Accomplishment: This goes hand and hand with challenge. Satisfaction from performing a difficult task is a pretty unique feeling to have in a creative medium, but videogames sure can make you feel like a badass.
Conversely, the denial of the feeling of accomplishment is pretty goddamn powerful, and frequently misunderstood when applied.
Dragon Age, for example, has done a surprisingly good job of creating actual moral problems, rather than obvious binary choices of puppy-kicking versus saintliness, and that's a game mostly designed around killing monsters and taking their shit. Batman AA had some great scenes with the Scarecrow gas, although the interactivity of those scenes was usually disappointingly limited (they could have taken some cues from Eternal Darkness).
While Dragon Age is a lot less black/white than previous Bioware games, I really don't think it comes close to the sort of grey area that creates moral problems. I'm going to go with the requisite response in this case, and give far more credit to Obsidian and Chris Avellone in that department.
I somewhat agree with you about Batman: AA though. While I liked the little fakeouts, I think the little linear levels they threw you in were silly and poorly designed. And yeah, I agree that they should've taken more cues from Eternal Darkness' Sanity Effects.
Also, I'm pretty sure more people had problems with Shadow of the Colossus' framerate than its gameplay itself. Neither have stopped it from becoming a critical and commercial success however.
Dragon Age, for example, has done a surprisingly good job of creating actual moral problems, rather than obvious binary choices of puppy-kicking versus saintliness, and that's a game mostly designed around killing monsters and taking their shit. Batman AA had some great scenes with the Scarecrow gas, although the interactivity of those scenes was usually disappointingly limited (they could have taken some cues from Eternal Darkness).
While Dragon Age is a lot less black/white than previous Bioware games, I really don't think it comes close to the sort of grey area that creates moral problems. I'm going to go with the requisite response in this case, and give far more credit to Obsidian and Chris Avellone in that department.
Some of it was pretty gray though. Like the entire Dwarf quest line.
-Loki- on
0
Options
TrynantManiac BrawlerRank 20.100 and full WildRegistered Userregular
edited February 2010
In regards to Shadow of the Colossus, if you look in the Backlog Challenge thread there are a few people who beat that game and came out of it complaining about the horrid controls. Even Tycho once argued that while the game is fun to watch, it's your cross to bear if you have to play it. I cannot sympathize with these assessments of the game's controls, but nevertheless it's a complaint that has come up.
I'm not sure it's even the right debate to be having. Maybe a better question would be "for what purpose," which might be kind of like what Trynant is getting to above. In what way does thinking about Madden 2010 or Bit.Trip.Beat as art change the way you interact with it? Why do you need the label to think about them in some particular way?
Personally I find games pretty lacking as an art form, with the most ambitious efforts rarely rising above the level of pulp fiction, or an average Hollywood movie. That might be due to the types of people the industry attracts, or the market demands of the target demographic. Having said that, it's not like many other forms of popular entertainment are faring much better.
Trynant, I'm not sure what you mean by Challenge. I've never felt intellectually challenged by a video game, other than for more mechanical tasks like making a calculation or solve a puzzle. Physically, maybe.
I'll give you Fear. I've been equally scared, repulsed, and creeped out by video games as much as any other medium, although I am not that familiar with the horror genre.
Accomplishment: This one has potential, but needs a lot of development.
Saddler on
0
Options
MongerI got the ham stink.Dallas, TXRegistered Userregular
edited February 2010
I have always felt that the looseness of the controls in SotC were an important extension of that particular character's frailty. He's not a badass. He's some shmuck that has absolutely no idea what he's gotten himself into in his thickheaded quest to save a decided dead girl. If Wander controlled tightly, the game wouldn't make as good of a point about just how in over his head he is.
TrynantManiac BrawlerRank 20.100 and full WildRegistered Userregular
edited February 2010
Huh, I really never thought of the control scheme characterizing Wanda in that sense, although I felt the controls of Agro were absolutely brilliant because of how it made it feel like the horse was a living creature you had to wrestle with to move. What stood out for me more in SotC was the game's pacing. As it has been stated before, all of those lonely rides through the wilderness gave the player a good period of relaxation and time for introspection. The game would not have been half as poignant if the player was denied the experience of pondering the reasons behind killing the colossi.
Trynant, I'm not sure what you mean by Challenge. I've never felt intellectually challenged by a video game, other than for more mechanical tasks like making a calculation or solve a puzzle. Physically, maybe.
I'll give you Fear. I've been equally scared, repulsed, and creeped out by video games as much as any other medium, although I am not that familiar with the horror genre.
Accomplishment: This one has potential, but needs a lot of development.
With challenge, I specifically means in regards to a game being more capable of demanding effort from you as a player. While I agree there isn't an intellectual challenge to a game, I was indeed talking about a physical and mechanical challenge. Videogames have an unique position in that they provide these challenges in spades. Even when including intellectual challenge, videogames can draw from a much more simple and easy-to-implement type of challenge. In a way, challenge is in the same boat as fear in videogames. Intellectually, non-interactive media have an advantage in conveying certain ideas, while videogames can evoke a more primal sensation. Furthermore, challenge can result in a variety of emotions and feelings, a big one being accomplishment. So challenge is more of a gaming device rather than a feeling or thought provoked by the game.
It should also be noted that challenging a player is intrinsically detrimental to a linear narrative because the challenge will block a player's progress further into the game. It's like solving a crossword puzzle to flip a page in a book.
It seems to me that the ability to challenge a player in a very physical sense is both a blessing and a curse for videogames. On one hand, it's a totally unique feature to the medium. On the other, it makes using standard conventions derived from other media much harder to implement (e.g. stories in games kinda get ruined if you can't beat the game).
I've always looked at this "art is X" thing as being totally defined by whoever the viewer/participant is. I can look at ANYTHING, a tree, and think it's beautiful and detailed and this and that, while duder to my right sees nothing but another plant. I chose to see the value in that tree, which may not be another persons cup of tea. I've had someone look at a piece of art I did in college, the lady is coming up with all kinds of observations about the mood and what I wanted the viewer to feel. Sorry, but I painted a monster coming out of a wonky, twisty, darkened hallway because I like monsters and wanted to turn something in on time for a passing grade. She enjoyed all kinds of stuff I never intended, which is fine by me, any time I can entertain is a plus.
Then I think you get enough like minded folks together echoing that "art is X", contantly growing louder as their ranks fill, striking out at those who disagree in the process, or turning those on the fence with aspirations of social acceptance, suddenly there's somekind of established definition.
Personally, I could give a rats ass if gaming is art or not either way. I'll make what I enjoy and play what I enjoy on my own terms, leave this interpretation stuff to everyone else.
I never found the controls loose at all in Shadow of the Colossus
In fact I can't really understand people's complaints regarding them
And people give Chris Avellone far too much credit these days
I think you could describe the controls as loose, they're really floaty at times, but that's the right feel for Shadow of the Colossus. If there is anything wrong with sotc it would be UI related.
Beck on
Lucas's Franklin Badge reflected the lightning back!
Oh I read the OP. It basically said "there's no arguments for either side of the debate that can be talked about in this thread", which is odd because then what's the point of discussing the video games and art debate if you can't talk about either side?
e: And apparently I'm too cool for OPs.
urahonky on
0
Options
TrynantManiac BrawlerRank 20.100 and full WildRegistered Userregular
edited February 2010
I specifically decided to avoid titling this thread "Are Videogames Art?" or employing that question, because it is more or less a trick question and a dead horse. There's more to discussing videogames and art than arguing semantics and making fallacious statements like "videogames turning into art would be bad because it'll take the entertainment out of them." Those are overdone, trivial issues that impede better parts of the discussion. I highlighted several topics that are more viable than saying "anything is art" (we know that) or "art sucks so let's not put it in videogames" (an over-generalization and erroneous to boot).
There's plenty of other facets to videogames and art that raise much more interesting and debatable questions.
EDIT: I updated the OP to clarify what you shouldn't say in this thread and why. I'm not trying to be a rule-nazi, it's just that most of the things I listed there are really detrimental to some really interesting debates.
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
edited February 2010
The only reason people care if games are art or not is because they have a bunch of loaded preconceptions that they associate with things they deem to be art.
Even the question "are games good art" is a horrible one to answer because you'd get the same bifurcation of opinion you'd get if you asked that of constable paintings.
My opinion on the debates as far as it goes;
- Games do not fall into the category of things that have traditionally been regarded as art - paintings, drawings, sculpture etc
- Games are in general not created explicitly as aesthetic objects/experiences
- Games are mostly produced by committee, and thus are notably different to most art which is produced by a single mind
All of these are, to me, "so what" statements. I enjoy games a lot. I had a far more profound experience playing VTM bloodlines than I did looking at any number of terrible strained renaissance artists. Eat a silly goose Giotto.
surrealitycheck on
0
Options
TrynantManiac BrawlerRank 20.100 and full WildRegistered Userregular
The only reason people care if games are art or not is because they have a bunch of loaded preconceptions that they associate with things they deem to be art.
Even the question "are games good art" is a horrible one to answer because you'd get the same bifurcation of opinion you'd get if you asked that of constable paintings.
My opinion on the debates as far as it goes;
- Games do not fall into the category of things that have traditionally been regarded as art - paintings, drawings, sculpture etc
- Games are in general not created explicitly as aesthetic objects/experiences
- Games are mostly produced by committee, and thus are notably different to most art which is produced by a single mind
All of these are, to me, "so what" statements. I enjoy games a lot. I had a far more profound experience playing VTM bloodlines than I did looking at any number of terrible strained renaissance artists. Eat a silly goose Giotto.
I don't think the question here is "are games good art?" because, again, that's questioning if all games are of that quality. You're right, that's a horrible question to answer. Rather a better question, one I think is under discussion, is how can a videogame decidedly be good art if people set out to do make it so. Good art is still a vague phrase, but specifically asking how games can pull a stunt like Citizen Kane did is probably a better query.
Hell, don't even bring the word art into question, but ask how videogames can produce a wider array of emotions and ideas than the rather limited set of feelings that are chugged out by mainstream titles. That to me is enough of an issue.
And it's somewhat erroneous to say games are notably different to most art because of a group of people working on it. Movies have sometimes hundreds of people involved in their development, and to think that a sole individual is responsible for the outcome of a film is ridiculous (yes, even the director is not all powerful).
EDIT- So how about something other than arguing over the stupidity of asking about art and videogames and talking about some interesting experiments with game design with an artistic intent.
Jonathan Blow gave a presentation on the problems with implementing stories with games as well as covering some of the alternatives to using a story to convey a message in a videogame. The talk borders on pretentiousness sometimes but some valid points come up.
Namely I want to talk about how some games are trying to use their rules as a way of conveying some deep meaning. Some examples include The Marriage and Gravitation. Now, the big problem here is that these games deliver some fairly childish and contrived messages (both creators of each game admit to this flaw). A question presented in the speech is can a game expand upon the small rulesets like the aforementioned titles and be made into feature-length videogames, or is that model only sustainable for small titles.
The ideas of using the rules of the games as symbols and exploring their relationships are very interesting concepts in my mind. I would like to see people work with these concepts in their games more, but instead of delivering a big, simplified message to rather explore complex themes and issues without trying to provide a definitive answer.
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
edited February 2010
Oh, potentially sure. There is no image or set of images that you can broadcast on a video but not on a game. It sounds trivial, but it is significant - as games tend toward photorealism, it will eventually be possible to produce film-like experiences. Indeed, one can imagine a version of citizen kane in 3d where you have limited mobility around each scene (which tiny step would surely not rob of its artistic uniqueness - in fact I can already imagine the blurb; "experience the freedom of point of view that the creators of Citizen Kane wishes to bring across with their pioneering camerawork - IN 3D!!!!!").
And it's somewhat erroneous to say games are notably different to most art because of a group of people working on it. Movies have sometimes hundreds of people involved in their development, and to think that a sole individual is responsible for the outcome of a film is ridiculous (yes, even the director is not all powerful).
I know, but the point was very much looking at the "traditional" implications of the word. I know several people who will regard films as being "classics" without being art. Taking the razor to its logical conclusion.
The more interesting question for me is whether or not games will start to expand their emotional repertoire, and focus more on their stories. I sincerely hope it will happen, especially in RPGs.
surrealitycheck on
0
Options
TrynantManiac BrawlerRank 20.100 and full WildRegistered Userregular
edited February 2010
YES! Let's talk about stories in videogames; I think a proper implementation of a well-done story is absolutely way to make games "artistic," but we can ignore the stupid semantics debate!
The problem with stories in videogames is that they can be mucked up by a very simple question, "does this story work better in a videogame than it would in a book, movie, or TV show?" I find it very hard to say yes to that question. Even the stories with branching paths end up leading to an inevitable conclusion, and adding gameplay challenges more impedes a story than adds to it. If you can't beat the boss, you can't continue the story is a very obvious example of this.
One game that I suspect will circumvent this problem is Heavy Rain. There's no game over here, failure only means the story takes another direction. I think stories in games will have to follow this model more or less in order to validate a stories involvement in a videogame in the first place (i.e. to make story that wouldn't work in other media).
There's a problem with Heavy Rain (admittedly I only can judge the title from the demo and trailers), however, in that the gameplay compared to other titles out now is not that engaging. It really is one big quicktime event. I wonder how a game can implement great gameplay and still have a narrative that isn't impeded by this gameplay.
It's probably because excitement and thrills are easy and the deeper, more significant emotions are harder
My question was asking why they are "more significant".
Because I don't see why they're so much more significant just because they are harder.
If anything I see a false association with significance based on rarity. Because they're rare, they must be significant, because we place value on rarity. Which isn't the same as them actually being more significant from the start: instead it's personal economics.
I don't see any reason why they'd be more significant other than this.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
0
Options
MongerI got the ham stink.Dallas, TXRegistered Userregular
It's probably because excitement and thrills are easy and the deeper, more significant emotions are harder
My question was asking why they are "more significant".
Because I don't see why they're so much more significant just because they are harder.
If anything I see a false association with significance based on rarity. Because they're rare, they must be significant, because we place value on rarity. Which isn't the same as them actually being more significant from the start: instead it's personal economics.
I don't see any reason why they'd be more significant other than this.
Emotion is fundamentally subjective. Physiologically so. Any and all significance is personal, and it is inevitable that any given person will find some emotions more significant than others. There's not much point in trying to root out why any of us find any particular emotion significant without deep psychological analysis of everyone involved in this discussion. I, for one, believe it is in our collective best interest to avoid that completely terrifying prospect.
TrynantManiac BrawlerRank 20.100 and full WildRegistered Userregular
edited February 2010
[lofty naive pretentious thoughts]
I would consider love, hate, grief, greed, and all those emotions you see in works that are more likely to be called "art" to be more significant than excitement and thrills because, in my opinion, they are more complex feelings that seem unique to the human condition. Thrills, while thrilling, are fairly shallow experiences that don't inspire people nor change lives as much as emotions that you're doubting the significance of.
[/lofty naive pretentious thoughts]
EDIT-Monger seems to have beaten me to a response and has responded with a far better suggestion than I would think to say.
It's probably because excitement and thrills are easy and the deeper, more significant emotions are harder
My question was asking why they are "more significant".
Because I don't see why they're so much more significant just because they are harder.
If anything I see a false association with significance based on rarity. Because they're rare, they must be significant, because we place value on rarity. Which isn't the same as them actually being more significant from the start: instead it's personal economics.
I don't see any reason why they'd be more significant other than this.
Emotion is fundamentally subjective. Physiologically so. Any and all significance is personal, and it is inevitable that any given person will find some emotions more significant than others. There's not much point in trying to root out why any of us find any particular emotion significant without deep psychological analysis of everyone involved in this discussion. I, for one, believe it is in our collective best interest to avoid that completely terrifying prospect.
Hmm you kind of cut the rug out from under me, since I was trying to make the point you just made, without being direct about it.
I was then going to go on to say: and hence judging the merits of something based on what kinds of emotion it evokes is fundamentally flawed.
It'd be better to look at how well each work evokes what it is trying to evoke. If it does it well, then it's a worthy work of equal value to a different work attempting to evoke a different emotion.
It just happens that the game market is oversaturated with games targetting to one type of emotional experience right now. This doesn't necessarily invalidate those works that are good at evoking that type of experience.
So, basically, attempting to discuss arts in terms of a heirarchy of emotions isn't going to get us anywhere and we'd be better off not doing that.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
0
Options
MongerI got the ham stink.Dallas, TXRegistered Userregular
It's probably because excitement and thrills are easy and the deeper, more significant emotions are harder
My question was asking why they are "more significant".
Because I don't see why they're so much more significant just because they are harder.
If anything I see a false association with significance based on rarity. Because they're rare, they must be significant, because we place value on rarity. Which isn't the same as them actually being more significant from the start: instead it's personal economics.
I don't see any reason why they'd be more significant other than this.
Emotion is fundamentally subjective. Physiologically so. Any and all significance is personal, and it is inevitable that any given person will find some emotions more significant than others. There's not much point in trying to root out why any of us find any particular emotion significant without deep psychological analysis of everyone involved in this discussion. I, for one, believe it is in our collective best interest to avoid that completely terrifying prospect.
Hmm you kind of cut the rug out from under me, since I was trying to make the point you just made, without being direct about it.
I was then going to go on to say: and hence judging the merits of something based on what kinds of emotion it evokes is fundamentally flawed.
It'd be better to look at how well each work evokes what it is trying to evoke. If it does it well, then it's a worthy work of equal value to a different work attempting to evoke a different emotion.
It just happens that the game market is oversaturated with games targetting to one type of emotional experience right now. This doesn't necessarily invalidate those works that are good at evoking that type of experience.
So, basically, attempting to discuss arts in terms of a heirarchy of emotions isn't going to get us anywhere and we'd be better off not doing that.
I can't be held accountable for finishing your thoughts. Great minds and all.
But yes, thoroughness in execution of intent is where it's at.
One game that I suspect will circumvent this problem is Heavy Rain. There's no game over here, failure only means the story takes another direction. I think stories in games will have to follow this model more or less in order to validate a stories involvement in a videogame in the first place (i.e. to make story that wouldn't work in other media).
While that may (or may not) be successful in the context of that game, I don't quite think that adapting that narrative device to video games in general would do much to elevate them to "art".
In fact, I would think that the relative "artiness" or (perhaps I should say) critical merit of a given video game has less to do with whatever narrative or gameplay devices it employs but rather its success at transcending the limitations of its form. For example, there were puzzle games before Tetris, and there have been many puzzle games made after Tetris; but it was Tetris that transcended the conventional form of puzzle games at that time to become something entirely different - something completely innovative and inimitable.
Posts
All right, people. It is not a gerbil. It is not a hamster. It is not a guinea pig. It is a death rabbit. Death. Rabbit. Say it with me, now.
While Dragon Age is a lot less black/white than previous Bioware games, I really don't think it comes close to the sort of grey area that creates moral problems. I'm going to go with the requisite response in this case, and give far more credit to Obsidian and Chris Avellone in that department.
I somewhat agree with you about Batman: AA though. While I liked the little fakeouts, I think the little linear levels they threw you in were silly and poorly designed. And yeah, I agree that they should've taken more cues from Eternal Darkness' Sanity Effects.
Also, I'm pretty sure more people had problems with Shadow of the Colossus' framerate than its gameplay itself. Neither have stopped it from becoming a critical and commercial success however.
Some of it was pretty gray though. Like the entire Dwarf quest line.
Aces Wild is a pretty stellar game.
Blog, Playing Rules; Let's Play Demon's Souls; My Backlog
Personally I find games pretty lacking as an art form, with the most ambitious efforts rarely rising above the level of pulp fiction, or an average Hollywood movie. That might be due to the types of people the industry attracts, or the market demands of the target demographic. Having said that, it's not like many other forms of popular entertainment are faring much better.
Trynant, I'm not sure what you mean by Challenge. I've never felt intellectually challenged by a video game, other than for more mechanical tasks like making a calculation or solve a puzzle. Physically, maybe.
I'll give you Fear. I've been equally scared, repulsed, and creeped out by video games as much as any other medium, although I am not that familiar with the horror genre.
Accomplishment: This one has potential, but needs a lot of development.
All right, people. It is not a gerbil. It is not a hamster. It is not a guinea pig. It is a death rabbit. Death. Rabbit. Say it with me, now.
With challenge, I specifically means in regards to a game being more capable of demanding effort from you as a player. While I agree there isn't an intellectual challenge to a game, I was indeed talking about a physical and mechanical challenge. Videogames have an unique position in that they provide these challenges in spades. Even when including intellectual challenge, videogames can draw from a much more simple and easy-to-implement type of challenge. In a way, challenge is in the same boat as fear in videogames. Intellectually, non-interactive media have an advantage in conveying certain ideas, while videogames can evoke a more primal sensation. Furthermore, challenge can result in a variety of emotions and feelings, a big one being accomplishment. So challenge is more of a gaming device rather than a feeling or thought provoked by the game.
It should also be noted that challenging a player is intrinsically detrimental to a linear narrative because the challenge will block a player's progress further into the game. It's like solving a crossword puzzle to flip a page in a book.
It seems to me that the ability to challenge a player in a very physical sense is both a blessing and a curse for videogames. On one hand, it's a totally unique feature to the medium. On the other, it makes using standard conventions derived from other media much harder to implement (e.g. stories in games kinda get ruined if you can't beat the game).
Aces Wild is a pretty stellar game.
Blog, Playing Rules; Let's Play Demon's Souls; My Backlog
In fact I can't really understand people's complaints regarding them
And people give Chris Avellone far too much credit these days
PSN ID : DetectiveOlivaw | TWITTER | STEAM ID | NEVER FORGET
Then I think you get enough like minded folks together echoing that "art is X", contantly growing louder as their ranks fill, striking out at those who disagree in the process, or turning those on the fence with aspirations of social acceptance, suddenly there's somekind of established definition.
Personally, I could give a rats ass if gaming is art or not either way. I'll make what I enjoy and play what I enjoy on my own terms, leave this interpretation stuff to everyone else.
Snowballs in peril! Action/Puzzle = Snowball's Chance E1 (it's free now!)
I think you could describe the controls as loose, they're really floaty at times, but that's the right feel for Shadow of the Colossus. If there is anything wrong with sotc it would be UI related.
e: And apparently I'm too cool for OPs.
There's plenty of other facets to videogames and art that raise much more interesting and debatable questions.
EDIT: I updated the OP to clarify what you shouldn't say in this thread and why. I'm not trying to be a rule-nazi, it's just that most of the things I listed there are really detrimental to some really interesting debates.
Aces Wild is a pretty stellar game.
Blog, Playing Rules; Let's Play Demon's Souls; My Backlog
Even the question "are games good art" is a horrible one to answer because you'd get the same bifurcation of opinion you'd get if you asked that of constable paintings.
My opinion on the debates as far as it goes;
- Games do not fall into the category of things that have traditionally been regarded as art - paintings, drawings, sculpture etc
- Games are in general not created explicitly as aesthetic objects/experiences
- Games are mostly produced by committee, and thus are notably different to most art which is produced by a single mind
All of these are, to me, "so what" statements. I enjoy games a lot. I had a far more profound experience playing VTM bloodlines than I did looking at any number of terrible strained renaissance artists. Eat a silly goose Giotto.
I don't think the question here is "are games good art?" because, again, that's questioning if all games are of that quality. You're right, that's a horrible question to answer. Rather a better question, one I think is under discussion, is how can a videogame decidedly be good art if people set out to do make it so. Good art is still a vague phrase, but specifically asking how games can pull a stunt like Citizen Kane did is probably a better query.
Hell, don't even bring the word art into question, but ask how videogames can produce a wider array of emotions and ideas than the rather limited set of feelings that are chugged out by mainstream titles. That to me is enough of an issue.
And it's somewhat erroneous to say games are notably different to most art because of a group of people working on it. Movies have sometimes hundreds of people involved in their development, and to think that a sole individual is responsible for the outcome of a film is ridiculous (yes, even the director is not all powerful).
EDIT- So how about something other than arguing over the stupidity of asking about art and videogames and talking about some interesting experiments with game design with an artistic intent.
Jonathan Blow gave a presentation on the problems with implementing stories with games as well as covering some of the alternatives to using a story to convey a message in a videogame. The talk borders on pretentiousness sometimes but some valid points come up.
Namely I want to talk about how some games are trying to use their rules as a way of conveying some deep meaning. Some examples include The Marriage and Gravitation. Now, the big problem here is that these games deliver some fairly childish and contrived messages (both creators of each game admit to this flaw). A question presented in the speech is can a game expand upon the small rulesets like the aforementioned titles and be made into feature-length videogames, or is that model only sustainable for small titles.
The ideas of using the rules of the games as symbols and exploring their relationships are very interesting concepts in my mind. I would like to see people work with these concepts in their games more, but instead of delivering a big, simplified message to rather explore complex themes and issues without trying to provide a definitive answer.
Aces Wild is a pretty stellar game.
Blog, Playing Rules; Let's Play Demon's Souls; My Backlog
I know, but the point was very much looking at the "traditional" implications of the word. I know several people who will regard films as being "classics" without being art. Taking the razor to its logical conclusion.
The more interesting question for me is whether or not games will start to expand their emotional repertoire, and focus more on their stories. I sincerely hope it will happen, especially in RPGs.
The problem with stories in videogames is that they can be mucked up by a very simple question, "does this story work better in a videogame than it would in a book, movie, or TV show?" I find it very hard to say yes to that question. Even the stories with branching paths end up leading to an inevitable conclusion, and adding gameplay challenges more impedes a story than adds to it. If you can't beat the boss, you can't continue the story is a very obvious example of this.
One game that I suspect will circumvent this problem is Heavy Rain. There's no game over here, failure only means the story takes another direction. I think stories in games will have to follow this model more or less in order to validate a stories involvement in a videogame in the first place (i.e. to make story that wouldn't work in other media).
There's a problem with Heavy Rain (admittedly I only can judge the title from the demo and trailers), however, in that the gameplay compared to other titles out now is not that engaging. It really is one big quicktime event. I wonder how a game can implement great gameplay and still have a narrative that isn't impeded by this gameplay.
Aces Wild is a pretty stellar game.
Blog, Playing Rules; Let's Play Demon's Souls; My Backlog
My question was asking why they are "more significant".
Because I don't see why they're so much more significant just because they are harder.
If anything I see a false association with significance based on rarity. Because they're rare, they must be significant, because we place value on rarity. Which isn't the same as them actually being more significant from the start: instead it's personal economics.
I don't see any reason why they'd be more significant other than this.
All right, people. It is not a gerbil. It is not a hamster. It is not a guinea pig. It is a death rabbit. Death. Rabbit. Say it with me, now.
I would consider love, hate, grief, greed, and all those emotions you see in works that are more likely to be called "art" to be more significant than excitement and thrills because, in my opinion, they are more complex feelings that seem unique to the human condition. Thrills, while thrilling, are fairly shallow experiences that don't inspire people nor change lives as much as emotions that you're doubting the significance of.
[/lofty naive pretentious thoughts]
EDIT-Monger seems to have beaten me to a response and has responded with a far better suggestion than I would think to say.
Aces Wild is a pretty stellar game.
Blog, Playing Rules; Let's Play Demon's Souls; My Backlog
Other emotions, like love, hate, grief, despair, and hope all came around when our brains grew bigger than walnuts
PSN ID : DetectiveOlivaw | TWITTER | STEAM ID | NEVER FORGET
Hmm you kind of cut the rug out from under me, since I was trying to make the point you just made, without being direct about it.
I was then going to go on to say: and hence judging the merits of something based on what kinds of emotion it evokes is fundamentally flawed.
It'd be better to look at how well each work evokes what it is trying to evoke. If it does it well, then it's a worthy work of equal value to a different work attempting to evoke a different emotion.
It just happens that the game market is oversaturated with games targetting to one type of emotional experience right now. This doesn't necessarily invalidate those works that are good at evoking that type of experience.
So, basically, attempting to discuss arts in terms of a heirarchy of emotions isn't going to get us anywhere and we'd be better off not doing that.
But yes, thoroughness in execution of intent is where it's at.
All right, people. It is not a gerbil. It is not a hamster. It is not a guinea pig. It is a death rabbit. Death. Rabbit. Say it with me, now.
While that may (or may not) be successful in the context of that game, I don't quite think that adapting that narrative device to video games in general would do much to elevate them to "art".
In fact, I would think that the relative "artiness" or (perhaps I should say) critical merit of a given video game has less to do with whatever narrative or gameplay devices it employs but rather its success at transcending the limitations of its form. For example, there were puzzle games before Tetris, and there have been many puzzle games made after Tetris; but it was Tetris that transcended the conventional form of puzzle games at that time to become something entirely different - something completely innovative and inimitable.