If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Uproxx)   New York Museum of Modern Art declares 14 video games as important art   (uproxx.com) divider line 259
    More: Spiffy, Museum of Modern Art, contemporary art, SimCity, art  
•       •       •

8068 clicks; posted to Geek » on 05 Dec 2012 at 9:05 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



259 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-07 11:33:17 AM  

Dafatone: sprawl15: Dafatone: ***snip***


Miguel Cabrera MVP.
 
2012-12-07 11:56:32 AM  

Dafatone: But trying to set out a guide on what "good" is is kind of a hopeless prospect, and seems to be going on in this thread at least a little.


Not really. There's inherent contradictions everywhere, and no universal rule for games. But you can pull out some of the systems and criticize them - you can say that Portal's puzzling wasn't very good as a puzzle and you'd be right. And that's a very meaningful criticism, because it expresses some of the fundamental nature of the game. If you want to play games solely for their puzzling, then it may not be the one for you. But if you like story and atmosphere, it's a cute and fun game that isn't too challenging.

The problem is that most people cannot generally take that kind of focused criticism because of their emotional investment. SS2 is one of my favorite games, and I could write an essay on shiat it does wrong. That's because I try to keep my subjective enjoyment separate from my objective analysis of game mechanics and design. Most people don't do that, and that's why if you say Portal's puzzles were easy and thus it's not a very good puzzle game, people take it personally and respond accordingly.

Dafatone: But every game criticism thread turns into "What's good and what's not good about games X, Y, and Z, and whether or not these games are good as a whole."


Well, here's ultimately the difference. I can say "I like Minecraft because I like Lego". No amount of argument can change that, because it's a subjective argument. If I said "I like Minecraft because it is difficult and has a deep crafting system", that's not a subjective argument because it's drawing comparisons to other games and those comparisons can be flawed. You can bring up games that are more difficult and/or have a deeper crafting system and rebut that basis for liking the game.

But at the same time, if my only contribution to a Minecraft discussion is 'I like Lego', it's not really a discussion. It's just me saying something.
 
2012-12-07 12:33:50 PM  

sprawl15: Dafatone: But trying to set out a guide on what "good" is is kind of a hopeless prospect, and seems to be going on in this thread at least a little.

Not really. There's inherent contradictions everywhere, and no universal rule for games. But you can pull out some of the systems and criticize them - you can say that Portal's puzzling wasn't very good as a puzzle and you'd be right. And that's a very meaningful criticism, because it expresses some of the fundamental nature of the game. If you want to play games solely for their puzzling, then it may not be the one for you. But if you like story and atmosphere, it's a cute and fun game that isn't too challenging.

The problem is that most people cannot generally take that kind of focused criticism because of their emotional investment. SS2 is one of my favorite games, and I could write an essay on shiat it does wrong. That's because I try to keep my subjective enjoyment separate from my objective analysis of game mechanics and design. Most people don't do that, and that's why if you say Portal's puzzles were easy and thus it's not a very good puzzle game, people take it personally and respond accordingly.

Dafatone: But every game criticism thread turns into "What's good and what's not good about games X, Y, and Z, and whether or not these games are good as a whole."

Well, here's ultimately the difference. I can say "I like Minecraft because I like Lego". No amount of argument can change that, because it's a subjective argument. If I said "I like Minecraft because it is difficult and has a deep crafting system", that's not a subjective argument because it's drawing comparisons to other games and those comparisons can be flawed. You can bring up games that are more difficult and/or have a deeper crafting system and rebut that basis for liking the game.

But at the same time, if my only contribution to a Minecraft discussion is 'I like Lego', it's not really a discussion. It's just me saying something.


All good points. I'm coming from a somewhat academic angle here, so I'm more interested in talking about relatively pointless crap than most people.

I'd just like to have conversations about stuff other than game quality along the lines of games-as-art.
 
2012-12-07 01:01:21 PM  

Dafatone: I'd just like to have conversations about stuff other than game quality along the lines of games-as-art.


Well, to me at least, I think it's one of the aspects of video games where the art and sound direction and bla bla all have to be directed as something that serves the central game's purpose. Hotline Miami is an excellent example of this, where the aesthetic and the gameplay were completely interwoven. To me, it's a much more artistic creation than a game that simply adopts an interesting aesthetic (like Bastion) because it shows a much deeper mastery of the craft. Their aesthetics are, I'd argue, about equal in terms of coming up with something interesting, but the one is used in a far more integrated fashion and if you only focused on the aesthetics of the games you wouldn't ever look at that.

In short, it's not that the art in a game irrelevant, it's that focusing on it alone is actually detrimental to the analysis of a game.
 
2012-12-07 01:04:59 PM  

sprawl15: In short, it's not that the art in a game irrelevant, it's that focusing on it alone is actually detrimental to the analysis of a game.


I agree there. I'm interested in the game as it's own art form, rather than a game as a sum of music and visual art. This involves gameplay as well as aesthetic elements.

For example: Bastion's cool narration and good graphics? Cool, but nothing amazing. The way the narration is tied to what you do (I had a pretty big "whoa" moment when I first ran around smashing everything smashable, and the narrator described that) is pretty great. This doesn't occur as much as it should have, but it was a pretty fantastic moment.
 
2012-12-07 01:08:03 PM  
Name something I said that you disagree with. Provide reasons.

Let's start with your misconception that your opinion is a universal truth. Basically, your argument boils down to this:
1-media-cdn.foolz.us
 
2012-12-07 01:58:08 PM  

dj_spanmaster: TypoFlyspray: Zork was wonderful, but it wasn't Art. It was Literature.

You say that like Art and Literature are mutually exclusive. Let me introduce you to:


I don't go to an art museum to read a book. I go to a library.
I don't go to an art museum to listen to a concert (not usually, anyway) I go to a venue that presents music.

It's not that Literature is not an Art, it's that it's a different type of art than what these folks are talking about.

Now, if video games are or can be art (and at this point I really can't argue that they're not any more) they are most certainly (like film) art in the sense of a union of visual and Literary arts with the additional complication of a technological dimension that is less present in literature, static visual art, or film, in that the mechanics of play are a critical aspect that is all but missing in the others. (Even literature has it's technology, and no, I don't mean the Kindle - that's crap. I mean the font and the paper. The cover and binding. A well constructed book greatly enhances the reading.)
 
2012-12-07 04:14:53 PM  

TypoFlyspray: Now, if video games are or can be art (and at this point I really can't argue that they're not any more) they are most certainly (like film) art in the sense of a union of visual and Literary arts with the additional complication of a technological dimension that is less present in literature, static visual art, or film, in that the mechanics of play are a critical aspect that is all but missing in the others.


How about, video games are their own type of art?

People consider film its own art, nowadays. And yet a film is literature (a script) and visual art merged together. So if film gets to be its own thing, so do video games. Then we don't have to worry about how much a game is like fiction, or if a game is more art or more literature (which you're right is a bad distinction).
 
2012-12-07 07:43:40 PM  

Vash's Apprentice: ProfessorOhki: Mike_LowELL: Vash's Apprentice: Ah, the Master Race strikes again!

And what does that mean, exactly? "You're critical of the topic, so I don't care for your input?"

It means they consider you an elitist for thinking Gears of Halo: Black Maddens might not be one of gaming's finest achievements.
[4.bp.blogspot.com image 550x391]

/Arcade offers an experience console and PC can't match
//PC and console allow for a depth of story arcade can't reasonably deliver

As opposed to Doom Reskinned 9999?
[2.bp.blogspot.com image 505x424]


You lost me.Your strawman picture seems to suggest that you think my comment was a cheap shot at consoles, but then you take the same shot at consoles with the reskinned FPS crack.
 
Displayed 9 of 259 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report