Print

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

[scriver]

Like I said, I font agree with the conclusion that games cannot be art. But I agree that the quality of games is shit shot when compared to film or literature. This goes beyond the "90% of everything is crap", even the best games have offered so far is still pretty bland art. The main advantage games has as art is interactivity, and I would maintain that it's a pretty huge advantage, but visually and narratively even games that try to be more than just games are lacking.

I think that is the crux of the issue, as well. Most games do not try to be art, they try to be games. Ebert at the end makes the argument that other games, such as chess or mahjong, are not art either. This echoes his previous sentiment of "art cannot be won". I don't agree that art necessarily must be "unwinnable" as a definite like he put it, but I do recognise that there is a big difference in what games aim to do. Just like chess doesn't concern itself with anything but the game of chess, the computer games I am currently playing, XCOM 2 and Crusader Kings 2, don't concern themselves with anything with anything but their own gameplay. These are great entertainment to me, but they aren't trying to be art entertainment. They're just games to play.

I want to compare this to, say, family photos or videos. Film can be art and photography, but that doesn't make everything that's filmed or photographed art. The purpose of family videos and photos isn't to make art, but to capture, and perhaps to share, memories. You could claim that they're art simply by being in the medium of film or photograph, but I would disagree. They don't have any purpose beyond what they are.

Of course, there's been a big upswing with games that want to be more, that try to be art. But at the core of it it's still rooted in the gameness. That's why we still call them games, why we still claim "games can be art!", why there is still so much derision against "games without any gameity"/"walking simulators". I think games as an art form will become more accepted as time goes on and the media becomes more prolific, but looking at the sortiment available today and in the past, I really can't blame anyone for thinking games aren't art.

[andrea]

Amusingly, Dwarf fortress meets that requirement, especially as it evolves.[...]

We should not forget that there was a dwarf fortress exhibit at the Museum Of Modern Art in New York. And they have an interest in a few other games as well.

[Harry Baldman]

Just like chess doesn't concern itself with anything but the game of chess, the computer games I am currently playing, XCOM 2 and Crusader Kings 2, don't concern themselves with anything with anything but their own gameplay. These are great entertainment to me, but they aren't trying to be art entertainment. They're just games to play.

This is highly incorrect, I would say. XCOM 2 goes to great lengths to provide necessary context to make the entertainment involved meaningful and impactful to the player. And Crusader Kings 2's entire appeal lies in its function as an alt history generator where its adherence to simulating history as well as it is able (and reject realism in favor of rarer fanciful scenarios for the sake of fun) also provides the necessary context for people to accept the stories it creates. They're just not the kind of storytelling you get from a novel, which they're not even supposed to be.

As for other forms of art being winnable, you can put on a play very badly and fuck it up, you can fail to pay attention to a film and you can space out on large swaths of a book you're reading and not remember any of it. Any art that tries to engage you can fail to do so, and any art that can be performed can be performed badly. The thing about games is that the player is not just the beholder but also the performer, which is one of the medium's strengths.

That said, somebody might want to spin off a thread. Game-related outrage is very good and all, but that doesn't strike me as Ameripol.

[scriver]

Just like chess doesn't concern itself with anything but the game of chess, the computer games I am currently playing, XCOM 2 and Crusader Kings 2, don't concern themselves with anything with anything but their own gameplay. These are great entertainment to me, but they aren't trying to be art entertainment. They're just games to play.

This is highly incorrect, I would say. XCOM 2 goes to great lengths to provide necessary context to make the entertainment involved meaningful and impactful to the player. And Crusader Kings 2's entire appeal lies in its function as an alt history generator where its adherence to simulating history as well as it is able (and reject realism in favor of rarer fanciful scenarios for the sake of fun) also provides the necessary context for people to accept the stories it creates. They're just not the kind of storytelling you get from a novel, which they're not even supposed to be.

How does that make what I said "highly incorrect", though?

As for other forms of art being winnable, you can put on a play very badly and fuck it up, you can fail to pay attention to a film and you can space out on large swaths of a book you're reading and not remember any of it. Any art that tries to engage you can fail to do so, and any art that can be performed can be performed badly. The thing about games is that the player is not just the beholder but also the performer, which is one of the medium's strengths.

Is this supposed to be an argument against my argument or an expansion upon it? Because you are agreeing with me.

[Harry Baldman]

How does that make what I said "highly incorrect", though?

They're not just games to play - what makes them worthwhile games to play, both XCOM 2 and CK2, are the artistic elements that make the gameplay seem like it matters, which is inherently necessary in a single player game. CK2 trades on generating plausible-enough alternate history to keep your attention and XCOM 2 is all about the story of your soldiers surviving and thriving against terrible odds.

Thus, saying they don't concern themselves with anything but their gameplay is highly incorrect and somewhat bizarre given the thought, work and design that's gone into the art of both games so that they can convey their respective stories.

[smjjames]

That said, somebody might want to spin off a thread. Game-related outrage is very good and all, but that doesn't strike me as Ameripol.

Would be a good idea in general, not because I don't like the subject (I agree that games can be art), but because the discussion flow can be kept better if it has it's own thread.

[Descan]

at any rate, the sjew reaction I've seen against the south park thing wasn't "hurr durr Games Are Fun And You Are Racist," it was basically amounting to "trey and matt parker are just edgelords who go all "I'm Offensive To Everyone" so they don't get brownie points for this."

Not saying whether I agree or disagree with that but come off it, not everyone who you disagree with has no valid reason to disagree, or are just raging idiots in awe of your intellectual ability to Be Above It All.

[Tawa]

sjew

Not sure if intentional

[Descan]

it is.

people rail against the "sjw" so much and blame them for so much that it's an irresistable comparison to how jews are vilified :V

[Karnewarrior]

I thought it was a /pol/ term because they think the SJWs are in league with the Jews? 

Because as we all know Jews are a monolithic entity that act in concert as one organism and never argue with each other at all.

[Loud Whispers]

It's about as /pol/ as pepe
so basically
whatevs you want it to be

[Karnewarrior]

It's about as /pol/ as pepe
so basically
whatevs you want it to be

So we're just waiting for the left to declare it a hate symbol so that everyone can drop it like it's hot, got it.

But more seriously, I never saw Pepe as a Alt-right thing. SJew though was more obviously /pol/ sourced though, and I'm hesitant to spread their memes around. This election cycle really showed how powerful memetics can be when engineered carefully (HER EMAILS).

[Dunamisdeos]

Just to be clear, people are starting to deliberately equate the common disdain for SJW to the chronic historical hate felt towards the entire Jewish ethnicity? Like, on purpose?

[Frumple]

Identify it as similar behavior, at least, sure. Shoe fits, and all that.

[scriver]

But it doesn't fit at all. The dislike of sjw doesn't even compare to the dislike of, say, socialists in the US.