Hard Light Productions Forums

Off-Topic Discussion => Gaming Discussion => Topic started by: Ransom on September 13, 2010, 06:49:33 am

Title: Games aren't art
Post by: Ransom on September 13, 2010, 06:49:33 am
It's not Roger Ebert this time. Now it is Metroid fans!

http://www.boingboing.net/2010/09/12/games-not-art-after.html

It's an interesting mess. G4 tore Other M to shreds on artistic grounds - quite justifiably, I thought - and gamers didn't take very kindly to it. Some of the comments are pretty disgusting, actually.

The article makes the point that a majority of gamers consider games to be little more than toys. It's probably accurate; certainly whenever the games-as-art debate rears its head somebody's bound to say they should never aspire to be anything but fun.

But what I find most alarming about this situation is how it speaks to the state of games journalism. I found Heppe's critical analysis refreshing, and even if it's partially just fanboys defending their sacred cow the backlash is worrying. It's a pretty damning example of gaming culture's insularity. Any industry is going to have a hell of a time maturing in an environment where criticism is not just rare but rejected out of hand.
Title: Re: Games aren't art
Post by: karajorma on September 13, 2010, 08:15:23 am
Games are art. And art is always surrounded by serious critics and pretentious tossers trying to read too much into it. And the critics of any piece of art are always attacked by fanbois who love the artist and refuse to hear a bad word about them.


About the only difference here is that cause we're dealing with games we're reaching a demographic that has larger pool of fanbois and a smaller crowd of pretentious tossers.
Title: Re: Games aren't art
Post by: General Battuta on September 13, 2010, 08:30:50 am
It'd be interesting to see what book or film review would be like if fans lined up fanatically behind specifically publishers or studios.
Title: Re: Games aren't art
Post by: Galemp on September 13, 2010, 09:11:12 am
Halo? :p
Title: Re: Games aren't art
Post by: Hero_Swe on September 13, 2010, 09:17:38 am
Games that strike a chord with me are art in my view.
Title: Re: Games aren't art
Post by: Wobble73 on September 13, 2010, 10:38:51 am
Some games are art and some games aren't. Some graphic novels are art, some are just comics!

Dependant on the viewer of course!
Title: Re: Games aren't art
Post by: AlienTermite on September 13, 2010, 11:49:29 am
I think modern 3d games can be considered a work of art to a certain extent. I mean, what about the people that are creating 3d models and animations for use in games? Even the guys in this community that create Freespace total conversion mods and have to create totally new ship models and things of that sort... are they not artists in their own right? Some definitions of Art (from dictionary.com): "skilled workmanship, execution, or agency, as distinguished from nature,"  and "the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance." Sure, games are meant primarily as a means of entertainment, but I think that there are a lot of games that possess many of these qualities.
Title: Re: Games aren't art
Post by: The E on September 13, 2010, 12:09:54 pm
If games aren't Art, movies aren't either. Discuss.
Title: Re: Games aren't art
Post by: Rodo on September 13, 2010, 01:31:07 pm
Everything that takes more than 5 hours to make is art : Fact
But not all art is artistic: Fact
Most people that read this will go :wtf: : Fact
Title: Re: Games aren't art
Post by: qazwsx on September 13, 2010, 01:37:47 pm
The controls were horrible and the storytelling minimalistic, but there was just something about Shadows of the Colossus that felt amazing, I didn't have "fun" as such when playing it, but was spurred onwards to play by some other motivation, just riding round the wilderness felt fantastic, I didn't care about progression, and only completed the game out of curiosity to see the next colossus I would be facing. In my opinion, SotC is a work of art.
Title: Re: Games aren't art
Post by: Roanoke on September 13, 2010, 02:11:42 pm
I think modern 3d games can be considered a work of art to a certain extent. I mean, what about the people that are creating 3d models and animations for use in games? Even the guys in this community that create Freespace total conversion mods and have to create totally new ship models and things of that sort... are they not artists in their own right? Some definitions of Art (from dictionary.com): "skilled workmanship, execution, or agency, as distinguished from nature,"  and "the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance." Sure, games are meant primarily as a means of entertainment, but I think that there are a lot of games that possess many of these qualities.

If anything I would say earlier games were more artistic. Limitd tech meant more improviseation and certainly more abstract content.
Title: Re: Games aren't art
Post by: Flipside on September 13, 2010, 02:55:04 pm
Films aren't art either if you examine them in the same way as computer games, they are simply rolls of celluloid, the art is in the Story, the acting and the sets which are copied onto the film via a scientific technique.

No-one asked what Mona-Lisa's motivation was...
Title: Re: Games aren't art
Post by: NGTM-1R on September 13, 2010, 03:33:28 pm
Art is such an inherently subjective category that attempting to define anything as artistic is useless to the discussion of its merits.

Technical execution is the only valuable metric.
Title: Re: Games aren't art
Post by: Sushi on September 13, 2010, 03:49:30 pm
Why do we even care? :)
Title: Re: Games aren't art
Post by: Polpolion on September 13, 2010, 03:58:57 pm
People act like you can examine the artistic qualities of a video game the same way that you can a movie, book, or painting. You can't. People can say that the story is artful, or the sound track is artful, or the graphics are artful, but that's all just garbage. That's like saying the font of a book is artful. While it's true that each such facet can contribute to the holistic value of the game, by itself the story, music, and graphics mean very little. Simply put, there is art in video games but people are looking in the right places to find it. (Even then, "art" is a rather arbitrary and meaningless term)
Title: Re: Games aren't art
Post by: General Battuta on September 13, 2010, 04:37:40 pm
People act like you can examine the artistic qualities of a video game the same way that you can a movie, book, or painting. You can't. People can say that the story is artful, or the sound track is artful, or the graphics are artful, but that's all just garbage. That's like saying the font of a book is artful.

Seems like a perfectly valid statement to me.

A game can be deconstructed like any other work.
Title: Re: Games aren't art
Post by: Flipside on September 13, 2010, 04:59:21 pm
Personally, I'd say that programming is more of a craft than an art, however, what goes into games is Art. Like movies, the actual skill of pointing and using cameras and lighting is more a matter of craft-knowledge, knowing which shots work, knowing which lighting provides the best effect, all of which are more a matter of experience and precedent than artistic discovery, whereas the backdrop, the music and the effects are more artistic in nature. That's why I don't consider either of them 'art' as such, merely a culmination of several artistic items bought together using technology. A Painting is a piece of art, an art Gallery, which is a collection of paintings, is not.
Title: Re: Games aren't art
Post by: mxlm on September 13, 2010, 06:32:51 pm
But what I find most alarming about this situation is how it speaks to the state of games journalism. I found Heppe's critical analysis refreshing, and even if it's partially just fanboys defending their sacred cow the backlash is worrying. It's a pretty damning example of gaming culture's insularity. Any industry is going to have a hell of a time maturing in an environment where criticism is not just rare but rejected out of hand.

Bingo. What we can learn from this is that games journalism is **** because gamers want it to be ****.

I mean, maybe you don't. Maybe I don't. We're a minority.
Title: Re: Games aren't art
Post by: Lukeskywalkie on September 13, 2010, 08:00:48 pm
Technical execution is the only valuable metric.

What are you, Vulcan?
Title: Re: Games aren't art
Post by: NGTM-1R on September 13, 2010, 08:29:43 pm
What are you, Vulcan?

No, merely right. :P

Besides, technical execution gets pretty subjective when it comes to the interplay of various elements itself. However, unlike art, it does not exist only in the eye of the beholder.
Title: Re: Games aren't art
Post by: Scourge of Ages on September 13, 2010, 08:29:49 pm
I must say that I agree with everything written in the original review, there's nothing I didn't like about it (the review).
Title: Re: Games aren't art
Post by: phatosealpha on September 13, 2010, 09:00:08 pm
Wait....out of that entire review, the part the metroid crowd wants to argue about is the plot?

The same Metroid crowd that had debates about whether or not Fusion should've bothered with a plot at all?

Wow.  This game must really suck.
Title: Re: Games aren't art
Post by: Mongoose on September 14, 2010, 03:21:04 am
Wow.  This game must really suck.
Or perhaps it's because that component of the review was most egregious to fans of the series in general and this game specifically.  Even coming from the perspective of someone who hasn't yet played the game, I certainly consider some of the statements made in there to be dubious at best...there's a lot of the critic's personal preference (or lack thereof) shining through there.  I'd also highly advise taking any single review with a massive grain of salt, unless you know that a particular reviewer's tastes often align with your own.  Numerous other sources have given Other M high all-around marks, control system included, and I've heard from several people who, while having various quibbles with it, have enjoyed it as a whole.
Title: Re: Games aren't art
Post by: Shivan Hunter on September 14, 2010, 08:49:41 am
Whether games are "art" or not is something for philosopher gamer nerds to discuss. I will meanwhile be playing such things as Blue Planet and not giving a crap whether it's "art", because it is nonetheless a truly wonderful experience.
Title: Re: Games aren't art
Post by: Nuke on September 14, 2010, 09:47:26 am
Films aren't art either if you examine them in the same way as computer games, they are simply rolls of celluloid, the art is in the Story, the acting and the sets which are copied onto the film via a scientific technique.

No-one asked what Mona-Lisa's motivation was...

leonardo was obviously nakid when he painted it. i mean look at her, she looks like a woman who just saw a penis.
Title: Re: Games aren't art
Post by: phatosealpha on September 14, 2010, 10:32:49 am
Or perhaps it's because that component of the review was most egregious to fans of the series in general and this game specifically.  Even coming from the perspective of someone who hasn't yet played the game, I certainly consider some of the statements made in there to be dubious at best...there's a lot of the critic's personal preference (or lack thereof) shining through there.  I'd also highly advise taking any single review with a massive grain of salt, unless you know that a particular reviewer's tastes often align with your own.  Numerous other sources have given Other M high all-around marks, control system included, and I've heard from several people who, while having various quibbles with it, have enjoyed it as a whole.

Eh...the review itself is of minimal interest to me.  The reaction of the fanbase is what's interesting, because it is so atypical of it.  Fusion was met with annoyance for having an arbitrary plot device limiting them instead of their ability.  The review implies that M:OM does the same thing, and is kind of insulting to Samus to boot.  If the base is arguing that it's OK because games aren't art, instead of nodding and going "Yeah, this is friggin stupid", something is amiss.

Then I factor in that this is one of the groups I'd expect to starting screaming that art in games is in the gameplay, not the tacked on story....

To be honest though, the lack of major interest in the game is more of a signal though.  Walked by the game in Wal-mart the other day, and was surprised it was already out, since no one had mentioned it in any of the places I visit online.  This is the first discussion of the game I've encountered - and silence when dealing with a well known property on a platform hurting for hardcore games is a condemnation in and of itself.
Title: Re: Games aren't art
Post by: Topgun on September 14, 2010, 10:57:05 am
all forms of entertainment are art. that's my view on the matter.
Title: Re: Games aren't art
Post by: swashmebuckle on September 14, 2010, 03:09:43 pm
Lol @ Nintendo for creating one of the only major video game series with a non-jiggling female protagonist and then handing it off to the studio responsible for Dead or Alive Xtreme Beach Volleyball.  And even the most schlocky game is still art.  It's just bad art.
Title: Re: Games aren't art
Post by: Mongoose on September 14, 2010, 08:39:29 pm
Eh...the review itself is of minimal interest to me.  The reaction of the fanbase is what's interesting, because it is so atypical of it.  Fusion was met with annoyance for having an arbitrary plot device limiting them instead of their ability.  The review implies that M:OM does the same thing, and is kind of insulting to Samus to boot.  If the base is arguing that it's OK because games aren't art, instead of nodding and going "Yeah, this is friggin stupid", something is amiss.
See, Fusion was one of my favorite entries in the series precisely because of those plot devices.  I sort of have an atypical entry into the Metroid series...my first game was Prime (and its sequel) and then Fusion, and I still haven't made it around to Super Metroid.  For me, the thought of having this really rich universe/backstory and a strong character like Samus, and then never really exploring either one, feels like somewhat of a waste of potential.  I personally prefer the stronger narrative focus that a few of the newer games have pursued, as opposed to the "wander around and find power-ups" model of the original games.

As far as "insulting" Samus goes, I haven't yet played the game myself, so I can't pass judgment on it as a whole.  However, I do agree with a point I saw someone make that directly counteracts one of the main complaints of this review.  The author took particular offense at Samus's reaction to Ridley, at the flashback to a scared little girl crying as she stood face-to-face with a monster, because Samus has already faced down Ridley a few times before over the Metroid timeline.  But the thing is, I feel like it's far more appropriate for Samus to react this way than for Ridley to be treated as just some boss that you have to lob missiles at.  According to the backstory, this is the same creature that killed her parents and destroyed her homeworld.  Is anyone going to react in business-like fashion when encountering the source of that much personal trauma?  Of course not.  To me, that's the way Ridley should be handled, and I'm glad to hear about that sequence in the game.

Quote
To be honest though, the lack of major interest in the game is more of a signal though.  Walked by the game in Wal-mart the other day, and was surprised it was already out, since no one had mentioned it in any of the places I visit online.  This is the first discussion of the game I've encountered - and silence when dealing with a well known property on a platform hurting for hardcore games is a condemnation in and of itself.
I've seen a rather massive amount of interest in it myself.  I occasionally browse the OverClocked ReMix forums, and there's a 20+-page thread going about it, with plenty of back-and-forth.  Just the fact that it's a very different sort of Metroid game has captured a lot of people's attention, for better or worse.  Also, from what I understand, Other M has just about the best opening-week sales numbers in Japan of any title in the Metroid series.  I haven't seen any details about the US release yet, though.
Title: Re: Games aren't art
Post by: The E on September 14, 2010, 08:51:26 pm
As a complete outsider to the games (the last Metroid I played was Super Metroid),, all I can say is that I understand the people who do not like this new characterization of Samus Aran, simply because it's a complete departure from her characterization from previous entries.

That said departure was in the direction of making her weaker, less self-reliant, is something I cannot accept.
Title: Re: Games aren't art
Post by: Scourge of Ages on September 15, 2010, 03:23:44 am
EDIT: How about we go straight to the dragon's mouth, and see what everyone's talking about?
Here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecAYwkwI9Lc
Watch that, and give us your opinions. Spoilers, great and small, abound.

Like this spoiler: Ridley lives and you need to shoot him a lot. Also
Spoiler:
that black guy gets whacked.
Also some actual spoiler after the battle is over.
Title: Re: Games aren't art
Post by: Dark Hunter on September 15, 2010, 08:42:31 am
As a complete outsider to the games (the last Metroid I played was Super Metroid),, all I can say is that I understand the people who do not like this new characterization of Samus Aran, simply because it's a complete departure from her characterization from previous entries.

That said departure was in the direction of making her weaker, less self-reliant, is something I cannot accept.

The thing is that this characterization isn't new. She had no real character in the games prior to this, but the Metroid manga (which is canon) portrayed her in a very similar manner: full of insecurities and having Post Traumatic Stress Disorder regarding Ridley.

Gamers who didn't like that idea simply pretended the manga didn't exist. The problem is that the games have included said portrayal and it is now something gamers cannot ignore.

Personally, I think her character is justified given what her childhood was like. Hell, she didn't even join human civilization until she was a teenager. She's gonna have a few issues.
Title: Re: Games aren't art
Post by: phatosealpha on September 15, 2010, 09:01:43 am
Maybe because in every game, she's been alone against the world, and in almost every game, she's blown the living hell out of Ridley?  Kinda hard to make those two mesh.

Title: Re: Games aren't art
Post by: General Battuta on September 15, 2010, 09:04:16 am
As a complete outsider to the games (the last Metroid I played was Super Metroid),, all I can say is that I understand the people who do not like this new characterization of Samus Aran, simply because it's a complete departure from her characterization from previous entries.

That said departure was in the direction of making her weaker, less self-reliant, is something I cannot accept.

The thing is that this characterization isn't new. She had no real character in the games prior to this, but the Metroid manga (which is canon) portrayed her in a very similar manner: full of insecurities and having Post Traumatic Stress Disorder regarding Ridley.

I think that part of the problem is that this is how many people expect a manga to treat a female character (or, hell, maybe a character period.) I have to say I prefer the Aliens take on her; Ripley had terrible PTSD but didn't break down into a little whimpering girl when faced with the xenomorphs again. And by this point Samus has battled Ridley at least five or six times.
Title: Re: Games aren't art
Post by: The E on September 15, 2010, 09:06:37 am
EDIT: How about we go straight to the dragon's mouth, and see what everyone's talking about?
Here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecAYwkwI9Lc
Watch that, and give us your opinions. Spoilers, great and small, abound.

Like this spoiler: Ridley lives and you need to shoot him a lot. Also
Spoiler:
that black guy gets whacked.
Also some actual spoiler after the battle is over.

Yeah, I'm with Spoony on this one. Turning Samus into nothing more than an extension of an unseen(?) operator somewhere, who unlocks weapons based on his whim is bad design.
Turning her into a character who locks up when faced with a threat she has faced before is, once again, bad design.
Now, even if said Manga is canon, the older games in the Metroid series didn't portrait her that way. Yes, she didn't have much of a character. Meaning that, for better or worse, she became an icon of female badassery. Now that gets subverted very hard by telling us that all along, she was some kind of PTSD victim, who cannot be trusted with the full potential of her weapons until some controller decides that she should use $FUNCTION?
I would also submit to you that hiding major pieces of characterization in a medium that is external to the primary medium for storytelling is a bad decision.
It would be like leaving the reveal that Darth Vader is Luke's father out of the movie and putting it in the novelization instead, yet treating it like canon for ROTJ.

So, given her backstory, is there potential for characterization? Yes, certainly. But should that characterization contradict the perception that was built through the other games? I think it shouldn't.
Title: Re: Games aren't art
Post by: mxlm on September 15, 2010, 11:13:16 am
As far as "insulting" Samus goes, I haven't yet played the game myself, so I can't pass judgment on it as a whole.  However, I do agree with a point I saw someone make that directly counteracts one of the main complaints of this review.  The author took particular offense at Samus's reaction to Ridley, at the flashback to a scared little girl crying as she stood face-to-face with a monster, because Samus has already faced down Ridley a few times before over the Metroid timeline.  But the thing is, I feel like it's far more appropriate for Samus to react this way than for Ridley to be treated as just some boss that you have to lob missiles at.  According to the backstory, this is the same creature that killed her parents and destroyed her homeworld.  Is anyone going to react in business-like fashion when encountering the source of that much personal trauma?  Of course not.

As has been mentioned, she already killed his ass like five times. He turned himself into a robot and she still stomped his guts out. But what, now she's going to lock up?

This could make sense if it were the first time she were facing Ridley, if it was the story of her early days. It isn't that.
Title: Re: Games aren't art
Post by: Topgun on September 15, 2010, 11:24:44 am
First Zero-suit samus now this. They just keep ruining her image, Nintendo should have just let Retro and whoever made the gameboy metriod games (capcom?) make all the metriod games, not the people that made Extreme Beach Volleyball for God's sakes.
Title: Re: Games aren't art
Post by: Dark Hunter on September 15, 2010, 01:55:53 pm
Why do people blame Team Ninja for Samus's character? THEY DIDN'T WRITE THE STORY. The same people who wrote the old games' stories wrote Other M's story.

Anyway, I'll point out to those that have not played the game that, this one scene aside, Samus was still the hypercompetent badass she usually is throughout. People are truly blowing this way out of proportion. Ridley's just that much of a badass himself.
Title: Re: Games aren't art
Post by: Mongoose on September 15, 2010, 02:00:51 pm
As has been mentioned, she already killed his ass like five times. He turned himself into a robot and she still stomped his guts out. But what, now she's going to lock up?

This could make sense if it were the first time she were facing Ridley, if it was the story of her early days. It isn't that.
Except that, as Dark Hunter pointed out, she didn't even have a real character in those games.  She was a sprite attacking another sprite, nothing more.  Hell, I just played the original Metroid (via Zero Mission's bonus feature) for the first time, and Ridley's sprite was no bigger than she was, which is hilarious.  (Kraid looks even worse.)  I'd assume Super Metroid had a similar lack of setup.  The closest chance you'd have to portraying the situation like this would be in Metroid Prime, which didn't have Samus exhibiting any real personality either.  This is the first real time that Nintendo has chosen to portray Samus as a full character, and as such, this is the first time that we have the chance to see how things probably should have been all along, if the technology/design had allowed for them back then.  Remember that, at the end of the day, the series' co-creator was responsible for Other M's story, so one has to assume that this has always been his vision of Samus.

Yeah, I'm with Spoony on this one. Turning Samus into nothing more than an extension of an unseen(?) operator somewhere, who unlocks weapons based on his whim is bad design.
I'll agree that this system isn't really logical in any sense, but to be fair, neither were most of the other solutions to the problem.  At the beginning of every other Metroid game, Samus starts out possessing only the most basic of abilities, and she just so happens to come across them in whatever environment she was exploring.  That might make sense for the original Metroid, since she might not have possessed the abilities before that (Zero Mission actually had her stripped down to Zero Suit Samus before finding the Gravity Suit), but after that, it's always been essentially a gameplay contrivance.  I know the first two Prime games had to jump through some narrative hoops to justify the mechanic: in the first, you randomly have all of your abilities malfunction when you get thrown into a wall by an explosion, and in the second, a bunch of evil shadow aliens happen to steal them from you at the start of the game.  I don't know that Other M's solution is all that great of a way to justify the mechanic, but it isn't really any less logical than what came before.
Title: Re: Games aren't art
Post by: The E on September 15, 2010, 02:16:08 pm
As has been mentioned, she already killed his ass like five times. He turned himself into a robot and she still stomped his guts out. But what, now she's going to lock up?

This could make sense if it were the first time she were facing Ridley, if it was the story of her early days. It isn't that.
Except that, as Dark Hunter pointed out, she didn't even have a real character in those games.  She was a sprite attacking another sprite, nothing more.  Hell, I just played the original Metroid (via Zero Mission's bonus feature) for the first time, and Ridley's sprite was no bigger than she was, which is hilarious.  (Kraid looks even worse.)  I'd assume Super Metroid had a similar lack of setup.  The closest chance you'd have to portraying the situation like this would be in Metroid Prime, which didn't have Samus exhibiting any real personality either.  This is the first real time that Nintendo has chosen to portray Samus as a full character, and as such, this is the first time that we have the chance to see how things probably should have been all along, if the technology/design had allowed for them back then.  Remember that, at the end of the day, the series' co-creator was responsible for Other M's story, so one has to assume that this has always been his vision of Samus.

Excuse me, but I do believe they had the ability to do more characterization even back in the SNES days. They chose not to. As a result, the fans got to "write" her character based on their perceptions of her during gameplay. Derailing that perception, even if it is done by the series creator, is still derailment. It's still perceived as acting out of character. My argument is, if this is how Samus was supposed to be all this time, why didn't they make it clear before? They could have done it during the Gamecube era. They chose not to. They decided to add characterization after more than a decade of games. Can you see why this upsets people?

Why do people blame Team Ninja for Samus's character? THEY DIDN'T WRITE THE STORY. The same people who wrote the old games' stories wrote Other M's story.

A bad story is a bad story, regardless of who wrote it.

Quote
Anyway, I'll point out to those that have not played the game that, this one scene aside, Samus was still the hypercompetent badass she usually is throughout. People are truly blowing this way out of proportion. Ridley's just that much of a badass himself.

So, the bad characterization can be excused because it's delivered inconsistently? That's not a good argument.....
Title: Re: Games aren't art
Post by: Dark Hunter on September 15, 2010, 02:39:38 pm
What I mean is that the game shows Samus as only being particularly afraid of Ridley, which, quite frankly, is perfectly understandable. A lot of people are acting like Samus is a whimpering coward throughout the game, which she isn't. My point was that is silly, she shows fear in a single cutscene and some people are expanding that to the entire game.

(I'm not necessarily talking about this thread, incidentally. This is probably the tenth argument along these lines I've been in. I'm seeing the EXACT SAME ARGUMENTS everywhere, at times word-for-word, as if people are just parroting each other, and I'm growing very tired of it.)

I also hesitate to call it "bad characterization". Personally, I liked the story and appreciated the insights to Samus's background. People are calling it bad just because they don't like it, rather than on its own merits (or faults, as you prefer).
Title: Re: Games aren't art
Post by: Scourge of Ages on September 15, 2010, 02:47:47 pm
Anyway, I'll point out to those that have not played the game that, this one scene aside, Samus was still the hypercompetent badass she usually is throughout. People are truly blowing this way out of proportion. Ridley's just that much of a badass himself.
It's not really that one scene aside. It's pretty much every cutscene where Samus is conversing or monologuing. In the gameplay itself, she's definitely hypercompetant; but in the cutscenes the game takes away any control and places arbitrary blocks to what can and should be done, and paints her as insecure and weak.
For example
Spoiler:
when Adam incapacitates her completely with a single freeze gun shot, and then she stumbles around for about 5 minutes crying.
I'm playing through again on hard mode, and just skipping all the cutscenes. It's worlds better.

One last thing for now: Adam Malkovich is the worst commander ever.
Title: Re: Games aren't art
Post by: Mongoose on September 15, 2010, 03:31:27 pm
Excuse me, but I do believe they had the ability to do more characterization even back in the SNES days. They chose not to. As a result, the fans got to "write" her character based on their perceptions of her during gameplay. Derailing that perception, even if it is done by the series creator, is still derailment. It's still perceived as acting out of character. My argument is, if this is how Samus was supposed to be all this time, why didn't they make it clear before? They could have done it during the Gamecube era. They chose not to. They decided to add characterization after more than a decade of games. Can you see why this upsets people?
I didn't imply that the SNES didn't have the ability to generate more characterization for Samus; it falls under the "design" side of my argument instead of the "technical" side.  Action games of that generation generally didn't conduct more in-depth character studies, and Super Metroid was intended as a solitary exploration game along those lines.  As far as the GameCube era goes, Retro Studios completely handled the Prime series development, not the series creator Sakamoto, so they chose to say with a similar exploratory aesthetic.

And no, I don't see the fan-wangst as being particularly justified.  It's true that many people may have made certain assumptions about Samus's overall character, but as in any ongoing fictitious medium, you do so at your own risk.  For instance, if :v: suddenly declared tomorrow that they were making a FS3, it would invalidate the canon conformity of every post-Capella campaign this community has ever released.  In the same sense, just because certain people viewed Samus as a completely-stoic badass based on the design of games from over fifteen years ago doesn't mean that this assessment is correct.  I actually find the whole discussion even sillier based on what happened in Metroid Fusion, which featured Samus showing significantly more personal emotion than she ever had before, and which Other M was designed to resemble.
Title: Re: Games aren't art
Post by: qazwsx on September 15, 2010, 04:08:01 pm
Proposition: people should only really care about if something is pleasurable to listen to/watch/play/read, discussing whether it is art or not is irrelevant to the objective of these media: entertainment.
Title: Re: Games aren't art
Post by: General Battuta on September 15, 2010, 05:06:08 pm
Proposition: people should only really care about if something is pleasurable to listen to/watch/play/read, discussing whether it is art or not is irrelevant to the objective of these media: entertainment.

Disagreed.
Title: Re: Games aren't art
Post by: Sushi on September 15, 2010, 05:21:20 pm
Proposition: people should only really care about if something is pleasurable to listen to/watch/play/read, discussing whether it is art or not is irrelevant to the objective of these media: entertainment.

Disagreed.

Disagreement with proposition noted and disagreed with.
Title: Re: Games aren't art
Post by: General Battuta on September 15, 2010, 05:33:42 pm
Proposition: people should only really care about if something is pleasurable to listen to/watch/play/read, discussing whether it is art or not is irrelevant to the objective of these media: entertainment.

Disagreed.

Disagreement with proposition noted and disagreed with.

I simply don't think the utility of an 'art object' can be solely derived from its pleasure value. I feel that I get a great deal out of watching The Godfather even though I find other movies more pleasurable.. Similarly, I extract a lot of utility from pictures of suffering in unfortunate countries, even though I don't find them pleasurable.
Title: Re: Games aren't art
Post by: Sushi on September 15, 2010, 05:41:14 pm
Proposition: people should only really care about if something is pleasurable to listen to/watch/play/read, discussing whether it is art or not is irrelevant to the objective of these media: entertainment.

Disagreed.

Disagreement with proposition noted and disagreed with.

I simply don't think the utility of an 'art object' can be solely derived from its pleasure value. I feel that I get a great deal out of watching The Godfather even though I find other movies more pleasurable.. Similarly, I extract a lot of utility from pictures of suffering in unfortunate countries, even though I don't find them pleasurable.

And I was just being silly. ;) I know better than to actually get involved in the "what is art?" debate...
Title: Re: Games aren't art
Post by: Flipside on September 15, 2010, 05:44:56 pm
Some say 'art' promotes a message, others say 'art' promotes discussion, but the truth is, that makes just about everything art, there's nothing we can't turn into an argument, it's both one of the strengths and the weaknesses of the species. I think the problem is that whole fact that we need to even ask what is art and what is not, not based on the grounds of identification, but purely on the grounds of protecting the product from legislation.

The truth is that it is immaterial whether games are art or not, though I've stated my personal opinion earlier, because it's trying to add relevance to something using sleight of hand. Books, movies, games, they are all ways of telling stories, and without stories we'd be nothing more than bright monkeys, violence has always been an inherent part of those stories, Homer described the cutting up of a newborn child and the throwing of its remains into the ocean to delay a pursuing king, since the child could not enter Hades unless the whole body was found, the question we should really be asking is 'how did this become an issue?'.
Title: Re: Games aren't art
Post by: Scotty on September 15, 2010, 06:13:18 pm
You know, I don't even really care if someone wants to call X game art.  If I enjoy it I will play it.  If I do not, I will avoid doing so.  Whether it is art or not is completely irrelevant to that point.
Title: Re: Games aren't art
Post by: Mongoose on September 15, 2010, 06:45:12 pm
As long as we all agree that those bull**** globs of paint on canvas and/or bags of trash under a spotlight aren't art, I think we're on the same page. :p
Title: Re: Games aren't art
Post by: Dark Hunter on September 15, 2010, 07:00:50 pm
"Art" is so vaguely defined anyway that the discussion is largely pointless.

Or perhaps the word I meant was "subjective", not "vague".
Title: Re: Games aren't art
Post by: phatosealpha on September 15, 2010, 07:16:35 pm
In Super Metroid, immediately after encountering Ridley on board the space station and driving him off, she jumps in her spaceship and follow him.

Do they make any attempt to explain her behavior in previous games while making her terrified of Ridley? 
Title: Re: Games aren't art
Post by: Topgun on September 15, 2010, 07:21:27 pm
In Super Metroid, immediately after encountering Ridley on board the space station and driving him off, she jumps in her spaceship and follow him.

Do they make any attempt to explain her behavior in previous games while making her terrified of Ridley? 

In Metriod Prime she does something similar.
Title: Re: Games aren't art
Post by: Scourge of Ages on September 15, 2010, 07:50:41 pm
Do they make any attempt to explain her behavior in previous games while making her terrified of Ridley? 
Nope. Not at all.
Title: Re: Games aren't art
Post by: StarSlayer on September 15, 2010, 08:55:47 pm
I think you're attacking the issue from the wrong angle.  Quite frankly I believe in the big scheme of things the end user/viewer's opinion is pretty inconsequential to deciding if something is art.  For example I think modern art is hack with no business residing in the same museum as say a Renaissance master's oil work.   Does that mean its not art?  Hardly.  Instead I think the intentions, motivations, imagination, skills brought to bear, and creativity of the maker of the product matter much more when it comes to classifying something as art.  A little halfpint using crayons to make a stick figure family picture is performing art, they're flexing their creative ability to make something that personally to them is art.  Doesn't matter is it looks silly to you.  It's no different then some master portrait painter, professional photographer or composer, they are tapping into their ability to create something, they devote a part of themselves into making it.  When you, the creator use your imagination, go the extra mile and personally invest in your creation its art.
Title: Re: Games aren't art
Post by: Topgun on September 15, 2010, 08:57:35 pm
I think you're attacking the issue from the wrong angle.  Quite frankly I believe in the big scheme of things the end user/viewer's opinion is pretty inconsequential to deciding if something is art.  For example I think modern art is hack with no business residing in the same museum as say a Renaissance master's oil work.   Does that mean its not art?  Hardly.  Instead I think the intentions, motivations, imagination, skills brought to bear, and creativity of the maker of the product matter much more when it comes to classifying something as art.  A little halfpint using crayons to make a stick figure family picture is performing art, they're flexing their creative ability to make something that personally to them is art.  Doesn't matter is it looks silly to you.  It's no different then some master portrait painter, professional photographer or composer, they are tapping into their ability to create something, they devote a part of themselves into making it.  When you, the creator use your imagination, go the extra mile and personally invest in your creation its art.
this.
bad art is still art, because someone thinks it is, it just isn't necessarily good art.
Title: Re: Games aren't art
Post by: Dark Hunter on September 15, 2010, 09:33:43 pm
I think you're attacking the issue from the wrong angle.  Quite frankly I believe in the big scheme of things the end user/viewer's opinion is pretty inconsequential to deciding if something is art.  For example I think modern art is hack with no business residing in the same museum as say a Renaissance master's oil work.   Does that mean its not art?  Hardly.  Instead I think the intentions, motivations, imagination, skills brought to bear, and creativity of the maker of the product matter much more when it comes to classifying something as art.  A little halfpint using crayons to make a stick figure family picture is performing art, they're flexing their creative ability to make something that personally to them is art.  Doesn't matter is it looks silly to you.  It's no different then some master portrait painter, professional photographer or composer, they are tapping into their ability to create something, they devote a part of themselves into making it.  When you, the creator use your imagination, go the extra mile and personally invest in your creation its art.

This, indeed. :nod:
Title: Re: Games aren't art
Post by: Mongoose on September 15, 2010, 09:38:19 pm
Art may always be art to the artist, but I think that, to be near-universally accepted as such, it has to stir for something deeper.  You look at something like Michaelangelo's Pieta, and even if you're not religious in the least, you feel something.  He managed to bring out pure human emotion from a chunk of marble.  And even if you don't have a musical bone in your body, the 1812 Overture is going to give you goosebumps.  But random splotches of paint strewn haphazardly across a canvas...well, it may speak to the "artist" and a few emperor's-new-clothes lemmings, but it means ****-all to the rest of us. :p
Title: Re: Games aren't art
Post by: StarSlayer on September 15, 2010, 10:02:11 pm
Art may always be art to the artist, but I think that, to be near-universally accepted as such, it has to stir for something deeper.  You look at something like Michaelangelo's Pieta, and even if you're not religious in the least, you feel something.  He managed to bring out pure human emotion from a chunk of marble.  And even if you don't have a musical bone in your body, the 1812 Overture is going to give you goosebumps.  But random splotches of paint strewn haphazardly across a canvas...well, it may speak to the "artist" and a few emperor's-new-clothes lemmings, but it means ****-all to the rest of us. :p

But see you've pointed out the problem, end user opinion will always vary.  There is a group of yuppies that look at paint haphazardly thrown onto a canvas and see art.  I'm willing to bet you can find uncultured neobarb who would listen to 1812 and think it was a cacophony of old geezer music.  I can look at a well forged sword and appreciate the artistry of the smith, somebody else would only see an instrument of death.  The only opinion that isn't an interpretation, that isn't shaped by perceptions is that of the artist.  That doesn't mean you need to appreciate all art just because it is art, crap is crap and you're entitled to your opinion.  But if the developers of a game look at their creation as art that they've invested their imagination, skill and talent into making it, then what qualifications does a third party to tell them its not?
Title: Re: Games aren't art
Post by: Flipside on September 15, 2010, 10:47:54 pm
There's also the Copyright vs Patent thing, coding techniques are patented, though written code is copyrighted, you could possibly argue that all intellectual property is Art, since it is born of the mind of a 'creator', without getting too metaphysical, I've always considered 'art' to be an expression of the element of us that dreams of being a God.
Title: Re: Games aren't art
Post by: Ransom on September 15, 2010, 11:41:44 pm
But see you've pointed out the problem, end user opinion will always vary.  There is a group of yuppies that look at paint haphazardly thrown onto a canvas and see art.  I'm willing to bet you can find uncultured neobarb who would listen to 1812 and think it was a cacophony of old geezer music.  I can look at a well forged sword and appreciate the artistry of the smith, somebody else would only see an instrument of death.  The only opinion that isn't an interpretation, that isn't shaped by perceptions is that of the artist.  That doesn't mean you need to appreciate all art just because it is art, crap is crap and you're entitled to your opinion.  But if the developers of a game look at their creation as art that they've invested their imagination, skill and talent into making it, then what qualifications does a third party to tell them its not?
Intent is all well and good, but it's only half of the equation. Good art inspires.

The fact that audiences have a whole medley of reactions is precisely the point. Anybody can create something that speaks only to them. The purpose of art is to create something which speaks to others. Anything less is just intellectual masturbation.
Title: Re: Games aren't art
Post by: swashmebuckle on September 16, 2010, 05:36:59 am
The purpose of art is to create something which speaks to others. Anything less is just intellectual masturbation.
Gotta disagree here.  While the desire to communicate with others can be a good reason to create, making art for yourself isn't necessarily any less valid a practice, and it certainly isn't automatically a shallow act of self-gratification (which is what I assume you mean by intellectual masturbation).  Making art for an audience involves a wide variety of compromises and concessions, and one of those compromises is knowing that your artistic process will be affected by the anticipation of what people are going to think of the art, and by extension what they are going to think of you.  You can try to circumvent this by releasing your work anonymously, but the fact remains that you know going in that people are going to be judging your creation.  That can be a healthy thing for certain types of art and certain artists--it can encourage you to refine your craft or appropriate parts of other successful works to strengthen yours.  It can also sabotage your art by stifling your most honest instincts--history is littered with incredible talents crippled by self-doubt.

The alternative is to make art for yourself and never show it to anyone else (you can burn or delete it or just not put it down).  It's pretty counter-intuitive because we always want to be praised for our accomplishments, so if it helps you can think of it as working on the artist rather than working on the art.  It can take a long time to relax all the creative baggage you've built up and "get over yourself", and there's always the danger that somewhere deep down you're actually doing it just to prove to yourself that you're a new-age superdude (in which case it really is intellectual masturbation!), but it can also free you to work as selflessly as possible and give you unique insights into your own creative process.  I'm not trying to say one way of doing things is better than the other, in fact I think both can lead to really rewarding and transformative experiences.  Just don't count out that art can be extremely valuable to the artist even in the absence of an external audience.

Apologies if this was too post-modern for the Jackson Pollock haters :p
Title: Re: Games aren't art
Post by: Ransom on September 16, 2010, 11:31:34 am
That's not quite what I mean. Sorry, I should have been clearer. I'm saying that interpretation, not intent, is an artwork's most valuable commodity—obviously that can apply regardless of whether or not the artist was creating for an audience. StarSlayer seemed to be saying that something can be art even if the only person who thinks so is the artist. My point wasn't that the output of an artist creating for himself is automatically worthless, but that art must reach more minds than its creator's if the term is to have any meaning at all.

It's a very good point that works lacking an audience can still have value, and I agree. But I wouldn't consider them capital-A Art. Art is culture; if it's a solitary thing, it's not cultural, it's personal. I don't mean to devalue that. I just don't think it sits in the same category.
Title: Re: Games aren't art
Post by: StarSlayer on September 16, 2010, 12:58:32 pm
That's not quite what I mean. Sorry, I should have been clearer. I'm saying that interpretation, not intent, is an artwork's most valuable commodity—obviously that can apply regardless of whether or not the artist was creating for an audience. StarSlayer seemed to be saying that something can be art even if the only person who thinks so is the artist. My point wasn't that the output of an artist creating for himself is automatically worthless, but that art must reach more minds than its creator's if the term is to have any meaning at all.

It's a very good point that works lacking an audience can still have value, and I agree. But I wouldn't consider them capital-A Art. Art is culture; if it's a solitary thing, it's not cultural, it's personal. I don't mean to devalue that. I just don't think it sits in the same category.

We will probably have to agree to disagree then, I tend to put more stock in the creation phase rather then the deployment to end users as the more important part of the art development life cycle.  When I'm pushing the limits of my imagination and talent to create some concept art for Diaspora thats the rewarding part the sense of accomplishment, getting feedback from others is the gravy.  If Leonardo DaVinci decided to be a snarky git and kept the Mona Lisa all to himself does that then cease to be art?    Not to mention what qualifications does a third party meet in order to judge something as Art?  Do you need an art degree?  Any random person on the street?  There is art that was ahead of its time and wasn't appreciated till years after it was made.  Was it not art until culture developed enough to officially stamp it as such?
Title: Re: Games aren't art
Post by: Mongoose on September 19, 2010, 08:29:22 pm
Not to re-open a can of worms here, but I stumbled across this (http://gameoverthinker.blogspot.com/2010/09/episode-40-heavens-to-metroid.html) (rather brief) podcast offering a somewhat-different take on the direction Other M took the Metroid franchise.  I don't know who this guy is, but he raises some interesting points.  I was curious as to what someone who may have actually played the game thinks of his opinion.
Title: Re: Games aren't art
Post by: Scourge of Ages on September 19, 2010, 09:39:17 pm
Not to re-open a can of worms here, but I stumbled across this (http://gameoverthinker.blogspot.com/2010/09/episode-40-heavens-to-metroid.html) (rather brief) podcast offering a somewhat-different take on the direction Other M took the Metroid franchise.  I don't know who this guy is, but he raises some interesting points.  I was curious as to what someone who may have actually played the game thinks of his opinion.
You're right, he does raise some good points, but it doesn't really sound like he's actuallly played the game either. It does sound like he handily addressed the so called "fan-wangst" though.

I've been thinking about this some, trying to be objective, and I've come to a conclusion:

-It's not that you need authorization to use your equipment. It's just that it doesn't make any sense, story-wise, to withhold really useful stuff so much. ESPECIALLY the Varia and Gravity suit functions, and grapple beam; those pose exactly 0 danger to the mission or other characters. Whatever. It's a gameplay thing.

-It's not that the controls were horrible and uncontrollable. It's just that it would have worked much better if they had just let you use the nunchuk. You can get used to the controls as they are, and toward the end of the game it's generally not a problem.

-It's not that they tried to add a rich story, full of symbolism. It's that they sucked at it. The story itself was fine, but the presentation was overdone in almost every way. The cutscenes were fine, but overacted and just felt weird; I think it was the animation and writing style.

-It's not that they tried to give Samus more characterization. It's that, again, they failed in the presentation of it. The monologues were overdramatic and corny (and not in a good, fun way). Her flashbacks were similarly corny and just felt off (see above point).

-And finally, it's not that she has Ridley-induced PTSD. It's that the scene where they introduced it was just offensively badly done, and not clamactically dramatic as was probably intended. They could have handled it well, but the way they did just didn't fit. (also another style failure, see above points)

In conclusion, it's not that the game was terrible. It's that all parts of the game had flaws, sometimes small, sometimes slightly bigger, but all very conspicuous. And as we know, flaws are much easier to focus on and rant about than the good points. And when every aspect of an experience is tainted with flaws, the overwhelming impression of the experience is that it is... flawed.

I hope that made sense
Title: Re: Games aren't art
Post by: mxlm on September 20, 2010, 12:18:48 pm
(http://i56.tinypic.com/15yarm0.jpg)

The last panel is the best.