Page 3 of 5

Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 8:44 pm
by ratperson665
Rick Deckard wrote:Oh, come on. It's true that there's plenty of awful literature and movies, but there are so many more awful videogames. To suggest that directors and writers generally aspire to create something as compelling as videogames is ridiculous - it's an artform with very little merit (although to be fair it hasn't been around that long). Even the best videogames are nowhere near the same level as the best films or novels, or even just 'quite good' ones.
Most movies deserving of the term "art" were either released in the '40s and '50s or are movies from Japan and England. And none of them compare with video games that share there characteristics. For example Audition was a brilliant Horror film from Japan and it was art because of the fact that the female lead was evil to say the least. It also worked as a social criticism lashing out at those who objectify women. But it cannot compare with horror games like Biohazard or Silent Hill because you can't interact with it.

Posted: Sun Jul 02, 2006 3:37 am
by Missing
ratperson665 wrote:Most movies deserving of the term "art" were either released in the '40s and '50s or are movies from Japan and England.
I'm not saying this just to put you down, but that is honestly one of the most idiotic comments I've ever read (if you're being sincere). There have been so many great movies made over the past century from all origins of the world that for you to say that is so ridiculously ignorant and short-sighted. All I can say in defense is that you need to watch more movies if that's your view on films as a whole.
But it cannot compare with horror games like Biohazard or Silent Hill because you can't interact with it.
Any good horror movie can create a sense of dread on par with any horror game (and often even more so, since most horror games fail to strive beyond the monsters-jumping-out-of-the-closet formula). The lack of interaction is a very weak argument in the defense of games, because unlike games, good movies don't become outdated over time. I can watch the same movies I grew up on and still enjoy them as much as I once did, but when playing a game, you're always going to be hampered by what it's lacking, which is usually the archaic visuals or gameplay that result over time.

That is one of the main reasons why I think games fail to become art, because the focus is almost always more about the technology than anything else. The storytelling itself should never become outdated in the way technology does. If you were to compare books to films, I don't think you could say that books were lacking because they expect you to imagine all the images in your mind, rather than witness them on a screen. Perhaps you're spoiled by the images in the same way you're spoiled by the interaction that games provide, but as technology evolves, your current opinions of games will change to support what ever is considered modern. It's just a fad.

Posted: Sun Jul 02, 2006 10:57 am
by ratperson665
Missing wrote:
ratperson665 wrote:Most movies deserving of the term "art" were either released in the '40s and '50s or are movies from Japan and England.
I'm not saying this just to put you down, but that is honestly one of the most idiotic comments I've ever read (if you're being sincere). There have been so many great movies made over the past century from all origins of the world that for you to say that is so ridiculously ignorant and short-sighted. All I can say in defense is that you need to watch more movies if that's your view on films as a whole.

I said most not all! And just because a movie cannot be called "art" doesn't mean it's not great!

Posted: Sun Jul 02, 2006 2:32 pm
by Skycladiana
Oh relax. Nobody need fear a lesson in art from a guy whose avatar is a character from "Family Guy."

Posted: Sun Jul 02, 2006 4:27 pm
by OtakupunkX
Movies = art.

That's all there is to it. Just for the sake of controversey (which I probably just spelt wrong)...

videogames = art.

Posted: Sun Jul 02, 2006 5:05 pm
by Missing
ratperson665 wrote:I said most not all! And just because a movie cannot be called "art" doesn't mean it's not great!
First of all, most does not rectify your statement to be in any way factual. Your comment would be no more the truth than had you said all. And second of all, I think any great movie can rightfully be considered art (depending on why you think it's great).

Posted: Sun Jul 02, 2006 5:09 pm
by Snake Plissken
OtakupunkX wrote:Movies = art.

That's all there is to it. Just for the sake of controversey (which I probably just spelt wrong)...

videogames = art.
Exactly, anything can be art if you create it with your hands, or at least your butt cheeks I assume. A movie or a game, even if it's based off of something else like a book or another idea still is engineered and foresaw through the different eyes of the artist who's interpreting it. And this is something people forget, not everybody sees the same. Someone can create a can of chicken soup, but who'd ever of guessed that someone would of been so inspired by it, to show it for what they saw?

Everything, living or dead is a piece of art, yet alone a miracle through the admiring eyes. So it is really hard to justify the topic to a fact, as true art is only an opinion! One man's trash, another's glory! Let's all go down to the junk yard!

The true point of the word Art in itself has been lost over time, one too many.

Posted: Sun Jul 02, 2006 6:03 pm
by Missing
But haven't we been debating the quality of art as to which games measure? Would you rank the best of games alongside the best of movies and literature? Do you think games achieve greatness in the same way that those other mediums do?

Posted: Sun Jul 02, 2006 6:51 pm
by Snake Plissken
Missing wrote:But haven't we been debating the quality of art as to which games measure? Would you rank the best of games alongside the best of movies and literature? Do you think games achieve greatness in the same way that those other mediums do?
I personally believe that no form of art what-so-ever in it's field needs to achieve any greatness or notoriety to make it's claim, or to be classified in a ways of comparison or unity (to any other field of art you know). But from my standpoint, the accomplishment which was "A Link to the Past" holds just as great of a value in mechanical art classification as Jacques Louis David's "Madame Recamire" or Ingmar Bergman's "The Seventh Seal." Lol. :grin:

Posted: Mon Jul 03, 2006 4:13 am
by Missing
But considering how much games share in common with films -- and how much they borrow from them -- it's very hard to avoid comparison. But regardless, I'm not saying it's necessary for games to be judged alongside films and novels to be deemed artistically worthy. I just don't think there are enough serious creators out there trying to take games to a further level (no pun intended). Of course people like Will Wright, Shigeru Miyamoto, and Hideo Kojima are artists, but there aren't enough people like them willing to attempt bold new ideas. Instead, we get the same generic crap year after year, and it only serves to make all games look bad as a result.

Plus, it doesn't help that games as a whole are still being marketed mostly towards the younger crowds, despite the fact that they have been shown to appeal amongst a wide range of ages. But it seems as though most designers have the sensibilities of adolescents in mind when creating their games. There are too many games nowadays that are just vile and sadistic. With so much depraved shit in the real world, who honestly wants to revel in it as a form of escapist pleasure? I can understand the fulfillment that comes from commiting acts that you wouldn't otherwise commit in reality, but it sickens me how much of it is being created.

Sorry to sound like Jack Thompson, but it really would be nice if those designers would grow up and stop selling all this garbage to the major public. I can't say whether it's in any way affecting the people who play these types of games, but I'm sure there is some vary degree of influence on the individual, even if it doesn't cause them to go out and immediately rob a bank or shoot a cop. So for the future, I'd really like to see all the needless violence, provocative subject matter, and objectification of women toned down. Only then we can talk about whether games have achieved artistic merit.

Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 7:34 pm
by ratperson665
Missing wrote: Plus, it doesn't help that games as a whole are still being marketed mostly towards the younger crowds,
I don't mean to disregard your opinion but that is by far the stupidest thing I've ever read! 90% of games nowadays are for adults. If this medium as a whole was aimed at kids the entire industry would go bankrupted sooner than the men in white coats come to pick up Takashi Miike!

Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 12:21 pm
by Missing
ratperson665 wrote:I don't mean to disregard your opinion but that is by far the stupidest thing I've ever read! 90% of games nowadays are for adults. If this medium as a whole was aimed at kids the entire industry would go bankrupted sooner than the men in white coats come to pick up Takashi Miike!
I said most games are intended for the "younger crowds". That varies from pre-teens to early twenties. I'm not saying many adults can't and don't enjoy games such as Grand Theft Auto or Resident Evil, but primarily, those games are obviously being marketed with younger age groups in mind. You can't deny that.

And please don't retort my messages with the same response I gave you when you said most film masterpieces were made in the '40s and '50s. At least think of something original to say to me if you're still holding a grudge.

Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 11:13 pm
by ratperson665
Missing wrote:
ratperson665 wrote:I don't mean to disregard your opinion but that is by far the stupidest thing I've ever read! 90% of games nowadays are for adults. If this medium as a whole was aimed at kids the entire industry would go bankrupted sooner than the men in white coats come to pick up Takashi Miike!
I said most games are intended for the "younger crowds". That varies from pre-teens to early twenties. I'm not saying many adults can't and don't enjoy games such as Grand Theft Auto or Resident Evil, but primarily, those games are obviously being marketed with younger age groups in mind. You can't deny that.

And please don't retort my messages with the same response I gave you when you said most film masterpieces were made in the '40s and '50s. At least think of something original to say to me if you're still holding a grudge.
I don't hold a grudge against u. Hell, u were the only guy on this forum who EVER stuck up for me! viewtopic.php?t=926&start=0. You’re in my good books.

Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 2:28 am
by Missing
Fair enough. Just don't let me catch you saying anything negative about Seven Samurai again. It's dear to my heart is all.

Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 12:01 pm
by ratperson665
Missing wrote:Fair enough. Just don't let me catch you saying anything negative about Seven Samurai again. It's dear to my heart is all.
OK.

Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 12:12 pm
by Marc
Don't mean to steer this thread off in another direction, but I couldn't let this go - I think we've been pretty nice to you, all things considered. In almost any other forum I can think of, you would have been, at the very least, temp banned by now. You're lucky Snatcher is so nice.

But you do appear to be making a genuine effort now to avoid, for instance, making posts requesting materials that, if they existed, would be on Junker already.

Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 4:00 pm
by OtakupunkX
ratperson665 wrote:If this medium as a whole was aimed at kids the entire industry would go bankrupted sooner than the men in white coats come to pick up Takashi Miike!
Don't dis on the man's creativity, now.

Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 10:38 pm
by hybridtheory
I don't think so not yet. Games are still at the infantile age. First and foremost they need to entertain. A game can have a cliche filled or no story and all and still fufill its purpose. It just really needs time to evolve really, and games have a different narrative structure than other mediums making its hard to make a compelling story without having it make scenerios to challange the player, but unfortunatly hasn't come to terms with letting the creator do as he pleases because of monetary reasons and:
Missing wrote:
Plus, it doesn't help that games as a whole are still being marketed mostly towards the younger crowds, despite the fact that they have been shown to appeal amongst a wide range of ages. But it seems as though most designers have the sensibilities of adolescents in mind when creating their games. There are too many games nowadays that are just vile and sadistic. With so much depraved shit in the real world, who honestly wants to revel in it as a form of escapist pleasure? I can understand the fulfillment that comes from commiting acts that you wouldn't otherwise commit in reality, but it sickens me how much of it is being created.

Sorry to sound like Jack Thompson, but it really would be nice if those designers would grow up and stop selling all this garbage to the major public. I can't say whether it's in any way affecting the people who play these types of games, but I'm sure there is some vary degree of influence on the individual, even if it doesn't cause them to go out and immediately rob a bank or shoot a cop. So for the future, I'd really like to see all the needless violence, provocative subject matter, and objectification of women toned down. Only then we can talk about whether games have achieved artistic merit.

I agree. I think that's why my 360's been used more as a DVD player than an actual game console. I really think the industry is almost to the point of stagnation, and pretty much tired of Shooter after shooter. We need something totally innovative and unorthadox. MGS, Killer 7, and others I can't really think of are forerunners for this. I think that's what motivated me to get a degree and hopefully get a job in the industry. We need the Lucases (Ok bad example), Annos, Lynch's of the gaming industry in order for it to survive.

Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 12:59 pm
by ratperson665
OtakupunkX wrote:
ratperson665 wrote:If this medium as a whole was aimed at kids the entire industry would go bankrupted sooner than the men in white coats come to pick up Takashi Miike!
Don't dis on the man's creativity, now.
I think I'm aloud to make fun of a man who made a movie that featured every sick perversion and fetish in the world and through some disgusting violence on top of it.

Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 1:26 pm
by Marc
And I think I'm allowed to make fun of a kid who spelled 'allowed' 'aloud'.

Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 1:41 pm
by ratperson665
Osiris wrote:And I think I'm allowed to make fun of a kid who spelled 'allowed' 'aloud'.
I misspeled that on peropse. In order to seem casual, everone on evrey forum has done this at least once.

Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 2:18 pm
by Artemio
ratperson665 wrote:I misspeled that on peropse. In order to seem casual, everone on evrey forum has done this at least once.
That only makes people look stupid when done on purpose. (Need of attention)

Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 2:37 pm
by ratperson665
Snatcher wrote:
ratperson665 wrote:I misspeled that on peropse. In order to seem casual, everone on evrey forum has done this at least once.
That only makes people look stupid when done on purpose. (Need of attention)
I seem to remember you spelling "know" "now". viewtopic.php?t=999

Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 3:11 pm
by Marc
So it's 'cool' to be dumb?

Snatcher has excuses:

1. He has a job and doesn't have time to proofread every word in his posts.

2. He usually writes more than one sentence in a post.

Anyway, man, we're just messing with you. Don't take it that seriously.

Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 3:35 pm
by Artemio
ratperson665 wrote:I seem to remember you spelling "know" "now". viewtopic.php?t=999
As always you never read and fall into your predictable behaviour. You never think before posting.

I specifically said "on purpose". Of course your wouldn't get it anyway, and I did that on purpose so you would react.

Nice.