258780 >>1258665 So retro games aren't art?

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 01:47:13 2013 No.1258787

>>1258148
I didn't say it wasn't art. I said it wasn't art in the same way a painting or music or a book is art. The gameplay itself (e.g. sneaking around in MG) is a form of art comparable to other traditional games.

I just don't like it when people say the whole package is art because that implies games are dependent on their graphics and music and narrative (not gameplay story, the disruptive "narrative" most modern games try to shoehorn into a game) to be good when they're most certainly not.

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 01:51:12 2013 No.1258793

>>1258787
>I just don't like it when people say the whole package is art because that implies games are dependent on their graphics and music and narrative (not gameplay story, the disruptive "narrative" most modern games try to shoehorn into a game) to be good when they're most certainly not.

Your post implies that you cannot both think highly of gameplay and the art design in a video game.

It's also flat out wrong, because games depend on different things to bring the experience. Resident Evil games would not be nearly as scary if the graphics resembled a 5 year-old's scribbles. The music also goes a way in to setting the mood for the areas.

In addition, you aren't acknowledging things like rhythm games which are very dependent on their soundtracks to play.

i ain't tripfagging !!UCnc1JMdFaF Mon Dec 9 04:19:03 2013 No.1259064

guys, i have a question. when exactly did video games start getting recognized for their stories? obviously games like Chrono trigger and FF3 (6) have incredible stories, but were they recognized for this when they were released in the 90's? were there games before it that were recognized more for the story, as well, or opposed to gameplay? when did that point even hit where the stories really mattered? the first game I remember playing that made me think "wow, cool story" was either ff7 or Kingdom hearts (born in '91, so, yeah)

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 04:57:25 2013 No.1259093 >>1259064 >when exactly did video games start getting recognized for their stories? They have never been recognized for their stories. When film critics want to shit on a bad movie they'll say "the story is just like a video game".

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 05:04:54 2013 No.1259097

Art isn't a measurable palpable thing, art doesn't mean anything anymore. How can you discuss if something is art, if the definition of the word itself can't be agreed upon.
Just call things what they are, if you see a painting call it a painting, if it's a sculpture call it a sculpture, if it's a performance call it a performance, if it's a video game call it a video game, etc.
It's a nonsensical discussion that goes around chasing it's own tail.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 05:06:54 2013 No.1259102 >>1259097 >How can you discuss if something is art, if the definition of the word itself can't be agreed upon. The definition is agreed on, though. The problem is that people keep thinking art is anything other than a neutral adjective.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 05:27:25 2013 No.1259117 Most people who try to make video games out to be art are people who grew up with them, invested a LOT of their life into them, and now regret it and want to pretend their time was spent appreciating art rather than sitting around playing games

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 05:27:25 2013 No.1259119

>>1259102
The definition not only isn't agreed upon but it keeps changing over time. You can see how the dictionaries and encyclopedias twist and turn to try and define it in the vaguest way possible, and it even deviates from each other. 2000 years ago it was a word that came from an artisan, which just meant a guy who makes things. In the renaissance period changed to pretty things, now it's anything really, as long as it's in an art installation people are game to call it art out of fear.
I agree with you though that's a neutral adjective though, there is no value attributed to calling something art, it can be a good or bad piece. The word as much as I disagree with it's existence and purpose, it doesn't inherently judge something just my merely attributing it, and that's where most people fall on a slippery slope.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 05:37:42 2013 No.1259127 >>1259064 >obviously games like Chrono trigger and FF3 (6) have incredible stories If you would waste the word "incredible" on Chrono Trigger's story, I can't imagine the word you'd use to describe a Charles Dickens novel

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 06:02:59 2013 No.1259149 >>1259119 You need to study some linguistics, because changing definitions has nothing to do with art itself--that's language. Language constantly undergoes evolution or it's dead. And I'm not talking about 2000 years ago. I'm talking about now.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 06:04:29 2013 No.1259151 inb4 objectivist metaphysics shitposters whoops too late

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 06:05:58 2013 No.1259154 >>1259149 I was just making a point that the definition has grew too wide to be able to narrow it down to something. If something defines everything it stops meaning anything.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 06:06:28 2013 No.1259157 >>1259151 >objectivist metaphysics You don't even know what these words mean, do you?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 06:07:28 2013 No.1259158 >>1259154 >If something defines everything it stops meaning anything. Well the word "art" doesn't define everything, so this is a moot point here.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 06:09:28 2013 No.1259160 >>1259151 >objectivist metaphysics Thank you for that high quality post.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 06:09:58 2013 No.1259161 >>1259157 I do, actually. A priori assumptions about the purported objective nature of the mind, Reason, logic, etc. are at the root of Western philosophy.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 06:10:28 2013 No.1259163 >>1259158 It's broad as shit though, a loaf of bread on a shoestring can be considered art these days, so you know.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 06:10:28 2013 No.1259168 >>1259163 >a loaf of bread on a shoestring can be considered art these days, so you know. Your point?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 06:10:58 2013 No.1259164 >>1259160 Hey, you guys started it.

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 06:11:28 2013 No.1259170

All games have meaning. Even sports games and primeval shit like Pong. This is because all games have authors. Nature cannot give meaning, only a consciousness can.

Yes, games are art. This doesn't necessitate being well crafted or having a positive meaning, not at all. Also don't use words like 'deep', they are misleading. Clarity of expression is preferable to intentionally hiding one's message in order to appear 'more intelligent'.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 06:11:58 2013 No.1259169 >>1259168 My point is it's a broad term, I already said my point. Multiple times.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 06:12:28 2013 No.1259171 >>1259164 No one in this thread is talking about metaphysics. At all.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 06:13:58 2013 No.1259175 >>1259169 >My point is it's a broad term, I already said my point. And what does this bring to the discussion exactly? We're aware that art--even traditional art--covers a large amount of topics.

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 06:14:28 2013 No.1259176

>>1259171
Not directly, but specific metaphysical assumptions are responsible for the way people approach the idea of defining words and the way they can or should be applied to different and possibly unrelated conceptual schema, and that is exactly what is happening in this thread.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 06:14:59 2013 No.1259178 >>1259175 Go back and follow the quotes, I'm not repeating myself.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 06:15:28 2013 No.1259180 >>1259176 >but specific metaphysical assumptions Such as? Let's see how far you go with your BS. >>1259178 What is your point. The posts that go back there say that art cannot be defined.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 06:18:58 2013 No.1259181 >>1259164 But I didn't do anything.

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 06:28:58 2013 No.1259185

>>1259180
Assumptions such as, for instance, necessary and sufficient conditions being all that are necessary to define membership in a category, such as the categories "game" and "art".

The idea that the term "art" in fact has no value, or is somehow a "neutral adjective", as one poster called it earlier (better to think of it as a set or category). One would only be able to say that for certain about one's own intentions in using or interpreting the word.

>>1259149
>changing definitions has nothing to do with art itself
Classic example of objectivist metaphysical assumptions in place. Medieval realism, even. Asking someone what "art itself" is implies that there is such a disembodied thing in the first place that does not change based on human conceptual structure.

>>1259181
Sure Anon.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 06:30:28 2013 No.1259186 >>1259180 >>1259170 Separating 'consciousness' from 'nature' is another objectivist conceit, by the way.

>>	i ain't tripfagging !!UCnc1JMdFaF Mon Dec 9 07:11:02 2013 No.1259223 >>1259127 i've never liked charles dickens writing style, to be honest.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 07:24:01 2013 No.1259229 Games can be art. Not every game IS art. I don't get why this is so hard for people to understand - In essence, it's film with interactive elements. it's simply an extrapolation of film, which in turn is an extrapolation of paintings - IE: Art..

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 07:25:01 2013 No.1259231 >>1259117 Yeah, you're making shit up.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 07:34:32 2013 No.1259241 >>1259117 You ever worked in a cinema before? because you're pretty good at projecting.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 07:50:18 2013 No.1259250 >>1259186 That's great but we obviously can't take this further because I'm not willing to debate that particular point. Nature is not an author.

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 08:36:35 2013 No.1259291

>>1259231
>>1259241

You're proving my point. Personally, I spent a lot of time playing video games, and I don't give a shit. They're just games. I've had great memories with them and I still play them because I enjoy them. It's pretentious to take it any further. If you don't like video games, cut your losses and move on to something else that actually has artistic merit. You'll never turn monopoly and candyland into works of art, no matter how many thousands of hours you spent playing them

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 12:31:10 2013 No.1259556 >>1259064 >obviously games like Chrono trigger and FF3 (6) have incredible stories You're joking, right? They're on par with those terrible D&D or Warhammer novels.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 12:32:10 2013 No.1259559 >>1259291 >You're proving my point. Nigga, no they ain't. You just posted some unfounded assumptions and called it a day.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 12:52:35 2013 No.1259587 File: 279 KB, 1280x718, ico.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Some games are art.

NESfag Mon Dec 9 15:03:35 2013 No.1259863

People who think games can't be art are like people who say games can't have a good story : they are holding the medium back.

It's because of them, and because of how numerous they are, that video games don't even try to get deeper and more interesting. If people had a little more faith, more developers WOULD try to do more interesting storytelling and use storytelling elements that are unique to video games, instead of copying blockbuster movies and therefore remaining much less interesting than they could be.

The fact that people use games like "ICO" as 'proof' that video games can be art is very good example of that. What is ICO? It's a fucking collection of paintings with storytelling done in cutscenes movie like format. ICO should be the bad example, because it's not trying to do things that are unique to video games. Instead, ICO is the ONLY example they have.

Whether video games are art or not... In any case, they are still a LONG way from being their own independent art and developing its own artistic techniques. 30 years of video games and the best it could was copy pasting cinema, literature, and paintings.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 16:47:47 2013 No.1260132 >>1259158 >moot point here. Moot never said that

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 16:51:48 2013 No.1260143

>>1259064
Who says they're getting recognized for stories at all? And if so, not earlier than last year, as far as popular media is concerned. Bioshock Infinite is probably the first mass-marketed video game that even mentions its plot as a selling point.

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 16:58:47 2013 No.1260173

>>1259863

>holding the medium back

The whole point of the medium is gameplay. Because of you and your dumbass opinion, we're in a period where games get progressively worse in gameplay and story has become the major focus. Video games' niche isn't their potential for "unique story telling," it's the simple fact that they're the only form of media you can PLAY. PLAYING is the important part.

I've seen your bitch ass in Duke Nukem 3D threads. Are you telling me you prefer Duke Nukem Forever because it had a much better story?

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 17:07:17 2013 No.1260193

>>games can be art?

Not impossible but nothing I've ever seen in the sphere of gaming really qualifies, imo.

This is assuming that you are willing to draw some sort of line between art and entertainment. If you figure that anything anyone makes which is representational of a thing or experience qualifies as art, then sure.

There is definitely craftsmanship involved, and there are many elements of game design that are art-forms in and of themselves - but as a codified experience I do not believe that any video game really exists as a work of art.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 17:17:17 2013 No.1260219 >>1259863 what's your opinion on shit like Gone Home?

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 17:22:48 2013 No.1260229

>>1260173
And can't the act of "playing" amplify storytelling? Why do we need to focus solely on gameplay? Why not focus on the best of both worlds? Just because something doesn't fully take control of the medium's potential doesn't mean it won't qualify as worthy art.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 17:23:17 2013 No.1260231 This shit belongs on /v/. Get out.

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 17:28:47 2013 No.1260242

>>1260229

>And can't the act of "playing" amplify storytelling?

It could, but that would be a waste and come at the expensive of the gameplay

>Why do we need to focus solely on gameplay?

Because they're games

>Why not focus on the best of both worlds?

Because they're games

The evolution of games should not be using the gameplay to more fancifully explain why you need to beat your opponent in tic-tac-toe. The evolution of video games should be improvements in technology allowing for more complex, expansive gameplay. If you don't think that's true, fuck off to a different hobby, you're holding video games back in an effort to turn it into something it isn't and never should be

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 17:29:47 2013 No.1260247

>>1260229
Once you start doing things on your own (taking control of the experience) as a player it really ceases to be a representational work of art.

It's an evocative experience - which is more of an experiential manipulation designed to please the consumer-audience.

There is nothing wrong with this, and I am an avid gamer - I just think that interactivity is a huge gulf to breach if you're trying to take some new form of digital entertainment and raise it up to the level of refined art.

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 17:35:17 2013 No.1260263

>>1257160
>I ask this because it seems like some people get very angry when you try to interpret some games as artful, and look for deeper meanings.
It's because gaming as a whole has been marketed horribly. When people thought ME3's ending was bad "it wasn't bad it was too deep for you" When people claimed Bioshock Infinite was generic with piss poor plot it was "deep and meaningful, a Citizen Kain of gaming! You just don't get." Those kinds of defenses making people get upset when art is used as a relation to gaming because they think it's going to lead to corporate double speak of you opinion ends where my feelings begin.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 17:45:47 2013 No.1260296 >>1260263 >Citizen Kain of gaming Boring tech demo only popular because it was visually ahead of its time?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 17:51:17 2013 No.1260320 >>1258564 fuck you games can't be qwertizical they're more like pyfgcmatic

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 18:45:55 2013 No.1260468 >>1260296 funny enough that still isn't as bad as Bioshock Infinite

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 18:50:25 2013 No.1260481 File: 223 KB, 350x340, hankno.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1257298 >smearing Spaghetti-os all over yourself and making gibberish noises, then pissing yourself My toddler niece is a genius artist.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 18:58:55 2013 No.1260513 >>1257337 >visual spectacle But dude, older movies were all about the gameplay.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 19:03:25 2013 No.1260523 File: 131 KB, 190x190, wgkjeghiwegkjbewg.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I have never seen so many people in one thread talk out of their ass.

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 19:03:55 2013 No.1260524

>>1257360
The only times I ever hear someone say this sentence -- literally the ONLY times -- is when the person saying it believes himself to have all the -right- opinions. I only hear people say this when they think they're 100% correct and won't allow anyone else's opinion to co-exist.

All the ones I've had interaction with in real life are anti-theists, and I think there may be a link between the two.

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 19:12:25 2013 No.1260546

>>1260524
>I hold the opinion that vaccinations cause autism
>Here's my evidence: a faulty study that was laughed at by a peer review, and utterly discredited
>Still going around picketing vaccinations because opinions

I can hold an opinion that the moon would be greatly improved by reducing its mass by half, but that would still be wrong.

I know it's not what your teachers taught you in school, but some opinions can be just plain wrong. There is no corollary implied.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 19:17:55 2013 No.1260553 >>1260546 None of those things are opinion though.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 19:19:55 2013 No.1260563 >>1260546 see >>1260523

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 19:32:12 2013 No.1260607 >>1260563 Thanks for your high-quality post, anon.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 19:36:43 2013 No.1260625 File: 40 KB, 510x246, art-history-2012-DSC_0097.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1260523 Welcome to art.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 19:37:42 2013 No.1260630 >>1260546 >opinion: a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. You fuck up the moment you stated 'evidence'

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 19:38:12 2013 No.1260632
File: 29 KB, 300x415, 91.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

They'are as "art" as entertainment media goes.
Do you really consider entertainment such as a Transformers movie or a Harry pooter book "art"?
I'm sure you don't, yet they are considered part of 2 different "arts" (film and literature).
People like Justin Bieber or [insert premanufactured teen pop idol] are also called "artists"

However, art can be fucking anything you want it to be, so yeah, vidya can be art, if you so desire.

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 19:40:42 2013 No.1260641

>>1260546
How does that relate to anons point about your earlier post? It seems now you are just doing the same as that parent with vaccinations. Hell it's worse because you present nothing but what you think.
>I know it's not what your teachers taught you in school
I'm not sure you yourself have had any education.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 19:43:12 2013 No.1260650 >>1260607 I mean, it's uninformed, backwards logic like yours that gives the Internet a bad name. The solution is simple. If you don't want attention called to your ignorance, then don't be ignorant.

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 19:44:42 2013 No.1260651

There is commercial art and fine art.

Video games are commercial art, but can have fine art pieces comprising their whole.

After all, someone has to make those statues and shit your characters climb all over. Those are often studies of classical antiquities.

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 19:47:00 2013 No.1260671

>>1260242
You know, what major breakthroughs could we really make with just pure gameplay?

We can have really good gameplay, of course, new types of puzzles or new gimmicks, but things as huge as allowing games to interact in a 3D environment, what kind of those huge things can we really go for at this point?

I agree that gameplay should never be put in the backseat just for story, but I also don't think having games "only" be about the gameplay is going to do much, as right now the medium doesn't have much to progress to. There are concepts, of course, like virtual reality, but I personally don't see that being a huge thing unless it really is like virtual reality, like, an actual virtual -reality- like you'll see in fiction where the game is an actual full world you can directly explore and feel like you're physically in it. And, I don't see that coming to us any time soon, right now we're still working on first-person vision with things like the Oculus Rift. Really, what new revolutionary gameplay techniques could we expect to see in the next 3-4 years that isn't just a gimmick like the Kinect?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 19:51:59 2013 No.1260682 >>1260546 Have you ever told someone that your own opinion was objectively wrong? Or are you of the belief that every opinion you hold is objectively right?

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 20:01:00 2013 No.1260719

>>1260671

>You know, what major breakthroughs could we really make with just pure gameplay?

Well, going by what improvements we've already seen:

Better controls
Larger, more interactive landscapes
Better AI
More detail in gameplay options
Better physics
More operations happening simultaneously
Larger battle scales
Better responsiveness
Even self-evolving worlds

People always think they're currently at the peak of technological advancement, but then within a few years the whole world changes

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 20:01:29 2013 No.1260717 >>1259556 There are lots of people who never read a proper book. For this kind of people, those stories are very deep and touching.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 20:08:59 2013 No.1260735 >>1257419 And if you want a titillating, but ultimately unfulfilling experience, go watch some porn.

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 20:10:59 2013 No.1260745

>>1260671
>>1260719

Evolution doesn't always come purely from technology either. If someone just comes up with a good idea for gameplay that's better designed than other games, you could call it an evolution. Mouselook in FPS games for example. Mice existed way before mouselook became a thing, but when some guy thought "maybe we should let the player aim with their mouse" the genre evolved. More recently, something like Dota (which you may or may not like) didn't come from new technology beyond Warcraft 3, but from a concept, and now MOBAs are hugely popular team games.

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 20:17:29 2013 No.1260763

>>1260717
Not that anon, but, I'm extremely well read (adjunct philosophy professor here) and I still glean enjoyment from vidya stories. Although, I tend to invent motivation, character development and back-story by means of a combination of imagination and suspension of disbelief. That's not to say such a method delegitimizes the experience for me. It doesn't.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 20:20:59 2013 No.1260772 >>1260763 I'd have to agree. In fact, part of the appeal of sparse video game storytelling is filling in the blanks.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 20:24:30 2013 No.1260785 >>1260735 >implying higher motion quality makes movies unfulfilling I've watched Showscan (60fps), I know you are wrong.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 20:29:29 2013 No.1260798 >>1260763 I just had some serious déjà vu from this post

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 21:21:51 2013 No.1260938 >>1257261 >b-but i was pretending!! into the /b/in you go

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 01:08:01 2013 No.1261485 File: 81 KB, 500x375, ajhfujhfbesjfjnesg.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1260785 You either missed the point, or are just being argumentative for its own sake. Either way, go drink piss.

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 01:34:05 2013 No.1261528

>Does /vr/ believe that games can be art

You really can't have this discussion unless you define what "art" is and in that case the discussion becomes more /lit/ territory than anything.

>should be dissected in the same way that literature or film can be?

Not in the same way, per se. The interactive aspect of video games make it really fucking different from literature and films. Of course, that applies to any different medium (ie, can't judge a book the same way you can judge a movie).

>I ask this because it seems like some people get very angry when you try to interpret some games as artful, and look for deeper meanings.

There's nothing wrong with this but it does get rather annoying when you try peddling these interpretations off as objective fact (just look at TV Tropes for an example). Not everyone who looks for meaning does this though, and people who get angry at it shouldn't always conflate the two.

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 01:47:36 2013 No.1261552

>>1257160
The problem with video games being seen as art is that it takes away more than it actually adds. Especially since art in video games tries too hard to be cynical or ironic, people forget that at the end of the day, a video game is what it is. People try to derive more meaning from things than there really is.

In the near future I can see someone making a game that ends at the titlescreen, trying to pull a "John Cage" talking about how "our expectations are always better than the product". When video games get to the point where bullshit like THAT starts being made, then it's reached too far.

While typing this I saw >>1257306
Which is funny because it really makes you think of how the entire medium could take a turn. Games shouldn't be labelled as art even though they can be seen as art because it just encourages pretentious ideas, and creators making their creations convoluted just for the sake of doing so.

Video games weren't originally made to evoke thought and be discussed for hours, they were made to entertain and be interactive and stimulating, relieving people of boredom or stress. Games begin to fail when people get the idea in their head that turning their game into a PSA, or preaching ideas is more important than being an actual GAME.

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 04:03:45 2013 No.1261714

>>1261552
>problem with video games being seen as art is that it takes away more than it actually adds. Especially since art in video games tries too hard to be cynical or ironic, people forget that at the end of the day, a video game is what it is. People try to derive more meaning from things than there really is.
It's only done badly at the moment because it hasn't had enough time to develop. That's no reason to say it should be done.

>In the near future I can see someone making a game that ends at the titlescreen, trying to pull a "John Cage" talking about how "our expectations are always better than the product". When video games get to the point where bullshit like THAT starts being made, then it's reached too far.
Whilst that would be lame there would be nothing wrong with it existing and it could open the door to more experimental games and that's always a good thing. It's not going to stop other things from existing.

>Which is funny because it really makes you think of how the entire medium could take a turn. Games shouldn't be labelled as art even though they can be seen as art because it just encourages pretentious ideas, and creators making their creations convoluted just for the sake of doing so.
Using the word "pretentious" like that holds back the medium. It's like "hipster", and is often used to attack something that is over your personal threshold of understanding.

>Video games weren't originally made to evoke thought and be discussed for hours, they were made to entertain and be interactive and stimulating, relieving people of boredom or stress. Games begin to fail when people get the idea in their head that turning their game into a PSA, or preaching ideas is more important than being an actual GAME.
Art doesn't mean something preaches ideas. You seem to have a really narrow view of art. Plenty of art is intended to be entertaining, the difference with games is that they are interactive, and that only adds another level of possibilities.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 04:07:44 2013 No.1261718 >>1261714 You're missing the point. Why would you want to go an a direction which welcomes what is essentially the developer laughing in your face with a 10 ~ 50$ price tag?

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 04:13:46 2013 No.1261721

>>1261718
Why do you think that the the direction will only result in extreme conceptual non-games? It's not possible for an art form to travel so directly in one direction. There will always be a wide variety, which is great. I also guess I'm not as cynical as you, and I tend to assume people have genuine and positive intentions with their creations, no matter how much I don't like or don't understand them.

You used John Cage as an example, but he's also composed plenty of accessible and beautiful music as well as stuff you don't seem to think is valid. I'm all for exploring the balance.

It's not like the moment noise music came into public consciousness that all other music ceased to exist, but isn't it always nice to have someone pushing the boundaries of the medium in whacky ways, so we can maybe learn new things and apply them in ways that will suit the average consumer like me or you?

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 04:49:45 2013 No.1261742 >>1261721 Something doesn't have to be labelled as art before it is appreciated as art.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 05:10:45 2013 No.1261765 >>1261742 That's not really relevant to anything I said.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 05:37:18 2013 No.1261792 Video games are a creative medium, so yes they can be used in an artistic way. It is still very early in the mediums existence though, so currently video games are about as deep as early film.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 05:49:49 2013 No.1261804 >>1261765 We've already got things like Yume Nikki, Okami, Mother etc. Why would games need to take an "artistic direction" unless it was just trying to emulate other art forms?

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 05:52:18 2013 No.1261809

>>1261714

>It's not going to stop other things from existing

Everybody always says this, but you people don't take into account how it would influence the development of other games. Story-centered games are already the norm now, actual video games would become even rarer if we treated games as an art form. The industry goes where money waits, and the easiest way to trick people who don't like video games into buying video games is to advertise it as a 9-hour-long movie you pay $60 for

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 06:04:18 2013 No.1261816 >>1261809 >Story-centered games are already the norm now Uh, no they aren't, unless you're talking JRPGs or something. Having cutscenes and narrative =/= story centered.

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 06:08:18 2013 No.1261820

>>1261816

>Having cutscenes and narrative =/= story centered.

In the case of most modern games, yes it is. Pop in Super Mario World and all you're doing is having fun. Pop in Uncharted and not only are you not having any fun, but most of its length isn't even spent playing the game. It's mostly indie games that are actually dedicated to gameplay now

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 06:16:36 2013 No.1261830

>>1261809
Games with cinematic influences (although I'd disagree that they story-centered, the vast majority are still action games with cutscenes every now and then) are popular because they are accessible and appeal to a massive audience. If more developers started making more experimental and "artistic" games, they would appeal to a more niche audience and wouldn't affect the mainstream. It's possible to have both experimental and unchallenging forms of the same art form existing at the same time, look at popular music. You can be experimental without being closed off from conventions of the medium.

>>1261804
I agree there's already games that have a higher level of thought behind them, but I don't think they push it far enough or that there are enough of them.

>>1261820
>Pop in Uncharted and not only are you not having any fun, but most of its length isn't even spent playing the game
That's such ridiculous exaggeration. Uncharted is 80 percent action, which is fine by me. Although this is coming from someone who enjoys JRPGs, so I don't consider non-stop action as pivotal to my enjoyment of something.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 06:19:06 2013 No.1261836 >>1261820 >but most of its length isn't even spent playing the game. What is it about 4chan that makes people attempt to speak at length about subjects they know nothing about?

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 06:25:06 2013 No.1261841 >>1261816 How is he incorrect? >Gone Home >The Last of Us >Bioshock Infinite >Beyond Two Souls Or are we still in 1996?

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 06:28:06 2013 No.1261847

>>1261841
>This handful of games mean the majority of video games released today are story driven.

I don't even want to know why you thought this was a sound counterargument.

And if you're just making the argument that we now have games with a focus on story...well, shit, that's nothing new either. We've had those literally for decades now. I don't understand where you or that other guy is coming from.

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 06:28:36 2013 No.1261845

I don't think so at this present time. The truthful stigma of video games having an under motivated, lonely, and slightly stupid target audience causes game makers themselves to take the medium at complete face value. The ones that do try an artistic approach do it within the context of the target audience's infantile tastes. It is going to take a few generations of ubiquitous acceptance from the public before we can start to see anything from games become art.

It doesn't help that gamers rely heavily on safety and comfort in games. Trying new things is riskier in video games than in any other medium. With that attitude toward games it stagnates the industry heavily (as we are seeing in the past 10 or so years). At the end of the day, all media and most art is created for monetary gain. And since video games are far more expensive and intensive to make than honing your skill in music/film/painting/etc that is another humongous hurdle.

So no, I don't think they're art. I don't think it'll become art anytime soon either. It doesn't bother me at all because I treat them as others treat traditional card games and nothing more.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 06:28:36 2013 No.1261846 >>1261841 Whilst there is a medium-sized current trend for it, the vast majority of popular games at the moment are straight action games.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 07:27:53 2013 No.1261904 >>1261836 Even when you're not in a cutscene, holding the controller while scripted events unfold around you is not gameplay.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 07:28:55 2013 No.1261905 >>1261904 Yes it is. It's no more scripted than Super Mario World.

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 07:44:55 2013 No.1261924

>>1261904

Dude, just stop. You're as bad as people who generalize JRPGs as all staring spiky haired, emo protagonists. You just took a common generalization about games and applied it to a random game. Except it made you look like an idiot because it doesn't describe the game you picked.

Just stop pretending that you've played it and admit you fucked up.

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 07:56:41 2013 No.1261935
File: 23 KB, 400x447, 1288541899216.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>This game doesn't have enough cutscenes, there's no story!
>plot and story are totally interchangeable!
>even though every element that the game consists of was the result of people knowingly choosing specific things it means nothing!

Please kill me.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 13:58:46 2013 No.1262446 >>1259064 >when exactly did video games start getting recognized for their stories? Winter 1998 was the critical mass moment.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 14:02:46 2013 No.1262456 If a guy can put his shit in a tin can and have it considered art then I think video games are also allowed to be art.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 19 03:04:56 2021 No.1262456,1 >>1258608 >>1261830 >>1258635 Kill yourself, retard.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/vr/ - Retro Games