Ostriig on 10/11/2008 at 20:40
"Videogames", or "interactive electronic entertainment" if we want to be a bit more pretentious about it, are just as valid an avenue for artistic expression as the others, now established ones. My opinion is that due to its uniquely interactive nature, the games medium actually has a higher artistic potential that the others, such as that of cinema or even literature. While those use largely passive methods of expression, games have the potential of featuring "valuable interaction", allowing the audience to experience choice and consequence within a limited context, thus possibly facilitating both the transmission of a message, to say so, as well as allowing the player to learn more about themselves and the way they relate to a certain idea or situation in a more direct and "hands-on" manner.
As for what flies or not within videogames, I think it's fair to have the same allowances and limitations for them as we do for books, or movies or plays. That's why I've always found it completely unacceptable that a double standard seems to be pretty much the norm here. I was way into another paragraph for this post, on the absurdity of said double standard, but I think I was starting to stray from the actual topic, and with things everyone here knows anyway.
Bottom line, videogames should share all the artistic allowances given to an artistic medium, and with a little bit of trust and effort, they'd probably prove their potential. But we're still faced with the rigidity and ignorance of a large segment of the population which still sees simple, electronic toys. I'm fairly certain that full recognition will come to this medium, and I think it's only a few years off, maybe a decade. But even if I'm wrong, it would be only in relation to how soon. We'll be rid of these simplistic and limiting preconceptions regarding this type of entertainment eventually, even if it means waiting for the JT's of the world to just kick the bucket due to old age. But I honestly think it won't be that long.
Here's a tasty tidbit for you lot:
---
Quote Posted by dethtoll
Video games seem reluctant to touch on the topic, even in the bad light it deserves; for that matter, very few movies like talking about it too-
Schindler's List and one of the later episodes of
Band of Brothers (which made me cry like a stupid kid- actually all of BoB's episodes did) come to mind first, but aside from
Jakob the Liar I have a hard time thinking of anything else, at least here in the U.S.
Off-topic, might wanna see (
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0914798/) The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas. And this probably deserves some supportive quoting:
Quote Posted by dethtoll
I think I speak for most of us here when I say:
That's stupid.
june gloom on 10/11/2008 at 20:42
I can't remember if it was catbarf or Aja who insisted games were not art. Probably Aja, which would explain a lot actually.
denisv on 10/11/2008 at 21:16
Games aren't art and never will be perceived as art. It has something to do with their audience. I dunno. "lol."
Needless to say I laugh at your predictions and will be quoting this post in a decade.
june gloom on 10/11/2008 at 21:27
So I was wrong after all. It was denisv.
demagogue on 10/11/2008 at 21:51
It's like Carmack saying games need a plot about as much as porn, that is, there as a placeholder but not really to have a point, just a vehicle to get to the action.
I think what gaming really needs is a Camus, Kubrick, or David Lynch sort of figure that will just start putting out reflective stuff on their own initiative and breaking people's expectations by pure fiat. Once it's out there all but the culturally oblivious could ignore it. It's not something you argue for; it's something you just do.
In cinema, the really great guys started off doing their own projects with their own money, and my secret hope is that will happen in gaming too: People using their college fund to commission assets (the same way they spent their last dollars for equipment & props) and make projects/TC's that go way beyond "mods" in the same way, say, Eraserhead or Kubrick's early docs go waaay beyond mere "home movies". As soon as I get a better computer and (the bigger issue) time to do it, hell, I'll make a run for it myself coat-tailing off Darkmod or whatever else I can get my hands on.
Ostriig on 10/11/2008 at 21:53
Quote Posted by denisv
"lol."
Inline Image:
http://bawlsEvaUnit02 on 10/11/2008 at 22:12
Quote Posted by demagogue
Metal of Honor: AA's last mission was raiding a concentration camp in a gas mask, shooting up the gas tanks to kill off the guards, and freeing the prisoners. It handled the whole thing rather obliquely though, since you never directly saw the prisoners and it didn't look like a camp ... It wasn't actually until my 2nd play that I caught on that it was execution gas.
WTF?! You clearly played a different game. AA's final mission took place in a weapons factory and your task was to destroy it. That level didn't involve freeing any prisoners either.
demagogue on 10/11/2008 at 22:48
Quote Posted by EvaUnit02
WTF?! You clearly played a different game. AA's final mission took place in a weapons factory and your task was to destroy it. That level didn't involve freeing any prisoners either.
Watch the (
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhKf6sHHLg4) briefing.
I thought they were giving strong hints that it's a part of a gassing death camp for prisoners (A former mustard gas plant, "The fort has been made operational again. Intelligence reports say that POW trains are now being moved into the fort. It may be just a POW stop-over, but my gut feeling is something more nefarious is going on" ... "if you run across any POWs, try not to injure them" ... "You'll be infiltrating the fort through a POW train car Trojan horse").
In the actual mission, the prisoners are freed at 3:14 / 3:25 in (
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZV3kb0qAuY) this video.
Watching it again, admittedly it's not as clear-cut as it was in my memory. But I'm still left with the impression that it's doing everything it can to say "holocaust camp" without actually saying it. Actually, now I remember my impression being, ok, this is like a way of obliquely hinting at the holocaust (gas, fort's new purpose is now a POW-holding facility, not just a stop-over but something more nefarious) without really seriously dealing with it. So if it's too sensitive for some people they can pretend it's not that. But if you really want to "give Nazis a taste of their own medicine", that's the interpretation it's underhandedly emphasizing if you're paying attention to it.
june gloom on 10/11/2008 at 22:48
Quote Posted by demagogue
I think what gaming really needs is a Camus, Kubrick, or David Lynch sort of figure that will just start putting out reflective stuff on their own initiative and breaking people's expectations by pure fiat. Once it's out there all but the culturally oblivious could ignore it. It's not something you argue for; it's something you just do.
The problem is, most of the folks who might lay claim to that sort of status- the Levines and the Spectors and so on- are a bunch of hacks who got lucky the first time around.
Levine is the worst, though. Fuck that douchebag.
Aja on 10/11/2008 at 22:57
Quote Posted by dethtoll
I can't remember if it was catbarf or Aja who insisted games were not art. Probably Aja, which would explain a lot actually.
Who are you kidding, that would explain everything. Maybe I could throw in a comment about gamepads and then WHOA SHIT everything would make sense!!
But it was Jashin, you tool.
