Fallout 3 at E3 - NYTimes

Sander said:
Darkyrex said:
Let's see how long it stays there, eh?
Click to expand...
Hah, you immediately edited it out.
Click to expand...

:wink: I lurk on wiki.



for the record, wiki is also great for most philosophical subjects, and for brief summaries of many different scientific subjects, especially due to the nature of its cross-referencing.

I would consider the definition of art to be something that wiki is easily capable of being accurate on. (I rarely use it for anything else)

Politics, pop-culture (movies and comics and the sort), history, biographies and people info, thats what i tend to avoid. It's not too hard to look at an article and immediately surmise what the likelihood of it being accurate is (in most cases). I'll just call it intuitive assessment.


But I'll avoid using it for references of anything that I don't generally trust it to.

*edit*

umm, I guess I could word that more clearly
"you are right, I am wrong, you win" :P
I've been trying this new "humility" thing... its hard to do :/

not about the definition of art, but I suppose your point about wiki is pretty good. I'll still keep using it personally, but I'll try to look for other random websites to use as sources (finding sources online can be a real drag, its hard to decide whats reputable)
 
When art includes
Malevich.black-square.jpg
I fail to see why it could not include Fallout.
 
This is the way I see it.

Art is creation, therefor creation is art. It may be derivative, cliche, or unpleasant, but it is still art. Like it or hate it, My Chemical Romance is just as much art as is Led Zeppelin. In many opinions far inferior art, but still art.

Art can be criticized by anyone, in any way. It may be emotional impact, technical skill involved in it's creation, originality, or popularity. It does not matter what it's quality or how it's quality is discerned, all creation is art.

(Note: I love Led Zeppelin and loathe emo crap like MCR, I'm just making a point).
 
I see, and please note the first pair of words here, as I do not view this as being a universal definition, but...
I see art as the only physical, tangible, visible, universal expression of human feeling. And to me, art must be made with this intent. And so a game may or may not be art. I see Fallout as art. Do I think that, say, "The Godfather: The Game" is art? Obviously not. It is the bastardization of art by a corporation who only sought money.
 
El_Smacko said:
This is the way I see it.

Art is creation, therefor creation is art. It may be derivative, cliche, or unpleasant, but it is still art. Like it or hate it, My Chemical Romance is just as much art as is Led Zeppelin. In many opinions far inferior art, but still art.
Click to expand...
Yay for degrading the concept of art into including everything and hence making it a completely useless.
 
I wouldn't go as far as to call games art.
Why would anyone want pc games to be considered 'art' anyway?

When you look at the evolution of art and the evolution of pc games, you should notice how they move in opposite directions. Art has a tendency to move from realism to abstraction, from boundaries (perspective, shadows, anatomy, composition) to ultimate freedom (innovation resulting in, alas, anything goes).
PC games have a retrograde evolution. They move from abstraction (e.g. Pong) to photo-realism (e.g. STALKER). Which is a sad thing, really. It creates limitations. It sets boundaries. The most innovative period of PC games was the beginning when all the genres were invented. Now innovation simply means that the graphics look even more realistic.

I would like to think that I'm being busy in a artistic way whilst playing a PC game, but I know I'm not. I'm being entertained in pretty much the same way a fast-paced action flick entertains me. Or a well-made documentary (for the slower paced games, that is :wink: ). And entertainment is rarely culture with a capital c. I suppose the style and design of certain games can be pretty artistic (e.g. Grim Fandango), they can even contain elements that could be easily considered great art (e.g. some of Fallout's loading screens, Vault Boy), but that doesn't make a PC game art per se.

If you're going to call PC games art, why not call them philosophical works as well? The structuralistic approach of certain character creation screens anyone? The link between the monologues of end bosses and existentialism?
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMZi217RUUY[/youtube]

If Spore ever hits the shelves, should we immediately place it next to Darwin's books?

Right. :roll:
 
alec said:
The most innovative period of PC games was the beginning when all the genres were invented. Now innovation simply means that the graphics look even more realistic.
Click to expand...

New genres are still being invented on the grassroots level. Jay Is Games is a very good resource for following this movement.
 
Per said:
alec said:
The most innovative period of PC games was the beginning when all the genres were invented. Now innovation simply means that the graphics look even more realistic.
Click to expand...

New genres are still being invented on the grassroots level. Jay Is Games is a very good resource for following this movement.
Click to expand...
Sure. Pretty much like you still have authors who write like Byron and painters who paint like Breughel, but use modern tools to do so and maybe a different vocabulary/palette. They do not dominate the market/scene though, some rare exceptions aside. I'm well aware of innovation in the field of gaming (e.g. Nintendo), but the overall flow is directed in quite the opposite direction.
 
alec said:
If you're going to call PC games art, why not call them philosophical works as well? The structuralistic approach of certain character creation screens anyone? The link between the monologues of end bosses and existentialism?
Click to expand...

What makes you think some games don't try to do this? :P
Look at JRPGs, especially ones like Star Ocean: Till the End of Time. Then there's Metal Gear Solid 2.
These games try so very hard to be deep and meaningful but end up as ridiculous, boring, self-contradictory armchair philosophy.
 
Well, games can contain dialog which, when placed in a book or movie, would be a part of "art".
Games (can) tell stories which would be considered "art".
Games contain art, in the graphics, obviously.

So why, with all these components which would be considered art separately, not art collectively?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top