Originally posted by popinjay

 

 

While the OP was talking generally, you seem to have taken an interest in him personally quite a bit, when he wasn't singling or blaming any players, unlike what you're doing above.

I'm not trying to guess what your age is, but you appear to be somewhat younger in age and have take a defensive stance towards a general personal perception of a player.

 

Just a conversation about a video game friend, where's your holiday cheer? :)

I really believe you misinterpreted what I said.

I was by no means defensive in my posts, I just tried to make clear that I was not referring to Bamdorf post. When I used the expression "players like you" to the OP, it was not in a negative connotation as I said it is completely understandable when players prefer a more tranquil and slow type of gameplay. I personally enjoy it too.

Generalizations happens here, it is not a matter of I blaming anyone  Popinjay.

I never mentioned the OP was blaming any players, I mentioned he just made generalizations and then I expressed why I disagree, really I don't see anything personal on it, lets be honest, your post was much more personal towards me than anything I said to Elikal or Bamdorf about age and videogames. 

You said :"Just a conversation about a video game friend, where's your holiday cheer? :)" What make you think I am not just talking about gaming and video games and full of holiday cheer?

Maybe you believe I was more "serious" or "incisive" than I really was? Maybe because English is not my first language (not even my second) I "sounded" more serious and then you had this impression... anyway, I already expressed my opinion and arguments about age/videogame/gameplaystyles here.

Edit- In the end I really believe "older players" should not be afraid of a bit of action and movement in a new MMORPG, sure there are older and younger players who will not adapt to it and there are older and younger players who will like it. It is not a matter of age or gaming plataform.

Originally posted by bamdorf

Originally posted by Umbral

Originally posted by Elikal

Yeah. As Bette Davis used to say: "Getting old ain't for sissies:"

I prefer my chars to have their skill based on the character skill not MY skill, thank you very much. I can do a BIT "actiony". But DCU is just for another generation. One that is not used to pay monthly fees, I might add.

---snip---

But this idea that "actiony"  games are for younger players or just for console is a broken and silly argument. By the way, console players are JUST like PC games, enjoy all kind of GOOD games, it doesn't matter the style, most people are used to multiplataform too, just a handfull of PC elitists believe that console gamers are just a bunch of kids.

---snip---

 Perhaps I should point out that when I talk about "younger" players I include people in their thirties and early forties.    They are a generation away from me.   If you think t his argument is broken and silly I don't know whether to laugh or cry.    Oh, you WiLL find out.    Eventually.     And furthermore in my post I only discussed PC games.   And more furthermore, I do have an Xbox and I did try hard to play MW2 with my son in law...but it just didn't work.  Absolutely slam bang wonderful game.   But.   So  I am not a PC elitist, whereever you got that idea.

It doesn' t make me happy whatsoever to repeat, you will find out.   There is a reason why (most!) fighter pilots and table tennis experts are over the hill by the time they are 25.    And it certainly isn't because they have suddenly adopted some kind of elitist attitude.   The "young" will not understand "the old" until it happens to them.  (sigh).

I didn't mention your post Bamdorf, and I didn't say YOU are a PC elitist, so I really do not understand your defensive post.

The generalization of PC vs Console and age is common around here, to tell the truth, I didn't even read your post.

I don't post real personal info here in this website, you don't really know my age or the age of people who I play with, but this doesn't matter, when I mentioned it  is pretty easy to find skilled players older than 30 I included players older than 40/50, talking about fighting games (games that really need focus and skills), some friends and known players had almost 30 at the time Super Street Fighter 2 was a hit on arcades and are great "fighting" players even today.

I don't understand your provocative attitude too.

You said "But I wasn't very coordinated when young, and even ten years ago, I just eventually got frustrated. " So, as I said it is not a matter of age, games that require coordination, faster skills and movements are just not for you, they never were, probably it is the same thing with Elikal, and it is ok.

To tell the truth, probably frustration was your enemy and not exactly "skills".

As I said before, I have nothing against Elikal personal preferences, he is probably a pretty nice person, my argument was related to age, generalizations and this idea that "this kind of videogame" is something new.

Please, lets not compare what is needed for fighter pilots and what is needed for a common player to be able to enjoy DC Universe or any First Person Shooter... or even be a "champion" on a Fighting Game.

Originally posted by Elikal

Yeah. As Bette Davis used to say: "Getting old ain't for sissies:"

I prefer my chars to have their skill based on the character skill not MY skill, thank you very much. I can do a BIT "actiony". But DCU is just for another generation. One that is not used to pay monthly fees, I might add.

Another generation?

This has absolute NOTHING to do with age.

Doom, Heretic, Blood, Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, R-type all games related to skilled gameplay and they have more than 25 years of videogame history.

25 years ago, players were participating in endless Street Fighter championships on the arcades, skill in gaming is nothing new.

To tell the truth player with 30+ years old still play Super Street Fighter 4 and Tekken competitively today and this kind of game need MUCH more focus on skills and gameplay than DC Universe.

Players like you who just can't adapt to these kind of games exists now and were a reality 25 years ago too, I have nothing against the fact that YOU prefer games here the skill is related to your character, I like them too as I like games like Street Fighter, Ninja Gaiden, Demon's Souls etc.

But this idea that "actiony"  games are for younger players or just for console is a broken and silly argument. By the way, console players are JUST like PC games, enjoy all kind of GOOD games, it doesn't matter the style, most people are used to multiplataform too, just a handfull of PC elitists believe that console gamers are just a bunch of kids.

People who are used to play on PS3 expend money every month on DLCs, the idea of monthly fee is not so absurd as you think for them...and it is not rare to find traditional MMO players playing games like Demon's Souls these days.

I am ok with the fact that you can't adapt to action games, it is very understandable, but you and some others users are just expressing a point of view related to gaming these days that are not exactly attached to reality.

Edit- I am not defending DC Universe, and I have nothing against your personal gaming preferences, I just disagree with your generalization.

"Star Wars" is about Good vs Evil.

There is absolute no moral depth in Star Wars, the only "depth" you will find is among "fans" tryint to imply a deeper meaning and philosofical into a simple and acessible Story. Even so, most arguments will rely on duality, characters can transitate between moral poles, this doen't make it a "grey" story.

The lack of depth related to moral concepts in Star Wars is one of the reasons many consider Star Wars High Fantasy and not Sci-Fi.

Everything in S.W. is black and white, from the behavior of main characters and the path they follow to the color of their clothes. Star Wars is all about clichés.

"Bladerunner" is a Sci-Fi story with depth related to behavior and moral ideas. In "Bladerunner" there is no "black and white".

"Titus Andronicus" is a classic story full of moral depth without  good vs evil behind it even with cruelty and evil acts.

There is no such thing as "black and white" in human History, Germany Nazi, Roman Empire were NOT "Evil" Empires, anyone who thinks otherwise just don't know about History or belive the propaganda, just like people around the World who calls U.S. an "Evil Empire". Sure every powerful government/empire in Human History generated destructive acts, cruelty and more important, injustice, but there is a huge difference between the good and the bad side of huge empires and the silly and illusory title of "Evil", in wars, in History there is no "good" vs "evil".

I understand many Star Wars fans will disagree and will try to explain why Star Wars is not Good vs Evil using just another adjective for its duality, but do yourself a favor, go watch  "Bladerunner", "PI", "Naked Lunch", "Vozvrashchenie", go read Victor Hugo, Shakespeare and you will understand why "Star Wars" is an acessible, (very) well executed piece of entertainment based on clichés and not a deep moral issues. Star Wars IS about "good vs evil", it doesn't matter how you call it.

...

Originally posted by Cernan

 

...What do you consider "High End" gaming?  FF XIV is the second highest voted game on this site.  The graphic requirements aren't something a 5 y/o PC can handle without upgrades. 

-FFXIV will be also available for the PS3, sure you can play it on higher resolutions on PC, just like Mass Effect, Fallout3 and Bioshock, but those games are not produced for today's high end machines, they are produced primaly for Consoles.

-My argument was against the unrealistic points made by Asmiroth 20, the only 2 games released for real High End PC gaming in the last years were Arma 2 and Crysis. Arma 2 Is not a graphic reference anywhere and Crysis 2 will be on Consoles...Most gaming community and gaming media in the last months were amazed by God of War 3 and Uncharted 2 graphics, again, Console games and not productions oriented for high end PC gaming.

-Graphically sophisticated games like God of War 3, Uncharted 2, Modern Warfare 2 are huge hits on Consoles, on PC games like WoW, The Sims, Diablo and Civilization are huge hits.

-It doen't matter if quad-cores are cheaper now, PC gaming will not end with Consoles, to tell the truth, what we see now are Consoles eating all the PC market. Would you belive that Battlefield and Call of Duty series would be much more popular on Consoles than on PC a few years back? Well, it is the reality now.

...Back on topic, I'm not sure I'm happy with this whole social mmo revolution.  Everyone wanting to hop on the Facebook bandwagon.  Those games don't offer enough depth for me. 

-Well, I have a similar opinion, and checking the full interview, it seems Bioware is much more interested on this kind of social "easy to sell" casual and small scale game than anything related to OnLive.

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by Asmiroth20

    I agree with what Hideo and Greg said about the how the console is going to be a thing of the past soon, I see everything coming together to point to PC.  Think about it, what have the consoles started doing?  Ability to access the internet, less titles being exclusive to any given console and the ability to use mouse/keyboard for input.  Game designers should be picking up on this.  I would think they would be shelling out extra money to make different formats and compatibilities, making a single platform would make things incredibly more streamlined.  It's also getting easier to get a decent gaming PC, as costs for quad-cores and i7s have been dropping and will cost even less by this time next year. 

    As for the small-scale MMO they're working on, I can see how they would want to experiment a little even while they have one of the big boys of the MMO world being worked heavily on.  Only time will tell what comes of it, guess we can wait and see how it all pans out.

You completely misinterpretated their points. They are not suggesting that consoles will become a thing of the past because of PC gaming. There is no reason to expect people moving to PC gamin. Consoles can do more and more things a PC can do and PC gaming is currently in a terrible state. Sales of console games continue to outsell PC games.

What they are probably suggesting is a lack of console hardware, In a similar way OnLive works.

 Yes, not only Asmiroth 20, but a lot of people here misinterpreted their points.

-Bioware argument has NOTHING to do with Console vs PC gaming. To tell the truth "High End" PC gaming is almost dead today, casual and acessible PC gaming, MMO PC gaming and PC as a plataform for Console ports are the reality now.

-Now, lets see (Direct from Eurogamer) :

Mass Effect creator BioWare is working on a "small scale MMO".

BioWare is also exploring Flash, browser and iPhone games, although these may never see the light of day.

"On a big basis, what's working in business?" BioWare co-founder Dr. Greg Zeschuk asked during his keynote presentation at the Develop Conference this morning.

"Every year it's a little bit down. You can't blame the economy anymore. Really, it's about online. We're obviously working on Star Wars: The Old Republic, a big MMO. But we're working on smaller MMO type game games across the group - things all over the space.

"We explored lots of different kinds of games. We did some Facebook stuff. We did an iPhone game for Mass Effect. It wasn’t the best one – people point that out to us. We learned the hard way. The learning there was you have to iterate. The team went back and made some more games that we never released that were way better. Large scale MMOs. Small scale MMOs. We're going to continue to do triple-A console, but we're also going to be exploring pretty aggressively."

BioWare is known for its blockbuster games including Mass Effect and Dragon Age. It's upcoming online game Star Wars: The Old Republic is set to be one of the biggest MMOs ever created.

But BioWare is preparing to broaden its output.

"The future isn't necessarily on console," Zeschuk said. "That's the past. It's going to be a strong thing going forward, but the future is in all of these new businesses that are starting up.

"There will be some stuff you'll see down the road, within the next year, that shows what we're doing in that regard."

After his presentation, Eurogamer asked Zeschuk to describe the kind of game the "small scale MMO" may turn out to be.

"It can be almost anything," he said. "I used to play this game called O Game, by Gameforge. The galaxy is spinning away on some server and you're just poking at it in HTML and moving space ships around. That's an MMO. So it could be almost anything.

"We want to expand because, you look at what kids are playing on. Kids are playing on iPhones and iPads. The 3DS looks pretty amazing. All these platform options, we want to be touching on all those. We did one DS game. We actually had another DS game in development at one point but decided to hold off on that and look at iPhone instead.

Zeschuk's comments need not concern BioWare's veteran fans, however. Zeschuk said BioWare "is still going to do the giant stuff".

Expect more from Zeschuk, and the Develop Conference, throughout the week.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/bioware-working-on-small-scale-mmo

Originally posted by tvalentine

 

the combat is more based off the monster hunter games.

Demon's souls itself could hardly be considered an rpg. All i've done in the game is run dungeon after dungeon, i havent seen anything really related to the storyline, except monsters roaming around .... dungeons. I couldnt find any gear to upgrade my character, and its been awhile, but are there levels? I dont remember any, but like i said its been awhile. The combat is very similar to monster hunter, a game that i really enjoy, mainly because of the combat and the fact that there is actual character progression. I never understood the apeal of demon's souls.....

 

 

and how did it just come out this week in the EU? It's been out for like a year now

Yes, Demon's Souls has level progression, you collect souls and level your character with the Maiden in Black.

http://demonssouls.wikidot.com/character-builds

http://demonssouls.wikidot.com/stats

Yes, Demon's Souls has gear progression, you collect and upgrade weapons with items and souls, you can even ask for a NPC to craft a new weapon to you with old weapons, boss souls and special weapons combinations. Every different weapon you use will change the gameplay.

http://demonssouls.wikidot.com/weapons

You can level up and get new skills, the class system in this game is totally open.

http://demonssouls.wikidot.com/classes

Yes, there is a storyline and all characters that you meet in this game have a story and background, you just need to talk with them, the storyline is in every detail in this game, but the way you learn about characters and the story is not similar to common western and eastern RPGs.

http://demonssouls.wikidot.com/npcs

I really don't understand how you have so many wrong conclusions about Demon's Souls.

Demon's Souls- Best RPG game of 2009 by Gamespot  http://www.gamespot.com/best-of/genre-awards/index.html?page=8

Demon's Souls- Best RPG game of 2009 by Gametrailers http://www.gametrailers.com/video/best-role-playing-gt-goty/60211

Gamespot -Game of the Year-2009  http://www.gamespot.com/best-of/game-of-the-year/index.html?page=2

Originally posted by gooseh

can you provide any kind of evidence for the majority of the statements you made here?

 About what gooseh?

About game communities on consoles? Well, you need to play those games and check for yourself how the argument that most console players are idiots and most pc gamers are "inteligent" is wrong. As I said, you will find all kinds of gamers on console communities, some are bad, some are good, just like it is with PC gaming communities.

About how consoles are the main focus for single/multiplayer player games today and how they sell much more on consoles? Check links related to selling numbers, piracy numbers, interview with Epic and some other game companies that decided to avoid PC releases because the money they get from this plataform versus piracy and what they get from consoles is not enough. You will understand why ME, Oblivion and many games are marketed primaly for Consoles.

You can find many MMORPG developers saying how consoles can be a great market for MMORPGs too, the main issue is, a game for console need to really work, need to be really polished, we know how it is rare with MMOs.

Outside games from Blizzard, some NCsoft/Arena Net games and The Sims, the gaming market related to PCs is really small if we compare with Console gaming. If you don't belive, feel free to check the numbers, feel free to check how small is the area dedicated to PC games in videogame stores.

About Final Fantasy XIV, well, the only thing you need to do is to check some videos and info about this game, you will realize the game is more advanced on graphics than most other MMORPG releases, so to produce a modern MMORPG that runs on a console like the PS3 is not an issue.

In the end, I don't need to provide a link, you can easily find links, numbers, interviews that will backup what I am saying. Nothing I said is a "secret", everything is well known if you are familiar with today's gaming on PC and Consoles.

Originally posted by Wharg0ul

 This is wishful thinking man.

 

Sorry, man.....but the nature of PC games (IE: hardware configuration, the need to install the game, etc) more or less weeds out most of the morons who instead buy consoles for their simplicity. Gather these people into one area....such as an MMORPG community, and you'll have nothing but grief.

 

Popular games will probably have a worse community, you will find a lot of idiots in World of Warcraft, Halo, Guild Wars, Gears of Wars and Modern Warfare. It has nothing to do with the plataform the game is on.

Most challenging and hardcore games are released on consoles today and not on PC. When we talk about single player and multiplayer games on PC, most if not ALL them are Console ports. Even games like Oblivion, Call of Duty, Fallout and Mass Effect today have the console as main focus because they sell much more on Consoles, without Consoles we would not even be able to play games like Mass Effect or Batman AA on the PC, game developres would not get enough money to produce so many AAA games. Soon the same will happen with MMORPGs.

Beside World of Warcraft what really sells on PC are casual games like The Sims, PC is not the palaform for hardcore , challenging or complex games, not today.

When we talk about Console community, the community of Halo or Modern Warfare is TOTALLY different than the community of Demon's Souls, Little Big Planet or Sacred 2.

There is much more people playing on the 360 and PS3 than people playing on "gaming" PCs you will find all kind of gamers on consoles.

Your idea that someone need skills or inteligence to install games or a new piece of hardware on PC is laughable, people use the same "amount" of skill to install a home theater or to configure a Plasma TV and by the way, you will install and get online updates in most PS3 games too.

Originally posted by Kyleran

I will agree, perhaps if someone developed an MMORPG for consoles only, without worrying about cross platform issues then it might turn out to be a better game.

But I really think the current generation of consoles are still a bit too underpowered and we'll need to wait until the next gen comes out before serious progress can be made on them.

Underpowered?

FFXIV is one of the most impressives upcoming MMORPGs and it will be on the PS3 too.

Just compare the graphics of FFXIV with SWTOR, FFXIV is much more advanced.

The PS3 and the 360 may sound "underpowered" if you compare to a high end PC, but with the optmization and possibilities of a dedicated "closed" system like the PS3 it is possible to create exclusives and expresives MMOS titles for Consoles.

Try to play God of War 3, Uncharted 2, Demon's Souls and your impressions about graphics, gameplay depth and community (especially on Demon's Souls) on Console gaming may change.

Originally posted by Reklaw

 

I am sure in time we might see MMORPG's with depth coming to console's, but personaly believe this might be around the time we "might" see the light of a PS4 or Xbox720 (just made up names but you know what I mean, I hope)

 

Why Reklaw?

FFXIV will be available on the PS3 and just like FFXI will be more "deep" than most fantasy MMORPGs on the market.

If FFXIV is possible on the PS3, any deep and advanced exclusive MMORPG would be possible on the PS3 too.

You mentioned your friend is God of War fan, you also mentioned that God of War 3 looks amazing (and it does), try to play Demon's Souls with your friends.

Demon's Souls is not a MMO, but it has a very unique multiplayer concep and it is by far the most Hard Core RPG released in the last years.

Originally posted by GTwander

 

Siren does the same thing, but to an extent that drove me crazy. I stopped playing in the second part of the first game, where you have to escort some dumb broad while packing a handgun... that does nothing against the unkillable zombie sniper when he is perched. Scary game, yes, but more annoying than scary.

You should try "Blood Curse", It is a remake based on the first Siren but with far better audio, graphics and gameplay. The original was indeed frustrating and had a bad  voice acting, the PS3 ramake fixed these "issues".

Originally posted by grafh

silent hill 1, or fatal frame. the 2 scariest games ever created imo. dead space was hella creepy, but it didnt come close to those 2 games. silent hill 2 and 3 also go back and forth for another great horror game.

 

 Silent Hill 3 is visualy more appealing, it has more straightforward horror than Silent Hill 2, it has also more gore.

 But Silent Hill 2 is much more mature, all the feelings James has towards his dead wife, the guilt related to her death and sexual frustration he felt  (expressed in some of the game creatures) because of her illness are some of the details that make Silent Hill 2 the most emotionally mature game ever made. All the themes behind the horror of Silent Hill 2 are so rare in video games that I really think it is a superior game than Silent Hill 3.

The ending in Silent Hill 2 is also "unique" and very, very expressive.

Anyway, Siren: Blood Curse, Silent Hill 2 and 3 are all fantastic horror games, but I think S.H.2 is indeed "special".

Silent Hill 4 is worse than SH2-3 and Siren but it is also an interesting horror game, the first Silent Hill is great but unfortunately  too dated for today.

Originally posted by sanitysend

Simple question: What is the scariest game (games?) you have ever played and what made them so scary? Was it jump scares, slashers, gore, psychological, or just the general atmosphere?

I only ask because I'm playing through Silent Hill: Shattered Memories on the Wii and while it isn't exactly "scary" it does nail a pretty unnerving atmosphere. I just think it needs danger to not be as predictable (monsters only appear when the world freezes over).

/discuss :D

 If you like Silent Hill: Shattered Memories, get Silent Hill 2 (ps2/xbox/pc) it is far more deep, atmospheric, mature and darker than Shattered Memories, Silent Hill 2 is the best Silent Hill and probably one of the best Survival Horrors ever made.

 Siren: Blood Curse (PS3) is another great horror game, it is a remake of the original Siren, created by the original Silent Hill "team". It is less deep and emotional than Silent Hill but more focused on pure horror and despair.

 Games like F.E.A.R and Dead Space are much more of an action game with horror theme, just an evolution of Doom 3, they are not exacly terrifying and atmospheric like Silent Hill and Siren. In games like Dead Space and F.E.A.R, just like the last Resident Evil, you don't need to fear anything, you have more guns than Rambo and the focus of these games is the shooting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VXouaScN00 Siren: Blood Curse

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tysvNGGFN3M&feature=fvst Silent Hill 2

Originally posted by Edli

Originally posted by Umbral

Cowboy

Everything you discribed is related to entertainment not exactly art.

There is escapism in art too, but art  need ideas, thoughts, concepts and feelings...

Which many video games have. You need ideas, thoughts, concepts and feelings to create an artificial living world. Far more than a painting needs.

And why do you separate entertainment from art? Doesn't art offer entertainment? Didn't michelangelo's statues offer ornament to the city square or at the churches? Didn't Beethoven's music offered entertainment? Doesn't architecture offer a pleasure to our senses? Doesn't a book offer the same thing? This whole skewing of what is called art started when new mediums started to appear. Photography, cinema and now video games are gaining more and more power over the traditional mediums. But a photo is not less beautiful than a painting, a movie or video game is not less deep and immersive than a book.

I never said Art can't be entertaining or Art can't be beautiful but Art doesn't need  any of those details to be expressive. Der ring des nibelungen is very entertaining and it is a masterpiece of Art.

While games and "hollywoodian" cinema need to entertain to be accessible.

I think you didn't understand what I ment by "need ideas, thoughts, concepts and feelings ". I am not talking about creative ideas but the union of experiences, filosophies and original ideas where there is no need to entertain or be accessible.

As I said before, those ideas expressed in a painting, composition, photography related to pure art are much more than you see at first glance (from the music of Prokofiev, to the fine art of Ivan Aivazovsky, to the Dodecafonia expressed in Arrigo Barnabe works to the expressive caveman painting), the ideas you mentioned about an "atificial living world" are related to ratinal skills to build a functional system.

Yes, a "world" in a videogame will need a bit of sensibility and artistic style to look interesting, but this world is a funcional system accessible to consumers in first place. If you get a nice illustration and use it in a functional t-shirt, the t-shirt will not be a Piece of Art, it doesn't matter how complex is to made this "t-shirt" but even with art on it, the t-shirt it not a piece of Art.

You said a photo is not less beautiful than a painting, but beauty is relative in Art since the Romantism, powerful mediums are much more related to accessible productions that express marketing, entertainment and fast sentimentalism than deep human thoughts or art movements. Of course a Photography can be Art, it doesn't need to be functional, it can express a deep experience and ideas without the need to be acessible, to be a mass product, we can't say the same about games.

The Photography and Cinema that are gaining more powerful today are not the art photography or the art cinema, on the contrary.

You said a videogame is not "less deep" than a book. Well, what book are you talking about? There are religious books, filosophical books and pure entertainment books. If you take a William Blake, Victor Hugo or Nelson Rodrigues book and analize how they were signifcative for their time, social thoughts and art movement you can say they are Pieces of Art, and yes games are less deep than that, especially because they need to sell they need to be functional. Take those books with the model Fabio in the cover, you know and the author kow those books need to entertain, they are made to make people happy, they are made to be accessible, to sell, just like videogames that are expensive to make.

Immersion doesn't mean anything, a person could be scared with a Von Stuck or Schiele painting and never understand the reason behind the images and be immersed with the image of a cute bear in a chocolate box. Someone could watch The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari and and fell asleep but be immersed with Transformers and everyone in the production of this movie know they produced an entertainment piece and not Art.

Edit

Not every painting and illustration is Art, a painting can be just a beautiful ornament.

Not every movie is Art, most of popular cinema productions are entertainment mass products (and there is nothing wrong with that).

Not every photography is Art, a photography can be just a object of remembrance, a piece of marketing etc.

Not every book is Art...a book can be many things.

This is why I don't agree with the argument that videogames can never be art, but mainstream Videogames today and in the past are entertainment functional products with a bit of art sensibility in it (even the most artistic games like Syberia) and they NEED to sell... They are not a piece or pure Art.

And remember, it is not like Kojima are making games, pop directors are making accessible mass movies and photographers are taking marketing photos and saying they are making pure Art , they are not. People just want to call what is beautiful to them or what they like as Art, is nothing more than self affirmation on the consumers side.

Edit 2

You said "This whole skewing of what is called art started when new mediums started to appear"... you are wrong, even before there was a separation between fine Art related to a line of thoughts, folklore expressions, ornaments and pure entertainment creations and one doesn't make the other higher or lesser, just different concepts and different purposes.

Originally posted by Trucidation

 

 

Thread starter owned in very first reply.

 

People who depend on critics to tell them what is art are the same kind of dumbasses who habitually buy every Next Big Thing on the tv shopping channel, believe in the healing and eternal youth rejuvinating powers of crystal, and swear that Elvis was seen at a nearby 7-11 because the tabloids said so.

Well, people you discribed will sometimes think that everything they "like" and everything "that looks pretty" and entertain them is "Art" and something more than just entertainment.

Most people will call what they like "Art", if you noticed most people here call games that they like and games that look pleasant "Art" .

Ideas, thoughs, genuinity and expressivity, those details are related to  fine Art  for  centuries in human history. Those are some of the reasons Design is not accepted as pure art and they fit some of the reasons mainstream videogames are not pure Art even with the fact you will find a lot of artists working with videogame developers.

Melmoth used nice arguments, but he doen't owned the OP, you don't even know the OP's arguments, you only know that he agree with Ebert words.

I disagree with Ebert arguments but I also disagree with most arguments here that are the opposite of Ebert words.

A functional entertainment product without a strong filosophy, concept, expressivity and ideas behind and it dependant on mass marketing and acceptance like all mainstream games (that include less well known games like ICO, Silent Hill, Folklore, "independent" mmorpgs etc) is much more of a entertainment product than a piece of Art. But just like a mainstream hollywood movies, will you find artistic details and artists working with it, but those artistic details, ornaments and sensibility only make a videogame a more deep entertainment product not a Piece of Art.

Even people like Kojima who created videogames that most fans call "Art"  said videogames are not exaclty art so I don't understand why you hold such a low image of someone who agree with this like the OP.

I already said this, but if you analize games that are considered good as a full entertainment product that is fun, relatively"deep" but accessible, exciting and emotive and start analize it as a Piece of Art you will have a shallow piece of cheap cliche, without original or unique filosophies and ideas behind it and a piece that wouldn't last more than 10 years without look and sound dated and not very expressive as it need to sell and sell fast.

What do you prefer, call games a good and well produced piece of entertainment or a bad, comercial and shallow piece of Art?

Originally posted by Ikisis

If this is art...

 

 

 

Then this is art..

 

 Ikisis

There is a problem with your analysis.

Art is not just an ornament it is not just what you see at first glance, what matters is what is "behind" it.

The incredible Ivan Aivazovsky paintings are examples of expressive art not just because they "look" good, but because they have thoughts, ideas that justify them.

Sometimes Art does not look pleasant, does not sound pleasant but there is a reason behind it.

If you don't understand the reasons and ideas you don't understand the piece even if you enjoy it (or not) at first glance.

Originally posted by cowboyupinbl

I think video games can be art, and it's ridiculous to think that they can't be.  But to understand why you have to understand how games compare to other mediums like film, photography, painting, etc.

Art is constantly changing in response to the ongoing advancements in technology.  In general, painting was superseded by photography, which was superseded by film, which is superseded by video games/digital interaction.  Each of these new developments was built off its predecessor, designed to take the idea of storytelling/suggestion with images to the next level once the current stage of technology had reached its potential.  It is in this way that art and technology have forever influenced one another, as man's desire to tell stories and share his emotions has led him to seek out better and better ways to do so.

Now, our culture's response to each of these developments may not have completely surpassed what the previous achieved, but it is important to distinguish how each new advancement has a greater potential to bridge the gap between an artist trying to express something and his audience.  Each new tier of technology further and further creates an artificial reality that the viewer can become lost in, and once they are there it is up to the artist to guide their emotions and feelings and lead them to certain realizations or discoveries.

Like I said, the way our culture has embraced these technologies is almost always to turn them into entertainment.  This stunts their growth as pure art forms somewhat because certain formulas become established, and then the very meaning of the art to both viewers and new artists becomes how to copy or improve on these formulas.  So an art begins to go in a certain direction, and it snowballs until people largely forget where it came from, what it's basic capabilities are, and the countless different ways they can be used.  Once it reaches this point, the idea of what is "mainstream" becomes affirmed, and conversely those who go against it become the avant garde.  These two forces play a constant balancing act, with the avant garde responding to what is needed to invigorate an art form and the mainstream taking that and pushing it to the extreme, until it has become exhausted and again something new is needed.

The history of video games up until now has more or less been to create interactive movies.  This was probably a necessary way for games to develop, as we are only in the first 20 years or so of major video game development and it is natural for a new, fledgling art form to at first imitate the ideas of its predecessor (film).  During the first few decades of any new art, it takes the artists and innovators time to experiment and figure out what works and what doesn't.

With film, the first films were simply static shots of moving trains or people exiting a building, because they were fascinating at the time, and just to achieve those was an accomplishment (and likewise we have Pong, Asteroids, and Tetris).  But then filmmakers began to use different camera angles, and then began to juxtapose shots to create montage and convey a message from a series of images, and then finally there was sound, and then in recent years we have the onset of computer graphics/special effects.  This traces a 100+ year history of film and shows how artists learn more and more what they can do to better convey their message, and create worlds for viewers to become immersed in.

You can look at video games and draw some parallels.  There are too many developments to try and mention them all, but off the top of my head: look at FPS games, and how companies like Irrational and Valve have experimented with using the first-person view to place the player in the shoes of the character, rather than behind an avatar; look at what Bioware is doing with branching story arcs that build on each other to narrow down a more and more specific story based on the player's decisions; think about how the idea of an HUD has evolved, with things like lifebars or bullet counts more and more disappearing from the edges of the screen and instead being integrated into the visuals themselves.   These are all ways that innovators are learning to better immerse the player in the experience.

Looking to the future, with 3D and the idea of virtual reality, it is games that will take the furthest advantage of this, not films.  Already, we have become disillusioned to films somewhat because we no longer have that feeling of discovery, that anything can happen, because we know that this will be a one-off experience, with a predetermined pacing and timeframe, and that there is an ending at some point.  We have realized, more or less, that films are a passive experience.

This is because we have experienced video games where we can actually change the outcome, where we have to interact with what's in front of us.  It is a much more immersive experience, by design.  That is because games are the cutting edge of technology; the best our innovators have to offer and have achieved.  The mainstream, as I mentioned above, will continue to utilize this technology to create blockbuster experiences like Halo or Super Mario, which will always simply remain games and do not really innovate when it comes to interaction itself, while games I referenced above like Bioshock and Mass Effect explore more of the art form side, and push the boundaries to new levels.  The mainstream and the avant garde; they will always be the two driving forces of an art form, and they are beginning to take shape in the games industry now that basic things like graphics and how to ergonomically design a controller and its buttons, etc, have been figured out.

Games as we know them today will probably someday be replaced by greater levels of immersion as technology increases, like something that plugs directly into your brain and overtakes your very consciousness.  But that's just an example.  The idea though is that games are art; while still early in their development, they are the closest we have come to suggesting a separate reality to a viewer.  This is always what art is about.  Music has the power to completely change your mood, writing/wordcraft can expand your mind and make you think on greater levels of intelligence, film and photography can take you places suggestively that are impossible to go physically, and video games bring these new worlds even closer to you by making them feel real and imminent because they present you with things from this world that you actually have to react to.  And of course there's more, and each of these different mediums blur together and share these qualities.  But games are in there; they are part of the wheel.

Cowboy

Everything you discribed is related to entertainment not exactly art.

There is escapism in art too, but art  need ideas, thoughts, concepts and feelings.

Art (not ornament) is not there just to entertain, just to be beautiful, just to function in a way to remove you from the boring reality.

Most of today's cinema, pop music (including rock and alternative music), video games, and illustrations are there for entertainment purposes to please the consumer (even in small scale). Most of what people with no "artistic" interest call Art, are in truth, entertainment, social and aesthetical products.

It doesn't mean that entertainment products are worse than "real" Art, you can find artistic sensibility in a lot of entertainment media products, you can find artistic sensibility in ornaments but in human History you will find several examples that shows that a "beautiful" and imaginative object, illustration, composition will be just a "beautiful piece" without strong ideas, a filosophy behind it.

Mass Effect (as an example)  is an interesting and well produced entertainment product. There is no expressive or revolutionary concept or idea on it, it is there to entertain you. The narrative is the pure space opera cliche, visualy the game is pleasant, but the concept has no thought or ideas behind it beside the space opera typical icons and functional narrative.

As an entertainment product Mass Effect is good as a "Piece of Art" Mass Effect would be laughable.

Will you find "genuine" and expressive sensibility in games like Silent Hill 2, Bioshock and many others, but they are entertainment functional products with art on it, and not Pieces of Art.

Game developers like Kojima, Miyamoto and Fumito Ueda (known for his "artistic" games) said that video games are not Art, even when there is a lot of Art in it.

Just like design a videogame need to be functional, a video game is not primaly a vessel for thoughts, ideas and everything related to artistic movements.

If you get the concept, ideas and original thoughts behind entertainment products, from videogames to pop music and "Hollywoodian" cinema and start to call it "Pure Art" you will get a lot of unoriginal, weak, "coward", inexpressive "Pieces of Art".

From Classic to Postmodern, from Sturm und Drang to Deconstructivism, if you analize an expressive Piece of Art you will get much more depth than what you see or what you listen. Some good entertainment products (like Silent Hill 2) have more on it than just an intereting "skin" but is not on par with pure art, especially with the fact that an entertainment product like a videogame or mainstream cinema need to be accepted, need to be functional.

If you call a videogame an entertainment product with "art" on it I agree and I think you will be respecting what game developers are producing, but if you want to call a videogame a "Piece of Art" you will be reducing it to an unoriginal, beauty but shallow and comercial "piece of art".

Originally posted by maskedweasel

The thing is, the stories aren't terribly cliche in comparison... I mean Jade Empire I felt wasn't cliche at all,  KOTOR was a new take on an old IP.  Dragon Age I could take or leave, and Mass Effect followed a decent Sci-Fi storyline not unlike others, but no more cliche then others.

 

I didn't comment on Folklore, Syberia, or silent hills primarily because I didn't play them.  I played the first Silent Hill and wasn't impressed so I didn't play the second.

 

Metal Gear follows a main storyline, but its the same thing continuously, the gameplay doesn't change drastically and though there are little differences within each part of the story.. how is it different from the legend of Zelda that follows the same basic pattern across a timeless storyline?  I mean I'm not saying these games aren't good, I'm just saying as far as the stories go... how original is it to have the same hero doing the same things countless times over?  

 

I never said that how BioWare games SELL will be used to refute the greatness of their story.  The Twilight books seem to be extremely popular, but I tried to read one and couldn't get past the first chapter... the writing was terrible.    BioWare stories appeal to a large population,  they are popular for their story.. that doesn't mean they are talentless hacks.  What it does mean is that they are giving people what they currently want from them.    On their next IP they may do something completely different.

 You are mistaken about Metal Gear Solid storyline, it is not about the hero, it is about several characters withing a timeline, it is by no mean similar to Zelda or the "same hero doing things countless times over". Check what happened between MGS2 and MGS4, your impressions about the series are not acurrate.

Silent Hill 2 is possibly the most mature and moral complex storyline you can find in a game, very different than the first one. It is all about guilt , sexual and emotional frustrations and the personal fears of the main character. Syberia and Folklore are also very original, if you enjoy games in general I would recommend them. (If you can, check the videos I posted here)

Not sure Bioware games  are popular for their story, probably the acessibility of their games and the narrative have more appeal than the story/plot itself. It is easy to find people who enjoy the game play and interaction between characters but doen't really care about the plot.

Appeal is not equal to originality or depth, so this argument doesn't really make any real difference. Sometimes cliches have much more appeal than originality, just compare the acessibility of typical fantasy standarts with the comercial appeal of a more unique and poetic (also unpopular) game like Folklore.

And sometimes appeal is more related to how the story is told than the story itself, Assassins Creed has a very interesting plot but the narrative could be much better.

I never said they (Bioware) are talentless hacks, I do not agree with this affirmation. But I agree they are not the most unique, original or inspired game developers/story tellers outhere even with the fact that I enjoy their games.

?Originally posted by maskedweasel

Originally posted by Umbral

Well, there are a couple of games with fantastic and far more original stories than anything that came from Bioware.

Syberia is a great example of an unique, inspired and original story driven game.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4IstDuvyzc&feature=related

Mafia has a storyline on par with good Scorsese movies without copying them.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DPj72aAIv0

Silent Hill 2 has a mature story about guilt, fear and sexual and emotional frustration. Silent Hill4 also has a great story.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21s45Yel5VM

Metal Gear series even with all cinematografic references has a much more unique narrative than Bioware games.

Even The Witcher has a less predictable storyline than Bioware's RPGs.

Every Final Fantasy game follows Square patterns but  not every fantasy and moral cliche on the market like Bioware do.

Folklore is another game that has a very unique fatasy plot. http://ps3.ign.com/dor/objects/826967/monster-kingdom/videos/folklore_vidreview_100207.html

Planescape is another example...

Comparing the plot of games like Bioshock/Systemshock and especially Deus Ex with Mass Effect it is easy to realise Bioware may know how to tell the story, but the amount of cliches and lack of depth in their creations is astonishing

Bioware games usually lacks on combat balance, interesting bosses, character development/useful skills/spells and gearing but usually the storyline is polished. The main issue is how every moral and fantasy cliche is always there on their games.

Even worse is the fact that after KOTOR we had Kotor meets Asia (Jade Empire), KOTOR meets Gears of War (Mass Effect), KOTOR meets Baldur's Gate (and evey possible western fantasy cliche) Dragon Age.

Personally, I enjoy their games (played all of them) even if they are not on my top list but they are for sure over hyped these days.

Seriously? Final Fantasy? The Witcher?  I'm sorry but they storylines have been done to death... each rendition continues to push the storyline along but its always the same storyline just with different characters.  Saying Metal Gear has a great story after so many renditions of the same'ol is like saying Mario or Zelda are good stories.  

 

Overhyped or not.. you have to think about what hype consists of -- people being excited about a game.  if the games were consistently rehashed with terrible storylines you would think the community wouldn't buy them because they already know whats going to happen.  Thats not the case... the point of the system BioWare puts in place is to create a story that gives choices on a moment to moment basis.   Your characters story.  This could consist of helping a beggar one minute and then killing a different beggar the next.  The story lines are scripted and holds your hand through it all but allows you to make choices at integral parts of the story.  If the story is boring then perhaps its the choices you made?

 

.

 I mentioned that Square follows its own patterns on Final Fantasy stories and not every unoriginal fantasy pattern you can find  just like Bioware do. A lot of what you find in Final Fantasy you will find inside the serie at least Square created its own cliches, we can't say the same about Bioware.

And yes, the plot you have and the choices you have in The Witcher are not as original like what we see in Folklore and Planescape, but are much less cliche than Bioware storylines, especially the moral patterns.

You avoided to comment on games that I mentioned that have really unique plot like Folklore, Syberia, Silent Hill 2 ...why?

You are wrong about Metal Gear Solid, the serie follow one main Storyline it is NOT like Zelda or Mario, far from it.

I never said the stories in Bioware games are boring, cliche and unoriginal yes. The dialogue system in Bioware games are nice and usually a good point that overcome the silly plot but the game is not open enough for you to use the argument you used.

Metal Gear, Final Fantasy and many other games are just as popular as Bioware games and worldwide they sell even more the fact that Bioware's games sell well has nothing to do with the argument of good, original or cliche stories.

As I said before, Bioware's games like Konami, Square, Santa Monica 's games are quality games for sure, it is pretty understandable that they sell well even with all the cliches and unbalanced mechanics.