Umm, yes I do? At least, I think I do;AdumbroDeus said:But what you don't understand is not every type of game requires a complex story and/or high levels of abstraction in order to have considerable artistic merit.
Though reading into that, it doesn't come across that way.Does every game have to have some sort of "meaning" or "depth" to it? Of course not, and I am goddamn sick of it when people keep saying that other people are saying it!
It is, I'm sure. I've watched the Extra Credits episode as well, and I agree with their interpretation of the game. So long as you can prove it, with evidence in the example, like how it ends with "The End" rather than "Game Over", then you're not wrong.Missle command is art, transmitting the hopelessness and horror of nuclear warfare through gameplay alone. Probably more effectively then any other game I've played.
I assume you're talking about the first Modern Warfare, in which case I can understand what you're saying, and to a degree I agree with it. Call of Duty is an interesting example. Some say it's art just on the basis of "everything" being art one way or another. Then you got people saying it's just an action movie as a game.Can Call of Duty be artistically effective? Modern Warfare, easy example. It's completely following with the genre and the genre themes of the game, yet "it" (and if you've played you know what "it" is, no spoilers here though) makes the game much more effective at showing the horror of war.
Sure, and I'm not disputing that, and in fact I completely agree. Like I said in my original post, I was mostly going on ranty annoyance as I keep seeing one side of the "arty" debate going "Gosh, not every game has to be arty! They're called games for a reason!" and then seeing the other side go "Gosh, those Call of Dutys and Gears of War are ruining this industry with their push for graphics!"Attention to detail, reinforcing message through mechanics, and not being afraid to throw a curveball when it reinforces the game. That's what makes a good game in genre and makes it valuable as art.
Excellent point.Eico said:I don't think emotion is key in art. If it was, the holocaust would be art for most.
No, I don't care about the binding, I've just always interpreted Graphic Novel as meaning larger.More Fun To Compute said:Trade paperback describes the binding which is what he was talking about. Other than that they are still comics really, unless someone really insists on having them called Graphic Novels for some reason.Owyn_Merrilin said:Trade Paperback describes the binding, but Graphic Novel describes the format. When it first showed up in the 80's, the term Graphic Novel was intended to be a new, more mature name for comic books. As it stands now, it describes a comic book in trade paperback form, usually a self contained story composed of a certain run of comics, but also occasionally a Manga like serialized collection of a long running series, or something composed for the format, like Bone or Grease Monkey which I'm drawing a blank on examples of, because a quick wikipedia search shows me that the two series I thought had been exclusively published in the format both started out with a standard comic book run.More Fun To Compute said:I think what you are talking about is just called the trade paperback.SL33TBL1ND said:I've always used the term "Graphic Novel" to differentiate based on size.More Fun To Compute said:Graphic novel is such a pseudy marketing term. If I learned that anyone involved in comic books that I like loved the term then I would lose respect for them. Don't feel the need to say any more.
Well, when comic books get larger they definitely need new binding while a new name isn't really needed at all.SL33TBL1ND said:No, I don't care about the binding, I've just always interpreted Graphic Novel as meaning larger.
I claim that. If it is created to express something, then it is art. Whether it is expressing a good point or expressing it well is irrellevant to it's artisticness(sic?). It can be art even if it is: a game, a pile of rocks, etc.Realitycrash said:Who is claiming all games must be art?
is that art? No, a game? YesFreelanceButler said:It's about superheroes beating up other superheroes, with no reasoning behind it.
WONGA! or RHINO! or whatever it is your avatar is saying nowadays.SammiYin said:The primary focus for all games should be on the gameplay and enjoyment factor. If anybody is really desperate for it to be artistic then just impose that title on yourself. It's all art is anyway...
But that's not the OP's point, his point is that he feels that some people need all games to be all deep with spiritual meaning and fancy in some way, you know "art".xdom125x said:I claim that. If it is created to express something, then it is art. Whether it is expressing a good point or expressing it well is irrellevant to it's artisticness(sic?). It can be art even if it is: a game, a pile of rocks, etc.Realitycrash said:Who is claiming all games must be art?
Yes, but the OP didn't say "fancy" or "with spiritual meaning." He said "art," and gave no indication that he realizes how loaded??how potentially narrow or potentially broad??the term is.Realitycrash said:But that's not the OP's point, his point is that he feels that some people need all games to be all deep with spiritual meaning and fancy in some way, you know "art".xdom125x said:I claim that. If it is created to express something, then it is art. Whether it is expressing a good point or expressing it well is irrellevant to it's artisticness(sic?). It can be art even if it is: a game, a pile of rocks, etc.Realitycrash said:Who is claiming all games must be art?
The fact that anything can be art and IS art if looked at from the right POV, that I am fully aware of.
Then the OP failed at specifying his definition, going with that the general masses consider is art as a definition, without telling us.Richard Hannay said:Yes, but the OP didn't say "fancy" or "with spiritual meaning." He said "art," and gave no indication that he realizes how loaded??how potentially narrow or potentially broad??the term is.Realitycrash said:But that's not the OP's point, his point is that he feels that some people need all games to be all deep with spiritual meaning and fancy in some way, you know "art".xdom125x said:I claim that. If it is created to express something, then it is art. Whether it is expressing a good point or expressing it well is irrellevant to it's artisticness(sic?). It can be art even if it is: a game, a pile of rocks, etc.Realitycrash said:Who is claiming all games must be art?
The fact that anything can be art and IS art if looked at from the right POV, that I am fully aware of.
It's the same reason that we're all having this discussion over and over and over again. People see the word "art," apply their own definition, and gauge all other posted arguments in that light, in most cases without so much as considering that they might not actually be talking about the same thing.
No. That's not what I was getting at. I was just trying to point out exactly why threads of this sort may very well continue popping up and getting nowhere forever.Realitycrash said:Then the OP failed at specifying his definition, going with that the general masses consider is art as a definition, without telling us.
Would you like me to edit "Everything from a certain POV can be art" to my original message?
Well, in all further posts of this kind, the OP might just aswell post "Art is in the eye of the beholder", and kill the whole post, OR he could be more specific and go for (what I THINK he wanted to go for) "Why must all games be forced to have a story, be special and creative, what's wrong with some mindless fun?"Richard Hannay said:No. That's not what I was getting at. I was just trying to point out exactly why threads of this sort may very well continue popping up and getting nowhere forever.Realitycrash said:Then the OP failed at specifying his definition, going with that the general masses consider is art as a definition, without telling us.
Would you like me to edit "Everything from a certain POV can be art" to my original message?
Step 1: Person who thinks of art as a measure of quality complains about perceived pretension of "games are art" notion.
Step 2: People with same definition of art agree.
Step 3: People with different definitions of art make various counterpoints. They are not read by most of the initial posters, who've already decided on their own definition of art anyway.
Step 4 (Optional): Definitions of art other than the OPs are labeled "pretentious."
Step 5: The fact that the definition of art is what causes the difference of opinion is hit upon, but fewer people than ever are actually still reading. Those who already labeled the discussion "pretentious" have already moved on.
Step 6: Thread dies.
Step 7: Return to Step 1.
Would you feel better if I said "arty" instead of "art?" Also, I gave several definitions of art, they're scattered throughout the thread. My personal definition of art is that there are many definitions, and which ones are valid depends on the context; for example, under US obscenity law, something that is not "devoid of any artistic merit," as one of the prongs of the miller test states it has to be, is going to be a much easier bar to hit than the definitions that people throw around requiring emotional involvement. Excuse me for apparently not giving you enough context in the OP to get the definition in use; like I said, any definition of art is going to be context sensitive.Realitycrash said:Then the OP failed at specifying his definition, going with that the general masses consider is art as a definition, without telling us.Richard Hannay said:Yes, but the OP didn't say "fancy" or "with spiritual meaning." He said "art," and gave no indication that he realizes how loaded??how potentially narrow or potentially broad??the term is.Realitycrash said:But that's not the OP's point, his point is that he feels that some people need all games to be all deep with spiritual meaning and fancy in some way, you know "art".xdom125x said:I claim that. If it is created to express something, then it is art. Whether it is expressing a good point or expressing it well is irrellevant to it's artisticness(sic?). It can be art even if it is: a game, a pile of rocks, etc.Realitycrash said:Who is claiming all games must be art?
The fact that anything can be art and IS art if looked at from the right POV, that I am fully aware of.
It's the same reason that we're all having this discussion over and over and over again. People see the word "art," apply their own definition, and gauge all other posted arguments in that light, in most cases without so much as considering that they might not actually be talking about the same thing.
Would you like me to edit "Everything from a certain POV can be art" to my original message?