|
bewilderment posted:
Goddam that's cold dude. Daikatana is the Avatar of gaming.
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 03:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 10:49 |
|
|
bewilderment posted:The Last of Us is an artistic success in the sense that it had beautifully rendered environments, great voice actors and voice acting, generally good atmosphere, a competently written story, etc. the combat/crafting/health kept the theme pretty well. poo poo was usually pretty scarce and you could bluff dudes with empty guns. but yeah, people do over hype if, they also overhype the dlc alot. which built ellies character alot, but people only talk about it because it shows elllie is gay/bi holy poo poo. i love the bioshock games, but infinite wasn't that great.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 03:36
|
|
|
A painting or a book or a symphony is not art. It's a machine to produce art-feeling. Viewed like that the whole dumb argument about games and art evaporates and blows away. They're not art because nothing is, but they can produce art feeling. Mostly they haven't been great at doing that for a bunch of reasons (constantly changing technology preventing a solid aesthetic from developing, a hormone addled target market of teenage boys). But they can create an art feeling that other media simply can't.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 06:46
|
|
|
Killer 7 is the Pulp Fiction meets Lost Highway of gaming.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 08:16
|
|
|
MonsieurChoc posted:Killer 7 is the Pulp Fiction meets Lost Highway of gaming. On a similar note, DOOM is the Mad Max: Fury Road of gaming. BTW nice comparison its actually really accurate imo edit: Metal Gear Solid 5 is the Lawrence of Arabia of gaming
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 08:53
|
|
|
HookedOnChthonics posted:Game mechanics absolutely play a huge role in developing the emotional tone of playing the game, which I think makes them an aspect of aesthetics. Those games mechanics make them functionally stressful, that doesn't make make mechanics part of aesthetics. Function in this case is complimenting form and vice versa. To label the mechanics aesthetics simply because they compliment and reinforce the aesthetic (or again, vice versa) dilutes the term to the point of uselessness.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 09:39
|
|
|
achillesforever6 posted:What's funny wasn't The Last of Us considered "The Citizen Kane of games" that very year by a bunch of critics? People don't even know what "Citizen Kane of X" is supposed to be anymore, it originally stood for landmark separating cinema from theater by employing new techniques, so whatever was "Citizen Kane of games" was probably released 20 or more years ago.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 10:27
|
|
|
Pyromancer posted:People don't even know what "Citizen Kane of X" is supposed to be anymore, it originally stood for landmark separating cinema from theater by employing new techniques, so whatever was "Citizen Kane of games" was probably released 20 or more years ago. huh so Pong is the Citizen Kane of video games?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 10:49
|
|
|
The Real Foogla posted:huh so Pong is the Citizen Kane of video games? I think you'll find that title is taken by one of the many classic Japanese visual novels
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 11:06
|
|
|
The Real Foogla posted:huh so Pong is the Citizen Kane of video games? This may shock you, but it's 2016 already, so Pong is over 40 years old. Also, aside from being electronic, it is not that different from table football or other games of that sort. If you really want to stick to that sort of naming scheme it can be Battleship Potemkin of video games or something. Pyromancer fucked around with this message at 11:22 on May 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 11:13
|
|
|
sebmojo posted:A painting or a book or a symphony is not art.  Coolwhoami posted:Critics are known for being hyperbolic to a fault, and when coupled with a permeating desire to have their chosen class of thing be considered more high brow, we get this. What's their motivation I wonder? Surely a few of them have to earn a paycheck; do they imagine that will be easier as a critic of high art for a vanishingly small audience?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 13:10
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Those games mechanics make them functionally stressful, that doesn't make make mechanics part of aesthetics. Function in this case is complimenting form and vice versa. Okay, so, at least two levels to this: First, that's wrongheaded. You wouldn't say that brush strokes or word choice lack aesthetic qualities just because their function is to depict a scene, would you? If anything, given the infinite variety of options, the way you depict something, the method and the arrangement, is more a matter of taste and beauty than the actual subject. You can even dispense with the subject; abstract art doesn't cease to be art. Plus, we have a precedent for regarding a system of rules as beautiful: people say it of languages all the time. Which leads to the second point, that both you and the guy you're replying to seem to have overlooked -- that a system of rules with just the right balance of simplicity and complexity (and/or whatever qualities suit your tastes) can be artful in itself. Tuxedo Catfish fucked around with this message at 14:14 on May 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 14:12
|
|
|
Art exists in the act of experiencing it. You'd disagree?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 14:24
|
|
|
sebmojo posted:Art exists in the act of experiencing it. You'd disagree? This is pedantic quibbling to make yourself sound enlightened or something like that. Without the actual piece of art, there would be no experiencing of it, so why make this dumb semantic argument?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 14:26
|
|
|
Dr. Stab posted:That interaction is part of the framework in which the film is presented and not the film itself. This. Saying "all home video releases are interactive because menus" is akin to saying "all books are interactive because you can chop them up and rearrange the pages  " Yes, you can, but that's an artifact of the way the thing is produced in its physical medium. It's external to the thing itself.Internaut! posted:
To some degree it might be social signalling, flattering their audience by positively comparing popular thing to famous examples from other media. It's not necessarily that they're highbrow consumers of refined art so much as it flatters them to think they are. Plus, as mentioned about fandoms, it's easier to write this way, praising popular things with fan-based audiences, than the opposite.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 15:18
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:This is pedantic quibbling to make yourself sound enlightened or something like that. Without the actual piece of art, there would be no experiencing of it, so why make this dumb semantic argument? It puts the act of experiencing a traditional work of art on the same footing as playing a game, where the art-feeling, the moment to moment experience, is the thing that matters. It also gives a more sensible frame to talk about things like aesthetics, design and gameplay as vectors of art, as well as bringing in the place of a given work in its society (by incorporating the viewer/reader/player as a crucial component). Art isn't a thing, art happens between the work and the observer. Seems straightforward imo.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 15:26
|
|
|
Internaut! posted:What's their motivation I wonder? Surely a few of them have to earn a paycheck; do they imagine that will be easier as a critic of high art for a vanishingly small audience? In addition to what as has already been said, I think part of it comes from a place where you want the thing you're critiquing to have value socially. While having a lot of people like a thing is indeed valuable in some respects, I think the idea here is that because high art (literature, visual art, some movies) are considered more culturally significant/valuable, comparing a work to them is an attempt to bring the level of the work they're criticizing to a similar place. It is of course absurd to do this when the comparison is not warranted, but their audiences either don't care enough to stop reading, or the page views added by saying something dumb like that makes up for any lost by it.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:Games don't have to be fun, and some of the best games I've played have been the opposite of fun. Pathologic is the classic example. There's absolutely no way you can present that game that even seems remotely fun, but it doesn't need to be. This is probably the dumbest thing I've read in these forums this year, congrats fucktard!
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 18:07
|
|
|
qnqnx posted:This is probably the dumbest thing I've read in these forums this year, congrats fucktard! Why? Not every movie is fun, but lots are enjoyable in a different way (think Shindler's List vs. Guardians of the Galaxy) Is it any dumber to try to consider game this way? I'm also wondering why people react so incredibly towards "walking sim" art-style games, when movies are allowed these types of efforts without so much as a whimper from the average movie-goer. And I'd expect art games, just like art films, to not be the majority of the market despite getting a decent amount of the critical press. What makes games so different in this regard?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Why? Not every movie is fun, but lots are enjoyable in a different way (think Shindler's List vs. Guardians of the Galaxy) Is it any dumber to try to consider game this way? plz don't feed trolls
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Why? Not every movie is fun, but lots are enjoyable in a different way (think Shindler's List vs. Guardians of the Galaxy) Is it any dumber to try to consider game this way? I agree with you that i think gaming should be more broad and their should be stuff with deeper experiences, the problem is most of the "deep philosophical" indie games are kinda crap. their deep ideas often come off as pretentious as poo poo or forced. which is the same problem with alot of indie movies. the ideas often sound like the creators took a 2 year humanities degree and put that and their philosophical/political ideals and called that deep. and unlike gone home/fire watch/even loving Stanley parable, they have no interactivity. and i dont mean killing or fighting. i mean like any interactions at all. its just walk on look and the weird art and listen to the writer bleet in your ear about catcher in the rye or how bad problematic the tome art of war is. what i am saying is. if you want to make a good walking sim/indie game. 1. make it interesting and original and 2, have some sort of real interactivity. not walking straight forward or some dumb powerpoint/word document. for example, look at five nights at freddies. the dude came up with an original idea based partially of criticism from his first games and kids being scared of anamotronics. Dapper_Swindler fucked around with this message at 18:48 on May 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Why? Not every movie is fun, but lots are enjoyable in a different way (think Shindler's List vs. Guardians of the Galaxy) Is it any dumber to try to consider game this way? on a base level all entertainment should be fun, if it's not fun then it's boring and you stop consuming it. fun can take on different forms, such as interesting, frustrating, etc. the witness wasn't fun in a joyful sense, it was fun because it was intensely frustrating until you had an epiphany. schindler's list isn't pleasant to sit through or lightweight in its themes but it's fun because it produces in some way a powerful emotion like sympathy for the jews or hatred of the nazis which people find pleasurable in some bitter way. gone home was fun if you liked the atmosphere and environment, and it wasn't fun if you were expecting anything to happen or a more complex story
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Why? Not every movie is fun, but lots are enjoyable in a different way (think Shindler's List vs. Guardians of the Galaxy) Is it any dumber to try to consider game this way? Movies as a term is broad; It is applied to any non-interactive video media that is of sufficient length. The concept video game has rules for use which walking sims do not satisfy particularly well. Interactivity is one aspect, but not the only one. These things become games for lack of a better term to discriminate them from both movies and games, in part because they exist in the border area between both. Interestingly, we tend not to call simulators used for training pilots games, because they are not used for leisure, despite being both interactive and challenging. Art films do not have this problem, because the reasons for watching a movie are not part of what makes them one, nor the structure or content. My problem with this crossover is the tendency to point to walking simulator type things as strong examples of the artistic merit of the medium. If we need to look to examples for in kind with other media forms in order to legitimize the use of the term art for the medium, we fail to identify the qualities that make video games unique as an artistic medium.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:on a base level all entertainment should be fun, if it's not fun then it's boring and you stop consuming it. fun can take on different forms, such as interesting, frustrating, etc. the witness wasn't fun in a joyful sense, it was fun because it was intensely frustrating until you had an epiphany. schindler's list isn't pleasant to sit through or lightweight in its themes but it's fun because it produces in some way a powerful emotion like sympathy for the jews or hatred of the nazis which people find pleasurable in some bitter way. gone home was fun if you liked the atmosphere and environment, and it wasn't fun if you were expecting anything to happen or a more complex story I'm pretty sure you're saying the thing, it's just he's using fun to mean something more narrow than "enjoyable" and you're using them as synonyms.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
Coolwhoami posted:Movies as a term is broad; It is applied to any non-interactive video media that is of sufficient length. The concept video game has rules for use which walking sims do not satisfy particularly well. Interactivity is one aspect, but not the only one. These things become games for lack of a better term to discriminate them from both movies and games, in part because they exist in the border area between both. Interestingly, we tend not to call simulators used for training pilots games, because they are not used for leisure, despite being both interactive and challenging. Art films do not have this problem, because the reasons for watching a movie are not part of what makes them one, nor the structure or content. SimCity is less of a game than any given walking simulator is, though, so this distinction leads to conclusions that are fairly absurd.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:SimCity is less of a game than any given walking simulator is, though, so this distinction leads to conclusions that are fairly absurd. How so? People play it for leisure, theres challenge, and it is obviously interactive. How is it less of a game?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:I'm pretty sure you're saying the thing, it's just he's using fun to mean something more narrow than "enjoyable" and you're using them as synonyms. yeah, they're nearly identical arguments. really i'm addressing more the original claim that "games don't have to be fun" when i think that's the only thing they have to do, and fun is an individual preference. like people who purposely seek out and play lovely, broken games to enjoy on a meta level how bad and incompetent the game is
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
Coolwhoami posted:How so? People play it for leisure, theres challenge, and it is obviously interactive. How is it less of a game? SimCity, specifically speaking, is a toy. There's no condition for victory, no goal you are attempting to achieve. To contrast, all walking simulators have a goal you are attempting to achieve, and a victory condition. Your definition basically says that the defining difference between a videogame and a book is that the book is not "interactive", and if we pick the right book, say, Mad Libs, it's now a videogame.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:on a base level all entertainment should be fun, if it's not fun then it's boring and you stop consuming it. fun can take on different forms, such as interesting, frustrating, etc. the witness wasn't fun in a joyful sense, it was fun because it was intensely frustrating until you had an epiphany. schindler's list isn't pleasant to sit through or lightweight in its themes but it's fun because it produces in some way a powerful emotion like sympathy for the jews or hatred of the nazis which people find pleasurable in some bitter way. gone home was fun if you liked the atmosphere and environment, and it wasn't fun if you were expecting anything to happen or a more complex story Maybe it's a difference in terminology, but I'd never call a cathartic film like Shindler's List fun. It is however enjoyable. I also agree with Dapper_Swindler that most indie games going for being deep fail. But so do most art films, and really most films in general. Games seem like an oddity to me, in that there's a serious push for every AAA game to be considered good to great, when most blockbuster films are panned or neutral from decent critics. Gamers are just seem more sensitive to criticism from what I've seen, partially due to more much less established gaming is and partially due to paranoid fears that Beige Military Shooter 2016 or Weeb Breast Simulator 5.0 will not be made if games become Serious Business.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Why? Not every movie is fun, but lots are enjoyable in a different way (think Shindler's List vs. Guardians of the Galaxy) Is it any dumber to try to consider game this way? If it is not enjoyable then it is not worth playing the game, and games are all about being fun. Artsy fartsy walking sims belong in the trash. Brainiac Five posted:SimCity, specifically speaking, is a toy. There's no condition for victory, no goal you are attempting to achieve. To contrast, all walking simulators have a goal you are attempting to achieve, and a victory condition. Your definition basically says that the defining difference between a videogame and a book is that the book is not "interactive", and if we pick the right book, say, Mad Libs, it's now a videogame. Here's another dumbass that talks poo poo about games he never played, and would probably incur in massive debt in SimCity if he tried.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
This topic is hella retarded and is full of idiots that spend more time talking about videogames than actually playing them, all in the name of "art". (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Maybe it's a difference in terminology, but I'd never call a cathartic film like Shindler's List fun. It is however enjoyable. i think the problem is alot of the critics think only in terms of deep/high art. therefore people like john machintosh and moviebob and all of killscreen, poo poo on anything that isnt like that, dragon cancer or life is strange. they think that GTA/doom is showing a negative image of games to people outside the industry and therefore doom and GTA are problematic and pernicious and gross and violent. while i agree that their defienatly more different types of games. I dont think it should be some wannabe art critics guiding the type that are made.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
sebmojo posted:A painting or a book or a symphony is not art. Actually, they're respectively the Third, the Fifth and the Fourth Art. 
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:SimCity, specifically speaking, is a toy. There's no condition for victory, no goal you are attempting to achieve. To contrast, all walking simulators have a goal you are attempting to achieve, and a victory condition. Your definition basically says that the defining difference between a videogame and a book is that the book is not "interactive", and if we pick the right book, say, Mad Libs, it's now a videogame. There are no explicit victory or failure states, but having a city that fills the map, or one in which no one lives and you are massively in debt, are certainly valences of victory or defeat. However, there is no issue here with pointing out that it too doesn't fit the criteria well (to the point that you even have an alternative term to describe it). Walking simulator was a term created in ire to describe those things fitting it, and doesn't cover all possibilities that fall into the grey area here (e.g. Mountain). I didn't include the whole "video based medium" part because I assumed people would understand, by the nature of the topic, that it was they to which I referred, and not other sorts of games (of which Mad Libs is a word game). I'll ensure to be more pedantic about it in future, as apparently that was not clear.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
qnqnx posted:If it is not enjoyable then it is not worth playing the game, and games are all about being fun. Artsy fartsy walking sims belong in the trash. I'm not denigrating SimCity. You might as well come around to shrieking about how this forum is full of pedophiles like your buddy does, though, you're not very good at concealing your intent. Coolwhoami posted:There are no explicit victory or failure states, but having a city that fills the map, or one in which no one lives and you are massively in debt, are certainly valences of victory or defeat. However, there is no issue here with pointing out that it too doesn't fit the criteria well (to the point that you even have an alternative term to describe it). Walking simulator was a term created in ire to describe those things fitting it, and doesn't cover all possibilities that fall into the grey area here (e.g. Mountain). Wrong from the start. You can lose in SimCity. Thanks for playing. Now, you're stubbornly resisting the conclusion that "game" isn't some easily-defined category where you can cleanly separate out the bad from the good. I could go on and point out that the Zero Escape games are functionally almost identical to walking simulators in that they're visual novels with a little bit of gameplay attached, but I don't want to see how you'd treat those games. Brainiac Five fucked around with this message at 19:31 on May 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:I'm not denigrating SimCity. You might as well come around to shrieking about how this forum is full of pedophiles like your buddy does, though, you're not very good at concealing your intent. You really like to pretend you play games by talking a lot about them, don't you
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
qnqnx posted:You really like to pretend you play games by talking a lot about them, don't you Yes, that's right, I'm a fake gamer. I'm infiltrating gamer society to destroy all gamers and gaming, with yarmulkes, Hanukkah, and gefilte fish, as fake gamers are known to do. You need to resist the poison of the fake gamer and eliminate them from the noble gamer folk.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:Okay, so, at least two levels to this: I'm not sure why you think brush strokes or word choices are the appropriate analogue to game mechanics (or why you painting is a medium you can draw an analogue to game mechanics in at all for that matter) when they are wholly different things and direct analogues exists. Word choice is a matter of aesthetics is the way you can advance the exact same information in various ways, but the choice of how you do that is aesthetic in nature. Essentially the examples you gave are not functional or mechanical at all except in the construction of the aesthetic. Game mechanics aren't an analogue to word choice, if you'e trying to draw a line to a passive media they're an analogue to the information conveyed by the narrative. Again, form and function and impact and influence each other, but that doesn't mean that function is form. Nor does the idea that function can be beautiful mean that it "is" form, suggesting so makes the delineation meaningless.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
A medium in itself is not art, otherwise random textbooks would be art in the same way the Odysseus is. Can video games be art? Oh course, in the same way art can be created through any medium, even, and often famously through rocks. They can also be a source of debilitating addiction, such as WoW turns out for some people.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 10:49 |
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Wrong from the start. You can lose in SimCity. Thanks for playing. Brainiac Five posted:Now, you're stubbornly resisting the conclusion that "game" isn't some easily-defined category where you can cleanly separate out the bad from the good. I could go on and point out that the Zero Escape games are functionally almost identical to walking simulators in that they're visual novels with a little bit of gameplay attached, but I don't want to see how you'd treat those games. I would absolutely agree that it isn't easy to define, because words are words and they are used in many different contexts. However, we can certainly discuss the ways the term is used and examine the extent to which a given usage is sensible or not. Otherwise, we might very well begin to do as you previously mentioned, describing a mad libs book as a video game. (While you have indicated you do not want this, I will ignore this for lack of care for your unnecessary hostility) I have not played a Zero Escape game, but they seem to share a great deal of qualities with point and click adventure games, so I do not see how they would be an issue here.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 19:50
|
|