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  
•       •       •

8067 clicks; posted to Geek » on 05 Dec 2012 at 9:05 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-12-05 07:58:21 AM
i212.photobucket.com

Those selections were good... enough.
 
2012-12-05 08:14:58 AM
i44.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-05 08:26:32 AM
i236.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-05 08:33:23 AM
Well, some of the classics, sure. But almost any game these days that has a decent budget should probably be considered 'art.' Or maybe 'art entertainment?'

Take a game like Skyrim, for example. They have to hire writers, concept artists, 3D modelers and so on. Sounds pretty artistic to me.
 
2012-12-05 09:08:05 AM
A spreadsheet is a work of art?

Also, I'm ok with Chrono Trigger being added in the future.
 
2012-12-05 09:12:06 AM
Roger Ebert had to pick his jaw off the floor after hearing this.

/low hanging fruit
 
2012-12-05 09:13:51 AM
Really? Animal Crossing is earmarked for inclusion?
 
2012-12-05 09:13:59 AM
I rember reading an article about Bio-Shock when it came out, and the author saying it was the closest he'd ever seen a video game come to being art.

This is my story.
 
2012-12-05 09:14:08 AM

Burr: Roger Ebert had to pick his jaw off the floor after hearing this.

/low hanging fruit


/low hanging jaw is more like it amiright?
 
2012-12-05 09:15:51 AM
Videogames are no different then film really, it's just they let the viewer have some control over how the story is presented, rather then being passively taking in the experience.
 
2012-12-05 09:17:24 AM
The museum curator must have been a hipster because I haven't heard of most of them.
 
2012-12-05 09:17:34 AM

Cythraul: Well, some of the classics, sure. But almost any game these days that has a decent budget should probably be considered 'art.' Or maybe 'art entertainment?'


I consider "art" to be something that lends itself to interpretation, or something that has more than literal, surface-level meaning. You can make a great, photorealistic, fun game and have it be 0% "artistic". But yeah, most fictional stories, whether they're in games or movies or whatever, have a degree of artistic value, even if it's small. But some really do rise above the rest.
 
2012-12-05 09:18:14 AM

Antimatter: Videogames are no different then film really, it's just they let the viewer have some control over how the story is presented, rather then being passively taking in the experience.


Video games aren't necessarily narrative. Tetris, for example, is not a metaphor for anything.
 
2012-12-05 09:20:37 AM
Including Zork and Nethack would go a long way towards making me not hate this, but seriously, no Civilization? Bah. I still remember the opening animation and the music.
 
2012-12-05 09:24:03 AM
www.animefringe.com 
Whar Final Fantasy 7, Whar?

/ducks
 
2012-12-05 09:24:25 AM
No Xaxon?
 
2012-12-05 09:24:48 AM

Nurglitch: Antimatter: Videogames are no different then film really, it's just they let the viewer have some control over how the story is presented, rather then being passively taking in the experience.

Video games aren't necessarily narrative. Tetris, for example, is not a metaphor for anything.


twoguysmovingaustin.com
 
2012-12-05 09:24:50 AM
Can someone post a list of the games to be included?

Uproxx is blocked at work.
 
2012-12-05 09:24:53 AM
I'm pleasantly surprised they put Dwarf Fortress up there...it's definitely a game that makes you draw an emotional connection to your colony of doomed pixel dwarves (drowning in an ocean of reproducing cats) so much that you create a whole story for their lives that spans generations. Just go look up any of the DF stories and it'll make you want to give it a try...then throw your hands up in defeat after the 10th cat infested colony and go read the wiki until you get it....it definitely deserves it's place.

Overall it's a solid list but I would only suggest one more...

braid-game.com

Layered and non-linear storytelling, and fun mechanics that make you really think about every step.

Oh and the veiled nuclear bomb metaphors are also pretty cool.
 
2012-12-05 09:27:01 AM

jonny_q: Cythraul: Well, some of the classics, sure. But almost any game these days that has a decent budget should probably be considered 'art.' Or maybe 'art entertainment?'

I consider "art" to be something that lends itself to interpretation, or something that has more than literal, surface-level meaning. You can make a great, photorealistic, fun game and have it be 0% "artistic". But yeah, most fictional stories, whether they're in games or movies or whatever, have a degree of artistic value, even if it's small. But some really do rise above the rest.


Hmm. What about the realism period of artistic expression? That period of artwork seems to be made without the need for interpretation, and seems fairly literal.
 
2012-12-05 09:27:42 AM
Also, whar Loom?
 
2012-12-05 09:30:32 AM

Nurglitch: Antimatter: Videogames are no different then film really, it's just they let the viewer have some control over how the story is presented, rather then being passively taking in the experience.

Video games aren't necessarily narrative. Tetris, for example, is not a metaphor for anything.


I wonder what Freud would think about dropping that long piece down to finish off a puzzle...
www.cheatcc.com
 
2012-12-05 09:30:40 AM

Cythraul: jonny_q: Cythraul: Well, some of the classics, sure. But almost any game these days that has a decent budget should probably be considered 'art.' Or maybe 'art entertainment?'

I consider "art" to be something that lends itself to interpretation, or something that has more than literal, surface-level meaning. You can make a great, photorealistic, fun game and have it be 0% "artistic". But yeah, most fictional stories, whether they're in games or movies or whatever, have a degree of artistic value, even if it's small. But some really do rise above the rest.

Hmm. What about the realism period of artistic expression? That period of artwork seems to be made without the need for interpretation, and seems fairly literal.


Video games are experiencing their "Realist" movement. Take a look at any of the modern shooters (CoD, MoH, Battlefield) - they draw an emotional connection through this very gritty realistic presentation. They all have degrees of silliness and unrealisticness from things that come from any gaming environment - but their style comes from being "real".

17f0418678386b4e6860-e4f9fcd924b589d19bf6ccc2802ea9aa.r66.cf1.rackcdn.com

It was the realism that made this scene in CoD4 that much more intense. Even if you don't play shooter games - put it on casual and play the campaign just to experience it.
 
2012-12-05 09:30:42 AM

Cythraul: But almost any game these days that has a decent budget should probably be considered 'art.'


False.

GTA 4 had a huge budget and was an amazing game at the time, but it wasn't groundbreaking or meaningful, it was just a game.
 
2012-12-05 09:32:22 AM
I really don't get the allure of Myst. An Acer PC from 1997 could run faster than that game.
 
2012-12-05 09:33:58 AM

Nurglitch: Antimatter: Videogames are no different then film really, it's just they let the viewer have some control over how the story is presented, rather then being passively taking in the experience.

Video games aren't necessarily narrative. Tetris, for example, is not a metaphor for anything.


It's a metaphor for the Communist takeover of Eastern europe. As the proletariat descends into poverty, they must find ways to work together. Once they find a way to fit into the existing power structure, and reach a critical mass, all obstacles are removed. The line block is a revolution. If the proles don't work together, eventually the system descends into anarchy. As the march of history progresses, the people will work faster and faster, until eventually the glory of the Soviet will cover the whole world.

/Dr. Mario is about drug addiction.
 
2012-12-05 09:34:53 AM
whar SotC/Ico and Half Life 2 whar?

/i guess its already included in art exhibits.
//even though those exhibits also have portal
 
2012-12-05 09:35:15 AM
Ctrl F Okami

??? Fail!
 
2012-12-05 09:35:35 AM

PsyLord: [www.animefringe.com image 240x180] 
Whar Final Fantasy 7, Whar?

/ducks


The music in that game was damn good - I routinely listen to orchestral versions of One-Winged Angel and Aeris's theme - but let's be fair. Only one Final Fantasy had an opera in it and a painter as a main character (even if you got the twerp rather late in the game and could skip getting her after the world is destroyed). While Uemetsu's score from 7 was great, I think given the technical limitations of the SNES for producing sound, 6 (us3) has superior artistic merit. Plus, and this is a matter of opinion I am aware, the story-line was more engrossing and interesting.

I am genuinely surprised that Rez isn't on the list, though.
 
2012-12-05 09:37:09 AM

Expolaris: I'm pleasantly surprised they put Dwarf Fortress up there...it's definitely a game that makes you draw an emotional connection to your colony of doomed pixel dwarves (drowning in an ocean of reproducing cats) so much that you create a whole story for their lives that spans generations. Just go look up any of the DF stories and it'll make you want to give it a try...then throw your hands up in defeat after the 10th cat infested colony and go read the wiki until you get it....it definitely deserves it's place.


I started up a new game of DF yesterday. I made it to summer, had the living quarters and work areas done, I had dug down to level 10 and I decided to dig down farther so I could get some better materials to craft with for trading.

On level 11, I encountered a cavern, thus releasing a troglodyte that proceeded to slaughter 4 of my seven starting dwarves because I wasn't paying attention...

/*sigh*
 
2012-12-05 09:38:43 AM

doglover: Cythraul: But almost any game these days that has a decent budget should probably be considered 'art.'

False.

GTA 4 had a huge budget and was an amazing game at the time, but it wasn't groundbreaking or meaningful, it was just a game.


if you took no meaning from Niko Bellic's tragic tale, then I simply don't know how to talk to you. The story told in GTA4 is amazingly well thought out and is absolutely art. It is also an amazing game NOW. No other sandbox style game has bettered it, and the only thing out that comes close is Red Dead Redemption, amazingly enough a game made by the same folks.

/i know people still claim that San Andreas was better. It is not. Most of the crap you do in that game was tedious and not fun in any way. It told a great story but the GAME is hard to play after playing GTA4. Man, you just can't go back to primitive 3d graphics.

//many SNES games hold up better than many PS\PS2 level games.
 
2012-12-05 09:39:19 AM
List is fail without:

t1.gstatic.com 

/Hot like Daphne
 
2012-12-05 09:39:28 AM

LooseLips: Ctrl F Okami

??? Fail!


Why do people like that game? I guess its good at showing Japanese style, but I don't actually know anyone who liked it as a game. Same goes for Heavy Rain when it shows up on these "Art" lists.
 
2012-12-05 09:39:43 AM

Nurglitch: Video games aren't necessarily narrative. Tetris, for example, is not a metaphor for anything.


Mondrian designed art that specifically had no relation to the real world, but was appreciated only for its inherent aesthetic value. I think Tetris could be considered art in the same way.
 
2012-12-05 09:40:05 AM

SnarfVader: Those selections were good... enough.


You, [character name here], must be the pride of [game developer here].
 
2012-12-05 09:40:19 AM

PirateKing: /Dr. Mario is about drug addiction.


53rg10.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-12-05 09:40:26 AM

thecpt: whar SotC/Ico and Half Life 2 whar?

/i guess its already included in art exhibits.
//even though those exhibits also have portal


I was expecting Half Life/HL2 somewhere in there. Still, I recognize the enormity of trying to choose a few games that best represent the art of the game.
 
2012-12-05 09:42:56 AM
The Secret of Monkey Island is a glaring omission.

/The Smithsonian knew to include that in their exhibit.
 
2012-12-05 09:47:30 AM
Have they ever called a board game "important art"? They may not beep and boom at you, but they can make you think. Especially subtle paradigm breakers like "Ogre" and "Battlefleet Mars".
 
2012-12-05 09:49:38 AM
No ICO?

Fail, MoMA. Fail.
 
2012-12-05 09:49:56 AM
GLaDOS is a representation of a woman in S&M bondage type stuff.

I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'.
 
2012-12-05 09:55:37 AM
media.moddb.com


List fails
 
2012-12-05 09:59:36 AM

thecpt: LooseLips: Ctrl F Okami

??? Fail!

Why do people like that game? I guess its good at showing Japanese style, but I don't actually know anyone who liked it as a game. Same goes for Heavy Rain when it shows up on these "Art" lists.


Interesting. I've had the opposite experience-- haven't met anyone myself who doesn't think it's great or at least solid. Among other things, I think that the art style is wonderful, the brush ability is a fun and unique tool, and the take on the stories/mythology it's based on is fascinating.

Perhaps not your cup of tea, but art-wise I would love to see it get a nod here.
 
2012-12-05 10:10:37 AM

LooseLips: Perhaps not your cup of tea, but art-wise I would love to see it get a nod here.


That's probably all it is. They picked an art style and did it well, and being a westerner I did appreciate the mythology as it was unique. I just couldn't even finish it as a game though. It felt like a counter-intuitive stripped down version of zelda. Other players I know feel similarly, but to give the game credit I always have Amaterasu on my team in Marvel vs Capcom.

/maybe my expectations were high from the reviews I read.
 
2012-12-05 10:11:38 AM
And here I was, all set to joke about how the list fails for lack of Passage, only to RTFA and find that it DOES list Passage.
 
2012-12-05 10:13:42 AM

organizmx: I rember reading an article about Bio-Shock when it came out, and the author saying it was the closest he'd ever seen a video game come to being art.


If they include Bio-Shock over System Shock 2, every one of them deserves a cockpunch.
 
2012-12-05 10:18:07 AM
Subjective argument.
 
2012-12-05 10:21:15 AM
F.....T.....W.....!

www.chessthecat.com
 
2012-12-05 10:21:45 AM
Eve was visually very cool.

I mean, except for the parts when I was too lagged in a fleet fight to actually see anything. Not sure there was much art to be found in the chats either.

/might've just been us, though
//fofofo
 
2012-12-05 10:27:10 AM

Burr: Expolaris: I'm pleasantly surprised they put Dwarf Fortress up there...it's definitely a game that makes you draw an emotional connection to your colony of doomed pixel dwarves (drowning in an ocean of reproducing cats) so much that you create a whole story for their lives that spans generations. Just go look up any of the DF stories and it'll make you want to give it a try...then throw your hands up in defeat after the 10th cat infested colony and go read the wiki until you get it....it definitely deserves it's place.

I started up a new game of DF yesterday. I made it to summer, had the living quarters and work areas done, I had dug down to level 10 and I decided to dig down farther so I could get some better materials to craft with for trading.

On level 11, I encountered a cavern, thus releasing a troglodyte that proceeded to slaughter 4 of my seven starting dwarves because I wasn't paying attention...

/*sigh*


Did you dig too greedily and too deep?
 
2012-12-05 10:28:09 AM

frepnog: doglover: Cythraul: But almost any game these days that has a decent budget should probably be considered 'art.'

False.

GTA 4 had a huge budget and was an amazing game at the time, but it wasn't groundbreaking or meaningful, it was just a game.

if you took no meaning from Niko Bellic's tragic tale, then I simply don't know how to talk to you. The story told in GTA4 is amazingly well thought out and is absolutely art. It is also an amazing game NOW. No other sandbox style game has bettered it, and the only thing out that comes close is Red Dead Redemption, amazingly enough a game made by the same folks.

/i know people still claim that San Andreas was better. It is not. Most of the crap you do in that game was tedious and not fun in any way. It told a great story but the GAME is hard to play after playing GTA4. Man, you just can't go back to primitive 3d graphics.

//many SNES games hold up better than many PS\PS2 level games.


I have always thought GTA stories were overwrought self important melodramas told by poor storytellers who thought they were masters of the craft.

Fun games though, and I do think the humor works, but dramatic masterpieces they are not.
 
2012-12-05 10:30:44 AM
Canabalt? As a work of art? That's the dumbest thing I've heard this week, and I spend time on the Politics tab.
 
2012-12-05 10:31:20 AM
No Deus Ex, either...
 
2012-12-05 10:32:13 AM

frepnog: doglover: Cythraul: But almost any game these days that has a decent budget should probably be considered 'art.'

False.

GTA 4 had a huge budget and was an amazing game at the time, but it wasn't groundbreaking or meaningful, it was just a game.

if you took no meaning from Niko Bellic's tragic tale, then I simply don't know how to talk to you. The story told in GTA4 is amazingly well thought out and is absolutely art. It is also an amazing game NOW. No other sandbox style game has bettered it, and the only thing out that comes close is Red Dead Redemption, amazingly enough a game made by the same folks.

/i know people still claim that San Andreas was better. It is not. Most of the crap you do in that game was tedious and not fun in any way. It told a great story but the GAME is hard to play after playing GTA4. Man, you just can't go back to primitive 3d graphics.

//many SNES games hold up better than many PS\PS2 level games.


No, they really don't, it;s just nostalgia goggles in action.
 
2012-12-05 10:36:22 AM

FunkyBlue: No Deus Ex, either...


It definitely pushed story telling and had great story concepts, but I didn't think it did anything greatly artistic. Even for the time the graphics were considered blocky, and dark settings with robotic figures isn't really great art. The philosophical presence might be considered artistic, if thats what you mean.

/I say this as a lover of that game
 
2012-12-05 10:37:14 AM

miniflea: I have always thought GTA stories were overwrought self important melodramas told by poor storytellers who thought they were masters of the craft.

Fun games though, and I do think the humor works, but dramatic masterpieces they are not.


My favorite game of the GTA style is Just Cause 2, by far. The grappling hook and infinite instant parachutes are total game changers.

It's biggest problem by far is no multiplayer, but that's changing.
 
2012-12-05 10:41:22 AM
I would suggest TTG Walking Dead and Shadow of the Colossus
 
2012-12-05 10:43:32 AM
i'm brave enough to out on a limb and call that Worst Article Evar Written. subject was art with a capital A and they give us a list, a written list, no pics, nothing. holy crap.

the one pic that was there, i have no idea. not everybody a game guy, i farking hate games (the modern electronic ones you pussies play) but hell i'm willing to read geek articles. toss the dog a bone for gawds sake. yeah, get all bent out of shape. i grew up playing pinball. we would go out, meet girls and play pinball. you homos wouldn't know about that.

/Monopoly. that's a game.
 
2012-12-05 10:44:39 AM
Metal Gear Solid should be there for its blend of game and cinema.
 
2012-12-05 10:44:40 AM
miniflea:I have always thought GTA stories were overwrought self important melodramas told by poor storytellers who thought they were masters of the craft.

Fun games though, and I do think the humor works, but dramatic masterpieces they are not.

Aside from GTA IV, I don't know if they thought they were msterful storytellers. 3, VC and SA were all homages that cribbed heavily from different movies and pop culture (Godfather, Scarface and Boyz n the Hood). IV became melodramatic, but the ones before it were obvious homages and satires.
 
2012-12-05 10:49:09 AM

Antimatter: frepnog: doglover: Cythraul: But almost any game these days that has a decent budget should probably be considered 'art.'

False.

GTA 4 had a huge budget and was an amazing game at the time, but it wasn't groundbreaking or meaningful, it was just a game.

if you took no meaning from Niko Bellic's tragic tale, then I simply don't know how to talk to you. The story told in GTA4 is amazingly well thought out and is absolutely art. It is also an amazing game NOW. No other sandbox style game has bettered it, and the only thing out that comes close is Red Dead Redemption, amazingly enough a game made by the same folks.

/i know people still claim that San Andreas was better. It is not. Most of the crap you do in that game was tedious and not fun in any way. It told a great story but the GAME is hard to play after playing GTA4. Man, you just can't go back to primitive 3d graphics.

//many SNES games hold up better than many PS\PS2 level games.

No, they really don't, it;s just nostalgia goggles in action.


actually, they really do because the older sprite based hand drawn art styles still look decent compared to crap early 3d visuals. Compare say, Chrono Trigger to say Chrono Cross. Chrono Cross looks like complete ass (we are speaking strictly visual here) while chrono trigger still looks like a cartoon of sorts. you can still lose yourself in Chrono Trigger, but the graphics in Chrono Cross will have you turn that shiat off before long. sega saturn games, TONS of PS1 games, quite a few PS2 games, N64 games (GOLDENEYE) all suffer to a degree from "crappy polygon graphic-itis".
 
2012-12-05 10:54:15 AM

miniflea: I have always thought GTA stories were overwrought self important melodramas told by poor storytellers who thought they were masters of the craft.

Fun games though, and I do think the humor works, but dramatic masterpieces they are not.


I don't think you're supposed to take the stories seriously. Especially the GTA III series is one giant piss-take and tongue-in-cheek homage to a various movies. Your character's story is mostly a device for showing off the world they created, rather than the focus of the game (in the first one, you don't even say anything, you're just a passive observer). In IV and RDR they did more of a proper story in its own right, but it's deliberately long-winded and meanders through their brilliantly constructed world. I'm pretty sure that Rockstar seem themselves are satirists more than storytellers.
 
2012-12-05 10:56:06 AM

frepnog: actually, they really do because the older sprite based hand drawn art styles still look decent compared to crap early 3d visuals. Compare say, Chrono Trigger to say Chrono Cross. Chrono Cross looks like complete ass (we are speaking strictly visual here) while chrono trigger still looks like a cartoon of sorts. you can still lose yourself in Chrono Trigger, but the graphics in Chrono Cross will have you turn that shiat off before long. sega saturn games, TONS of PS1 games, quite a few PS2 games, N64 games (GOLDENEYE) all suffer to a degree from "crappy polygon graphic-itis".


Counter argument, Mario 64 is on the list and Ocarina/majora'smask should have been. Yeah if you pick select 3d games you can make your argument, but 3d allows you to do more. There were bound to be growing pains.
 
2012-12-05 10:57:46 AM
Missing, for both visual and storytelling achievements:

3.bp.blogspot.com 

upload.wikimedia.org

upload.wikimedia.org 
/hot images
 
Bf+
2012-12-05 11:10:52 AM
cdn.steampowered.com
 
2012-12-05 11:11:39 AM
I've been looking for active communities for Dwarf Fortress and Plaetside 2, if anyone wants to e-mail me.
 
2012-12-05 11:13:41 AM

thecpt: frepnog: actually, they really do because the older sprite based hand drawn art styles still look decent compared to crap early 3d visuals. Compare say, Chrono Trigger to say Chrono Cross. Chrono Cross looks like complete ass (we are speaking strictly visual here) while chrono trigger still looks like a cartoon of sorts. you can still lose yourself in Chrono Trigger, but the graphics in Chrono Cross will have you turn that shiat off before long. sega saturn games, TONS of PS1 games, quite a few PS2 games, N64 games (GOLDENEYE) all suffer to a degree from "crappy polygon graphic-itis".

Counter argument, Mario 64 is on the list and Ocarina/majora'smask should have been. Yeah if you pick select 3d games you can make your argument, but 3d allows you to do more. There were bound to be growing pains.


mario 64 holds up because the game play is brilliant and the 3d graphics are kept simplistic and mixed with sprites. the 3d of the early consoles did not allow you to do more - in fact, as good a game as FF7 is, there is a reason that people still claim 6 is a better game.

there are always exceptions. in this case, the exceptions do not make the rule. Most of the stuff on PS1 and N64 especially were pretty much graphically garbage and these days are just unplayable as a result. Hell, GTA Vice City on PS2 was my favorite game EVAR for years.... I reinstalled it last year on PC and I just can't do it. I can't play it any longer. The graphics just kill it. So don't give me any "nostalgia" crap about why SNES stuff is STILL playable.
 
2012-12-05 11:15:45 AM

Bf+: [cdn.steampowered.com image 850x478]


i love that game so friggin' much.
 
2012-12-05 11:17:13 AM
List fails without Ico.

/off to lord over my Dorfs
 
2012-12-05 11:21:33 AM
Pleasantly surprised to see Vib Ribbon.

Long live the singing crack rabbit. ^_^
 
2012-12-05 11:24:17 AM

Genju: Subjective argument.


No wai, art interpretation is concrete!

en.artoffer.com
See? Concrete!
 
2012-12-05 11:24:55 AM

Bf+: [cdn.steampowered.com image 850x478]


What in the fark is that
 
2012-12-05 11:27:02 AM

dj_spanmaster: Bf+: [cdn.steampowered.com image 850x478]

What in the fark is that


that is Limbo. it is a fantastic platform\puzzle game.
 
2012-12-05 11:27:46 AM
I came in to make some argument on the definition of 'art', but I'm coming away with a much longer list of games to play that I've never heard of.

Which, one could argue is the point of art ....

\ so meta ...
\\ BOOM HEADSHOT
 
2012-12-05 11:28:43 AM
- flOw (2006)

- Passage (2008)

- Canabalt (2009)


ROFL

dj_spanmaster: What in the fark is that


A game which neglects every rule of competent game design and ends up with a passionate following because it recreates the aesthetics of silent film design. Therefore, it's "art". Lol.
 
2012-12-05 11:32:55 AM

Mike_LowELL: - flOw (2006)

- Passage (2008)

- Canabalt (2009)

ROFL

dj_spanmaster: What in the fark is that

A game which neglects every rule of competent game design and ends up with a passionate following because it recreates the aesthetics of silent film design. Therefore, it's "art". Lol.


jaded much? Limbo was amazing.
 
2012-12-05 11:33:22 AM

Nurglitch: Antimatter: Videogames are no different then film really, it's just they let the viewer have some control over how the story is presented, rather then being passively taking in the experience.

Video games aren't necessarily narrative. Tetris, for example, is not a metaphor for anything.


I suggest watching this video
 
2012-12-05 11:33:57 AM
A true work of art: 

ecx.images-amazon.com
 
2012-12-05 11:34:57 AM
Shadow of the colossus really should be on there. I cant think of any game that merges scenery story gameplay, really all of its elements as well as it does.
 
2012-12-05 11:36:48 AM

frepnog: Antimatter: frepnog: doglover: Cythraul: But almost any game these days that has a decent budget should probably be considered 'art.'

False.

GTA 4 had a huge budget and was an amazing game at the time, but it wasn't groundbreaking or meaningful, it was just a game.

if you took no meaning from Niko Bellic's tragic tale, then I simply don't know how to talk to you. The story told in GTA4 is amazingly well thought out and is absolutely art. It is also an amazing game NOW. No other sandbox style game has bettered it, and the only thing out that comes close is Red Dead Redemption, amazingly enough a game made by the same folks.

/i know people still claim that San Andreas was better. It is not. Most of the crap you do in that game was tedious and not fun in any way. It told a great story but the GAME is hard to play after playing GTA4. Man, you just can't go back to primitive 3d graphics.

//many SNES games hold up better than many PS\PS2 level games.

No, they really don't, it;s just nostalgia goggles in action.

actually, they really do because the older sprite based hand drawn art styles still look decent compared to crap early 3d visuals. Compare say, Chrono Trigger to say Chrono Cross. Chrono Cross looks like complete ass (we are speaking strictly visual here) while chrono trigger still looks like a cartoon of sorts. you can still lose yourself in Chrono Trigger, but the graphics in Chrono Cross will have you turn that shiat off before long. sega saturn games, TONS of PS1 games, quite a few PS2 games, N64 games (GOLDENEYE) all suffer to a degree from "crappy polygon graphic-itis".


To be fair, CT's story is interesting and the characters are fun. CC had too many characters with little plot relevance and the story goes to hell on the second disc.

Never good to have a plot dump 3 minutes before the final boss.
 
2012-12-05 11:37:01 AM

frepnog: there are always exceptions. in this case, the exceptions do not make the rule. Most of the stuff on PS1 and N64 especially were pretty much graphically garbage and these days are just unplayable as a result. Hell, GTA Vice City on PS2 was my favorite game EVAR for years.... I reinstalled it last year on PC and I just can't do it. I can't play it any longer. The graphics just kill it. So don't give me any "nostalgia" crap about why SNES stuff is STILL playable.


I don't have any particular nostalgia feelings for older games being art. I'm trying to say that there were growing pains during the mid nineties until 3D was artistically viable. But during those budding years there were definitely stand outs.

You reminded me that Cloud Strife's arms were cones. Nonetheless you could "see" that 3d world better than previous games where you had to fill in the blanks with your imagination.
 
2012-12-05 11:41:16 AM

thecpt: frepnog: there are always exceptions. in this case, the exceptions do not make the rule. Most of the stuff on PS1 and N64 especially were pretty much graphically garbage and these days are just unplayable as a result. Hell, GTA Vice City on PS2 was my favorite game EVAR for years.... I reinstalled it last year on PC and I just can't do it. I can't play it any longer. The graphics just kill it. So don't give me any "nostalgia" crap about why SNES stuff is STILL playable.

I don't have any particular nostalgia feelings for older games being art. I'm trying to say that there were growing pains during the mid nineties until 3D was artistically viable. But during those budding years there were definitely stand outs.

You reminded me that Cloud Strife's arms were cones. Nonetheless you could "see" that 3d world better than previous games where you had to fill in the blanks with your imagination.


not really. FF7 was 3d models on old style static backgrounds. The entire game (with retooled battle scenes, of course) could have been an SNES game.
 
2012-12-05 11:44:24 AM
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-12-05 11:47:44 AM

Honest Bender: [upload.wikimedia.org image 230x293]


That was a great game.
 
2012-12-05 11:52:14 AM

wippit: Nurglitch: Antimatter: Videogames are no different then film really, it's just they let the viewer have some control over how the story is presented, rather then being passively taking in the experience.

Video games aren't necessarily narrative. Tetris, for example, is not a metaphor for anything.

I suggest watching this video


I can't watch video at work, but I really really hope that is the "We are the men who assemble the blocks" video. One of the best things I've seen on youtube, and highly relevant to the current discussion.
 
2012-12-05 11:53:24 AM

frepnog: not really. FF7 was 3d models on old style static backgrounds. The entire game (with retooled battle scenes, of course) could have been an SNES game.


So the only option is cartoonish 2d style or an attempt at immersion. I don't think its nostalgia to say that I thought the 3d was cool and different back in the day. No one had done that for a 60 hour game and I respected that when I did my first playthrough 7 years after it came out. It was still fun and unique to me, even then. They tried to push what they could do graphically, and it payed off.

/3 whole disks of it
 
2012-12-05 11:53:31 AM
Let's make this very clear: By definition, just about everything in our society today is artistic. The only debate is whether or not the art is good art or bad art. Deus Ex, Supreme Commander, Vanquish, and Dark Souls are examples of some of the most artistic games that we have. They are artistic because they are some of the best videogames that we have. They don't end up being "not artistic" because they're about killing, or "lack an emotional story", or whatever nonsense narrative we're on about this week. Even though Deus Ex certainly boasts discussion of philosophy and transhumanism that is relevant to this day, the game is not art because of it. Deus Ex is art because it's farking awesome.

Limbo, Canabalt, and Journey are not "artistic" because they borrow lessons from the traditional arts. (Oh, and anyone who thinks Canabalt is a work of art should at least delve back into the medium and see that Chelnov did the same things twenty-five years ago, and actually featured things like "level design", and "stage progression", and "enemies", and "power-ups", and "actual variables that lead to a more complex game".) They're not good, which means they're not good art. This idea that video games need to borrow from techniques in painting or movies in order to transcend itself needs to stop. The great early moviemakers trumped and surpassed those who thought moviemaking should draw from the traditional arts, because D.W. Griffith and company had no preconceived notions about what this new different media could do. And if these pioneers had any background, it was (like Griffith) in theatre, a form of art whose exaggerated physical acting played perfectly into silent film. Art's purpose is to entertain. Not to be "emotional and shiat".

frepnog: jaded much? Limbo was amazing.


Easy puzzles, poor platforming, completely and utterly rigid narrative (comparably rigid to the ones that artgame players would complain about in today's modern explod-a-thon), a complete and utter lack of difficulty and challenge, and an absolute lack of conveyance about the hazards of the game world that is only offset by the absurd number of checkpoints you come across. It's one of the most aggravating games that I've played in recent memory. There is a difference between "you die a lot" and "you die a lot because we're not properly disclosing the hazards and rules of our game world to you". (Oh, and if you think I'm just holding "short game that eschews difficulty and complex mechanics in favor of atmosphere" purely against Limbo, keep in mind that I don't really like Portal, either.)
 
2012-12-05 11:56:57 AM

my_cats_breath_smells_like_cat_food: wippit: Nurglitch: Antimatter: Videogames are no different then film really, it's just they let the viewer have some control over how the story is presented, rather then being passively taking in the experience.

Video games aren't necessarily narrative. Tetris, for example, is not a metaphor for anything.

I suggest watching this video

I can't watch video at work, but I really really hope that is the "We are the men who assemble the blocks" video. One of the best things I've seen on youtube, and highly relevant to the current discussion.


Indeed, that is the video.
 
2012-12-05 11:57:08 AM

Cythraul: They have to hire writers, concept artists, 3D modelers and so on. Sounds pretty artistic to me.


Next we'll be inducting cranes and wrenches into art museums.
 
2012-12-05 11:58:46 AM
It's a completely subjective list, but my top 5 games of all time are:

upload.wikimedia.org

ecx.images-amazon.com

cdn2.pitchfork.com

images1.wikia.nocookie.net

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-12-05 11:59:50 AM

thecpt: frepnog: there are always exceptions. in this case, the exceptions do not make the rule. Most of the stuff on PS1 and N64 especially were pretty much graphically garbage and these days are just unplayable as a result. Hell, GTA Vice City on PS2 was my favorite game EVAR for years.... I reinstalled it last year on PC and I just can't do it. I can't play it any longer. The graphics just kill it. So don't give me any "nostalgia" crap about why SNES stuff is STILL playable.

I don't have any particular nostalgia feelings for older games being art. I'm trying to say that there were growing pains during the mid nineties until 3D was artistically viable. But during those budding years there were definitely stand outs.

You reminded me that Cloud Strife's arms were cones. Nonetheless you could "see" that 3d world better than previous games where you had to fill in the blanks with your imagination.


Nah, it was hideous garbage. 3D games started looking respectable about five years ago. Everything before that resembled a Dire Straits music video.
 
2012-12-05 11:59:50 AM

moothemagiccow: Next we'll be inducting cranes and wrenches into art museums.


Once again, anything can be artistic. It's a matter of whether it's "art" (i.e. good art) or "not art" (i.e. bad art).
 
2012-12-05 12:02:00 PM

thecpt: LooseLips: Ctrl F Okami

??? Fail!

Why do people like that game? I guess its good at showing Japanese style, but I don't actually know anyone who liked it as a game. Same goes for Heavy Rain when it shows up on these "Art" lists.


Thankless fetch quest wolf
 
2012-12-05 12:06:27 PM
Nearly all of the 'earmarked' games are gold. Pac-man, Tetris and possibly Portal are the only games I see on the actual list that belong there, IMO.
 
2012-12-05 12:06:58 PM

kumanoki: It's a completely subjective list, but my top 5 games of all time are:

[upload.wikimedia.org image 256x256]

[ecx.images-amazon.com image 300x300]

[cdn2.pitchfork.com image 640x330]

[images1.wikia.nocookie.net image 230x332]

[upload.wikimedia.org image 250x333]


My list is;

1. Batman: The Arkham Series
2. Super Mario 64
3. The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time
4. MLB: The Show series
5. Portal
 
2012-12-05 12:08:28 PM

Mike_LowELL: (Oh, and if you think I'm just holding "short game that eschews difficulty and complex mechanics in favor of atmosphere" purely against Limbo, keep in mind that I don't really like Portal, either.)


ah, so you are broken then. I see.

moothemagiccow: Nah, it was hideous garbage. 3D games started looking respectable about five years ago. Everything before that resembled a Dire Straits music video.


that was what I was saying. Early 3d graphics really hurt the staying power of the games, while games like.... oh, Donkey Kong Country on SNES still look pretty damn great (yeah, it was CGI too, but CGI converted to sprites may as well been hand drawn). DKC still looks better than say ... oh, what was that early PS1 game where you were a robot rabbit? God, it looks like shiat.
 
2012-12-05 12:09:08 PM
Shadow of the Beast was quite impressive for 1989 (graphics and music). To put it into the proper historical context, Microsoft was still a year away from releasing their first version of Minesweeper.
 
2012-12-05 12:09:56 PM

kukukupo: Nearly all of the 'earmarked' games are gold. Pac-man, Tetris and possibly Portal are the only games I see on the actual list that belong there, IMO.


I'm actually a little upset Minecraft isn't in now, and is on the earmarked list. The sheer amount of pictures from that game available on the internet may start to rival porn.

/Ok, maybe not porn
//Ponies. Rival ponies.
 
2012-12-05 12:10:02 PM

Antimatter: frepnog: doglover: Cythraul: But almost any game these days that has a decent budget should probably be considered 'art.'

False.

GTA 4 had a huge budget and was an amazing game at the time, but it wasn't groundbreaking or meaningful, it was just a game.

if you took no meaning from Niko Bellic's tragic tale, then I simply don't know how to talk to you. The story told in GTA4 is amazingly well thought out and is absolutely art. It is also an amazing game NOW. No other sandbox style game has bettered it, and the only thing out that comes close is Red Dead Redemption, amazingly enough a game made by the same folks.

/i know people still claim that San Andreas was better. It is not. Most of the crap you do in that game was tedious and not fun in any way. It told a great story but the GAME is hard to play after playing GTA4. Man, you just can't go back to primitive 3d graphics.

//many SNES games hold up better than many PS\PS2 level games.

No, they really don't, it;s just nostalgia goggles in action.


Yes, they really do.
 
2012-12-05 12:14:16 PM

frepnog: ah, so you are broken then. I see.


What a half-assed response. "You don't think a short, unchallenging puzzle game is good, so I don't have to respond to any of your criticisms of another short, unchallenging puzzle game."
 
2012-12-05 12:15:10 PM

Mike_LowELL: Art's purpose is to entertain. Not to be "emotional and shiat".


No.
 
2012-12-05 12:15:12 PM

wippit: I'm actually a little upset Minecraft isn't in now, and is on the earmarked list. The sheer amount of pictures from that game available on the internet may start to rival porn.


by extension, photoshop is one of the most artistic games in history
 
2012-12-05 12:16:25 PM

Antimatter: Videogames are no different then film really, it's just they let the viewer have some control over how the story is presented, rather then being passively taking in the experience.


Video games are ENTIRELY different than film. In a film because the person experiencing the game isn't just passively viewing it; he or she is actually interacting with it and causing the story to happen.

If you had a film where you watched a one-note protagonist with a giant sword and a pair of guns annihilate hundreds of similar-looking villains using the same set of animations and juggles over and over and over, you'd be bored to tears. But in a game, you'd say, "Wow, Devil May Cry is really fun" and you'd ignore the fact that the story doesn't make a lot of sense or that you wind up replaying the same moments repeatedly just to progress on to the next section.

And this leads to a different desired experience. Most video gamers would rather complete repetitive actions over and over than sit through a long non-interactive sequence or ride on a Half-Life-style tramway over which they have little control. Cutscenes and non-interactive sequences are fine for a brief break in the action, but there's a reason gamers tend to dread the lengthy ones.
 
2012-12-05 12:16:38 PM
farm4.static.flickr.com

Wip3out for PlayStation.

3.bp.blogspot.com

Featuring artwork from Designers Republic and some kick-ass futuristic tunes.
 
2012-12-05 12:18:14 PM

Tyrone Slothrop: Mike_LowELL: Art's purpose is to entertain. Not to be "emotional and shiat".

No.


Question:

Supreme Commander trailer.

True or false: Supreme Commander demonstrates skill and craft in the pursuit of creative expression.

Or...

True or false: Supreme Commander is art.
 
2012-12-05 12:19:56 PM
Nice to see ThatGameCompany recognized, but, as others have said, I am surprised they didn't go for Journey instead.


/so pretty
//and that soundtrack
///oh god. the soundtrack
 
2012-12-05 12:24:13 PM

moothemagiccow: Cythraul: They have to hire writers, concept artists, 3D modelers and so on. Sounds pretty artistic to me.

Next we'll be inducting cranes and wrenches into art museums.


Ulgh, jeez, you're a moronic asshole. Everything you put on Fark is garbage. Or at least everything that I've noticed. I'm just going to put you on my asshole list.
 
2012-12-05 12:26:46 PM

PsyLord: Whar Final Fantasy 7, Whar?


The Museum of Bad Art is in Somerville, MA.
(appropriately enough)
 
2012-12-05 12:29:30 PM

Mike_LowELL: frepnog: ah, so you are broken then. I see.

What a half-assed response. "You don't think a short, unchallenging puzzle game is good, so I don't have to respond to any of your criticisms of another short, unchallenging puzzle game."


that was in response to portal. If you are a gamer and didn't like portal, Imma hafta call you broken. It is as good as modern gaming gets. I can see how someone wouldn't like Limbo, other than the atmosphere it is a pretty much by the numbers game, but the atmosphere really makes it amazing.
 
2012-12-05 12:30:51 PM
machinarium.net
 
2012-12-05 12:32:42 PM

sprawl15: If they include Bio-Shock over System Shock 2, every one of them deserves a cockpunch.


As a better game? Sure, System Shock 2 wins.
As art? Bioshock wins.
 
2012-12-05 12:37:37 PM

Frank Anthrax: [machinarium.net image 411x554]


The parallels with Grim Fandango are strong.
 
2012-12-05 12:39:17 PM

frepnog: Mike_LowELL: frepnog: ah, so you are broken then. I see.

What a half-assed response. "You don't think a short, unchallenging puzzle game is good, so I don't have to respond to any of your criticisms of another short, unchallenging puzzle game."

that was in response to portal. If you are a gamer and didn't like portal, Imma hafta call you broken. It is as good as modern gaming gets. I can see how someone wouldn't like Limbo, other than the atmosphere it is a pretty much by the numbers game, but the atmosphere really makes it amazing.


He fancies himself as some sort of authority on video games. Have you seen his awful blog?
 
2012-12-05 12:39:44 PM

Cubicle Jockey: sprawl15: If they include Bio-Shock over System Shock 2, every one of them deserves a cockpunch.

As a better game? Sure, System Shock 2 wins.
As art? Bioshock wins.


yeah, this. As much as I liked SS2 back in the day, the graphics really make it hard to play these days. Just a butt-ugly game by modern standards.

swotti.starmedia.com
 
2012-12-05 12:40:02 PM

Cubicle Jockey: sprawl15: If they include Bio-Shock over System Shock 2, every one of them deserves a cockpunch.

As a better game? Sure, System Shock 2 wins.
As art? Bioshock wins.


The only category Bioshock would win in would be raw graphics.
 
2012-12-05 12:45:17 PM

frepnog: that was in response to portal. If you are a gamer and didn't like portal, Imma hafta call you broken. It is as good as modern gaming gets. I can see how someone wouldn't like Limbo, other than the atmosphere it is a pretty much by the numbers game, but the atmosphere really makes it amazing.


It's a three-hour game that parodies linear level design while simultaneously embracing it and uses a single weapon that was, in the glory days of the arena shooter, one means of transportation within a more complex, satisfying construct for the first-person shooter. I'll keep pointing back to the Translocator as made famous within the scope of Unreal Tournament deathmatch. Which wouldn't be a problem if the puzzles in Portal were difficult, but they're not. (The first time I played through the game, I finished the advanced add-on courses thinking they were the final levels within the game as originally designed.) Now, if Portal had done something analogous to Super Mario World, where you could skip large portions of the game by playing really cool experimental-style levels (all while GLAdOS's dialogue is changed accordingly), I'd be with you. But as-is, I ain't buying it.

Cubicle Jockey: As a better game? Sure, System Shock 2 wins.
As art? Bioshock wins.


The better art is the one that is the better game.

Mentalpatient87: He fancies himself as some sort of authority on video games. Have you seen his awful blog?


What did I say that you disagree with? Or is this one of those "I disagree you but I don't quite have the knowledge of the topic to refute your opinions, so I'll try to paint you as a smarmy elitist" conversations?
 
2012-12-05 12:46:26 PM
Zork was wonderful, but it wasn't Art. It was Literature.

As for the rest, glad to see Tempest on there, and I suppose Pac Man has to be. I'd say Pitfall needs to be there as well, as the progenitor of a whole host of games.

But my experience with video games ends with Sega Genesis, so I leave the rest to others, beyond saying that I am only recently inclined to consider any videogames as art. The form has matured enough that I have occasionally mistaken a video game ad for a movie trailer. That being the case, if film is art then so are video games, and if the current state of the art (so to speak) is art, then the progenitors are primitive art.
 
2012-12-05 12:46:28 PM

Mike_LowELL: Art's purpose is to entertain.



Mind you, I'm of the sort that thinks every Rothko in existence should be burned, but I don't see how anyone could agree with your statement.

Corinthian Columns. Manuscript Illumination. Crenulations. Calligraphy.
All artistic. Entertainment? I don't see it.

Could you please clarify what you mean by entertain?
 
2012-12-05 12:47:55 PM

Cubicle Jockey: Could you please clarify what you mean by entertain?


Cod and Halo are the most artistic thing you could imagine. Same with American Idol.
 
2012-12-05 12:49:02 PM

sprawl15: Cubicle Jockey: sprawl15: If they include Bio-Shock over System Shock 2, every one of them deserves a cockpunch.

As a better game? Sure, System Shock 2 wins.
As art? Bioshock wins.

The only category Bioshock would win in would be raw graphics.


And music. And level design. And general writing (though not story).
 
2012-12-05 12:56:24 PM

Cubicle Jockey: And music.


lolwut

SS2 is still one of the best examples of using sound in a game to effect.

Cubicle Jockey: And level design.


The Rickenbacker levels were the worst in SS2 by a pretty large margin, and they were still on par with Bioshock.

Cubicle Jockey: And general writing (though not story).


This is pretty farking meaningless.
 
2012-12-05 12:57:26 PM

Mike_LowELL: Which wouldn't be a problem if the puzzles in Portal were difficult, but they're not. (The first time I played through the game, I finished the advanced add-on courses thinking they were the final levels within the game as originally designed.)


bullshiat.

Mike_LowELL: Cubicle Jockey: As a better game? Sure, System Shock 2 wins.
As art? Bioshock wins.

The better art is the one that is the better game.


By modern standards, Bioshock IS a better game. Yes, SS2 was the precursor and did much of the same things but it, on the whole, is hard to play now because the graphics really hold it down. If it was released as a downloadable game on the Xbox live market place, it might sell a few copies but no one would seriously play it (see - Bungie's Marathon games). So - since Bioshock is essentially the same game but with amazing graphics, it is easy to see why it will hold up better and linger longer in people's memories.

/loved SS2. Not saying anything really bad about the game. But it didn't sell when it was new, the graphics are horrid, and it really is a game best left in the past.

Mike_LowELL: Mentalpatient87: He fancies himself as some sort of authority on video games. Have you seen his awful blog?

What did I say that you disagree with? Or is this one of those "I disagree you but I don't quite have the knowledge of the topic to refute your opinions, so I'll try to paint you as a smarmy elitist" conversations?


Yeah, I get you. You are smarter than the rest of us. It is just video games, dude - it is all subjective.

except portal. dude, seriously, if you didn't like portal you really should take a break from gaming, you are far too jaded.
 
2012-12-05 12:57:43 PM

frepnog: yeah, this. As much as I liked SS2 back in the day, the graphics really make it hard to play these days. Just a butt-ugly game by modern standards.


That is what makes it so hard for me to get into the original Deus Ex. I picked up Deus Ex HR on steam with the other two games in the series, and after going through HR I decided to try out the first game. I'm sure the game has cool moments, and all, but I just had a hard time getting into it after the graphics from HR. I suppose that's what I get for switching to console gaming during the late 90s early 00's.
 
2012-12-05 01:02:24 PM

Dingleberry Dickwad: frepnog: yeah, this. As much as I liked SS2 back in the day, the graphics really make it hard to play these days. Just a butt-ugly game by modern standards.

That is what makes it so hard for me to get into the original Deus Ex. I picked up Deus Ex HR on steam with the other two games in the series, and after going through HR I decided to try out the first game. I'm sure the game has cool moments, and all, but I just had a hard time getting into it after the graphics from HR. I suppose that's what I get for switching to console gaming during the late 90s early 00's.


hell, Deus Ex was butt-ugly when it was NEW. It is also far over-rated. They took something fairly simple (a FPS game) and obfuscated it to the point to where it just wasn't much fun to play. These days it is just a chore to try to play because it is so butt-ugly that you simply can't get immersed in it. As an experiment and a story it was good, as a game it was pretty damned broken. Invisible War, as hated by die-hard fans of the first game as it is, was a far better game - and the PC version can be modded to look pretty good so it remains fairly playable.
 
2012-12-05 01:03:08 PM

Cubicle Jockey: Corinthian Columns. Manuscript Illumination. Crenulations. Calligraphy.
All artistic. Entertainment? I don't see it.

Could you please clarify what you mean by entertain?


Provide pleasure, whatever that pleasure may entail. Emotional attachment and message are one means to pleasure. They are not the end-all be-all to art. Keep in mind that what you listed also demonstrates a high degree of craft, which is also important. You can certainly have an appreciation for the craft, the reasons for the craft's existence, and the technical skill that went into making it. By comparison, a Rothko or a Pollack are nothing, other than a scam designed to make rich people feel like they've purchased high art. They're paint smeared on a canvas. That's the kind of mindset I'm going after, the "IT'S SO DEEP" audience. That's how you end up with tripe like Journey being Game of the Year candidates.
 
2012-12-05 01:04:40 PM

frepnog: since Bioshock is essentially the same game but with amazing graphics


Fascinating.
 
2012-12-05 01:07:46 PM

sprawl15: SS2 is still one of the best examples of using sound in a game to effect.


Sound Effects or Music? I specified the latter.

sprawl15: This is pretty farking meaningless.


General writing is what made Tarantino and Whedon famous. I would also say that general writing is what made Bioware so popular.
 
2012-12-05 01:08:54 PM

Mentalpatient87: frepnog: Mike_LowELL: frepnog: ah, so you are broken then. I see.

What a half-assed response. "You don't think a short, unchallenging puzzle game is good, so I don't have to respond to any of your criticisms of another short, unchallenging puzzle game."

that was in response to portal. If you are a gamer and didn't like portal, Imma hafta call you broken. It is as good as modern gaming gets. I can see how someone wouldn't like Limbo, other than the atmosphere it is a pretty much by the numbers game, but the atmosphere really makes it amazing.

He fancies himself as some sort of authority on video games. Have you seen his awful blog?


If not, it will be linked shortly.
 
2012-12-05 01:10:33 PM

Mike_LowELL:
What did I say that you disagree with? Or is this one of those "I disagree you but I don't quite have the knowledge of the topic to refute your opinions, so I'll try to paint you as a smarmy elitist" conversations?


Hey, he's just calling a spade a spade.
 
2012-12-05 01:11:13 PM

Dimensio: The Secret of Monkey Island is a glaring omission.

/The Smithsonian knew to include that in their exhibit.


My uncle made the graphical verb-object UI for the lucasarts games.

No explanation as of yet as to where the gasoline is for the chainsaw.
 
2012-12-05 01:11:39 PM

Cubicle Jockey: sprawl15: SS2 is still one of the best examples of using sound in a game to effect.

Sound Effects or Music? I specified the latter.


Music is a sound effect, when used properly. Setting into the faster paced electronica when shiat hits the fan or completely stopping any music at certain points to jack up your paranoia have huge effects on your interaction. Bioshock without music loses nothing, except a neat soundtrack. SS2 without music loses a key part of its atmosphere.

Cubicle Jockey: sprawl15: This is pretty farking meaningless.

General writing is what made Tarantino and Whedon famous.


So you don't know the definition either, then.

What non-plot related writing was there in Bioshock?
 
2012-12-05 01:13:59 PM

sprawl15: frepnog: since Bioshock is essentially the same game but with amazing graphics

Fascinating.


how so? it is 100 percent the truth.
 
2012-12-05 01:15:59 PM

SkylineRecords: kumanoki: It's a completely subjective list, but my top 5 games of all time are:

[upload.wikimedia.org image 256x256]

[ecx.images-amazon.com image 300x300]

[cdn2.pitchfork.com image 640x330]

[images1.wikia.nocookie.net image 230x332]

[upload.wikimedia.org image 250x333]

My list is;

1. Batman: The Arkham Series
2. Super Mario 64
3. The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time
4. MLB: The Show series
5. Portal


Madden 2007
Madden 2008
Madden 2009
Madden 2010
Madden 2011 Kidding
 
2012-12-05 01:17:30 PM

sprawl15: Bioshock without music loses nothing, except a neat soundtrack.


wow. you really have no idea what you are talking about. Bioshock uses music as Hollywood movies use it - to create tension, to give the all clear, to create atmosphere. Turning off the music in Bioshock would be like turning off the score when watching Empire Strikes Back - you would rob it of much of the feeling.
 
2012-12-05 01:23:17 PM

frepnog: sprawl15: frepnog: since Bioshock is essentially the same game but with amazing graphics

Fascinating.

how so? it is 100 percent the truth.


Aside from every part of that being false, yeah. Even the bit about Bioshock's graphics being amazing - everything was slathered in a layer of slime. They weren't terrible, but it wasn't some mind blowing new plateau of graphics design.

Even general concepts - Bioshock's gameplay had very little horror or survival elements in it. It had no real consistent antagonists behind most of the issues that you ran into. The skill/stat systems were grossly simplified, taking away significant equipment choice and generally making your choices ones of convenience rather than access (for example, the difference between having hack 6 in SS2 and hack 0 are profound compared to having all hacking plasmids or no hacking plasmids). The core mechanic of Big Daddy fights as a method of improving a character was awful; the fights were incredibly boring and the moral choice boiled down to "which ending do I want?" because the rewards were, again, ones of convenience.

frepnog: Bioshock uses music as Hollywood movies use it


Which is why it's inferior in its use of music.

Video games are interactive. Using the music as just a part of a visual set piece completely misses the point of music.
 
2012-12-05 01:24:14 PM

Mike_LowELL: moothemagiccow: Next we'll be inducting cranes and wrenches into art museums.

Once again, anything can be artistic. It's a matter of whether it's "art" (i.e. good art) or "not art" (i.e. bad art).


hey someone had to design that thing... with a creative solution to a problem with a functional design... anything created has some artistic quality to it...
 
2012-12-05 01:28:59 PM

sprawl15: Even general concepts - Bioshock's gameplay had very little horror or survival elements in it. It had no real consistent antagonists behind most of the issues that you ran into. The skill/stat systems were grossly simplified, taking away significant equipment choice and generally making your choices ones of convenience rather than access (for example, the difference between having hack 6 in SS2 and hack 0 are profound compared to having all hacking plasmids or no hacking plasmids). The core mechanic of Big Daddy fights as a method of improving a character was awful; the fights were incredibly boring and the moral choice boiled down to "which ending do I want?" because the rewards were, again, ones of convenience.


I agree with everything you say here as I didn't enjoy the game because of these, but the game was very good at environment design and style direction which help the argument that its art. Looked pretty good, picked a style and period, made it under water. Scenery and the theatrics (including voice acting) were the only things I liked about the game.
 
2012-12-05 01:32:04 PM

sprawl15: Music is a sound effect, when used properly. Setting into the faster paced electronica when shiat hits the fan or completely stopping any music at certain points to jack up your paranoia have huge effects on your interaction. Bioshock without music loses nothing, except a neat soundtrack. SS2 without music loses a key part of its atmosphere.


You are arguing Sound Design, which was not my assertion.



sprawl15: So you don't know the definition either, then.

What definition did I profer?


What non-plot related writing was there in Bioshock?

Nearly all of the recordings. The writers were able to create several characters that you never met in game, yet you ended up having great sympathy for them.

 
2012-12-05 01:36:15 PM

sprawl15: frepnog: sprawl15: frepnog: since Bioshock is essentially the same game but with amazing graphics

Fascinating.

how so? it is 100 percent the truth.

Aside from every part of that being false, yeah. Even the bit about Bioshock's graphics being amazing - everything was slathered in a layer of slime. They weren't terrible, but it wasn't some mind blowing new plateau of graphics design.

/you had seen nothing like it before, a realized underwater city that looked completely believable and was totally immersive. yep, that sure did suck.

Even general concepts - Bioshock's gameplay had very little horror or survival elements in it. It had no real consistent antagonists behind most of the issues that you ran into. The skill/stat systems were grossly simplified, taking away significant equipment choice and generally making your choices ones of convenience rather than access (for example, the difference between having hack 6 in SS2 and hack 0 are profound compared to having all hacking plasmids or no hacking plasmids). The core mechanic of Big Daddy fights as a method of improving a character was awful; the fights were incredibly boring and the moral choice boiled down to "which ending do I want?" because the rewards were, again, ones of convenience.

/i get it. SS2 ruled and nothing will ever come close. Have it your way.

frepnog: Bioshock uses music as Hollywood movies use it

Which is why it's inferior in its use of music.

Video games are interactive. Using the music as just a part of a visual set piece completely misses the point of music.


You DO realize that in gaming, while today's games DO use music like movies, it is far more interactive and tends to organically change depending on what you are doing in game, and not just a part of the story? That it is dynamic? For instance - in Skyrim, you are just moseying along, picking flowers, the music is just that light background stuff, and then a dragon flies overhead and notices you. the score transitions to dramatic fight music that crescendo's JUST as you happen to kill the thing... and then fades back to light background music. It turns a completely free-roaming experience into an on-the-fly cinematic experience. Bioshock does this as well.
 
2012-12-05 01:36:22 PM

frepnog: bullshiat.


It took me two-and-a-half hours to beat the game on the first try and I had very little interruption. That doesn't strike me as difficult. The Lost Vikings used much the same system (where you had to accomplish the puzzles without dying) and was better at it twenty years ago.

frepnog: /loved SS2. Not saying anything really bad about the game. But it didn't sell when it was new, the graphics are horrid, and it really is a game best left in the past.


I played System Shock 2 after playing BioShock and I enjoyed the former far, far more. The graphics may be extremely primitive, but System Shock 2 builds on its primitive-looking atmosphere through proper use of difficulty and mechanics. There is absolutely no place in System Shock 2 that you can take a break from the action. You always have to be active. Everything is more terrifying when you're running out of ammo and a Cyborg Midwife appears from the other side of the wall. BioShock is way too easy to have consequence, which greatly detracts from the atmosphere, which is otherwise interesting to look at and move about.

frepnog: Yeah, I get you. You are smarter than the rest of us. It is just video games, dude - it is all subjective.

except portal. dude, seriously, if you didn't like portal you really should take a break from gaming, you are far too jaded.


Normally, when you say someone's opinion is "awful", you explain why. And just to note: You said that Deus Ex is overrated. I could characterize you as jaded, but I don't, because the last thing that videogame criticism needs is more marginalization of dissenting opinion. There are people out there, just like me, who think Portal is not a great game. I didn't think the second one was great, either. That's perfectly fine. But because you have a commercial game journalism outlet which is absolutely awful at their job, you end up with critical consensus on just about everything (except most of the games that are too hard for them, like fighting games, shoot 'em ups, and old-style first-person shooters). I believe there are a ton of games which have been incorrectly manifested as the genre's best. Subsequently, there are a ton of games I really, really like that not many other people have played, and there are games which I enjoyed much, much more than the general consensus indicated (Duke Nukem Forever, Kane and Lynch 2). Not to say that I thought those games were good or even great, but I'm hardly jaded. I just reject the consensus popular notion of what a great game is.

Vash's Apprentice: Hey, he's just calling a spade a spade.


Anyone who thinks that well-crafted, entertaining videogames are not artistic (i.e. "demonstrate creative expression") because they do not fulfill some nebulous criteria for emotional enlightenment have no knowledge of the topic. I mean, what can I say? Anyone who would state that Journey, or Braid, or Limbo are more worthy of preservation and demonstration than say, Metroid Prime or Grand Theft Auto III, are just wrong.

Virulency: hey someone had to design that thing... with a creative solution to a problem with a functional design... anything created has some artistic quality to it...


http://www.difusaocultural.ufrgs.br/adminmalestar/documentos/arquivo/ 0 0%20the%20piracy%20of%20art.pdf


In Simulations, Baudrillard suggested that Disneyland's only function was to conceal the fact that the entire country was a huge theme park. Similarly art has become a front, a showcase, a deterrence machine meant to hide the fact that the whole society is transaestheticized. Art has definitely lost its privilege. By the same token it can be found everywhere.

Pretty much, yeah.
 
2012-12-05 01:39:26 PM

Cubicle Jockey: You are arguing Sound Design, which was not my assertion.


If you're going to argue that Bioshock had better music because it didn't contribute to its sound design, I don't think you'd ever be able to be persuaded off that shipwreck.

I suppose you could simply be arguing that Bioshock had a higher fidelity of music. I don't know (or care) about the bitrates, but I would concede that point since it would likely be true.

Cubicle Jockey: Nearly all of the recordings. The writers were able to create several characters that you never met in game, yet you ended up having great sympathy for them.


...and if you're going to use the recordings as an example of something Bioshock did that SS2 didn't do, I'm just going to have to assume you never played SS2.

Hint: that entire thing was stolen from SS2, and stolen poorly.
 
2012-12-05 01:43:27 PM
Bit disappointed that Half Life 2 hasn't made the list (yet). I also expected Dear Esther to be mentioned somewhere on there as well, shame that it's not.
 
2012-12-05 01:47:16 PM

frepnog: SS2 ruled and nothing will ever come close.


Absolutely not. It had some pretty significant flaws - the balance of the weapons made some choices (like going for energy weapons) grossly inferior. The later levels were pretty horribly designed, the graphics were a couple years dated even at release, and the last boss fight was atrocious.

Maybe you don't realize how it works, but when you're talking about a set of two games (Bioshock and SS2) one of them will be the best of that set. That doesn't mean it is the best of every possible set. That's not how things work.

If you'd like to dispute any of what I said instead of just crying into your hands, feel free. I'm interested in hearing it.

frepnog: You DO realize that in gaming, while today's games DO use music like movies, it is far more interactive and tends to organically change depending on what you are doing in game, and not just a part of the story? That it is dynamic?


Considering I just explained to you that this is how SS2 does it, yes, I do realize that. It also does it far better than most modern games - Bioshock and Skyrim included - because the way it handles music is as an aspect of its entire sound design, rather than just a cue for visual effects. The music dropping to zero has the same effect as hearing a midwife off in the distance; it presses you to increase your paranoia. That's a wholly different approach - and a far more artistic one - than kicking in high tempo music when a dragon script is triggered, or an orchestral swell when Rapture is revealed.

Sure, the latter feels fancy, and it's not BAD design, but like I keep saying, we're talking about the difference between good and great. Not talking about BESTEST EVAR and WORSTEST EVAR.
 
2012-12-05 01:49:52 PM
i would add missile command to that list
 
2012-12-05 01:58:43 PM

sprawl15: If you're going to argue that Bioshock had better music because it didn't contribute to its sound design, I don't think you'd ever be able to be persuaded off that shipwreck.


I said: The music is better in Bioshock.
You said: The sound design is better in SS2.
There is no conflict in these statements, which is why the Acedemy Awards has separate awards for Score and Sound Editing.

I don't understand your stubborness on this subject.


sprawl15: ...and if you're going to use the recordings as an example of something Bioshock did that SS2 didn't do, I'm just going to have to assume you never played SS2.


I am saying that Bioshock did it better. Why did you ask me what non-plot writing was in the game if you were already aware of it?
 
2012-12-05 01:58:47 PM
144 comments in and no Katamari love!?

List would win if that were the only game on it. I can feel it, I can feel the cosmos!
 
2012-12-05 02:04:12 PM

parazen: 144 comments in and no Katamari love!?

List would win if that were the only game on it. I can feel it, I can feel the cosmos!


It was mentioned... I thought that would be a controversial decision but apparently not. it definitely did the WTF? JUST GO WITH IT style and art direction to a T. Best new years was when me and my friends got the original one for christmas and we got drunk and took turns playing it.
 
2012-12-05 02:07:41 PM
And just to elaborate on what I said to frepnog:

Mike_LowELL: Normally, when you say someone's opinion is "awful", you explain why.


I was referring to the other commenter, not you.
 
2012-12-05 02:08:27 PM

Cubicle Jockey: I said: The music is better in Bioshock.
You said: The sound design is better in SS2.


I said the music is better in SS2, and that a big reason it is better is because the music is woven throughout the sound design to enhance interactivity rather than simply being a visual cue for set pieces. It's also better as raw music, but we're talking about the artistic value of a game as relating to perfection of the craft.

Cubicle Jockey: I am saying that Bioshock did it better.


It didn't. Not by far. A big part of that was Bioshock simply using them as exposition, while SS2 used it as an element of the horror. You knew that Bioshock was ruined and that there weren't any survivors beyond the few you were already interacting with from nearly the onset. In SS2, that wasn't the case because the events were still ongoing - the people you were listening to may still be alive at the time of the recording (and in some cases actually were). It served as a driving factor rather than just a history lesson.

Cubicle Jockey: Why did you ask me what non-plot writing was in the game if you were already aware of it?


Because that writing is all story related, and I assumed you were smart enough to understood that. It all serves to build up the story - the background, the elements, the movement of pieces beyond the players' purview. It's 100% story.
 
2012-12-05 02:22:25 PM

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:

Literary art.
1.bp.blogspot.com

Art with words:
img825.imageshack.us

Which is not to say that all literature is art, though this is:
img818.imageshack.us
 
2012-12-05 02:47:48 PM

sprawl15: Because that writing is all story related, and I assumed you were smart enough to understood that. It all serves to build up the story - the background, the elements, the movement of pieces beyond the players' purview. It's 100% story.


Story =/= plot. You have a strange habit of shifting the arguement slightly when a statement you make is rebutted.

Most of the recordings are not plot elements. They flesh out the story, yes, but knowing the background of the corpses crucified in Ryan's antechamber does not change the plot.


sprawl15: It's also better as raw music


Then why didn't you state this opinion earlier? Especialy since...


but we're talking about the artistic value of a game as relating to perfection of the craft.

..."SS2 having better raw music" would have been supporting your opinion. Both games would be diminished artistically if they had "Friday" looping as their soundtrack. Having good music supports the artistry of both games.
 
2012-12-05 03:15:22 PM
The art of assassin's creed... climb high and look around
 
2012-12-05 03:34:44 PM
Eve Online made it there and not WoW. Suck it, Blizzard.
 
2012-12-05 03:37:37 PM
EVE, well, yes, I would call that a performance piece on man's inhumanity to man.
 
2012-12-05 03:38:37 PM
Saiga410 : I would suggest TTG Walking Dead and Shadow of the Colossus

I would put ICO on there before SOtC
 
2012-12-05 03:44:06 PM

Cubicle Jockey: Story =/= plot.


Story was your own words:

Cubicle Jockey: And general writing (though not story).

But that's besides the point - you brought up this nebulous idea of 'general writing' and haven't yet figured out what you meant with it. Feel free to come up with a different example of 'general writing' than the recordings, if it bugs you so much.

Cubicle Jockey: ..."SS2 having better raw music" would have been supporting your opinion.


It doesn't matter how much you love Rush, if they were the soundtrack for Silent Hill 2 you would have to say the music in that game was farking terrible. The individual songs' independent value as music is 100% irrelevant when talking about a larger composition - the use of music must be considered in terms of how it enhances that composition. I do prefer SS2's individual songs to Bioshock's songs, but that is utterly meaningless since they are both methods to an end. Simply having good music doesn't support the artistry without proper use. That's why I brought up how it was used, and why use is profoundly important.

The opening of Bioshock, for instance, when Rapture is revealed, uses music as a way to increase the impact of the set reveal - the underwater city, its grandeur, etc. It's a stimulus for a visual cue. Not BAD design, but not really interactive and kind of missing the point of the medium. In contrast, the opening of SS2, where you get out of the decompression area and have a few seconds has no music. Just the background hum and chirps of the computer. But it's still absolutely a musical decision - the lack of music creates a vacuous space for your mind to fill, it produces a sense of dread, of not belonging. The sudden stillness presents the entire setting - not just its visuals - as one of desolation. It's a far more effective musical decision, a stronger musical design choice, and a more artistic method than the similar moment in Bioshock despite no actual song being played.

That's the difference. We aren't just comparing the merits of each song on the soundtrack in a vacuum. They're part of the game. They have to be considered as part of the game and how they're used.
 
2012-12-05 03:44:51 PM

Mike_LowELL: What did I say that you disagree with? Or is this one of those "I disagree you but I don't quite have the knowledge of the topic to refute your opinions, so I'll try to paint you as a smarmy elitist" conversations?


Well, for starters you're using difficulty and "who did it first" as a gauge for artistic merit. You wrote an entire paragraph about how easily you beat Portal, but not ONE mention of the backstory hinted by the graffiti on the walls, the ideas alluded to by the Chell/GLaDoS relationship, the design of GlaDOS herself, the Companion Cube, nothing. Your ideas of what constitutes art are entirely farked, and you're a smarmy elitist about it. Just shut up, your opinion is nowhere near as great as you think it is and your blog sucks.
 
2012-12-05 03:47:18 PM

lordargent: Saiga410 : I would suggest TTG Walking Dead and Shadow of the Colossus

I would put ICO on there before SOtC


I don't know, they're pretty comparable. Although Ico should earn it based on the fact that its the first enjoyable escort mission. Maybe you could say Ico is more artsy but SotC is a better game.
 
2012-12-05 03:48:52 PM

frepnog: Antimatter: frepnog: doglover: Cythraul: But almost any game these days that has a decent budget should probably be considered 'art.'

False.

GTA 4 had a huge budget and was an amazing game at the time, but it wasn't groundbreaking or meaningful, it was just a game.

if you took no meaning from Niko Bellic's tragic tale, then I simply don't know how to talk to you. The story told in GTA4 is amazingly well thought out and is absolutely art. It is also an amazing game NOW. No other sandbox style game has bettered it, and the only thing out that comes close is Red Dead Redemption, amazingly enough a game made by the same folks.

/i know people still claim that San Andreas was better. It is not. Most of the crap you do in that game was tedious and not fun in any way. It told a great story but the GAME is hard to play after playing GTA4. Man, you just can't go back to primitive 3d graphics.

//many SNES games hold up better than many PS\PS2 level games.

No, they really don't, it;s just nostalgia goggles in action.

actually, they really do because the older sprite based hand drawn art styles still look decent compared to crap early 3d visuals. Compare say, Chrono Trigger to say Chrono Cross. Chrono Cross looks like complete ass (we are speaking strictly visual here) while chrono trigger still looks like a cartoon of sorts. you can still lose yourself in Chrono Trigger, but the graphics in Chrono Cross will have you turn that shiat off before long. sega saturn games, TONS of PS1 games, quite a few PS2 games, N64 games (GOLDENEYE) all suffer to a degree from "crappy polygon graphic-itis".


And older pixel based games have the same issue, ie they are blocky messes with little detail, or lot of recycled details. It's just people excuse away all the sprite flaws, but nitpick about the polygon flaws.

For example, when I last played yoshi's island on the snes, I thought it looked amazing. When I watch videos online, it still help up well, but when I actually find myself with it on an actual tv screen from an actual snes, I was shocked at how rough the game looked. A lot of games I used to think looked quite nice actually look rather bad in person when seen at their native resolutions on a real tv.

You start to notice the blockyness, and poor animations due to lack of frames, etc. It's the same sort of issue syou see in poly games, early ones lacked detail, poor animations, etc.

Chrono Cross actually still holds up pretty well compared to most other ps1 games. Go compare it to say, legend of dragoon, and you'll see what I mean.
 
2012-12-05 03:49:14 PM

Mentalpatient87: Mike_LowELL: What did I say that you disagree with? Or is this one of those "I disagree you but I don't quite have the knowledge of the topic to refute your opinions, so I'll try to paint you as a smarmy elitist" conversations?

Well, for starters you're using difficulty and "who did it first" as a gauge for artistic merit. You wrote an entire paragraph about how easily you beat Portal, but not ONE mention of the backstory hinted by the graffiti on the walls, the ideas alluded to by the Chell/GLaDoS relationship, the design of GlaDOS herself, the Companion Cube, nothing. Your ideas of what constitutes art are entirely farked, and you're a smarmy elitist about it. Just shut up, your opinion is nowhere near as great as you think it is and your blog sucks.


Dude, he is a troll. Don't put effort into your response. The basis of his argument is easily countered by just saying Nickleback.
 
2012-12-05 04:05:52 PM
List fails without Ultima anything.

San Andreas and Alice (not the new one) also snubbed. WTF.
 
2012-12-05 04:08:29 PM

secularsage: Antimatter: Videogames are no different then film really, it's just they let the viewer have some control over how the story is presented, rather then being passively taking in the experience.

Video games are ENTIRELY different than film. In a film because the person experiencing the game isn't just passively viewing it; he or she is actually interacting with it and causing the story to happen.

If you had a film where you watched a one-note protagonist with a giant sword and a pair of guns annihilate hundreds of similar-looking villains using the same set of animations and juggles over and over and over, you'd be bored to tears. But in a game, you'd say, "Wow, Devil May Cry is really fun" and you'd ignore the fact that the story doesn't make a lot of sense or that you wind up replaying the same moments repeatedly just to progress on to the next section.

And this leads to a different desired experience. Most video gamers would rather complete repetitive actions over and over than sit through a long non-interactive sequence or ride on a Half-Life-style tramway over which they have little control. Cutscenes and non-interactive sequences are fine for a brief break in the action, but there's a reason gamers tend to dread the lengthy ones.


Player interaction doesn't mean it's not art though. Even the most boring, pretentious, popcorn fest would still be considered a work of art, if it's a movie. Many a director made their fortune off such films.

Players tend to hate FMV because it removes control if left too long. Good game design should tell the story with the player, and not just to them. The players ability to effect the story is what separates a game form other works of art imho.

Half life 1 was interesting because never did the game take you out of Gordon, despite telling the story. Yes, the tram ride was long, but it was akin to the credit opening in many films, that are there for beauty, rather then main plot advancement. It set the stage, along with the first 'level' of the game.

Valve later pushed that method with HL2 and portal.

You do have the flipside, with games like Metal gear solid 4, which had 40+ minute FMV telling you the story, broken up by gameplay segments that were rather short by comparison.
 
2012-12-05 04:09:38 PM

kumanoki: A true work of art: 

[ecx.images-amazon.com image 500x500]


agreed

watched the wifeypoo play that on wii - pretty impressive and also kinda trippy
 
2012-12-05 04:26:32 PM

dready zim: Did you dig too greedily and too deep?


As far as horrors from the underground caverns go, troglodytes are relatively "meh." Dwarf Fortress has much worse stuff. You'll occasionally get procedurally generated monsters that are impossible to kill in combat, because they either have no organs that you can skewer, or are made of a random material that is nearly impossible to damage. (It's very hard to kill a 20-foot-tall chittering, eyeless rabbit made entirely of granite, for example.) Worse, they can have nasty things like blood which gives you a disease that causes your skin to rot off, but you don't realize it until all of the dwarves that are covered in the stuff have already tracked a trail of it back into your dining hall...
 
2012-12-05 04:28:20 PM

Antimatter: You do have the flipside, with games like Metal gear solid 4, which had 40+ minute FMV telling you the story, broken up by gameplay segments that were rather short by comparison.


img.gawkerassets.com

SO. MUCH. THIS.

All of my hate Xenogears - all of my hate.

/Bioshock > System Shock 2 hands down.
//Figure i'd weigh in.
///Slashies come in threes.
 
2012-12-05 04:29:10 PM

PirateKing: Nurglitch: Antimatter: Videogames are no different then film really, it's just they let the viewer have some control over how the story is presented, rather then being passively taking in the experience.

Video games aren't necessarily narrative. Tetris, for example, is not a metaphor for anything.

It's a metaphor for the Communist takeover of Eastern europe. As the proletariat descends into poverty, they must find ways to work together. Once they find a way to fit into the existing power structure, and reach a critical mass, all obstacles are removed. The line block is a revolution. If the proles don't work together, eventually the system descends into anarchy. As the march of history progresses, the people will work faster and faster, until eventually the glory of the Soviet will cover the whole world.

/Dr. Mario is about drug addiction.


It was pretty thoroughly explained in a historical video
 
2012-12-05 04:36:47 PM

Martian_Astronomer: dready zim: Did you dig too greedily and too deep?

As far as horrors from the underground caverns go, troglodytes are relatively "meh." Dwarf Fortress has much worse stuff. You'll occasionally get procedurally generated monsters that are impossible to kill in combat, because they either have no organs that you can skewer, or are made of a random material that is nearly impossible to damage. (It's very hard to kill a 20-foot-tall chittering, eyeless rabbit made entirely of granite, for example.) Worse, they can have nasty things like blood which gives you a disease that causes your skin to rot off, but you don't realize it until all of the dwarves that are covered in the stuff have already tracked a trail of it back into your dining hall...


As far as DF horrors go, I don't think much beats the horrific syndromes sprayed out by the clouds in evil embarks.
 
2012-12-05 04:38:18 PM

Mentalpatient87: Well, for starters you're using difficulty and "who did it first" as a gauge for artistic merit.


No I'm not. When I said "The Lost Vikings did it better over twenty years ago", the important modifier is "The Lost Vikings did it better". The Lost Vikings is still a better game than Portal. I make timeframe a reference because you now have a class of videogame player who thinks that games like Portal are actually setting precedent in the game industry. (Once again, see Canabalt.) Do not confuse me with the nuthuggers who think the best game ever made is the one they played when they were thirteen.

Mentalpatient87: You wrote an entire paragraph about how easily you beat Portal, but not ONE mention of the backstory hinted by the graffiti on the walls, the ideas alluded to by the Chell/GLaDoS relationship, the design of GlaDOS herself, the Companion Cube, nothing.


Videogames are not movies, they are not books. A great story does not make a great game. I do not believe in "the game sucked, but the storytelling was super awesome, 10/10 IGN EAT MOUNTAIN DEW AND DRINK DORITOS". Journey is going to win numerous Game of the Year awards and I think that is absolutely appalling. Just to give you an idea of what I'm talking about, look at the discussion above. BioShock obviously had better graphics than System Shock 2. However, I would say that BioShock had an inferior atmosphere, mood, and tension, because the game was way too easy and the character skill development systems weren't nearly as good. Games are holistic. The story is only as good as the other devices and mechanics which are being built into the game. Despite the technological improvements in BioShock, I would say that System Shock 2 is the better game, and by a fairly wide margin.

Portal's storytelling is not bad. When compared to most storytelling in the medium, it's actually quite good. But storytelling is one means to game design. It's the delivery of that storytelling which I don't find interesting. The backstory isn't "hinted", it's spoonfed to the player. The game's "shocking reveal" ("the cake is a lie") might as well come with a series of neon signs attached to it, because it was so painfully easy to find that it loses all impact. (This is why I said that the game would have hugely benefited from a Super Mario World-style stage progression, where you play and discover all the details about the game world in multiple playthroughs.) And since the game is so easy (due to the overabundance of checkpoints and the general ease of completing the puzzles), there's absolutely no tension to build upon that atmosphere and storytelling. It's tough to establish that GladOS is truly evil and dangerous when I can take the thing out with a simple "three strikes" boss fight.

When you pull away the story in Portal, as generally engaging as that story might be, you have what you have: A primitive, basic puzzle game (built on an admittedly interesting gimmick) which not only lacks challenge or difficulty, but doesn't even have enough complexity that you can go back and say "Well, the puzzles were simple, but wait until the custom content creators sink their teeth into these concepts!" Would I tell someone "Don't play Portal ever"? No. But it's definitely not one of the games "you absolutely must play before you die" or "greatest games" material. Like Limbo, Portal is one part of a fully-functional, engaging genre stripped down into what is essentially a short movie. Since Portal fails to provide tension and atmosphere through game mechanics, it impacts the ability of the game to provide atmosphere through its storytelling. This is first-person puzzle-platforming, with enemies, and consequences for mistakes. That is a classic game.

If you don't like that, I don't really care. Just don't characterize my brief, off-hand complaints about Portal's mechanics as a rebuttal of the game as a whole.

thecpt: Dude, he is a troll. Don't put effort into your response. The basis of his argument is easily countered by just saying Nickleback.


Get farked.
 
2012-12-05 04:39:09 PM
Michael Jackson's Moonwalker (arcade version), during the unleashing of the powerup scenes when he dances.

Closest thing to art considering the technology available at the time.
 
2012-12-05 04:55:47 PM
Art is often defined as anything that elicits an emotional response. I've never had an emotion response to a video game. Well, besides throwing a tantrum when my favorite Wizardry character died when I was 11 years old. 

/Identify 9
 
2012-12-05 04:55:53 PM

Mike_LowELL: Get farked.


Mike_LowELL: Deus Ex is art because it's farking awesome


You're pretty farking annoying.
 
2012-12-05 04:59:42 PM
www.blogcdn.com
 
2012-12-05 05:00:12 PM

sprawl15: As far as DF horrors go, I don't think much beats the horrific syndromes sprayed out by the clouds in evil embarks.


I've been following the devlog, but I haven't actually played a fortress since that was added. I remember that I did like fairly challenging embarks, but yeah, evil embarks are a great bit dicier, now that a random fog can sweep in at any time and transform half your dwarves into undead husks that don't feel pain and hunger for the flesh of the survivors...

Back when I was more into the game, I had a couple of fortresses survive until FPS death, but I've been reluctant to pick it back up again. Playing well requires enough micromanagement that it kind of makes my brain feel burned the next day...
 
2012-12-05 05:03:54 PM

thecpt: You're pretty farking annoying.


I made a statement. People disagreed. I provided a thorough explanation of my thoughts on the topic. You called me a troll. Did you actually expect a different response?
 
2012-12-05 05:09:18 PM

Mike_LowELL: thecpt: You're pretty farking annoying.

I made a statement. People disagreed. I provided a thorough explanation of my thoughts on the topic. You called me a troll. Did you actually expect a different response?


yeah, one that said "i was joking." usually when someone starts posting tls/drs they shouldn't have their Boobies be something pants on head without everything afterwards being considered a joke.
 
2012-12-05 05:10:18 PM

Martian_Astronomer: I've been following the devlog, but I haven't actually played a fortress since that was added. I remember that I did like fairly challenging embarks, but yeah, evil embarks are a great bit dicier, now that a random fog can sweep in at any time and transform half your dwarves into undead husks that don't feel pain and hunger for the flesh of the survivors...


The husks created by clouds are pretty much unkillable. You need to incinerate them, magma them, or turn them into obsidian.

The other clouds are my favorite ones, though. Permanent internal organ death and bleeding that spreads by said blood being tracked all over your fortress doesn't kill anyone but you abandon pretty fast anyway because everything is covered in bleeding from the ass.
 
2012-12-05 05:12:15 PM

Mike_LowELL: This is first-person puzzle-platforming, with enemies, and consequences for mistakes.


good lord
 
2012-12-05 05:25:53 PM

LooseLips: thecpt: LooseLips: Ctrl F Okami

??? Fail!

Why do people like that game? I guess its good at showing Japanese style, but I don't actually know anyone who liked it as a game. Same goes for Heavy Rain when it shows up on these "Art" lists.

Interesting. I've had the opposite experience-- haven't met anyone myself who doesn't think it's great or at least solid. Among other things, I think that the art style is wonderful, the brush ability is a fun and unique tool, and the take on the stories/mythology it's based on is fascinating.

Perhaps not your cup of tea, but art-wise I would love to see it get a nod here.


This. It's got some major gameplay flaws (combat could be better, bosses get repeated like whoa) but narratively, it's damn near perfect.

Also, I'm pretty sure the plan is for MoMA to have 40 games, isn't it? This is just the first part of the list or something?
 
2012-12-05 05:28:17 PM

Cythraul: moothemagiccow: Cythraul: They have to hire writers, concept artists, 3D modelers and so on. Sounds pretty artistic to me.

Next we'll be inducting cranes and wrenches into art museums.

Ulgh, jeez, you're a moronic asshole. Everything you put on Fark is garbage. Or at least everything that I've noticed. I'm just going to put you on my asshole list.


Yeesh get over yourself
 
2012-12-05 05:31:55 PM

Mike_LowELL: What did I say that you disagree with? Or is this one of those "I disagree you but I don't quite have the knowledge of the topic to refute your opinions, so I'll try to paint you as a smarmy elitist" conversations?


Can you really expect something smarter in a video games thread, much less a "video games are art" thread?
 
2012-12-05 05:32:35 PM

Nurglitch: Antimatter: Videogames are no different then film really, it's just they let the viewer have some control over how the story is presented, rather then being passively taking in the experience.

Video games aren't necessarily narrative. Tetris, for example, is not a metaphor for anything.


From Wikipedia's Modern Art page:Modern art includes artistic works produced during the period extending roughly from the 1860s to the 1970s, and denotes the style and philosophy of the art produced during that era.[1] The term is usually associated with art in which the traditions of the past have been thrown aside in a spirit of experimentation.[2] Modern artists experimented with new ways of seeing and with fresh ideas about the nature of materials and functions of art. A tendency away from the narrative, which was characteristic for the traditional arts, toward abstraction is characteristic of much modern art.

Now we can debate the definition of art and modern art, but to me, the games chosen, that I recognized, (and the ones earmarked for future addition) are generally a break from their predecessors or a re-imagining/evolution of the genre drastic enough to create it's own mark. Clearly popularity has to play some part too as they are starting with games that have been around for quite some time.
 
2012-12-05 05:40:55 PM
www.retrocpu.com

I think they got the wrong year for Portal... 

/More artistic game too.
 
2012-12-05 05:41:14 PM

sprawl15: The husks created by clouds are pretty much unkillable. You need to incinerate them, magma them, or turn them into obsidian.


Right. I got them confused with the zombies, I think, which are tough but have the "pulping" system, so you can still beat them to death.

I like challenging biomes, and I'm perfectly okay with having the outside be really dangerous, but frankly I thought the evil weather husks were a bit much. Part of what makes DF fun, in my opinion, is looking at the disastrous destruction of your fort and thinking "Wait, I could have handled that if I'd done X,Y, and Z." The only thing you can really do to protect yourself from evil clouds is to never go outside, never build anything above ground, etc.
 
2012-12-05 05:49:33 PM

Cythraul: moothemagiccow: Cythraul: They have to hire writers, concept artists, 3D modelers and so on. Sounds pretty artistic to me.

Next we'll be inducting cranes and wrenches into art museums.

Ulgh, jeez, you're a moronic asshole. Everything you put on Fark is garbage. Or at least everything that I've noticed. I'm just going to put you on my asshole list.


One more thing:
cdn.inquisitr.com
 
2012-12-05 05:53:05 PM
I was honesty worried they would of picked a COD game.
 
2012-12-05 05:54:11 PM

thecpt: yeah, one that said "i was joking." usually when someone starts posting tls/drs they shouldn't have their Boobies be something pants on head without everything afterwards being considered a joke.


Fair enough. My apologies.

moothemagiccow: Can you really expect something smarter in a video games thread, much less a "video games are art" thread?


Believe me, I don't come in here to start fights. I'm passionate about the topic, I'm sure most of the people here are. I just don't think anyone realizes how exhaustive and comprehensive these debates have to be. I have no problem with people saying what their favorite games are. By all means, go ahead. But when people say "Game X is art" (potentially implying other games aren't as worthy of the praise) or "Games A through J at the ten best games ever" (implying hundreds of other games are not one of the ten-best), you're putting your foot down. You have to know all of those games. If people do that, they can't be surprised when people are pulling obscure, classic games into the fold and challenging any assertions. That's all. And people can't be surprised when someone challenges conventional wisdom.
 
2012-12-05 05:54:45 PM

SkylineRecords: I really don't get the allure of Myst. An Acer PC from 1997 could run faster than that game.


It's the bag of douche over your head. You can't see properly.
 
2012-12-05 06:20:53 PM

Mike_LowELL: Believe me, I don't come in here to start fights. I'm passionate about the topic, I'm sure most of the people here are. I just don't think anyone realizes how exhaustive and comprehensive these debates have to be. I have no problem with people saying what their favorite games are. By all means, go ahead. But when people say "Game X is art" (potentially implying other games aren't as worthy of the praise) or "Games A through J at the ten best games ever" (implying hundreds of other games are not one of the ten-best), you're putting your foot down. You have to know all of those games. If people do that, they can't be surprised when people are pulling obscure, classic games into the fold and challenging any assertions. That's all. And people can't be surprised when someone challenges conventional wisdom.


Really? You honestly are trying to claim a "well he started it" justification for how people have responded to you? You threw down the gauntlet and continually expected people to accept your spurious definition of "art" at every turn. Here, let me refresh your memory from the first time you posted in this thread:

"A game which neglects every rule of competent game design and ends up with a passionate following because it recreates the aesthetics of silent film design. Therefore, it's "art". Lol."

Game difficulty isn't the only facet to good game design. Sure, Portal (the 2007 version) was fairly easy to beat. The thing is, that's only part of what made it so interesting to fans. The atmosphere, monologue, and representation made it a hit more than the actual game play specifics. I'd be curious to know your take on sandbox games since most of your quantifiers seem to be how challenging a game is. 

In fact, going to the Bioshock vs SS2 discussion, game difficulty/construction is the weakness of both games. Bioshock's lack of death consequence was a terrible drain on immersion factor. Similarly, SS2's lazy enemy spawning design hurt immersion and felt like a cheap cop-out for the sake of difficulty. Both are still convey strong emotions while being played.
 
2012-12-05 06:21:02 PM

moothemagiccow: Cythraul: moothemagiccow: Cythraul: They have to hire writers, concept artists, 3D modelers and so on. Sounds pretty artistic to me.

Next we'll be inducting cranes and wrenches into art museums.

Ulgh, jeez, you're a moronic asshole. Everything you put on Fark is garbage. Or at least everything that I've noticed. I'm just going to put you on my asshole list.

One more thing:
[cdn.inquisitr.com image 500x375]


You've really hurt my feelings. I'll make myself feel better by reminding myself that i"m not you.
 
2012-12-05 06:38:23 PM
For anyone wanting to play System Shock 2, there are mods to update graphics and other stuff. Highly recommended.
Link
 
2012-12-05 06:47:04 PM

0100010: "A game which neglects every rule of competent game design and ends up with a passionate following because it recreates the aesthetics of silent film design. Therefore, it's "art". Lol."

Game difficulty isn't the only facet to good game design.


That was in reference to Limbo, unless you seriously think he was trying to say a game whose best asset (glados) is a running voiceover is central to silent film design.

0100010: SS2's lazy enemy spawning design hurt immersion and felt like a cheap cop-out for the sake of difficulty


On the contrary, the enemy respawning was crucial for establishing no area of the ship as ever really being safe and ensured a minimal constant level of pressure on the player. There is no other way to do it, short of adding artificial resources that act as a time choke (you need to eat and there's limited food on each deck driving you forward). It also wasn't really much additional difficulty unless you dawdled a lot, and even then it was only the occasional additional enemy and never anything particularly scary (DOZENS OF RUMBLERS). Its ultimate gameplay change was making you find a safe place to play the gamepig and finally slay you some dragons.

I'm assuming you aren't talking about during alarms, as that's an entirely different topic.
 
2012-12-05 06:55:34 PM

Gosling: EVE, well, yes, I would call that a performance piece on man's inhumanity to man.

[csb]
I can tell you this is true from my first experience in 0.0 sec space, it went something like this

Me: Warp through gate in to dead end 0.0 sector of space with my pinto amarr cruiser and a few drones. Assaulted by waiting battleship instantly down to almost no health.
Goonwarm pirate: "give us all your money and we won't destroy your ship."
Me: "What's to stop you from destroying me once I pay?" *while looking up self destruct command, I have a new ship several jumps back so I didn't particularly care about this one, but I didn't want to get Pod Killed either*
Goonswarm pirate: "Just do it."
Me: KABOOOM!
Now In the chaos of me blowing my ship up I try to move towards the gate in my pod...not knowing that pods move about as fast as a geo metro filled with ethanol on a January day in North Dakota.
Goonswarm battlship hits ShadowLAnCeR's pod in the nuts with a 1600mm cannon.

I learned to simply avoid lowsec space after that.

/csb
//glad EvE is on there.
 
2012-12-05 07:04:17 PM

FunkyBlue: No Deus Ex, either...


I already had my JC pic hotlinked and ready to express his disappointment, but I see you have already brought it up.
 
2012-12-05 07:10:53 PM

sprawl15: 0100010: "A game which neglects every rule of competent game design and ends up with a passionate following because it recreates the aesthetics of silent film design. Therefore, it's "art". Lol."

Game difficulty isn't the only facet to good game design.

That was in reference to Limbo, unless you seriously think he was trying to say a game whose best asset (glados) is a running voiceover is central to silent film design.


"If he'd restricted that attitude to just Limbo, but that's not the case. Here, let me dig up another quote to illustrate this point (didn't include the link to a youtube video of a quake walkthrough):

Like Limbo, Portal is one part of a fully-functional, engaging genre stripped down into what is essentially a short movie. Since Portal fails to provide tension and atmosphere through game mechanics, it impacts the ability of the game to provide atmosphere through its storytelling. This is first-person puzzle-platforming, with enemies, and consequences for mistakes. That is a classic game."



0100010: SS2's lazy enemy spawning design hurt immersion and felt like a cheap cop-out for the sake of difficulty

On the contrary, the enemy respawning was crucial for establishing no area of the ship as ever really being safe and ensured a minimal constant level of pressure on the player. There is no other way to do it, short of adding artificial resources that act as a time choke (you need to eat and there's limited food on each deck driving you forward). It also wasn't really much additional difficulty unless you dawdled a lot, and even then it was only the occasional additional enemy and never anything particularly scary (DOZENS OF RUMBLERS). Its ultimate gameplay change was making you find a safe place to play the gamepig and finally slay you some dragons.

I'm assuming you aren't talking about during alarms, as that's an entirely different topic.


I enjoyed most of SS2 when it came out and raved about it to friends. However, it has some issues that hurt the tone. There are spots where it's possible to watch the enemies spawn with or without the alarm sounding. The most glaring I remember is having one of the suicide butlers spawn in front of me while I was staring into a dead-end cubby. Nothing kills immersion like clearing out an area and having something re-spawn with no way it could have gotten there realistically.
 
2012-12-05 07:22:58 PM

0100010: Here, let me refresh your memory from the first time you posted in this thread:

"A game which neglects every rule of competent game design and ends up with a passionate following because it recreates the aesthetics of silent film design. Therefore, it's "art". Lol."


Fair enough. To quote Johnny: "I have to yell or she'd don't hear me."

0100010: Game difficulty isn't the only facet to good game design. Sure, Portal (the 2007 version) was fairly easy to beat. The thing is, that's only part of what made it so interesting to fans. The atmosphere, monologue, and representation made it a hit more than the actual game play specifics.


I understand. I think the writing and narrative elements (as compared to most of the videogames that I've played) are fairly good. I consider the game structure and level design used to tell that story as the problem. The game is portrayed as a subversion of the narrative-driven action title but it doesn't make the necessary steps to secure that illusion. Everything is still obviously on-rails. (And just to note, I have played very, very few games where I thought "narrative at the expense of mechanics" worked. I thought Uncharted 2: Among Thieves was awesome, but other than that, I draw blanks.)

0100010: I'd be curious to know your take on sandbox games since most of your quantifiers seem to be how challenging a game is.


Based on what I've played, I like Grand Theft Auto III and Crackdown, and haven't cared much for everything else. (Although I've yet to play Dead Rising, which I've heard positive things about.) Sandbox games just need to be as difficult as necessary to encourage some experimentation and place the easiest options out of reach. Ultimately, my major beef with the genre has become the unnecessary collection mechanics which have found their way into the genre (Vice City, San Andreas, Saints Row).

0100010: In fact, going to the Bioshock vs SS2 discussion, game difficulty/construction is the weakness of both games. Bioshock's lack of death consequence was a terrible drain on immersion factor. Similarly, SS2's lazy enemy spawning design hurt immersion and felt like a cheap cop-out for the sake of difficulty. Both are still convey strong emotions while being played.


I was perfectly okay with that, since ammunition was limited and it never gave you an opportunity to rest or screw around. Within the context of that game's mechanics, it was fine with me.
 
2012-12-05 08:03:08 PM

Mike_LowELL: 0100010: I'd be curious to know your take on sandbox games since most of your quantifiers seem to be how challenging a game is.

Based on what I've played, I like Grand Theft Auto III and Crackdown, and haven't cared much for everything else. (Although I've yet to play Dead Rising, which I've heard positive things about.) Sandbox games just need to be as difficult as necessary to encourage some experimentation and place the easiest options out of reach. Ultimately, my major beef with the genre has become the unnecessary collection mechanics which have found their way into the genre (Vice City, San Andreas, Saints Row).


How about the less fps/tps games like SimCity or The Sims? There's a lot more than exploration when it comes to sandboxing games.

0100010: In fact, going to the Bioshock vs SS2 discussion, game difficulty/construction is the weakness of both games. Bioshock's lack of death consequence was a terrible drain on immersion factor. Similarly, SS2's lazy enemy spawning design hurt immersion and felt like a cheap cop-out for the sake of difficulty. Both are still convey strong emotions while being played.

I was perfectly okay with that, since ammunition was limited and it never gave you an opportunity to rest or screw around. Within the context of that game's mechanics, it was fine with me.


It sounds like you value pacing and difficulty rather than tone and immersion. Not every game is designed to challenge a player's abilities, nor should it. If tone and immersion aren't important parts of SS2, then lots of content in that game is wasted effort.
 
2012-12-05 08:08:42 PM

0100010: Nothing kills immersion like clearing out an area and having something re-spawn with no way it could have gotten there realistically.


Yeah, that was always ifffy. But that's more a problem of execution more than concept.
 
2012-12-05 08:11:15 PM
Videogames are not art. And neither are music, movies, sculptures and paintings
 
2012-12-05 08:13:54 PM

neuroflare: FunkyBlue: No Deus Ex, either...

I already had my JC pic hotlinked and ready to express his disappointment, but I see you have already brought it up.


And little did I know this thread turned into somewhat of a flamewar. I should read before I post.

There's a reason I have Mike_LowELL favorited, because he makes threads become win. He will frequently troll, but I didn't believe so in this thread. I wish I could weigh in on this some but I never played SS2, just Bioshock, but I would consider the game art.
 
2012-12-05 08:23:34 PM

0100010: How about the less fps/tps games like SimCity or The Sims? There's a lot more than exploration when it comes to sandboxing games.


The problem for me with most of those games is that the game world never ever bites back. Sim City and Minecraft generally have the same problem: Once you've built something, it's awfully easy to maintain. (This may have changed in the later Sim City titles, which I only spent a brief amount of time with and I understand that they became increasingly complex.) I mean, I quite enjoyed Sim City 2000 when I was younger, but once you have your entire city of gigantic robotic buildings launch off into space, that's really a "Time to go home, you've done everything" moment. (Obviously, you can imagine that I think Dwarf Fortress, the game which is designed so you will inevitably and eventually lose, is absolutely grand.) As far as The Sims goes, I could generally care less for it. I did play the original game in the series and got bored with it very quickly. Other than that, I've stayed away from most of those games.

0100010: It sounds like you value pacing and difficulty rather than tone and immersion. Not every game is designed to challenge a player's abilities, nor should it. If tone and immersion aren't important parts of SS2, then lots of content in that game is wasted effort.


Not every game has to be extremely difficult, although I would argue that if you're going to make a puzzle game, you really, really have to push the player to their limits and rule out any "process of elimination" strategies, which Portal does not. (The second game makes that even worse by making it fairly obvious where the portals go...once you've found the wall for them.) For instance, I think that Super Metroid is an absolutely fantastic game in spite of its low difficulty level. Challenge and difficulty are just means to a great game. But I would argue that the atmosphere in games like Limbo and Portal (especially the second half of Portal, when it's clear that GLaDOS is out to kill you) absolutely rely on the threat of consequence and punishment for failure. There are even save points within individual tasks and puzzles. It's difficult to place myself in Chell's predicament when the game is just going to load the beginning of the section.
 
2012-12-05 08:35:12 PM
City of Heroes, you bastards!


i.imgur.com
 
2012-12-05 08:59:27 PM

Mike_LowELL: 0100010: How about the less fps/tps games like SimCity or The Sims? There's a lot more than exploration when it comes to sandboxing games.

The problem for me with most of those games is that the game world never ever bites back. Sim City and Minecraft generally have the same problem: Once you've built something, it's awfully easy to maintain. (This may have changed in the later Sim City titles, which I only spent a brief amount of time with and I understand that they became increasingly complex.) I mean, I quite enjoyed Sim City 2000 when I was younger, but once you have your entire city of gigantic robotic buildings launch off into space, that's really a "Time to go home, you've done everything" moment. (Obviously, you can imagine that I think Dwarf Fortress, the game which is designed so you will inevitably and eventually lose, is absolutely grand.) As far as The Sims goes, I could generally care less for it. I did play the original game in the series and got bored with it very quickly. Other than that, I've stayed away from most of those games.


I suspected that. You're using goals and achievements as a measuring stick for game quality and that's a poor stance to take. For you, it makes sense in determining how likely you will be to enjoy an individual game, but it has nothing to do with quality. There is a large (way larger than you probably realize) number of people that play games with little to no need for a definite goal. The Sims (especially the original one) is a great example of one that embodies the sandbox ideal rather than just an open world rpg. Before that, we had Creatures and its sequels. There's nothing wrong with you not liking that sort of game, but it doesn't make them poor games, just ones you don't value as much as others.

0100010: It sounds like you value pacing and difficulty rather than tone and immersion. Not every game is designed to challenge a player's abilities, nor should it. If tone and immersion aren't important parts of SS2, then lots of content in that game is wasted effort.

Not every game has to be extremely difficult, although I would argue that if you're going to make a puzzle game, you really, really have to push the player to their limits and rule out any "process of elimination" strategies, which Portal does not. (The second game makes that even worse by making it fairly obvious where the portals go...once you've found the wall for them.) For instance, I think that Super Metroid is an absolutely fantastic game in spite of its low difficulty level. Challenge and difficulty are just means to a great game. But I would argue that the atmosphere in games like Limbo and Portal (especially the second half of Portal, ...


Once again, you're showing your goal-oriented bias toward what makes a good game. There is no problem with Minecraft. It does what it was designed to do and has a lot of fans as a result. It's the same reason that DayZ is becoming a standalone game now. If you're going to be taken serious as a game reviewer, at the very least you need to understand that games are made for a target audience and that there are different expectations that result. None of which defines whether something is or isn't art.

I disagree that the second half of Portal had to ramp up the difficulty to make it worthy. Challenge and difficulty can help make a good game great or it can make a great game good. On top of that, it wasn't even a stand-alone title. It's amazing it grew so big. Still, there's a reason it is so popular without what you seem to expect in a game, and understanding that is critical.
 
2012-12-05 09:54:11 PM

0100010: I suspected that. You're using goals and achievements as a measuring stick for game quality and that's a poor stance to take. For you, it makes sense in determining how likely you will be to enjoy an individual game, but it has nothing to do with quality. There is a large (way larger than you probably realize) number of people that play games with little to no need for a definite goal. The Sims (especially the original one) is a great example of one that embodies the sandbox ideal rather than just an open world rpg. Before that, we had Creatures and its sequels. There's nothing wrong with you not liking that sort of game, but it doesn't make them poor games, just ones you don't value as much as others.


I would think that the nature of playing games is inseparable from the nature of goals, whether the designer is giving you goals or you're creating your own. In Minecraft, you're setting your own goals for what you want to build. In The Sims, you're not being given a goal, but you always have something on your mind, whether you're trying to get the dude a job, or build a house, or whatever. At the end of the day, it's going to be a matter of whether you can make those self-imposed goals interesting. But at the end of the day, you need a game world that occasionally bites back. You can build the Taj Mahal in Minecraft if you want, but it's going to be a thousand times more interesting if the game world resists your every urge to achieve that goal. (The survival mode really doesn't cut it on that front.) If you haven't played Ace of Spades, that would be the perfect example. (Just reminded myself of it.) Sandbox game through-and-through as built into a modern military shooter. You can build defensive fortifications, but players can tunnel into them, tear them down, blow them up, whatever. What makes the building fun is that it can be torn down.

0100010: Once again, you're showing your goal-oriented bias toward what makes a good game. There is no problem with Minecraft. It does what it was designed to do and has a lot of fans as a result. It's the same reason that DayZ is becoming a standalone game now. If you're going to be taken serious as a game reviewer, at the very least you need to understand that games are made for a target audience and that there are different expectations that result. None of which defines whether something is or isn't art.

I disagree that the second half of Portal had to ramp up the difficulty to make it worthy. Challenge and difficulty can help make a good game great or it can make a great game good. On top of that, it wasn't even a stand-alone title. It's amazing it grew so big. Still, there's a reason it is so popular without what you seem to expect in a game, and understanding that is critical.


At the end of the day, it's good for everyone to have an understanding of what people enjoy about the game. I completely agree with you. It's a business, and understanding what the population-at-large likes in their videogames is a good way to understand how commercial game designers are going to make them sell. But obviously, when I provide criticism on the topic, the most important thing is whether or not I enjoyed the game and whether or not I can articulate concrete reasons for that. And along the way, I'm going to find genres which I dislike or despise and it's up to me to explain why, whether through essays or multiple reviews.

There's no reason to be objective in the field of criticism because it is the reviewer's job to outline their biases and philosophy through numerous pieces of writing. My general rule of thumb is that the second I have to be "objective" on a topic, I pass that review or input on that topic to someone else. So, for example, I certainly have an appreciation for shoot 'em ups, but my knowledge of that genre is fairly limited and it simply doesn't click for me. Portal is a game that I feel comfortable providing input on, regardless of how other people feel about my opinion. I understand what makes the game popular, but based on what I know about the game and what relevant examples I can provide, I disagree with the notion that the popularity is a direct reflection of the game's finished quality. If they're confident in their own opinion on the topic, then the input I provide shouldn't infringe on their enjoyment of the game.
 
2012-12-05 10:27:13 PM
Over 200 comments and not one mention of Planescape: Torment? Ouch.

/also, +1 to Half Life, Ico, and SotC
 
2012-12-05 10:35:09 PM
No Cubivore? And no Lemmings!?!
 
2012-12-06 12:29:06 AM
The collection's current value is to chronicle the rise of digital interactive entertainment from early and groundbreaking examples of introducing physical input as a way to enhance a visually captivating experience.

/just my two cents

copypasta of link:

http://www.moma.org/explore/inside_out/2012/11/29/video-games-14-in-t h e-collection-for-starters/
 
2012-12-06 12:33:10 AM

Mike_LowELL: I would think that the nature of playing games is inseparable from the nature of goals, whether the designer is giving you goals or you're creating your own. In Minecraft, you're setting your own goals for what you want to build. In The Sims, you're not being given a goal, but you always have something on your mind, whether you're trying to get the dude a job, or build a house, or whatever. At the end of the day, it's going to be a matter of whether you can make those self-imposed goals interesting. But at the end of the day, you need a game world that occasionally bites back. You can build the Taj Mahal in Minecraft if you want, but it's going to be a thousand times more interesting if the game world resists your every urge to achieve that goal. (The survival mode really doesn't cut it on that front.) If you haven't played Ace of Spades, that would be the perfect example. (Just reminded myself of it.) Sandbox game through-and-through as built into a modern military shooter. You can build defensive fortifications, but players can tunnel into them, tear them down, blow them up, whatever. What makes the building fun is that it can be torn down.


There clearly isn't a need for a game that "bites back" as I've illustrated with plenty of examples. There is a very large market for games that don't specify goals. Repeatedly, you have set the bar for quality based upon goal attainability and it's not a valid criterion for that sort. A game is made for a target audience. Its success is first and foremost based upon whether it meets their goals. The rare exceptions are games that can pull in the most diverse audience possible. Looking at a game like Minecraft, it wasn't designed for the fps crowd. Its success stems directly from finding an unexpectedly large audience that its needs meet. What you are missing is that if the game was altered to suit your expectations, it wouldn't be the successful game it is. All you need for proof of this is to look at the populations of the creative servers. Most of the large and elaborate constructions aren't done on survival servers...

At the end of the day, it's good for everyone to have an understanding of what people enjoy about the game. I completely agree with you. It's a business, and understanding what the population-at-large likes in their videogames is a good way to understand how commercial game designers are going to make them sell. But obviously, when I provide criticism on the topic, the most important thing is whether or not I enjoyed the game and whether or not I can articulate concrete reasons for that. And along the way, I'm going to find genres which I dislike or despise and it's up to me to explain why, whether through essays or multiple reviews.

There's no reason to be objective in the field of criticism because it is the reviewer's job to outline their biases and philosophy through numerous pieces of writing. My general rule of thumb is that the second I have to be "objective" on a topic, I pass that review or input on that topic to someone else. So, for example, I certainly have an appreciation for shoot 'em ups, but my knowledge of that genre is fairly limited and it simply doesn't click for me. Portal is a game that I feel comfortable providing input on, regardless of how other people feel about my opinion. I understand what makes the game popular, but based on what I know about the game and what relevant examples I can provide, I disagree with the notion that the popularity is a direct reflection of the game's finished quality. If they're confident in their own opinion on the topic, then the input I provide shouldn't infringe on their enjoyment of the game.


It's equally important to explain why you didn't like it as well as whether or not it was due to accomplishing what it set out to do. If you're not the target audience for a game, a non-objective review's a waste of space. Many of the old adventure games weren't particularly charging to play but a blast to experience; games like Day of the Tentacle or Full Throttle. Enjoying them is much less a factor of the game play and I doubt you would consider them worthy titles based upon your criterion. There's no way I could trust you to review the game based upon its merits due to your attitudes.
 
2012-12-06 01:40:44 AM
cdn2.sbnation.com

hey guys
hot
 
2012-12-06 01:47:55 AM
i18.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-06 09:08:24 AM

OhioKnight: City of Heroes, you bastards!


[i.imgur.com image 850x494]


God I loved that game. When it debuted the idea that you could log onto a MMO, play for an hour, and actually get something worthwhile done was amazing. It will be missed.
 
2012-12-06 10:26:09 AM
so I was playing DF yesterday. Had an ambush, quickly followed by a seige, and then once I reopened the gates after the seige got bored and left, another ambush.

I used the following year to bulk up my defenses and make a really clever access system to my fort that gives me great attacking range on any invaders.


Now? no-one will invade. I'm debating on killing the next elf caravan so that I can get a war going. It isn't undeserved either, their snooty ass traders won't deal with my "baubles"

/Fortress is acting pretty self-sustainable, migrants aren't showing up, and I have no nobles either.
 
2012-12-06 10:45:54 AM

Girion47: I'm debating on killing the next elf caravan so that I can get a war going.


I'm only disappointed that you don't automatically kill every elf caravan.

Girion47: Fortress is acting pretty self-sustainable, migrants aren't showing up, and I have no nobles either.


I'm considering firing DF up again, to make a fortress designed around the first seven living in a walled off, self sustainable noble city. Every migrant after that is drafted into the military, and takes their turn farming or mining to support the hellish, unprotected landscape outside the walls of the Founders.
 
2012-12-06 11:20:40 AM

0100010: A game is made for a target audience. Its success is first and foremost based upon whether it meets their goals. The rare exceptions are games that can pull in the most diverse audience possible. Looking at a game like Minecraft, it wasn't designed for the fps crowd. Its success stems directly from finding an unexpectedly large audience that its needs meet. What you are missing is that if the game was altered to suit your expectations, it wouldn't be the successful game it is.


It is not the job of a reviewer to give a score based on whether a game "accomplishes goals" or whether it is "successful". The only criteria is whether the game is "good" or "bad", and that's a distinction earned by comparing the game to other relevant titles within the genre and the medium. My amount of entertainment value received from the game is going to rely heavily on your experiences with other games. You're making the assumption that if a game is successful, there must absolutely be some positive reason for that. Angry Birds does exactly what it wants to do, it's popular as all hell, but I still think the game is crap. The newer Call of Duty games (post-Modern Warfare 2) do exactly what they want to do, but they're still crap. Keep in mind that Jim Sterling gave a "perfect score" (ten-out-of-ten) to Limbo for precisely this reason, that the game set out to do what it wanted and achieved it. It's a bogus reasoning. This is the only entertainment medium where reviewers are scared to give a bad score to a popular or "acclaimed" title, and it needs to stop. There's a difference between a examination of what makes the game popular and whether or not I think the game is good.

0100010: It's equally important to explain why you didn't like it as well as whether or not it was due to accomplishing what it set out to do. If you're not the target audience for a game, a non-objective review's a waste of space. Many of the old adventure games weren't particularly charging to play but a blast to experience; games like Day of the Tentacle or Full Throttle. Enjoying them is much less a factor of the game play and I doubt you would consider them worthy titles based upon your criterion. There's no way I could trust you to review the game based upon its merits due to your attitudes.


Reviews aren't supposed to be objective. They're the personal input and opinion of one writer, most of whom have markedly different opinions and experiences with the medium, and the writer should be able to disclose those opinions and experiences through compelling, entertaining, and intelligent writing. My input is heavily influenced by the fact that I fell in love with computer gaming, because computers offered experiences (Doom, Descent, Warcraft) that I simply could not get on a game console or in an arcade. It is impossible to be objective on the topic, and I think most people feel elsewise because they look at review scores and think a numerical rating is supposed to come with some kind of scientific accuracy. (You also have an audience which has practically been conditioned to skip the content of the review and go straight to the score as well, but this is because the content in the majority of game reviews absolutely sucks.)

I wouldn't review adventure games because, while I have played some throughout the years (starting with Hugo's House of Horrors and the NES version of Maniac Mansion), I'm ultimately not qualified to review the games because I don't know enough about them and haven't played enough of them. However, I don't care much for the Japanese Role-Playing Game these days, but I played tons of them when I was a kid. And the fact I would today slam most all of them (outside of some games like Chrono Trigger, Star Ocean, and maybe Earthbound and the various Mario RPG titles) would not disqualify me from providing my input. If I think a game is bad and I can explain why, I come out and say it, popularity or reverence of the game be damned. It's not my job to reaffirm the status quo. If you don't trust me to review the game, then that should be a reflection of the content in the review, and only on the matter of whether I'm "unqualified" to speak on the topic. "Whether or not I enjoy the games" would not be a road to qualification.
 
2012-12-06 11:22:42 AM

0100010: There clearly isn't a need for a game that "bites back" as I've illustrated with plenty of examples. There is a very large market for games that don't specify goals. Repeatedly, you have set the bar for quality based upon goal attainability and it's not a valid criterion for that sort.


He said he finds Dwarf Fortress 'grand' and Minecraft pretty boring. They're about equal in terms of goal orientation - you devise your own goals and execute them to the best of your abilities. The game doesn't set goals for you whatsoever. If anything, Minecraft's survival mode is more goal oriented, with the talent tree and teching up (get iron, get diamonds, go to nether, go to the end, etc).

It seems you're focusing on one of his claimed aspects of what can make a game great and assuming it's the only one.
 
2012-12-06 11:35:30 AM

Mike_LowELL: My input is heavily influenced by the fact that I fell in love with computer gaming, because computers offered experiences (Doom, Descent, Warcraft) that I simply could not get on a game console or in an arcade.


www.bakershighlanderccgstore.com
Ah, the Master Race strikes again!
 
2012-12-06 12:22:51 PM

sprawl15: Girion47: I'm debating on killing the next elf caravan so that I can get a war going.

I'm only disappointed that you don't automatically kill every elf caravan.

Girion47: Fortress is acting pretty self-sustainable, migrants aren't showing up, and I have no nobles either.

I'm considering firing DF up again, to make a fortress designed around the first seven living in a walled off, self sustainable noble city. Every migrant after that is drafted into the military, and takes their turn farming or mining to support the hellish, unprotected landscape outside the walls of the Founders.


Large siege just showed up, doors wouldn't shut due to goblin carcass that noone would clean up, 20 swordsmen dead, marksmen run out of bolts and then do nothing, weaponsmiths are going berserk far away from any kind of military presence.

YAY FUN!!!!
 
2012-12-06 12:31:44 PM

Girion47: Large siege just showed up, doors wouldn't shut due to goblin carcass that noone would clean up, 20 swordsmen dead, marksmen run out of bolts and then do nothing, weaponsmiths are going berserk far away from any kind of military presence.

YAY FUN!!!!


Probably my funniest fort failure...I built an aboveground castle with a moat, but I forgot about water evaporating so most of it dried up. I was slowly refilling it with a walls/breaching system to ensure a 4/7 or higher water level throughout. The only entrance into the fortress was across a drawbridge, aside from a floodgate directly into the moat that I used to hydrate the crops once. The aboveground area had a whole bunch of dwarves training up, siege engines being constructed, etc., a pretty solid military presence.

While I was doing designating and canceling and bla bla, I apparently accidentally deleted the up stairs to the top of the fort, and didn't notice. At roughly the same time, a dragon rolled in, so I raised the drawbridge (which he blew up anyway) and the dragon bolted immediately to the floodgate, blowing that open. The upper levels of my fort started flooding and the dragon started rampaging through my stockpiles and living area, slaughtering dozens. My military, stuck on the top level, couldn't do shiat even if they were able to get access because most of them were starved/dehydrated and they were already starting to tantrum spiral. The rest of the non-military dwarves were immediately drafted to hold off the dragon, and they fought a desperate last stand that very nearly killed it - they cut off one of his limbs, he was bleeding profusely, and he had internal damage. Some of the dwarves up top started building stairs down (by tearing down walls and using the stone for stairs) but it was ridiculously slow. The dragon decided to pass his time by roasting cats.

The stairs were never built as the captain of my guard smashed the mason's head in before killing almost everyone else. The only survivors were the captain, rampaging, and a laborer who was stuck on an operating table.

One of the cats hid in the alcohol stockpiles, and the resulting explosion was enough to kill the dragon.

Moral victory!
 
2012-12-06 01:28:27 PM

sprawl15: Girion47: Large siege just showed up, doors wouldn't shut due to goblin carcass that noone would clean up, 20 swordsmen dead, marksmen run out of bolts and then do nothing, weaponsmiths are going berserk far away from any kind of military presence.

YAY FUN!!!!

Probably my funniest fort failure...I built an aboveground castle with a moat, but I forgot about water evaporating so most of it dried up. I was slowly refilling it with a walls/breaching system to ensure a 4/7 or higher water level throughout. The only entrance into the fortress was across a drawbridge, aside from a floodgate directly into the moat that I used to hydrate the crops once. The aboveground area had a whole bunch of dwarves training up, siege engines being constructed, etc., a pretty solid military presence.

While I was doing designating and canceling and bla bla, I apparently accidentally deleted the up stairs to the top of the fort, and didn't notice. At roughly the same time, a dragon rolled in, so I raised the drawbridge (which he blew up anyway) and the dragon bolted immediately to the floodgate, blowing that open. The upper levels of my fort started flooding and the dragon started rampaging through my stockpiles and living area, slaughtering dozens. My military, stuck on the top level, couldn't do shiat even if they were able to get access because most of them were starved/dehydrated and they were already starting to tantrum spiral. The rest of the non-military dwarves were immediately drafted to hold off the dragon, and they fought a desperate last stand that very nearly killed it - they cut off one of his limbs, he was bleeding profusely, and he had internal damage. Some of the dwarves up top started building stairs down (by tearing down walls and using the stone for stairs) but it was ridiculously slow. The dragon decided to pass his time by roasting cats.

The stairs were never built as the captain of my guard smashed the mason's head in before killing almost everyone else. ...


I just had a genius idea. Build a support, floor on top of it, as wide as possible, and then stack rocks on it. When a troll comes by to bash it as they like to do, you pancake the invaders!
 
2012-12-06 01:34:03 PM

Girion47: I just had a genius idea. Build a support, floor on top of it, as wide as possible, and then stack rocks on it. When a troll comes by to bash it as they like to do, you pancake the invaders!


Supposedly you can design perpetual motion minecart machines that spin minecarts around at ludicrous speed...then flick a lever and they blast out as a shotgun down a hallway. I am tempted to figure out how to do this, because I can imagine the horrific dwarf blendering that will occur the first time a dwarf tries to push one of the carts and the every other dwarf runs over to pick up his socks.
 
2012-12-06 01:43:51 PM

sprawl15: Girion47: I just had a genius idea. Build a support, floor on top of it, as wide as possible, and then stack rocks on it. When a troll comes by to bash it as they like to do, you pancake the invaders!

Supposedly you can design perpetual motion minecart machines that spin minecarts around at ludicrous speed...then flick a lever and they blast out as a shotgun down a hallway. I am tempted to figure out how to do this, because I can imagine the horrific dwarf blendering that will occur the first time a dwarf tries to push one of the carts and the every other dwarf runs over to pick up his socks.


I haven't learned about the minecarts yet. I'm still building random things to see what they do. My first attempt at a water pump resulted in my dwarf being washed away in the river and the pump is now inaccessible. I built walls for the water to go into but it leaked back out.

I really wish I could figure out how to pump magma from Z-level 140 to around 120. Having my weapons/armor/ammo produced that far away sucks.
 
2012-12-06 01:48:22 PM
BTW, thanks to Mike for exceeding Fark's character quote limit.
/Douche
 
2012-12-06 01:52:27 PM

Girion47: I just had a genius idea. Build a support, floor on top of it, as wide as possible, and then stack rocks on it. When a troll comes by to bash it as they like to do, you pancake the invaders!


I'm pretty sure that the destructibility of supports was changed specifically because that trick made it too easy to kill sieges. All you'd have to do is just build a bunch of supports with a couple of tiles on top all over the map, and any time a siege came in, they'd actively seek out the supports first and wind up killing themselves.

Some kinds of building destroyers are still vulnerable to this trick, I think, but not trolls. However, like I said, I haven't been actively playing for over a year, so this might have changed.

/ You can still make triggered traps that work that way and bait them with stray cats, of course, but that takes a bit more work
 
2012-12-06 01:58:15 PM

Martian_Astronomer: Girion47: I just had a genius idea. Build a support, floor on top of it, as wide as possible, and then stack rocks on it. When a troll comes by to bash it as they like to do, you pancake the invaders!

I'm pretty sure that the destructibility of supports was changed specifically because that trick made it too easy to kill sieges. All you'd have to do is just build a bunch of supports with a couple of tiles on top all over the map, and any time a siege came in, they'd actively seek out the supports first and wind up killing themselves.

Some kinds of building destroyers are still vulnerable to this trick, I think, but not trolls. However, like I said, I haven't been actively playing for over a year, so this might have changed.

/ You can still make triggered traps that work that way and bait them with stray cats, of course, but that takes a bit more work


damn. Next idea is to create a moat with ramp leading up to my base, have a flood gate that can open to flood the moat, have the only route out of the moat be in the direct path of the water flow.

The only question is, how do I dry the moat afterwards?
 
2012-12-06 02:03:38 PM

Girion47: I haven't learned about the minecarts yet. I'm still building random things to see what they do. My first attempt at a water pump resulted in my dwarf being washed away in the river and the pump is now inaccessible. I built walls for the water to go into but it leaked back out.


Actually, once you get the mechanics figured out, that's a good way to train swimming. Just set up a pump next to a murky pool with a wall that causes the water to wash the dwarf into the pool, and provide a ramp into the pool so the dwarf can get out. Then, just assign the dwarf you want to train to pump duty, and he'll repeatedly wash himself into the water and (hopefully) get out before he drowns. Really handy if you like building moats.

Girion47: I really wish I could figure out how to pump magma from Z-level 140 to around 120. Having my weapons/armor/ammo produced that far away sucks.


There's a couple of good tutorials on the wiki on how to do this. I've made a big enough pump stack to get magma to the surface once or twice, but by the time you've got enough spare effort to do that, your fort is probably in good enough shape that you don't actually need to.

Still, magma anywhere you want it is tons of fun...
 
2012-12-06 02:11:45 PM

Girion47: The only question is, how do I dry the moat afterwards?


Easy: you can drain liquids off the edge of the map. Just make sure you use fortifications, or else things can wander *in* from the edge of the map in the same channel. I would also advise that you use drawbridges instead of floodgates to stop the water, as that prevents building destroyers from causing an uncontrollable flood. I used to use that trick all the time to make underground tree farms. If you mine out most of a whole level (some time after you breach the caverns,) then flood the entire level from a stream on the surface, and let it drain, you'll essentially get a completely secure forest of mushroom trees underground. At that point you never need to venture outside for wood again!

/The next release will be severely altering trees though, so this may not work as well in the future
 
2012-12-06 03:21:05 PM

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?"

Vash's Apprentice: BTW, thanks to Mike for exceeding Fark's character quote limit.
/Douche


Yes, and you may be surprised to hear that children's books, yard sale signs, and the instructions packaged with dollhouses also exceed the FARK character quote limit. You may benefit from engaging these works and then moving on to the more complex writing that can, for instance, be found on the back of cereal boxes. I can't wait to find out what that crazy Trix Rabbit™ is up to this time!
 
2012-12-06 04:04:18 PM

Mike_LowELL: Vash's Apprentice: ***snip***

Yes, and you may be surprised to hear that children's books, yard sale signs, and the instructions packaged with dollhouses also exceed the FARK character quote limit. You may benefit from engaging these works and then moving on to the more complex writing that can, for instance, be found on the back of cereal boxes. I can't wait to find out what that crazy Trix Rabbit™ is up to this time!


I always felt bad for that guy, he just wanted some cereal. The Lucky Charms leprechaun, though, that guy was an asshole. You're a leprechaun, you want to horde your gold AND your delicious marshmallow-laden cereal, fark you. I hope those kids beat the shiat out of you when they finish eating your magically delicious bowl of bullshiat.
 
2012-12-06 04:19:54 PM

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

/Arcade offers an experience console and PC can't match
//PC and console allow for a depth of story arcade can't reasonably deliver
 
2012-12-06 04:33:30 PM

Mike_LowELL: When you pull away the story in Portal


...and when you pull the visuals away from a painting or all the story away from a novel - all you have is what again?

Games have different focuses, some focus on mechanics, some on story, some on visuals, and a hand full of others. You can't randomly remove aspects and think the result is meaningful. Would this sound reasonable to you, "I mean, Deus Ex is fun, but if you pull back the story, role playing elements, and choice mechanics, it's just a shooter with sub-par voice acting and terrible graphics?"
 
2012-12-06 04:43:17 PM

ProfessorOhki: ...and when you pull the visuals away from a painting or all the story away from a novel - all you have is what again?


That's a pretty terrible comparison because in those examples, there is nothing but the visuals to a painting and nothing but a story to a novel. Games have different...

ProfessorOhki: Games have different focuses, some focus on mechanics, some on story, some on visuals, and a hand full of others.


Oh, you're answering your own questions.

ProfessorOhki: You can't randomly remove aspects and think the result is meaningful.


If you make apple pie with rotten apples, but every other component is as fresh and well made as can be, would you say it's meaningful to comment on the crust and filling separately?
 
2012-12-06 05:02:45 PM

sprawl15: ProfessorOhki: Games have different focuses, some focus on mechanics, some on story, some on visuals, and a hand full of others.

Oh, you're answering your own questions.


Rhetorical question; used to frame the next statement. Intentional.

sprawl15: ProfessorOhki: You can't randomly remove aspects and think the result is meaningful.

If you make apple pie with rotten apples, but every other component is as fresh and well made as can be, would you say it's meaningful to comment on the crust and filling separately?


There's a pretty big differences between being rotten and not being the differentiating factor. The story and atmosphere were the most key elements of Portal. Yes, you take it away and the game becomes far less 'good.' The mechanics alone weren't bad though, they might just not stand out on their own. There's more than a few games out there where a story was good enough to overcome mechanical flaws; or the game was so fun to play it overcame plot holes. Something doesn't have to be perfect to be good and games are pretty much one of the most mixed-media arts you've got. That makes it hard to draw a decent analogy to any media... the best I can do is say take a film, strip the audio, and use subtitles for the dialog - First Blood stays nearly the same movie; Grease on the other hand...
 
2012-12-06 05:31:44 PM

ProfessorOhki: There's a pretty big differences between being rotten and not being the differentiating factor.


Not particularly, since the cook is the one who placed the component in the final product. If I choose to stick a farking awful game mechanic into my game, it's as much my burden as if I put a rotten apple into my pie.

ProfessorOhki: The story and atmosphere were the most key elements of Portal. Yes, you take it away and the game becomes far less 'good.' The mechanics alone weren't bad though, they might just not stand out on their own.


Which comes down to how we define how to judge a game.

There's a camp that argues that story/atmosphere are alone enough to carry a game. I would very strongly argue against that - they certainly help (and my love of SS2 is in large part because of its story and atmosphere, don't get me wrong), but I consider those more of a multiplier to the value of a game. A solid set of mechanics with a solid story/atmosphere is exponentially better than a game with poor mechanics and a solid story/atmosphere. That's easy enough. But it also means that a solid set of mechanics becomes valued higher than a solid story/atmosphere.

The game was fun and entertaining, but not because of anything pertaining to its value as a game. Lets take an extreme example; say a game ships with a full novel in the game world somewhere, and the novel is actually fantastic. An amazing novel, a must read, something that makes purchasing the game mandatory for anyone who enjoys the written word. Does that make the game better? I would argue it doesn't at all, because if we allow that to modify our opinion of the mechanics, we could package said novel with Custer's Revenge and we would have to consider the game as a whole something worthwhile. We recognize, in that extreme example, that story or aesthetic aspects of the game is an element distinct from the underlying platonic game-idea itself.

ProfessorOhki: That makes it hard to draw a decent analogy to any media... the best I can do is say take a film, strip the audio, and use subtitles for the dialog - First Blood stays nearly the same movie; Grease on the other hand...


Using your movie analogy, the gameplay of a game is equivalent to the visuals in a movie while the story is equivalent to the sound. A great movie has both done exceptionally well. But a game that focuses on story is aesthetically similar to a music video. Sure, it can be entertaining, but it's not to be judged by the same standards. How could you possibly judge Beastie Boys' Sabotage video using the same metrics as A Clockwork Orange? The argument isn't that games that focus on story and eschew gameplay are unfun, but rather that they are not mechanically sound. And, like music videos, people can put up with the grossly sub-par visuals on most of them because they aren't watching them to watch them, they're watching them to listen. Just like people don't play exclusively story/atmosphere driven games to play games, but rather to hear a story or experience an atmosphere.

And that's part of why a lot of people find Mike to be absurd when he talks about games like Limbo - he's a movie reviewer talking about music videos. You can argue the value of using those tools to review that kind of game, sure. But there are a lot of people who take great personal offense when, metaphorically, a music video for a song they love is called a bad video. And their outrage makes the least sense out of anyone's.
 
2012-12-06 05:33:37 PM

sprawl15: The game Portal was fun and entertaining


for clarity
 
2012-12-06 05:39:00 PM

roc6783: I always felt bad for that guy, he just wanted some cereal. The Lucky Charms leprechaun, though, that guy was an asshole. You're a leprechaun, you want to horde your gold AND your delicious marshmallow-laden cereal, fark you. I hope those kids beat the shiat out of you when they finish eating your magically delicious bowl of bullshiat.


I think the real problem is that companies are using these dudes as brands and these companies aren't paying them a dime for it. It's the only reason they just don't go out and buy some of the cereal for themselves. They don't have the money.

ProfessorOhki: /Arcade offers an experience console and PC can't match


No disagreement at all. I just happen to like the stuff that requires 80 different hotkeys.

ProfessorOhki: There's more than a few games out there where a story was good enough to overcome mechanical flaws;


As I mentioned upthread, I've played very few games where I could agree to that. And while I'm obviously considerate of the point of view that story can enhance a game, and I'm considerate of the idea that many people feel strongly about narrative in games, I don't give much weight to storytelling. You can have an awesome game without a meaningful narrative but you can't have an awesome game with meaningful mechanics. Easiest way for me to explain my stance is that Journey (a game which eschews all meaningful mechanics in favor of narrative) is lousy no matter how you slice it. Depends on what you think of that game, and we can go from there.
 
2012-12-06 05:42:07 PM
Oh, and I see sprawl15 covered it in more detail than I'm currently willing to expend. Much love.
 
2012-12-06 05:48:21 PM

Martian_Astronomer: Girion47: The only question is, how do I dry the moat afterwards?

Easy: you can drain liquids off the edge of the map. Just make sure you use fortifications, or else things can wander *in* from the edge of the map in the same channel. I would also advise that you use drawbridges instead of floodgates to stop the water, as that prevents building destroyers from causing an uncontrollable flood. I used to use that trick all the time to make underground tree farms. If you mine out most of a whole level (some time after you breach the caverns,) then flood the entire level from a stream on the surface, and let it drain, you'll essentially get a completely secure forest of mushroom trees underground. At that point you never need to venture outside for wood again!

/The next release will be severely altering trees though, so this may not work as well in the future


The only problem I'm running into is the game won't let me mine the edges.
 
2012-12-06 05:58:52 PM

Girion47: The only problem I'm running into is the game won't let me mine the edges.


Hmm. Unless they changed it, even if you can't actually mine the edges, you might still be able to smooth the stone at the map edges and carve fortifications, which will let the water through. (It's been a while though, I could be wrong.)

If that doesn't work, the other, less game option is to simply use one of the caverns as a sewer. If the cavern has a lake in it that touches the edge of the map, the extra water will eventually find its way out. Just carve an up/down staircase into the top of the cavern. As always, though, put a bend with fortifications in somewhere to make sure that flying cavern dwellers don't find their way up the drain.

Oh, and make sure you test the drain controls before actually filling the moat...
 
2012-12-06 07:58:43 PM

sprawl15: Which comes down to how we define how to judge a game.

There's a camp that argues that story/atmosphere are alone enough to carry a game. I would very strongly argue against that - they certainly help (and my love of SS2 is in large part because of its story and atmosphere, don't get me wrong), but I consider those more of a multiplier to the value of a game. A solid set of mechanics with a solid story/atmosphere is exponentially better than a game with poor mechanics and a solid story/atmosphere. That's easy enough. But it also means that a solid set of mechanics becomes valued higher than a solid story/atmosphere.

The game was fun and entertaining, but not because of anything pertaining to its value as a game. Lets take an extreme example; say a game ships with a full novel in the game world somewhere, and the novel is actually fantastic. An amazing novel, a must read, something that makes purchasing the game mandatory for anyone who enjoys the written word. Does that make the game better? I would argue it doesn't at all, because if we allow that to modify our opinion of the mechanics, we could package said novel with Custer's Revenge and we would have to consider the game as a whole something worthwhile. We recognize, in that extreme example, that story or aesthetic aspects of the game is an element distinct from the underlying platonic game-idea itself.


I'm of the camp where you have to take the entire experience as a whole regardless of genre. Sure, having a great written story doesn't make it a great game; you can't just judge it on things unique to it being a game rather than something else. If you can say "the music was great, the characters were great, the story was amazing, the level design was top notch, and I cried when it ended.... but the controls were sort of clunky so I give it a C-" [about some arbitrary, made up game] with a straight face, I can't come to accept that definition. It's all about how you draw your audience in and what you do with them once they're there. In the truest abstraction, you'd be able to tell how good a game was by standing next to the screen and watching the players' faces, never seeing or hearing it yourself.

Besides, "game" is almost too broad of a category to talk about. It's like comparing a novel to a screen play to a blog to a newspaper to a short story to a datasheet. They're all printed word, but they've all got different audiences, different goals, and different approaches to get there. You can read one and go, "it accomplished what it set out to do with great prowess," but you can't really go, "man, this novella is waaaay better text than that shipping label," because the novella sucks at getting you packages delivered.

/Probably my stupidest analogy to date

Mike_LowELL: Easiest way for me to explain my stance is that Journey (a game which eschews all meaningful mechanics in favor of narrative) is lousy no matter how you slice it. Depends on what you think of that game, and we can go from there.


Haven't played it myself. I do get the varying opinions on what makes a game though. I consider Minecraft complete crap because it's not a game; it's a first person voxel editor with scarcity thrown on top to drag out the time. It's Photoshop if you had to grind ink for the brush tool. It's like calling a cardboard box a "toy," sure you can have perfectly good fun with it, but you're the one who created the fun, it's wad of raw material.

/And it annoys me to no end that Notch realized people would buy that
//And then became a bazillionaire
 
2012-12-06 09:15:07 PM

ProfessorOhki: I'm of the camp where you have to take the entire experience as a whole regardless of genre. Sure, having a great written story doesn't make it a great game; you can't just judge it on things unique to it being a game rather than something else. If you can say "the music was great, the characters were great, the story was amazing, the level design was top notch, and I cried when it ended.... but the controls were sort of clunky so I give it a C-" [about some arbitrary, made up game] with a straight face, I can't come to accept that definition.


That's why I said that it's an interaction between the components. A game like Hotline Miami has pretty terrible controls, but I love it anyway. It's all part of the way the game farks with your expectations, kind of like the way you can walk around the buildings of each level is a feature, not a bug. The controls being a bit more reliable wouldn't really change my opinion of the game at all. There's plenty of games that approach the construct of a game from a meta perspective that pull it off well - Hotline Miami, without the insane aesthetic, is ultimately a decent night of puzzle game fun. But a game like Limbo, without the aesthetic, ultimately fails as a game, because its mechanics are poor and its structure is weak. Portal would be better off than Limbo, but suffers from the same problem. And when you're trying to put determine something as nebulous as 'goodness' of a game, you ultimately have to look at those things essential to a game - which Hotline Miami has, and Limbo doesn't have.

I mean, take Dwarf Fortress. The music was non existent, the characters were faceless until they were on fire, the story was like a Tolkein appendix, the level design was a chaotic mess, every game ends in tragedy, and the controls are horrific. Yet I'd still argue it's a far stronger game than nearly anything on the market.

ProfessorOhki: Haven't played it myself. I do get the varying opinions on what makes a game though. I consider Minecraft complete crap because it's not a game; it's a first person voxel editor with scarcity thrown on top to drag out the time. It's Photoshop if you had to grind ink for the brush tool. It's like calling a cardboard box a "toy," sure you can have perfectly good fun with it, but you're the one who created the fun, it's wad of raw material.


And, for the record, I do have fun with Minecraft for the same reason I had a lot of fun with Lego. But I wouldn't call it a particularly good game because of it, any more than I'd call a box of Lego a 'game'.
 
2012-12-06 09:59:37 PM
t1.gstatic.com
 
2012-12-06 11:26:16 PM

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?"



Would trust a fan of romantic comedies to review horror flicks?

Yes, and you may be surprised to hear that children's books, yard sale signs, and the instructions packaged with dollhouses also exceed the FARK character quote limit. You may benefit from engaging these works and then moving on to the more complex writing that can, for instance, be found on the back of cereal boxes. I can't wait to find out what that crazy Trix Rabbit™ is up to this time!


Translation:I have nothing of relevance, but look at MAH BIG WALL OF TEXT!11111
 
2012-12-07 02:11:19 AM

ProfessorOhki: Haven't played it myself. I do get the varying opinions on what makes a game though. I consider Minecraft complete crap because it's not a game; it's a first person voxel editor with scarcity thrown on top to drag out the time. It's Photoshop if you had to grind ink for the brush tool. It's like calling a cardboard box a "toy," sure you can have perfectly good fun with it, but you're the one who created the fun, it's wad of raw material.


That's pretty much the idea. Everybody has games they like and dislike. I don't really care for MineCraft, either. I just don't understand the point of a sandbox game which (as popularly played) offers you immediate domination of the game world. (As I mentioned upthread, I highly recommend trying out Ace of Spades, assuming they haven't utterly butchered it in the newer releases.) If someone can outline valid reasons they like and dislike those games, then that's perfectly fine. I think it would surprise most of the people here, but there's an underbelly for game criticism which pretty much rejects the popular narrative of videogame history. That's the viewpoint I take, and I try to learn more about it, because I keep finding really cool games to play. (Bulk Slash and Starsweep are the most recent examples.) I used to be of the opinion that, even if individual commercial game reviewers were incorrect, the aggregate mostly got it right. I discovered that I was completely wrong. If popular game criticism wants to get anywhere, people need to start challenging accepted truths. I doubt that will actually happen, but even if it doesn't, I'll just keep coming in these game threads and startling the shiat out of everyone.

Vash's Apprentice: Would trust a fan of romantic comedies to review horror flicks?


If they know the genre and can express their reasons for why they don't like that genre, why not? I like puzzle-platformers and I like first-person shooters. I just don't think Portal is a great game. I think it should be clear from this discussion thread that I believe aesthetics are one means to developing atmosphere in a videogame, and that narrative and storytelling have to be combined with mechanics that complement the desired motif. Thus, there shouldn't be any offense taken. There can be disagreement, but nobody can say I didn't outline myself. (Although I made a wonderful entrance with the discussion about Limbo, obviously.)

Vash's Apprentice: Translation:I have nothing of relevance, but look at MAH BIG WALL OF TEXT!11111


Name something I said that you disagree with. Provide reasons.
 
2012-12-07 09:34:37 AM

Mike_LowELL: roc6783: ***snip***

I think the real problem is that companies are using these dudes as brands and these companies aren't paying them a dime for it. It's the only reason they just don't go out and buy some of the cereal for themselves. They don't have the money.

***snip***


Imaginary character exploitation is the new equality frontier.
 
2012-12-07 09:38:01 AM

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
 
2012-12-07 10:06:43 AM

ProfessorOhki: sprawl15: ***snip***

I consider Minecraft complete crap because it's not a game; it's a first person voxel editor with scarcity thrown on top to drag out the time. It's Photoshop if you had to grind ink for the brush tool. It's like calling a cardboard box a "toy," sure you can have perfectly good fun with it, but you're the one who created the fun, it's wad of raw material.

/And it annoys me to no end that Notch realized people would buy that
//And then became a bazillionaire


To me Minecraft is digital Legos. There is nothing wrong with that, but as I have never really enjoyed Legos, I don't have a great desire to play with Minecraft.

Mike_LowELL: ProfessorOhki: ***snip***


To me, the original Dragon Warrior or Zelda are as close to perfect as a video game can be, but I fully admit to being a biased moron.

///I also love Shining Force, but it is not great as a game. It is a strategy game that requires very little strategy, especially in the second half.
 
2012-12-07 10:36:08 AM
Look. If you want to consider games as art, the first step is to stop worrying so goddamned much about which games are or are not good, or what the definitions of good are.

That's a stupid approach to art.
 
2012-12-07 11:01:50 AM

Dafatone: Look. If you want to consider games as art, the first step is to stop worrying so goddamned much about which games are or are not good, or what the definitions of good are.


This is like saying there's no difference between an impressionist master and an impressionist amateur because most people don't care to learn the difference.
 
2012-12-07 11:07:02 AM

sprawl15: Dafatone: Look. If you want to consider games as art, the first step is to stop worrying so goddamned much about which games are or are not good, or what the definitions of good are.

This is like saying there's no difference between an impressionist master and an impressionist amateur because most people don't care to learn the difference.


Critics, generally, look more deeply into what's going on their field than just to argue over the precise definitions of "goodness."

Then again, criticism doesn't occur in a forum where people can actually talk back and forth, so I see where it comes from.
 
2012-12-07 11:13:46 AM

Dafatone: Critics, generally, look more deeply into what's going on their field than just to argue over the precise definitions of "goodness."


Yet they still agree that there is the existence of criteria by which to measure that 'goodness'.

Ebert may not be able to write a definitive guide on what boxes a movie can check to be automatically 'good', but he sure as fark could explain to you why he thought this movie was four stars and this other one was worth one...and what elements were 'good' in the first that weren't 'good' in the second. Saying "Limbo is a platformer but gets wrong some of the basic elements of platforming" isn't some arcane philosophical argument about the nature of 'goodness'. It's looking at basic form and function.
 
2012-12-07 11:16:44 AM

sprawl15: Dafatone: Critics, generally, look more deeply into what's going on their field than just to argue over the precise definitions of "goodness."

Yet they still agree that there is the existence of criteria by which to measure that 'goodness'.

Ebert may not be able to write a definitive guide on what boxes a movie can check to be automatically 'good', but he sure as fark could explain to you why he thought this movie was four stars and this other one was worth one...and what elements were 'good' in the first that weren't 'good' in the second. Saying "Limbo is a platformer but gets wrong some of the basic elements of platforming" isn't some arcane philosophical argument about the nature of 'goodness'. It's looking at basic form and function.


Sure. My original post was a little too annoyed/frustrated, anyway. I'm all for examining what does and doesn't work in a game like Limbo.

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.

There's a lot of fun stuff to talk about in games that has nothing to do with goodness. 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."
 
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 259 of 259 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report