Games as art - why do we even care?!?

[217not237]

I think anything someone works on and tries to make as good as possible is art. That's why I care. Games won't get anywhere if they all go the way of Six Days in Fellujah, considered idiotic and offensive because they are games. Silent Hill 2 and Shadow of the Collossus are often considered "art," but what about Mega Man 3? Portal? Hell, the company that made Superman 64 has stated that they WANTED to make it a good game, and the people in charge made them put crappy stuff in and release it sooner than they could complete it, so even that's art! Art isn't restricted to the meaningful story that Bioshock has, or anything like that. Does the Mona Lisa have an artistic story in it? No, of course not. But it's art because DaVinci worked hard to make it. In the same sense, Modern Warfare 3 is art, because Infinity Ward worked hard to make it. In the same sense, Rock Band is art because Harmonix worked hard to make it. Hell, even Ninjabread Man, E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, and other cheap pieces of shovelware are art. They didn't come out of nothing, people worked on it.

 

[KRAKENDIE]

Well it does, the books and films are still made. No one stepping in part way through development and said 'nope, not appropriate.'

They still get published etc too.

And A Serbian Film is readily available. Just like the Holocaust and ferox films.

There's a difference between people and the Oscars board. I'm more talking about general critical reception.

If it's not fun and doesn't have x amount of play hours, people say it's not worth it.

Yea the original Silent Hill series is probably one of the best examples of a well met game that had some real artistic merit to it. But the point I'm getting at is that we put games in a box and say if it doesn't fit all that criteria then it's not good.

2 good examples of that are Heavy Rain and Azuras Wrath.

I'm not going to lie and say they were strikingly original games or that they deserved more acclaim, well I think Heavy Rain did, but still. My point is that they both got accused of not really being games. As if that was some sort of damning final blow. Heavy Rain was accused of being an interactive cutscene and Azuras Wrath because some chapters had relatively small game times in them.

In otherwords they didn't tick enough of the 'fun' boxes because they weren't conventional games.

That's the kind of mindset I'm getting at.

I'd call a comic book a 20 page weekly and a graphic novel just that, a novel sized book that's told through the comics panelled format.

I know 20 page weeklies usually get re-published as anthologies. But personally I always preferred a story that was planned as a novel sized book from the beginning.

And from what I've seen in comics, important issues are usually either handled very ham-handedly or they're kind of glossed over towards the end. As if they really wanted to go somewhere with it but lost the momentum.

I'm not on about lore and continuity. I mean the archetypal 'X' is good and a superhero 'y' is bad and a supervillain.

I know a lot of comics really played with that, especially in the 90s. But that's how they're generally seen.

Superman good, Lex Luthor bad. Let's make a story out of that.

I'm not saying games make legitimate explorations of the human condition. What I'm saying is that games are still seen as toys by the vast majority. And that carries a certain stigma with it. Until it's accepted as a legitimate artform, it isn't going to have the same kind of protection that books and film receive.

That's a good point, I really don't know why comics don't get as panned as you'd have thought for their depictions of graphic violence and sexual assault. I think it's probably because the ones that specifically tackle that sort of theme are generally unknown to the vast public.

But here's where you misunderstand my argument. It's not that games can't be valid without recognition, it's that it's harder to make something truly valid without that recognition because of peoples reactions to it.

Artistic expression is protected by law. If games aren't accepted as an artform then they aren't protected by that law.

That's all I'm getting at.

Films can still be censored in the sense that theatres have control over what they show and that certification boards can refuse to certify something. But you can't stop someone from making a film. At the minute you can stop someone from making a game, because it doesn't have the same protection that film does.

And you can't stop people from criticising art. But legally, they're powerless to do anything about it. Regardless of how many signatures they get.

That's up to a Publisher though. What about POSTAL 2 and Leisure Suit Larry? Don't you think the Witcher 2 would have been scrapped mid-development for its nudity and sex scenes(or at least had them removed) if the fist is so universally iron in the gaming industry?

Not for everyone:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banned_films
Notice how not everyone of those countries is China or Burma, trying to stop insubordination. Also notice how some of those movies aren't even that graphic or violent.

It's a pretty obvious example but, JOURNEY. It's only about two hours. I've heard one person out of maybe 50 responses to it I've read say the game isn't worth it because of the short playtime. And aside from walking, you can only really perform two actions at any time. Jumping and singing. People raved about the game, but the point wasn't the jumping or the singing. Literally your only goal was to get to this sacred mountain across the desert.

I understand that. There are people saying games are just their entertainment and what have you. But those people aren't the voice of the industry. Most developers and critics and hardcore gamers alike are arguing right now that games are art. But not a one of those is saying the reason some games don't work is a lack of "fun", but a lack of engagement. Broken controls don't get your point across after the first few hours of absolute frustration, or a lack of controlling elements doesn't get your point across, unless you do it well. The point of a game is interactivity. When a game lacks that, then yes, it does get criticism, but you're basing your view of it entirely on that. What about people who loved Asura's Wrath and were moved by Heavy Rain(my roommate never shuts up about it and damns me because I haven't played it yet)? It's as if you're saying games being "legitimized" as an art form would mean the end of those criticisms, and that's just false. It's the criticisms that validate video games as art.

I can see that, I suppose. In one arch of X-Men, one of the female characters was in a destructive relationship with a drunk who physically abused her regularly and made her feel less of a person. This was reflective in every one of her interactions with the other X-Men, and it was never ignored or just sort of thrown in. It changed her character. Hell, there are characters in comic books who were made by their trials with abuse and rape.

You're only highlighting the most archetypal comic books that were started decades before comic books became a truly large artistic medium, so of course Superman is all black and white. But X-Men isn't, Batman isn't, The Darkness isn't, etc.

And books are still seen as boring by the vast majority. And film is DEFINITELY seen as entertainment for the vast majority. That is where the hole in your argument is. You claim the difference between games and film is that film is treated as a legitimate art form, and that games are not given that certification and therefor don't explore as many themes and issues, but it rings hollow. Because most films that are made simply do not explore too many poignant themes and issues either. The criticisms won't end if games are legitimized by the invisible universal art panel, and the banning won't end because it hasn't even ended with films.

It's the same way with film. Do you think the vast majority now about Ferox and pseudo-snuff? I'm sure there people that don't even know erotic novels really exist.

Like I said, books and music and film are not received by the majority of consumers as anything but products. Lots of game critics accept video games as an art form and argue that point. So what are you looking for in this 'legitimization'? Do you want film critics to recognize video games as legitimate? Because some film critics won't even recognize television as legitimate...

Again "protected by law" rings hollow. That list above shows it's entirely arbitrary.
And I agree to some extent, honestly. What most know of video games is either Angry Birds or Modern Warfare 2, so it's either a toy or incredibly violent. But what I'm saying is the way the general populace views these things usually doesn't have much weight outside of the loons that try to get things banned, because the general populace really only reads books, watches movies, and listens to music for the fun or entertainment value.

That's largely a Publisher-Developer relationship though. Games like POSTAL and lots of indies are still released or continued when based on what you say, they wouldn't be.

I think it's just a matter of time, really.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

Thirdly, my "opinion" here is commonly accepted social norm.

I see you chose the "continue to be rude and unfriendly to the community" option. Nice. As such, allow me to throw your comment back at you:

Hey, everyone, the social norm is now the objective rule. Remember the whole "it's okay to beat black guys" phase? Yeah, turns out that was fine--social norm and all that. Continue with the gay bashings too. Also, I'm pretty sure the scientists are wrong, the world is flat. I mean, we can't all be wrong, right?

Hilarious sarcasm aside, you seem to misunderstand the entire concept of the opinion and believe it to be something akin to a rough guess, whose merit can be judged by how many other people share it. You seem to view subjective thought as inherently subject to objective rule. Allow me to remind you: opinions are no more or less right or wrong and their support in numbers changes nothing at all of their worth or value.

But hey, if you wanna go ahead and treat some opinions as right and others as wrong and pretend your view point changes their relevancy in any way, go ahead. But be prepared for everyone you come across to do the same.

It's an unfriendly world when you get up on your highchair.

EDIT: I love how you quote "opinion" in such a way as to suggest it is true.

Irony.

 

[axlryder]

Thirdly, my "opinion" here is commonly accepted social norm.

I see you chose the "continue to be rude and unfriendly to the community" option. Nice. As such, allow me to throw your comment back at you:

Hey, everyone, the social norm is now the objective rule. Remember the whole "it's okay to beat black guys" phase? Yeah, turns out that was fine--social norm and all that. Continue with the gay bashings too. Also, I'm pretty sure the scientists are wrong, the world is flat. I mean, we can't all be wrong, right?

Hilarious sarcasm aside, you seem to misunderstand the entire concept of the opinion and believe it to be something akin to a rough guess, whose merit can be judged by how many other people share it. You seem to view subjective thought as inherently subject to objective rule. Allow me to remind you: opinions are no more or less right or wrong and their support in numbers changes nothing at all of their worth or value.

But hey, if you wanna go ahead and treat some opinions as right and others as wrong and pretend your view point changes their relevancy in any way, go ahead. But be prepared for everyone you come across to do the same.

It's an unfriendly world when you get up on your highchair.

EDIT: I love how you quote "opinion" in such a way as to suggest it is true.

Irony.

Oh cute, you failed to actually take into account the logic connected to that statement, and opted to just point out the "social norm" aspect of it. That's not even taking into account that you failed to rebut the 3 other points I made, instead likely deciding to ignore them because they point out exactly how ridiculous your total response was. I would expect no less from someone who engages in partial quotes and fails to actually say anything useful. Oh, but look how proud you are of pointing out only one one little "flaw" in my statement rooted in poor wording. It's almost quaint. Sadly for you, when I said social norm, I meant in the context of social strictures that exist for the ease of interpersonal communication and for the promotion of peace. Things like not randomly yelling at strangers, unnecessarily instigating verbal conflict or speaking in a malicious manner. These social norms don't exist merely due to mindless common consensus, but because they have proven to be beneficial throughout the evolution of society. They go beyond mere subjective opinion. So it is also true that being needlessly rude has proven to have negative social and emotional ramifications with no practically no benefit. It is illogical and pointelessly damaging behavior. That is what I was referring to. So good for you, you've forced me to expound on a tiny aspect my statement. What a scathing retort. I guess people like you think responding to even a fraction of a persons total response can pass as a solid rebuttal if you slather it with enough condescension. Good to know your feeble input is exactly as useless as I initially expected it to be.

 

[Loner Jo Jo]

Well, I think from a legal perspective, at least in the US, if something is regarded as "art" then it is granted protection under the first amendment. If it's not art, the government can censor it all it wants. Only way that games can be censored now are if they violate obscenity laws.

 

[viranimus]

Because if it is not art, then it makes it a product. And as soon as this is viewed as a product instead of an artform then it will be treated as a product by those who make it. When that happens you will see all the life, the creativity and enjoyment sucked out of it and replaced with static bland lifeless carbon copies and all the joy derived from their play will long since been gone and should that ever happen, gaming will in effect be dead.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

Oh cute, you failed to actually take into account the logic connected to that statement, and opted to just point out the "social norm" aspect of it. That's not even taking into account that you failed to rebut the 3 other points I made, instead deciding to ignore them because they point out exactly how ridiculous your total response was. I would expect no less from someone who engages in partial quotes and fails to actually say anything useful. Oh, but look how proud you are of pointing out one little "flaw" in my argument rooted in poor wording. It's almost quaint. Sadly for you, when I said social norm, I meant in context to social strictures that exist for the ease of interpersonal communication and for the promotion of peace. Things like not randomly yelling at strangers, unnecessarily instigating verbal conflict or speaking in a malicious manner. These social norms don't exist merely due to mindless common consensus, but because they have been proven to be beneficial. They go beyond mere subjective opinion. So it is also true that being rude has proven to have negative social and emotional ramifications with no benefit. It is illogical and needlessly damaging behavior. That is what I was referring to. So good for you, you've forced me to expound on a tiny aspect my statement. What a scathing retort. I guess people like you think responding to even a fraction of a persons total response can pass as a solid rebuttal if you slather it with enough condescension. Good to know your feeble input is exactly as useless as I initially expected it to be.

Awesome! The "I think I'm better than you and will express this via condescension and using the word 'cute' to describe your argument, thus reducing it to the level of childishness in my eyes and disabling your argument" attempt. How terribly cliche, lol.

They are super rare here. Normally this place is full of nice people who intelligently express their opinion without ranting in a paragraph long ego stroke.. Fascinating to see one up close.

 

[axlryder]

Oh cute, you failed to actually take into account the logic connected to that statement, and opted to just point out the "social norm" aspect of it. That's not even taking into account that you failed to rebut the 3 other points I made, instead deciding to ignore them because they point out exactly how ridiculous your total response was. I would expect no less from someone who engages in partial quotes and fails to actually say anything useful. Oh, but look how proud you are of pointing out one little "flaw" in my argument rooted in poor wording. It's almost quaint. Sadly for you, when I said social norm, I meant in context to social strictures that exist for the ease of interpersonal communication and for the promotion of peace. Things like not randomly yelling at strangers, unnecessarily instigating verbal conflict or speaking in a malicious manner. These social norms don't exist merely due to mindless common consensus, but because they have been proven to be beneficial. They go beyond mere subjective opinion. So it is also true that being rude has proven to have negative social and emotional ramifications with no benefit. It is illogical and needlessly damaging behavior. That is what I was referring to. So good for you, you've forced me to expound on a tiny aspect my statement. What a scathing retort. I guess people like you think responding to even a fraction of a persons total response can pass as a solid rebuttal if you slather it with enough condescension. Good to know your feeble input is exactly as useless as I initially expected it to be.

Awesome! The "I think I'm better than you and will express this via condescension and using the word 'cute' to describe your argument, thus reducing it to the level of childishness in my eyes and disabling your argument" attempt. How terribly cliche, lol.

They are super rare here. Normally this place is full of nice people who intelligently express their opinion without ranting in a paragraph long ego stroke.. Fascinating to see one up close.

Oh look, the "I'm going to point out an aspect of your argument that I'm perceiving as attempting to reduce my own argument's credibility through condescension that I feel somehow negates the validity of your statement without actually taking into account the logic of your statement and disregarding my own mutually condescending behavior" approach. I don't know if that's cliche, but it's certainly dumb.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

Oh look, the "I'm going to point out an aspect of your argument that I'm perceiving as attempting to reduce my own argument's credibility through condescension that I feel somehow negates the validity of your statement without actually taking into account the logic of your statement and disregarding my own mutually condescending behavior" approach. I don't know if that's cliche, but it's certainly dumb.

"Don't be condescending, you idiot."

The irony... Too... much... irony...

 

[axlryder]

Oh look, the "I'm going to point out an aspect of your argument that I'm perceiving as attempting to reduce my own argument's credibility through condescension that I feel somehow negates the validity of your statement without actually taking into account the logic of your statement and disregarding my own mutually condescending behavior" approach. I don't know if that's cliche, but it's certainly dumb.

"Don't be condescending, you idiot."

The irony... Too... much... irony...

Given the mental acuity you've displayed so far, I'm not shocked at your failure to realize that I implied your condescension itself was not the problem, but actually that your total reliance on pointing it out as rebuttal as opposed to making a legitimate logical response to my own logical reasoning about the actual topic at hand, as well as failing to realize the inherent hypocrisy in the intentions behind your previous statement, was the issue. You see, I never tried to simply act as though pointing out your condescension was a sufficient rebuttal while totally disregarding that I'm utilizing a similarly condescending tone. The same, sadly, can't be said of you. I wish I didn't have to spell this out, but I'm worried you wouldn't catch on too well otherwise :/

Let's also not forget all the logic and point dodging you've engaged in just to have the conversation devolve to this point. Oh you.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

Oh look, the "I'm going to point out an aspect of your argument that I'm perceiving as attempting to reduce my own argument's credibility through condescension that I feel somehow negates the validity of your statement without actually taking into account the logic of your statement and disregarding my own mutually condescending behavior" approach. I don't know if that's cliche, but it's certainly dumb.

"Don't be condescending, you idiot."

The irony... Too... much... irony...

Given the mental acuity you've displayed so far, I'm not shocked at your failure to realize that I implied your condescension itself was not the problem, but actually that your total reliance on pointing it out as rebuttal as opposed to making a legitimate logical response to my own logical reasoning about the actual topic at hand, as well as failing to realize the inherent hypocrisy in the intentions behind your previous statement, was the issue. You see, I never tried to simply act as though pointing out your condescension was a sufficient rebuttal while totally disregarding that I'm utilizing a similarly condescending tone. The same, sadly, can't be said of you. I wish I didn't have to spell this out, but I'm worried you wouldn't catch on too well otherwise :/

Let's also not forget all the logic and point dodging you've engaged in just to have the conversation devolve to this point. Oh you.

You won't make many friends in life with your attitude, hun. Hop on down from your pedestal and stop the laughable attempts at cynicism. You're trying way too hard to seem aloof and witty. When you decide to behave like a decent person, we can chat.

Or continue to rant in paragraph long expositions and impress.... yourself, I guess.

 

[AD-Stu]

Because if it is not art, then it makes it a product. And as soon as this is viewed as a product instead of an artform then it will be treated as a product by those who make it. When that happens you will see all the life, the creativity and enjoyment sucked out of it and replaced with static bland lifeless carbon copies and all the joy derived from their play will long since been gone and should that ever happen, gaming will in effect be dead.

Isn't it interesting though that games these days are probably more commoditised than they've ever been before (well... maybe with the exception of classic arcade machines) - DLC is ever-increasing, publishers are up in arms over second-hand sales, the big franchises are on annual release cycles, there's MMOs and microtransactions...

Ten years ago games were still products, still commodities, but they weren't being exploited for every last cent they way they are now. And ten years ago, "games as art" was barely an issue. Coincidence? Probably not.

I'm wondering: on some level or other, are people choosing to believe that having games classified/recognised as art will save us from all the big evil corporate things that are happening in gaming these days?

 

[axlryder]

Oh look, the "I'm going to point out an aspect of your argument that I'm perceiving as attempting to reduce my own argument's credibility through condescension that I feel somehow negates the validity of your statement without actually taking into account the logic of your statement and disregarding my own mutually condescending behavior" approach. I don't know if that's cliche, but it's certainly dumb.

"Don't be condescending, you idiot."

The irony... Too... much... irony...

Given the mental acuity you've displayed so far, I'm not shocked at your failure to realize that I implied your condescension itself was not the problem, but actually that your total reliance on pointing it out as rebuttal as opposed to making a legitimate logical response to my own logical reasoning about the actual topic at hand, as well as failing to realize the inherent hypocrisy in the intentions behind your previous statement, was the issue. You see, I never tried to simply act as though pointing out your condescension was a sufficient rebuttal while totally disregarding that I'm utilizing a similarly condescending tone. The same, sadly, can't be said of you. I wish I didn't have to spell this out, but I'm worried you wouldn't catch on too well otherwise :/

Let's also not forget all the logic and point dodging you've engaged in just to have the conversation devolve to this point. Oh you.

You won't make many friends in life with your attitude, hun. Hop on down from your pedestal and stop the laughable attempts at cynicism. You're trying way too hard to seem aloof and witty. When you decide to behave like a decent person, we can chat.

Or continue to rant in paragraph long expositions and impress.... yourself, I guess.

BAHAHAH, oh that's funny. COMPLETELY changing the subject once you realize exactly how stupid your previous comment was. Made all the more pathetic by you espousing faux-wisdom to try and cover up yet another blunder. Not only that, but you do all of this directly in the face of me pointing out your blatant point dodging. Funniest part is how the best you can do is whine about how my paragraph responses are too long for you. That is one of the DUMBEST things I've ever heard. I'd love to see you in a real debate; you'd probably be laughed out. I'm sure if you could have it your way we'd all respond in minimalistic grunts, half quoting one another and going on tangents instead of actually using reasoning and discussing the topic that was brought up. News flash: just bitching about someone writing a WHOLE paragraph doesn't invalidate the logic embedded within said paragraph or justify your own evasion of said logic. It just makes you look like someone who isn't smart enough to debate, humble enough to admit their own mistake or mature enough to walk away once they've lost.

Also, I'm sorry, but you seem to be under the sadly misinformed impression (a running theme with you) that me being uncouth with a condescending and intrusive individual reflects my normal behavior. I know it's probably hard for you to understand, but some of us actually *gasp* act differently towards different people. I generally don't try very hard to make friends with rude, mentally underwhelming people who butt into conversations and then can't even scrape an argument together after changing the subject. Also, disregarding the further hypocrisy embedded in your statement (given your own aborted attempt at wit and previous insults), I'm not trying very hard at this conversation. Calling you on your bullshit pretty easy.

PS: You haven't acted like a "decent person" since we've started this conversation.

 

[Marcus Kehoe]

Maybe at one point game's where art where it was the same people's vision being made through the entire game, but now when game's main writer's and artist's are getting thrown around and replaced at whim, it is much less art now.

 

[KRAKENDIE]

When is that ever what I said?

What I'm saying is that without the recognised status you can't take it for granted. Whether you believe it's important or not doesn't matter. That doesn't mean I think the gaming industry is run by North Korea.


Oh now come on, I clearly wasn't talking universally. Most of those countries have far more to worry about in terms of freedom than whether or not A Clockwork Orange was banned.

Journey has hit it off with the crowd that are interested in proving that games are an artform. If I went to any of my mates that just play AAA titles and said are they planning on getting 'journey' they'd ask me 'where to?'

I personally wouldn't say that journey is a good example of a game that pushed the boundaries into art anyway. The thing that everyone is finding so moving is the lack of communication. Aside from that it's just a slick platformer with a nifty art art style and an emphasis on taking a journey.

I'd personally say Silent Hill which you mentioned earlier is a much better example of a game with artistic merit.

That's not what I'm saying at all. My point about them being recognised is that they're covered from a legal standpoint. Nothing more. And obviously some people liked them, I'm one of them, I'm just pointing out how how hypocritical we are as a consumer base when when we're moaning about the lack of creativity in the industry whilst simultaneously ignoring games that are trying to innovate.

Yea, undoubtedly. To my recollection Speedy lost his wife, got hooked on heroine and lost his arm all in one very dark story arch.

But usually, and I suspect mostly because of the seemingly consequence free environment that these heroes live in, big potentially game changing revelations are just forgotten about a few weeks down the line when the status quo is returned.

I'm highlighting it because that's how most people still see it.

And the Darkness and Spawn, along with Hellboy are some of my favourite comics. I'd say they're certainly geared more towards an adult/adolescent fanbase than the average Marvel or DC title.

Also Hellboy (my favourite out of the 3) has been planned out (mostly) since the beginning. And is still written by Mignola. So it hasn't had to deal with retcons and writer changes that fuck up the average super hero's continuity.

But there are many more examples of well respected masterpieces in film and book, that are true explorations of the human condition. To argue that a medium as young as gaming is anywhere near to catching up with films or especially books, well it's downright madness.

And I'm not saying that recognition will be a magic pill. But it adds gravitas that we're currently lacking.

Stuff like that will always be niche.

Like I said, it's all legal. That's my whole stake in the matter. The rest will just happen naturally with time.

You obviously can't control other countries laws, but getting it recognised in one country is atleast a start.

I'm not arguing that the industry is heavily censored, just that without legal protection there's the possibility. With enough public outcry. 6 days is a perfect example of that.

Totally agree. But I think getting it recognised is a piece of the puzzle that needs to be achieved at some point.

That was the implication, wasn't it? Without recognition the gaming industry is liable to all sorts of bans and development. As if there's a tidal wave of it waiting for its universal rejection.

But the gaming industry is international, isn't it? But yes, about half of those bans are more about crushing dissent and speaking out than actual content.

I have two roommates. One only plays gaudy spectacle JRPGs and FPS's, and the other only plays Wii games and the Guild Wars MMO. Both were mesmerized. I know most people have never heard of Journey or would immediately think of the band, but I think a lot of people after actually playing it, even COD or GOW diehards, could get their head into it. But maybe I give them too much credit.

Journey was less about a lack of communication and more about alternative communication, but I can see that.
Or Shadow of the Colossus. Even though that was simple in its own right.

I agree with you that we can't be fickle and hypocritical about this, but I don't know if I can sit down and accept that people moaning about a lack of creativity and people ignoring games that innovate are the same party within the gaming community.

I can't agree that the status quo is ever returned so soon, or that because things become relatively 'normal' after the darker, deeper subplots in comic books, it doesn't count. It does it make it any less painful or inspiring to watch.
The inherently continuous nature of most comic books does eventually hurt them when writers have to change or material runs dry, that's true.

That's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing gaming's potential going into the future is possibly more than that of film's, unless a massive shift happens in the film industry, because most of the best films and greatest staples of the medium or over 2 or 3 decades old. I could say gaming is just growing up very fast.

There's no disagreeing with the fact that legal backing would help, but I just don't buy that there's some cloud of rejection and contempt looming over the industry. I know the possibility is always there, but it would fail. In fact, if there were a large battle of games being recognized as art, I'm sure it would happen during a legal dispute over video game censorship.

 

[KRAKENDIE]

The implication is that recognition gives legal coverage. That's pretty much a self explanatory rationale right there.

Of course it is, but you can't tell another government how to operate. Getting recognition in even a few countries is all that you need really. And the majority of the countries that still ban films have far more pressing concerns for their freedom than not being able to see the new Rambo.

It's not that they wouldn't enjoy it. It's that it's a relatively unknown game. The reason you hear about it so much is because of the circles you obviously find yourself in.

And if someone doesn't like something it doesn't [dis]credit them. It's just their personal taste.

What gives that game it's mesmer is that there is no vocal communication. It's no secret that expression through movement and music fiddles with our heart strings.

Ballets been surviving on that notion for the best part of a millennium.

When you get down to the meat and potatoes of that game, it's pretty shallow. That's not to say it's a bad game or that I dislike it. But the pinnacle of gaming as art it is not.

You'd be surprised.

If the amount of people that loved to ***** and moan about another 'cod clone' in these forums alone went out and bought games that were trying to do something new, then they'd all be minor successes.

We as a community (I hate that expression) are like the industries abusive spouse.

We constantly tell them one thing with our mouths and an entirely different thing with our wallets. The poor fuckers don't know if we're coming or going.

They pretty much always are though (assuming we're talking about mainline DC and Marvel). The majority of these subplots as you put them are forgotten about mere months later. Sure you get the few that stick. But in universes where superheroes have more deaths and resurrections than a copy of Jesus Christ superstar stuck on repeat. Well it makes other 'grimdark' storylines like drug addiction and sexual assault seem pretty pointless in the long run.

With retcons and writer changes. There's never really any meaningful development within the mainline DC and Marvel universes.

Id argue with that, there are plenty of truly great films that have come out within the last 10 years alone.

I don't mean great blockbusters, I mean great films fullstop. Sure enough most are taken from books, but that doesn't de-validate their worth as movies. And games are growing up quickly all things considered. But they've still got a while to go yet. And there's no saying that they'll ever exceed any other form of art. Because that is all entirely subjective.

They certainly will be a much larger part of popular culture in the coming decades though.

You're possibly right, a legal battle might end up making the point once and for all. But that doesn't change my original point. Which was that recognition would be a good thing.

I just don't see it as an immediate concern as you do. Which I suppose is fitting when considering those countries that still ban movies.

When I say "give them too much credit" I meant more along the lines of a person writing Journey off without actually trying to experience it for what it is.

Of course not. I'm not saying it's changed the medium. But what it has done is unite a few people on gameplay and tone and given us an experience that wasn't about the best graphics or safe publisher profits or achievements or being 'EPIC'. That's a step in the right direction. Other games have made larger steps, sure, but how long do those franchises keep the momentum?

I'll admit I've seen one mouth say two things(especially my roommate complaining about a lack of depth and communication and then constantly recommending Halo Reach), but I think the most vocal are the most vocal about everything, and fall to hyperbole and emotion when they speak, and lethargy when they act.
I don't like "We as a community" either. Eugh.
It's funny you say that about not knowing whether we're coming or going, because although I've played dozens and dozens of video games. I'd say I actually own about two dozen. If it's easier for a camel to fit through a needle hole than a rich man to get into heaven, you can only imagine how difficult it is for EA or Capcom to get into my wallet.

It's a lot of fear of change or loss of profit at work there in DC and Marvel, yes. But I guess I don't quite pay as much attention to DC or Marvel staples quite as much, so when you consider the consequences within those endlessly unchanging veins then yeah, it does because insubstantial.

Well of course there have been. But most moviegoers aren't watching those movies. At least, those movies aren't what they're going to theaters and buying DVDs for.
But video games have a chance to do what movies do and thensome, that's all I mean. If you replace the gameplay with action scenes in between the cutscenes, MGS4 is like one excruciatingly long and often cheesy movie. That isn't to say I would ever want video games to just be movies with gameplay, though. Certainly not.

I'd like to be at the table then.

 

[JoesshittyOs]

Edit: Whoops, wrong thread. Disregard this post.