How is the debate pointless? Just because you said so?
By your own reckinong, your opinion here is as pompous as everyone else's.
As for videogames being an artform: Videogames haven't even existed for a century. It took a long time for cinema to be considered an art form, and that's a lot closer to theater than videogames ever were; unless someone's trying to make "Hamlet" or "The Importance of being Earnest" into some epic scale RPG that I'm not aware of.
It's very much debateable whether or not videogames are an artform, so please don't speak in such absolutes. They may very well be eventually, but I'm not convinced that they are now. Certainly most games out there right now would not count, and they are not recognized as such by any art academy or instition that I know of (is there an equivalent of the Oscar or Tony award for them? I'd certainly like to know!).
Quote:
You're right and also wrong. Most people in this thread participate in a discussion with personal thoughts and opinions. Few made them as absolute truths.|
Originally Posted by Bright Shadow
You're not in the minority. As a student in the field of Game Development, I've said it over and over again in this thread. But, as expected, everyone's opinions seems to make any research, actual statistics, and professional advice obsolete. Here it is again: Graphics goes hand-in-hand with gameplay and content. Simply debating which one is more important for the well-being of a game is a pointless, meaningless discussion. Since it seems that the "Pfft! Graphics are not important!" people are completely ignoring facts and observations from people who work in the field, here is the quote from one of my earlier posts on this subject: The following is taken from the book Game Design and Development, written by Ernest Adams and Andrew Rollings. It is a university text book being taught in the field of Software Engineering and Game Design: "Video games are an art form, so aesthetics are a part of their design..." "...a game with clumsy animation, a muddy soundtrack, trite dialog, or sloppy artwork will disappoint players even if its gameplay is good." "An ugly or awkward video game is a bad one, no matter how innovative its design or impressive its technology. Part of your job [as a game developer] is to give your players aesthetic pleasure." A little further on: "We [game developers] believe the graphics versus gameplay debate is no longer a meaningful one. The truth is that graphics and gameplay must work together to produce the total play experience. The graphics create the setting, which both sells the game and involves the player in the game's fantasy. The gameplay provides the challenge and things for the player to do. Both are essential to the player's enjoyment of the game." Are we REALLY gonna continue this pointless debate? If you think the graphics of a particular game are lacking, or if it's content and gameplay is lacking, then that's your opinion and it is as worthless as mine. But do not claim that the same should be true for everyone else. And because of that, do not criticize a COMPLETELY OPTIONAL FEATURE in an upcoming expansion SOLELY BASED ON YOUR OPINION. |
That quote is right from a developer's point of view. The gaming market now allows for anything to have a succesfull chance because there's just so many gamers out there and so many people buying various types of games. This is a mmorpg asa a fact. And a mmorpg as another fact must bring a lot more hours of gaming than other games. I agree that graphics and gameplay go together, and that it was the time for an upgrade in CoX. But then you have going rogue with its morality changeand a new map. Not a free issue but a paid expansion meant to keep you playing and t bring new players to the game. But how many other games that rely mostly on graphics are there that you can play online with friends or strangers and not pay a monthly subscription.
You could argue your statement regarding games and graphics by not having enviroment interaction while having high world details and reflections.
What are good graphics after all ?
Going Rogue has been advertized as the next big thing in the CoX universe, again not a free issue. And they showed what it will bring new. That new stuff for me,personally, is not worth paying for. When they'll release more info about what new additions will be made with GR I will rethink if i'll buy it or not. instead of paying hundreds of dollars for a laptop upgrade I'd rather buy a PS3.
I also believe that as long as this is not a free product where i am given the privilege of playing it and its a subscription type of game I do have the right to complain. Might seem like whining but its not. An this topic is not whining or complaining, just an expression of my dissapointment. It became a graphics vs gameplay debate the moment some users started to make statements like how everyone should enjoy what they enjoy because they know best and stuff like that.
Quote:
I don't know how to respond to this post other than to disagree as vehemently as one can disagree with another human being.
|
Originally Posted by Coyote_Seven
As for videogames being an artform: Videogames haven't even existed for a century. It took a long time for cinema to be considered an art form, and that's a lot closer to theater than videogames ever were; unless someone's trying to make "Hamlet" or "The Importance of being Earnest" into some epic scale RPG that I'm not aware of.
It's very much debateable whether or not videogames are an artform, so please don't speak in such absolutes. They may very well be eventually, but I'm not convinced that they are now. Certainly most games out there right now would not count, and they are not recognized as such by any art academy or instition that I know of (is there an equivalent of the Oscar or Tony award for them? I'd certainly like to know!). |
Quote:
Not surprising, coming from the art guy |
Originally Posted by BackAlleyBrawler
I don't know how to respond to this post other than to disagree as vehemently as one can disagree with another human being.
|
@Morac | Twitter
Trust the computer. The computer knows all.
Quote:
Alright. Get back to me when you've reached a viable conclusion. Drop a note in my grave if I'm dead by then.
Originally Posted by Coyote_Seven
How is the debate pointless? Just because you said so?
I'm not presenting my own opinion. I'm presenting the opinion of people who have spent their lives researching these things and have written books on the topic. I'm presenting the opinion of people who call themselves game development professionals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coyote_Seven
By your own reckinong, your opinion here is as pompous as everyone else's.
Again. See the quotation marks? Those are not my words. Those are the words of people who MAKE video games.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coyote_Seven
As for videogames being an artform: Videogames haven't even existed for a century. It took a long time for cinema to be considered an art form, and that's a lot closer to theater than videogames ever were; unless someone's trying to make "Hamlet" or "The Importance of being Earnest" into some epic scale RPG that I'm not aware of.
It's very much debateable whether or not videogames are an artform, so please don't speak in such absolutes. They may very well be eventually, but I'm not convinced that they are now. Certainly most games out there right now would not count, and they are not recognized as such by any art academy or instition that I know of (is there an equivalent of the Oscar or Tony award for them? I'd certainly like to know!).
Regardless, do you even know the definition of "art form"?
Here's the definition from Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
When you draw something, it is considered art. It has no function. It doesn't matter if it pretty or not. That is why it is called art; because it is open to subjective criticism. Some people like it, some people don't.Quote:
Main Entry: art form
Function: noun
Date: 1868
1 : a form or medium of expression recognized as fine art <sees dance as both an art form and an entertainment>
2 a : an unconventional form or medium in which impulses regarded as artistic may be expressed <describe pinball as a great American art form — Tom Buckley> b : an undertaking or activity enhanced by a high level of skill or refinement <easy conversation—an art form in peril of being lost to contemporary schedules — Joanna Pruess>
A novel, a play, a piece of music, and a painting are all considered art.
A video game is simply nothing but an interactive movie. That is why the development of a game is called "Game Design". There is no one right way of designing a game. Hence why it is an art form. It is, in a vague sense, a method of self expression. And 'self' in this context refers to a vast group of people that actually does include the players of the game as well.
But going heavily off-topic here. However, I like to point out that I'm not speaking in absolutes. I just have sources behind my arguments, which no longer makes them 'pure opinions'.
I'm not saying the opinion presented in my sources are absolute. I'm not saying there are never any exceptions.
What I am saying is that, generally, for a game to be successful, it needs a balance of gameplay and graphics. Sure, we have the "classics" that don't follow that rule. But are you really gonna sit here and say CoH will be a classic game like Super Mario or Starcraft?
But even if I am wrong, this debate is pointless. Why? Because game developers have realized that constantly debating whether or not gameplay is more important than the visual presentation of a video game is a fruitless discussion. Why? Because, as you've seen in the past few pages of this thread, it has no conclusion. It's based on opinions, and we all know my opinion, or even yours, has very little to do with the success of City of Heroes as a video game in a competitive market, and a very, VERY vast majority of City of Heroes subscribers would pay for a graphics upgrade to CoH. And that, is what a team of game developers is concerned about.
And for that very reason, I think they've made a very right choice.
Quote:
Woot!
Originally Posted by BackAlleyBrawler
I don't know how to respond to this post other than to disagree as vehemently as one can disagree with another human being.
Nice spin in the last sentence, but I think you missed the part where I'd previously posted in this thread that I actually like the new graphics upgrade. I don't know where you got that I didn't.
At either rate, you're quickly starting to build up a straw-man here, and coupled with your semantic arguments, I'd say that indeed trying to talk with you is very pointless!
Quote:
Which part? That videogames aren't an art form, that they may be an artform eventually, or that some games are closer to being art than others?
|
Originally Posted by BackAlleyBrawler
I don't know how to respond to this post other than to disagree as vehemently as one can disagree with another human being.
|
Quote:
Art takes on many many forms. Dismissing video games as not being an artform since they haven't existed for a century is being a tad bit shortsighted. On top of that, they do incorporate many art forms in a different media.|
Originally Posted by Coyote_Seven
It's very much debateable whether or not videogames are an artform, so please don't speak in such absolutes. They may very well be eventually, but I'm not convinced that they are now. Certainly most games out there right now would not count, and they are not recognized as such by any art academy or instition that I know of (is there an equivalent of the Oscar or Tony award for them? I'd certainly like to know!).
|
Paintings are used to create the visual settings and effects you see. Painting is an art form.(Moving pictures if you wish to use the movie analogy.)
The use of lighting to help convey the settings and moods. Think theatrical lighting design. Different tool sets, but still an art form.
Music is most certainly an art and combining auditory sounds/effects and music is also considered an art. (again, go back to the movie references for sound editing, etc. It is considered an art to film makers)
Writing is also considered an art ( some will argue writing code is art, but I won't get into that.
) so the stories, dialog, history, etc, used to create the world we play in comes from that art. What we're immersed in is certainly not technical manuals or how to guides, even though there is some of that in the help sections. What is considered art or not art from an aesthetic stand point can certainly be a hot button topic, especially when it comes to what is considered "fringe" art by some. (examples would be nude pictures in art galleries to Madonna's 1989 "Like a Prayer" video, the video being considered blasphemy by some.)
Whether or not you consider it an art form or not, well, that would be subjective and I can't speak for your opinion. To me, it is a combination of many artforms used to create entertainment for us. And an art unto itself. Mind you some video games are lousy art (akin to the velvet "dogs playing poker" posters) but I don't consider this one to be lousy art by any means.
Throwing darts at the board to see if something sticks.....
Come show your resolve and fight my brute!
Tanks: Gauntlet, the streak breaker and you!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by PapaSlade
Rangle's right....this is fun.
|
Quote:
...how am I pulling a straw man? xD
Originally Posted by Coyote_Seven
Nice spin in the last sentence, but I think you missed the part where I'd previously posted in this thread that I actually like the new graphics upgrade. I don't know where you got that I didn't.
At either rate, you're quickly starting to build up a straw-man here, and coupled with your semantic arguments, I'd say that indeed trying to talk with you is very pointless!
I had no idea that you didn't think the graphics upgrade is bad. That was my mistake. And to be quite honest, my target is not YOU. It's the people who are criticizing CoH: GR simply because it has a large graphical update and people believe that has wasted developer resources.
Quote:
You're saying its questionable whether what BaB - an animation artist - does qualifies as an "artform" and you're not sure in what specific manner he is disagreeing with you?
|
Originally Posted by Coyote_Seven
Quote:
|
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
Quote:
Because, video games being a form of art is a fact. You seem to debate how good the art is, which is a different discussion entirely. |
Originally Posted by Coyote_Seven
How is the debate pointless? Just because you said so?
|
You point out that cinema was not considered an art when it was first introduced. But does that make the fact that it is now considered art, no matter how bad it may be, any less valid now?
Just because the majority of people think something doesn't make it correct. Facts are facts. There were no witches in mideval times, but at the time everyone thought there were, does that mean at the time there actually were witches? The problem here is that you saying that video games are not art is just blatantly untrue and false. Whether or not it's good art, as previously stated, is a different issue.
Well see, the difference is that in a song, or a painting or a movie, art is used to convey a message of some kind; often personal, sometimes politcial, but always very important. At least to the person who made it.
Now videogames came from a different angle from that. The main point of a game was not to invoke an emotion or convey an important message. It was something else entirely. I'll admit that with videogames, it has already begun moving away from that. But like I was trying to say before, I don't think it's exactly there yet.
Now a good analogy for us here might be in comic books. They were certainly not considered to be serious art to any degree! But I'm certain anyone who's read them in the last 30 or 40 years would beg to differ.
Now here we got an MMO that embraces the spirit of the superhero genre that has been the mainstay of comic books for so long. Just one look in the thread about Going Rogue on the heated philosophical discussions over the true meaning of morality will show that the makers of this game have kind of touched on something. I don't know if that's really by design or not, or if us posters have just gone off on some wild tangent!
A game like this one is enteraining to be sure, there are no doubts there! But what's is ultimate message? Good always triumphs over evil? Be careful what you wish for? Sacrifices must sometimes be made for the greater good?
If you think this game is art, I'd like to know why you think so. No trite or sarcastic responses, pretty please. I'm quite serious. Why do you think it is? My mind is certainly open to the possibility.
Quote:
Exactly.
Originally Posted by Lunch_Box
Because, video games being a form of art is a fact. You seem to debate how good the art is, which is a different discussion entirely.
Many people fall into a misconception that just because an art form does not appeal to their tastes, it is not art.
That is a very, very wrong, yet sadly very, very common thought process.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BackAlleyBrawler
I don't know how to respond to this post other than to disagree as vehemently as one can disagree with another human being.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
You're saying its questionable whether what BaB - an animation artist - does qualifies as an "artform" and you're not sure in what specific manner he is disagreeing with you?
|
Quote:
Because it is composed of stories, visuals, and music.
Originally Posted by Coyote_Seven
Well see, the difference is that in a song, or a painting or a movie, art is used to convey a message of some kind; often personal, sometimes politcial, but always very important. At least to the person who made it.
Now videogames came from a different angle from that. The main point of a game was not to invoke an emotion or convey an important message. It was something else entirely. I'll admit that with videogames, it has already begun moving away from that. But like I was trying to say before, I don't think it's exactly there yet.
Now a good analogy for us here might be in comic books. They were certainly not considered to be serious art to any degree! But I'm certain anyone who's read them in the last 30 or 40 years would beg to differ.
Now here we got an MMO that embraces the spirit of the superhero genre that has been the mainstay of comic books for so long. Just one look in the thread about Going Rogue on the heated philosophical discussions over the true meaning of morality will show that the makers of this game have kind of touched on something. I don't know if that's really by design or not, or if us posters have just gone off on some wild tangent!
A game like this one is enteraining to be sure, there are no doubts there! But what's is ultimate message? Good always triumphs over evil? Be careful what you wish for? Sacrifices must sometimes be made for the greater good?
If you think this game is art, I'd like to know why you think so. No trite or sarcastic responses, pretty please. I'm quite serious. Why do you think it is? My mind is certainly open to the possibility.
All of those elements are already considered forms of art by the arbitrary hypothetical standards you seem to be following.
That's the simplest reason why I think City of Heroes is an art along with every other video game. It certainly isn't the only reason. But I think it is enough to justify the cause.
Quote:
I've been playing this game for 10 months. Not years like other players. But up untill now in 10 months (post i13) there has been : MA (the most consistend addition), one TF, powerset proliferation, a costume and some booster packs that i bought. At this point I have payed 150 USD for this game. Far more than any other games I have bought EVER. But at this point I am also playing : Heroes of Might and magic, Counter Strike, Call of Duty 2, Pharaoh and its expansion Cleopatra,StarCraft Broodwar. Games older than 10 months with a price far lower than CoX.|
Originally Posted by Gaymer
I too am disappointed. I am disappointed that you have not even given it a chance.
I have been playing this game for 5, yes 5 years. All I can say is I went to HeroCon. I saw what they had to offer and heard what little tidbits they could leak out- knowing there was so much more that was unsaid. Before I went to HeroCon I was a bit worried about the future of the game. After the Con I left with a feeling of renewel and vindication. I can now say with all conviction, "Champions Online? Did they bury that next to Betamax or Cassette tapes?" Disappointed? No, not by any means. Hopeful? Yes- on all accounts (including my 2 CoX accounts). Indigo, leader of the City of Gaymers |
Lots of users dissagreed with me, told me i was whining and complaining, that i was trolling and so on and so forth. But when i choose to pay this much for this game its because i like it or something it has to offer. In this case the customization on other gameplay features. No i didnt burn through all the content and i never got more than 200 badges because there are things in CoX i dont enjoy, i dont see its content like homework or mandatory stuff. GR will be due by the time I have payed double this amount i have already payed and i am definately not impressed by a preliminary presentation that show me i'll be getting an optional visual upgrade. Maybe GR will be an impressive expansion ,but for me it has to bring something else other than graphics for high ends computers.
Quote:
There's an interesting and subtle distinction between 'form of art' and 'art form'.|
Originally Posted by Coyote_Seven
And several of them certainly question the idea of whether or not games are a form of art.
|
A little child's crayon drawings that you stick on the fridge are a form of art.
But infantile crayon scrawling is not an art form.
Quote:
Art doesnt have to be 'good'. Certaintly a lot of art isnt good, (to my opinion and view) and a lot doesnt convey a message, espically not an important one. A painting of a bowl of flowers will be called art by everyone looking at it. Without a 'very important' message.| Well see, the difference is that in a song, or a painting or a movie, art is used to convey a message of some kind; often personal, sometimes politcial, but always very important. At least to the person who made it. |
You could look at one of the Vahzilok . The appearence of them certainity convey visual imagery. The flies buzzing around them implies the decay, the meshing of metal/flesh visable convey the sci-fi flavour of the creature... and more could be drawn from it. Misshapen form to imply twisted creator.
Its interesting that it appears from your stance, a printed out picture of a vah zombie would be 'art', a movie containing one would be 'art', but becasue it in a different medium it loses its 'art' tag.
I don't suffer from altitis, I enjoy every minute of it.
Thank you Devs & Community people for a great game.
So sad to be ending ):
Quote:
It already does. We've seen a small fraction of them. Where've you been?
Originally Posted by MageX
...but for me it has to bring something else other than graphics for high ends computers.
Quote:
How can one say that entertainment is not an art form in one post, and then site the Hollywood establishments for recognition of television and cinema (as a basis of defining an art form) in a previous post? Not to be overly blunt, but that's a hypocritical fallacy.|
Originally Posted by Coyote_Seven
Well see, the difference is that in a song, or a painting or a movie, art is used to convey a message of some kind; often personal, sometimes politcial, but always very important. At least to the person who made it.
Now videogames came from a different angle from that. The main point of a game was not to invoke an emotion or convey an important message. It was something else entirely. I'll admit that with videogames, it has already begun moving away from that. But like I was trying to say before, I don't think it's exactly there yet. Now a good analogy for us here might be in comic books. They were certainly not considered to be serious art to any degree! But I'm certain anyone who's read them in the last 30 or 40 years would beg to differ. Now here we got an MMO that embraces the spirit of the superhero genre that has been the mainstay of comic books for so long. Just one look in the thread about Going Rogue on the heated philosophical discussions over the true meaning of morality will show that the makers of this game have kind of touched on something. I don't know if that's really by design or not, or if us posters have just gone off on some wild tangent! A game like this one is enteraining to be sure, there are no doubts there! But what's is ultimate message? Good always triumphs over evil? Be careful what you wish for? Sacrifices must sometimes be made for the greater good? If you think this game is art, I'd like to know why you think so. No trite or sarcastic responses, pretty please. I'm quite serious. Why do you think it is? My mind is certainly open to the possibility. |
If one embraces cinema, television, theater, musicals, dancing, music, and other forms of entertainment as art, why then should one make an exception for video games? Are they not created by artists? Do they not entertain us? Are they not criticized by the public and professionals alike?
In regards to the "ultimate message", it is true that not every video game is a narrative with a moral at the end, or a compelling story. However, the same can be said about many television shows. Yet still, to cite a specific example, shows like Robot Chicken still win Emmys and are recognized by their peers and their audiences, despite not having much content at all. And that's to say nothing for Seinfeld, as another example. Yet, these are still recognized art forms.
That's my 2 infl. Color me in the same corner as BAB in this debate.
Quote:
<3|
Originally Posted by Lunch_Box
Just because the majority of people think something doesn't make it correct. Facts are facts. There were no witches in mideval times, but at the time everyone thought there were, does that mean at the time there actually were witches? The problem here is that you saying that video games are not art is just blatantly untrue and false. Whether or not it's good art, as previously stated, is a different issue.
|
Video games are undeniably art. Pretty much any art school worth a damn has a game design program these days. Even The Art Center, one of the most prestigious schools on the west coast, has one and they are snobby types :P
Quote:
Exactly. The fact that cinema wasn't considered an art form, and neither was photography for decades before that, but i digress... Anyway, the fact that cinema was not widely accepted as an art form by the arbiters of culture did not mean that all movies made before wider acceptance were not art, and actually it was quite the contrary. The art world can in many ways be more conservative and resistant to change than the general population.|
Originally Posted by Lunch_Box
Because, video games being a form of art is a fact. You seem to debate how good the art is, which is a different discussion entirely.
You point out that cinema was not considered an art when it was first introduced. But does that make the fact that it is now considered art, no matter how bad it may be, any less valid now? Just because the majority of people think something doesn't make it correct. |
i think The Path is one of the better examples of a video game created to primarily express artistic or conceptual ideas with entertainment in the sense it generally applies to video games as a secondary consideration.
There are a number of other video games that have as much or more artistic merit than many pieces of art currently in museums. That the medium is not widely accepted as a valid art form has more to do with how relatively new it is. Of course this is just my opinion, which is somewhat based in my decades of dealing with artists and the art world in general.
So, a studio hires people who are all accepted as valid and successful artists in their respective fields, such as graphic arts, writing, music and so on, who then collaborate to create an interactive computer program incorporating all their talents, but because the end result is sold as a video game it can no longer be considered art?
i don't think so.
(Granted, most video games may be bad art or not really art at all, but i've seen enough art in more traditional media to know that's hardly unusual. i've even seen pieces sell for six figures that i know are ugly, poorly thought out and accidentally meaningful at best, because i've worked with the artist who made them. And no, i'm not naming any names.)
Dr. Todt's theme.
i make stuff...
Quote:
There are people who make a living specifically by pontificating on the subject of game design?|
Originally Posted by Bright Shadow
I'm not presenting my own opinion. I'm presenting the opinion of people who have spent their lives researching these things and have written books on the topic.
|
I'm in the wrong racket.
--NT
@Morac | Twitter
Trust the computer. The computer knows all.