I was actually referring more to non-technology issues. It's like how it took people years after the invention of the novel to realize it should really have rising action and a climax. Some of the earliest novels are, well, kind of boring. Jonathan Swift's "Gullivers Travels" I'm told doesn't really have much of a plot, it's just Gulliver meeting new and strange cultures. A disclaimer there, I've never read it.
Gulliver's Travels isn't one of the earliest novels, and it wasn't written the way it was written because that's all writers knew how to do at the time.
How do you make a statment in them which uses the interactive element and isn't just playing games between movie sequences?
That's an arbitrary restriction. Why can't you make a game that has movie sequences? You could make a traditional adventure game that would have very movie-like cutscenes that would be spliced together with the gameplay as seamlessly as possible. There's nothing preventing developers from doing that, and to my knowledge it has never been done. At least not properly.
You completely missed the point. Video games, as a medium (this is important), are unquestionably capable of being art. Whether or not anyone has yet made a video game that can be considered art is an entirely separate issue.
Name one video game that has the intellectual depth of a fine art painting or literature.
No. Instead, why don't you explain how video games, as a medium, are incapable of being art?
Just like comic books and manga, video games occupy the same intellectual ground as pulp fiction novels and trash romantic comedy movies.
This is a ridiculous blanket statement. You might as well say all films are stupid trash and can never compare to literature.
There has never been nor will there ever be a video game that can compare with great art and literature like Rafael, Picasso, van Gogh, James Joyce, Yeats, or Shakespeare.
Impossible. Anything that can be done in literature, film, music and paintings can be done in video games.
What I meant to say (and sorry if this wasn't clear), is that art (music, a painting) is inherently classifiable as art where a video game is inherently not classifiable as art. While their may be artistic attributes to games, like graphics art, the plot, the background score and even the voice acting, the game as a whole is not art. The game itself is not art but there are things in it which are.
... and change it:
What I meant to say (and sorry if this wasn't clear), is that art (music, a painting) is inherently classifiable as art where a film is inherently not classifiable as art. While their may be artistic attributes to films, like cinematography, the plot, the background score and even the acting, the film as a whole is not art. The film itself is not art but there are things in it which are.
What I meant to say (and sorry if this wasn't clear), is that art (films, a painting) is inherently classifiable as art where a song is inherently not classifiable as art. While their may be artistic attributes to a song, like the melody and the lyrics, the song as a whole is not art. The song itself is not art but there are things in it which are.
Maybe I'm just slow, but I can't understand the difference between the three.
Yes, but video games aren't static. They're different everytime you play them.
Grim Fandango isn't different every time you play it. The events are set in stone by the developer.
Is the act of playing Monopoly art?
Has anyone ever suggested that the act of playing the game is art? As far as I can see you're the only one who's saying that.
That's what video games are: games. Games can have artistic attributes or they can not, but it doesn't change the fact that they are games.
This is a meaningless statement. You could replace "game" with "film" and it wouldn't make any difference. Of course games are games. Of course films are films. So?
I remember reading an article written by Hideo Kojima (of MGS fame) about whether he thought video games were art, and he said no. He essentially said that he didn't believe video games were art as they offered an open ended experience where players can immerse themselves in order to form unique experiences.
He's full of shit. It's up to the developer to decide how much freedom to give to the player. A completely linear adventure game like Grim Fandango is not going to give the player much room for an "open ended experience" where players can "form unique experiences." Any choice the player can make is a choice that has been predetermined by the developer. Using a video game to tell an emotional story, to make a powerful statement or to provoke deep thoughts is not rendered impossible just because the player can decide in what order he solves two puzzles.
Kojima is also being short-sighted. Interactivity and freedom of choice can be harnessed for artistic purposes. For an established and experienced video game developer he sure sounds clueless. It's not like your only choice as a developer is to build a sandbox and drop the player in the middle of it.
As a whole, that's just what they are: packaged, bought and sold "worlds" or "realities" for us to play in, which can contain all sorts and varieties of artistic elements, but yet as a whole can not be considered art. A player's experience rewound and played forward as a non-interactive product of the player's volition (like a film) can be art, but the act of playing a video game is not by itself art....
Is riding the subway to work art? No. Is seeing a painting on the wall art? The painting itself is, yes, but not the act of seeing it or your choice to go and see it. Is listening to music art? Not the act of listening, but the music itself is art... and you see my point.
But by your own logic video games can be art. The act of playing them isn't art (obviously!), but the games themselves can be. Just like listening to music isn't art but the music itself is. I don't even understand what your point is. Surely everyone understands that the act of viewing or experiencing art is not art itself.
I believe he is referring to very, very early films.
There's still an endless supply of quality films available, if you just step outside (Western) mainstream cinema. I pretty much just watch Asian films these days, and there are a lot of great films that don't rely on special effects. For example, a few days ago I watched this.
Complaints of special effects taking over story are much ado about nothing, really. You've also got films like Dark Knight which are big budget action spectacles but still very mature and intelligent with an emphasis on story and characters.
The same thing is likely going to happen with games is my point. Games can definitely make statements, but to really see what the form is capable of, you're going to have to wait for videogame making to evolve.
We already have all the technology we need. Graphics quality has reached a very comfortable level. If you use an art style like Eternal Sonata's, then you're already on the level of animated films, which can be just as serious and "artistic" as live action ones (see Spirited Away for example). Motion capturing, voice acting and realistic facial expressions allow for very convincing cutscenes and such.
The technology is there and the medium is ready, but the developers are lagging behind. I'm not feeling very optimistic about their ability to pull off anything that intelligent and knowledgeable non-gamers would be comparing to established cinematic works of art. And on the other hand, do gamers really care? Is anyone going to buy an adventure game in this day and age? Or would they rather just play Halo and Madden?
... the ongoing question of whether video games should be considered art.
There is no such question. The only question that should be asked is this: has anyone yet made a video game that can be considered art? As a medium, video games are unquestionably capable of being art, even in ways that's impossible with other mediums.
From your post:
Props to the emogame guy for being a pioneer of sorts though, and of course for making a statement with his soapbox.
Trinity was released in 1986. I think emogame guy is a little late to the party. There have been many games that have had something to say, but not all of them have made a big deal about it. That is, they haven't been singleminded "message games" that are out to make some kind of "statement."
I can't bring myself to understand where I flamebaited anyone. I do sincerely believe that opinions are overrated and used far too often to justify all kinds of bullshit. If you can't deal with that then maybe you shouldn't be on the Internet.
No. I have said that I've played various games. I have, in fact, played a lot of games people think are good, and while some of them are good, some of them are not. The point is, I already said I played Half-Life, and your saying that I don't have experience is no more than a ridiculous accusation of falsity on your part.
I never said you haven't played Half-Life.
You're a bloody fucking idiot. You are perfectly entitled to your opinions about games, no matter how I disagree, but you aren't willing to concede that maybe someone else thinks differently.
Are you intentionally trying to sabotage yourself by demonstrating that your intolerance for others' opinions is so great, that the people who have them must be outright lying in your mind?
...
What? You're simply demonstrating a lack of experience.
Same question. Furthermore, I fail to see what the hell is wrong with my definition. You have a problem, come up with a better one, don't flimsily say "you just made that up!!!".
Your definition was obviously invented on the spot to counter the fact that in terms of story Halo pales in comparison to several other FPS games.
No, I just have different taste than you. Art is a subjective thing, so no one is ever wrong. Learn The Rules 101 before you start talking. And again, you're saying that I'm lying just because you think I'm wrong. My, that's pathetic.
No, I'm just saying that your obvious lack of experience is responsible for your poor taste.
Fine, I'll do something you are too juvenile to do: accept what you say at face value. In that case, you don't pay attention to the story in any of the games you play. Well, if that's the case, what are you doing talking about story in video games? Go and pay attention to some of them, and then get back to us.
Are you completely fucking dense? Let me explain it once again, maybe you'll get it this time: I pay attention, but because Halo's story was so unmemorable, I do not remember anything about it.
That isn't the metric of FPS. The metric of FPS is whether you primarily run around shooting things in a first-persion POV.
What do you do in Doom? You run around and shoot at things. What game defined the FPS genre? Doom. FPS games are whatever Doom says they are. Halo is not an FPS game.
In Bioshock, that simply isn't true. You use plasmids as much as guns, and you hack things left and right. Bioshock is an RPG that happens to use guns and a first-person POV.
In Halo, you drive and fly vehicles, hit enemies with a sword and watch cutscenes all the time. Doesn't seem like an FPS game to me.
Ha! The story itself aside (which I don't think is very good), the Half-Life series has the worst storytelling of any game I've ever seen.
Are you intentionally trying to sabotage yourself by establishing your profound lack of gaming experience?
One day Valve will realize that the first-person POV is an ineffective way to tell a story, I hope, but they sure haven't yet, and their games have bloody awful storytelling as a result.
First person perspective works for some stories but not for others. In Half-Life it works, and with traditional cutscenes it would have been an entirely different (and inferior) experience. I wasn't the only player to go holy fucking shit when playing Half-Life for the first time.
And Thief is also not a game where you primarily run around shooting things. You sneak, sneak, sneak. Which makes sense, after all, you are a thief. It does make it not an FPS though. Jedi Knight has a first-person POV as an option, but they are most definitely not FPS'es, because you almost always engage in lightsaber combat. Unless you spend most of your time in combat First Person Shooting, it isn't an FPS.
Your narrow definition of an FPS game does not work and was most likely improvised on the spot to magically explain why Halo has the best story ever told in any FPS game.
All other games I've ever played. That's a mighty big difference. And believe me, I've played a lot of games, many with good stories (I play lots of RPGs), but not one has had characters so human, I actually was moved by their plight, and felt something for them. I've been moved by a lot of stories, but in no other game have the writers got me to care about the people in the story on a personal level. That's the difference. Madness? This is opinion.
No, you just have poor taste. Most likely you have played very few games and have little if any experience with film and literature.
Be that as it may, if what you got out of the story in Halo was what you said earlier, you weren't paying attention. Maybe you don't pay attention to any games you play, I don't know. But I can tell you that if all you got was the most superficial details of the story, you didn't pay attention at all.
I repeat: I paid attention to the story as much as I've paid attention to it in all the other games I've played. It just wasn't memorable.
Are not FPSes. Or at least, Bioshock isn't, and from what I understand of Deus Ex, it isn't. They're hybrids.
See Bioshock.
Then I guess Halo isn't an FPS either. After all, it deviates quite a bit from the model established by Doom.
Have terrible story.
HL2 is debatable, unless you count the Episodes, but Half-Life's story is told very well.
Also not FPS'es. If those are FPS, then Assassin's Creed is an FPS.
Assassin's Creed is a third person game. Thief and Thief II are first person.
Whatever. It isn't my fault if you don't like the characters. Entertainment is subjective that way. I don't have a problem with you disagreeing, but when you presume to speak of "losing credibility" because we disagree, you need to get off your high horse.
It's one thing to say that no other FPS game has had such good characters, but to compare Halo with all other games ever released? Sheer madness.
Then pay attention? Without even reading the books, I got a lot more out of it than that. No story is going to grab you if you don't pay any attention to it.
I paid attention to the story as much as I've paid attention to it in all the other games I've played. It just wasn't memorable.
Grim Fandango has boring things like dialogue and story, nobody wants to see that shit. Let's blow something up! And Fallout? Simply way too hard and complicated.
For both of those titles, Halo kiddies would "get it", they'd just wouldn't like them - just like any other adventure / RPG games.
"Sure, that's nice... but those types of games are slow and boring..."
Those games were innovative in many ways (content, mostly) - but their gameplay mechanics were pretty conventional.
Halo kiddies couldn't play them because they lack the necessary intelligence and attention span. They can only understand pretty colors and shiny objects that blow up. I've seen players complain that the RPGs of the late 90s are unplayable because they are so "archaic," because you need to read an instruction manual to play them and because the graphics are so outdated.
Contrary to what it's become popular to spout, gamers today aren't a bunch of fuckin' morons.
Very seldom is there an actual, valid, reason to back these sentiments up.
Clearly you have never visited forums populated by gamers, such as Steampowered. The average gamer is so stupid that no amount of science and philosophy can explain how they're able to even turn on a computer.
Didn't mean much back in the day, but now it has all become clear. It's so fucking obvious. They knew this was coming for decades. When JFK got wind of the plan to build the World Trade Center, he said to himself "not on my watch," faked his own death and then recruited Elvis and Diana. Maybe there are even more people involved. I mean maybe Bernie Mac was in on it too, but decided to talk and got thugged up by George Washington's crew before he could sing. George Washington, you say? Impossible? Not at all. Roswell was just a coverup for Tesla's time travel experiment.
His point was that if gold farming didn't exist then the economy in WoW would be a lot better, which is true. The only way to respond to this is either "yes, I agree" or some reason as to why the economy would not be better off.
Slashdot Mirror
Gulliver's Travels isn't one of the earliest novels, and it wasn't written the way it was written because that's all writers knew how to do at the time.
That's an arbitrary restriction. Why can't you make a game that has movie sequences? You could make a traditional adventure game that would have very movie-like cutscenes that would be spliced together with the gameplay as seamlessly as possible. There's nothing preventing developers from doing that, and to my knowledge it has never been done. At least not properly.
You completely missed the point. Video games, as a medium (this is important), are unquestionably capable of being art. Whether or not anyone has yet made a video game that can be considered art is an entirely separate issue.
No. Instead, why don't you explain how video games, as a medium, are incapable of being art?
This is a ridiculous blanket statement. You might as well say all films are stupid trash and can never compare to literature.
Impossible. Anything that can be done in literature, film, music and paintings can be done in video games.
Let's take this statement...
Maybe I'm just slow, but I can't understand the difference between the three.
Please tell me I'm on drugs and I didn't actually read that. MGS not infantile? Every other game one-dimensional?
Grim Fandango isn't different every time you play it. The events are set in stone by the developer.
Has anyone ever suggested that the act of playing the game is art? As far as I can see you're the only one who's saying that.
This is a meaningless statement. You could replace "game" with "film" and it wouldn't make any difference. Of course games are games. Of course films are films. So?
He's full of shit. It's up to the developer to decide how much freedom to give to the player. A completely linear adventure game like Grim Fandango is not going to give the player much room for an "open ended experience" where players can "form unique experiences." Any choice the player can make is a choice that has been predetermined by the developer. Using a video game to tell an emotional story, to make a powerful statement or to provoke deep thoughts is not rendered impossible just because the player can decide in what order he solves two puzzles.
Kojima is also being short-sighted. Interactivity and freedom of choice can be harnessed for artistic purposes. For an established and experienced video game developer he sure sounds clueless. It's not like your only choice as a developer is to build a sandbox and drop the player in the middle of it.
But by your own logic video games can be art. The act of playing them isn't art (obviously!), but the games themselves can be. Just like listening to music isn't art but the music itself is. I don't even understand what your point is. Surely everyone understands that the act of viewing or experiencing art is not art itself.
I believe he is referring to very, very early films.
There's still an endless supply of quality films available, if you just step outside (Western) mainstream cinema. I pretty much just watch Asian films these days, and there are a lot of great films that don't rely on special effects. For example, a few days ago I watched this.
Complaints of special effects taking over story are much ado about nothing, really. You've also got films like Dark Knight which are big budget action spectacles but still very mature and intelligent with an emphasis on story and characters.
We already have all the technology we need. Graphics quality has reached a very comfortable level. If you use an art style like Eternal Sonata's, then you're already on the level of animated films, which can be just as serious and "artistic" as live action ones (see Spirited Away for example). Motion capturing, voice acting and realistic facial expressions allow for very convincing cutscenes and such.
The technology is there and the medium is ready, but the developers are lagging behind. I'm not feeling very optimistic about their ability to pull off anything that intelligent and knowledgeable non-gamers would be comparing to established cinematic works of art. And on the other hand, do gamers really care? Is anyone going to buy an adventure game in this day and age? Or would they rather just play Halo and Madden?
From Slashdot's post:
There is no such question. The only question that should be asked is this: has anyone yet made a video game that can be considered art? As a medium, video games are unquestionably capable of being art, even in ways that's impossible with other mediums.
From your post:
Trinity was released in 1986. I think emogame guy is a little late to the party. There have been many games that have had something to say, but not all of them have made a big deal about it. That is, they haven't been singleminded "message games" that are out to make some kind of "statement."
I can't bring myself to understand where I flamebaited anyone. I do sincerely believe that opinions are overrated and used far too often to justify all kinds of bullshit. If you can't deal with that then maybe you shouldn't be on the Internet.
I never said you haven't played Half-Life.
Opinions are overrated.
What? You're simply demonstrating a lack of experience.
Your definition was obviously invented on the spot to counter the fact that in terms of story Halo pales in comparison to several other FPS games.
No, I'm just saying that your obvious lack of experience is responsible for your poor taste.
Are you completely fucking dense? Let me explain it once again, maybe you'll get it this time: I pay attention, but because Halo's story was so unmemorable, I do not remember anything about it.
What do you do in Doom? You run around and shoot at things. What game defined the FPS genre? Doom. FPS games are whatever Doom says they are. Halo is not an FPS game.
In Halo, you drive and fly vehicles, hit enemies with a sword and watch cutscenes all the time. Doesn't seem like an FPS game to me.
Are you intentionally trying to sabotage yourself by establishing your profound lack of gaming experience?
First person perspective works for some stories but not for others. In Half-Life it works, and with traditional cutscenes it would have been an entirely different (and inferior) experience. I wasn't the only player to go holy fucking shit when playing Half-Life for the first time.
Your narrow definition of an FPS game does not work and was most likely improvised on the spot to magically explain why Halo has the best story ever told in any FPS game.
No, you just have poor taste. Most likely you have played very few games and have little if any experience with film and literature.
I repeat: I paid attention to the story as much as I've paid attention to it in all the other games I've played. It just wasn't memorable.
Then I guess Halo isn't an FPS either. After all, it deviates quite a bit from the model established by Doom.
HL2 is debatable, unless you count the Episodes, but Half-Life's story is told very well.
Assassin's Creed is a third person game. Thief and Thief II are first person.
It's one thing to say that no other FPS game has had such good characters, but to compare Halo with all other games ever released? Sheer madness.
I paid attention to the story as much as I've paid attention to it in all the other games I've played. It just wasn't memorable.
Grim Fandango has boring things like dialogue and story, nobody wants to see that shit. Let's blow something up! And Fallout? Simply way too hard and complicated.
BioShock
Deus Ex
Half-Life
Half-Life 2
System Shock
System Shock 2
Thief
Thief II
Half-Life 2 and BioShock are the only ones that were released after Halo.
Whatever credibility you might have had just vanished. Poof. Gone.
The only thing I remember about Halo's story is that someone's going to activate Halo and it's going to kill everyone, and then Master Chief stops it.
I also played the shit out of Quake for years, but that never stopped me from playing all kinds of other games.
Halo kiddies couldn't play them because they lack the necessary intelligence and attention span. They can only understand pretty colors and shiny objects that blow up. I've seen players complain that the RPGs of the late 90s are unplayable because they are so "archaic," because you need to read an instruction manual to play them and because the graphics are so outdated.
Clearly you have never visited forums populated by gamers, such as Steampowered. The average gamer is so stupid that no amount of science and philosophy can explain how they're able to even turn on a computer.
No, but it's got a really shitty fanbase.
But there was a third operative.
"Elvis has left the building."
Didn't mean much back in the day, but now it has all become clear. It's so fucking obvious. They knew this was coming for decades. When JFK got wind of the plan to build the World Trade Center, he said to himself "not on my watch," faked his own death and then recruited Elvis and Diana. Maybe there are even more people involved. I mean maybe Bernie Mac was in on it too, but decided to talk and got thugged up by George Washington's crew before he could sing. George Washington, you say? Impossible? Not at all. Roswell was just a coverup for Tesla's time travel experiment.
How stupid do they think we are?
I have a simple, intuitive explanation for 9/11 that should satisfy everyone: some shit got fucked up.
Well, not necessarily. If you released Grim Fandango or Fallout today, I bet there'd be a lot of Halo kiddies who wouldn't "get it."
His point was that if gold farming didn't exist then the economy in WoW would be a lot better, which is true. The only way to respond to this is either "yes, I agree" or some reason as to why the economy would not be better off.
The game would have to be built from the ground up to be that way. If you tried to retrofit it into WoW the result would be a catastrophic failure.