121 réponses à ce sujet

[CybAnt1]

BTW, I'll add another question to this thread. BTW, I do not consider it a digression from the topic. But, of course, its based on my view on one of the things art does. Or should do. 

 

Do you know who Jane McGonigal is? If you do, skip the brief introduction I give below. 

 

http://en.wikipedia..../Jane_McGonigal

 

McGonigal writes and speaks about alternate reality games and massively multiplayer online gaming, especially about the way that collective intelligence can be generated and used as a means for improving the quality of human life or working towards the solution of social ills. She has stated that gaming should be moving "towards Nobel Prizes."[7] McGonigal has been called "the current public face of gamification".[8]

 

Reception[edit]

 

On January 20, 2011, McGonigal's first book, Reality Is Broken: Why Games Make us Better and How they Can Change the World, was published. In this book, McGonigal looks not only at massively multiplayer online gaming andalternate reality games but also at games more widely. Using current research from the positive psychology movement, McGonigal argues that games contribute powerfully to human happiness and motivation, a sense of meaning, and the development of community.

[end]

 

So to repeat, or re-summarize, she believes games can (and do, and should) serve a real-world purpose: of building real-world community, of mobilizing "collective intelligence" to tackle real-world social problems, or improve the quality of "IRL" human life (and by that, I mean, beyond building up dopamine and other levels in the player who finishes and "wins" the game).

 

Should this be one of the things game developers - including but not limited to Bioware - should strive toward? (I do think so, of course.) But I also admit this could change some of the focus on what a game is supposed to be, or do, for its players. 

 

Yes, this moves games beyond trivial entertainments, toward being something more. I don't think it's "snobbery" of any kind to want that. 

[Volus Warlord]

No. 

 

 

 

 

It's more like a game. 

[Susty Randusky]

YOU AIN'T KNOW NOW YOU KNOW NOW

[Zanallen]

Sure, video games are art. They are just newer and thus more easily dismissed by grumpy old men. Why is a movie considered art and not a video game?

[Volus Warlord]

Sure, video games are art. They are just newer and thus more easily dismissed by grumpy old men. Why is a movie considered art and not a video game?

 

Movies aren't art. They're movies.

[Volus Warlord]

If you consider one game art, then you consider all games art.

 

If you don't consider games art, then you can't consider one game art.

 

This makes things simple.

 

That's logic. 

 

Art and logic do not mix.

[Zanallen]

Movies aren't art. They're movies.

 

Movies are considered art though. So are books, sculptures, paintings, songs, certain buildings, etc.

[Isichar]

If you consider one game art, then you consider all games art.

 

If you don't consider games art, then you can't consider one game art.

 

This makes things simple.

 

I swear Hanar, I don't see enough of your posts anymore QQ

[Jorji Costava]

This is a really good topic, OP. In response to the first of the questions on the original post:

 

I disagree with Ebert pretty strongly here. I think his example with Romeo and Juliet is making a subtle equivocation between "What would happen if you could change the ending of Romeo and Juliet?", and "What would happen if you actually did change the ending?" The latter could be problematic, but Ebert seems to assume that it's the artist's job to protect the unwashed masses from themselves and prevent even the possibility of this happening. I share neither his pessimism nor his paternalism.

 

Another concern that might be useful to mention here is the idea that video games struggle to achieve thematic unity, because story and gameplay elements tend to be segregated from each other. For instance, a huge percentage of Dragon Age games consists of us mowing down faceless darkspawn, giant spiders, etc. This activity doesn't seem particularly relevant to any of the ostensible themes of the series. What does killing Darkspawn #1,380 tell us about systemic inequalities or the conflict between freedom and security? What does killing a giant spider tell us about friendship, sacrifices or the need to make hard choices in war? Not much as far as I can see. I don't think that this means that games aren't art, or even that Dragon Age isn't art, but at the same time, it seems like an area where we can do better.

 

Games like Planescape Torment, which you mentioned, really fail at that as well. It's closer to reading a book than playing a game, and it's a generic fantasy book (I don't mean to offend anyone with this). Icewind Dale however, it does have a few moments that could be close to being art, when the music starts playing in Kuldahar for example, I personaly found that moment something different.

 

Sorry, but I had to address this. I have no idea why a preponderance of text would make Planescape: Torment any less of a game or any less of a work of art. Games are systems first and foremost, and systems can be represented spatially, through text, through some combination of the two or any number of other means. And Planescape: Torment is hardly generic; in fact, it's subverting typical fantasy cliches at pretty much every turn. If I'm being honest, I don't think it's a slight at all that PS:T is mentioned in that article while Dragon Age isn't. I like Dragon Age a lot, but it just isn't the kind of path-breaking work that PS:T was.

[CybAnt1]

If you consider one game art, then you consider all games art.

 

If you don't consider games art, then you can't consider one game art.

 

This makes things simple.

 

Fair enough, which is why some people have suggested that the discussion include subcategories, like high vs. low, and taste judgements, like good vs. bad. 

 

Or maybe just better or more. 

 

Perhaps Space Invaders is art. There would be an interesting case there. That said, though, I think Dragon Age is more-art than Space Invaders, though. 

 

And if they are both art, Dragon Age is better art. And that means more than just that its underlying visual and audial technology (that it uses 3D models, has better quality music and sound, etc.) is better. 

[CybAnt1]

Sure, video games are art. They are just newer and thus more easily dismissed by grumpy old men. Why is a movie considered art and not a video game?

 

Well, let me put a question back to you. There are things called "art films". People might say Citizen Kane is an art film, whereas The Avengers is not. 

 

But maybe it might be better to say that, in reality, Citizen Kane is more artful, or has more artiness, thus why some call it an art film. 

 

I mean, there are such places as art house cinemas. They seem to think they know what art films are, because they tend to show them. Maybe they are just snobs. 

[CybAnt1]

That's logic. 

 

Art and logic do not mix.

 

Yet, fractals, which some consider an art form, are generated by computer algorithms, which out of necessity are based on rules of mathematical logic. 

 

[CybAnt1]

This is a really good topic, OP. In response to the first of the questions on the original post:

 

I disagree with Ebert pretty strongly here. I think his example with Romeo and Juliet is making a subtle equivocation between "What would happen if you could change the ending of Romeo and Juliet?", and "What would happen if you actually did change the ending?" The latter could be problematic, but Ebert seems to assume that it's the artist's job to protect the unwashed masses from themselves and prevent even the possibility of this happening. I share neither his pessimism nor his paternalism.

 

Another concern that might be useful to mention here is the idea that video games struggle to achieve thematic unity, because story and gameplay elements tend to be segregated from each other. For instance, a huge percentage of Dragon Age games consists of us mowing down faceless darkspawn, giant spiders, etc. This activity doesn't seem particularly relevant to any of the ostensible themes of the series. What does killing Darkspawn #1,380 tell us about systemic inequalities or the conflict between freedom and security? What does killing a giant spider tell us about friendship, sacrifices or the need to make hard choices in war? Not much as far as I can see. I don't think that this means that games aren't art, or even that Dragon Age isn't art, but at the same time, it seems like an area where we can do better.

 

 

Sorry, but I had to address this. I have no idea why a preponderance of text would make Planescape: Torment any less of a game or any less of a work of art. Games are systems first and foremost, and systems can be represented spatially, through text, through some combination of the two or any number of other means. And Planescape: Torment is hardly generic; in fact, it's subverting typical fantasy cliches at pretty much every turn. If I'm being honest, I don't think it's a slight at all that PS:T is mentioned in that article while Dragon Age isn't. I like Dragon Age a lot, but it just isn't the kind of path-breaking work that PS:T was.

 

Thank you, osbornep, it's answers like yours I'm looking for. Not that I would ban the other kinds, even if I had the power. But it's what I keep hoping to see. 

 

We have to bear in mind that in a game with multiple endings, even though the player may be able to determine their path toward generating one of them, at the end of the day, it is the developers who provide those possible endings. No success/fail/in between states exist besides those that have still been pre-determined. That said, though, like I keep saying, with mods and things like MEHEM, we are even able to reject the possible endings they offer, and thus generate our own, which I find interesting, especially if you are fan of Michel Foucault. (I am). 

 

On your point about thematic unity, there is a struggle between - imho - gaminess and artiness. But you could argue that even in the great fantasy stories, there are a lot of meaningless battles that are just left offscreen. So, yes, it's glorious to watch the great epic battles of Helm's Deep or Pelennor Fields/Minas Tirith in LOTR. And that's what we're shown onscreen. But surely, along the way, Gimli, Legolas, and Aragorn probably had to kill orc #360, goblin #183 (yes I know that throws off Gimli's counting system), and random worg #428. It's the mechanics of RPGs that force them to throw lots of meaningless battles at you (killing = xp, xp = leveling) but I suppose though it is not grand story, it's really showing you some stuff epic fantasy tales relegate to scenery. If you want to rationalize it. 

 

BTW, though, it is interesting, you certainly never seem them constantly looting treasure chests and barrels, scraping for every gold piece, rifling every corpse for items, either, in those great tales, but I digress.

 

I don't think preponderance of text in a game is a bad thing, even in 2014, where there is so much more technical ability to simply render things with moving video/animation and spoken/presented audio. But then, of course, that may be at the heart of my problem with current dialogue systems. I can't agree text doesn't belong in games, nor the act of reading. As to your last statement, well, yes, thank you for having the heart to say it, because I think it is true. 

 

That may be my huge problem with Dragon Age. I saw some hints that they were looking for path-breaking in DA:O (probing toward it, if not achieving it), but then it turned into a lot of well-worn path-following in DA2. 

 

... and I'm sensing that they might be trying again to do some path-breaking in DA:I, which is why I look toward it with some anticipation. 

[Reorte]

If a story is a work of art than a story-driven game certainly is, and one with a unique ability to really get under the skin of the player in a way no other storytelling medium can.

 

I don't go as far as saying all games are art - some are simply games, like chess or dominoes.

[Reorte]

Thank you, osbornep, it's answers like yours I'm looking for. Not that I would ban the other kinds, even if I had the power. But it's what I keep hoping to see. 

 

We have to bear in mind that in a game with multiple endings, even though the player may be able to determine their path toward generating one of them, at the end of the day, it is the developers who provide those possible endings. No success/fail/in between states exist besides those that have still been pre-determined. That said, though, like I keep saying, with mods and things like MEHEM, we are even able to reject the possible endings they offer, and thus generate our own, which I find interesting, especially if you are fan of Michel Foucault. (I am). 

The pre-determined results are a limitation of implementation, not the concept. Pre-written, pre-programmed events in a game are necessary because we've not developed the means of doing away with them and still having a convincing experience (alas everything being procedurally generated tends to show up fairly quickly), but it's merely a question of how far the technology has developed rather than anything fundamental IMO.

[Gravisanimi]

If a story is a work of art than a story-driven game certainly is, and one with a unique ability to really get under the skin of the player in a way no other storytelling medium can.

 

I don't go as far as saying all games are art - some are simply games, like chess or dominoes.

 

One can go to say all games are made of art.

The models, the sprites, the textures, levels, and story are all art in their own right, and are put together for the purpose of a game.

 

Even chess, with someone needing to design the pieces, and originally carving them from wood or stone.

[CybAnt1]

The pre-determined results are a limitation of implementation, not the concept. Pre-written, pre-programmed events in a game are necessary because we've not developed the means of doing away with them and still having a convincing experience (alas everything being procedurally generated tends to show up fairly quickly), but it's merely a question of how far the technology has developed rather than anything fundamental IMO.

 

I don't know. We might need to be using different kinds of computers (quantum computing?) in the future to have a non-deterministic ending. It would be fascinating to create a game where you can never have the same ending, and in fact are able to create exactly the kind of ending you want, exactly as you imagine you want things to end, but I don't know if such a game could be implemented on existing computing technology. 

 

I just do find it interesting the way mod-makers can tip the balance. The point of MEHEM is if you don't like the endings developers gave you, mod-makers give you an entirely new and different set of options. It is almost like you could go into Romeo & Juliet and rewrite things so that it has a happy ending. Now, I certainly agree that that deprives the tragedy of its dramatic-tragic power as Shakespeare intended ... but now it means you are taking it and making it your own story.

 

IMHO, that's a new kind of art form for humanity, and also contains all kinds of interesting possibilities for really enabling a whole new kind of art we haven't seen before. 

[Ridwan]

Nope, it's a virtual toy, nothing else.

[Gravisanimi]

Care to extrapolate that perspective?

[Reorte]

I don't know. We might need to be using different kinds of computers (quantum computing?) in the future to have a non-deterministic ending. It would be fascinating to create a game where you can never have the same ending, and in fact are able to create exactly the kind of ending you want, exactly as you imagine you want things to end, but I don't know if such a game could be implemented on existing computing technology.

Not the end you want - if you're creating what you want then you're writing the story. The ending you want should be a possible outcome (if it's at all a plausible outcome), which isn't quite the same thing.

[Jorji Costava]

@CybAnt1:

 

Thanks for the response. On games and violence, there's a lot going on there. First, you're absolutely right that games aren't the only medium that includes content for reasons having little to do with the ideas in play in whatever work you're talking about. One could easily ask, "How come everyone everyone on such-and-such TV show is so attractive when the show's ostensibly about the lives of ordinary folks?" There's expectation and market demand which pushes developers and producers towards including things that aren't necessarily story or theme relevant. Errant Signal also makes the point that combat is just easier to make into a system than conversations, because combat is something that can be represented in spatial terms.