Sleep is Death. I've had more fun with that game then most AAA games. Not to mention Amnesia: The Dark Descent.
What others think is irrelevant as far as true meaning is concerned. You read books to try to understand what the author had in mind, but only they know what it really was. In a good book (or any piece of art), this will come across smoothly.TheGroovyMule 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: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.
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.
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.
I did the message behind 'The Path', basically similar, though I thought it was more particularly an analogy of the teenage years, but I see it could be wider. Though, things such as the music might not be important to the message, I still have to listen to it. And The Path had some of the most god awful screechy music I've ever heard. I think it's the medium, these guys almost seem to be wanting to make paintings, or movies as opposed to games. Artistic games are possible when they are designed for the medium, not trying to wrangle what is considered art in from other mediums.Ekonk said:Clipped
Well... of course I judged it as a game! I wouldn't look at a painting and judge it as a film, or listen to a piece of music and judge it as a sculpture. That'd be absurd. It needs to work within it's medium, see above comments!thethingthatlurks said:Here's the huge mistake you made: you judged it as a game, not as art. As a game, it is seriously flawed and uninteresting. As a work of art, not so much.
I've got some more straws for you to clutch at, if you'd like.smv1172 said:Oh wow...I hear crickets. For years I've just heard a bunch of people clamoring that games should be considered art... a game was made purely as artistic expression and now, beautiful silence. You want games as art, this is it. If you don't believe me go walk through an art museum, half of it is some largely BS and half realized concept with a lengthy description on the artistic vision of the artist.
You all have been monkey pawed!
Isn't a game an experience that you interact with? I get what they're trying to do but in my opinion it seems like they sort of have an inflated opinion of themselves.LawlessSquirrel said:EDIT: For clarity, the idea of The Graveyard is to be experimental. It's meant to be an interactive experience, rather than a game.
Minecraft is not a game it is a beta release. Not saying it is not good just not a full game yet.Leviathan_ said:How have you not heard of Minecraft?
I'll tell you, an increadibly expensive flop.Azaraxzealot said:that's very true, but i think we should combine the two, have AAA-polish applied to indie artistic direction. imagine what could come of that?Creepybard said:No one is saying that games like that can't be art. They are simply saying that even though you don't like indie games, they can, and in most cases are, more artistic than most AAA games on the market today.Azaraxzealot said:i guess so. ive been pretty spoiled by action games for so long that if more than 10 seconds in a game doesnt go by without something fun and awesome going on then i get boredGralian said:snipAzaraxzealot said:i have yet to play a GOOD 3d indie game, or at least one that i would indeed enjoy for more than 2 minutes before i got bored and went back to Red Dead Redemption or Saints Row 2.
probably why i would pick Prototype or Crackdown over GTA 4 or Limbo. And why can't violence be art? why can't making mass slaughter and wanton destruction fun be considered artistic?
its like Yahtzee once said in his Painkiller review about how murdering dudes CAN be an art form.
You don't need the best graphics to tell a great story. Chill out. 3D isn't innovative--it's just an aesthetic. Every genre can be made in 2D and 3D, there's no difference besides how it looks.Azaraxzealot said: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:Indie games are ALL ABOUT innovation. Usually in the way it tells a story, since, you know, indie developers don't have any money to do what triple-A studios can. That's what The Graveyard did. It set up an atmosphere and attempted to elicit an emotional response from the player. The Path did a similar thing, as all you can do is walk around in that, too.Azaraxzealot said:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Graveyard_%28video_game%29
i could make that game in one day and it gets nominated for an innovation award? what's so innovative about making an old lady walk through a graveyard?!
are the standards for indie gaming so low that they would nearly award THIS with an award? Seriously.
are there ANY indie games out there that blur the lines between AAA and indie? because so far i dont see any innovation in the indie scene.
And how is it innovation to make an indie game closer to what you find a hundred times over at your local GameStop? That's not innovation. That's fitting in.
tell me... what have indie games done that AAA games haven't already done before (and better)?EcoEclipse said:You don't need the best graphics to tell a great story. Chill out. 3D isn't innovative--it's just an aesthetic. Every genre can be made in 2D and 3D, there's no difference besides how it looks.Azaraxzealot said: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:Indie games are ALL ABOUT innovation. Usually in the way it tells a story, since, you know, indie developers don't have any money to do what triple-A studios can. That's what The Graveyard did. It set up an atmosphere and attempted to elicit an emotional response from the player. The Path did a similar thing, as all you can do is walk around in that, too.Azaraxzealot said:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Graveyard_%28video_game%29
i could make that game in one day and it gets nominated for an innovation award? what's so innovative about making an old lady walk through a graveyard?!
are the standards for indie gaming so low that they would nearly award THIS with an award? Seriously.
are there ANY indie games out there that blur the lines between AAA and indie? because so far i dont see any innovation in the indie scene.
And how is it innovation to make an indie game closer to what you find a hundred times over at your local GameStop? That's not innovation. That's fitting in.
Your ideals of a good video game are highly shallow.
Well, I can't.Azaraxzealot said:tell me... what have indie games done that AAA games haven't already done before (and better)?
I agree that Graveyard shouldn't be considered a game. But that just happens to be the label we put on all our interactive media, so there you go.Azaraxzealot said: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.