Seriously? You can almost win an award for THIS?!
- Thread starter Azaraxzealot
- Start date
Recommended Videos
so.... they're innovating by refusing to move to the third dimension or severly limiting what they do in it? c'mon, Grand Theft Auto was more innovative than any indie game i've ever heard of (besides Minecraft).EcoEclipse said:
because if we don't HAVE a definition of what "fun" generally means, then people will just interpret it in fuck-all ways and we end up having the same situations as sects of religion arguing which is the "right" way to do it.Axolotl said:
Well the word 'game' kinda sells it short, doesn't it. It's interactive art. Except that our word for any digital, interactive medium is still 'game', whether there's any challenge, rules or goals (as, you know, is kinda the whole point of a 'game') or not.
The Graveyard is an innovative piece of art.
I don't think it even qualifies as a game.
The Graveyard is an innovative piece of art.
I don't think it even qualifies as a game.
Video games can be Art, but the sheer fact that it requires user input means that you have to express things in a certain way, most importantly you need motivation. Without motivation to engage the piece and continue through it, you are chosing the wrong medium for expressing your idea, much in the same way you wouldn't use a still picture as a television show.
EDIT:
EDIT:
I.E. Pretentious. If you need a degree to understand something that's sole purpose is TO CONVEY A MESSAGE then you're doing it wrong.thethingthatlurks said:Let's try a comparison between artsy indie games and modern art:
What about this? Do you understand this work? I'll be blunt, it wasn't drawn by a famous artist, but used by one of my favorite authors as a metaphor. Your inability to understand what games like The Graveyard represent is perfectly mirrored in this portion of the story. Don't try to dismiss something you do not understand. It not only makes you look like an idiot, it will also invite people to smack some metaphorical sense into you.
Anyway, Vonnegut to the rescue:
It is like the word "comic" or "novel". The terms imply that a comic should be funny, and a novel should be a whimsical, little thing. Time has marched on and comics and books have expanded in their roles. I don't see how a video game should be any different. Note that many of these mediums have to be renamed to distance themselves from their stereotypes: a comic becomes a "graphic novel" and a novel becomes "literary fiction". I hate these silly terms. Comic book writers should just say "fuck the stereotype" and proudly call them comics. I don't want to see videogames becoming an "interactive story teller". They've always been that.Axolotl said:
Set definitions are worthless, we have set definitions for how capital letters should be used yet you yourself show how easily people ignore them. Secondly you haven't answered the question, even if we need a set definition of what a game is why have one that's as limiting as one that says it must be fun?Azaraxzealot said:
How is it innovative?Spark Ignition said:
Indeed, yet only the one that the painter had in mind is valid. That is the purpose of this type of art, to instill wonder and curiosity in the viewer. You may judge its quality, and its worth as whatever you perceive it to be, but dismissing something because one does not understand it not only makes one an idiot, it is also indicative of one's underdeveloped mental state.TheGroovyMule said:
You could smash a bunch of clay together, and it would be art if you had any purpose behind doing so. It is irrelevant what others perceive it to be, it is your work. It is art, to say otherwise is stupid.
The same kind of people that enjoyed The Path, Knytt, Amnesia, or (maybe) Zeno Clash.I'm tentative to say Zeno Clash still because it was kind of action heavy and the story was utter garbage, but I still enjoyed it for what it set off in me.MrGameluvr92 said:
Anyway, none of them are particularly heavy on what most people would traditionally see as the general mechanics of a game, but they're deep experiences for anyone willing to sit down and try it.
Hell, Heavy Rain is the triple A equivalent of an indie "interactive experience". I don't always need to play something action heavy to enjoy gaming. I spent three hours playing Knytt to the end and I loved every second of it. The point isn't to be a good game, but to be a deep experience that evokes as powerful emotions as possible in the player.
I saw the whole thing on youtube, saved myself the money. It would be useful as an example that videogames can be art.
[sub]Though with this in particular, the question becomes "Are games like this any fun to play?"[/sub]
[sub]Though with this in particular, the question becomes "Are games like this any fun to play?"[/sub]
Personally I think there's room for both experimental developers such as Tale of Tales, as well as the AAA industry. There seems to be a lot of moaning about pretensions and artistic snobbery around, but honestly, does any medium evolve unless there's some level of pretension involved?
What I admire about a creative team such as Tale of Tales is their seemingly endless desire to disregard the unspoken rules of the interactive medium as we know it today.
The Endless Forest [http://www.tale-of-tales.com/TheEndlessForest/], available free of charge, is probably the most original multiplayer experience I've had as of yet in its utter dismissal of established norms of online interaction.
However, I'll readily agree that this policy of theirs occasionally renders their work a bit too willfully obscure (the intentionally incomprehensible control scheme of "Fatale" for example), but I'd much rather spend my time being exposed to an interesting, new and unfamiliar approach; albeit genuinely confusing, than simply submit to yet another run-of-the-mill, predictable exercise in box-office lucre à la Epic Games.
That's not snobbery speaking, simply personal preference.
What I admire about a creative team such as Tale of Tales is their seemingly endless desire to disregard the unspoken rules of the interactive medium as we know it today.
The Endless Forest [http://www.tale-of-tales.com/TheEndlessForest/], available free of charge, is probably the most original multiplayer experience I've had as of yet in its utter dismissal of established norms of online interaction.
However, I'll readily agree that this policy of theirs occasionally renders their work a bit too willfully obscure (the intentionally incomprehensible control scheme of "Fatale" for example), but I'd much rather spend my time being exposed to an interesting, new and unfamiliar approach; albeit genuinely confusing, than simply submit to yet another run-of-the-mill, predictable exercise in box-office lucre à la Epic Games.
That's not snobbery speaking, simply personal preference.
Without wanting to sound like a pretentious dick (yeah, I'll sound like one anyway) - I think anything that someone creates is a piece of art and eligible for an award. Look at some art that has ended up in galleries - from starved dogs to unmade beds.
Sure, it might suck as a game, although I did like the idea, but when your head is up your arse and you're off your fucking head on art, then the most random thing can seem genius.
Just live with it. It happened. Do you even know what it was up against in it's category? Maybe it was the shining light.
Sure, it might suck as a game, although I did like the idea, but when your head is up your arse and you're off your fucking head on art, then the most random thing can seem genius.
Just live with it. It happened. Do you even know what it was up against in it's category? Maybe it was the shining light.
It should be fun because that is part of what makes a game. Games have always, and should always, strive to cause a fun and enriching experience. It's what makes Super Mario and Zelda classics while games like "Chalked" and "Try not to Fart" fall into obscurity. Sure, you can make your game very art-heavy and even memorable, but if people aren't having fun in the first ten seconds of gameplay, you can say goodbye to most of the audience. Games, by definition, are fun. If a "game" is not fun, then it is not game, it is an interactive experience (like a 3D tour of a house). Likewise, "The Graveyard" should not be considered a game because it is not fun. You move a hobbling old lady to a bench and she sits. Seriously, that is not a game. You ask any other game critic, gamer, or just ANYONE out there and they will declare that games SHOULD be fun, otherwise they fail as games.Axolotl said:
Others interpretations of a piece of art are irrelevant? So, what are art galleries for? Why doesn't every artist simply squirrel away each piece and never let it see the light of day? Others interpretations and thoughts are valid, and hell, some famous pieces today are still hotly debated. I found the 'piece' as you might put it to give very little in the way of emotional response, and far as I can tell, there is no point to progress, nothing compelling.thethingthatlurks said:
I think Kamehapa put into words best, wrong medium. Games are an interactive medium and just like you need some sort of motivation to keep listening to that song, or keep inspecting a painting, in games, you need a reason to INTERACT, even if it's just moving. The Graveyard didn't have that for me, and I've already posted my overall thoughts on it's quality.
Holy shit I loved Dear Esther! I think Korsakovia was better though, in terms of emotional response. Was quite a different response though, sheer existential terror versus tearful sadness.TheGroovyMule said:
But I find it odd that you do not like The Path, then. What makes The Path great is not the music, or the effects, or the artwork it sometimes uses, etc. What makes The Path great is that it gives you one rule: Stay on the path. And it must be broken. If you reach grandmothers house safely, then you have failed. The game actually tells you you have failed if you follow its rule.
Instead the goal is to stray from the path, break the rules, face danger, face the wolf and lose... And for all girls the dangers are something else. Wolves, rapists, murderers, bad friends, etc.
I for one think it's a wonderful little dark allegory for life itself.
see, the endless forest is something i can enjoy. Free-Roaming is what i enjoy in games, and this strips it down to its barest elements, i want to see more of THIS coming from Indie Developers. trust me, if even i can make this on my own with a bit of time on Unity 3d, i'm pretty sure other indie developers can too.LiquidGrape said:
all i want, really, is a free-roaming single-player experience similar to prototype with plenty of Parkour and superpowers, but set in new and interesting locations.
like why isn't there someone just making a game where you free roam and parkour your way around various cities and then allow the players to download expansions or mods that allow for more locales? even give the players the tools to MAKE their own locales
So games should be fun because games are things that are fun? That's just Circular reasoning.Azaraxzealot said:
No that's because Super Mario and Zelda were big budget franchisespawning killer apps that have been heavily integrated into Nintendo's image for over 20 years while Amnesia and Limbo are small budget indie games.
And why is that relevant in any way?
But why? Why should we be limited by such a small minded definition? If a definition is limiting a medium then then the fault lies with the definition.
No. It is a game, a bad one, but still a game.
Go ask Chris Crawford.
