Disappointed

I think video game *soundtracks* have been recognized with at least a category in the music industry's big-name awards (Grammy? I think? I don't keep track of these things) but, no, as far as I know there's not any such institution for the games themselves.

(And, frankly, I think games have a little further to go before they get there.)

I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you and the education system agrees with me. If it wasn't a form of art, then art schools wouldn't have animation and video game design departments.

You say it took a long time for cinema to be considered artform?? Who decided and When?? Some self appointed art society?? Who made them the authority??

Why would you consider animated films art but not animation in video games? They are both computer generated expressions of an idea or concept. Why the segregation?

nowai!!!!!!11!!1!!

I agree, judge based on what's there. So far what's there I like. Someone can say so far what's there they don't like. However SOME folks are making the idiotic and silly assumption that GR is all that was shown at HeroCon. Not the OP, but some others I've seen on these forums and in game. Yeah let's using to freaking logic folks and not make ourselves look ignorant. They've stated that there will be 5 zones. So folks are saying that all of GR will be 5 zones with content for levels 1-20. That's silly!

I'm not even going to get into the whole art discussion because that's even more subjective than what I just posted above. Needless to say there is NOT one set definition of the word "art". That is all.

tl;dr: art is in the eye of the beholder, and all of COH:GR has not been revealed yet. If you like it fine, if you don't fine. But don't assume that's all that's going to be in Going Rogue.

Now, now. You saw what BaB said about not knocking the competition!

There's not?

Grammy = award by music artist for other music artists
Oscar = award for filmmakers by other filmmakers

Not that it really matters if there's an organization who decides what's good and what's bad - as mentioned previously in the thread, just because the Oscars started in the late 1920s doesn't mean that each and every film prior to them can not be judged as art (or on artistic merits) simply because there wasn't an award at the time.

Originally Posted by PleaseRecycle it has gone from unconscionable to downright appalling that we have no way of measuring our characters' wetness.

Originally Posted by Brillig It's hard to beat the entertainment value of Whackjob Wednesdays.

Surprise! The time comparison you've made is actually much more apt than you think.

Pinning down a date for the invention of motion pictures is a matter of what one considers a motion picture, from Edrwad Muybridge's photo series of moving animals and people in 1878 to Luimiere's first public showing in 1895, but let's use 1896, the year Thomas Edison introduced the first commercially produced motion picture projector, as being the year non-inventors could start experimenting with storytelling.

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, a professional organization dedicated to advancing the art and science of movies, was founded in 1927.

That gives us a time frame of 31 years from the availability of projectors for anyone to show movies to the formal recognition of a dedicated arts establishment.

As for computer games, the apparent title of "first computer game" goes to Spacewar in 1961, but the desktop personal computer wasn't available, so only technical types had access. A better parallel would be the introduction of mass-market personal computers, probably around 1977, although they were limited to hobbyists at first.

It's now 2009. That gives us a time frame from the "general availability of personal computers for anyone to start playing games" until now of...32 years.

The time is right! Someone needs to found an Academy of Computer Game Arts and Sciences and get those awards flowing. BABs, time to step up to the plate? You could be the Jack Valenti of computer games!

No, I don't think so. If you're unsatisfied with what's been announced so far, there's still stuff yet to be revealed that you might like when it is, so it's premature to say the whole package isn't going to do it for you. On the other hand, if you like the look of what's been announced enough that it's already put the expansion across your satisfaction threshold - i.e., you'd be happy just to receive what's already been revealed, much less the rest of the stuff that hasn't been yet - then, well, you're already there.

I often respond to those who say video games can't be art with just two words: Metroid Prime

That normally shuts them up.

We've learned a lot about what constitutes an art form in the last century. Any medium that combines creativity and craftsmanship is essentially an art form. An art form's tenure really has no bearing on legitimacy. Whether or not society has granted its imprimatur to legitimize an art form is beside the point. Something becomes an art when the artists and their audience agree that it is.

Now, while most objects of any type of craft are mere handiworks, there are exemplars that are definitely works of art.

For example: an authentic Ming vase is a work of art. The flower vase I buy at Bed, Bath and Beyond is mere handiwork. Pottery is an art form. The vast majority of pots that have ever been made are simple objects with no artistic value.

Paintings by Rembrandt are works of art. The illustration on my cereal box and most book covers are handiwork.

Film is an art form. The vast majority of commercials and popular movies are simply handiwork.

Handiwork becomes art when its aesthetic sensibility and craftsmanship exceeds the mundane and becomes something more than its basic functionality. But it's more than that. We as a people imbue things with a sense of time and place that reflect their origins and history, and our feelings about them.

That means it is possible for a mundane, well-crafted object to become art over time. Like the pottery of ancient Greece. Or some of the common, mass-produced yet well-made porcelains of the nineteenth century that have now become rare -- and somehow through the magic of time -- works of art.

So it is with computer games. The problem with computer games is that they are so complex, crafted by so many different hands, that it is almost impossible to maintain a high level of craftsmanship and artistic sensibility throughout. They are filled with rambunctious and profane players who constantly break the mood of the artistic sensibilities of the game.

Yet there are almost certainly many beautiful and artistic images throughout the world of computer games, wonderful pieces of music, well-crafted words and set pieces combining all these elements to evoke a sense of mystery, wonder, joy, foreboding, fear, elation: the whole gamut of emotional reactions.

And isn't that what art is all about?

I do in fact disagree. I cried doom about sideswitching earlier. People immediately spoke up and corrected the misinformation I was going on. Had I not voiced my concern I probably would have continued to believe what I believe and been upset about the game in general and that probably would have spilled over into other areas.

A more tangible example would be how the doom horn was sounded about the epic changes that went through where they removed powers. If everyone had been happy and nice about it nothing would have been corrected. Drop rates is another "doom" thread that got us an important game change.

Generally though the voice of doom is considerably smaller than the supporting voice. A single doom calling ranting about server mergers (for instance) can unite a whole group of people together to dispel that notion. All you have to do is look to the Matrix to understand that societies need discord to function

Whether you enjoyed something, or found it a transformative or evocative experience has no bearing on whether something is art. To say that something is "art" has, somewhere along the way, gained an air of meaning that something was awesome or inspirational in some way. To say that something is "a work of art" has clear implications of exceptional quality. However, such quality is not a requirement for something to be a piece of art. Anyone who says otherwise is confusing whether they liked a piece of art and its nature as a piece of artistic expression. Just because you don't think a piece of artwork was moving or enjoyable to you (or indeed to anyone) doesn't mean it wasn't a work of art.

Hail Eris!

See the problem is that the assumption is being made that the unveiling of more information will inherently be positive.

I'm part of the doom-callers (not so secret) society of players that think GR is going to come with some very major game altercations like diminished returns implemented into the pve side. They could announce another 15 new powersets and DR would overpower it with negativity (for me).

It's logically unreasonable to wholesale accept or reject GR based on the limited amount of information. But it is entirely reasonable to point out that you like or dislike certain aspects relative to what we do know.

A person may indeed be very satisfied with what has been announced. If that was the release they would be happy. However, they have indicated there is "more". The more can (and probably will) be convincing in both a positive and negative way.

Therefore saying "I love GR" is just as illogical as saying "I hate GR". If someone tacks "so far" onto either statement they are fine, but I'm seeing a lot of people guilty of speaking in absolutes and actually getting upset at the other group speaking in absolutes. They are both wrong

Thank you!

This was a well thought out response. I was getting rather tired of the knee-jerk reactions yesterday. A lot of times discussions on the Internet are less like a debate room and more like a schoolyard.

I'd totally forgotten about the BAFTA awards, though I remember now that I'd heard of them before. It's too bad there isn't something as good as that in the U.S.

Don't do it unless you bring a big enough bat?

Oh wait, that was pohsyb. BaB said don't knock the competition when you can steal from it instead. No, that was Positron. BaB said don't screw up the competition until he makes it to the level cap first. Yeah, that was BaB.

Thank you, Jean-Baptiste Frosticus Zorg.

I suppose that would depend solely on one's definition of art.

If one defines art as something that can be quantified by set criteria such as time, recognition by a ruling body or an award then "video games" would certainly be an art form. Ruling bodies and awards currently exist for game design; considering the popularity of video games over the last 30 years it would be more unbelievable if they didn’t exist. This leaves us with time as a deciding factor for what constitutes an art form.

Speaking as someone that can remember a world before Pong; "video games" have evolved far beyond their humble beginnings and the potential for individual creativity is light years ahead of where it was even 10 years ago which gives today’s game designers more freedom of expression. The amount of time the art form has been in existence has to be measured against the evolution of its tools over that period of time if one is going to judge an art form on how long that it’s been around.

Wikipedia defines art as “the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way that appeals to the senses or emotions. It encompasses a diverse range of human activities, creations, and modes of expression, including music, literature, film, sculpture, and paintings.” All these modes of expression can be found in game design albeit with different tools and media than the classic examples. I personally feel that the definition of art is really subjective. Graffiti is considered an art form by some and vandalism by others.

Finally if one defines art as simply something that inspires than "video games" have been an art form for many, many years.



>

Wait a sec. I did mention BAFTA awards before Starsman! See Post #412!....

FINE! BE THAT WAY!

Dang, trumped by Starsman. Mind you, worse things could happen, I could be right after an McBoo post and be overshadowed again...


(and no I'm not being serious here in case anyone couldn't figure that out... )

Originally Posted by PapaSlade Rangle's right....this is fun.

No, not at all. The assumption being made is that there are those sufficiently pleased with what's already known about it that whatever else is in there won't make a significant enough difference to change their overall reaction to the package. I will grant you that this presupposes the unrevealed part is not something outright ridiculous, like, "Oh, yes, and we're also completely breaking the game. Apologies in advance for any inconvenience." Quite frankly I think that's an absurd thing to be worried about at this point in history and needn't be taken into account when constructing all but the most radically ludicrous hypothetical scenarios.

... like this one. Okay, my mistake, I didn't realize you were speaking from quite that far down the pier. Why on Earth would you consider that likely? After spending five years smoothing out and speeding up the experience progression, tinkering with and fettling drop rates, etc., now the designers are suddenly going to turn around and retard the process? That's what my grandfather would call "borrowing trouble" right there. I'm half-tempted to think you just said that to be perverse.