june gloom on 2/9/2008 at 19:51
I wasn't trying to be sarcastic... :confused: And anyway I always figured the message was a question: What is terrorism? By people who blow up the government, or a government who controls its citizens? This becomes apparent when you talk to the guy who leads the assault on Liberty Island.
Jashin on 2/9/2008 at 21:19
Quote Posted by icemann
Wrong again. Games get made completely for non profit all the time.
(
www.retroremakes.com)
Go have a look at how many games are made and released for free all the time on that site. Why? Because they love making games, nothing more. Same goes for me entirely when I make levels or work on my game. As I said, money isn`t a high priority in that list. If all you care about in life is money then you end up a very miserable old man.
Ofcourse games developers get money, which in turn leads to them continuing on as a company, but thats just a means to an end, and not the goal of the project itself. Did Ian Levine go and set Bioshock in motion for the money, or because he loved making games like that. Answer again is quite clear.
All those examples of yours relevent to gaming are fringe examples that either never had a prayer to succeed commercially or simply, nobody plays them. There's a second part to creating art - it has to be seen for what it is. Why did van Gogh kill himself? He couldn't sell any of his stuff, he wasn't recognized sooner.
Ken Levine (Who's Ian?) knows this. He knows that with the current business climate it's way too hard to create art that will be recognized by the market. So he took on a Faustian deal in making BioShock. His solution was to hold hands, attain success, build a reputation, establish new consciousness, and then come back with the original vision in a later game.
You're arguing that VG as a whole is art while there are artists like Levine out there trying his hardest to get more art-inclined games made. You see the difference? If it's already art then why does he have to try so hard? No game in Origin System, Looking Glass, or Ion Storm Austin's lineup has ever had the breakaway commercial success to create the kind of widespread acceptance and adoption of its core design principle like BioShock has, because again, it took on a Faustian deal.
And what is "true art" and "artistic genius" in VG? It's the core design principle and philosophy, the stuff that makes up the "soul" of a game, not the stuff they window-dress their world architecture with.
Quote:
To give you another example. Did Picaso paint paintings because of all the money he could get out of it? or because he loved to paint? Answer seems pretty damn clear to me. And same exact thing to games development.
Thomas Kinkade sure did, and he churned out salable art who then made lots of money. Is this the game industry or is it Picaso?
Quote Posted by CCCToad
What about Deus Ex, an obvious one?
The game does a pretty good job of arguing "security vs freedom". I'll post more when I have time, but I think that if the game had come out after 9/11, it might have caused a bit of a stir.
Yeah, I know. I really want another
true DX game. After 8 years I could really go for another.
Wait, who's gonna give it to me?
addink on 2/9/2008 at 22:06
Quote Posted by Jashin
You're arguing that VG as a whole is art[...]
No, he isn't.
You, on the other hand, confused
the medium (that was being discussed) with
the industry in your first post. And ever since you seem to try to rationalize your idea that making money is the opposite of making art. Or something<sup>TM</sup>.
BTW all generally accepted 'Great Works of Art' are commercial. There are only very few struggling artists that produced great works of art while not making money off it, but never for a lack of trying.
Jashin on 2/9/2008 at 22:17
Quote Posted by addink
No, he isn't.
You, on the other hand, confused
the medium (that was being discussed) with
the industry in your first post. And ever since you seem to try to rationalize your idea that making money is the opposite of making art. Or something<sup>TM</sup>.
BTW all generally accepted 'Great Works of Art' are commercial. There are only very few struggling artists that produced great works of art while not making money off it, but never for a lack of trying.
Very true, the industry dictates the medium. VG is all about industry cus only industry titles are widely sought after.
And enough comparing traditional art to games. Traditional art's made by a single person and is conducive to personal values. VG is a team effort that can often overwrite personal talent and opinion with bad chemistry and hierarchy.
june gloom on 2/9/2008 at 22:56
Jashin why don't you go back to playing Starcraft and leave the discussion to the adults.
Video games as a medium are a form of art, in the same way that film as a medium is a form of art. No, I wouldn't consider something like Harold & Kumar to be any more "artistic" than I would something like, let's say Halo as something that is widely sought after but terribly generic, but the fact of the matter is that arguing that something has an industry backing it makes it not art means you're either terribly deluded (which you have shown in the past) or you're some kind of chuffing elitist who cries over commercialism.
addink on 2/9/2008 at 23:02
Quote Posted by Jashin
Very true, the industry dictates the medium. VG is all about industry cus only industry titles are widely sought after.[...]
No, it doesn't. The industry reaches the largest audience, if only because of marketing. But by no means does it dictate what can or cannot be made.
For instance Knytt, an excellent experience, moving in all it's basic beauty and pace, had nothing to do with the industry. Yet it is a work of art.
Quote Posted by Jashin
And enough comparing traditional art to games. Traditional art's made by a single person and is conducive to personal values. VG is a team effort that can often overwrite personal talent and opinion with bad chemistry and hierarchy.
I agree with you that art should be conducive to personal values, or
feelings as I would rather put it. But I don't agree on the fact that that can only be achieved by single individuals. There are plenty of movies out there that move me, surprise me and make me think about a whole range of topics. Not a single one of those movies is made by a single person.
Yes, the videogames in general can be a lot more artistic. I think we all agree on that.
But stating that videogames can't and won't be a lot more artistic because there's an industry at work, is just plain silly IMHO.
Jashin on 2/9/2008 at 23:51
Quote Posted by addink
No, it doesn't. The industry reaches the largest audience, if only because of marketing. But by no means does it dictate what can or cannot be made.
For instance Knytt, an excellent experience, moving in all it's basic beauty and pace, had nothing to do with the industry. Yet it is a work of art.
I agree with you that art should be conducive to personal values, or
feelings as I would rather put it. But I don't agree on the fact that that can only be achieved by single individuals. There are plenty of movies out there that move me, surprise me and make me think about a whole range of topics. Not a single one of those movies is made by a single person.
Yes, the videogames in general can be a lot more artistic. I think we all agree on that.
But stating that videogames can't and won't be a lot more artistic because there's an industry at work, is just plain silly IMHO.
Look, art is made to be understood. It's trying to qualify something in a way that is new and will be hard to understand to those who are trained by time-honored traditional train of thought. By its very nature it's not conducive to mass-market success. The hardest thing to do in films is to tell a story with slices of life that add up to an epic feeling. It's hard to do and its subject matter alone will leave some clued out.
But nevertheless mass-market success is needed to introduce these fresh new concepts into the public consciousness. To propagate emergent gameplay, it has to succeed at checkout counter, in a sense to solidify its own value to those not interested in art.
Sure, you can make anything you like. But if it's not played and appreciated, it might as well have never existed. The industry will always work against art in some ways, and it'll always be indebted to art. It's that contradictory. It's the same relationship b/w power and conscience. Power without conscience is misguided, and a conscience that is without power is helpless and can not affect change.
There's been instances of great artists at work on video games, but the whole VG thing is still too young to be called an art platform. There's still a ton of problems with the medium itself to be resolved, like how to integrate story with gameplay consistently.
Thirith on 3/9/2008 at 05:39
Quote Posted by Jashin
There's still a ton of problems with the medium itself to be resolved, like how to integrate story with gameplay consistently.
That quote itself shows quite clearly that your starting position is compromised, because it suggests that the (potential or actual) artistry of games is closely linked to the ability of games to tell a story. Thereby you're limiting what can and can't be art like the art critic who dismisses all abstract painting because it doesn't represent the reality he knows limits what painting can be.
I'd fully agree with you, though, that computer games as a whole are nowhere close to fulfilling their artistic potential. But I'd also say that with every medium there's a hundred times more non-art than there is art. Most books/films/TV series are about as artistic as, say,
Mortal Kombat.
Aja on 3/9/2008 at 05:58
I think when Jashin said "story" he was implying not a narrative exclusively, but simply the artistic intent of the game. Lots of games have great writing (okay some do), brilliant music and visuals, but off the top of my head I can't think of a single one that takes advantage of the interactive nature of its own medium to elevate it into something that can be truly admired and enjoyed as a unique new form of art. Games like Braid at least make the attempt, but somehow always comes off rather clumsy.
Developers need more of a willingness to truly experiment, and release games which aren't intended to sell millions. As long as development teams consist of million-dollar budgets and dozens of employees, the chance of any genuinely artistic games is slim to none. Great painters paint alone, great writers write alone, and the money doesnt' really factor in until afterwards.
Actually, I think LSD would fit right in at the Museum of Modern Art in New York (really I do), but it would take more time to appreciate than a museum-goer might have. And the rest of the population isn't interested. So... fuck em.
addink on 3/9/2008 at 07:58
Quote Posted by Jashin
Look, art is made to be understood.
No, it's not. Art is made to be experienced, there's a huge difference. For instance: Do you really understand music? And I'm not talking 'lyrics' here.
There's more than invoked train-of-thought that makes a thing art.
You've made your -off topic- point that videogames have not been acknowledged as art by the masses as a potential artistic medium and certainly hasn't reached maturity yet.
WE ALL AGREE WITH YOU.
Now stop trying to redefine art so it'll fit you misguided theory that it only exists if it's a huge commercial success. That really doesn't matter. The amount of money made off art has little or no relation with the experience intended by the creator(s).
Sure, easily-reproduced art is only deemed successful if a large number of people actually bother to pick up a copy. Whether that happens, or not, does not change the artistic value of the work. It does not change the art. It does not improve the experience.
Videogames as a medium is a valid art form. No matter how unsuccessful it is.
Quote Posted by Jashin
Sure, you can make anything you like. But if it's not played and appreciated, it might as well have never existed. The industry will always work against art in some ways, and it'll always be indebted to art. It's that contradictory. It's the same relationship b/w power and conscience. Power without conscience is misguided, and a conscience that is without power is helpless and can not affect change.
The thing you don't seem to get is that even if art moves only one person: it's still art.
It would be nice if the industry would focus less on marketing and more on (artistic) quality. But the only way to get there, is to actually try to get there. The Greater Role of a forum such as this, is to pickup on any and every detail in this respect; Analyze it, Discuss it, Get the idea out in the world that artistic value isn't something to ignore.
Dismissing the medium as a potential art form because the mass market hasn't picked up on it yet, is stupid, fruitless and disruptive to the discussion.
