Jaime, I agree. In order to try out a new game no matter what it is you decide to try. You should not do two quest and say negative. You then tell people that you are narrow minded and probably only came in to be negative because you are a die hard fan of the game you play. Sadly there are people out there that do this.

When trying a new game whether it is a trial or beta I try to look at some of the things you do as well. Is it fun? Is there lots to see and do? Is there tradeskills? Is it hard to play and figure out? (this is something that can turn someone away quick). If it is too hard to figure out the basics then it is going to turn peeps off.

But human nature prevails no matter how hard we try not to and when we log into a new game consious or unconious the graphics, UI and other things take a judgement in comparison to whatever it is we are used to. The truth be told though just like in Archlord(no longer available in the US), Shiaya, Atlantica or some of the other Free to Plays overall the graphics and game play are not really that bad. The toons aren't terrible and the mechanics aren't bad either. They have their drawbacks as all games do but they are still fun. Do they have the player base that WoW does? I am sure not but they do have a player base and they do survie.

Lets face it there are not too many EQ's or WoW's out there and even the big ones will loose appeal over the years no matter how hard they try not too. But they can survie and go on at least until it is not profitable for them to do so.

Thx for the answer to my points.  I would like to add one or two points tho.

I do not quite understand how a game like WOW is supposed to be only about the buisness model.  Thats simply not the case - and games like AOC and WAR has shown that the buisness model alone will not support any game longterm.  And as far as content is conserned - Thats just personal opinions if its good or bad.  If you measure the actual QUALITY of the content - then WOW would win every single time.  Then Im not talking any "language" or graphical quality - but custimor satisfaction.  Why do you think games like WAR and AOC have gone down from around 1 million players down to probably 1/10th of that in just over a year ?  Its not the buisness model that failed.  It was the QUALITY of the game.   Both these games are plauged with so many "annoying" factors that ppl just give up.  Or become bored to death.

But I will have to agree with the person that said instancing is a potential killer of any game.  Let that be a lesson to those games in development atm.  

I agree with some points, but disagree with others. To start postitive, the one thing I absolutely agree with is that we need niche games.

Right now I'm as unsatisfied as I've ever been with gaming, and feeling very nastalgic. I think the reason is the old games catered to my niche - fantasy games with good PvP and roleplay. Then along came WoW, and for the following years, along came the WoW clones. So now my old, favorite games are too dated. Their graphics aren't up to par and they're generally ghost towns so I find returning to be depressing. The most modern games are all WoW clones, but I'm tired of WoW, and if I wanted to play WoW I'd play WoW.

Now the games of any interest are in development, so I've got to wait for those. But I'm not even entirely thrilled with them. I'm -all for- innovation but I'm finding that said innovation is straying further from my niche. Remember, my favorite games were the classics. As things continue to evolve, there's less and less games for me. At least that I know I like - I'm not crazy over FPS mmos, but maybe some of those will be fun as I haven't much experience with them. I'm keeping an open mind.

I think the MMO genre could do with a few sequels. How about a UO 2, or a DAoC 2, or EQ3? Do them well. Pump lots of money into them, and stick to the classic ideas that made the originals so enjoyable.

Originally posted by DaX.9

...........

The motion picture industry has The Academy Awards where the industry....judges ITSELF.  Of course, there are also The People's Choice Awards for motion pictures.  Interesting that the winners of those two coveted awards....are not always the same, is it not?  And so it is with GAMES.....

If you want to know what games the gaming industry (people who actually KNOW what it takes to make a great game) think are the greatest games, then go to:

The Academy of Interactive Arts and Sciences

Scroll down to the "Interactive Achievement Awards."

If you want to know what games the gamers think are great games....that is going to vary from gamer to gamer to gamer.  WE vote....with our wallets.

 

I really do not like to be one to tell you this but games are entertainment not ART.

 

WHAAAT???!!!!  ROFLMAO!  Oh...sorry....let me compose myself here.

 

So.....are films art?  Are they not ALSO entertainment?  I think perhaps you need to study what goes into making a film, a game, a painting, a photograph, a sculpture.  I don't think you understand art.

 

Games are only using art in themselves but they themselves are not ART.  If you look at games as an art then cars are art as well, heck everything is art then but it is not. And quality does not have to do anthing with people who pays for it with their wallets. If you want to look that way then WOW is most artistic game ever cause 10 million people are paying for it.

 

I think I already explained this to you....if you want to know what the gaming INDUSTRY considers "worthy," check the site I linked above where games are judged by those that MAKE them.

 

And my post was about core essence of quality, but have not really refered to that, you got lost. I said how 2 people can discuss about quality if they do not know basic theory of that matter, like for example color theory, design theory, sound theory or anything else I can not think of at this moment. If you want to discuss something deep as quality of certain matter then be prepared to have some arguments and knowledge not just say it sucks, I do not like it.

 

And this is why I referred you to the gaming industry leaders and to how THEY judge the games.  They indeed DO know what goes into making games.  Interestingly enough....I think you'll find World of Warcraft listed a couple of times, as well as some other games that might surprise YOU.  As a matter of fact, World of Warcraft (and several other surprising games, that YOU probably don't LIKE, are very high in QUALITY, according to the people that DO know quality.) You fail at your own argument here.

 

And yes motion picture, it has to be different, people choice and academy choice, cause people do not posses knowledge about most of things about movies so they tend to disagree on academy awards, but if you really ask someone to elabore you why X movie got reward for X thing, someone who is actually educated in that field, I am sure he would be able to do it.

 

*Refer back AGAIN to my link to people who DO know gaming.*

 

So as I said we can not discuss about quality if we are not on the same educated level. For you quality could be fun, for me music in game, for someone else it can ge graphic design and for someone else level design, but are we taking all of thouse things into assumption when we judge something? Do we ask ourselves if we posses enought knowledge to be judges at a first place?

 

Who do YOU think is qualified to judge a game's quality?  I'm really curious as to your answer.

Wow....I just can't repeat myself any more.  *sigh*   You just turned right around and tried to disagree with me by saying the exact same things I was saying with the only change being that you don't think games are art.  I think there are a lot of game designers that will WILDLY disagree with you.  Games are art....AND MORE. Games are art, and entertainment, and technology, all rolled into one. And, like I said....gamers "vote" with their wallets, like the People's Choice awards.  The industry uses different standards entirely, because they truly know what it takes to MAKE a game.  Why don't you go tell those people that what they do isn't art.

LOL!  I'm dying to see how that conversation goes for you.  By the way....they call their OWN academy of judges, the "Academy of Interactive ARTS and Sciences."  Note the word "art" in there?  Hmmm......

Originally posted by Tharkis

Good article, but I have to disagree with you. I have played a number of MMOs, everything from DAOC to SWG to WoW. I still compare any game I play to WoW in many respects. To me, WoW has a lot going for it. It's so simple and to the point that you can figure it out within 10 minutes of playing and actually have a decent chance of being good. The graphics are nice, but don't kill older machines. The sound is fairly well done. The fact that it allows addons is a huge plus.

I liked other games for different reasons. I loved DAOC (my first mmo), but in the end the playability of WoW won me over. I hated WoW when it came out, I actually didn't start playing it regularly until about 4 months before wrath came out.

Like it or not, WoW is THE gold standard to which other games NEED to be measured in things like playability, aesthetics, compatibility and customization. Not only measured on, but all these things need to be improved on as well. I see many games that focus on one or two of these issues, but none have captured all 4 of these very basic reasons why WoW is such a success.

I dis agree with you friend.  WOW is not the gold standard.  There are a lot of people who play it but that doesn't make it the best MMO. That just makes it a very succesful MMO. Its kinda like internet explorer, lots of people use it because thats what they are used to. By no means is it the best just because everyone uses it. WOW being the the best MMO is still an opinion.  People need to learn to go into a new MMO with an open mind.

Originally posted by girlgeek

Originally posted by DaX.9

...........

The motion picture industry has The Academy Awards where the industry....judges ITSELF.  Of course, there are also The People's Choice Awards for motion pictures.  Interesting that the winners of those two coveted awards....are not always the same, is it not?  And so it is with GAMES.....

If you want to know what games the gaming industry (people who actually KNOW what it takes to make a great game) think are the greatest games, then go to:

The Academy of Interactive Arts and Sciences

Scroll down to the "Interactive Achievement Awards."

If you want to know what games the gamers think are great games....that is going to vary from gamer to gamer to gamer.  WE vote....with our wallets.

 

I really do not like to be one to tell you this but games are entertainment not ART.

 

WHAAAT???!!!!  ROFLMAO!  Oh...sorry....let me compose myself here.

 

So.....are films art?  Are they not ALSO entertainment?  I think perhaps you need to study what goes into making a film, a game, a painting, a photograph, a sculpture.  I don't think you understand art.

 

Games are only using art in themselves but they themselves are not ART.  If you look at games as an art then cars are art as well, heck everything is art then but it is not. And quality does not have to do anthing with people who pays for it with their wallets. If you want to look that way then WOW is most artistic game ever cause 10 million people are paying for it.

 

I think I already explained this to you....if you want to know what the gaming INDUSTRY considers "worthy," check the site I linked above where games are judged by those that MAKE them.

 

And my post was about core essence of quality, but have not really refered to that, you got lost. I said how 2 people can discuss about quality if they do not know basic theory of that matter, like for example color theory, design theory, sound theory or anything else I can not think of at this moment. If you want to discuss something deep as quality of certain matter then be prepared to have some arguments and knowledge not just say it sucks, I do not like it.

 

And this is why I referred you to the gaming industry leaders and to how THEY judge the games.  They indeed DO know what goes into making games.  Interestingly enough....I think you'll find World of Warcraft listed a couple of times, as well as some other games that might surprise YOU.  As a matter of fact, World of Warcraft (and several other surprising games, that YOU probably don't LIKE, are very high in QUALITY, according to the people that DO know quality.) You fail at your own argument here.

 

And yes motion picture, it has to be different, people choice and academy choice, cause people do not posses knowledge about most of things about movies so they tend to disagree on academy awards, but if you really ask someone to elabore you why X movie got reward for X thing, someone who is actually educated in that field, I am sure he would be able to do it.

 

*Refer back AGAIN to my link to people who DO know gaming.*

 

So as I said we can not discuss about quality if we are not on the same educated level. For you quality could be fun, for me music in game, for someone else it can ge graphic design and for someone else level design, but are we taking all of thouse things into assumption when we judge something? Do we ask ourselves if we posses enought knowledge to be judges at a first place?

 

Who do YOU think is qualified to judge a game's quality?  I'm really curious as to your answer.

 

Wow....I just can't repeat myself any more.  *sigh*   You just turned right around and tried to disagree with me by saying the exact same things I was saying with the only change being that you don't think games are art.  I think there are a lot of game designers that will WILDLY disagree with you.  Games are art....AND MORE. Games are art, and entertainment, and technology, all rolled into one. And, like I said....gamers "vote" with their wallets, like the People's Choice awards.  The industry uses different standards entirely, because they truly know what it takes to MAKE a game.  Why don't you go tell those people that what they do isn't art.

LOL!  I'm dying to see how that conversation goes for you.  By the way....they call their OWN academy of judges, the "Academy of Interactive ARTS and Sciences."  Note the word "art" in there?  Hmmm......

 

Hm, in order to continue this conversation in any civilised manner and not just attacking me I would like to know what education about art you posses to so openly discuss about art. For your info, I like WOW, as a matter of fact I am subscribed to it, so do not draw conclusions based on your instinct. Movies have been trought wery rought times to be considered art in first place and in the end they turned not to be art at all. We have today entertainment movies and artistic movies, you can check some other rewards like cannes festival if you want to discuss about art of the movies, you will see there are no block busters there which are not artistic movies. So are movies art? Not anymore, not in general, we have only some artistic movies, but movie making as an art has died with large expansion of special effects, as is music with electonic composing. If you consider games widely as art than I guess like I said everything is art, but artistic form as itself is very well defined. You are talking nonsense here, accusing me that I do not know or undesrstand art, but it seems that it is you who are not aware of true art. Your impulsive attitude suggest that I have provoked you somehow, I did not mean to offend anyone and if I have done so, I appologise.

But going around and defining everything as an art is just plain stupid. Perhaps you should learn something about art theory before you go into this kind of discussion. And if you ask game developers, people that make games, you will be suprised as how many of them would refer to themselves as operaters not artists. It is like you said, it is industry not artist unity, the sentence itself is enought to point that there is no art there. And when we at this subject, have you acctualy spoken with someone who is working in game industry or you are just guessing what they think of themselves?

As for quetion who do I think is qualified to judge game quality, my answer would be as always qualified artists. But are you asking me who is qualified to judge game quality as game itself or its different perspectives? Do we judge playabillity of game, which is no way art form, or we judge different aspects of game components. Please define your thoughts before asking anything and please do not go around laugtning in other people faces, it shows you are not strong minded and open for normal discussion.

Originally posted by DaX.9

Originally posted by girlgeek

Originally posted by DaX.9

...........

The motion picture industry has The Academy Awards where the industry....judges ITSELF.  Of course, there are also The People's Choice Awards for motion pictures.  Interesting that the winners of those two coveted awards....are not always the same, is it not?  And so it is with GAMES.....

If you want to know what games the gaming industry (people who actually KNOW what it takes to make a great game) think are the greatest games, then go to:

The Academy of Interactive Arts and Sciences

Scroll down to the "Interactive Achievement Awards."

If you want to know what games the gamers think are great games....that is going to vary from gamer to gamer to gamer.  WE vote....with our wallets.

 

I really do not like to be one to tell you this but games are entertainment not ART.

 

WHAAAT???!!!!  ROFLMAO!  Oh...sorry....let me compose myself here.

 

So.....are films art?  Are they not ALSO entertainment?  I think perhaps you need to study what goes into making a film, a game, a painting, a photograph, a sculpture.  I don't think you understand art.

 

Games are only using art in themselves but they themselves are not ART.  If you look at games as an art then cars are art as well, heck everything is art then but it is not. And quality does not have to do anthing with people who pays for it with their wallets. If you want to look that way then WOW is most artistic game ever cause 10 million people are paying for it.

 

I think I already explained this to you....if you want to know what the gaming INDUSTRY considers "worthy," check the site I linked above where games are judged by those that MAKE them.

 

And my post was about core essence of quality, but have not really refered to that, you got lost. I said how 2 people can discuss about quality if they do not know basic theory of that matter, like for example color theory, design theory, sound theory or anything else I can not think of at this moment. If you want to discuss something deep as quality of certain matter then be prepared to have some arguments and knowledge not just say it sucks, I do not like it.

 

And this is why I referred you to the gaming industry leaders and to how THEY judge the games.  They indeed DO know what goes into making games.  Interestingly enough....I think you'll find World of Warcraft listed a couple of times, as well as some other games that might surprise YOU.  As a matter of fact, World of Warcraft (and several other surprising games, that YOU probably don't LIKE, are very high in QUALITY, according to the people that DO know quality.) You fail at your own argument here.

 

And yes motion picture, it has to be different, people choice and academy choice, cause people do not posses knowledge about most of things about movies so they tend to disagree on academy awards, but if you really ask someone to elabore you why X movie got reward for X thing, someone who is actually educated in that field, I am sure he would be able to do it.

 

*Refer back AGAIN to my link to people who DO know gaming.*

 

So as I said we can not discuss about quality if we are not on the same educated level. For you quality could be fun, for me music in game, for someone else it can ge graphic design and for someone else level design, but are we taking all of thouse things into assumption when we judge something? Do we ask ourselves if we posses enought knowledge to be judges at a first place?

 

Who do YOU think is qualified to judge a game's quality?  I'm really curious as to your answer.

 

Wow....I just can't repeat myself any more.  *sigh*   You just turned right around and tried to disagree with me by saying the exact same things I was saying with the only change being that you don't think games are art.  I think there are a lot of game designers that will WILDLY disagree with you.  Games are art....AND MORE. Games are art, and entertainment, and technology, all rolled into one. And, like I said....gamers "vote" with their wallets, like the People's Choice awards.  The industry uses different standards entirely, because they truly know what it takes to MAKE a game.  Why don't you go tell those people that what they do isn't art.

LOL!  I'm dying to see how that conversation goes for you.  By the way....they call their OWN academy of judges, the "Academy of Interactive ARTS and Sciences."  Note the word "art" in there?  Hmmm......

 

 

Hm, in order to continue this conversation in any civilised manner and not just attacking me I would like to know what education about art you posses to so openly discuss about art.  

 

I have a bachelor's degree in graphic design from University of Missouri - Kansas City. I have coninued to take adult education classes since then, in assorted art mediums. I was the owner of KC Internet Insights, where I did CD cover, book cover, and product cover design for both physical and virtual products for 5 years, until I became ill, and am now disabled.  In my teens and 20s I worked for Missouri Repertory Theater doing set design and construction for their first two seasons at the Helen F. Spencer Center for the Performing Arts. My father is retired from Hallmark Cards where he worked as a professional photographer and card artist for 38 years.  My paternal aunt is a professional sculptor named Marrita, who has sold her bronzed sculptures world wide and also sculpted the larger-than-life-size paint horses outside the American Paint Horse Association, among many other things. My maternal aunt Judy is a professional fine artist who works in oils and pastels. My first cousin, Joel, who I grew up with, is now a film editor in Los Angeles. He has also made various documentaries. My sister Allison is also and artist and works in woods and natural arts, handcrafting various items from wood, including pens, sculptures, and fine furnishings. My other aunt (my mother's YOUNGER sister, Marsha, is a jewelry artist and works with metals and naturals, handcrafting jewelry, which she sells both on the internet and from her store in Seattle, Washington. My mother is a professional copy-editor (sadly, I did not inherit her skills with grammar).  So....I not only have artistic background myself, but I grew up with artists. My entire family consists of artists involved in various mediums, not only professionally, but they have done these things, as I have, their entire lives.  I feel qualified in the sense that I do know a little about art, in various forms. No...we do not have any computer programmers in the family, if that is to be your next question. But I do not think that to appreciate ART....one requires all of this background in art. 

 

For your info, I like WOW, as a matter of fact I am subscribed to it, so do not draw conclusions based on your instinct. Movies have been trought wery rought times to be considered art in first place and in the end they turned not to be art at all.

Where on EARTH you come up with film "not being art at all" is beyond me. I would love to know where YOU learned what is art, and what is not.

We have today entertainment movies and artistic movies, you can check some other rewards like cannes festival if you want to discuss about art of the movies, you will see there are no block busters there which are not artistic movies.

This seems to agree with the point that I myself made, regarding what the gaming industry sees as their "cream of the crop" and what gamers see as the same.  I said myself, that those things DIFFER, and made the comparison to the People's Choice Awards, and the Academy Awards, so that you could better understand. Apparently, you're still not "getting" that.

So are movies art? Not anymore, not in general, we have only some artistic movies, but movie making as an art has died with large expansion of special effects, as is music with electonic composing.

And I take it you don't see special effects as their own type of art? Special effects are not creative because they use a different medium than a paint brush to create them?  I still say that your view of what is art, and what is not, is very skewed and simplistic. Film making is indeed an art form, and I would challenge you to assert that it is NOT...to anyone that does it, or to the professionals that judge this very technical art form.

If you consider games widely as art than I guess like I said everything is art, but artistic form as itself is very well defined. You are talking nonsense here, accusing me that I do not know or undesrstand art, but it seems that it is you who are not aware of true art. Your impulsive attitude suggest that I have provoked you somehow, I did not mean to offend anyone and if I have done so, I appologise.

I don't care about your being offensive or even uneducated about art, in it's various forms. What I DO care about is you perpetuating the delusional idea that game design is NOT a form of art, is not creative, does not require absolute creative geniuses to produce or that it should not be held to many of the same "standards" as other forms of creative design in art. Games, just like other forms of art, use color psychology, spatial relationship,  and al of the other skills that other art forms use.  Everything you SEE in a game, from landscapes to characters, are designed by ARTISTS, hand-rendered LONG before they are computer generated, which I suggest to you, is also a very art in and of itself. 

But going around and defining everything as an art is just plain stupid. Perhaps you should learn something about art theory before you go into this kind of discussion.

Oh do TELL of what YOUR great experience is as an artist, both professionally and otherwise, so that you can make "lil' ol' me" understand your great knowledge of the arts, because right now, you're failing at that. All I see is someone who is determined that there is no art in the process of game design and implementation, and frankly, you're looking rather silly, at least to me, and quite possibly to everyone reading this thread.

And if you ask game developers, people that make games, you will be suprised as how many of them would refer to themselves as operaters not artists. It is like you said, it is industry not artist unity, the sentence itself is enought to point that there is no art there. And when we at this subject, have you acctualy spoken with someone who is working in game industry or you are just guessing what they think of themselves?

Yes, I suppose that I'm "guessing" that the artists involved in the art direction of games, actually think of themselves as artists. Considering I have spent my entire life around artists, and am an artist myself, I don't think that I'm far off base in "guessing" that.  What is YOUR experience that makes you think that game designers and art directors of games do not see themselves as creative artists? I'm just curious here......

As for quetion who do I think is qualified to judge game quality, my answer would be as always qualified artists. But are you asking me who is qualified to judge game quality as game itself or its different perspectives? Do we judge playabillity of game, which is no way art form, or we judge different aspects of game components. Please define your thoughts before asking anything and please do not go around laugtning in other people faces, it shows you are not strong minded and open for normal discussion.

I never suggested that games consist of NOTHING but art.  I DID, however, suggest...that very much like film and other forms of photographic and 3D art forms, games are, as a whole, a type of artistic expression and are artistically designed prior to having the technical aspects added to them....VERY MUCH in the same way as videograpy and film, and other artistic forms of entertainment, including live theater, as one example.  You have a very restrictive sense of what is an art form, and what is not. I am open to "normal discussion," but I don't seem to be able to HAVE this discussion with YOU, because you're so interested in putting a restrictive box around something as broadly creative as the artistic process, which leads me to believe that YOU have no artistic inclination nor experience.

Game quality is not something you can judge from only ONE perspective, because games are made of many different functioning parts that work together as a whole.  The art direction and design is only ONE part of a whole work. Games also can be judged from the standpoint of playability and the technical aspects of concise or bloated coding and other more technical issues, which....I am not professionally qualified to judge.  However, as a gamer, I know what I enjoy and like to play.  I know what feels comfortable to play, has smoothness of animation, has comfortably functioning user interfaces, etc. And ALL GAMERS judge those thing in games, by whether they enjoy PLAYING the games, and therefore....by the games on which the INDIVIDUALLY choose to spend their money.  Who are YOU to say that a game that 500k people or 11 million people ENJOY is not a quality piece of work?  Who are YOU to determine what is a quality game?  I want to know WHY you think YOU are more qualified than any OTHER gamer to say that "World of Warcraft is not a quality game," or that "Aion is not a quality game," or that "Everquest is not a quality game?"  YOU can only determine what is good....to YOU.  And THAT.....was the WHOLE DAMN POINT of my entire conversation with you, aside from saying that game design, is an art form. 

I think it is YOU that is being hard headed and unable to have a discussion, because you think that the people that spend their money to PLAY these games are so entirely ignorant that they cannot say what, to THEM, is a good game, and what is not.  It's not up to YOU to decide that for another person, regardless of what YOU THINK something is "quality" or not....in the exact same sense that some people like Picasso and others like Renoir.  You're not qualified (no one is) to determine what another person sees as quality.  But the people in the industry who design the games.....perhaps THEY are qualified to judge the technical work of their peers, which is WHY I linked to the Academy of Interactive ARTS and Sciences. Now why are you so damn determined to argue about it all?  I don't understand your vehemence in arguing that game design is not an art form.  It's not only misinformed, it's a very STRANGE thing to argue about.

Originally posted by girlgeek

Originally posted by DaX.9

Originally posted by girlgeek

Originally posted by DaX.9

...........

The motion picture industry has The Academy Awards where the industry....judges ITSELF.  Of course, there are also The People's Choice Awards for motion pictures.  Interesting that the winners of those two coveted awards....are not always the same, is it not?  And so it is with GAMES.....

If you want to know what games the gaming industry (people who actually KNOW what it takes to make a great game) think are the greatest games, then go to:

The Academy of Interactive Arts and Sciences

Scroll down to the "Interactive Achievement Awards."

If you want to know what games the gamers think are great games....that is going to vary from gamer to gamer to gamer.  WE vote....with our wallets.

 

I really do not like to be one to tell you this but games are entertainment not ART.

 

WHAAAT???!!!!  ROFLMAO!  Oh...sorry....let me compose myself here.

 

So.....are films art?  Are they not ALSO entertainment?  I think perhaps you need to study what goes into making a film, a game, a painting, a photograph, a sculpture.  I don't think you understand art.

 

Games are only using art in themselves but they themselves are not ART.  If you look at games as an art then cars are art as well, heck everything is art then but it is not. And quality does not have to do anthing with people who pays for it with their wallets. If you want to look that way then WOW is most artistic game ever cause 10 million people are paying for it.

 

I think I already explained this to you....if you want to know what the gaming INDUSTRY considers "worthy," check the site I linked above where games are judged by those that MAKE them.

 

And my post was about core essence of quality, but have not really refered to that, you got lost. I said how 2 people can discuss about quality if they do not know basic theory of that matter, like for example color theory, design theory, sound theory or anything else I can not think of at this moment. If you want to discuss something deep as quality of certain matter then be prepared to have some arguments and knowledge not just say it sucks, I do not like it.

 

And this is why I referred you to the gaming industry leaders and to how THEY judge the games.  They indeed DO know what goes into making games.  Interestingly enough....I think you'll find World of Warcraft listed a couple of times, as well as some other games that might surprise YOU.  As a matter of fact, World of Warcraft (and several other surprising games, that YOU probably don't LIKE, are very high in QUALITY, according to the people that DO know quality.) You fail at your own argument here.

 

And yes motion picture, it has to be different, people choice and academy choice, cause people do not posses knowledge about most of things about movies so they tend to disagree on academy awards, but if you really ask someone to elabore you why X movie got reward for X thing, someone who is actually educated in that field, I am sure he would be able to do it.

 

*Refer back AGAIN to my link to people who DO know gaming.*

 

So as I said we can not discuss about quality if we are not on the same educated level. For you quality could be fun, for me music in game, for someone else it can ge graphic design and for someone else level design, but are we taking all of thouse things into assumption when we judge something? Do we ask ourselves if we posses enought knowledge to be judges at a first place?

 

Who do YOU think is qualified to judge a game's quality?  I'm really curious as to your answer.

 

Wow....I just can't repeat myself any more.  *sigh*   You just turned right around and tried to disagree with me by saying the exact same things I was saying with the only change being that you don't think games are art.  I think there are a lot of game designers that will WILDLY disagree with you.  Games are art....AND MORE. Games are art, and entertainment, and technology, all rolled into one. And, like I said....gamers "vote" with their wallets, like the People's Choice awards.  The industry uses different standards entirely, because they truly know what it takes to MAKE a game.  Why don't you go tell those people that what they do isn't art.

LOL!  I'm dying to see how that conversation goes for you.  By the way....they call their OWN academy of judges, the "Academy of Interactive ARTS and Sciences."  Note the word "art" in there?  Hmmm......

 

 

Hm, in order to continue this conversation in any civilised manner and not just attacking me I would like to know what education about art you posses to so openly discuss about art.  

 

I have a bachelor's degree in graphic design from University of Missouri - Kansas City. I have coninued to take adult education classes since then, in assorted art mediums. I was the owner of KC Internet Insights, where I did CD cover, book cover, and product cover design for both physical and virtual products for 5 years, until I became ill, and am now disabled.  In my teens and 20s I worked for Missouri Repertory Theater doing set design and construction for their first two seasons at the Helen F. Spencer Center for the Performing Arts. My father is retired from Hallmark Cards where he worked as a professional photographer and card artist for 38 years.  My paternal aunt is a professional sculptor named Marrita, who has sold her bronzed sculptures world wide and also sculpted the larger-than-life-size paint horses outside the American Paint Horse Association, among many other things. My maternal aunt Judy is a professional fine artist who works in oils and pastels. My first cousin, Joel, who I grew up with, is now a film editor in Los Angeles. He has also made various documentaries. My sister Allison is also and artist and works in woods and natural arts, handcrafting various items from wood, including pens, sculptures, and fine furnishings. My other aunt (my mother's YOUNGER sister, Marsha, is a jewelry artist and works with metals and naturals, handcrafting jewelry, which she sells both on the internet and from her store in Seattle, Washington. My mother is a professional copy-editor (sadly, I did not inherit her skills with grammar).  So....I not only have artistic background myself, but I grew up with artists. My entire family consists of artists involved in various mediums, not only professionally, but they have done these things, as I have, their entire lives.  I feel qualified in the sense that I do know a little about art, in various forms. No...we do not have any computer programmers in the family, if that is to be your next question. But I do not think that to appreciate ART....one requires all of this background in art. 

 

For your info, I like WOW, as a matter of fact I am subscribed to it, so do not draw conclusions based on your instinct. Movies have been trought wery rought times to be considered art in first place and in the end they turned not to be art at all.

Where on EARTH you come up with film "not being art at all" is beyond me. I would love to know where YOU learned what is art, and what is not.

We have today entertainment movies and artistic movies, you can check some other rewards like cannes festival if you want to discuss about art of the movies, you will see there are no block busters there which are not artistic movies.

This seems to agree with the point that I myself made, regarding what the gaming industry sees as their "cream of the crop" and what gamers see as the same.  I said myself, that those things DIFFER, and made the comparison to the People's Choice Awards, and the Academy Awards, so that you could better understand. Apparently, you're still not "getting" that.

So are movies art? Not anymore, not in general, we have only some artistic movies, but movie making as an art has died with large expansion of special effects, as is music with electonic composing.

And I take it you don't see special effects as their own type of art? Special effects are not creative because they use a different medium than a paint brush to create them?  I still say that your view of what is art, and what is not, is very skewed and simplistic. Film making is indeed an art form, and I would challenge you to assert that it is NOT...to anyone that does it, or to the professionals that judge this very technical art form.

If you consider games widely as art than I guess like I said everything is art, but artistic form as itself is very well defined. You are talking nonsense here, accusing me that I do not know or undesrstand art, but it seems that it is you who are not aware of true art. Your impulsive attitude suggest that I have provoked you somehow, I did not mean to offend anyone and if I have done so, I appologise.

I don't care about your being offensive or even uneducated about art, in it's various forms. What I DO care about is you perpetuating the delusional idea that game design is NOT a form of art, is not creative, does not require absolute creative geniuses to produce or that it should not be held to many of the same "standards" as other forms of creative design in art. Games, just like other forms of art, use color psychology, spatial relationship,  and al of the other skills that other art forms use.  Everything you SEE in a game, from landscapes to characters, are designed by ARTISTS, hand-rendered LONG before they are computer generated, which I suggest to you, is also a very art in and of itself. 

But going around and defining everything as an art is just plain stupid. Perhaps you should learn something about art theory before you go into this kind of discussion.

Oh do TELL of what YOUR great experience is as an artist, both professionally and otherwise, so that you can make "lil' ol' me" understand your great knowledge of the arts, because right now, you're failing at that. All I see is someone who is determined that there is no art in the process of game design and implementation, and frankly, you're looking rather silly, at least to me, and quite possibly to everyone reading this thread.

And if you ask game developers, people that make games, you will be suprised as how many of them would refer to themselves as operaters not artists. It is like you said, it is industry not artist unity, the sentence itself is enought to point that there is no art there. And when we at this subject, have you acctualy spoken with someone who is working in game industry or you are just guessing what they think of themselves?

Yes, I suppose that I'm "guessing" that the artists involved in the art direction of games, actually think of themselves as artists. Considering I have spent my entire life around artists, and am an artist myself, I don't think that I'm far off base in "guessing" that.  What is YOUR experience that makes you think that game designers and art directors of games do not see themselves as creative artists? I'm just curious here......

As for quetion who do I think is qualified to judge game quality, my answer would be as always qualified artists. But are you asking me who is qualified to judge game quality as game itself or its different perspectives? Do we judge playabillity of game, which is no way art form, or we judge different aspects of game components. Please define your thoughts before asking anything and please do not go around laugtning in other people faces, it shows you are not strong minded and open for normal discussion.

I never suggested that games consist of NOTHING but art.  I DID, however, suggest...that very much like film and other forms of photographic and 3D art forms, games are, as a whole, a type of artistic expression and are artistically designed prior to having the technical aspects added to them....VERY MUCH in the same way as videograpy and film, and other artistic forms of entertainment, including live theater, as one example.  You have a very restrictive sense of what is an art form, and what is not. I am open to "normal discussion," but I don't seem to be able to HAVE this discussion with YOU, because you're so interested in putting a restrictive box around something as broadly creative as the artistic process, which leads me to believe that YOU have no artistic inclination nor experience.

Game quality is not something you can judge from only ONE perspective, because games are made of many different functioning parts that work together as a whole.  The art direction and design is only ONE part of a whole work. Games also can be judged from the standpoint of playability and the technical aspects of concise or bloated coding and other more technical issues, which....I am not professionally qualified to judge.  However, as a gamer, I know what I enjoy and like to play.  I know what feels comfortable to play, has smoothness of animation, has comfortably functioning user interfaces, etc. And ALL GAMERS judge those thing in games, by whether they enjoy PLAYING the games, and therefore....by the games on which the INDIVIDUALLY choose to spend their money.  Who are YOU to say that a game that 500k people or 11 million people ENJOY is not a quality piece of work?  Who are YOU to determine what is a quality game?  I want to know WHY you think YOU are more qualified than any OTHER gamer to say that "World of Warcraft is not a quality game," or that "Aion is not a quality game," or that "Everquest is not a quality game?"  YOU can only determine what is good....to YOU.  And THAT.....was the WHOLE DAMN POINT of my entire conversation with you, aside from saying that game design, is an art form. 

I think it is YOU that is being hard headed and unable to have a discussion, because you think that the people that spend their money to PLAY these games are so entirely ignorant that they cannot say what, to THEM, is a good game, and what is not.  It's not up to YOU to decide that for another person, regardless of what YOU THINK something is "quality" or not....in the exact same sense that some people like Picasso and others like Renoir.  You're not qualified (no one is) to determine what another person sees as quality.  But the people in the industry who design the games.....perhaps THEY are qualified to judge the technical work of their peers, which is WHY I linked to the Academy of Interactive ARTS and Sciences. Now why are you so damn determined to argue about it all?  I don't understand your vehemence in arguing that game design is not an art form.  It's not only misinformed, it's a very STRANGE thing to argue about.

 

I wonder why do you keep attacking all the time? Why are you so egocentric? Is it becouse you can not do stuff you want or wish? I also have bechelor degree, it is in design as well, but you seem to mistake art and design, very common mistake among people I must say. About my qualifications, I do not really want to go around yelling what I have done, I will just say I do work in game industry and I do know production pipeline and have many friends in big commpanies, but that is relevant. It is obvious that our points of art views are quite different, myself for example can think only of couple artists trought earths history like Da Vinci, Van Gogh or Dali, to think that any one works in special effect field can be compared to them (my field of work by the way) is just pure egocentric crap.

True artist have shared their art with the world freely, non selfishly, all of todays "artist" only are interesed in money. And today we have a ton of instutes and groups calling themselves artist, but are they indeed artist? I know a ton of so called artists, self proclaimed and self thought. Any one of them does not know color or compossition theory, and they run around making so called art. So my question really is: IS everything we see around us STILL art? I agree games WERE art once, but as movies they are turning into something else, something commercial, plain, simple, without form, withour artists touch, is new star trek artistic movi? Are transformers 2 artistic movie? sorry but that is not an art to me, and it should not be to anyone who claims to know about art. Will they become once again art, I hope so, I enjoy in good art, I like classic music, classic movies (artistic ones), old games which were artistic more that games today but sadly all of art is beign raped today and is getting commercialised, sad but thrue.

Now I will apologise once more time if I have offended you, cause simply I can not understand your agression toward me, maybe we have different understanding of things, maybe I got lost, but just maybe so have you. I do not want to make enemys, I want to make friends.

Please learn how to delete redundant quotes from your posts if you must quote other people.

Developers respond to the market, the market is generally too dumb to see beyond a label, this is why Nike & Coca Cola sell, because it is a label everyone knows and is either considered trustworthy or fashionable.

World of Warcraft is such a label, people either trust it or believe it is fashionable (peer pressure).

This is not going to change, this is never going to change, this is the height of capitalism.

Accept this and you will be fine, there are plenty of different MMOs out there.
 

Pretty spirited thread here, but I think that both of you are somewhat guilty of forgetting something which pertains to all art.

The gray area of the creator's intention.  Games can easily be art but, it depends on what the developers intentions are for the user experience.

Personally I think that there is so much debate here over what qualifies a game as art that you could cover you bases by saying game are art (see Final Fantasy7, Braid, Linger in Shadows), but that games are poor representations of that idea (Dynasty Warriors).

I agree - there should be different measuring sticks.  You brought up DDO.  It's a great example of an MMO that should be judged not by WoW, but by pen and paper D&D, which was the goal of the system.  The 'rest shrines' are a perfect example of why DDO fails on both sets of measuring sticks.  No WoW player likes them, and D&D players think they're stupid, too.

Originally posted by ThePhil

Pretty spirited thread here, but I think that both of you are somewhat guilty of forgetting something which pertains to all art.

The gray area of the creator's intention.  Games can easily be art but, it depends on what the developers intentions are for the user experience.

Personally I think that there is so much debate here over what qualifies a game as art that you could cover you bases by saying game are art (see Final Fantasy7, Braid, Linger in Shadows), but that games are poor representations of that idea (Dynasty Warriors).

Yes I believe you are right, I have putted that out from my mind, thank you for reminding me. I am just so sad that today more and more games are commercial projects. Seldom in thesse days people express themselves trought game. I believe and hope that indy market will change that.

The article title Player Perspective: The Stale Comparison .

I am not sure how art came into play on this. Art is art whether in a game, a painting or even in films. There is an art to developing  a game. film,  painting or even writing. 

The Stale Comparison that we all do is not limited to game as was an example of a fast food and a restaurant. As flawed humans that follow what we have seen or done with what we experience tend to compare something new with something we have become familiar with and know. 

Is it fair? Probably not but it is human nature. If we like something and try something new we will compare it to something we are familar with. As someone stated. Some games like some products have made a name for themselves and that name is what people come to know.

It is also true that you will find similarities in many games with games like EQ and WoW. It is hard not to see or find such things. I would imagine developing any game there will be things no matter how hard they try not to will be similar maybe even appear the same.

Originally posted by battleaxe

I agree - there should be different measuring sticks.  You brought up DDO.  It's a great example of an MMO that should be judged not by WoW, but by pen and paper D&D, which was the goal of the system.  The 'rest shrines' are a perfect example of why DDO fails on both sets of measuring sticks.  No WoW player likes them, and D&D players think they're stupid, too.

I actually like the rest shrine system, thanks for being the vocal minority, hows Ebberon Unlimited treating you? Did you get off of korthos yet, or are you wondering why your 1rogue 1cleric 1 pally isnt lasting as long as a 2monk (see I can make judgements without knowing the person or people I'm attacking also!)

They're there for a reason, if mana/health regen was as rapid in WoW the instances would be more of a cakewalk then Ulduar (zing)

And if Turbine didn't adapt the PnP rules of D&D to an MMORPG setting, then the instances would barely be completed and DDO would be empty 2 weeks post release.

If they really judged it by PnP D&D you would hate it even more, no mana/health regen in dungeons, hell no mana, all your spells and abilites are reduced to x per day type abilities, which only reset in taverns (rest shrines are basicly mini taverns used to swap spells reset per day abilities and heal, since there would be no mana in a PnP online D&D. There would be one consistant attack speed, And IIRC D&D has friendly fire, exp loss, and takes a hell of a lot longer to level, considering your DM doesn't put a 26 red dragon with 1 hp inside a dungeon.

tl;dr version : They cut you a lot of slack in DDO, if you want to judge it by something, think of NwN, from a devs standpoint its like giving escargo to the french and then giving american suburbia the same dish. Different audience, different reaction.

Everything deserves a topic but I don't often see this as a really big problem in mmo's I've rarely heard anyone saying something should be more like wow, maybe it's because by habit I turn off newbie zone chat especially around a launch but I just don't see it.  I do see lot's of games implimenting systems similar to those of WOW but that is business beleive it or not the investors are not always as pasisionate as we are and sometimes will push for things that may be in wow because ultimately they win if the game pulls inwow numbers.  But having said that again nothing short of WOW lore is an original concept it has mostly all been there before, often I hear these systems eluded to as original to mmo's but again the basic design of mmo's have been around since the console days.

  I think what people underestimate about WOW is the fact that you can probably play it on an ATARI 2600 until WOW there weren't alot of mmo's that could say this I know because I was one of those people, my pc was not a big concern as a console gamer so the first game I was ever able to get to work was WOW and I was hooked, it opened me to the idea of subscription based mmo's and I then upgraded and moved on but the average person is going to stay casual they are not going to search specifically at times for a more complex or deep or role play friendly experience.

  Ultimately the industry will change as it must as all things must in this day and age and that is gradually there is not much left to invent only expand upon.  In ten years time I hope to see a game that is built in total of game systems not used in any game today but will most likely be built of systems that have been used as early as starting say next year even.

What a well-written article! This is so very true, I believe that this is where the whole "Go back to WoW!" phrase originated from of course. I don't see why people would use World of Warcraft as a measuring stick, I mean it is truly the dynamo of MMORPGs, judging by subscribers not opinion, but there is much more potential out there. There will, someday, be a game that rises above WoW and becomes a measuring stick itself, until that day we'll just have to stick to our favorites and put up with the fact that there is nothing that we can do, individually, about how popular a game becomes. (I mean, if someone likes it, they like it.) I hope to someday make that game, the one that rises above the rest, myself.  Though I do indeed think that there should not be a measuring stick for MMOs but rather people need to pick the one that is most fun (yes, fun) to them.  Fun is something many gamers forget.

Originally posted by girlgeek

I think it is YOU that is being hard headed and unable to have a discussion, because you think that the people that spend their money to PLAY these games are so entirely ignorant that they cannot say what, to THEM, is a good game, and what is not.  It's not up to YOU to decide that for another person, regardless of what YOU THINK something is "quality" or not....in the exact same sense that some people like Picasso and others like Renoir.  You're not qualified (no one is) to determine what another person sees as quality.  But the people in the industry who design the games.....perhaps THEY are qualified to judge the technical work of their peers, which is WHY I linked to the Academy of Interactive ARTS and Sciences. Now why are you so damn determined to argue about it all?  I don't understand your vehemence in arguing that game design is not an art form.  It's not only misinformed, it's a very STRANGE thing to argue about.

 

  I wouldn't let ppl like that get to you too much girlgeek,  what is considered 'art' has been debated and argued upon for ages. Some are more open-minded to new arenas and direction, and some are firmly set in concrete about the ideology of what art SHOULD be and stand for, and cannot fathom the expansion of creativity. Art for them HAS to fit in that perfect, idealistic box they invented themselves so that they may feel competent about what they like, not what's out there.

They may not like the direction creativity has gone, but to deny it as being part of the whole movement is very narrow-minded and self-defeating, as they'll never enjoy anything not fitting their restrained views on it. Art is not the only subject that has this failing.

It is more due to the attitude of the debater than the topic at hand. Even if I do not agree with that mentality, I understand what they are saying and mean. I simply walk away from the argument since it can only go one way...down.

I believe you do not need to be a dictionary of art and all its techniques in order to be appreciative and understand greater artists, and those who do tend to like the sound of their voice rather than  those with opinions other than theirs.

---

Originally posted by DaX.9
True artist have shared their art with the world freely, non selfishly, all of todays "artist" only are interesed in money.

---

Reality check: if you're not being paid to do it, you're not an artist, you're a hobbyist - this was as true a thousand years ago as it is now.

No "True artist" shares freely like that, they produce work to sell; the tradgedy of Van Gogh is no-one worked out his genius until it was far too late for him to profit from it, he was desperate to sell his work.

All high-art from before the 20th century: sculpture, paintings, was made to commission, for money; up until people decided that real artists were only those interested in 'self expression' all artists were commericial artists.

Oh and art = entertainment; why else would you buy a huge painting? Big gold-frameed oil paintings were the Hollywood blockbusters of their day.

Originally posted by Teilo

 

---

Originally posted by DaX.9
True artist have shared their art with the world freely, non selfishly, all of todays "artist" only are interesed in money.

---

 

Reality check: if you're not being paid to do it, you're not an artist, you're a hobbyist - this was as true a thousand years ago as it is now.

 

This is not true, do some reserach and do not limmit youself to paintings only. If you consider games to be an art that how do you explain Idni and free games market. Than by your statement everything that is free is not art and person which has done it is not artist. There are tons of people on devianarat, which share their art for free, how do you explain that? How do you explain people who share their stock photo on free stockphoto web sites?

Originally posted by DaX.9

Originally posted by Teilo

 

---

Originally posted by DaX.9
True artist have shared their art with the world freely, non selfishly, all of todays "artist" only are interesed in money.

---

 

Reality check: if you're not being paid to do it, you're not an artist, you're a hobbyist - this was as true a thousand years ago as it is now.

 

 

This is not true, do some reserach and do not limmit youself to paintings only. If you consider games to be an art that how do you explain Idni and free games market. Than by your statement everything that is free is not art and person which has done it is not artist. There are tons of people on devianarat, which share their art for free, how do you explain that? How do you explain people who share their stock photo on free stockphoto web sites?

I already answered that; they're hobbyists.

I'm not disputing whether hobbyists can create 'art', I was questioning your assertion that 'True artists' only do it for love, as though 'True art'  is simply art for art's sake; this is patently absurd.

Ask any of the people you just mentioned if they'd prefer to be paid for what they do, I'm sure they'd all say "no". /sarcasm