listening to what you guys are saying this is for sure a "hey guys look at all these videos games we love!" and not an art thing
i mean goldeneye seriously
If this were a book display would you choose books that you personally enjoyed or were touched by or some other book that by some archaic measurement was more "art"?
I would choose books that used the constraints of the medium to engage and impact the reader in a unique and inventive way
If you are seriously going to argue that goldeneye has artistic merit outside of 'it is fun to shoot dudes' then I just don't even know
Now think about how a video game has made you blasé about executing people with guns.
That says much more about our culture of entertainment than one particular video juego
The distinguishing component of games are their interactivity. There's an art to how to that mechanic, and while Golden Eye might be a really primitive example of FPS deathmatch, the number of people engaged by the mechanic is pretty large. That's fundamentally important to how games develop as art.
I can see you're trying to make some big point here, but the fact that video games are interactive isn't something I've overlooked. It's actually exactly what i was referencing when I mentioned 'the constraints of the medium'.
But saying a game is fun and enjoyed by a lot of people doesn't really say much. Is tetris making an artistic statement because it is fun and people really like it?
Vann Diras on
0
Options
BusterKNegativity is Boring Cynicism is Cowardice Registered Userregular
edited February 2011
I would call tetris just as artistic an accomplishment as a Frank Lloyd Wright building
huh
interactive mechanics
more important than you thought
I mean, I think it's easier right now for us to point to games that excel with visuals and story, because it's an understanding that's easy to adopt from other forms. The way that play mechanics emphasize or distance or otherwise modify the player's access to those familiar ideas will become increasingly developed and nuanced the same as character or light or narrative framing or cinematography or or or.
Not that Golden Eye is great or anything, but it does what it does relatively early and reaches a large number of people, and to say that the intent and design of that system is inartistic is kinda crap.
listening to what you guys are saying this is for sure a "hey guys look at all these videos games we love!" and not an art thing
i mean goldeneye seriously
If this were a book display would you choose books that you personally enjoyed or were touched by or some other book that by some archaic measurement was more "art"?
I would choose books that used the constraints of the medium to engage and impact the reader in a unique and inventive way
If you are seriously going to argue that goldeneye has artistic merit outside of 'it is fun to shoot dudes' then I just don't even know
Now think about how a video game has made you blasé about executing people with guns.
That says much more about our culture of entertainment than one particular video juego
The distinguishing component of games are their interactivity. There's an art to how to that mechanic, and while Golden Eye might be a really primitive example of FPS deathmatch, the number of people engaged by the mechanic is pretty large. That's fundamentally important to how games develop as art.
I can see you're trying to make some big point here, but the fact that video games are interactive isn't something I've overlooked. It's actually exactly what i was referencing when I mentioned 'the constraints of the medium'.
But saying a game is fun and enjoyed by a lot of people doesn't really say much. Is tetris making an artistic statement because it is fun and people really like it?
Part of executing a history of art is chronicling the development of the medium. We still study "Pamela or, Virtue Rewarded" by Samuel Richardson not because it's a particularly good book that pushes the envelope of the medium of the book or even the genre of the novel, but because it's the first major media event that found popular success in the publishing world. It's important, in essence, because people bought it and liked it enough to respond to it. Goldeneye definitely qualifies under those criteria.
listening to what you guys are saying this is for sure a "hey guys look at all these videos games we love!" and not an art thing
i mean goldeneye seriously
If this were a book display would you choose books that you personally enjoyed or were touched by or some other book that by some archaic measurement was more "art"?
I would choose books that used the constraints of the medium to engage and impact the reader in a unique and inventive way
If you are seriously going to argue that goldeneye has artistic merit outside of 'it is fun to shoot dudes' then I just don't even know
Now think about how a video game has made you blasé about executing people with guns.
That says much more about our culture of entertainment than one particular video juego
The distinguishing component of games are their interactivity. There's an art to how to that mechanic, and while Golden Eye might be a really primitive example of FPS deathmatch, the number of people engaged by the mechanic is pretty large. That's fundamentally important to how games develop as art.
I can see you're trying to make some big point here, but the fact that video games are interactive isn't something I've overlooked. It's actually exactly what i was referencing when I mentioned 'the constraints of the medium'.
But saying a game is fun and enjoyed by a lot of people doesn't really say much. Is tetris making an artistic statement because it is fun and people really like it?
Man, not all art has to be complex or challenging or innovative or unique. It doesn't even have to be good to be art.
But there's certainly more going on in Golden Eye than "it's fun to shoot people."
let me make sure I'm following the right path
so
games are made to be interacted with
therefore the mechanics, as they dictate how that interaction occurs, are central to what a game is
and since the nature of the interaction affects how the ideas are presented, and events are experienced, the mechanics have artistic merit?
listening to what you guys are saying this is for sure a "hey guys look at all these videos games we love!" and not an art thing
i mean goldeneye seriously
If this were a book display would you choose books that you personally enjoyed or were touched by or some other book that by some archaic measurement was more "art"?
I would choose books that used the constraints of the medium to engage and impact the reader in a unique and inventive way
If you are seriously going to argue that goldeneye has artistic merit outside of 'it is fun to shoot dudes' then I just don't even know
Now think about how a video game has made you blasé about executing people with guns.
That says much more about our culture of entertainment than one particular video juego
The distinguishing component of games are their interactivity. There's an art to how to that mechanic, and while Golden Eye might be a really primitive example of FPS deathmatch, the number of people engaged by the mechanic is pretty large. That's fundamentally important to how games develop as art.
I can see you're trying to make some big point here, but the fact that video games are interactive isn't something I've overlooked. It's actually exactly what i was referencing when I mentioned 'the constraints of the medium'.
But saying a game is fun and enjoyed by a lot of people doesn't really say much. Is tetris making an artistic statement because it is fun and people really like it?
Part of executing a history of art is chronicling the development of the medium. We still study "Pamela or, Virtue Rewarded" by Samuel Richardson not because it's a particularly good book that pushes the envelope of the medium of the book or even the genre of the novel, but because it's the first major media event that found popular success in the publishing world. It's important, in essence, because people bought it and liked it enough to respond to it. Goldeneye definitely qualifies under those criteria.
Okay I can get behind that
I will admit that I didn't really look into this much but if it is aiming to show a timeline of the medium's progression as art then okay sure
let me make sure I'm following the right path
so
games are made to be interacted with
therefore the mechanics, as they dictate how that interaction occurs, are central to what a game is
and since the nature of the interaction affects how the ideas are presented, and events are experienced, the mechanics have artistic merit?
why not?
if an art installment in a museum is intentionally designed to be interacted with physically by the public, then isn't that a valid consideration in the piece's consideration as art?
A lot of the "videogames are totally art" crowd focuses on examples of videogames with an interesting and beautiful visual style and/or a really compelling story. I guess the idea there is everybody already agrees that exciting and innovate visuals are one kind of art, and compelling stories with strong characters are another, and if you can prove videogames can have one or the other then I guess you've got yourself an art right there. Ok.
I think that's kind of a lamer argument than could be otherwise made, though, because it doesn't point to anything really unique or interesting about videogames themselves that can't be done elsewhere. So if videogames are art--which personally I mean why not, what isn't art these days you know--then I think the best examples are going to be not the really story-heavy or interesting-visuals or whatever kind of games, but the games with really strong, fluid, intuitive gameplay mechanics, because that's something actually unique to videogames.
So when I think of videogames as art I think, weirdly, of games like Quake 3 and (the multiplayer of) Starcraft, where, visuals and story and such left completely to one side, there's clearly something present in the way the game was designed that allows players at the very highest levels of skill to explore deeper and deeper into the game's strategies without it ever ceasing to be interesting and surprising. In games like that, increases in mechanical skill (APM and precision and execution in Starcraft; general movement and aim in Quake) aren't an end in themselves but lead to the opening up of new strategies: if you can micro your drones better than anyone else thought possible, maybe you can fend off that rush without having to sacrifice economy for zerglings; if your lg is astounding, maybe you can stay and fight for armors/megas you 'should' have to run away from.
I dunno maybe what I'm sort of drooling over here isn't really art but just really good game design, or not videogames as art but game design as art, or something, if there's a difference. Someone could say that and I wouldn't really vehemently disagree because I don't think I have much of an idea what art is anyway.
But whatever it is that I'm seeing there (and in other games, and in some singleplayer games too except it's harder there to separate it from the story/visuals/whatever stuff and narrow down what is uniquely videogame-y about it) is probably something really awesome and worthy (I think, as a huge gaynerd) of maybe being thought about at length, art or no.
I actually kinda dig the design of Hell in the Dante's Inferno game. Now, whether or not that game is actually good is up for debate, but it really isn't very good.
listening to what you guys are saying this is for sure a "hey guys look at all these videos games we love!" and not an art thing
i mean goldeneye seriously
If this were a book display would you choose books that you personally enjoyed or were touched by or some other book that by some archaic measurement was more "art"?
I would choose books that used the constraints of the medium to engage and impact the reader in a unique and inventive way
If you are seriously going to argue that goldeneye has artistic merit outside of 'it is fun to shoot dudes' then I just don't even know
Now think about how a video game has made you blasé about executing people with guns.
That says much more about our culture of entertainment than one particular video juego
The distinguishing component of games are their interactivity. There's an art to how to that mechanic, and while Golden Eye might be a really primitive example of FPS deathmatch, the number of people engaged by the mechanic is pretty large. That's fundamentally important to how games develop as art.
I can see you're trying to make some big point here, but the fact that video games are interactive isn't something I've overlooked. It's actually exactly what i was referencing when I mentioned 'the constraints of the medium'.
But saying a game is fun and enjoyed by a lot of people doesn't really say much. Is tetris making an artistic statement because it is fun and people really like it?
Part of executing a history of art is chronicling the development of the medium. We still study "Pamela or, Virtue Rewarded" by Samuel Richardson not because it's a particularly good book that pushes the envelope of the medium of the book or even the genre of the novel, but because it's the first major media event that found popular success in the publishing world. It's important, in essence, because people bought it and liked it enough to respond to it. Goldeneye definitely qualifies under those criteria.
While I totally get what you are saying and agree with you, that is not how I voted because I felt that this particular exhibit wasn't intending to make that sort of commentary. Instead I felt they were going for the "Visually striking, or engaging story, etc" stuff
But YES this kind of commentary should be included, I don't think people are hitting that note with Goldeneye cause it's kinda still young for that? does that make sense? But then I can't think of an earlier, home console multiplayer deathmatch type game thing...
Some titles I chose for artistic merit, but I must admit some were chosen cause they were dear to my heart.
Also what the FUCK could there be more MARIO titles?
And not a single fighter in the whole lot, there are some huge mistakes in game selection IMO.
Like Tony Hawk? GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE, put SSX Tricky in that Slot PLZKTHX
I'm pretty upset because organizing things like this is my dream-career-path and I hope to be doing things like this in the future and feel like I should be on the team that is putting this together or something.
But hey, I voted. I hope my votes get through, also I'd love to experience this.
Hey all! Thanks for the comments. Here is a bit more regarding the intent of the exhibition:
The Art of Video Games will explore the 40-year evolution of video games as an artistic medium. The exhibition will highlight how new technologies have allowed for increasingly interactive and sophisticated game environments while staying grounded in the traditions of each game type. It will feature games with striking visual graphics and recognize some of the creative individuals who have made significant contributions. The exhibition will also explore the many influences on game designers and the pervasive presence video games have in the broader popular culture, with new relationships to video art, film and television, educational practices, and professional skill training. The Art of Video Games is not about the most popular games of all time, nor is it about the individual games themselves. This is not a historic review that seeks to capture every memorable moment in video game history.
That is taken from the FAQ now posted on the voting site.
Happy to answer any other questions about the exhibition.
Chris Melissinos
CMelissinos on
0
Options
cj iwakuraThe Rhythm RegentBears The Name FreedomRegistered Userregular
edited February 2011
I want to know who sold their soul to get Xyanide in the running. I couldn't be more shocked, I thought I was the only person on the planet who'd played that game.
I want to know who sold their soul to get Xyanide in the running. I couldn't be more shocked, I thought I was the only person on the planet who'd played that game.
No bartering for exchange of souls was required! I picked it
Posts
interactive mechanics
more important than you thought
I can see you're trying to make some big point here, but the fact that video games are interactive isn't something I've overlooked. It's actually exactly what i was referencing when I mentioned 'the constraints of the medium'.
But saying a game is fun and enjoyed by a lot of people doesn't really say much. Is tetris making an artistic statement because it is fun and people really like it?
Amazon Wishlist: http://www.amazon.com/BusterK/wishlist/3JPEKJGX9G54I/ref=cm_wl_search_bin_1
I mean, I think it's easier right now for us to point to games that excel with visuals and story, because it's an understanding that's easy to adopt from other forms. The way that play mechanics emphasize or distance or otherwise modify the player's access to those familiar ideas will become increasingly developed and nuanced the same as character or light or narrative framing or cinematography or or or.
Not that Golden Eye is great or anything, but it does what it does relatively early and reaches a large number of people, and to say that the intent and design of that system is inartistic is kinda crap.
Part of executing a history of art is chronicling the development of the medium. We still study "Pamela or, Virtue Rewarded" by Samuel Richardson not because it's a particularly good book that pushes the envelope of the medium of the book or even the genre of the novel, but because it's the first major media event that found popular success in the publishing world. It's important, in essence, because people bought it and liked it enough to respond to it. Goldeneye definitely qualifies under those criteria.
Man, not all art has to be complex or challenging or innovative or unique. It doesn't even have to be good to be art.
But there's certainly more going on in Golden Eye than "it's fun to shoot people."
so
games are made to be interacted with
therefore the mechanics, as they dictate how that interaction occurs, are central to what a game is
and since the nature of the interaction affects how the ideas are presented, and events are experienced, the mechanics have artistic merit?
I mean, Braid is a pretty game, but it's the blending of that with the well developed game mechanics that I think make it rise above other games.
Not the story, though. That part is dumb.
Okay I can get behind that
I will admit that I didn't really look into this much but if it is aiming to show a timeline of the medium's progression as art then okay sure
why not?
if an art installment in a museum is intentionally designed to be interacted with physically by the public, then isn't that a valid consideration in the piece's consideration as art?
I think that's kind of a lamer argument than could be otherwise made, though, because it doesn't point to anything really unique or interesting about videogames themselves that can't be done elsewhere. So if videogames are art--which personally I mean why not, what isn't art these days you know--then I think the best examples are going to be not the really story-heavy or interesting-visuals or whatever kind of games, but the games with really strong, fluid, intuitive gameplay mechanics, because that's something actually unique to videogames.
So when I think of videogames as art I think, weirdly, of games like Quake 3 and (the multiplayer of) Starcraft, where, visuals and story and such left completely to one side, there's clearly something present in the way the game was designed that allows players at the very highest levels of skill to explore deeper and deeper into the game's strategies without it ever ceasing to be interesting and surprising. In games like that, increases in mechanical skill (APM and precision and execution in Starcraft; general movement and aim in Quake) aren't an end in themselves but lead to the opening up of new strategies: if you can micro your drones better than anyone else thought possible, maybe you can fend off that rush without having to sacrifice economy for zerglings; if your lg is astounding, maybe you can stay and fight for armors/megas you 'should' have to run away from.
I dunno maybe what I'm sort of drooling over here isn't really art but just really good game design, or not videogames as art but game design as art, or something, if there's a difference. Someone could say that and I wouldn't really vehemently disagree because I don't think I have much of an idea what art is anyway.
But whatever it is that I'm seeing there (and in other games, and in some singleplayer games too except it's harder there to separate it from the story/visuals/whatever stuff and narrow down what is uniquely videogame-y about it) is probably something really awesome and worthy (I think, as a huge gaynerd) of maybe being thought about at length, art or no.
:winky:
well mine certainly is
more controversial than Piss Christ
it's a shame it can't be sold
...only rented
no, butt tarts
Oh...
Wait.
i will critique your butts
and i'm not gonna know what to do
Ibn Buttuta
I mean, it has flaming demon assholes. That is artistic as hell.
Art.
now that shit would be crazy
While I totally get what you are saying and agree with you, that is not how I voted because I felt that this particular exhibit wasn't intending to make that sort of commentary. Instead I felt they were going for the "Visually striking, or engaging story, etc" stuff
But YES this kind of commentary should be included, I don't think people are hitting that note with Goldeneye cause it's kinda still young for that? does that make sense? But then I can't think of an earlier, home console multiplayer deathmatch type game thing...
Dear satan I wish for this or maybe some of this....oh and I'm a medium or a large.
Hey all! Thanks for the comments. Here is a bit more regarding the intent of the exhibition:
The Art of Video Games will explore the 40-year evolution of video games as an artistic medium. The exhibition will highlight how new technologies have allowed for increasingly interactive and sophisticated game environments while staying grounded in the traditions of each game type. It will feature games with striking visual graphics and recognize some of the creative individuals who have made significant contributions. The exhibition will also explore the many influences on game designers and the pervasive presence video games have in the broader popular culture, with new relationships to video art, film and television, educational practices, and professional skill training. The Art of Video Games is not about the most popular games of all time, nor is it about the individual games themselves. This is not a historic review that seeks to capture every memorable moment in video game history.
That is taken from the FAQ now posted on the voting site.
Happy to answer any other questions about the exhibition.
Chris Melissinos
No bartering for exchange of souls was required! I picked it
Chris