Slashdot Mirror
Smithsonian Unveils 'Art of Games' Voting Results
AndrewGOO9 writes "The Smithsonian American Art Museum, in recognizing that electronic games are a part of our artistic history has now unveiled the 80 games out of a proposed pool of 240 that will be included in The Art of Video Games exhibit running from March 16, 2012 to September 30, 2012. While the winning games (PDF), as voted by gamers and art enthusiasts alike, are all stand-out titles, it goes without saying that this a huge step in the recognition of video games as artisitic masterpieces."
Flow and Flower but no Katamari Damacy, Day of the Tentacle or The secret of monkey island?
With a list that doesn't have Elite nor Stellar 7 is not a entirely correct list. I still remember playing Arctic Fox on my Amiga... though it was not totally finished. Where are all the games from Psygnosis? Some from Epyx... granted the list would be enormous if one really had to take into consideration of everything.
Looks like it includes Diablo II, Goldeneye and Space Invaders among others.
just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand!
what's the point of making up arbitrary categories and pick one title out of each? do they do the same with all other media? are there "action paintings"? they have Link to the past, Earthboud and Chrono Trigger in the same category, they all deserve recognition.
--
Stay tuned for some shock and awe coming right up after this messages!
Without this game among the nominees, this list is worthless.
So they decided that for all videogames throughout time, there are four and only four genres. They are Action, Adventure, "Target*", and Combat/Strategy...
And for each of these we shall choose one per console system. (Oh, and I guess one for old PCs and one for new PCs).
OK, wtf is the "target" genre? Is that like the proto shoot-em-up? One in which you destroy targets?
And why is Portal competing with the gamecube?
And while it's pretty cool that Minecraft made the list, Combat/Strategy? Huh?
Clearly this was put together by someone who simply isn't a gamer. Which is kinda surprising. I mean, this has been mainstream for a while now. You'd think that someone like the Smithsonian would be able to organize this a little better. Or are they too enshrined to be affected by new cultural trends? Are they really just now noticing that game development is bigger then Hollywood?
Art != "Visually Appealing" (though I happen to think that Minecraft is very beautiful in its own way).
Minecraft offers an experience that's pretty different from almost every other game, including the ones that has influenced it. It's not even complete, yet it's consumed the time of so many people and has sold over TWO MILLION copies despite a complete lack of promotion and advertising (other than word of mouth, obviously). It's a game with an extremely simple interface and complete freedom. Regardless of whether or not you think it's "boring" or that the graphics are "bad," it does deserve recognition as a unique experience. You can farm, explore caves, and even create basic computers WITHIN Minecraft! Minecraft really is what you make it... something that not many games, even the sandbox ones, can claim.
Of course, I'm not really sure if this is even worth responding to, as your argument is "Minecraft? Really?" Which really isn't an argument at all.
Apparently, games where you launch deadly projectiles at enemies. I'm surprised they didn't have a "Jump" or "Save the world" genre to match that. Read it as "random genre because we don't actually play games so we have no clue".
I guess they felt like they had to include Pac-Man, but since the only console from that era that had a decent Pac-Man was the Atari 5200 (which had much lower sales than the 2600), we got the crappy 2600 version.
Granted, it was one of the better games for the 2600 (there were a _lot_ of crappy 2600 games - it was a really limited platform), but Pac-Man was famous for the arcade version, not any console.
Sad to see no Metroid (the NES version), but there were so many games for the NES that it's natural some would be left out. I'd have voted for Bionic Commando, myself.
Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
HAXS!
Most gamers grew up on Nintendo, and thus tend to overrate Zelda and Mario games.
The Art of Video Games exhibition will explore the 40-year evolution of video games as an artistic medium (but not Braid), with a focus on striking visual effects (but not Braid), the creative use of new technologies (but not Braid), and the most influential artists and designers (but not Braid).
Everyone's saying "where's this, where's that" and I've agreed with every one of them. My personal bone to pick is the total absence of Uru, one of the sequels to Myst. Go look it up. You'll understand.
The problem with this list is multi-faceted. Remember, first, that the list was selected by the public. This is not something that art institutes generally do (have you ever heard of popular vote picking any other art display? What about one meant to introduce a new topic?) and while we could suggest that it's because they felt they were unequipped to do so, it's not like experts in the field don't exist. They could have asked game reviewers, for example. Or even game designers—artists tend to make good art critics, after all.
But instead they jumped on the populist bandwagon, and did an online poll, because that's what's hip and trendy and gets the kids involved. That's all gaming is to them: something for kids; a passing fad. Actually, it's not even really for current kids, it was for people who were kids during the eighties, and had either an Atari VCS, a Colecovision, an Intellivision, a C64, a NES, or a Master System. The sixteen-bit era is squashed up against the late nineties as if there were no difference, and many important platforms like the Amiga, BBC Micro, and MSX were just left out. Not even the Macintosh gets a mention. And furthermore, the games have to fit into one of a few genres—doesn't that go against the fundamental point of modern art?
The organizers of this presentation aren't looking at games based on the intention, expression and skill of the artists, which is what art critique is supposed to be about. When Ebert said games couldn't be art, it was because he was ignoring the design of game mechanics as an artistic focus, and accused their storytelling and composition of being immature. This presentation gives the impression that he's right due to its lack of care.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
And i will expand on what you said to point out that there are some really beautiful things in Minecraft. Also some incredibly bizarre things and some horrifying things as well of course.
Some of the generated landscapes can be impressive, and of course what people then do with it is often even more impressive. Yes everything is blocky, but a lot of stuff is built to such a large scale that it ends up looking like pixel-art.
So it's a game that allows its users to create incredibly impressive stuff. Stuff that a lot of people like looking at and find beautiful/awe-inspiring/disgusting or in some other way emotionally moving. How is that not as close to what "real" art is supposed to do as we can reasonably define?
And before anyone decides to argue that most of that is user created content and not part of the game itself as originally shipped, how can you contemplate whether video games are art without considering the interactive part of "interactive entertainment"?
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
5 games (independent of winning entries) were chosen to be playable for a few minutes during the exhibit. The first two: Pac-Man and Super mario Bros are fine, but:
#3 - The secret of Monkey Island - You can hardly understand this game in only a few minutes
#4 - Myst - Same with this
#5 - World of Warcraft - A few minutes... WTF, how much did Blizzard bribe for this to get setup.
I am guessing 'Target' is the politically correct term some pencil-pusher chose because they didn't want to use the word shooter because of its 'perceived' negative connotations.
'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
Kinda bummed that Shenmue beat out Skies of Arcadia in their category, but I have a bias there. The real question is, why the hell was Jet Grind Radio, an arcade-style graffiti-em-up, in the same category as a traditional JRPG and an adventure game set in 80s Japan?
I was pleasantly surprised to see Okami take the award in the PS2 "Adventure" category. It's certainly one of the most beautiful games I've ever seen, and one that places art and artistry at the center of its game play.
My major disappointment was not seeing Chrono Cross as at least a runner up to FFVII. While I don't think the artwork in FFVII deserves it's first-place designation, its overall popularity assured it top honors in a poll like this. But to ignore the gorgeous watercolor designs in Chrono Cross does a disservice to one of the best, and certainly one of the most artistic, RPGs for the PS1.
A lot of the head-scratch-inducing is due to the totally arbitrary category placements and inconsistencies. For example:
Baldur's Gate is Action, but Diablo II is Target
DOOM II and Deus Ex are considered as part of the same era
Metal Gear Solid is Action, but Metal Gear Solid 2 is Combat/Strategy (what the hell? They're identical in terms of concept and gameplay)
DOOM II is Action, Goldeneye is Target
Ikaruga being a 360 game, but Rez is Dreamcast
Really, the biggest issue is how abstract the genres are. Pick any given game, and you could likely fit it in any of the categories (the more modern, the easier). Take Uncharted 2. Clearly, it has action--you're running around, dodging shots, jumping, etc. It's also clearly an adventure, with lots of exploration and climbing. There's also lots of targeting going on, because your primary method of attack is to shoot something. And it has tons of combat.
The traditional genre naming (RPG, FPS, platformer, etc.) isn't perfect or rigidly black-and-white, but it's loads better than the four super-abstract categories we have here.
Another issue is the inclusion of ports of PC games. I could get behind SimCity being a winner--but only the computer version. The SNES version? Hell no. SimCity took a spot from Ogre Battle. Ogre Battle! And then we see it again on the Saturn--SimCity 2000 instead of Shining Force 3 or Dragon Force. It's just plain silly.
If you can't convince them, convict them.
If they really wanted to treat video games like an art they shouldn't have done an online poll. Aside from the most obvious problems (fanboys and people voting more than once), it makes it "the most popular video games of this list" instead of "the most interesting/innovative/artistic".
That being said: I'm very pleased with this list. There is some obvious blizzard fandom. Starcraft didn't really add much to the RTS genre other than revitalizing it with brilliant marketing and lots of nice bells and whistles. Diablo feels like Gauntlet, which wasn't on the list. I think TIE fighter should have beaten out Diablo given how it honestly added almost nothing to the gaming world (it was successful and good; just not precident-setting). Same with Goldeneye; if they wanted a precedent setting FPS they should have looked towards Half-Life or Quake for its mods--not that they aren't "Doom Clones".
Separating the categories by console with 4 games in each was just silly. There's plenty of more worthy games on the "PC" than the PS3--not surprising given there's hundreds of thousands of more games. Especially if they leave out consoles like Gameboy.
Seeing world of warcraft on a list without Ashnod's Call or Everquest is kinda weird. No dwarven fortress either.
Ginga no Rekshiya Mata Each page.
I already made this point elsewhere in the comments, but it's worth repeating: The very premise that the Smithsonian used for the contest was flawed. They insisted that voters should pick "visually striking" games. "Visually striking" isn't great criteria for "art". It certainly wouldn't work to pick the best films, and I don't think it works for games.
I'm excited that the medium is getting attention like this though and I just hope that future iterations are better thought out.
Touch everywhere, even when inappropriate.
Good list. Most of it I agree with or see why that particular title was chosen. Happy that MGS showed up twice.
However, I really wish they consulted some sort of gaming history expert. Or even a big name enthusiast. The lack of Street Fighter 2 or beatmania on that list makes me sad somehow.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
These choices seem understandable, but for the most part awfully old hat, so I'm not really sure what "art" means in this context. Art, as in "nice to look at"? Or art, as in "story-telling in amazing, tiny, full-immersion worlds"? Or art, as in "state of the..."?
Portal (2007) seems to hit all the marks. Ocarina of Time (especially the music, especially "Gerudo's Theme") and Windwaker are still great, but they have faded technically. But Final Fantasy X? Really, Ten??? And FF XIII can be marked down sharply for failure to provide a non-linear game experience (and for disappointing monster concepts). I would have nominated FF XII except for the decompression levels after beating the game -- some of those ideas are painfully second string vignettes by Square Enix benchwarmers.
Should have included Star Ocean (N64, PS1 and PS2, but not PS3), plus Umezawa Yukari's Yasashii Igo, i.e., "Easy Go" (PSP or NDS) for pleasant visuals, nicely competent tutoring and a cool Go engine sanctioned by Nihon Kiin. Can't expect everything, I guess.
``Tension, apprehension & dissension have begun!'' - Duffy Wyg&, in Alfred Bester's _The Demolished Man_