The Citizen Kane of video games... - by Yakoob
Thirith on 7/10/2009 at 07:17
Quote Posted by dethtoll
Deus Ex. Thread over.
is a very good game, but its writing is pretty hamfisted at times. The way its story packs in 95% of all conspiracy theories comes close to unintentional parody IMO. (Pynchon could have had great fun with the world of
Deus Ex...)
I'd agree with Renzatic that we've already had gaming's
Indiana Jones. I'd also say that we have clever little gems that may not be
Citizen Kane but that are definitely as interesting in terms of art as some of the better indie movies. I agree,
Braid overplayed its hand in some ways, but it's still a worthwhile experiment.
In addition, we've got games such as
Grim Fandango, or indeed
ICO and
Shadow of the Colossus, that do what they do with intelligence, style and subtlety. Are they big, epochal works of art like
2001: A Space Odyssey,
Rashomon or
The Seventh Seal? Nope, but I would definitely consider them interesting and worthwhile, both as games and as art. (Frankly, I consider each one of them better art than much of what is displayed at Tate Modern, a lot of which I consider banal navel-gazing, but then I'm a bit conservative when it comes to art.)
Koki on 7/10/2009 at 07:26
Quote Posted by Thirith
Why that?
Because, as Renzatic pointed out himself, both are pretentious. Actually, SOTC is pretentious, Ico simply doesn't have anything artistic in it.
Taffer36 on 7/10/2009 at 07:28
Quote Posted by Koki
pretentious
This word has lost all meaning on these forums.
Thirith on 7/10/2009 at 07:29
Quote Posted by Koki
Because, as Renzatic pointed out himself, both are pretentious. Actually, SOTC is pretentious, Ico simply doesn't have anything artistic in it.
Almost every work of art will be seen as pretentious by someone. That's very rarely an argument; most of the time it's simply trying to dress up "I didn't like it, and I don't like others liking it, so I have to denigrate both them and it" as some sort of objective fact.
mothra on 7/10/2009 at 08:43
i find it stupid to compare games to movies. and for that matter I would not say that CitizenKane is a prime example of a game-changing movie, just an exceptionally well made encapsulating all known techniques known to moviemakers at that time. If you use that definition there have been so many Videogame CitizenKanes, you would not know where to start. As in the movies the products really experimenting and changing formula stay in the background and never get widespread critical acclaim for their experimentation besides a niche audience since they don't aim at the "is it fun?" and "I wanna turn my brain off" crowd that only seem to know one way of entertainment. Later, much later they get successfully incorporated in more popular movies/games and become a "cliche" later after overexposure and wrong use of them.
so, yeah, another prime example of senseless journalismn.
EvaUnit02 on 7/10/2009 at 08:48
Just to put it out there - Half-Life 2 is NOT one of these "Citizen Kane's". This should go without saying.
It's one of those titles where fanboys love to imagine that the story and setting have this immense depth (mainly because of how poor the actual storytelling is), but there really isn't any. It's a finely crafted, intense roller coaster ride of a scripted action game (aside from Route Kanal and Water Hazard - thank god that the intense focus testing eliminated the dull bits from the Episodes), but it's really equal to a Tony Scott film, not Citizen Kane (nor Michael Bay for that matter).
If requested, I can search the archives and pull out one of a certain poster's essays that we can all then point and laugh at. "GORDON IS ONE OF THE MOST SELFISH CHARACTERS IN VIDEOGAMES. EVERYBODY THINKS THAT HE'S THEIR MESSIAH BUT ALL HE CARES ABOUT IS HIS OWN SURVIVAL". LMAO, he's a non-entity, silent protagonist, entire lacking in characterisation. His purpose is to be the player's Mary Sue.
Koki on 7/10/2009 at 09:43
Quote Posted by Thirith
Almost every work of art will be seen as pretentious by someone. That's very rarely an argument; most of the time it's simply trying to dress up "I didn't like it, and I don't like others liking it, so I have to denigrate both them and it" as some sort of objective fact.
Almost every popular game will be seen as art by someone. That's very rarely an argument; most of the time it's simply trying to dress up "I had fun playing it and it didn't have chopping demons in two with chainsaws" as some sort of objective fact.
gunsmoke on 7/10/2009 at 10:14
Didn't GBM threaten to ban anyone starting threads with a quote and no content? :thumb:
Oh well, there are a dozen other drive-by posts in this thread to go with it, so...
The video makes its case well enough for me. And why not MP? It is a very good game, and scored extremely well. It is a mystery story being figured out after the fact, also. Sounds remarkably like CK. And, it is a relatively new medium being used in an different way to tell a story. That is the point of the comparison, after all.
Thirith on 7/10/2009 at 10:38
Quote Posted by Koki
Almost every popular game will be seen as art by someone. That's very rarely an argument; most of the time it's simply trying to dress up "I had fun playing it and it didn't have chopping demons in two with chainsaws" as some sort of objective fact.
Well, I still think that the discussion "Is something art?" is pretty much pointless because there's no objective standards to go from. You end up with an utterly pointless semantic discussion. I find a discussion about what value something has if looked at as art more interesting, because ideally it moves beyond "Yes, it's art." "No, it isn't." "Yes, it is!" "No, it isn't!"
With respect to
ICO and
Shadow of the Colossus, one can make pretty strong points about how they work with implications and subtext, how they use subtle narrative strategies, how the visual design and the storytelling work together in interesting ways, how gameplay strengthens all of these. What more do you want before you consider something to be art? Or rather, what do you get out of saying, "They're not art"?
And, more to the point, how does them being pretentious (or not) say anything about whether they are not artistic?
Koki on 7/10/2009 at 10:52
Well first you say it's supposed to be subtle - and now you're asking why it shouldn't be pretentious?
I have no idea what art qualities does Ico have. It's a pretty simple, pretty easy platformer game. Does the fact that you're escorting a girl and DualShock vibrates when you hold her hand make it so amazing? I could go on with "cute" or "charming" but where is the "art"?
As for SOTC, it has potential - because it's though-provoking, except the question is delivered with the subtlety of a crashing B-52. You figure out the game is "what are you willing to do for loooooove" after one, two, three, maybe four Colossi and then what? Is that all? Well, the horse dies - Aeris has already been made fun of in the very second post so I won't even bother with this one.
But yeah, all in all what doth art be and all that rot, but if your definition of art is wide enough to include just "pretty pictures" like Ico then isn't it a tad worthless?
