Oluseyi, getting too hung up on the language being used is one of the problems. Getting all whiny about what makes a "game" is like getting all upset about what "marriage" is. It makes the arguer look anal and renders the argument obsolete.

Is a MUD a video game? It''s no more "video" than an interoffice memorandum. Sure, it can be argued that text is a visual medium, but walking around a statue is as much a "game" as scrolling text is a "video".

I think it''s time for "video game" to shed its antiquated literal meaning and start applying to anthing that involves an interactive computer program that is intended to be a presentation of the designers. I don''t know if that''s an adequate definition, in fact I doubt it is, but I think that until a definition of "video game" -- not just a combination of the definitions of "video" and "game" is formulated, this argument will lack meaning and content alike.

quote: Original post by Iron Chef Carnage
I think it''s time for "video game" to shed its antiquated literal meaning and start applying to anthing that involves an interactive computer program that is intended to be a presentation of the designers. I don''t know if that''s an adequate definition, in fact I doubt it is, but I think that until a definition of "video game" -- not just a combination of the definitions of "video" and "game" is formulated, this argument will lack meaning and content alike.

You completely missed my point (and ironically turned out to be the one hung up on language instead).

When I referred to game, I wasn''t restricting it to computers. The board games, sports, child''s play we''ve all engaged in - they involve choices (masked as strategy, rules, whatever). How do we express art within that context?

Why do we bother? Is it not enough to entertain - and not just in the trigger-happy fashion of shooters, but also the intellectually satisfaction of puzzles and mysteries, the humor of adventure titles... Why do we create (and then endlessly debate) this concept of "art" as though it were separate from everything else?

I''m taking a course of Arts of the African Diaspora, and an interesting point made by my professor (and by many of the texts) is that the works we are presented with, while artistic, were also functional. Objects were often at once practical and decorative. The notion of "art" as a rarified category is an odd evolution of Western society, perhaps serving mostly to employ a bunch of people to argue its definitions, merits and whatnot under the rubric of being "art critics."

*shrug*

I think for games to be "interactive" it must have a level of graphical detail to make the player feel like he is in the game, and this will very from person to person, I will give a good example of this point. There are two kinds of people in my personal opinion, person A can pick up a book and read the whole thing and come out of it like he was apart of the story, Reader A was able to put those words and imagine the world around him/her. While Reader B can pick up that same book and put it down after page 20 and say ok this book is boring, even though they both like that kind of story( from action, to magic and dragons etc.) Something for games, a lot of people can play text games and play them for hours and love it while others get bored after 2 min. Me for example I can’t stand Pac-man, or Tetris, I just find it a boring game. I find the rules to simple, and not really a “fun” challenge. Where I can play x-com and play the game for hours and stop playing with a smile on my face or come out frustrated, because I was challenged. Granted that game isn’t very graphical but it’s an old game. Where as games today will put very good use of the technology that is out today and use it in there games. Here is a question to think about, would you pay $45 for doom3, or would you rather pay $30 for something like Tetris (something that was creative but didn’t have a story nor didn’t have graphics? Yet it was fun to play and had really high replay value? More people will buy a game that has better graphics, even though the story is poor. This is normally done by the game company hyping up the game to the point where people are pre-ordering the game. Such as AquaNox, I heard this story was extremely bad, but they released a sequel, which means that either had money or they made some profit to make a second game.

Another reason why games are becoming more boring, is because of money, time (another form of money). Game companies aren’t making a lot of money off there games, mainly because they suck, which is caused by small time frames to make these games. Bioware or BlackIsle forgot which anyway, one of them made Never Winter Nights and took 4-5 years to make with something like 45 people working on the game and it turned out ok in my opinion. But a lot of people like this game, this game has good graphics for the type of game and a good story, a lot of content and many hours to play. while other companies try and just get the most amount money as they can before they sell the company ( they make FPS ) Hope that it will last longer then a few months and hope they can stay alive till they release there next game, which turns out to be good graphics with no story, poor game play, etc. While companies that spend time on there games, will have a much greater chance of making a lot more money. In today’s world of professional game development you cant really get away with making poor graphics. You will lose, Story you can get away with a lot more.

I like games that have at least decent art, with a decent story, and with more then 3 hours to game play. Baldures Gate Series was just awesome, KoToR was a good game, Worms Armageddon was good and a lot of fun. There has to be a good combination in order for a game to be good to me and, many games don’t provide this.


EDIT: Just wanted to add that I see a min of 8 post debate!

[edited by - dalik on March 8, 2004 5:43:03 PM]

quote: Original post by Oluseyi
When I referred to game, I wasn''t restricting it to computers. The board games, sports, child''s play we''ve all engaged in - they involve choices (masked as strategy, rules, whatever). How do we express art within that context?

I got that part. You''re stretching the definition of "game" to broaden the possible realm of "video games". My point is that you shouldn''t have to. "Video games" don''t have to be rule-based competitions or "a series of interesting choices" any more than comics have to be funny or soap operas have to have musical components. The objective is to free ourselves from the literal definition of the word, but distending that definition destroys the word''s specificity without freeing us. Don''t do that. Just use "video game" as a noun phrase. My problem is that "video game" should mean something by itself. "Recreational software" is my new candidate for that. Any software that isn''t intended to do something particularly useful, like your taxes, might be considered "recreational". Frogger? Video game. Quicken? Not a video game. Star Trek screen-saver? Hrm... Maybe we should throw in "interactive".

quote: Original post by Oluseyi

Why do we bother? Is it not enough to entertain - and not just in the trigger-happy fashion of shooters, but also the intellectually satisfaction of puzzles and mysteries, the humor of adventure titles...

Can we not also entertain with a scenic vista or witty dialogue? Do we have to draw a line between video games and movies? Can one person fail to be entertained by what enthralls another? Surely the audience is no more a judge of entertainment than it is a judge of art, and so no, it is not enough simply to entertain.

By the way, at this point I''m no longer arguing with you, I''m just co-opting your example for my own ends.

quote: Original post by Oluseyi
I''m taking a course of Arts of the African Diaspora, and an interesting point made by my professor (and by many of the texts) is that the works we are presented with, while artistic, were also functional. Objects were often at once practical and decorative. The notion of "art" as a rarified category is an odd evolution of Western society, perhaps serving mostly to employ a bunch of people to argue its definitions, merits and whatnot under the rubric of being "art critics."

"Art as a rarified category" is a purely linguistic distinction, and this cross-cultural example of the Diaspora has a weakness in that area. Do the Diaspora call their carved bowls and colorful garments art? Does their word for art mean the same thing that our word for art means? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Regardless, I would say that the feelings and thoughts the Diaspora associate with their utilitarian artifacts is more akin to the feeling I have regarding my sweet new watch, or my trendy shades, or my new car''s paint job than to the feeling Rodin had when he looked at his Fallen Caryatid.

My father made a brass switch for our porchlight that operates by twisting a metal rod that penetrates through the floor to the power circuit. He built it out of a nice piece of brass he found in the basement, and capped it with a stylish brass handle from on old chest of drawers. It''s very nice. The design, though ingenious, was necessitated by the unique structure of his home. Is it art? Probably not by our standards. He no doubt feels a swell of pride when he sees it, and I myself was impressed by the engineering and aesthetics of the device. I think that the word the Diaspora use for art in the context you described is appropriate for labelling that brass switch. The word, though, is just a symbol for the feeling, a placeholder for the idea.

Now, when a Diaspora uses his word to describe a nice hand-crafted bowl, and when I call that bowl art, we are in agreement. When we discuss my father''s switch, he would perhaps use the same word, while I might hesitate to use the word "art". Same thing with games. I think everyone can agree that chess is a game, whether it''s on a board or on a computer screen. We can usually apply that word to things like Halo and Everquest. But there comes a time when we reach the boundary of that word, and so we want to call something an "interactive environment" or a "virtual experience". Maybe even "electronic art" (It''s in the game).

Is it necessary to do this? Maybe. But I don''t think that we should discourage new artworks just because they muscle in on the technology and techniques that until now have been dominated by video games.

I think that ICO is a fascinating, but slightly dull game. (Huh?).

The box art is probably my favourite computer game cover of all time, and just made me go "I have to check this out"

http://www.psx.net.pl/covers2/ico_coverJAP.jpg

compare with this alternate version,

http://bestcovers.tgnetwk.com/images/ico.jpg

one is just another game cover, but the other is intriguing and different.

The in-game graphics in ICO are also brilliant, but very different to the stylised cover, it has great lighting and good animation..

Many people say that ICO borders on art.

Such as this
http://www.gamecritics.com/review/ico/main.php

Having hoped that it would be awesome from the reviews etc. I was let down when I played it for two reasons, 1. the combat was dull (I know that the idea is for it to be a persistent menace rather than a foe that can be beaten, but it was stil dull). 2. The 2-3 hours that I played it for (out of approx a 6-8 hour game) weren''t as cerebral as I had read that it was. The puzzles were often not proper puzzles, and involved finding the right ledge to climb I''d have much prefered cleverer puzzles such as in Zork Nemesis or Myst. Another case of art vs entertainment. But hopefully one that will be imitated and bettered.

quote: Original post by Iron Chef Carnage
Filled since their inception with bright primary colors and low-quality dialogue, comics were viewed by the entire population as little more than a vehicle for cheesy superhero fantasies

Look at Deus Ex a game whose plot became very topical post 911, quite clever in some ways it still featured (seemingly?) farfetched / quasi-superhero-like bio-augmented characters and a save the world type plot.

Admittedly they didn''t have a (totally) magic bullet ending, things weren''t lala-land happy whichever ending you chose. Which is a good advance over most action/ RPG games!

How many novels feature superheroes?