Video Game General (Official)

[Archer Vonn]

Anyone else feeling "meh" about Bloodborne? It feels like it's hard for the sake of being hard.

 

haha this sounds like some denial, like yeah it was purposely hard but that's just the style of the series. it's what fromsoft is known for. you're criticizing it's main selling point, something you should have very well been aware of when you bought it.

 

So, any Minecraft fans.

 

try the gigantic minecraft topic. the gigantic minecraft topic has been lost to the sands of time, my bad. also why is your font so big.

Edited April 8, 2015 by Archer Vonn

[LegoSWfan]

 

Anyone else feeling "meh" about Bloodborne? It feels like it's hard for the sake of being hard.

 

 

haha this sounds like some denial, like yeah it was purposely hard but that's just the style of the series. it's what fromsoft is known for. you're criticizing it's main selling point, something you should have very well been aware of when you bought it.

 

So, any Minecraft fans.

 

 

try the gigantic minecraft topic. the gigantic minecraft topic has been lost to the sands of time, my bad. also why is your font so big.

Nooo!

 

Why is my font so big? To make a statement, of course!

 

...but seriously, it's so people don't misunderstand what I'm saying.

[Hodor]

 

Anyone else feeling "meh" about Bloodborne? It feels like it's hard for the sake of being hard.

 

haha this sounds like some denial, like yeah it was purposely hard but that's just the style of the series. it's what fromsoft is known for. you're criticizing it's main selling point, something you should have very well been aware of when you bought it.

Seriously, From Software's been known for making fairly difficult games since the PSX. It's basically the company's standard.

 

Speaking of From Soft, picked up Scholar of The First Sin yesterday on PS4. Haven't gotten to play it since there's been a storm and it's kicked off the power a few times, but man does it look fun. Got the poster, too.

[Archer Vonn]

there was this xbox game made by fromsoft that only released in japan, it was like, mecha american president slaying terrorists who took over america with michael bay style explosions and duke nukem style catchphrases.

 

i couldn't make it up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Genl242_ZU8

 

but outside of this 1 game yeah fromsoft makes serious games for serious gamers

Edited April 8, 2015 by Archer Vonn

[Terminus]

fromsoft made a game on xbox original that only launched in japan that was like, mecha president wolfman defending america from terrorists, and his mecha was like what eight year olds think of when they think of mechas, all decked out with RPGs and miniguns. i'll see if i can find the trailer

I remember seeing that somewhere.

 

I lol'd so hard when I was watching some clips from that game.

[ineverlikedfelt]

Why can't America make games and not movies?

[Archer Vonn]

films are actually capable of being art, video games are not. i'll gladly take good american cinema over good american video games.

 

edit: its kinda messed up i have the three year/four year spinny, it seems like the last two years on this site were spent almost entirely in this topic.

Edited April 9, 2015 by Archer Vonn

[Terminus]

films are actually capable of being art, video games are not. i'll gladly take good american cinema over good american video games.

I'd definitely say that's debatable.

 

Anyways, I'm thinking of giving the Souls games a try, wondering where to start. Thinking of trying either Demon's Souls or Dark Souls on PS3, or just jumping in with DS2 on PS4.

 

Also, this month's free PS+ game on vita is Killzone: Mercenary. I'm not a big fan of the default controls, and there are no in-game control options (i.e., switching what button makes you run, etc), but then I remembered about Vita's custom button mapping feature.

That is my new favorite feature of the Vita.

[Jobber]

 

Anyone else feeling "meh" about Bloodborne? It feels like it's hard for the sake of being hard.

 

haha this sounds like some denial, like yeah it was purposely hard but that's just the style of the series. it's what fromsoft is known for. you're criticizing it's main selling point, something you should have very well been aware of when you bought it.

 

 

Do you know how bad I want to sue you right now? And I got the game for free.

[Just A Dot]

films are actually capable of being art, video games are not. i'll gladly take good american cinema over good american video games.

 

That logic makes no sense. A game can convey a story with just as much emotion as a film. Heck, in a film, you are always an observer, just watching. In a game, you have a degree of firsthand interaction. I daresay it makes more sense to get emotional over a video game than a film.

 

Now, whether or not gaming is CURRENTLY art is up for debate. I feel both of Team ICO's games were perfect examples, but others may disagree (and likely missed something in those games, but that's besides the point ), saying gaming is not capable of being art is just plain ignorant.

[Hodor]

Anyways, I'm thinking of giving the Souls games a try, wondering where to start. Thinking of trying either Demon's Souls or Dark Souls on PS3, or just jumping in with DS2 on PS4.

Dark Souls 2 is supposed to be a fair bit more hand-holding than the first two games, but honestly you could start with them too. I got aboard the train with DaS, personally.

 

 

there was this xbox game made by fromsoft that only released in japan, it was like, mecha american president slaying terrorists who took over america with michael bay style explosions and duke nukem style catchphrases.

 

i couldn't make it up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Genl242_ZU8

 

but outside of this 1 game yeah fromsoft makes serious games for serious gamers

Metal Wolf Chaos is amazing. I'd love to get my hands on a copy, but it frequently goes for 200+ on the second hand market.

 

It's absolutely amazing that it didn't get localized.

 

 

Why can't America make games and not movies?

I  suspect that there's a lot more resentment towards the medium in US/Canadian studios than in other countries, mainly in the writers' side of things. A lot of potentially interesting games/concepts end up getting buried under the writers trying SO HARD to be aping cinema, since that's seen as more 'respectable'. Especially since most writers in games would be laughed out of any other industry.

 

I think it says something when some of the best western-styled RPGs of this last generation have come from either Japan or previous-no name studios in Poland.

[LegoSWfan]

films are actually capable of being art, video games are not. i'll gladly take good american cinema over good american video games.

 

edit: its kinda messed up i have the three year/four year spinny, it seems like the last two years on this site were spent almost entirely in this topic.

Then you haven't seen Halos locations.

[Archer Vonn]

Then you haven't seen Halos locations.

 

yes i have. they're pretty, but pretty things do not constitute art. 

 

 

Especially since most writers in games would be laughed out of any other industry.

 

this guy gets it

 

 

 

 

That logic makes no sense. A game can convey a story with just as much emotion as a film. Heck, in a film, you are always an observer, just watching. In a game, you have a degree of firsthand interaction. I daresay it makes more sense to get emotional over a video game than a film.

 

nah. video games tell their stories through cutscenes, which are just segments of films. the actual gameplay has no affect on the story at all (except in heavy rain), it's just sort of a series of puzzles or challenges between bits of film. having gameplay is what defines video games AS being video games, and it has no artistic value at all.

 

also, it's harder to empathize with 3d models, no matter how lifelike they are. there's no human element like there is in music or cinema. even paintings were made by hand, as opposed to video games which were made by computers. 

Edited April 9, 2015 by Archer Vonn

[LegoSWfan]

Vonn, than what's art to you?

[Blessed Blade]

nah. video games tell their stories through cutscenes, which are just segments of films. the actual gameplay has no affect on the story at all (except in heavy rain), it's just sort of a series of puzzles or challenges between bits of film. having gameplay is what defines video games AS being video games, and it has no artistic value at all.

 

also, it's harder to empathize with 3d models, no matter how lifelike they are. there's no human element like there is in music or cinema. even paintings were made by hand, as opposed to video games which were made by computers.

Uhhhhh...

 

Where do I even begin with this? Just, where?

 

For the first part, I'd like to direct you to Portal or Half Life, where the story is not told through cutscenes except in very specific situations where it'd be nearly impossible to do anything else(And for the mid-game ones, you still have control of the camera). And secondly, how exactly, does having control over something remove artistic value? That like. Makes absolutely no sense at all.

 

As for the second part, that's where I really don't understand you at all. Did you just say that 3D models are not art? And more specifically, that they are not art, because they were 'made by computers'? No. Just, no. That is most utterly incorrect, and I don't even know where to start showing that. Lemme ask you something; someone draws a thing; if it would be considered art on paper, would it suddenly not be considered art if it was a drawing tablet that was used to draw it? And secondly, have you ever seen the process to make a 3D model? Because it's not easy. Not everyone can just snap their fingers and have a full human model just show up, unless they download it; which is not making it themselves at all.

 

Just. Seriously?

[Dapper I Guess]

 

nah. video games tell their stories through cutscenes, which are just segments of films. the actual gameplay has no affect on the story at all (except in heavy rain), it's just sort of a series of puzzles or challenges between bits of film. having gameplay is what defines video games AS being video games, and it has no artistic value at all.

 

also, it's harder to empathize with 3d models, no matter how lifelike they are. there's no human element like there is in music or cinema. even paintings were made by hand, as opposed to video games which were made by computers. 

I can't for the life of me tell if you're joking or not.

[Terminus]

 

nah. video games tell their stories through cutscenes, which are just segments of films. the actual gameplay has no affect on the story at all (except in heavy rain), it's just sort of a series of puzzles or challenges between bits of film. having gameplay is what defines video games AS being video games, and it has no artistic value at all.

Personally, I wouldn't separate the story from the game. Yes, gameplay is an important part of the game, but the story is still part of the full game, along with all the other art (models, sprites, backgrounds, etc) that goes into making a full video game. If we're going to compare games to movies, I'd say the way the story and gameplay sections tie together (especially in really linear games), video games are more like interactive movies.

 

I'd also point to Visual Novels and Adventure Games, where gameplay is extremely minimal or virtually non-exist outside of menus or choosing option A, B, or C.

 

also, it's harder to empathize with 3d models, no matter how lifelike they are. there's no human element like there is in music or cinema. even paintings were made by hand, as opposed to video games which were made by computers.

I get what you're saying, but the statement "video games which were made by computers" is just wrong. Replace "by" with "with" and then I'd agree with you on that statement, but as a 3D Modeling & Animaton student, I can say that creating 3D models for games involves quite a bit of work by the artist- simply building and rigging a model is a pretty involved process, and then you also need to texture the models, which generally involves some form of digital painting, be it in a 3D painting program or photoshop.

 

Also, I'd recommend looking at Flower, which is probably one of my favorite examples in favor of video games being art.

[Konuju]

nah. video games tell their stories through cutscenes, which are just segments of films. the actual gameplay has no affect on the story at all (except in heavy rain), it's just sort of a series of puzzles or challenges between bits of film. having gameplay is what defines video games AS being video games, and it has no artistic value at all.

 

also, it's harder to empathize with 3d models, no matter how lifelike they are. there's no human element like there is in music or cinema. even paintings were made by hand, as opposed to video games which were made by computers.

 

Do 3D models have any less of a human element than the CGI that has become so common in movies today? It doesn't have to look lifelike for you to be able to empathize with it. But if its character, its personality, has human elements to it, then you can find yourself relating to something as inanimate as a harp.

 

How much of the story is limited to cutscenes depends on the video game itself, but you can't say the gameplay has no artistic value whatsoever. It's just another medium through which to tell a story. Like movies are a different medium from books, video games are a different medium than movies. You can argue that one form is better than another, but really it depends on the story being told. What makes a good story isn't its medium, but what it says about humanity in general. In the words of Lloyd Alexander, fantasy isn't a means of escaping reality. It's a way of understanding it. I think the same applies to all fiction -- no, to all art -- in general, not just the fantasy genre.

 

Case in point: any Pokémon Mystery Dungeon game. Those games have no humans in them at all (except for humans that have turned into Pokémon, but the sprites and 3D models are hardly human-looking), but I was still able to empathize with each of the characters. Because the characters themselves were relatable. Art is far more than pretty pictures, cinematography, or 3D models. It's a way of expressing thoughts and emotions, whether it be through imagery, words on a page, music to your ears, or a combination of all those things.

[Ehksidian]

nah. video games tell their stories through cutscenes, which are just segments of films. the actual gameplay has no affect on the story at all (except in heavy rain), it's just sort of a series of puzzles or challenges between bits of film. having gameplay is what defines video games AS being video games, and it has no artistic value at all.

 

also, it's harder to empathize with 3d models, no matter how lifelike they are. there's no human element like there is in music or cinema. even paintings were made by hand, as opposed to video games which were made by computers. 

 

Wanna know what else was considered not good enough to be art when it first came out?

Cinema.

Wanna know what else?

Novels.

Saying that it's hard to empathize with 3D models is like saying it's hard to empathize with movie actors, because they weren't hand-drawn. What about CGI movies? Because they're made with CGI, does that make them less art? The basis of your argument is incredibly flawed, the logic you're using to support it is flawed, and the statement itself is flawed. Video games can be art. Just like novels and movies.

[Voltex]

 

 

 

That logic makes no sense. A game can convey a story with just as much emotion as a film. Heck, in a film, you are always an observer, just watching. In a game, you have a degree of firsthand interaction. I daresay it makes more sense to get emotional over a video game than a film.

 

nah. video games tell their stories through cutscenes, which are just segments of films. the actual gameplay has no affect on the story at all (except in heavy rain), it's just sort of a series of puzzles or challenges between bits of film. having gameplay is what defines video games AS being video games, and it has no artistic value at all.

 

This opinion is wrong in so many ways, like, I can't even. Just refer to literally every single post above mine.

[Jobber]

How did this convo even start?

Edited April 9, 2015 by Anonymous User

[Hodor]

Games are essentially going through its growing pains. I have no doubt that games are an art form, but in its current state very little of the medium is... well, good. A lot of games are suffering from identity crisis. The influence of cinema dominates the medium, since a lot of hacks try to use 'muh cinematic influence' as an excuse for a game that doesn't muster up as a game.

 

It's why games like Heavy Rain and The Order 1886 are laughed at by most gamers. While a good story (or at least an interesting setting) can save a game- for example, The Elder Scrolls are fairly mediocre games salvaged by the lore- bad writing can hurt a game. Such was the case with Dragon Age 2, a game that is all-around terrible, ranging from bad characters, a plot that knows no pacing (if you can even call it a plot), exceedingly poor gameplay (you literally can win entire combat scenarios by pressing light attack and looking away from the screen), and more or less away any good will the developer had.

 

It's an artform going through a really, really awkward puberty.

[ineverlikedfelt]

[Archer Vonn]

 

 

 

 

That logic makes no sense. A game can convey a story with just as much emotion as a film. Heck, in a film, you are always an observer, just watching. In a game, you have a degree of firsthand interaction. I daresay it makes more sense to get emotional over a video game than a film.

 

nah. video games tell their stories through cutscenes, which are just segments of films. the actual gameplay has no affect on the story at all (except in heavy rain), it's just sort of a series of puzzles or challenges between bits of film. having gameplay is what defines video games AS being video games, and it has no artistic value at all.

 

This opinion is wrong in so many ways, like, I can't even. Just refer to literally every single post above mine.

 

 

video games are designed to entertain, not to stimulate minds or emotions. 

 

okay i get this is a controversial topic so we should probably drop it; in theory, video games could be art, but right now, developers don't seem to have much interest in it and so if you all think it's art, then i think you're babies who need to reevaluate your lives. kappa. but seriously this is gonna go nowhere.

Edited April 9, 2015 by Archer Vonn

[LegoSWfan]

 

 

 

 

 

so if you all think it's art, then i think you're babies who need to reevaluate your lives. kappa. but seriously this is gonna go nowhere.

 

Hey. No need for name calling.

[Just A Dot]

 

Then you haven't seen Halos locations.

 

yes i have. they're pretty, but pretty things do not constitute art. 

 

Especially since most writers in games would be laughed out of any other industry.

 

this guy gets it

 

 

That logic makes no sense. A game can convey a story with just as much emotion as a film. Heck, in a film, you are always an observer, just watching. In a game, you have a degree of firsthand interaction. I daresay it makes more sense to get emotional over a video game than a film.

 

nah. video games tell their stories through cutscenes, which are just segments of films. the actual gameplay has no affect on the story at all (except in heavy rain), it's just sort of a series of puzzles or challenges between bits of film. having gameplay is what defines video games AS being video games, and it has no artistic value at all.

 

also, it's harder to empathize with 3d models, no matter how lifelike they are. there's no human element like there is in music or cinema. even paintings were made by hand, as opposed to video games which were made by computers.

 

You literally cited Heavy Rain. Doesn't it's presence mean games can be art? It was easily on of the most emotional things I've played. Again, I'll cite both of Team ICO's games as games that tell story through gameplay, not cutscene. I didn't care about Yorda through cutscenes, I cared about her leading her around the castle and defending her. What about Mother 3? Are you saying it would be as powerful or emotional in a movie? Having to

fight your own brother to the death?

That doesn't have the same weight if I were to watch Lucas do that in a movie. But BEING Lucas, and having to do that holds a completely different meaning. Having to

choose whether or not to sacrifice my best friend's older sister

in Fire Emblem Awakening? Could not be replicated in a film.

 

Besides, a video game has music and visual art in it, so that's certainly art and the "human element" you want. I've played games with excellent soundtracks. Something like The Wind Waker is just plain pleasing to look at visually.

 

Do you find it hard to empathize with animation? My all-time favorite TV show is still Avatar: The Last Airbender. The characters are all anime, and yet, they convey emotion very well through expressions and writing. They come off as well-developed and serious characters.

This topic isn't controversial. There is no argument against it. There's one side that's right, and one that's wrong. It's inarguable that video games have the potential to be art. I have no problem with you saying you haven't played any games you would call art, that takes things like taste into account, but saying the media is incapable is just incorrect.

[ineverlikedfelt]

Why can't America make games and not movies?

I regret nothing.

Edited April 10, 2015 by ineverlikedfelt

[Archer Vonn]

 

 

 through gameplay,

 

explain specifically how the gamplay in SOTC contributed to the story. 

 

 

 

Do you find it hard to empathize with animation? My all-time favorite TV show is still Avatar: The Last Airbender. The characters are all anime, and yet, they convey emotion very well through expressions and writing. They come off as well-developed and serious characters.

 

humans can emphasize with other humans, or images of humans, more easily than they can with recreations of humans. yeah, films use cgi which is the same thing. it's just a barrier that exists in the human mind. i did say it was harder, not impossible.

 

 

 

This topic isn't controversial. There is no argument against it.

 

you're ignorant. google 'are video games art' and then tell me people are in agreement. if you can't tell me that, then it is, by definition, controversial.

 

i'll admit i was a little wrong (but frankly you guys are still sperging more than you need to) in saying that they aren't art- they can be, hypothetically, but they aren't right now. there are a few cases but those are so few and far between and the examples you guys HAVE given would've been better if they existed in other mediums. specifically literature, since it is by far the greatest method of storytelling. 

[Voltex]

 

 

 

 through gameplay,

 

explain specifically how the gamplay in SOTC contributed to the story. 

 

 

 

Do you find it hard to empathize with animation? My all-time favorite TV show is still Avatar: The Last Airbender. The characters are all anime, and yet, they convey emotion very well through expressions and writing. They come off as well-developed and serious characters.

 

humans can emphasize with other humans, or images of humans, more easily than they can with recreations of humans. yeah, films use cgi which is the same thing. it's just a barrier that exists in the human mind. i did say it was harder, not impossible.

 

 

 

This topic isn't controversial. There is no argument against it.

 

you're ignorant. google 'are video games art' and then tell me people are in agreement. if you can't tell me that, then it is, by definition, controversial.

 

i'll admit i was a little wrong (but frankly you guys are still sperging more than you need to) in saying that they aren't art- they can be, hypothetically, but they aren't right now. there are a few cases but those are so few and far between and the examples you guys HAVE given would've been better if they existed in other mediums. specifically literature, since it is by far the greatest method of storytelling. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That logic makes no sense. A game can convey a story with just as much emotion as a film. Heck, in a film, you are always an observer, just watching. In a game, you have a degree of firsthand interaction. I daresay it makes more sense to get emotional over a video game than a film.

 

nah. video games tell their stories through cutscenes, which are just segments of films. the actual gameplay has no affect on the story at all (except in heavy rain), it's just sort of a series of puzzles or challenges between bits of film. having gameplay is what defines video games AS being video games, and it has no artistic value at all.

 

This opinion is wrong in so many ways, like, I can't even. Just refer to literally every single post above mine.

 

 

video games are designed to entertain, not to stimulate minds or emotions. 

 

okay i get this is a controversial topic so we should probably drop it; in theory, video games could be art, but right now, developers don't seem to have much interest in it and so if you all think it's art, then i think you're babies who need to reevaluate your lives. kappa. but seriously this is gonna go nowhere.

 

The fact that you have already felt the need to resort to name-calling, I think, says more about either side of this argument than anything else said.

Edited April 10, 2015 by Lucina

[Archer Vonn]

Hey. No need for name calling.

 

kappa means 'i'm joking', it's a twitch meme. figured you guys would know it.

 

 

The fact that you have already felt the need to resort to name-calling, I think, says more about either side of this argument than anything else said.

 

i'm a little frustrated, but i should have expected this type of response. i'm on a lego website, after all.

[Hodor]

This is like every chan thread on this subject at once.

 

And every discussion on it ever, really.

[Voltex]

 

Hey. No need for name calling.

 

kappa means 'i'm joking', it's a twitch meme. figured you guys would know it.

 

 

The fact that you have already felt the need to resort to name-calling, I think, says more about either side of this argument than anything else said.

 

i'm a little frustrated, but i should have expected this type of response. i'm on a lego website, after all.

 

 

You are trying to tells us that an entire art form is not art. 

 

Movies are considered art. Oh hey, video games have cut scenes. Some video games also have interactive cut scenes. Some video games are even cinematic throughout the entire experience.

 

Music is considered art. Well, would you look at that; it seems that music and sound cues are an integral part of video gaming. Even when not present, it is because the developers felt that silence would best suit the atmosphere and the mood of their work of art.

 

Writing is considered an art - whether it be grand tales of fiction or simple poetry. Darn, it appears that video games often decide whether to include a true story or not based upon what they are trying to achieve with a particular video game - just like a painter chooses which colors to use in a particular painting.  

 

And of course, the visual style of every video game has a purpose, reflecting what the creators want it to.

 

All of these aspects are combined in various ways within every single video game - and if they are all considered to be art, then video games themselves must also be art. You cannot mash together four potatoes and tell me that you have not just made mashed potatoes.

[Archer Vonn]

This is like every chan thread on this subject at once.

 

And every discussion on it ever, really.

 

with the addition of a word filter lol

 

 

 

You are trying to tells us that an entire art form is not art. 

 

nobody thinks video games are art except for gamers!

[Hodor]

This is literally the most pointless debate in the hobby, and you're all nerds for getting involved. You're not going to change anyone's minds about this subject. Go play games or post on tumblr or whatever it is you do.

 

 

 

This is like every chan thread on this subject at once.

 

And every discussion on it ever, really.

 

with the addition of a word filter lol

And less waifu dumps.

 

Honestly, does it even matter if a game is art or not? It's a game, at the end of the day all that matters is if it's fun or not. Literally who cares about it being 'art' or not? I don't care if there's some meaningful artistic expression in Fire Emblem or Final Fantasy or Fez or whatever, it just needs to be fun.

 

And a lot of 'art games' aren't.

[Archer Vonn]

unlike his namesake, hodor turns out to be a thinking man. 

 

anyone play those telltale games, btw?

[LegoSWfan]

 

Hey. No need for name calling.

 

 

kappa means 'i'm joking', it's a twitch meme. figured you guys would know it.

 

 

The fact that you have already felt the need to resort to name-calling, I think, says more about either side of this argument than anything else said.

 

 

i'm a little frustrated, but i should have expected this type of response. i'm on a lego website, after all.

Please don't assume anything about me.

[Hodor]

unlike his namesake, hodor turns out to be a thinking man. 

 

anyone play those telltale games, btw?

I've played the first ep. It's solid, but I think it suffers from the same problem most Telltale games do- more episodic Visual Novels than actual games. The art style doesn't really mash well with attempts at catching the actors' likeness half the time, especially Maergery who looks kinda terrifying. Feels fairly faithful to the show's atmosphere, at least.

 

Probably going to drop the cash on 360 for the rest or wait for the disc release for PS4.

[Manducus]

The painted background is a bit of an eyesore.
 
 
Other than that, I loved the ending of TWAU. Really leaves you thinking.

Edited April 10, 2015 by Lord Commander Manducus

[Takuma Nuva]

films are actually capable of being art, video games are not.

 

Your statement here quite possibly has more fallacies than it does words. Honestly, I could sum it all up pretty succinctly by pointing out that the actual medium of the art has very x 10^9.83743e+61 little do with with whether or not something can be considered "art". In fact, it almost entirely relies on whether or not the subject being scrutinized can be appreciated by the viewer.

 

But that's hardly enough to convince anyone, so let's break it down into understandable pieces...

 

 

nah. video games tell their stories through cutscenes, which are just segments of films.

If this statement were true then that would mean I get the same amount of story from such games as Half-Life 2, Portal, Left 4 Dead as I would by playing Pong. Meanwhile, I couldn't figure out a thing about the universe and lore of Metroid Prime except for the spades of story we got each time we had a ten-second cutscene that showed a boss appear in a room wordlessly.

 

Cutscenes are the weakest way to tell a story in a video game because they break one of the most important rules every author should know: Show, don't tell. If you have to restrict the viewer's freedom in order to force-feed them an important plot point, you're probably doing it wrong. This is why games such as Metroid Prime, Deus Ex, Portal, Skyrim, and Left 4 Dead have such a strong and compelling story to tell. Instead of shoving everything directly in front of your face and telling you directly, they show you the kind of world you're interacting with. You can learn about the world and its history by scanning artifacts, reading e-mails or newspapers strewn about the environment, messages scribbled on walls, and more. It's a very organic way of telling a story that can't be achieved through movies or books that have to hold your hand though an entirely guided experience. This is also why you often hear criticism against a video game that's too linear. The entire thing is laid out for you ahead of time with no chance to deviate, just like a movie or book.

 

the actual gameplay has no affect on the story at all (except in heavy rain), it's just sort of a series of puzzles or challenges between bits of film. having gameplay is what defines video games AS being video games, and it has no artistic value at all.

Deus Ex, Mass Effect, The Walking Dead, Bastion, KOTOR. Every single one of these games has a story that plays out differently based on the choices the player makes through gameplay. It just so happens that every one of these games I just named is highly revered for that very reason. It's the situations that the developers can create for the players to interact with and influence that quantifies as art. Consequences have to be considered for each possible outcome including how far-reaching they are, which events they affect to which degree, as well as how they'll play off the other choices the player has made and will make along the way. In the end you end up with this very delicate and intricate web of organic interaction that becomes all the more compelling because you the player are responsible for these consequences. All you can do while watching a movie or reading a book is sit there and follow a straight line from beginning to end that you have little personal connection with and absolutely no influence on. No matter how many times you read that book or watch that video, the outcome is going to be the same.

 

also, it's harder to empathize with 3d models, no matter how lifelike they are. there's no human element like there is in music or cinema. even paintings were made by hand, as opposed to video games which were made by computers.

First off, saying paintings are made by hand and then saying video games are made by computers is an inherently flawed statement. Last I checked, most paintings are done with brushes, painting knives, and paints. Furthermore, a computer without a human controlling it will produce the exact same amount of artwork as would a paint brush in the same situation. Additionally, by your logic, photographs don't count as art due to the fact that cameras are just small, specialized computers. The medium literally doesn't make a difference and all of them have a "human element".

 

In fact, I would like to present a specific example. Though I have not actually played any of the games from the series, one of the Grand Theft Auto games has a cutscene with two characters talking to each other outside a house. Now, here's the crazy part, the entire cutscene was acted out and recorded with motion capture. It wasn't just two people in a sound booth talking to each other, they were literally moving about and acting the scene exactly as is done when filming a movie. Again, I stress that the models in the game's cutscene were not animated "by hand" but were recorded through mo-cap. During the take of this scene, one of the actual actors accidentally tripped over a prop on the set; it was not in the script. The person directing liked it so much that they kept the flub in the game. You could not possibly have a more human moment than that because it only exists because of the actual human element.

 

video games are designed to entertain, not to stimulate minds or emotions.

 Once again, this is completely false. There is absolutely nothing limiting games to having only one defined role for existing. The easy example of this is the sky-high pile of edutainment games that are literally intended by design to stimulate the minds of children so that they may learn something.

 

But I'm not going to settle for the easy way out. First, I present season 2 of The Walking Dead. Specificlally, the scene toward the end of the first episode where Clementine must stitch her own wounded arm. By your logic, this scene would have no more of an effect on anyone than simply seeing someone stitch themselves up in a movie or read about such an event in a book. Wrong. The game gets you involved in the life of this little girl by showing the hardships she has suffered and making sure you understand the consequences of the decisions you have made in her name. Because you have become invested in this character's life you have developed an emotional attachment with this character; you can't do that with any other form of story-telling media. So now you're not only going to witness this painful scene taking place, but you're going to participate in it. Watching someone get stitches is one thing, but having to actually help drive that needle into her arm is a completely different ballgame.

 

To The Moon is another game that is by-and-wide known as the cause of many gamers' tears. Though its representation may not be perfect, it does a good job of making the player consider a new perspective on actual disorders that can affect somebody's interpersonal life and the struggles they face.

 

 

in theory, video games could be art, but right now, developers don't seem to have much interest in it

Yeah, maybe if you play nothing but generic AAA games with slapped together campaigns such as Call of Duty and most other "modern military shooters". But if you actually look at other games such as Bioshock Infinite -- a game where the story telling is actually considerably stronger than the actual gameplay -- you can see this is clearly not the case.

 

if you all think it's art, then i think you're babies who need to reevaluate your lives.

This behavior is completely uncalled for and is not permissible.

 

humans can emphasize with other humans, or images of humans, more easily than they can with recreations of humans. yeah, films use cgi which is the same thing. it's just a barrier that exists in the human mind.

 Cite. Your. Source.

 

You are literally making this stuff up now. There is no "barrier in the human mind" that dictates cgi renders of humanoid character are inherently more difficult to empathize with than any other. It doesn't matter if it's paint on a page or pixels on a screen; your eyes are going to process the input the same way.

 

they can be, hypothetically, but they aren't right now. there are a few cases but those are so few and far between and the examples you guys HAVE given would've been better if they existed in other mediums. specifically literature, since it is by far the greatest method of storytelling.

 Yes, they are art and they are right now. There are many cases as I have clearly provided and, no, they would not be better as another medium because you cannot influence the outcome of a book's ending when you read it. Literature may be the one of the oldest mediums for storytelling, but just because you prefer it does not make it objectively the best. Far from it, in fact.

 

i'm a little frustrated, but i should have expected this type of response. i'm on a lego website, after all.

 A Lego site that you frequent. You're only insulting yourself here.

 

nobody thinks video games are art except for gamers!

Right, because gaming is such an overwhelmingly defining part of a person's character that it absolutely overshadows any other characteristics a person may possess to grant them credibility. Forget the fact that I author a lot of stories, play multiple musical instruments, sketch, design web graphics, paint, do some woodworking, voice act, animate, or any of those other forms of real art I participate in. I play video games so that means I have no idea whatsoever what the heck "art" is.

Takuma Nuva

[Hodor]

OH BOY HERE WE GO AGAIN.

 

edit:

Honestly these conversations are gonna be pretty interesting in about a decade, or whenever the whole 'AAA games' thing finishes its current slow implosion. Seriously, so few of those games make their money back, apparently. Budgets are really out of control.

 

Also you know what'd be cool?

 

A Dark Tower video game, especially if the head writer was Stephen King. Could even use something along the lines of Red Dead Redemption, maybe.

Edited April 10, 2015 by Hodor