Quote: Original post by Dim_Yimma_H
I wonder how much of an impact games like Little Big Planet, WarioWare Do It Yourself and Second Life will have in the long run.

None.

User-generated content, virtual worlds, or even the idea of having both in the same app - these were not invented yesterday; we've had this stuff for a long time now. Neverwinter Nights did a lot for that, and many other moddable games and MUDs before it. Neither LBP nor Second Life are doing anything particularly revolutionary as far as I can see, they are just far more visible, advance things a little bit, and come on the peak of the user-generated content hype that somehow seems to parallel the whole "Web 2.0" hype (Web 2.0 being another cool concept that's been hyped to the skies even though it's been around since before the Internet - think back to any BBS where you could dial in with your land phone and post messages).

Actually letting people make money from it is a thorny subject. Developers/publishers like to think that they own intellectual property created within their game, and that you can't sell it or make money off it, but that's highly contentious, as five minutes on eBay or an afternoon with an IP lawyer will confirm. And it certainly doesn't matter in China - look at all those gold farmers :D

Anyone else noticed how channels like Xbox Live Arcade is implicitly pushing the way we see games as art? There are many independently developed games there, the kind of games with the most experimental/suggestive features and maybe potentially emotional experiences of the time are possible in such games.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
From this we must conclude that Konami views it's products as commodities rather than as works of art. To paraphrase myself from a thread earlier this week, Konami isn't ready to reform society, it's simply driven to make money.

I guess the decision-makers are generally following that, even while there are very artistic artists within the company.

There's one thing that turns around everything though, and it's when the artistic features may make the game catch everyone's attention. The Grand Theft Auto series must've interested many young buyers from all the controversial newspaper headlines.

Capcom's Okami, having that brilliant graphical style at least caught the attention of forums and game magazine readers. From what I read it didn't make enough money though.

Quote: Original post by slayemin
Where does art come from?
All art comes from the imagination of the artist. The imagination of the artist is usually inspired by the interests, experiences and creative inventiveness of the artist.

I tend to think art is a depiction of experience(s). The creator must take inspiration from something they've experienced to create anything at all. Then the viewer of the art interprets the piece of art based on their own experiences (which may be completely different from the creator's).

So that "range of emotions" is available in the piece, even if not conveyed all the way.

Quote: Original post by slayemin
Is game development 'art'?
By my definition of what constitutes art, yes. The game designer has to imagine the game world and game mechanics in order to create it. It takes creativity.

I agree pretty much about that, because I think art/games have many of the features of "art" even if the public doesn't see them at all time. In common language "art" changes meaning now and then. I for example do not feel fully familiar with the English textbook definition of it, because of the language barrier.

Quote: Original post by lightbringer
Neither LBP nor Second Life are doing anything particularly revolutionary as far as I can see, they are just far more visible, advance things a little bit, and come on the peak of the user-generated content hype that somehow seems to parallel the whole "Web 2.0" hype

And Web 2.0 features like blogs have something in common with where game development is headed, everyone writes blogs but nobody reads them all, personal creations available in a public channel.

Quote: Original post by lightbringer
Developers/publishers like to think that they own intellectual property created within their game, and that you can't sell it or make money off it, but that's highly contentious, as five minutes on eBay or an afternoon with an IP lawyer will confirm.

I'm just waiting for the moment publishers realize they should make profit on their players' creativity [grin]

Quote: Original post by slayemin
Even as a Marine who was involved in the first battle in Fallujah, I don't really find this game very controversial. Even though it was canceled, if someone where actually developing it, I would hope that the realism of modern combat would be captured accurately to make a clear statement about the nature of war. There'd better be civilians and screaming families! Unfortunately, what is "fun" is not necessarily a reflection of reality and a war game like this would paint war as "fun" when it is anything but fun for either side.

News accounts say the game makers consulted with Marines who fought there. The notion of "fun" seems to be taken as a given sight unseen. As the guy from the SF Chronicle article concludes: "Now we're left to wonder."

Quote: Original post by slayemin
From what I gather from your argument, you seem to claim that a game like this shouldn't be canceled because of its artistic merits. Ignoring the obvious business influences on game dev, Should every game enjoy freedom from controversy due to artistic license? Let's pick this apart to get a better grasp on a good position to take and then look at more case studies:

I think canceling the game sets a negative precedent regarding potential development arcs for video games in general. In as much as video games are poised to takeover from cinema as the primary form of mass produced art, kowtowing to the censors is not a good thing. I have no idea about the artistic merits of the game, I simply see ignorant and fearful people complaining about content they haven't seen (and therefore can only imagine) and getting the game scrapped.

Quote: Original post by slayemin
In the most general sense, art is a depiction of imagination through some medium. Optionally, it may convey a message or range of emotions.

So Duchamp's toilet isn't art?

Quote: Original post by slayemin
Does the phrase 'You are what you eat' apply to art & games as it does to food, or is it 'You eat what you like' more accurate?

The phrase is overly simplistic. You're made of compounds taken from what you ingest. That doesn't make you corn or beef. When it comes to games, there's going to be influence, just as with reading a book, watching tv, listening to music. But influence is not complete construction. A mind isn't necessarily weak, but society prefers the masses believe so, imo.

Quote: Original post by Dim_Yimma_H

Quote: Original post by LessBread
From this we must conclude that Konami views it's products as commodities rather than as works of art. To paraphrase myself from a thread earlier this week, Konami isn't ready to reform society, it's simply driven to make money.

I guess the decision-makers are generally following that, even while there are very artistic artists within the company.

The views of the artists don't count. They're just cogs in a machine controlled by someone else. They make art, someone else decides if it belongs in the trash, regardless of the caliber of art involved.

Quote: Original post by Dim_Yimma_H
There's one thing that turns around everything though, and it's when the artistic features may make the game catch everyone's attention. The Grand Theft Auto series must've interested many young buyers from all the controversial newspaper headlines.

Look up GTA at wikipedia. It was first released in 1997. It didn't take off until 2001 with the release of the 3rd version. I think word of mouth preceded controversial headlines. I can't imagine that politicians would make an issue out of a game before it was popular. It wouldn't be worth their while otherwise.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Look up GTA at wikipedia. It was first released in 1997. It didn't take off until 2001 with the release of the 3rd version. I think word of mouth preceded controversial headlines. I can't imagine that politicians would make an issue out of a game before it was popular. It wouldn't be worth their while otherwise.

The original Grand Theft Auto was the first game I can remember making the breakfast news on the bbc due to attempts to have it banned before release. Of course this was mainly due to certain less than reputable news papers in the UK being paid *wink wink* to get upset over the game to increase sales.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
So Duchamp's toilet isn't art?

Not in my opinion.

Quote: The work is regarded by some as a major landmark in 20th century art.

That just shows how pathetically sad our world is. :(

You're probably not keen on Andy Warhol or 60's pop art either then. The principle there is the same as with Duchamp. It's more about changing how we see things than it is about what we're seeing.

It's not art if it don't involve paint!

People are still having the argument about what art is? Something can be terrible and boring and still be art. It doesn't need to be created by someone with talent to be considered art. It can be vastly overrated and still be art. It could have been created by a talentless bs spewing hack and still be art. At worst the problem isn't what art is or isn't the problem is what people consider to be good art. Someone liking something I find terrible doesn't affect me. If it does bother you then find some artists you do like, support them, and help them get exposure.

Quote: Original post by Machaira

Quote: Original post by LessBread
So Duchamp's toilet isn't art?

Not in my opinion.

Quote: The work is regarded by some as a major landmark in 20th century art.

That just shows how pathetically sad our world is. :(

Thats the great thing about art, its different things to different people. Art is more then a Renaissance era painting.