demagogue on 1/9/2008 at 19:27
Quote Posted by heretic
more interested in creating vessels of proselytization than entertainment with a brain.
Yeah, that's why I felt a lot of them were on the immature side.
I do think that Peacemaker is pretty good for being balanced, though. You can play the demo for free to see...
If you try to do the peacenik hippie thing in that game you will very quickly get mobbed by your own public and thrown out of office (if not assassinated), and if you play as a total power-grabbing cynic you'll quickly stalemate the situation and there's no progress, violence escalates, world opinion hates you, and you have to deal that much longer with an intolerable situation for everybody. And if you do nothing, then everybody hates you and there's no way you can stay in power. So it's a good rude awakening to anybody who thinks there are easy solutions, or thinks a pure dove or hawk path will get them far.
(Whether you consider that level of realism "entertainment" is more of a preference thing. I love thinking about sticky, tough political issues that don't have easy answers ... I wouldn't say that I do it for entertainment, though. In that sense, I'm talking apples against the oranges of the OP's topic, but it was still worth pointing them out.)
Quote:
I'd agree more or less that they are worth watching though, as surely something of interest will come along eventually... and it is interesting to watch any media mature, especially one like gaming.
word.
june gloom on 1/9/2008 at 20:45
I've been saying for a long time that video games are a form of art, and just like any other form of art you can say a lot or you can say a little. These days, tragically little gets said, and even less is worth hearing.
With any luck, that will slowly begin to change; Bioshock, in spite of its hamfisted approach to morality, had quite a bit to say in the meeting with Ryan (IMO the game should've just ended there.) Hopefully, that will spur other big-name Western games to be just as much message-conscious.
Couple things I wanna touch on:
JRPGs and their focus on saving the world with the power of emo friendship stems from manga and anime, which also have a focus on big battles between good and evil and only 3-4 friends can do it. Welcome to Japan. They love this shit. No fucking clue why. Ask AFiH.
The thing about Metal Gear Solid is that you have to remember it's a Kojima game. The dude was raised by pretty passionate anti-nuke parents, which is not uncommon in Japan (for obvious reasons); hence MGS (and to an extent, the first two MG games on the MSX) had a strong anti-nuke stance. Kojima wanted to bring to light that nuclear terrorism and nuclear proliferation was alive and well in the post-Cold War era- 3 years before 9/11. He also wanted to discuss a fairly big question- how much of a person is defined by his genes?
With Sons of Liberty he wanted to discuss quite a large number of themes, a lot of centering around information and the battle to control it, and how much of an effect it has on an individual, and on the nature of that person's own reality; all this served as the backdrop for discussing the inherent flaws (and successes) of democracy, as well as the fact that the only way for Raiden to even become a person (remember, he is a blank slate, he is nobody) is to perform what amounts to patricide. I would say Sons of Liberty is probably the best example of what the OP was looking for, at the moment. I would say it's basically a Neil Stephensen story that isn't boring.
Jashin on 1/9/2008 at 21:59
Video games as a whole is not art, it's a product, especially in the west. A guy like Miyamoto in America would've split off, formed his own company, made his fortune, conglomerated and gone on to make cross-platform bullshit to sate seasonal revenue projections long ago. It's guys like Miyamoto who, after all these years is still concerned about putting a smile on people's faces that are the real artists. How many of those are there? And of those, how many are in a commanding position and can guarantee success both critically and commercially?
With rare exceptions, art on a corporate level happens by accident. This isn't just my opinion, it's Pacotti's and many others'.
Quote:
JRPGs and their focus on saving the world with the power of emo friendship stems from manga and anime, which also have a focus on big battles between good and evil and only 3-4 friends can do it. Welcome to Japan. They love this shit. No fucking clue why. Ask AFiH.
You and your tunnel vision as usual.
Manga is usually categorized by age group - from teen to young adult to adult. On the lower end you have the cartoons, and as you move up the subject matter varies vastly - coming of age story, slice of life story, etc. On the adult end you can have a graphical account of historical literature like "Musashi." Anime made for TV is suppose to be cartoons-for-mainstream to begin with. The better stuff is usually made for the older cable audience or the big picture like Miyazaki's.
Now JRPG: I wonder how much MS paid to finally break FF's exclusivity - not 360 exclusivity, but just to have it on both consoles. I don't play any, but I can clearly see that they're lavish productions with grand settings and fabulous music.
june gloom on 1/9/2008 at 22:23
Quote Posted by Jashin
Video games as a whole is not art, it's a product, especially in the west.
Quote Posted by Jashin
You and your tunnel vision as usual.
I don't have to listen to anyone who slobbers Starcraft's knob. Of course I know manga is divided up by age group. What I said- that jRPG plots are similar to that you might find in manga and anime- you have not actually refuted, because it's fucking true and you know it, and you're just attacking me for a generalization when I didn't even say
all anime/manga. Should I have said "children's manga" or some such nonsense? Because either way I say it it's the same goddamn thing.
You're like the guy who has to point out that when someone calls his livejournal icon "anime" he points out that most of them are from a game or manga and CLEARLY NOT FROM ANIME and then goes on to detail his Dr. Who icons. NOBODY CARES. I was just trying to make a point and you had to stroke your neckbeard in anger.
Jashin on 1/9/2008 at 22:30
Who are you to judgment when MS dishes out the cash like a dope fiend?
Just cus measily you don't like the way it looks? LOL, take a picture of yourself, I wanna see what you look like.
june gloom on 1/9/2008 at 22:35
That post doesn't even begin to make sense. What are you talking about? "I don't like the way it looks?" Are you responding to someone else? Perhaps in another thread? Because it would help if you would use the QUOTE button.
Jashin on 1/9/2008 at 22:41
Look angry nerd, just cus you don't like something, you still don't have to hate it. My advice to you ;)
MS paid out the bank for FF to break PS-exclusivity, they wanted it baaad~~ What's it to me? Nothing.
june gloom on 1/9/2008 at 23:00
What are you even fucking talking about? I wasn't talking AT ALL about FF breaking exclusivity. I could
care less about that. Do you even read my posts?
Oh I get it. You're just being a troll today. Good job, have a cookie.
Inline Image:
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/147506/fallout2aar133.jpgheretic on 2/9/2008 at 01:44
Quote Posted by demagogue
I do think that Peacemaker is pretty good for being balanced, though. You can play the demo for free to see..
Actually it does seem to be, thanks for pointing that out again. I did enjoy the demo and will probably get around to buying the full version.
icemann on 2/9/2008 at 03:17
Quote Posted by Jashin
Video games as a whole is not art.
Your dead wrong on this one and I`m with dethtoll on this one, especially as I`m a programmer myself doing a games development course in uni presently and have also designed levels (look on the sshock2 fm page for one of mine) for numerous games, plus have been coding away at a game for a fair while now. And thirdly having lived through the Atari era all the way right upto the current gaming generation.
While yes the games companies need to make a profit from them to continue on as a company, games development isn`t all about making money (money would likely be at the very end of the priorities list of those developing the games), what drives the programmers, artists, musicians etc behind these games is to create something that is visually very appealing (in most cases) and is a hell of alot of fun to play. And also that it is a hell of alot of fun developing games, and then getting to play them.
If anything you could define video games as interactive art, since unlike a painting or movie, your in control of what happens, and what direction the game goes to a degree.
Calling games products is the same kindof thinking that has led governments worldover to still to this day still see video games as this thing for 10 year olds (ie Space Invaders) and not for grown adults to enjoy in.
Quote Posted by Jashin
How many of those are there? And of those, how many are in a commanding position and can guarantee success both critically and commercially?
Many more than you think. Romero, Jeff Minter, Ian Levine, the staff at blizzard etc to name a few. Chris and Tim Stampers who started Rare (of Goldeneye and Donkeykong country fame) and stayed right up until Microsoft bought them out, are another example of greatness and of great artists of the industry.
The main difference now to back in the beginning is that now you need a large team of people to make a great game, where as back in the beginning you only needed one person.
If you want to truelly understand what goes into making games I recommend going and buying an issue of the excellent magazine RetroGamer. After having a read of that, it will all start to make alot more sense.
If games development was only about rolling out games to make money, then the video game industry would have died completely after the video game crash in the 80s.
