The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Shape up? Relentless? Over the course of what, three posts? I feel you're exaggerating.
I don't see any pot shots, I'm responding when I feel Anticipation is misrepresenting my point.
Hear that sound? That's the sound of me getting really bored with this discussion.
Your posts were 100% negative. As in, not contributing, just nit-picking/attacking. This is generally frowned upon, but especially so when almost entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Can I say it more simply?
If you don't get it by now, I'm going to cease to care.
I agree with Shoggoth on the the evaluation of what art is being a non-comparative process. In defining art, in itself, you wouldn't be able to refer to works anyway. And in evaluation a work, you should be able to form a critical analysis by virtue of the work and theory alone.
As per Anticipation's comments about the general will, Rousseau made it clear long ago that the general will wasn't going to be manifest by any people. You're simply referring to the will of Academia in general, not the general will. Which, by the way, does do things like simply choosing which books should be taught, then teaching their evaluation of the books. It is subjective.
And again, what happens if they decide Koontz is worth teaching, and choose not to teach Shakespeare? Let's say it's their opinion that Koontz and Grisham should be taught exclusively, for whatever reason. In your world, how is that decision rescinded? Or should it be?
Your example here fails to prove anything about the system you are supposing need exist. Do you not realize that Shakespeare could be subject to this same critique? It's taught because of its amassed success in Shakespeare's time, allowing it to continue through the ages, while maintaining both a support and critique of the Anglo-Saxon life. If you want to say it's just about comparative artistic merit, how come most Americans are taught Billy Shakes instead of Dante or Petrarch? (If you're going to cite the fact that they are written in Italian, you'll have to retract your examples involving Mr. Dost as well. Not to mention the fact that most version of Shakespeare are put through a stringent editing proccess anyway.)
There is no objective scale for comparing art. Ideas like that went out with objective realism and transparency in literature.
To say that stances like this are merely a defense of "bad" art is to imply an inherent scale already in place. Essentially that you're smarter than Derrida, the Dadaists, Foucault, and Deleuze just to name a few.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with whoever posted earlier: most Dadaist art is hideous and displays little effective use of technique. That, however, doesn't mean it's not art. Nor does it mean it's not important to "art" collectively.
(who doesn't love a good scene of drunken, beaten whores hoping to make a buck in a stinking, boiling city of inescapable filth, external and internal?)
:^:
You mentioned the high art/low art divide earlier, and it's something I didn't really address, cause yeah, it's a difficult, blurry line. In fact, I think it's the source of about eighty percent of the contentiousness in these discussions: nobody wants to be made to feel bad for liking Gundam or whatever so they try to preempt the discussion by raising the "yeah, well, it's all your opinion, man" shields. It seems to have become reflex among gamers and consumers of nerd culture, which is a shame, since it's such a cop-out and frankly, juvenile response.
Yeah, it sucks to get shut out of the ivory tower. And it definitely sucks to have people who I know for a fact have never cracked open a fucking Nabokov in their lives purse their lips pensively at the sight of my Xbox. But just because people can be closed-minded dolts it doesn't in turn follow that there's not in fact a difference between high and low culture, it just means that the line is hard to find.
I don't pretend to have the answers, although there's something Neil Gaiman said that he attributes to Gene Wolfe: "Literature is that which can be read and then reread with increased pleasure." I like that line because it's not prescriptive - it doesn't tell you how to make art - it just says that if a piece gives you something new every time you come back to it, it's probably more worthwhile than one that doesn't. I can live with that.
I think jacobkosh might agree with me that there are also some low-brow things in this world that are fucking awesome.
blue tape on
0
The Black HunterThe key is a minimum of compromise, and a simple,unimpeachable reason to existRegistered Userregular
edited June 2007
Ico, collosus, and similar games i consider as art
Halo, SSMB, and the like aren't in my book.
Artistic games make you lose yourself in not just the universe, but every aspect of the game. Usually having slow gameplay so you can soak it all in. he game usualy makes you feel small, and non-hero. Rather realistic characters etc.
I think jacobkosh might agree with me that there are also some low-brow things in this world that are fucking awesome.
Without question.
sdrawkcaB emaN on
0
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
edited June 2007
Absolutely! I am a cheerful and enthusiastic consumer of junk culture - from 8-bit NES games to campy Silver Age comics to terrifyingly saccharine Europop. I love it all and make no apologies.
It's just that I sort of feel sorry for, like, the guy who posted in the TV thread that the Wire sucks and everyone should watch Avatar: The Last Airbender instead. Avatar might be more fun (or not, I haven't seen it) but The Wire taught me so much about the world directly outside my own doorstep. It's like hearing kids talk about how when they grow up they're going to eat candy and cheeseburgers all the time - you don't want to be a jerk, but eventually someone should really tell them that they're going to need more than that.
On the other hand, I feel equally sorry for folks who only seem to read off the NPR-approved list of Important Modern Fiction For Serious People - it's like, lighten up and watch some fucking Die Hard, people.
Put simply: I think it's genuinely important for people to be regularly exposed to new and challenging ways of looking at things - but on the other hand, everyone has their limits for how much novelty they can take at one time. And personally, I don't want to refine my palate to the point where only the most ridiculously rarified, experimental things interest me.
Artistic games make you lose yourself in not just the universe, but every aspect of the game. Usually having slow gameplay so you can soak it all in. he game usualy makes you feel small, and non-hero. Rather realistic characters etc.
Why do you fell that's the defining characteristics of art?
I think there is a fine line. The problem with categorizing games is that they are part sport/team sport which I do not see as art and part film, which can defiantly be considered as art.
Absolutely! I am a cheerful and enthusiastic consumer of junk culture - from 8-bit NES games to campy Silver Age comics to terrifyingly saccharine Europop. I love it all and make no apologies.
It's just that I sort of feel sorry for, like, the guy who posted in the TV thread that the Wire sucks and everyone should watch Avatar: The Last Airbender instead. Avatar might be more fun (or not, I haven't seen it) but The Wire taught me so much about the world directly outside my own doorstep. It's like hearing kids talk about how when they grow up they're going to eat candy and cheeseburgers all the time - you don't want to be a jerk, but eventually someone should really tell them that they're going to need more than that.
On the other hand, I feel equally sorry for folks who only seem to read off the NPR-approved list of Important Modern Fiction For Serious People - it's like, lighten up and watch some fucking Die Hard, people.
Put simply: I think it's genuinely important for people to be regularly exposed to new and challenging ways of looking at things - but on the other hand, everyone has their limits for how much novelty they can take at one time. And personally, I don't want to refine my palate to the point where only the most ridiculously rarified, experimental things interest me.
Haha, you sly devil you.
You should probably watch Avatar before you compare the two. I'd really love to discuss this further, but not here.
Shoggoth on
0
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
edited June 2007
What, was that you, Shoggoth? I wasn't trying to be sly.
I'll give Avatar a whirl one of these days. I could use a good toon now that Justice League is (sigh) gone.
But The Wire is my favorite show ever. I really think it sets a new standard for both raw realism and narrative density, and it's ridiculously quotable to boot.
Yeah it was me! I just assumed it was another jab at me. I thought to myself "Was that intentional? Does he really not know that was me? No, that'd be a huge coincidence" :P I take no offense at all though.
Avatar is a cartoon, yes, but it deals with heavy themes and is big on linear plot development. Avatar does a great job of fleshing out genuinely realistic characters. You do have to let it get started though, the first few (like three) episodes are mediocre. It does build up.
I just couldn't get into The Wire. I did only finish the first season though. I suppose I should have just kept my mouth shut, I'm really not a fan of police drama. It does a good job of raw realism. I just didn't find that aspect compelling at all.
It's always interesting to note how gameplay mechanics are never mentioned in these conversations. If you want to view/critique/appreciate Videogames as art, you have to play them, because the gameplay is a necessary feature of their artistry.
Gameplay mechanics are always mentioned in these threads ever since I joined. I should cut off your balls for that. Without any gameplay mechanics, King of Fighters 2002 would be essentially a cartoonish Mortal Kombat game. The mechanics are the central component of the aesthetic experience garnered from most of the games I bother to pick up.
Artistic games make you lose yourself in not just the universe, but every aspect of the game. Usually having slow gameplay so you can soak it all in. he game usualy makes you feel small, and non-hero. Rather realistic characters etc.
Why do you fell that's the defining characteristics of art?
I think there is a fine line. The problem with categorizing games is that they are part sport/team sport which I do not see as art and part film, which can defiantly be considered as art.
I beleive art is when there is less doing, and more seeing, more experiencing.
Also art makes itself the important factor, in dynasty warriors it is all about you you you.
In SotC you are but a speck compared to the large history and mystery of the enviroment.
Artistic games make you lose yourself in not just the universe, but every aspect of the game. Usually having slow gameplay so you can soak it all in. he game usualy makes you feel small, and non-hero. Rather realistic characters etc.
Why do you fell that's the defining characteristics of art?
I think there is a fine line. The problem with categorizing games is that they are part sport/team sport which I do not see as art and part film, which can defiantly be considered as art.
I beleive art is when there is less doing, and more seeing, more experiencing.
And I believe the volume of experiencing that comes from doing is vastly greater than the volume of experiencing that comes from merely seeing. For example, fucking versus porn. Keeping in mind that I'm not alleging anything about the artistic value of either fucking or porn.
I never understand how people don't view videogames as art. Especially if movies and books are universally accepted as so.
Would you also contend that Clue is art? It is a game that incorporates art on the board and in the story, but Clue, as a thing, is not art. It's a game.
Saddler on
0
The Black HunterThe key is a minimum of compromise, and a simple,unimpeachable reason to existRegistered Userregular
Artistic games make you lose yourself in not just the universe, but every aspect of the game. Usually having slow gameplay so you can soak it all in. he game usualy makes you feel small, and non-hero. Rather realistic characters etc.
Why do you fell that's the defining characteristics of art?
I think there is a fine line. The problem with categorizing games is that they are part sport/team sport which I do not see as art and part film, which can defiantly be considered as art.
I beleive art is when there is less doing, and more seeing, more experiencing.
And I believe the volume of experiencing that comes from doing is vastly greater than the volume of experiencing that comes from merely seeing. For example, fucking versus porn. Keeping in mind that I'm not alleging anything about the artistic value of either fucking or porn.
Art is not about the viewer, the viewers skills or anything like that. It is about the creation itself. You cannot SEE the mechanics, or hear them, you can only see them work.
When you play a game with great control's, you simply go "Awesome, this works like a dream". However, an absolutely epic view will always win out in my book.
Artistic games make you lose yourself in not just the universe, but every aspect of the game. Usually having slow gameplay so you can soak it all in. he game usualy makes you feel small, and non-hero. Rather realistic characters etc.
Why do you fell that's the defining characteristics of art?
I think there is a fine line. The problem with categorizing games is that they are part sport/team sport which I do not see as art and part film, which can defiantly be considered as art.
I beleive art is when there is less doing, and more seeing, more experiencing.
And I believe the volume of experiencing that comes from doing is vastly greater than the volume of experiencing that comes from merely seeing. For example, fucking versus porn. Keeping in mind that I'm not alleging anything about the artistic value of either fucking or porn.
Art is not about the viewer, the viewers skills or anything like that. It is about the creation itself. You cannot SEE the mechanics, or hear them, you can only see them work.
When you play a game with great control's, you simply go "Awesome, this works like a dream". However, an absolutely epic view will always win out in my book.
Controls aren't the only part of the mechanics. I often appreciate good AI, awesome level design, and various other parts of the mechanics.
I never understand how people don't view videogames as art. Especially if movies and books are universally accepted as so.
Would you also contend that Clue is art? It is a game that incorporates art on the board and in the story, but Clue, as a thing, is not art. It's a game.
Why isn't it art? Being a game and being art are not mutually exclusive.
Art is not about the viewer, the viewers skills or anything like that. It is about the creation itself. You cannot SEE the mechanics, or hear them, you can only see them work.
When you play a game with great control's, you simply go "Awesome, this works like a dream". However, an absolutely epic view will always win out in my book.
Art doesn't exist without the viewer. And I don't know about you but I most certainly can see the mechanics. I've never actually been good at videogames except racing-games, I win most games through analysis.
ViolentChemistry on
0
The Black HunterThe key is a minimum of compromise, and a simple,unimpeachable reason to existRegistered Userregular
Artistic games make you lose yourself in not just the universe, but every aspect of the game. Usually having slow gameplay so you can soak it all in. he game usualy makes you feel small, and non-hero. Rather realistic characters etc.
Why do you fell that's the defining characteristics of art?
I think there is a fine line. The problem with categorizing games is that they are part sport/team sport which I do not see as art and part film, which can defiantly be considered as art.
I beleive art is when there is less doing, and more seeing, more experiencing.
And I believe the volume of experiencing that comes from doing is vastly greater than the volume of experiencing that comes from merely seeing. For example, fucking versus porn. Keeping in mind that I'm not alleging anything about the artistic value of either fucking or porn.
Art is not about the viewer, the viewers skills or anything like that. It is about the creation itself. You cannot SEE the mechanics, or hear them, you can only see them work.
When you play a game with great control's, you simply go "Awesome, this works like a dream". However, an absolutely epic view will always win out in my book.
Controls aren't the only part of the mechanics. I often appreciate good AI, awesome level design, and various other parts of the mechanics.
Yeah, and it will make you go "Awesome", no denying that, and they can make the game so much funner, but that just doesnt take my breath away.
Artistic games make you lose yourself in not just the universe, but every aspect of the game. Usually having slow gameplay so you can soak it all in. he game usualy makes you feel small, and non-hero. Rather realistic characters etc.
Why do you fell that's the defining characteristics of art?
I think there is a fine line. The problem with categorizing games is that they are part sport/team sport which I do not see as art and part film, which can defiantly be considered as art.
I beleive art is when there is less doing, and more seeing, more experiencing.
And I believe the volume of experiencing that comes from doing is vastly greater than the volume of experiencing that comes from merely seeing. For example, fucking versus porn. Keeping in mind that I'm not alleging anything about the artistic value of either fucking or porn.
Art is not about the viewer, the viewers skills or anything like that. It is about the creation itself. You cannot SEE the mechanics, or hear them, you can only see them work.
When you play a game with great control's, you simply go "Awesome, this works like a dream". However, an absolutely epic view will always win out in my book.
Controls aren't the only part of the mechanics. I often appreciate good AI, awesome level design, and various other parts of the mechanics.
Yeah, and it will make you go "Awesome", no denying that, and they can make the game so much funner, but that just doesnt take my breath away.
So? It takes my breath away sometimes. It isn't like all art is meant to be awe inspiring.
I never understand how people don't view videogames as art. Especially if movies and books are universally accepted as so.
Would you also contend that Clue is art? It is a game that incorporates art on the board and in the story, but Clue, as a thing, is not art. It's a game.
Why isn't it art? Being a game and being art are not mutually exclusive.
Right.
And at the very least, it has the ability to provide an outlet for artistic expression. A well-crafted chess game, for example, I'd consider an art-form; with the difference between it and a movie being that whereas it is the creators who attach meaning and artistic integrity to the film, it is left to the audience to extract the same qualities from the game.
Janson on
0
The Black HunterThe key is a minimum of compromise, and a simple,unimpeachable reason to existRegistered Userregular
So? It takes my breath away sometimes. It isn't like all art is meant to be awe inspiring.
Art to me, is meant to be awe-inspiring.
Something totally beyond my scope.
Hell, i could love a painting with all my heart, but still not call it art.
The same strict meaning goes for my use of the word hate. Which to me: is the point where i wouldn't care at all if they dropped dead, then and there.
In your world, nothing is art. And you hate much easier than I do.
I hate no-one at this present moment.
When i say not care, i mean dont give a shit, at all. Be totally unfazed. possibly rejoiceful.
It is not easy for someone to pull that sort of feeling from me. And requires weeks of giving me shit.
And yes, some things are art to me.
Ingres has paintings i absolutely love that i consider art.
When i say not care, i mean dont give a shit, at all. Be totally unfazed. possibly rejoiceful.
It is not easy for someone to pull that sort of feeling from me. And requires weeks of giving me shit.
Ingres has paintings i absolutely love that i consider art.
I have yet to encounter anything man-made that inspired awe since I was 12 years-old apart from thrust-vectoring. Paintings most certainly aren't going to inspire awe, particularly not paintings of naked girls.
ViolentChemistry on
0
The Black HunterThe key is a minimum of compromise, and a simple,unimpeachable reason to existRegistered Userregular
When i say not care, i mean dont give a shit, at all. Be totally unfazed. possibly rejoiceful.
It is not easy for someone to pull that sort of feeling from me. And requires weeks of giving me shit.
Ingres has paintings i absolutely love that i consider art.
I have yet to encounter anything man-made that inspired awe since I was 12 years-old apart from thrust-vectoring. Paintings most certainly aren't going to inspire awe, particularly not paintings of naked girls.
Ha, the naked girls i hardly notice, besides La grande odalisque
And i tend to reach killing them myself before not giving a shit whatsoever. Even when you kill them you can feel a pang of "Was that neccesary?"
This is utter uncaring, calmly walking out of a room sorrounded by screaming peers. Of course if i killed them myself, i would probably pissbolt, or i may have reached the point of not caring about that (popo) either.
When i say not care, i mean dont give a shit, at all. Be totally unfazed. possibly rejoiceful.
It is not easy for someone to pull that sort of feeling from me. And requires weeks of giving me shit.
Ingres has paintings i absolutely love that i consider art.
I have yet to encounter anything man-made that inspired awe since I was 12 years-old apart from thrust-vectoring. Paintings most certainly aren't going to inspire awe, particularly not paintings of naked girls.
Have you seen Shadows of the Colossus? I'd see that game pretty much as art.
On the other hand, I feel equally sorry for folks who only seem to read off the NPR-approved list of Important Modern Fiction For Serious People - it's like, lighten up and watch some fucking Die Hard, people.
This is often a topic that crops up in TWB. Berets vs wizard hats: they're as bad as each other. Restricting yourself to a singular genre simply because you doubt you'd like anything outside of it is just... really, really dumb. In the same way, I have to acknowledge someone puking on canvas as art, even though I personally despise it: there's no mathematical certainty to what can and can't be determined to have artistic merit.
Edcrab on
0
The Black HunterThe key is a minimum of compromise, and a simple,unimpeachable reason to existRegistered Userregular
edited June 2007
Thrust vectoring is the term used for sending thrust from what is usually an aircraft in a non-linear direction from the aircraft. Usually by flexible engine out-ports
I dont really consider this awe-inspiring as it is mathematics and science, though getting it to work effectively is a technological marvel, no doubt. And refining it could be considered an artform, though it does not produce an artwork in itself.
An absolutely perfect plane made using this technology could definately be considered art to me.
Neat. Combine that with scramjets and that navigational mapping technolgoy and we'll probably have super-mobile robot jets CONQUERING MANKIND. I mean, revolutionising travel.
No doubt in my mind that games can be art. However, most of the games that are actually made - like most of the songs and most of the TV - are very mediocre when judged as art.
In a way I think that makes this an exciting time to be a player of games. The chances that someone living will write a novel or a play on par with the greatest of all time in those fields is pretty small, because people have been doing it so well for so long... whereas, it's still very very possible for someone to make the most (artistically) great computer game in history within the lifetime of anyone here.
The chances that someone living will write a novel or a play on par with the greatest of all time in those fields is pretty small, because people have been doing it so well for so long... whereas, it's still very very possible for someone to make the most (artistically) great computer game in history within the lifetime of anyone here.
I do know what you mean, but the criteria for determining something as one of the greatest products of its kind are completely arbitrary. I think all forms of art (or media, to avoid semantics) still have the potential to produce something fantastic: but yeah, overall, I reckon games have the advantage as technological advances support them far more than books or music or even film.
Posts
Hear that sound? That's the sound of me getting really bored with this discussion.
Your posts were 100% negative. As in, not contributing, just nit-picking/attacking. This is generally frowned upon, but especially so when almost entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Can I say it more simply?
If you don't get it by now, I'm going to cease to care.
As per Anticipation's comments about the general will, Rousseau made it clear long ago that the general will wasn't going to be manifest by any people. You're simply referring to the will of Academia in general, not the general will. Which, by the way, does do things like simply choosing which books should be taught, then teaching their evaluation of the books. It is subjective.
Your example here fails to prove anything about the system you are supposing need exist. Do you not realize that Shakespeare could be subject to this same critique? It's taught because of its amassed success in Shakespeare's time, allowing it to continue through the ages, while maintaining both a support and critique of the Anglo-Saxon life. If you want to say it's just about comparative artistic merit, how come most Americans are taught Billy Shakes instead of Dante or Petrarch? (If you're going to cite the fact that they are written in Italian, you'll have to retract your examples involving Mr. Dost as well. Not to mention the fact that most version of Shakespeare are put through a stringent editing proccess anyway.)
There is no objective scale for comparing art. Ideas like that went out with objective realism and transparency in literature.
To say that stances like this are merely a defense of "bad" art is to imply an inherent scale already in place. Essentially that you're smarter than Derrida, the Dadaists, Foucault, and Deleuze just to name a few.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with whoever posted earlier: most Dadaist art is hideous and displays little effective use of technique. That, however, doesn't mean it's not art. Nor does it mean it's not important to "art" collectively.
Hear that? That's the sound of me dropping it amicably. Starting
...now.
:^:
You mentioned the high art/low art divide earlier, and it's something I didn't really address, cause yeah, it's a difficult, blurry line. In fact, I think it's the source of about eighty percent of the contentiousness in these discussions: nobody wants to be made to feel bad for liking Gundam or whatever so they try to preempt the discussion by raising the "yeah, well, it's all your opinion, man" shields. It seems to have become reflex among gamers and consumers of nerd culture, which is a shame, since it's such a cop-out and frankly, juvenile response.
Yeah, it sucks to get shut out of the ivory tower. And it definitely sucks to have people who I know for a fact have never cracked open a fucking Nabokov in their lives purse their lips pensively at the sight of my Xbox. But just because people can be closed-minded dolts it doesn't in turn follow that there's not in fact a difference between high and low culture, it just means that the line is hard to find.
I don't pretend to have the answers, although there's something Neil Gaiman said that he attributes to Gene Wolfe: "Literature is that which can be read and then reread with increased pleasure." I like that line because it's not prescriptive - it doesn't tell you how to make art - it just says that if a piece gives you something new every time you come back to it, it's probably more worthwhile than one that doesn't. I can live with that.
Halo, SSMB, and the like aren't in my book.
Artistic games make you lose yourself in not just the universe, but every aspect of the game. Usually having slow gameplay so you can soak it all in. he game usualy makes you feel small, and non-hero. Rather realistic characters etc.
Without question.
It's just that I sort of feel sorry for, like, the guy who posted in the TV thread that the Wire sucks and everyone should watch Avatar: The Last Airbender instead. Avatar might be more fun (or not, I haven't seen it) but The Wire taught me so much about the world directly outside my own doorstep. It's like hearing kids talk about how when they grow up they're going to eat candy and cheeseburgers all the time - you don't want to be a jerk, but eventually someone should really tell them that they're going to need more than that.
On the other hand, I feel equally sorry for folks who only seem to read off the NPR-approved list of Important Modern Fiction For Serious People - it's like, lighten up and watch some fucking Die Hard, people.
Put simply: I think it's genuinely important for people to be regularly exposed to new and challenging ways of looking at things - but on the other hand, everyone has their limits for how much novelty they can take at one time. And personally, I don't want to refine my palate to the point where only the most ridiculously rarified, experimental things interest me.
Why do you fell that's the defining characteristics of art?
I think there is a fine line. The problem with categorizing games is that they are part sport/team sport which I do not see as art and part film, which can defiantly be considered as art.
Haha, you sly devil you.
You should probably watch Avatar before you compare the two. I'd really love to discuss this further, but not here.
I'll give Avatar a whirl one of these days. I could use a good toon now that Justice League is (sigh) gone.
But The Wire is my favorite show ever. I really think it sets a new standard for both raw realism and narrative density, and it's ridiculously quotable to boot.
Avatar is a cartoon, yes, but it deals with heavy themes and is big on linear plot development. Avatar does a great job of fleshing out genuinely realistic characters. You do have to let it get started though, the first few (like three) episodes are mediocre. It does build up.
I just couldn't get into The Wire. I did only finish the first season though. I suppose I should have just kept my mouth shut, I'm really not a fan of police drama. It does a good job of raw realism. I just didn't find that aspect compelling at all.
Gameplay mechanics are always mentioned in these threads ever since I joined. I should cut off your balls for that. Without any gameplay mechanics, King of Fighters 2002 would be essentially a cartoonish Mortal Kombat game. The mechanics are the central component of the aesthetic experience garnered from most of the games I bother to pick up.
I beleive art is when there is less doing, and more seeing, more experiencing.
Also art makes itself the important factor, in dynasty warriors it is all about you you you.
In SotC you are but a speck compared to the large history and mystery of the enviroment.
And I believe the volume of experiencing that comes from doing is vastly greater than the volume of experiencing that comes from merely seeing. For example, fucking versus porn. Keeping in mind that I'm not alleging anything about the artistic value of either fucking or porn.
Would you also contend that Clue is art? It is a game that incorporates art on the board and in the story, but Clue, as a thing, is not art. It's a game.
Art is not about the viewer, the viewers skills or anything like that. It is about the creation itself. You cannot SEE the mechanics, or hear them, you can only see them work.
When you play a game with great control's, you simply go "Awesome, this works like a dream". However, an absolutely epic view will always win out in my book.
Controls aren't the only part of the mechanics. I often appreciate good AI, awesome level design, and various other parts of the mechanics.
Why isn't it art? Being a game and being art are not mutually exclusive.
Art doesn't exist without the viewer. And I don't know about you but I most certainly can see the mechanics. I've never actually been good at videogames except racing-games, I win most games through analysis.
Yeah, and it will make you go "Awesome", no denying that, and they can make the game so much funner, but that just doesnt take my breath away.
So? It takes my breath away sometimes. It isn't like all art is meant to be awe inspiring.
Right.
And at the very least, it has the ability to provide an outlet for artistic expression. A well-crafted chess game, for example, I'd consider an art-form; with the difference between it and a movie being that whereas it is the creators who attach meaning and artistic integrity to the film, it is left to the audience to extract the same qualities from the game.
Art to me, is meant to be awe-inspiring.
Something totally beyond my scope.
Hell, i could love a painting with all my heart, but still not call it art.
The same strict meaning goes for my use of the word hate. Which to me: is the point where i wouldn't care at all if they dropped dead, then and there.
In your world, nothing is art. And you hate much easier than I do.
I hate no-one at this present moment.
When i say not care, i mean dont give a shit, at all. Be totally unfazed. possibly rejoiceful.
It is not easy for someone to pull that sort of feeling from me. And requires weeks of giving me shit.
And yes, some things are art to me.
Ingres has paintings i absolutely love that i consider art.
I have to want to kill them myself.
I have yet to encounter anything man-made that inspired awe since I was 12 years-old apart from thrust-vectoring. Paintings most certainly aren't going to inspire awe, particularly not paintings of naked girls.
Ha, the naked girls i hardly notice, besides La grande odalisque
And i tend to reach killing them myself before not giving a shit whatsoever. Even when you kill them you can feel a pang of "Was that neccesary?"
This is utter uncaring, calmly walking out of a room sorrounded by screaming peers. Of course if i killed them myself, i would probably pissbolt, or i may have reached the point of not caring about that (popo) either.
Have you seen Shadows of the Colossus? I'd see that game pretty much as art.
I guess we just have different views on the planet.
I'm a sucker for a beautiful scene, though they dont come along too often, once per 4-5 monthsi guess.
This is often a topic that crops up in TWB. Berets vs wizard hats: they're as bad as each other. Restricting yourself to a singular genre simply because you doubt you'd like anything outside of it is just... really, really dumb. In the same way, I have to acknowledge someone puking on canvas as art, even though I personally despise it: there's no mathematical certainty to what can and can't be determined to have artistic merit.
I dont really consider this awe-inspiring as it is mathematics and science, though getting it to work effectively is a technological marvel, no doubt. And refining it could be considered an artform, though it does not produce an artwork in itself.
An absolutely perfect plane made using this technology could definately be considered art to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrust_vectoring
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xY0t_mPv6I4
Thrust - Force that provides movement
Vectoring - The act of directing or co-ordinating something
In a way I think that makes this an exciting time to be a player of games. The chances that someone living will write a novel or a play on par with the greatest of all time in those fields is pretty small, because people have been doing it so well for so long... whereas, it's still very very possible for someone to make the most (artistically) great computer game in history within the lifetime of anyone here.
I do know what you mean, but the criteria for determining something as one of the greatest products of its kind are completely arbitrary. I think all forms of art (or media, to avoid semantics) still have the potential to produce something fantastic: but yeah, overall, I reckon games have the advantage as technological advances support them far more than books or music or even film.
Total immersion murder simulators in 2020! :P