surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
I can't watch this right now since I'm on my iPhone, but I've got a feeling this is exactly what I'm writing my paper on.
well i agree with you that video games should be considered a form of art, but eventually it will be considered an art-form it just takes time
I have to say that you have a point but at the same time some of the biggest selling games are the depthiest (is that a word) GTAIV, MGS and other games do a lot to create the sort of story and atmosphere you are talking about- the main worry though is that like everything (including the internet as a whole) the over monetization of any medium will do anything and everything to breed creativity and culpability out of that medium as the return and accounting of investment on a product is far more important that the product itself. Capitalism as a whole really works (or at least has) on the idea that every so often something creative leaks through the cracks in industry and once it has the aim is to exploit that creativity (sometimes crediting the creator) until it is no longer worth anything and then to go on to the next big thing that leaked through the crack. No effort is ever made to foster invention in this society and unless things change it never will
sorry for the ramble and rant.
sorry for the ramble and rant.
I would say as games become more "respected" and more mainstream the art is massively suffering. Games I was playing 10 years ago were much more intellectually stimulating and complex than games I am playing today. Could Planescape Torment be made today? Could even Deus Ex be made today? Not for the kind of big market capital you speak of, no. A quick trip to GOG.com will show you that games used to be more diverse, more intelligent and more adult than they are now. Adventure games were all about story and witty dialogue, RPGs were hardcore and about tough choices that made you feel the impact of the world... choices today are surface-level and boring.
So I completely disagree basically. I see games as getting more and more pop while getting less and less intelligent. I see gaming getting more shallow, not less, and more like Transformers compared to the No Country for Old Men games we got in the past.
The indie movement is spot-on though, they are doing amazing things. The part on that where I disagree with you is that those indie projects to me are more trying to get back to what we had before, rather than discovering something new.
So I completely disagree basically. I see games as getting more and more pop while getting less and less intelligent. I see gaming getting more shallow, not less, and more like Transformers compared to the No Country for Old Men games we got in the past.
The indie movement is spot-on though, they are doing amazing things. The part on that where I disagree with you is that those indie projects to me are more trying to get back to what we had before, rather than discovering something new.
I'm on a slow-as-dick campus connection that can't load the video any time within this century, so I don't know exactly where you're going with this, but just from the phrase "recognized as a legitimate artform by the mainstream media," I think focusing on what the mainstream media thinks is the wrong way to go. There are plenty of examples of innovative, imaginative artforms that the mainstream media never gives two seconds of air time to. I believe it's more important to focus on legitimizing games within our own communities--family, friends--than within the media. If that happens across the board, within various social circles, then the mainstream media's position becomes somewhat irrelevant.
Again, I can't actually see the video, so my apologies if my comment is irrelevant or off-topic.
Again, I can't actually see the video, so my apologies if my comment is irrelevant or off-topic.
BioShock, Half Life 2, No More Heroes and even the Modern Warfare games have made strides in pushing the medium forward. How many movies would you say have come out in the past 5 years that have pushed the film medium forward?
Games are progressing at a faster rate than film was at this point in it's life. It took 40 years to get any type of real movie from the film medium(Birth of a Nation, if you haven't seen it it's all kinds of messed up)
Games are progressing at a faster rate than film was at this point in it's life. It took 40 years to get any type of real movie from the film medium(Birth of a Nation, if you haven't seen it it's all kinds of messed up)
My biggest problem with Hecker's argument is his compulsion to set up these models of "what makes videogames cultural objects" and the models themselves get tripped up in their own analogies. It's really irritating.
The "grain" concept of a medium having a certain bent to it is absolutely ludicrous:
"You have to work extra hard to work against the grain, and our grain tends to want to put spaceships with bullets coming out of them on the screen"
Really, that's inherent in the *medium* of games? I have a really hard time believing that.
I think people need to step away from flippantly declaring formal limitations or inherencies like this because gaming as a medium hasn't fully formed yet, and approaching it with these pseudo-scientific and misguided aesthetic concepts actually does a confusing disservice to its audience.
That content he describes isn't a function of the medium, it's a function of the institutions and conventions surrounding it. The "culture" of it, which he so bemoans is absolutely lacking in relevance.
I'll stop rambling here. Great rant, but Hecker pisses me off (in an admittedly productive and thought-provoking manner).
The "grain" concept of a medium having a certain bent to it is absolutely ludicrous:
"You have to work extra hard to work against the grain, and our grain tends to want to put spaceships with bullets coming out of them on the screen"
Really, that's inherent in the *medium* of games? I have a really hard time believing that.
I think people need to step away from flippantly declaring formal limitations or inherencies like this because gaming as a medium hasn't fully formed yet, and approaching it with these pseudo-scientific and misguided aesthetic concepts actually does a confusing disservice to its audience.
That content he describes isn't a function of the medium, it's a function of the institutions and conventions surrounding it. The "culture" of it, which he so bemoans is absolutely lacking in relevance.
I'll stop rambling here. Great rant, but Hecker pisses me off (in an admittedly productive and thought-provoking manner).
Isn't that kind of a chicken-and-egg issue? The art will get better once games are "legit," surely, but doesn't the art need to get better FOR games to look legit?
The biggest problem they have is that the cultural ghetto issue is primarily founded on the idea that games are still toys for kids and/or man-children. That idea is primarily held by older folks who just don't "get" games. And when they retire and younger folks who "get" games grow up, the market will naturally grow out of that. The grown-up younger folks will expect more from their games (because they're older now), and the medium will diversify to cater to a diverse audience. Indies and artgames will be more commercially viable, and make enough sense to be picked up by publishers. Eventually a cycle of positive reinforcement builds and voila, games are "legit." Then everyone moves on to ostracizing people who date robots, until THEY become legit.
Not to say that we should just sit back and wait, but that the sea change we're hoping for will likely happen so gradually that most people besides the ones complaining about it right now will never notice.
The biggest problem they have is that the cultural ghetto issue is primarily founded on the idea that games are still toys for kids and/or man-children. That idea is primarily held by older folks who just don't "get" games. And when they retire and younger folks who "get" games grow up, the market will naturally grow out of that. The grown-up younger folks will expect more from their games (because they're older now), and the medium will diversify to cater to a diverse audience. Indies and artgames will be more commercially viable, and make enough sense to be picked up by publishers. Eventually a cycle of positive reinforcement builds and voila, games are "legit." Then everyone moves on to ostracizing people who date robots, until THEY become legit.
Not to say that we should just sit back and wait, but that the sea change we're hoping for will likely happen so gradually that most people besides the ones complaining about it right now will never notice.
I hate the fact that comics are still as culturally unaccepted as a lot of game developers and journalists are suggesting. I hate that Marvel and DC are actually trying some new things- Marvel's been doing comic adaptations of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz and Pride and Prejudice (!), and DC's trying to recruit new webcomic talent with Zuda. But, hardly anyone even knows these projects exist, mostly because the companies aren't really pushing them- how many ads have you seen for the Wizard of Oz TPB versus, say, Civil War? If nobody knows the projects exist, then nobody can buy them, and if nobody buys them, then the companies assume they won't sell, so they put less money into them to prevent loss, which means they have less money for marketing, so nobody knows about the comics and the cycle begins again.
I agree with the point that if games are considered art, they will become better as a whole. However I consistently disagree with this idea that all things art are superior to all things entertainment. Just because something brings a deeper meaning does not mean that it is higher quality, that it does more (even emotionally) for the viewer/player. Like it seemed like your connection here was that modern big games equate to things like Transformers 2, and things like that are my problem. Just because something is big budget and meant for entertainment, not true artistic merit, doesn't mean it's low quality trash like Transformers 2.
I guess my example here would be Half-Life 2, there's nothing "artistic" about it and it's made pretty much purely for entertainment (it's also in a way a power fantasy, I mean you play as a dorky scientist who can somehow easily mow down hundreds of aliens and army like dudes, saving the world multiple times with pretty much no moral conflict or anything like that the entire time) and yet it's of a really high quality, and a far better game in this form of media of ours than almost any game of "artistic merit" out there.
I guess my example here would be Half-Life 2, there's nothing "artistic" about it and it's made pretty much purely for entertainment (it's also in a way a power fantasy, I mean you play as a dorky scientist who can somehow easily mow down hundreds of aliens and army like dudes, saving the world multiple times with pretty much no moral conflict or anything like that the entire time) and yet it's of a really high quality, and a far better game in this form of media of ours than almost any game of "artistic merit" out there.
I think now gaming is more mainstream, we're more likely to see greater experimentation from the big developers - at least, we will when the economy recovers. I think it's inevitable it's going to happen.
Here, here!
At the risk of sounding like a Valve fanboy, I'd like to use their development process as another comparison to how legitimzation of games can help the medium. The reason they don't put titles next to their names in credits is because each employee doesn't have one specific job. Each of them is required to have a variety of skills attributing to the final product.
They can all throw their opinions around freely. That is one reason the games are so consistant in quality. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/videos/zeropunctuation/2655-Yahtzee-Visits-Valve-a-Travelogue.3
If we can make games accepted, maybe we can get important people in other mediums to join us. If Roger Ebert approved in games, imagine how he might be able to help fix the problems he thinks are so significant. Of course thats a bit exaggerated, but you get the point
At the risk of sounding like a Valve fanboy, I'd like to use their development process as another comparison to how legitimzation of games can help the medium. The reason they don't put titles next to their names in credits is because each employee doesn't have one specific job. Each of them is required to have a variety of skills attributing to the final product.
They can all throw their opinions around freely. That is one reason the games are so consistant in quality. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/videos/zeropunctuation/2655-Yahtzee-Visits-Valve-a-Travelogue.3
If we can make games accepted, maybe we can get important people in other mediums to join us. If Roger Ebert approved in games, imagine how he might be able to help fix the problems he thinks are so significant. Of course thats a bit exaggerated, but you get the point
I'd like to dispute what you were saying about Marvel and DC. Sure, I buy most my stuff from the indie shelf these days, but I think there are some exceptions in your whole "Marvel and DC is entirely empowerment fantasies" theory. Namely things like Detective Comics and Agents of Atlas. Similarly, there are indie guys like Mike Allred who are just doing something very interesting with the superhero genre through something like Madman.
I think your whole point seems to revolve around one thing: a game can have a nonesxistant story and still be considered "good" purely because the gameplay is good. Films don't have gameplay.
I think your whole point seems to revolve around one thing: a game can have a nonesxistant story and still be considered "good" purely because the gameplay is good. Films don't have gameplay.
@anthony
I think you made some really interesting points, but I have to disagree with you. I think in this post-modern society we live in, that notions of high and low culture no longer exist. You can see this in film, music, literature, and painting, basically every medium is considered capable of producing high art and vapid consumer pandering at the same time. I don't really feel that games are very different in this regard. That is to say that people don't necessarily think games to be incapable of high art. In that sense, I guess we just haven't had or Citizen Kane of games yet, or maybe we did. I forget. Anyway, on the other hand, there are the things that Jim and Topher have been saying in the past few podtoids, that it isn't that there is no audience for these games, but that there is no advertising for them. I think that Topher argued that Okami would have been as big a game as Resident Evil 4 if they had only marketed it like they did with Resident Evil. I have to say I agree with them. These games aren't being made with the frequency that we would like them to, not because there isn't an audience for them, (because who would have dreamed ten years ago that the people who make up so much of sports game audience would be an audience for anything game related?) but because publishers are far too presumptuous about what the consumer wants. It's not that the games don't have an audience, but rather that the games aren't made visible to their audience. I really think that's what needs to change to make games more legitimate. This is something that movies and music suffer from as well. Any form of expression within these mediums has an audience, but the capitalistic systems which control them have such infantile conceptions of what consumers want that innovation is in turn made so difficult.
I think you made some really interesting points, but I have to disagree with you. I think in this post-modern society we live in, that notions of high and low culture no longer exist. You can see this in film, music, literature, and painting, basically every medium is considered capable of producing high art and vapid consumer pandering at the same time. I don't really feel that games are very different in this regard. That is to say that people don't necessarily think games to be incapable of high art. In that sense, I guess we just haven't had or Citizen Kane of games yet, or maybe we did. I forget. Anyway, on the other hand, there are the things that Jim and Topher have been saying in the past few podtoids, that it isn't that there is no audience for these games, but that there is no advertising for them. I think that Topher argued that Okami would have been as big a game as Resident Evil 4 if they had only marketed it like they did with Resident Evil. I have to say I agree with them. These games aren't being made with the frequency that we would like them to, not because there isn't an audience for them, (because who would have dreamed ten years ago that the people who make up so much of sports game audience would be an audience for anything game related?) but because publishers are far too presumptuous about what the consumer wants. It's not that the games don't have an audience, but rather that the games aren't made visible to their audience. I really think that's what needs to change to make games more legitimate. This is something that movies and music suffer from as well. Any form of expression within these mediums has an audience, but the capitalistic systems which control them have such infantile conceptions of what consumers want that innovation is in turn made so difficult.
@Frohike -- I'm not sure I agree with you about some of the inherent nature of the medium. Because it's a narrative medium, most videogames are inherently about conflict, as narrative is inherently about conflict. You're right that the medium's approach to conflict -- often violent, almost always externalized -- is a product of the context and culture in which it's created, but it's also true that there are technological limits that shape and define the games we play. Not to mention that most great art is itself violent--Hamlet is an exception to the Iliad's rule, in the grand scheme of things.
That the games medium would gravitate towards violence makes sense: it's easier to code an alien than it is to script the entirety of the human experience (man vs. himself), and games-as-art have a violent cultural lineage.
Of course, I'm overlooking some obvious exceptions like Rock Band and Passage, but to say that the medium is, at this point, defined by space ships doesn't too far off the mark.
That the games medium would gravitate towards violence makes sense: it's easier to code an alien than it is to script the entirety of the human experience (man vs. himself), and games-as-art have a violent cultural lineage.
Of course, I'm overlooking some obvious exceptions like Rock Band and Passage, but to say that the medium is, at this point, defined by space ships doesn't too far off the mark.
I totally agree with all of this rant. I am becoming more and more apathetic towards modern releases almost on a daily basis. I decided some time ago that this generation of consoles was going to be my last and that I would devote all my gaming time to playing old classics that I might have missed. The sad thing is, if I'm not alone in this then eventually, the only people who will be left playing games are the casual crowd who couldn't care less about the medium progressing.
Modern Warfare 2 was the final nail in the coffin. I bought it, played it for 5 minutes and haven't touched it since.
Modern Warfare 2 was the final nail in the coffin. I bought it, played it for 5 minutes and haven't touched it since.
@ kefkaesque
There is actually quite a lot artistic about Half-Life 2. It comments on totalitarian governments, freedom versus complacency and violent reactions to domination. Visually the easter european design is very expressive without beating you over the head, and the little pieces of story spread throughout the world with no audio cues is amazing. The audio itself is some of the best in videogame history, not just the sparse techno tracks but the voice acting and effects... the civil protection sounds are some of the most chilling in videogames, just slightly eerie enough to put you on edge, wondering how much of their humanity those people have lost.
There is actually quite a lot artistic about Half-Life 2. It comments on totalitarian governments, freedom versus complacency and violent reactions to domination. Visually the easter european design is very expressive without beating you over the head, and the little pieces of story spread throughout the world with no audio cues is amazing. The audio itself is some of the best in videogame history, not just the sparse techno tracks but the voice acting and effects... the civil protection sounds are some of the most chilling in videogames, just slightly eerie enough to put you on edge, wondering how much of their humanity those people have lost.
The wholeheartedly disagree with you on one point: your idea for the No Country for Old Men game is fantastic.
I agree almost completely with you. Well done.
I die a little inside when people say that games will one day reach the level of comics. Both can be amazing mediums for art, but before that can happen, the childish stigma needs to come off of the genre.
I die a little inside when people say that games will one day reach the level of comics. Both can be amazing mediums for art, but before that can happen, the childish stigma needs to come off of the genre.
@Frohike
What is Master Chief/Cole from Infamous/Dude from BioShock/your man in Modern Warfare/Nathan Drake on a compositional/code level, than a spaceship with bullets coming out of it?
Certainly, its a method of oversimplification. But, it also puts a spot light on the down right functional/interactive nature of the games we're playing and still finding enjoyable, and what continues to make immediate sense to players.
What is Master Chief/Cole from Infamous/Dude from BioShock/your man in Modern Warfare/Nathan Drake on a compositional/code level, than a spaceship with bullets coming out of it?
Certainly, its a method of oversimplification. But, it also puts a spot light on the down right functional/interactive nature of the games we're playing and still finding enjoyable, and what continues to make immediate sense to players.
good topic, and you're right, that's the biggest issue facing the industry right now. the sad thing is, as we're going right now, games will never be art. if you look at the big selling titles on the hd systems, they are largely rehashes of games we played last gen, now with shinier graphics. it's the same control, gameplay, and predictable storylines, remade for a new generation of teenagers. it seems like the only experience that game makers seem to be able to create is an adrenaline response.
if you look at movies, the same sort of adrenaline pumping movies are the ones that we order on netflix, watch once, and then forget we ever saw. this is why modern warfare 2 is a good game, but not art. also, games that have deep plots rarely do so with anything other than CG cutscenes, the metal gear series for example. the games that actually try to have a moving, playable plotline are few and far between. i think beyond good and evil was the last game that i played that did a decent job of mixing it all together, and that's not going to be repeated in this current market.
the industry has chosen to cater to the lowest of game players in order to make some more cash (just like the movie industry of late), and that's a shame. art is on the decline in all areas currently (film, music, writing, and now gaming), and i don't see that changing any time soon. so, for christ's sake, stop buying up all of these horrible cash in titles, so we can get more good games around here. i'm looking squarely at activision, ea, and ubisoft.
if you look at movies, the same sort of adrenaline pumping movies are the ones that we order on netflix, watch once, and then forget we ever saw. this is why modern warfare 2 is a good game, but not art. also, games that have deep plots rarely do so with anything other than CG cutscenes, the metal gear series for example. the games that actually try to have a moving, playable plotline are few and far between. i think beyond good and evil was the last game that i played that did a decent job of mixing it all together, and that's not going to be repeated in this current market.
the industry has chosen to cater to the lowest of game players in order to make some more cash (just like the movie industry of late), and that's a shame. art is on the decline in all areas currently (film, music, writing, and now gaming), and i don't see that changing any time soon. so, for christ's sake, stop buying up all of these horrible cash in titles, so we can get more good games around here. i'm looking squarely at activision, ea, and ubisoft.
Videogame versions of No Country, Godfather and Pulp Fiction already exist. All of those movies are just artsified genre movies; specifically film noir and gangster crime films. They're not radically innovative, but rather polished and refined or funky and skewed takes on established formulas. Like Half Life 2 or Call of Duty 4 or Bioshock. Or Dragon Age or GTA IV.
I guess I just don't really see the problem. I think videogames are maturing quite nicely and their legitimization as an artistic medium is just a matter of generational turn-over. Film criticism didn't really become snobby and arty until the 1950's and 60's. And what do you mean by "accepted as a legitimate art form". You want Roger Ebert to pat you on the head? You want to BE Roger Ebert for the 21st century and be part of an elitist club of critics? You want mass audiences to appreciate and talk about how awesome and revolutionary it is that Half Life has interactive cut scenes? What does the world look like when your goals for gaming's artistic acceptance have been achieved?
I guess I just don't really see the problem. I think videogames are maturing quite nicely and their legitimization as an artistic medium is just a matter of generational turn-over. Film criticism didn't really become snobby and arty until the 1950's and 60's. And what do you mean by "accepted as a legitimate art form". You want Roger Ebert to pat you on the head? You want to BE Roger Ebert for the 21st century and be part of an elitist club of critics? You want mass audiences to appreciate and talk about how awesome and revolutionary it is that Half Life has interactive cut scenes? What does the world look like when your goals for gaming's artistic acceptance have been achieved?
I have a feeling unless it gets cheaper and easier for less people to make higher quality games then the medium will never be respected for reasons you stated yourself. Its too hard to realize a game with not enough people, technology, time, money.
If its all easier and cheaper then more people will do it and there will be room for smaller and smaller niches. And good stuff from obscure niches can float to the mainstream.
Right now the good stuff that comes out of small obscure niches from games isn't good enough for mainstream to digest.
If its all easier and cheaper then more people will do it and there will be room for smaller and smaller niches. And good stuff from obscure niches can float to the mainstream.
Right now the good stuff that comes out of small obscure niches from games isn't good enough for mainstream to digest.
@StingingVelvet
There is actually quite a lot artistic about Half-Life 2. It comments on totalitarian governments, freedom versus complacency and violent reactions to domination.
Except you could say that about every game ever made where you "fight the man". The game is about blowing up dudes and aliens as a nerdy scientist in a very polished and fun manner. It's great due to its gameplay innovation and how well it does pretty much everything it does, but calling it art because you listen to a couple of people whine about how the government is mean does not make it art. If it wanted to be art it would of made me give half a crap about those sad people, but instead it gave them to you as replaceable faceless goons who you bring along so you get shot slightly less.
I love the game, it's one of my favorites ever, but it's not deep or artistic.
There is actually quite a lot artistic about Half-Life 2. It comments on totalitarian governments, freedom versus complacency and violent reactions to domination.
Except you could say that about every game ever made where you "fight the man". The game is about blowing up dudes and aliens as a nerdy scientist in a very polished and fun manner. It's great due to its gameplay innovation and how well it does pretty much everything it does, but calling it art because you listen to a couple of people whine about how the government is mean does not make it art. If it wanted to be art it would of made me give half a crap about those sad people, but instead it gave them to you as replaceable faceless goons who you bring along so you get shot slightly less.
I love the game, it's one of my favorites ever, but it's not deep or artistic.
@StingingVelvet
he is saying games should be more respected, not more mainstreem. Mass market games are the problem he is talking about, not what he wants.
he is saying games should be more respected, not more mainstreem. Mass market games are the problem he is talking about, not what he wants.
I'm curious to know why Anthony is so desperate for games to be accepted as "art" (a nebulous concept if there ever was one) by the "mainstream media" (a nebulous term if there ever was one). To paraphrase Dyson, I want games to be fun. If they are more than that, wonderful. Icing on the cake. If the gatekeepers of high and middlebrow culture decide to accept games as art, and game reviews started showing up in The New Yorker or the Economist next week it wouldn't matter to me one iota.
I see it as a problem with what people want out of videogames. They want to be able to do things they normally could not due in real life. Sure, you will have your Braid like games. People want to be the hero, shoot guns, use swords, drive fast cars dangerously, solve mysteries and such. That's why games like Ace Attorney and Trauma Center exist while cashier or trash man will never get made. Movies have the same stigma. You watch movies to see things you normally do not. Also (and this is important) to have your emotions manipulated. The cutting edge programing I enjoy watching is usually on PBS. That is because sponsors will not pick that kind of stuff up. Even the Godfather has guns, violence, and definitely works those emotions. Wait, so does MGS4. While not on the level of the Godfather as far as classics go, it will be known as a classic for years to come. Give our industry some time to mature, Rev. You may be 50 when it happens, but you will get your rosebud. And enjoy the ride there.
I'm not convinced by the distinction Burch is trying to draw between the film and games industries, particularly not the assertion about the game industry being fundamentally different from Hollywood et. al. in that the majority of the audience wants the big AAA titles. That's obviously very much the case in the cinema blockbuster departement as well, and most truly experimental films are just as niche, precariously underfunded and unknown to most consumers as many similarily experimental indie games are.
@Prince: "I'm curious to know why Anthony is so desperate for games to be accepted as "art" (a nebulous concept if there ever was one) by the "mainstream media" (a nebulous term if there ever was one)."
That's the very first question he answers: because he thinks it will make games better. Which is, y'know, what everybody here wants -- good games.
That's the very first question he answers: because he thinks it will make games better. Which is, y'know, what everybody here wants -- good games.
@Joseph Leray Whenever I hear those sorts of declarations of "inherent properties" I just think... pre-modernism. I'm sure art scholars had very definite ideas of what the formal "limits" of painting were, but then artists and the culture surrounding them started to consider the paint itself, and representation itself, and modern art blew those pre-conceive limits out of the water.
I hear declarations of "there's only so much you can do with X Y Z toolset/interface" and I think... contemporary art. Modernist critics who thought that modernism had exhausted itself with minimalism and white paintings suddenly didn't have the critical tools to address contemporary art, like Andy Warhol's Brillo Boxes.
It goes on, but I think that analogy is nearly enough. Things are getting added to the gaming palette with such rapidity that making a statement about "grain" just seem ridiculous to me.
It didn't take "going against the grain" to come up with MMOs, online play with synchronous voice communications, and/or games whose content can evolve and change or be user expandable. I doubt that people working on the latest platformer in 1989 had any idea these concepts were to become a part of their developing medium. And I'm sure a lot of them had very solid concepts of what was culturally possible in the scope of gaming as a medium. I wonder what they think now.
In 10 years, I'm wondering what Hecker will be thinking.
I hear declarations of "there's only so much you can do with X Y Z toolset/interface" and I think... contemporary art. Modernist critics who thought that modernism had exhausted itself with minimalism and white paintings suddenly didn't have the critical tools to address contemporary art, like Andy Warhol's Brillo Boxes.
It goes on, but I think that analogy is nearly enough. Things are getting added to the gaming palette with such rapidity that making a statement about "grain" just seem ridiculous to me.
It didn't take "going against the grain" to come up with MMOs, online play with synchronous voice communications, and/or games whose content can evolve and change or be user expandable. I doubt that people working on the latest platformer in 1989 had any idea these concepts were to become a part of their developing medium. And I'm sure a lot of them had very solid concepts of what was culturally possible in the scope of gaming as a medium. I wonder what they think now.
In 10 years, I'm wondering what Hecker will be thinking.
Art will never prevail over big budget
but if a good game company
could mix these 2
then that would be great
but if a good game company
could mix these 2
then that would be great
@Tubatic cliche != inherence
I can think of a thousand science fiction cliches. Does that make them inherent to the genre? No.
I can think of a thousand science fiction cliches. Does that make them inherent to the genre? No.
@ Josh Tolentino
I completely agree. Mediums like Music, Television, Movies and Radio have components that are considered high art because the elders we live under have grown up with these mediums, are familiar with them and can appreciate what can be done with them, and for better or worse, our elders are the ones who get to choose what constitutes high culture and what constitutes junkfood culture. Once our elders have kicked the bucket and people like us, who have grown up with videogames, get to run the cultural show, videogames will be right up there with the classics.
I recall hearing when Radio and TV were just starting to emerge, the parents and old folks of those days spat on these new forms of media just like parents and old folks today are doing to video games.
I completely agree. Mediums like Music, Television, Movies and Radio have components that are considered high art because the elders we live under have grown up with these mediums, are familiar with them and can appreciate what can be done with them, and for better or worse, our elders are the ones who get to choose what constitutes high culture and what constitutes junkfood culture. Once our elders have kicked the bucket and people like us, who have grown up with videogames, get to run the cultural show, videogames will be right up there with the classics.
I recall hearing when Radio and TV were just starting to emerge, the parents and old folks of those days spat on these new forms of media just like parents and old folks today are doing to video games.
but Anthony, we already have people creating the Godfathers and No Country For Old Men of videogames. just look at Metroid Prime! ;]
I'm really not worried about that, I'm with Mr eX...
@stinging velvet
Yeah, but back in the days games required s much smaller budget, so really risky things like that could be done, but today, to do things with this depth we need both genius developers and a decent budget...
@whormongr
GTAIV is deep? Jesus, man, JESUS!
@stinging velvet
Yeah, but back in the days games required s much smaller budget, so really risky things like that could be done, but today, to do things with this depth we need both genius developers and a decent budget...
@whormongr
GTAIV is deep? Jesus, man, JESUS!
Without jumping into all the nit-picking on various details (as other seem to be doing), video games do face the same issue as comics still do - they're still seen as kids stuff.
Remember waaay back when Chris Rock talked about the success (however brief) of the Spice Girls? About how that they sold million of CDs, but he could never find anyone who owned one? That's video games. That's where we are.
Millions of DS and PSP are out there in the world, but just try to find someone in real l[fe to play Dissidia or Pokemon with. Many grown-ups have a DS or PSP, but even a part of our own subculture tries to define them as "kid stuff." And here iPhones and iTouches are all the rage - what's so different about a DS or PSP? They're actually better for games.
And I even see my parents struggle with their opinion of video games. They really want to look down on it and, hell, they thought the moment I got to college I would have outgrown the stuff, but now I'm 32 and still play. And I don't give two shits what anyone thinks about it. They don't get it.
They want a Wii, though, they like the Wii. They duped themselves into buying one of those faux Wiis from a CVS, thinking they'd be getting the same thing but cheaper when the novelty wora off, they could dump it on me. But even they realized that thing was a piece of crap and that they should have just gotten the Wii.
I can't even be allowed to discuss games at family gatherings - I get glared at. I'm a fucking alien the moment I talk about anything I like, really, because it would behoove them to admit comic books or games were an art form.
My father, for example, loves racing. All his freetime is absorbed in watching NASCAR or F1. You'd think he'd be other there playing all the Gran Turismos and Project Gothams out there. But he has to maintain video games are alien, all for my sake, in hopes on day I will be "cured."
Its going to take some generations to pass for our culture to get around this shit. Video games are more or less my television programming. Hell, gave up on TV while I was at it. I can't even impress them with the fact I don't watch TV and I used to have to plan my life around that shit.
But TV is accepted. Video games are not.
Remember waaay back when Chris Rock talked about the success (however brief) of the Spice Girls? About how that they sold million of CDs, but he could never find anyone who owned one? That's video games. That's where we are.
Millions of DS and PSP are out there in the world, but just try to find someone in real l[fe to play Dissidia or Pokemon with. Many grown-ups have a DS or PSP, but even a part of our own subculture tries to define them as "kid stuff." And here iPhones and iTouches are all the rage - what's so different about a DS or PSP? They're actually better for games.
And I even see my parents struggle with their opinion of video games. They really want to look down on it and, hell, they thought the moment I got to college I would have outgrown the stuff, but now I'm 32 and still play. And I don't give two shits what anyone thinks about it. They don't get it.
They want a Wii, though, they like the Wii. They duped themselves into buying one of those faux Wiis from a CVS, thinking they'd be getting the same thing but cheaper when the novelty wora off, they could dump it on me. But even they realized that thing was a piece of crap and that they should have just gotten the Wii.
I can't even be allowed to discuss games at family gatherings - I get glared at. I'm a fucking alien the moment I talk about anything I like, really, because it would behoove them to admit comic books or games were an art form.
My father, for example, loves racing. All his freetime is absorbed in watching NASCAR or F1. You'd think he'd be other there playing all the Gran Turismos and Project Gothams out there. But he has to maintain video games are alien, all for my sake, in hopes on day I will be "cured."
Its going to take some generations to pass for our culture to get around this shit. Video games are more or less my television programming. Hell, gave up on TV while I was at it. I can't even impress them with the fact I don't watch TV and I used to have to plan my life around that shit.
But TV is accepted. Video games are not.
@ kefkaesque
I like how you cut out 3/4ths of the reasons and said I was wrong in total because of the one you did counter.
Also, your counterarguement is silly. It is the way Half-Life 2 handles the subject matter that makes it artistic, you can't discount the plot because it can be done in more simplistic ways. The Godfather is just a mob movie, the way it handles that is what makes it an amazing piece of art. Half-Life 2 does the revolutionaries fighting dictators thing with such amazing artistic design and power it stands apart.
I like how you cut out 3/4ths of the reasons and said I was wrong in total because of the one you did counter.
Also, your counterarguement is silly. It is the way Half-Life 2 handles the subject matter that makes it artistic, you can't discount the plot because it can be done in more simplistic ways. The Godfather is just a mob movie, the way it handles that is what makes it an amazing piece of art. Half-Life 2 does the revolutionaries fighting dictators thing with such amazing artistic design and power it stands apart.
@ falinter
Perhaps with the release of the Unreal 3 Engine we'll see games from Indie developers in the next decade that are finally of a high enough quality to be appriciated and have enough room and functionality to do new things.
As for the subject. I think the biggest thing holding video games back is the name itself. Think about it. Video "games." The stigma refuses to leave because the very name of the medium is attatched to the concept of toys and mindless fun. Video Games are suffering because instead of inventing a new title by which to shap itself, it took a pre-existing word like game that has been ingrained with this idea of lacking high functional purpose.
When you say Literature or Movies you don't get that preset word with a stigma. In the case of Movies, it was simply a nickname, I'd presume, for moving pictures. But regardless, it was new and the industry could define the word. Video games, not quite so lucky and its too late to change it now so good luck chaning the meaning of game into something that people will ever hear and think intellectual. And no, Chess, while intellecual, escaped the labeling of game by taking on something like sport which levitates such things above being mere games. Video games, again, are in no such position sadly.
Perhaps with the release of the Unreal 3 Engine we'll see games from Indie developers in the next decade that are finally of a high enough quality to be appriciated and have enough room and functionality to do new things.
As for the subject. I think the biggest thing holding video games back is the name itself. Think about it. Video "games." The stigma refuses to leave because the very name of the medium is attatched to the concept of toys and mindless fun. Video Games are suffering because instead of inventing a new title by which to shap itself, it took a pre-existing word like game that has been ingrained with this idea of lacking high functional purpose.
When you say Literature or Movies you don't get that preset word with a stigma. In the case of Movies, it was simply a nickname, I'd presume, for moving pictures. But regardless, it was new and the industry could define the word. Video games, not quite so lucky and its too late to change it now so good luck chaning the meaning of game into something that people will ever hear and think intellectual. And no, Chess, while intellecual, escaped the labeling of game by taking on something like sport which levitates such things above being mere games. Video games, again, are in no such position sadly.
@Frohike -- then I guess we're talking about two different things, and I'm probably showing my bias, here. I don't know much (or care) about toolsets and technology, so MMOs and cross-game chat and parallax scrolling don't mean much to me. I don't know what the formal limits of the Unreal Engine are, in the same way that I don't know what the formal limits of book binding are.
When I think about games, I think about their narrative implications (and complications), and, to a lesser degree, design. I agree with you that the novel has very few formal limits (James Joyce proved that almost 100 years ago), narrative has been about conflict of some sort, often (but not always) externalized. That games, as a narrative medium, also feature externalized conflicts (albeit waayyy more frequently than books) isn't surprising.
But either way, Hecker might be more correct than he knows: on a basic level, shooting projectiles is an effective and engaging mechanic:
http://bit.ly/3lSfoo and http://bit.ly/5165ZZ illustrate the point better.
Anyway, most of this largely tangential to your and Anthony's original points and could use a bit of refinement before I air it in public anymore. :)
When I think about games, I think about their narrative implications (and complications), and, to a lesser degree, design. I agree with you that the novel has very few formal limits (James Joyce proved that almost 100 years ago), narrative has been about conflict of some sort, often (but not always) externalized. That games, as a narrative medium, also feature externalized conflicts (albeit waayyy more frequently than books) isn't surprising.
But either way, Hecker might be more correct than he knows: on a basic level, shooting projectiles is an effective and engaging mechanic:
http://bit.ly/3lSfoo and http://bit.ly/5165ZZ illustrate the point better.
Anyway, most of this largely tangential to your and Anthony's original points and could use a bit of refinement before I air it in public anymore. :)
@ Knight Templar
He seems to be saying that more mainstream acceptance means more artistic niche content, and I am saying the trend has been the complete opposite of that for the last decade. Perhaps I am missing something.
He seems to be saying that more mainstream acceptance means more artistic niche content, and I am saying the trend has been the complete opposite of that for the last decade. Perhaps I am missing something.
@Jumbo
You said exactly what I was thinking but I have some stuff to add:
What the fuck IS art!? How can we possibly say whether or not something is or is not art when that 1) has not been defined and 2) is more subjective than anything.
Games ARE art to a lot of people. If you don't think they are, then that's fine, have your little debates and bullshit, but stop pretending like one day a switch will get thrown and DING! everyone will accept them as "art". If you're just asking for a majority of people to "accept" it, then just wait, like Jumbo said, when the old die (sorry to be so morbid) and we become the crotchety wielders of ultimate power then we can define games however we want (and if you can't wait then just define them how you want now). Changing what we call them isn't going to make the studios make "better" games, it's all about money. Change the gamers and you'll change the games. Changing how NON-GAMERS feel about games won't change anything.
You said exactly what I was thinking but I have some stuff to add:
What the fuck IS art!? How can we possibly say whether or not something is or is not art when that 1) has not been defined and 2) is more subjective than anything.
Games ARE art to a lot of people. If you don't think they are, then that's fine, have your little debates and bullshit, but stop pretending like one day a switch will get thrown and DING! everyone will accept them as "art". If you're just asking for a majority of people to "accept" it, then just wait, like Jumbo said, when the old die (sorry to be so morbid) and we become the crotchety wielders of ultimate power then we can define games however we want (and if you can't wait then just define them how you want now). Changing what we call them isn't going to make the studios make "better" games, it's all about money. Change the gamers and you'll change the games. Changing how NON-GAMERS feel about games won't change anything.
@StingingVelvet
Except The Godfather had lots of very strong imagery on life and death and countless other clearly artistic merits. Half-Life 2 has no deep imagery on how "dictators are bad", it shows you beating them down in a power fantasy. Half-Life 2 skims over anything that could of made it "artistic", it treats the sympathetic characters as all gameplay elements who you let die and it has no real effect on you, you just get more. The game doesn't show the depth of the situation at all, it just sets it up for you to have the max amount of fun with it. And when the game is meant for fun and lacks a depth to it, the music and atmosphere help but can't themselves make the game's plot deeper or make it less about optimized fun.
You're acting like I'm trolling the game or hating on it when I'm clearly not, I've already said multiple times that I love it. But I love it for what it is, over reaching it's merits and purpose only downplays what is actually great about it.
Except The Godfather had lots of very strong imagery on life and death and countless other clearly artistic merits. Half-Life 2 has no deep imagery on how "dictators are bad", it shows you beating them down in a power fantasy. Half-Life 2 skims over anything that could of made it "artistic", it treats the sympathetic characters as all gameplay elements who you let die and it has no real effect on you, you just get more. The game doesn't show the depth of the situation at all, it just sets it up for you to have the max amount of fun with it. And when the game is meant for fun and lacks a depth to it, the music and atmosphere help but can't themselves make the game's plot deeper or make it less about optimized fun.
You're acting like I'm trolling the game or hating on it when I'm clearly not, I've already said multiple times that I love it. But I love it for what it is, over reaching it's merits and purpose only downplays what is actually great about it.
follow
