Wasn't trying to be strong, just trying to be honest.
And seriously Bale, if you don't like what I'm saying, why even respond? Especially when I'm not even talking to you? For fuck's sake, I haven't even said two words to you around here. What the fuck?
Ha ha, wow. I thought you might be different when you're not in CF, but here it is.
I get irritated when people give me shit, and I can't understand why. Apparently I'm insane for thinking that mature adults should be able to communicate.
I don't care if games are considered art or not. Maybe I'd care if I developed them.
I think Ebert had at least one good point in one of his articles in that is it still art if we can change it in some way? Like the outcome? Would Romeo and Juliet still be considered a masterpiece if you could go back and give it a happy ending?
It would be a comedy, and still art.
That wasn't really what I was implying. The question is is it still art if we are given the opportunity to change something another artist created. Not just if Shakespeare had written it with that ending. I'm not necessarily saying such a thing isn't art, myself. Just presenting the question.
Wasn't trying to be strong, just trying to be honest.
And seriously Bale, if you don't like what I'm saying, why even respond? Especially when I'm not even talking to you? For fuck's sake, I haven't even said two words to you around here. What the fuck?
Ha ha, wow. I thought you might be different when you're not in CF, but here it is.
I get irritated when people give me shit, and I can't understand why. Apparently I'm insane for thinking that mature adults should be able to communicate.
Maybe you should instead be less of a bitch.
I am going to agree with Ebert on one thing, why should anyone care what his opinion is? None of us are going to change it, and it's not like him thinking that makes me enjoy games any less. It's like getting flustered whenever you hear someone say that all rap/country/whatever genre is patently terrible and people who like it are idiots. Fuck em.
I don't care if games are considered art or not. Maybe I'd care if I developed them.
I think Ebert had at least one good point in one of his articles in that is it still art if we can change it in some way? Like the outcome? Would Romeo and Juliet still be considered a masterpiece if you could go back and give it a happy ending?
It would be a comedy, and still art.
That wasn't really what I was implying. The question is is it still art if we are given the opportunity to change something another artist created. Not just if Shakespeare had written it with that ending. I'm not necessarily saying such a thing isn't art, myself. Just presenting the question.
We are able to only change what the artist is allowing us to change and to an outcome he has already designed.
I don't care if games are considered art or not. Maybe I'd care if I developed them.
I think Ebert had at least one good point in one of his articles in that is it still art if we can change it in some way? Like the outcome? Would Romeo and Juliet still be considered a masterpiece if you could go back and give it a happy ending?
It would be a comedy, and still art.
That wasn't really what I was implying. The question is is it still art if we are given the opportunity to change something another artist created. Not just if Shakespeare had written it with that ending. I'm not necessarily saying such a thing isn't art, myself. Just presenting the question.
We can never really change the outcome of a video game (at least not yet) because all possible endings are programmed in
As for the legitimacy of participatory forms of art, there have been plenty of acclaimed performance art pieces and experimental plays which have relied upon audience input
AMP'd on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
Options
BroloBroseidonLord of the BroceanRegistered Userregular
edited April 2010
ART
Interpretive dance
Installation visual art
Opera
Paintings
Literature
Music
Books
Motion pictures
Comics
Culinary arts
Web pages
Video games
NOT ART
the more people that like it the less artsy it gets
I agree with Ebert in that I'm not sure why we care.
We collectively
Whether or not it am in fact art does not concern me.
the problem is you're telling a whole lot of artists that because what they work on is a commercial product usually marketed towards kids and adolescents, that the medium they choose to work in can never hold any meaning deeper than that
Yeah, the trouble is that like it or not, Ebert is a pretty big voice in the Arts/Entertainment biz, so his criticisms and opinions carry more weight than the average joe blow on the street.
the problem is you're telling a whole lot of artists that because what they work on is a commercial product usually marketed towards kids and adolescents, that the medium they choose to work in can never hold any meaning deeper than that
I don't think there's really any reason video games shouldn't be considered an art form. Ebert's probably the most high profile person out there to bother talking about it, though, which is likely why people care. I'd like to see more artists experiment with what can be done with video games, instead of treating them as not worthy of the investment because they cannot be art.
I really enjoyed how the game Silent Hill: Shattered Memories changed somewhat subtle things about its story due to choices the player made. Things like the personality, attitude and appearance of the characters you meet. There's not really any "game" there, in the traditional sense of something with strict rules that you can win or lose. The choices you made weren't right or wrong, they just changed elements of the story a little bit.
Things like that make me think video games have a lot of potential as a way to express things that are difficult or impossible to do in other mediums due to interactivity, which makes them worthy of artistic pursuit.
I think games are reaching the point where they need to be rebranded in order to move on as an art form. Games in which the goal is simply to "win" or get the highest score are increasingly thin on the ground. Most games are now arranged as interactive narratives with possible failure states. Games like Fable 2 are impossible to "lose". I think we need to bring back the archaic name of "interactive fiction", because modern games frequently fall into that category just as well as Infocom games used to.
I agree with Roger Ebert on Braid by the way. That game was dumb.
tube you realise that 'interactive fiction' is my 'flatlander woman'
Blake TDo you have enemies then?Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.Registered Userregular
edited April 2010
I can kind of see both camps.
95% of videogames are "goal orientated" and that does seem kind of opposite to what art is. In this position it's kind of like sports, win, finish the level, whatever.
But then again I love videogames because of the stories, and story telling is an art. So I suppose I think they are.
They are an interesting combination of the two no doubt!
95% of videogames are "goal orientated" and that does seem kind of opposite to what art is. In this position it's kind of like sports, win, finish the level, whatever.
But then again I love videogames because of the stories, and story telling is an art. So I suppose I think they are.
They are an interesting combination of the two no doubt!
Why does having a goal make something not "art?"
That's absurd.
Callius on
0
Options
Blake TDo you have enemies then?Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.Registered Userregular
edited April 2010
I'm not saying it doesn't! That's why I followed up with a new paragraph.
But lets face it the majority of goal based things are not art.
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
edited April 2010
Whether or not videogames are art or not is irrelevant.
What we really need to be asking is who the hell is Roger Ebert to think he deserves to comment on something he will not ever experience?
I mean, you don't see food critics going and publishing columns saying that soccer is a stupid game because there's not even anything but kicking going on what the hell. So why is a film critic commenting on videogames that not only has he not played but clearly understands fuck-all about?
95% of videogames are "goal orientated" and that does seem kind of opposite to what art is. In this position it's kind of like sports, win, finish the level, whatever.
videogame mechanics are goal-oriented in the same way turning the pages of a book is goal-oriented
it's just what you do to see the content
I think we passed the point where the majority of games were genuinely about beating your high score or whatever a decade ago, though obviously multiplayer and the like is almost always a different beast entirely
That video of Ebert and Siskel playing games is kind of touching. Now that Gene Siskel is dead and Roger Ebert is in a bad way it's nice to look at old videos and see what great friends they were. Plus it's two men in advanced middle age flailing wildly.
Tube on
0
Options
Caulk Bite 6One of the multitude of Dans infesting this placeRegistered Userregular
I think games are reaching the point where they need to be rebranded in order to move on as an art form. Games in which the goal is simply to "win" or get the highest score are increasingly thin on the ground. Most games are now arranged as interactive narratives with possible failure states. Games like Fable 2 are impossible to "lose". I think we need to bring back the archaic name of "interactive fiction", because modern games frequently fall into that category just as well as Infocom games used to.
I agree with Roger Ebert on Braid by the way. That game was dumb.
tube you realise that 'interactive fiction' is my 'flatlander woman'
I agree with Ebert in that I'm not sure why we care.
We collectively
Whether or not it am in fact art does not concern me.
I think it's more how he impugned the artistic merit of an entire industry in a public forum that set more people off.
It's like whenever Bill O'Reilly talks about anything. We don't give a fuck about what he has to say, but odds are it's going to be so outlandishly stupid or ignorant that people get offended by it.
The only difference in this case is that some people actually listen to Roger Ebert.
EDIT: And not that anybody gives a fuck, but to put some context on the whole Cube Sculpture/MGS3 analogy, I was trying to say that by Roger Ebert's standards, a simple sculpture of a cube has more artistic value than a complex well-written game, just because one is specifically designed/defined as a work of art.
And that was actually a decent sculpture, so it kind of wrecked the analogy... Well, that, and my inability to articulate what I was writing.
95% of videogames are "goal orientated" and that does seem kind of opposite to what art is. In this position it's kind of like sports, win, finish the level, whatever.
videogame mechanics are goal-oriented in the same way turning the pages of a book is goal-oriented
it's just what you do to see the content
I think we passed the point where the majority of games were genuinely about beating your high score or whatever a decade ago, though obviously multiplayer and the like is almost always a different beast entirely
That's a pretty simplistic way of viewing it. Does this mean driving to the art gallery is also part of the experience?
if the challenge of the interactivity takes priority over the unfolding of the content, i do not think it can be art. this is why i don't think braid is art. it had a sweet kind of context with some decent university lit-journal style writing, a nice score and appropriate stylistic visuals that might have added up to 'art' in another world. but frankly that stuff ended up irrelevant because the game was about beating puzzles. hard puzzles. so it didn't really want to tell us anything any more than it wanted to challenge our logic skills. that's a game.
flower is a bit more interesting because the challenge doesn't feel like it gets in the way of the idea behind it. there are moments in there where the challenge blends in with the thematic overtones gloriously and you understand that this control you have exists only to heighten your experience of what the creators were trying to convey. the individual tasks are specifically crafted to the demands of the greater purpose, and to me when that happens with every element you get an art. i think flower is bloody close.
this brings up the idea that maybe a game can only be art if it's not hard? easy games only can be art? hmmm. this is a troubling notion
but everyday shooter is art i believe and it's freaking hard. hard enough that i've only seen four or five levels. maybe it's that the artistic purpose of it - the big idea of it - is expressed in the first stage, or in the second stage, or in the third stage wholly.
Posts
I get irritated when people give me shit, and I can't understand why. Apparently I'm insane for thinking that mature adults should be able to communicate.
That wasn't really what I was implying. The question is is it still art if we are given the opportunity to change something another artist created. Not just if Shakespeare had written it with that ending. I'm not necessarily saying such a thing isn't art, myself. Just presenting the question.
It, in and of itself, was very fun (I had fun, at the least). But to really appreciate it as a piece you have to understand what it was a critique of.
Braid is a critique of side-scroller motifs, just the same as Watchmen was a critique of previous comic motifs.
Maybe you should instead be less of a bitch.
I am going to agree with Ebert on one thing, why should anyone care what his opinion is? None of us are going to change it, and it's not like him thinking that makes me enjoy games any less. It's like getting flustered whenever you hear someone say that all rap/country/whatever genre is patently terrible and people who like it are idiots. Fuck em.
We are able to only change what the artist is allowing us to change and to an outcome he has already designed.
We can never really change the outcome of a video game (at least not yet) because all possible endings are programmed in
As for the legitimacy of participatory forms of art, there have been plenty of acclaimed performance art pieces and experimental plays which have relied upon audience input
Installation visual art
Opera
Paintings
Literature
Music
Books
Motion pictures
Comics
Culinary arts
Web pages
Video games
NOT ART
the more people that like it the less artsy it gets
the problem is you're telling a whole lot of artists that because what they work on is a commercial product usually marketed towards kids and adolescents, that the medium they choose to work in can never hold any meaning deeper than that
which is bullshit
I really enjoyed how the game Silent Hill: Shattered Memories changed somewhat subtle things about its story due to choices the player made. Things like the personality, attitude and appearance of the characters you meet. There's not really any "game" there, in the traditional sense of something with strict rules that you can win or lose. The choices you made weren't right or wrong, they just changed elements of the story a little bit.
Things like that make me think video games have a lot of potential as a way to express things that are difficult or impossible to do in other mediums due to interactivity, which makes them worthy of artistic pursuit.
tube you realise that 'interactive fiction' is my 'flatlander woman'
95% of videogames are "goal orientated" and that does seem kind of opposite to what art is. In this position it's kind of like sports, win, finish the level, whatever.
But then again I love videogames because of the stories, and story telling is an art. So I suppose I think they are.
They are an interesting combination of the two no doubt!
Satans..... hints.....
you guys should play blue lacuna
also we are having a beer in seattle this year and talking about this shit in a sustained conversation for once
That's absurd.
But lets face it the majority of goal based things are not art.
Satans..... hints.....
What we really need to be asking is who the hell is Roger Ebert to think he deserves to comment on something he will not ever experience?
I mean, you don't see food critics going and publishing columns saying that soccer is a stupid game because there's not even anything but kicking going on what the hell. So why is a film critic commenting on videogames that not only has he not played but clearly understands fuck-all about?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PnHzD1gPak
videogame mechanics are goal-oriented in the same way turning the pages of a book is goal-oriented
it's just what you do to see the content
I think we passed the point where the majority of games were genuinely about beating your high score or whatever a decade ago, though obviously multiplayer and the like is almost always a different beast entirely
Flatlander Woman?
also it's got cinematography figured out pretty good
PSN: Robo_Wizard1
I think it's more how he impugned the artistic merit of an entire industry in a public forum that set more people off.
It's like whenever Bill O'Reilly talks about anything. We don't give a fuck about what he has to say, but odds are it's going to be so outlandishly stupid or ignorant that people get offended by it.
The only difference in this case is that some people actually listen to Roger Ebert.
EDIT: And not that anybody gives a fuck, but to put some context on the whole Cube Sculpture/MGS3 analogy, I was trying to say that by Roger Ebert's standards, a simple sculpture of a cube has more artistic value than a complex well-written game, just because one is specifically designed/defined as a work of art.
And that was actually a decent sculpture, so it kind of wrecked the analogy... Well, that, and my inability to articulate what I was writing.
And thus, nothing was art.
That's a pretty simplistic way of viewing it. Does this mean driving to the art gallery is also part of the experience?
Satans..... hints.....
if the challenge of the interactivity takes priority over the unfolding of the content, i do not think it can be art. this is why i don't think braid is art. it had a sweet kind of context with some decent university lit-journal style writing, a nice score and appropriate stylistic visuals that might have added up to 'art' in another world. but frankly that stuff ended up irrelevant because the game was about beating puzzles. hard puzzles. so it didn't really want to tell us anything any more than it wanted to challenge our logic skills. that's a game.
flower is a bit more interesting because the challenge doesn't feel like it gets in the way of the idea behind it. there are moments in there where the challenge blends in with the thematic overtones gloriously and you understand that this control you have exists only to heighten your experience of what the creators were trying to convey. the individual tasks are specifically crafted to the demands of the greater purpose, and to me when that happens with every element you get an art. i think flower is bloody close.
this brings up the idea that maybe a game can only be art if it's not hard? easy games only can be art? hmmm. this is a troubling notion
but everyday shooter is art i believe and it's freaking hard. hard enough that i've only seen four or five levels. maybe it's that the artistic purpose of it - the big idea of it - is expressed in the first stage, or in the second stage, or in the third stage wholly.
i'll have to think about this
that doesn't really count, that's erasure
not really, because they're not moral choices, they're gameplay choices
by attaching in-game rewards to choosing specific options they make it a strategic choice rather than a moral one