Halo Fanboy said:
I Know you are thinking of heavy Rain (or Ico or SoTC or any othe game you might like for terrible reasons,) because I know you and by promoting those games as art you claim greater games as inferior. The criteria you are using to praise those games as art are as wrong as judging a basketball game by the fabulousness of the players outfits. Here's a good comparison I heard:
I never claimed that any games were "inferior", just that some games don't exactly "try" to be "art", and I remember stating that that's perfectly fine. MW2 isn't trying to "enrich" the "human experience" or whatever, and that's perfectly fine.
And I would love to know why you think SotC/ICO are "terrible" games, I honestly would. If the game's not for you, it's not for you
JoshF said:
http://shmups.system11.org/viewtopic.php?p=604455#p604455
I'm not talking about aesthetics/graphics/visuals. I'm talking about storytelling, maturity, and mature subject matters/themes. Super Mario World, Gears of War, etc... aren't exactly the epitome of storytelling, and that's fine. In their own way, sure, they're art. Though, now that I think about it, I don't think we're arguing about that anymore anyway.
Heavy Rain should not be praised. It is terrible and the people behind it should know that. You can appreciate it (I appreciate the craft in E.T. 2600 for instance)but to praise it is dragging games that focus on complexity, depth and challenge through the mud. Only the best games deserve to be called art not some narrative focused borefest.
You have yet to explain why Heavy Rain is "terrible". Again, if it's not for you,
it's not for you, and there's nothing wrong with that. But how on earth is Heavy Rain "dragging games" from complexity, depth, and challenge through the mud? Heavy Rain is pretty complex in the storytelling department, 10x more than many other games, with it's branching narrative and depth within it's storytelling. Through it's pure "gameplay", fine, it's not exactly the epitome of gameplay, but that in no way should downplay it's accomplishments.
As far as I'm concerned, Heavy Rain is a game just as much as any other game, it's just a different type of game. It's an experiment, a downright risky one at that, and it's uniqueness is what makes it stand apart. Maybe Heavy Rain's form of storytelling will bud into something deeper and complex, and make way for gameplay and storytelling coming together more cohesively. You've got to crawl before you walk after all.
They made terrible games and tricked everyone into thinking they were good.
Out of curiosity, have you played flOw or flOwer? I've played flOwer, and I gotta say, it touched me towards the end. Evidently, it has to many other people [http://blog.us.playstation.com/2010/05/07/announcing-the-flower-essay-contest-winners/]. Once again, if it's not for you,
it is not. for. you.
They are the best and worst mainstream offerings of their industry right now, that's the extent of the comparison. And yes the games must be judged on their "gameplay." There is nothing else to judge. Just like a poem is judged by its poetry and a movie is judged by its [insert stupid jargon word here.]
Games are judged more than just their gameplay. Know what comes before the word "Games"? "Video". So, in a sense, "Video Games" encompass a wide variety of mediums into one that can all be used in their own unique way to get their point across.
Quite frankly, I think it's a silly assumption that games must only be judged by their gameplay. Games are capable of so much more than that and we should demand much more than that. We need to be able to weave story through gameplay and gameplay through story
which means it's already polluted the minds of consumers and people in the industry.
What.
So it's bad to try new things?
It's not that I fear games like heavy rain will become the norm. It's that every time a game like it gains a foothold then that's one inch of land we've lost.
Please, do tell, who is this "we"? And what is this "land"? And how is it "lost"? Your constant spouting of doomsday is really getting old.
At this point, I really have no idea what you're trying to argue. All I've read is "Heavy Rain/SotC/ICO/flOw is terrible and everyone is terrible for praising them!" and I have yet to see a fully explained reason behind this. We aren't even on the original topic anymore, we've gone off into some other random territory that I don't even know where we've landed. We're really talking about two different things anyway.
Halo Fanboy said:
DuctTapeJedi said:
"Because they're just games, they're just for fun!"
"So... art isn't something that's supposed to be enjoyable?"
"..."
You should tell this to Jumpilion.
Um, you do realize that's pretty much what I'm trying to say? Games don't have to be just "fun", and they can still be "art". I'm under the impression, however, that "entertaining" and "fun" is something that we need to differentiate. Many mature themed movies (Schindler's List comes to mind) aren't "fun" by any means, yet they're still "entertaining" and enriching in their own way. So to can games.
I'm detecting an air of hostility from you. You seem to be taking this discussion a
bit too seriously for my taste.