The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
With the introduction of any form of media, there comes a certain boundry between that and what has come before.
When massmarket books were first created, I'm sure they would never have been seen as art in themselves- it was the skills of the story-teller that were the true art in books.
However, slowly books became their own form of art- based on the way the author used the language to evoke great emotions and ideas, and reach into people in a way oral communication could never achieve.
The same has happened with films and photographs- originally simply a "recording" tool, films and photos are now use their visual communication to make points and imagages in a way never before achieved.
So, will gaming ever achieve the same level as the above pursuits? After all, gaming possesses many of the features of "art"- originality, conceptualism and emotions are now making their stand in the medium.
However, there is one striking difference between gaming and different forms of "art"- games are interactive. How can a game designer possibly come up with a game that will leave the player with a massive emotional outburst if the player is the one in control of the action? I doubt games will ever possess the power of books- being able to cause revolutions and end wars.
But an even better question is raised in one word that I have just used- games are used by "players". Players. People who pay games for fun, and not to explore a deeply profound subject in the same way films based on the Vietnam war might. Instead, games glorify almost everything- killing, fighting and waging wars are never questioned to be "bad" in games.
And this is where games will fall whort of being art. They may introduce new styles of graphics and representations of emotions, but they will never reach the hearts of the player. They will never cause the player to make their stand in the world against tyrany or poverty. They will never explore deep issues like war or death. They will forever be relegated to the depths of the casual hobby.
Sonic
When massmarket books were first created, I'm sure they would never have been seen as art in themselves- it was the skills of the story-teller that were the true art in books.
However, slowly books became their own form of art- based on the way the author used the language to evoke great emotions and ideas, and reach into people in a way oral communication could never achieve.
The same has happened with films and photographs- originally simply a "recording" tool, films and photos are now use their visual communication to make points and imagages in a way never before achieved.
So, will gaming ever achieve the same level as the above pursuits? After all, gaming possesses many of the features of "art"- originality, conceptualism and emotions are now making their stand in the medium.
However, there is one striking difference between gaming and different forms of "art"- games are interactive. How can a game designer possibly come up with a game that will leave the player with a massive emotional outburst if the player is the one in control of the action? I doubt games will ever possess the power of books- being able to cause revolutions and end wars.
But an even better question is raised in one word that I have just used- games are used by "players". Players. People who pay games for fun, and not to explore a deeply profound subject in the same way films based on the Vietnam war might. Instead, games glorify almost everything- killing, fighting and waging wars are never questioned to be "bad" in games.
And this is where games will fall whort of being art. They may introduce new styles of graphics and representations of emotions, but they will never reach the hearts of the player. They will never cause the player to make their stand in the world against tyrany or poverty. They will never explore deep issues like war or death. They will forever be relegated to the depths of the casual hobby.
Sonic
Page:
Well, if he did Solskjaer, then we should be very, very worried indeed!
Sonic
Sonic
Art definitley has a huge influence in game ideas!
I wonder if like Salvador Dalí with 'The percistance of Memory' and 'Sleep', Miyamoto used to dream of places like 'Hyrule' and the 'Mushroom Kingdom'?? And he then decided to turn them into games (Mario and Zelda), as his own art. Just like how Dalí would turn his strange dreams into brilliant paintings!
So in a way, games are a game designers art.
I wonder if like Salvador Dalí with 'The percistance of Memory' and 'Sleep', Miyamoto used to dream of places like 'Hyrule' and the 'Mushroom Kingdom'?? And he then decided to turn them into games (Mario and Zelda), as his own art. Just like how Dalí would turn his strange dreams into brilliant paintings!
So in a way, games are a game designers art.
It's very dificult to define what art is.
-Is art a piece of work that is attempting to be original?
-Is art a piece of work that conveys a strong political or spiritual message?
-Is art simply something that is visually stunning and pleasing to the eye?
-Is art anything that provokes a strong and unexpected response in the viewer?
Just what IS art?
Surrealism, for example, explores the random and bizarre world of dreams - anything goes in many respects.
Is graffiti art? - Some say yes, others say it's vandalism.
Also many works that when they initially appear are seen as trivial and "throwaway", but as time passes they take on a nostalgic/collectable value and eventually become classed as art.
Perhaps many videogames will fall into this category.
-Is art a piece of work that is attempting to be original?
-Is art a piece of work that conveys a strong political or spiritual message?
-Is art simply something that is visually stunning and pleasing to the eye?
-Is art anything that provokes a strong and unexpected response in the viewer?
Just what IS art?
Surrealism, for example, explores the random and bizarre world of dreams - anything goes in many respects.
Is graffiti art? - Some say yes, others say it's vandalism.
Also many works that when they initially appear are seen as trivial and "throwaway", but as time passes they take on a nostalgic/collectable value and eventually become classed as art.
Perhaps many videogames will fall into this category.
I think another good example- not really in terms of a relevant message however- was Half-Life. One thing this was great for was there was the original.
You were a scientist trying to escape a research facility alive while being attacked by aliens and a military cover up organisation. Then in the expansion pack you became one of the soldiers going into the facility. Then next you can become one of the security guards working at the facility.
Now imagine this as a game where first you control a soldier in a war torn country, trying to keep the peace, and having to stop those being violent. Then you play from the perspective of a rebel who is fighting against an oppressive government that these outside 'peace-keepers' are supporting and helping. If that could be pulled off properly it might actually make the player stop and think about the consequences when 'civilised' countries go on moral crusades in other countries, and kill innocent people.
That would be art in my opinion.
You were a scientist trying to escape a research facility alive while being attacked by aliens and a military cover up organisation. Then in the expansion pack you became one of the soldiers going into the facility. Then next you can become one of the security guards working at the facility.
Now imagine this as a game where first you control a soldier in a war torn country, trying to keep the peace, and having to stop those being violent. Then you play from the perspective of a rebel who is fighting against an oppressive government that these outside 'peace-keepers' are supporting and helping. If that could be pulled off properly it might actually make the player stop and think about the consequences when 'civilised' countries go on moral crusades in other countries, and kill innocent people.
That would be art in my opinion.
Good point sibs- any game can become a form of Art. Well, perhaps not any, but quite a lot.
Bobby Fischer captivated the American public when he played chess against the Russian world champion in the height of the cold war. But more than that, he played nthe game as an art form- not a science and not a sport- pure genius.
But will a developer ever match such a feat in games? Not for a long time- if ever!
Sonic
Bobby Fischer captivated the American public when he played chess against the Russian world champion in the height of the cold war. But more than that, he played nthe game as an art form- not a science and not a sport- pure genius.
But will a developer ever match such a feat in games? Not for a long time- if ever!
Sonic
gaming- will ever be anything more than a medium of entertainment?
We now have people who are becoming 'professional' gamers. So is gaming a sport? It could be argued that it is, but it isn't a physical sport- more a sport of tactics and of the brain. But whether you think gaming is a sport or not really depends on your definition of sport- some will argue that sport is something physical.
And will it ever become an art form? Well, I think any form of entertainment can be art, if they get it right. I don't consider most pop music art as it has no message- it's just throw away, feel good songs. And there's nothing WRONG with that, but it isn't art- there is no meaning behind it. Same with films, most blockbuster films won't be art, as they will just be there to entertain you for an hour and a half, then forget about, not give you something to think about.
Going back to games, I think some games do give you enotional feelings. Final Fantasy 7 particularly is probably one that does have some kind of meaning if you think about it. The company Shinra in the game sucks out Mako energy from the planet which will kill the planet- much like corporations now are using resources without a care for the future or how it could affect our planet. And a small faction is fighting this trying to stop the corporation like groups like Greenpeace do, only the ones in FF7 were a bit more 'active' if you know what I mean, in trying to stop the company. And FF7 also depicted slums and how the average people are forced to live while rich minorities live in the nice parts of the cities.
The game wasn't actively trying to force any particular perspective on the player, and you could go through the game and never actually realise the parrallels to the realities of today, but look back into the game, particularly the beginning of the game up to where you leave the first City, and you'll see there were some meanings in there.
We now have people who are becoming 'professional' gamers. So is gaming a sport? It could be argued that it is, but it isn't a physical sport- more a sport of tactics and of the brain. But whether you think gaming is a sport or not really depends on your definition of sport- some will argue that sport is something physical.
And will it ever become an art form? Well, I think any form of entertainment can be art, if they get it right. I don't consider most pop music art as it has no message- it's just throw away, feel good songs. And there's nothing WRONG with that, but it isn't art- there is no meaning behind it. Same with films, most blockbuster films won't be art, as they will just be there to entertain you for an hour and a half, then forget about, not give you something to think about.
Going back to games, I think some games do give you enotional feelings. Final Fantasy 7 particularly is probably one that does have some kind of meaning if you think about it. The company Shinra in the game sucks out Mako energy from the planet which will kill the planet- much like corporations now are using resources without a care for the future or how it could affect our planet. And a small faction is fighting this trying to stop the corporation like groups like Greenpeace do, only the ones in FF7 were a bit more 'active' if you know what I mean, in trying to stop the company. And FF7 also depicted slums and how the average people are forced to live while rich minorities live in the nice parts of the cities.
The game wasn't actively trying to force any particular perspective on the player, and you could go through the game and never actually realise the parrallels to the realities of today, but look back into the game, particularly the beginning of the game up to where you leave the first City, and you'll see there were some meanings in there.
Yup, exactly. There are indeed worries about that sort of thing... "games are for kids, it doesn't matter what number you slap on the front".
Perhaps just ONE game like that could open the eyes of thousands. Games are for enjoying, not for kids.
"I bought this game for my son and was disgusting at the realism of the style of game."
THEN CHECK THE CERTIFICATE YOU MORONS. Can't believe Rare got so many complaints about Conker's Bad Fur Day.
But then, you say about how games should become more realistic towards a thought provoking point... but you say you love FMV in a game? Then it really would be just a film, then. FMA, fine. But no FMV. It's got to be the game the whole time, or not at all. You can't get trapped into a world if you're being shown "special effects" all the damn time.
Perhaps just ONE game like that could open the eyes of thousands. Games are for enjoying, not for kids.
"I bought this game for my son and was disgusting at the realism of the style of game."
THEN CHECK THE CERTIFICATE YOU MORONS. Can't believe Rare got so many complaints about Conker's Bad Fur Day.
But then, you say about how games should become more realistic towards a thought provoking point... but you say you love FMV in a game? Then it really would be just a film, then. FMA, fine. But no FMV. It's got to be the game the whole time, or not at all. You can't get trapped into a world if you're being shown "special effects" all the damn time.
Well, in my last bog topic I was saying that the only people who actually make original games any more are the Japanese- and they all seem to be quirky ideas.
Imagaine if a developer were to make a game that challenges the very depths of society. A GTA, but without the glory of being a crook- instead showing the dark side of drug related crime and deaths. Now that would be absolutely incredible.
Or how about a RTS game that didn't just show you the good side of winning- instead you'd have to endure the consequences of your actions, with refugees, orphaned children and dead villages in your wake (If only GW Bush would open his eyes to this!)
Sonic
Imagaine if a developer were to make a game that challenges the very depths of society. A GTA, but without the glory of being a crook- instead showing the dark side of drug related crime and deaths. Now that would be absolutely incredible.
Or how about a RTS game that didn't just show you the good side of winning- instead you'd have to endure the consequences of your actions, with refugees, orphaned children and dead villages in your wake (If only GW Bush would open his eyes to this!)
Sonic
===SONICRAV---> wrote:
"Good point Solskjaer- games are just like the mass market sensationalist film market. However, they miss out on the "serious" set of works that film also enjoys."
Yup, that's what I hate about the games industry. There's a lot of potential in games that nobody seems because they're too busy trying to think of different ways to have a first person shooter.
If one person just made one revolutionary game, that would change the way we look at gaming completely... so we can no longer look at it as simply pressing buttons and making characters move, but a way of feeling emotion, being art in itself.
Games could rule so much more. That's what I want to do. Make games that make people laugh, cry, smile, frown. Something that people can play, and then think about after.
People are afraid because it's such a big risk...
"Good point Solskjaer- games are just like the mass market sensationalist film market. However, they miss out on the "serious" set of works that film also enjoys."
Yup, that's what I hate about the games industry. There's a lot of potential in games that nobody seems because they're too busy trying to think of different ways to have a first person shooter.
If one person just made one revolutionary game, that would change the way we look at gaming completely... so we can no longer look at it as simply pressing buttons and making characters move, but a way of feeling emotion, being art in itself.
Games could rule so much more. That's what I want to do. Make games that make people laugh, cry, smile, frown. Something that people can play, and then think about after.
People are afraid because it's such a big risk...
Good point Solskjaer- games are just like the mass market sensationalist film market. However, they miss out on the "serious" set of works that film also enjoys.
Sonic
Sonic
Page: