Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Culise]

I don't go around complaining that they don't do more painting like impressionists did. I just don't go to modern art expositions. Should I open a thread about all modern painting being shallow and boring and moaning about modern painters whom don't produce enough Flemish-like pictures? Doesn't that sound silly to you?

I don't want to stick my head into this whole argument over monetization and piracy in the modern video game industry, but I just really want to point out that while this is rather silly, this really is an actual argument that gets thrown around.  The Art Renewal Center is a lovely online gallery of Pre-Raphaelite artwork and their continental equivalents to encourage art styles formed on a basis of the late 19th and early 20th century ("classical realism," as they term it), but they really, really love to hate on modern art.  I like the opening paragraph to the "Great 20th Century Art Scam", myself.

FOR OVER 90 YEARS, there has been a concerted and relentless effort to disparage, denigrate and obliterate the reputations, names, and brilliance of the academic artistic masters of the late 19th Century. Fueled by a cooperative press, the ruling powers have held the global art establishment in an iron grip. Equally, there was a successful effort to remove from our institutions of higher learning all the methods, techniques and knowledge of how to train skilled artists. Five centuries of critical data was nearly thrown into the trash. It is incredible how close Modernist theory, backed by an enormous network of powerful and influential art dealers, came to acquiring complete control over thousands of museums, university art departments and journalistic art criticism. We at the Art Renewal Center have fully and fairly analyzed their theories and have found them wanting in every respect, devoid of substance and built on a labyrinth of easily disproved fallacies, suppositions and hypotheses. If, dear reader, you are not already one of their propaganda successes, I encourage you to read on.

[Neonivek]

really love to hate on modern art

I don't know... I really hate modern art too.

Then again... a lot of modern artists hate modern art too. Some of the worst peices of modern art were created as a sort of "Come on they can't be so dumb as to buy into this too" and yet they did.

Actually oddly enough all the most famos peices of modern art I can think of... were art made to point out the pointlessness of modern art.

[Psyckosama]

My bro was saddened by that as well.

Yeah. I was kinda like this when I heard it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2asIi1DdSE

Of course that is nothing compared to my reaction when Beth turned this...



into this...



:p

I was more interested in Hawken myself, but it also went the way of microtransactions.

IMHO MMORPGs are killing themselves with this microtransactions bull.

These days the only games I buy are Indie games.

I'm absolutely sick of every game being Call of Gears of Medal of Halo...

really love to hate on modern art

I don't know... I really hate modern art too.

Then again... a lot of modern artists hate modern art too. Some of the worst peices of modern art were created as a sort of "Come on they can't be so dumb as to buy into this too" and yet they did.

Actually oddly enough all the most famos peices of modern art I can think of... were art made to point out the pointlessness of modern art.

Perfect example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ

How the hell is this art?

[Neonivek]

I was alright with the concept of a Fallout First Person Shooter RPG. Afterall there are many games out there with concepts that could spread to other genres.

I think the biggest issue with it though is the fact that it likely KILLED and MURDERED any possibility of another Fallout RPG ever existing. Since this was "Fallout 3"

[Levi]

I loved Fallout 3, but I wasn't as attached to the originals.  I can understand why it would have upset some people. 

[Psyckosama]

I was alright with the concept of a Fallout First Person Shooter RPG. Afterall there are many games out there with concepts that could spread to other genres.

I think the biggest issue with it though is the fact that it likely KILLED and MURDERED any possibility of another Fallout RPG ever existing. Since this was "Fallout 3"

Seconded thirded and effing forthed.

From what I heard Obsidian actually wanted to make a FO1/2 styled new vegas with the map and overhead and were outright told to use the FO3 engine or else.

I would have been perfectly happy with Fallout: Capitol Wasteland... but that crap was not Fallout 3.

Though it does perfectly fit the theme of this. The FPS casual idiots who like to make nude japanese schoolgirl mods for Oblivion had to be pandered to.

[fqllve]

Dude it had been 10 years since the last Fallout game. It wasn't very likely that they were going to revive the franchise as it was anyway. And honestly, did you really enjoy the original Fallout gameplay that much? Because while the writing was good, the gameplay itself was clunky and unintuitive.

I'm absolutely sick of every game being Call of Gears of Medal of Halo...

Every game?

New games I bought in the last six months that weren't Call of Duty, Gears of War, or Halo (aka every game I bought by a major publisher):
Way of the Samurai 4
Ni No Kuni
Borderlands 2
Dishonoured
Persona 4 Arena
Planetside 2 (free though)
Far Cry 3

Games you could have bought that also weren't COD GOW or Halo:
XCOM
Torchlight 2
Paper Mario Sticker Star
Assassin's Creed 3
Sleeping Dogs
Prototype 2

Now say what you want about the quality of some of these games. They certainly aren't Call of Halo Duty Gears.

Perfect example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ

How the hell is this art?

That is like 30 years old. It can hardly be called modern art anymore. Postmodernism, minimalism, and abstract art aren't really dominant these days.

Also, and trust me, I probably dislike "modern" art as much as you do, if not more. But who are you to decide what is art and what is not?

[Neonivek]

, the gameplay itself was clunky and unintuitive

Actually it did what classic games did that modern games do not. Try to expand on the sphere of gameplay. Adding complexity rather then blunt simplicity.

It is why I sort of hope everyday for a revival of some aspects of classical gaming. Yet it won't happen, not even in the indie sphere, simply because of one thing: It takes effort and more then that it takes vision.

Games took a while but not they are purely in the hands of the lowest common denominator. You don't need to think anymore. The goal of gaming is to minimise the amount of thinking you need to do.

[Psyckosama]

Dude it had been 10 years since the last Fallout game. It wasn't very likely that they were going to revive the franchise as it was anyway. And honestly, did you really enjoy the original Fallout gameplay that much? Because while the writing was good, the gameplay itself was clunky and unintuitive.

I enjoyed it enough to throw 100 dollars at Wasteland 2 in homes of getting something that wasn't another piece of First Person Garbage. 

And enough to throw 40 at project Eternity. And to Kickstart Dead State... and Forsaken Fortress... and several other games I can't even think of at the moment. Does that answer your question?

Way of the Samurai 4
Ni No Kuni
Borderlands 2
Dishonoured
Planetside 2 (free though)
Far Cry 3

Games you could have bought that also weren't COD GOW or Halo:
XCOM
Torchlight 2
Paper Mario Sticker Star
Assassin's Creed 3
Sleeping Dogs
Prototype 2

Now say what you want about the quality of some of these games. They certainly aren't Call of Halo Duty Gears.

Lets see... half of those are console games, which means I'll never play them... then you have the crappy sequels and/or FPS games... which pretty much out of that list leaves you with Sleeping Dogs and XCom... which are on the "to buy when the price drops" list.

That is like 30 years old. It can hardly be called modern art anymore. Postmodernism, minimalism, and abstract art aren't really dominate these days.

Also, and trust me, I probably dislike "modern" art as much as you do, if not more. Who are you to decide what is art and what is not?

Pissing in a jar or drawing a circle and putting a line through it are not art... or at least not high art.

My standard for art is that its thoughtful and evokes emotion, and is not something a chimpanzee could make while playing with finger paint.

[Shadowlord]

Oh, so you're a racist now? Chimpanzees aren't allowed to have art, is that it? Don't want them to have a culture and get uppity? Well, shame on you.

[Psyckosama]

Oh, so you're a racist now? Chimpanzees aren't allowed to have art, is that it? Don't want them to have a culture and get uppity? Well, shame on you.

Oh, they can make paintings all they want, but barring heavy genetic engineering or some kind of freak super-ape I wouldn't give them artistic grants, I wouldn't pay tens of thousands for their work, nor would I put them in the freckin' Louvre.

[alexandertnt]

Though it does perfectly fit the theme of this. The FPS casual idiots who like to make nude japanese schoolgirl mods for Oblivion had to be pandered to.

I liked FO3. Does that make me a "casual idiot". Diddn't like the game? Thats fine, doesn't mean the people who did are idiots  . The "nude japanese schoolgirl mods" part doesn't even make sense. Was that really a significant market factor in making an FPS?

Arguments like these are worth nothing.

It is why I sort of hope everyday for a revival of some aspects of classical gaming. Yet it won't happen, not even in the indie sphere, simply because of one thing: It takes effort and more then that it takes vision.

classical games are generally harder to produce than modern games for technical reasons. Back then you had to make your own engine in C with less money, less people, slower hardware etc. Now you can get high-end engines for free, developers can get higher budgets etc. To develop a classical game from a technical standpoint would be infinetely easier today than coding a "modern" game.

As for vision, well thats just an opinion as to wheather modern games have vision, or that classical games had vision that modern games lacked.

Overall, it's not going to be happening due to lack of demand. If the demand is there, it will probably eventually be done.

You don't need to think anymore.

Why? I have played modern games that require thought.

Dude it had been 10 years since the last Fallout game. It wasn't very likely that they were going to revive the franchise as it was anyway. And honestly, did you really enjoy the original Fallout gameplay that much? Because while the writing was good, the gameplay itself was clunky and unintuitive.

I enjoyed it enough to throw 100 dollars at Wasteland 2 in homes of getting something that wasn't another piece of First Person Garbage. 

And enough to throw 40 at project Eternity. And to Kickstart Dead State... and Forsaken Fortress... and several other games I can't even think of at the moment. Does that answer your question?

The question is probably best said "do people really enjoy the original fallout gameplay enough to buy another". I wouldn't, the gameplay is clunky and unintitive. Maby your in the minority and there is not enough demand (deal with it).

Pissing in a jar or drawing a circle and putting a line through it are not art... or at least not high art.

My standard for art is that its thoughtful and evokes emotion, and is not something a chimpanzee could make while playing with finger paint.

Maby that particular art does not invoke emotion for you - but does for other people...

Oh, they can make paintings all they want, but barring heavy genetic engineering or some kind of freak super-ape I wouldn't give them artistic grants, I wouldn't pay tens of thousands for their work, nor would I put them in the freckin' Louvre.

Why not put them in the Louvre, if alot of people are appreciating it as art?

[Neonivek]

classical games are generally harder to produce than modern games for technical reasons. Back then you had to make your own engine in C with less money, less people, slower hardware etc. Now you can get high-end engines for free, developers can get higher budgets etc. To develop a classical game from a technical standpoint would be infinetely easier today than coding a "modern" game.

As for vision, well thats just an opinion as to wheather modern games have vision, or that classical games had vision that modern games lacked.

Overall, it's not going to be happening due to lack of demand. If the demand is there, it will probably eventually be done

You are mixing up what I want. I could care less about the technical abilities and coding required. I am not talking about graphics, physics, or anything like that. I am talking about the sort of complexities you could get from a classical game, the hard edge gameplay, or just how games often felt like they had to do more.

Vision isn't something anyone lacks in modern day. It is a statement that "Even if they wanted to pull it off they would need to have a good idea of what they want. Something unlikely to happen"

Also exactly no one wants complex games. They want games that pretend they are complex but are simple at heart.

Why? I have played modern games that require thought.

Now are we going into niche titles? Is this Dark Souls (not a niche title)?

and after you bring up your example, can we bring up any sequel that shows the opposite trend?

I want a taste that gaming may expand into complexity and hard thinking games.

[Psyckosama]

I liked FO3. Does that make me a "casual idiot". Diddn't like the game? Thats fine, doesn't mean the people who did are idiots  . The "nude japanese schoolgirl mods" part doesn't even make sense. Was that really a significant market factor in making an FPS?

Arguments like these are worth nothing.

Then why reply to it.

And it wasn't a HORRIBLE game, just not a good one...

And as for the "nude japanese schoolgirl mods" part... Go to the Nexus.

Why? I have played modern games that require thought.

Exception, not the rule.

The question is probably best said "do people really enjoy the original fallout gameplay enough to buy another". I wouldn't, the gameplay is clunky and unintitive. Maby your in the minority and there is not enough demand (deal with it).

Yes. The problem is that companies these days are aiming for maximum market penetration with a minimum of risk, which pretty much means sticking to the formula and appealing to the lowest common denominator.

Maby that particular art does not invoke emotion for you - but does for other people...

Oh, it evokes emotion for me. Mostly contempt, some disgust, and a good deal of disappointment.

Why not put them in the Louvre, if alot of people are appreciating it as art?

Lets be honest, contemporary art tends to boil down to 4 categories of people, the circle jerking art snobs, the people who don't get it but pretend they do to look hip, the befuddled masses, and the people who question the validity of calling three buckets of paint thrown on a canvas high art.

[fqllve]

Lets see... half of those are console games, which means I'll never play them... then you have the crappy sequels and/or FPS games... which pretty much out of that list leaves you with Sleeping Dogs and XCom... which are on the "to buy when the price drops" list.

Like I said, say what you will about the quality of the games, they aren't Call of Duty clones. Just because they're on platforms you don't use or of genres you won't play doesn't change the fact that there are games being released that aren't mindless COD clones.

Pissing in a jar or drawing a circle and putting a line through it are not art... or at least not high art.

My standard for art is that its thoughtful and evokes emotion, and is not something a chimpanzee could make while playing with finger paint.

Obviously that Piss Christ photo evokes emotion in you, although maybe not emotions you normally associate with art. And who's to say how much thought is put into any given piece? I don't like postmodern art because I prefer art as a showcase of skill and artistry, which it isn't particularly. I don't like outsider art for the same reasons. But if you define art as evoking emotion, well people certainly claim such paintings resonate with them emotionally, and the artists similarly claim that the pieces were created with the intention of evoking emotion.

Anyway that is your definition of art, which others are by no means obligated to follow.

You are mixing up what I want. I could care less about the technical abilities and coding required. I am not talking about graphics, physics, or anything like that. I am talking about the sort of complexities you could get from a classical game, the hard edge gameplay, or just how games often felt like they had to do more.

I don't think the gameplay of Fallout was particularly deep. It was just obtuse. What complexities were there in it? What variables were there you had to juggle? It was really just yet another case of better stats + better equipment = victory. Don't get me wrong, I didn't really like Fallout 3, and preferred the original games, but that doesn't mean their gameplay was complex. It was just slow.

Lets be honest, contemporary art tends to boil down to 4 categories of people, the circle jerking art snobs, the people who don't get it but pretend they do to look hip, the befuddled masses, and the people who question the validity of calling three buckets of paint thrown on a canvas high art.

Your ideas of contemporary art are 30 to 40 years out of date. Contemporary movements are Classical Realism, Hyperrealism, Superflat, Environment art, and New Surrealism which are nothing like the art you are describing and are primarily negative reactions to it.