Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2010 7:49:26 GMT -5
I ready your review, wyrdwad. You're not crazy, you're certifiable. You've completely missed the point of Ico and have taken the act of nitpicking to a entirely new level. One might even call it an art form.
Out of This World is amazing, though.
|
|
|
Post by Ryu the Grappler on Dec 6, 2010 9:34:07 GMT -5
What irritates me is that a lot of the so-called art games are called art just based on their particular content. They're usually games with simpler graphics, quieter music (preferring ambiance), less focus on instigating violence (and if you do, it's questioned in the story), and the mechanics are often stripped to the bare minimum if it fits into an established genre. Bonus points if it's made by ONE person or a small development team, because then its easier to pick out one or two people to worship and emphasize how awesome they are for doing everything themselves. And yet games that are absurdly fun and addicting are relegated to being lowly videogames because, obviously, art can't be fun, or too fun I should say... and it can't be about certain things either. It can't be too violent or have a soundtrack that's too prominent, can't be too complicated or be a pinnacle of its genre (because that would require repeated attempts and a lot of sequels. not art, just crap to generate sales obviously). It can't be too "game-y" with lots of scoring and numbers and floating weapon upgrades. And it certainly can't be made by a huge development team, because how could anyone pick out the genius? It's simply another game churned out by the corporate machine to appeal to the masses. At least that's my cynical viewpoint in general. All that to say, Another World is an important game; it's still great today. I also felt the "genius underdog" angle of Chahi was a little too prominent-- the guy's a one-hit wonder compared to the many actual prolific developers-- but I enjoyed reading the behind-the-scenes type stuff. The author definitely knows a lot about the game's history, perfect for this kind of site. I agree with everything said here. The fact that people would elevate games like Another World and Ico (which were good games, but overpraised), as well as crap like Braid, over other actual quality games, just because of the pretentious label of art. As if games such as Super Mario Bros., Legend of Zelda, Donkey Kong, Metroid, Contra, Fire Emblem, Street Fighter II, Mega Man, Sonic the Hedgehog, Civilization, Doom, Grand Theft Auto III, Out Run, Shinobi, Command & Conquer, Ninja Gaiden, River City Ransom, and Metal Gear Solid among countless others, are not real art, but the products of lesser game designers, just because they had a budget and were made by more than four people.
|
|
|
Post by Discoalucard on Dec 6, 2010 10:52:19 GMT -5
There's a difference between a game that's meant to be a test of skill and/or strategy, and a game that's supposed to elicit very specific sets of emotion. The "art" games are more concerned on the latter.
I don't think that undermines any of the games you've listed - they're doing different things and that's perfectly OK, because I actually enjoy many of them more than OotW (and Ico and SotC, for that matter.) But I'm all about seeing the medium pushed in new directions, and Out of This World is a perfect early example.
|
|
|
Post by Revolver Ocelot on Dec 6, 2010 11:57:51 GMT -5
As if games such as Super Mario Bros., Legend of Zelda, Donkey Kong, Metroid, Contra, Fire Emblem, Street Fighter II, Mega Man, Sonic the Hedgehog, Civilization, Doom, Grand Theft Auto III, Out Run, Shinobi, Command & Conquer, Ninja Gaiden, River City Ransom, and Metal Gear Solid among countless others, are not real art, but the products of lesser game designers, just because they had a budget and were made by more than four people. Okay, here's the rub: With the exception of Metal Gear Solid, there's no intent behind any of those games besides entertainment. Intent is a huge part of what makes art. Every work of art usually begins with the intent of an artist to connect with a group of people in some way through non-verbal, non-literary means. You can't pick Street Fighter 2 apart and have discussions about what it means. "What is the anaconda in Blanka's background thinking?" "Why does Chun Li dress like that? Is she insecure? Was her father sexually abusive?" "Does the fact that the game's final battle take place in a place of worship mean that the designers were making a statement against organized religion?" No one will ever talk about shit like that. Street Fighter 2 is meant to be taken at face value. The only things you can pick apart and talk about at length are its mechanics, which were indeed great and revolutionary, but calling it art because of that is like calling a Harryhausen flick a work of art because of its groundbreaking special effects. It doesn't work that way. Games that are perceived as art are typically games that don't focus so much on the "game" aspect, and as such, they're worse games for it. Games and art don't mix well, so when a game is artistic, there are usually structural sacrifices made that betray a lot of people's core beliefs about what a game should be. Yes, Street Fighter 2 is most likely a better game and definitely more fun to play than Out of the This World, but Out of This World is far more fascinating. There's something about it that resonates with people in a very deep way, and what that is is something that goes far beyond what Lester's jumping mechanics feel like. So don't act like those great games you listed are getting gypped out of something, because they're not. They're great games, and almost everyone agrees that they're great games. They're distilled to the purist essence of what a great game is. They're not concerned with trying to connect with people on an emotional level, and they're better games for it. But that doesn't make them art. Some of R.A. Salvatore's Forgotten Realms books are really fun to read. Way more fun to read than Moby Dick. But people won't be reading them in colleges 150 years after Salvatore is dead, discussing the intent and meaning behind his work. If people are still reading them by then, it'll be because they're still fun to read. That means that they're good books. It does not mean that they're art. Ya' follow me?
|
|
|
Post by justjustin on Dec 6, 2010 13:42:33 GMT -5
The great games jonny2x4 listed do connect with people on an emotional level, and to a much greater degree than many of the artgames. People often do not associate great mechanics eliciting powerful emotions because they usually yield positive ones, and no one remembers or cares about those, apparently. The artgames usually aim to make the player feel a tad melancholy, or thoughtful, nostalgic-- sometimes even downright depressed. The "gamey" games' design revolves around being as exciting as possible, making players feel surprised, accomplished, powerful. Do these emotions not count as much as the sad ones? Again, I feel it's mostly about subject matter. Sad and quiet wins over loud and exciting. Smaller is better than bigger. Soul vs. soulless, etc. etc. There is infinitely more intent, meaning, soul, passion and hard work in non-indie games. There are simply more people with more energy to create something grand. In the end, I think the artgames will not be remembered. While there are a few great ones, the whole community (and I intend to call it that) is rife with charlatans; talentless people who scratch something out in Game Maker using common "art" elements to propel themselves forward (as you have pointed out, Bean). What will be remembered-- as in film, music, any art-- are the technical masterpieces; defining pieces that influence future generations, that will be remembered for hundreds if not thousands of years later. Braid, Limbo, and Flower will be left in the dust. Street Fighter II has already been played competitively for about the past 20 years, a landmark achievement. It's still used as a template today. Final Fight defined the beat-em-up genre. Shooting games are still evolving since their inception in the '70s. The artgames, I feel, are fleeting. They are new and focus on sad things, things only movies, books and music have done. They usually don't have great mechanics, so its the "meaning" and "intent" and "emotions" (which all games create, positive or negative) they'll be remembered for. I understand the common viewpoint that art and entertainment are split, but that's a view I can't share and, in fact, I argue they are often the same. I view art as greatness, and hardly see any in the artgames (or, more recently, the "notgame" movement).
|
|
|
Post by kitten on Dec 6, 2010 13:55:18 GMT -5
Games like Braid that are made by single persons/smaller development teams get more artistic praise because those people are generally able to get unrestricted ideas and emotions across easier. People consider them to be more artistic because their creativity generally isn't weighed down by trying to appeal to a demographic, attempting to please everyone on the development team (less/no squabbles between level designers, artistic directors and the producers) or having the primary intent of being financial successes.
A game like Braid tries to be artistic and is intended to provoke thought. A game like Contra is mostly just trying to be fun (usually so it can sell well). I'm not trying to say that Contra can't be perceived as art, and excellent level design, mechanics, visuals and sound strung together in such a talented way to form a thoroughly enjoyable experience can certainly be considered a form of "art," but a game like Braid is meant to appeal to our more conventional senses of "art" and, as such, is perceived as more artistic and praised or criticized accordingly.
People connect with Tim from Braid in an emotional way, and the game's mechanics are an interesting allegory for how people are constantly wound up in the past over mistakes they've done. It connects with many players on an interactive level that you don't get from art you merely view, which is why it's often so highly esteemed. I use Braid as an example because it's been years since I played Out of This World on SNES and hardly remember it, but I'm just saying that games that attempt to appeal to conventional senses of "art" are games that are going to be considered more "artistic."
Also, I agree with Ocelot in that great games aren't really robbed of anything when other, simpler games are esteemed as being more artistic than they are. How artistic something is generally tends to be a very subjective value, and just because these simpler games may hold a certain perceived value above other games doesn't make them any greater or lesser, it just means they're appreciated in a different way. Some people consider a conventional artistic value to be more important than how the game plays, and really, if that's what they think, that's what they think. I consider Braid one of my all-time favorite games largely for the "artistic" value I perceived in it, but I still consider many other games superior to it despite lacking in similar values.
The main issue here seems to be people getting upset with people saying something like Out of This World is "artistic" and implying that "artistic" means "more valuable than esteemed classics." I could be reading the vibe from this discussion entirely wrong, but if people want to think that I believe they're fully entitled to.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2010 13:59:48 GMT -5
Did it get a rise out of you or someone else? It's art then, move on. Life's too short.
|
|
|
Post by Discoalucard on Dec 6, 2010 14:07:37 GMT -5
In the end, I think the artgames will not be remembered. I don't know about that, we are debating an "artgame" that's nearly twenty years old. The same attitude towards varying types of emotion are seen across all mediums though. Which movie earns more respect, the introspective drama or the action flick?
|
|
|
Post by Revolver Ocelot on Dec 6, 2010 15:24:49 GMT -5
The great games jonny2x4 listed do connect with people on an emotional level, and to a much greater degree than many of the artgames. People often do not associate great mechanics eliciting powerful emotions because they usually yield positive ones, and no one remembers or cares about those, apparently. The artgames usually aim to make the player feel a tad melancholy, or thoughtful, nostalgic-- sometimes even downright depressed. The "gamey" games' design revolves around being as exciting as possible, making players feel surprised, accomplished, powerful. Do these emotions not count as much as the sad ones? Again, I feel it's mostly about subject matter. Sad and quiet wins over loud and exciting. Smaller is better than bigger. Soul vs. soulless, etc. etc. There is infinitely more intent, meaning, soul, passion and hard work in non-indie games. There are simply more people with more energy to create something grand. Again, I think you're focusing too much on the what and not the how or why. Shadow of the Colossus is minimalist, but it's certainly not a small game by any stretch of the imagination. On the contrary, SotC is a game entirely about big things. When you generalize emotional resonance to the point that you're getting to, you create a fairly slippery slope. When I was a child, some episodes of TaleSpin resonated with me quite powerfully. Does that mean it was art? No. It just meant that in my skewed, childhood perspective, I was effected by something in a certain way. And while I'm sure that someone, somewhere could make an argument for TaleSpin as art, I think it's pretty obvious that it's not. Again, it's about intent. Everything can resonate with you, it's whether or not the creator of that thing was trying to generate that resonance with you is what really matters, and I think that element makes art at least somewhat objective. There's no doubt that playing an extremely close, intense game of Street Fighter 2 will make you feel an extreme sense of satisfaction. And no, that feeling is not worth less than any feelings Braid might inspire. But you could also get the same feeling from playing Madden, and I seriously doubt anyone here would want to argue that Madden is art. Tecmo Super Bowl, maybe. I also disagree with your idea that the emotional resonance of "artgames" has to be sad. I think Flower is a pretty poignant example of an artgame, and while it definitely has moments of darkness, it ultimately ends up being a story about nature coexisting with civilization. Another example is Lucidity, which is definitely not a great game, but I think it's art. It deals with a little girl coping with the loss of her grandmother, but at the same time, she grows stronger by remembering the lessons her grandmother taught her. In regards to this, I think you're utterly and completely wrong. I think films work as a perfect parallel for my argument here: Everyone will remember films like Star Wars, Beetlejuice and Ghostbusters. We show them to our kids and pass them on, and they're fun. As a film student, though, I can tell you that no one shows Star Wars, Beetlejuice or Ghostbusters in film school. That's not to say they're worthless to any degree. But it's pretty obvious why they aren't shown in lieu of films like John Sayle's Matewan or John Waters' Pink Flamingos. Those films have a lot of say, and through them, the filmmakers have a lot to say to us. Matewan and Pink Flamingos aren't remembered by a wide spectrum of people, but they will never be left in the dust because they're too important to the development of film as a whole. I think games like Out of This World, Flower, Braid etc. will be remembered as long as Street Fighter II will, for different reasons and within different groups of gamers. Don't forget that gaming is still a very young medium, and what things will be remembered for and whether or not it will be considered an artistic medium has yet to be seen. It's easy to say that Street Fighter II will be remembered forever when not only are the people who played it still alive, but still fairly young. It, and most games for that matter, haven't had to endure any real test of time or relevance. It might seem like a big deal that it's still celebrated after almost 20 years, but that's nothing when you consider that Casablanca is still considered a masterpiece when nearly all the people who made it, starred in it and saw it when it first came out have been dead for a really long time. Our children will be more qualified to comment on the longevity of video games than us.
|
|
|
Post by justjustin on Dec 6, 2010 19:34:50 GMT -5
The reason I'm focusing so much on "what" instead of how and why is because the "what" is the only thing 100 percent known to us, and the rest completely depends on each person's perspective. Certainly, there are artgames with hopeful messages but I like to generalize, and the trend I notice is the sad games always get all the accolades.
Like you say, time will tell, and even then the "crap" (we'll each understand that how it suits us) will be important to someone for their own reasons. So let's continue this discussion 50 years down the road... THEN WE'LL SEE WHO'S RIGHT!.. nah, just kiddin. I made myself as clear as I can.
|
|
|
Post by Revolver Ocelot on Dec 6, 2010 20:59:13 GMT -5
The reason I'm focusing so much on "what" instead of how and why is because the "what" is the only thing 100 percent known to us, and the rest completely depends on each person's perspective. Uh... that's what makes it interesting, though. I think you're totally missing the point, and the point is dancing in front of you, naked and covered in green Jell-O. The whole point of art is that it's a porthole that gives us a glimpse into the human condition.
|
|
|
Post by wyrdwad on Dec 6, 2010 21:00:06 GMT -5
Weasel wins. This is a fantastically poignant and succinct statement that I wholeheartedly agree with.
Also:
It's not nitpicking if it legitimately causes me to dislike the game. I gleaned very, very little enjoyment from Ico as a result of the flaws I listed.
-Tom
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2010 21:12:28 GMT -5
You just seem to have something in your DNA that forces you to focus on tiny details at the expense of the greater picture. This isn't the first example. Ico isn't sexist. Sometimes a rose is just a rose.
|
|
|
Post by Ryu the Grappler on Dec 6, 2010 21:45:30 GMT -5
Out of this World is still recognized today because it was a cool alien-themed platform game with a unique visual style that not many games had back then, not necessarily because it was an "art game". Had Out of this World been a completely terrible game, but with the same visuals it had, I doubt many people would still be talking about it today. It would have been another Rise of the Robot (terrible game with pretty graphics).
I didn't find any "deep meaning" in the plot of the original Metal Gear Solid, other than it was about a super-soldier who has to face his evil twin brother. The Metal Gear series includes some of my favorite titles, but anyone who seriously think that their stories are special (like that one guy who called the series "a cross between G.I. Joe and Aristotle") has probably never read a good book in their lives. With that said, MGS2 had a pretty pretentious storyline and I don't see how Liquid Snake returning as Ocelot's right arm is somehow less ridiculous than the plot twist in Snake's Revenge in which Big Boss comes back as an over-sized cyborg. MGS1 and MGS3 had pretty good stories because they were not as pretentious as MGS2 and MGS4 were.
To dismiss all the games I've mentioned as "non-art" and "mere entertainment" is frankly ridiculous. As if art can't be entertaining? As if the designers of those games had no artistic intentions and are mere craftsmen working on mass-produced goods because they were made on a budget (even though most of what we consider classical arts nowadays were actually made under paid commissions).
|
|
|
Post by TheGunheart on Dec 6, 2010 22:31:48 GMT -5
I think one part of the problem is that when games are judged as "art", it's using the same criteria as non-interactive forms of media.
|
|