Fireside Chat

[Ausir]

Well, 101 was closed down for much longer than 13.

I think that it was clearly inspired by Fallout but always diverged, in some places (Mirelurk Kings) way more than others (Mirelurks).

Mirelurk Kings are a Creature from Black Lagoon reference.

Let me quote you: "I don't care who the fuck makes it, if they make it wrong." Lo Pan and half of San Francisco was wrong.

Yeah, most of San Fran was just as bad as Little Lamplight.

Show me one instance of a piece of garment worn in the 50's that remotely resembles the robes in Fallout 3.

As opposed to the robes in Fallout 1 and 2?

 

[TwinkieGorilla]

If someone doesn't think that video games are culturally, intellectually, or artistically relevant, that person should probably not perform any task that requires them to be aware of their surroundings.

nice. but you're right; i just gouged my eyes out with a spoon upon your request and am writing this with the help of braille and a seeing eye dog who has learned to bark in morse code.

no, not really. *chuckles* of course not. but my point was that games have not become recognized as "culturally, intellectually AND artistically important" on a scale which even nears the relevancy of other literate forms of art or entertainment. at best i'd say some strategy games have broken through into the realm of "spectator sport" in Korea (which, to me, is just sad...but to each his own i guess).

to address a few of your specifics: is GTA a witty satire? sure. is it anything more? no. will it be studied for it's artistic merits on the same level as James Joyce? no. most likely not even on the same scale as Robert Crumb.

however, what i AM saying here...what i am most interested in...and why what i'm saying ties back to the original post, is that i think the industry has the tools to make interactive art transcend it's genre but until we see a steady incline in the average person's exposure to games aspiring unembarrassingly to these levels, i doubt games will reach relevancy on a large scale. at least not anytime soon (that one's for you Ausir). i don't really see how this is that sensational of an observation. nor is it arrogant. i'm simply pointing out the way things currently are.

there has yet to be any such "Art Speiglman" of games and until that moment happens i doubt any sort of intellectually relevant revolution stands a chance in this industry. looking at games from the 90's it's boggling too...because it would seem the genre was primed for this sort of growth and then it just...degenerated into bullshit.

you talk about indies. that's a good point. mainstream music has suffered so greatly because of it's lackluster output people suddenly gravitated elsewhere and the "indie" scene started blowing up. i am admittedly not much of a gamer, so wasn't aware of this sub-genre. and that sort of illustrates my point. because if i'm not aware of it...i guarantee most of the rest of us less-than-casual computer people aren't aware of it. this is the thing which needs to change somehow if the genre is to become relevant under the conditions you semi-quoted of me up there.

at least it appears so to me.

 

[Per]

Gotta love it when people say this on NMA given how much indies are talked about. Do you even read the forums?

I think most of what Terebikun says makes perfect sense, which is sort of why I've been trying to say the same things. Indie isn't just stuff like AoD and Spiderweb and World of Goo, it's everything that's going on all the time, Ferry Halim and Mateusz Skutnik and Eyezmaze and Andrew Plotkin. This gets lost in all the big generalizations where people glut together terms that can be made to mean nothing or everything and where things are expected to progress modelled on some big unified concept of art with the Ingmar Bergman of games clearly recognizable by his beret and haunted look. If that's the only thing we're looking for, why should we be surprised to be kept waiting?

 

[The Idiot]

Let me quote you: "I don't care who the fuck makes it, if they make it wrong." Lo Pan and half of San Francisco was wrong.

Yeah, most of San Fran was just as bad as Little Lamplight.

If we are talking what was more out of place, I'd say San Fran takes the cake. But design-wise Little Lamplight was absolute shit. I mean stuff like inability to open an unlocked gate just because you weren't told to do so yet is as dumb as it can get. I headbutted the screen after I had watched some kid use a computer which was unusable seconds earlier for my character, who had Science and all the techy stuff maxed out.

This is a prominent feature in FO3.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

Mirelurk Kings are a Creature from Black Lagoon reference.

I can see it with the hands and feet but that's it but I could believe that. Mirelurk King vs. Creature from the Black Lagoon and the musical

As opposed to the robes in Fallout 1 and 2?

The robes in Fallout looked pretty fantasy/monk-esc and I have to say that I like the scribe's outfit in Fallout 3. That said, I always thought that the concept art for the elder (haven't seen a screenshot of one) looked way off (too technomage).

If that's the only thing we're looking for, why should we be surprised to be kept waiting?

Fair enough. I think you both might have a point on this though because Twinkie is right that the indie scene isn't something that people really even know about as it isn't talked about much. I had figured, maybe incorrectly, that NMA was generally more in tune with the indie scene due to most of my exposure being through people linking me there (from NMA and a lot from Gizmo back when I talked with him at BSGF), largely because I don't game as much as I used to and am happy going through 90's games that I missed.

 

[Ausir]

I can see it with the hands and feet but that's it but I could believe that.

Point Lookout's Swamplurks are even more similar.

 

[Per]

Fair enough. I think you both might have a point on this though because Twinkie is right that the indie scene isn't something that people really even know about as it isn't talked about much.

This could very well be so, and it could be so more in some places than others, and I don't know how fast it will change or how, but stuff is going on, and when something big shifts we may not easily expect or predict it or even identify it except retroactively. Here in Sweden we have local newspapers with gaming sections that post commentary and links to free casual games and stuff like I Wish I Were the Moon or Today I Die. I think a lot of it will have to do with a gradual generation shift in media and elsewhere to the people who grew up in the 80s and 90s and for whom all this gaming stuff belongs to their natural frame of reference. And they do already teach game design and computer art at university level and write academic papers on the stuff, although I'm sure Twinkie is right that they have a lot of catching up to do (and a lot of academic lingo to figure out before they can seem properly esoteric).

 

[Eyenixon]

You're mistaken if you think the first two Fallouts were about the story or narrative, the dialog and plot was well written, but ultimately that wasn't the reason why they were remembered.
I'd say most people treasure them for the well executed choice & consequence which arguably hasn't been done as well since, the variety of playstyles, and its thick GURPS inspired character system[snip]
Whether or not it's a priority is meaningless, you either have talented writers or you don't, someone who can write doesn't need to prioritize to pull off something interesting or inspired. If you don't have talented writers, they'll waste the same amount of time as a talented one but excrete garbage.

Well, it's what drew ME to the game regardless. Also notice how I said "story through player interaction"; thus I compare classic Western cRPG more to Visual Novels rather than JRPGs - those are a complete opposite, as you noted, linear story and lots of grind (somewhat similar to Western roguelike - all about some linear story and phat loot). There's also some Japanese Visual novel/SLG hybrids that are much more similar to cRPG like Fallout (although not as much c&c) with non-linear story. The difference is that roguelike and JRPG a-la FF or Secret of Mana put emphasis on gameplay through combat/sandbox exploration, and can (and often do) get away with a poorly written story. Let's face it, half (if not more) Final Fantasy games are horribly written, and so are games like Diablo, but it isn't the focus - they are still liked regardless. Visual Novels or RPG like FO or Arcanum wouldn't get away if they had the same level of writing, and so the emphasis on writing is also bigger.

That's what I meant about the priorities. IMO, it's better to concentrate on sth else rather than waste time and effort to do something half-assedly. If FO3 game devs didn't consider writing all that important, then they shouldn't have bothered having so much of it and rather fix some major bugs.

Also, you're wrong with the "you either have good writers or you don't" part, because, well, the budget for games is not limitless, so there's a GREAT need for prioritizing. Well, maybe less so for AAA games with huge budget, but looking at FO3 the money they spent on BAD writers could definitely be better spent somewhere else. Perhaps it takes the same amount of TIME (although it can be argued against), as you say, but does it take the same amount of MONEY?

That's inane, anyone can write, anyone can possess the talent and still have a job developing the game. They just need to pick the right people out. Developers for the most part still take different members of the design team out to work on the writing, that's how it works for the most part. You don't need to prioritize because the effort required for writing is far different than the effort required for building the game itself.
Also, name more than a few games where a notable author has contributed that didn't blow ass. The most I can get out of it is Undying and maybe one or two others, but then again, Undying didn't have good story or writing. So no, you don't need to shell out money to some big name celebrity writer, or even tiny little underling writers (ghost writers suck by the way, those are the kind of people hired for games, you're better off finding someone genuinely talented on your team).

And most JRPGs are focused on the story, the Final Fantasy series definitely is at this point, they're long, linear, and tend to have an overwhelmingly suffocating narrative. I'm pretty sure the genre wouldn't be generalized like that if it weren't for the fact that it's generally true.

As for Fallout 3, the amount of effort they had to put into dialog isn't really that major, if they decided to cut down on it I think you'd barely have seen a difference in the other aspects of the game. In fact, if they shifted their priorities around on several areas I doubt there would have been much of a difference, because do as different does they'd still have a bunch of imbeciles designing the game, just changing your priorities doesn't help in making the game better if the people making the game can't make a game right. See?
The same thing goes for writing, more or less, it doesn't matter, eventually all you need is someone who knows how to write compellingly, and those people all over the place. You don't need someone who can write like Pynchon or Burroughs, just someone who can write on the level of average fantasy junk like Wheel of Time, because while the prose in those are nothing special, they at least have the ability to draw in the reader. If your dialog at least possesses that quality, it's decent enough.
As the dialog in Fallout 3 had been, it was incredibly boring and vapid.



As for the artistic merit of the medium, I have to agree with Twinkie, if you think gaming has been able to replicate the artistry of literature, visual arts, film, or even music, you need to take a good look at the industry and realize it's exactly that, an industry, you're not going to get art out of this, you're just going to get products.

 

[Per]

As for the artistic merit of the medium, I have to agree with Twinkie, if you think gaming has been able to replicate the artistry of literature, visual arts, film, or even music,

But the thing is, when you say this you sound like a Beatles fan who could never be convinced that another artist could perform even on the same level as the Beatles, because he defines goodness by how close something is to the Beatles, and nothing can ever out-Beatles the Beatles.

you need to take a good look at the industry and realize it's exactly that, an industry, you're not going to get art out of this, you're just going to get products.

And this is a binary view of art than I don't think is very useful. To my mind, even the games produced by the industry have art and craft in them; they couldn't not have. And maybe it's dismal and all shit now, but most of everything is shit. Most of "literature, visual arts, film, or even music" is not good either.

 

[Eyenixon]

But the thing is, when you say this you sound like a Beatles fan who could never be convinced that another artist could perform even on the same level as the Beatles, because he defines goodness by how close something is to the Beatles, and nothing can ever out-Beatles the Beatles.

I'm judging it the way everyone else judges it, as a melange of those other mediums. There's not going to be a reality of gaming as art until developers realize interactivity itself can be transformed into art. But when you see developers such as David Cage with their heads up their assholes creating an animated choose-your-own-adventure with numerous QTEs to 'emulate reality', all you can really think is that no one gets it.
If everyone's expectation is that gaming as an art form is somehow related to its ability to impact the gamer emotionally through methods already undertaken by other mediums, then I don't see the whole medium as anything other than an enormous rip-off act.

Films can affect people with moving pictures, look at silent pictures such as Nosferatu, it creates a feeling of terror without sound, without elaborate colorful imagery, hell, without the acting abilities of theater, but through visual movement and subtlety of image it creates something extraordinarily unique. Compare this to literature which turns a form of communication into a conveyance of subconscious ideas and emotions. Entirely different.
Has gaming really done that? I don't think so, interactivity hasn't really factored into a game's ability to be a powerful experience. The closest I can really think of is something like Ico where your herding of Yorda eventually creates a strong bond between the player and this character, unfortunately, it doesn't go anywhere beyond that, and gaming has to break that obstacle in order to become artistic.

But then it seems that most games that attempt to actually bring interactivity to the forefront as art aren't really games. You can see this in a lot of arthouse indie games such as 'The Graveyard', they were trying to utilize interactivity creatively to create some sort of artistic effect, but ultimately it's an incredibly shallow thing that can't actually be called a game.

Also your analogy is kind of pointless, you're comparing something within a medium to something else within the same medium, not medium versus medium, a better comparison would have been The Beatles vs. Joyce or something. I do admit replicate was the wrong choice of words, I should have rather said "imitated the effect of", something that all those mediums have in common.

And this is a binary view of art than I don't think is very useful. To my mind, even the games produced by the industry have art and craft in them; they couldn't not have. And maybe it's dismal and all shit now, but most of everything is shit. Most of "literature, visual arts, film, or even music" is not good either.

There's a difference though, those other industries are open to the idea of art, they're open to people like David Lynch occasionally walking in and making something entirely obtuse and unusual. The same goes for literature, music, whatever. There is a bunch of shit, true, but really, the fact is that there IS art, and even bad art is still art. The thing with gaming is that it just doesn't seem to be art at all, especially since it hasn't been able to embrace the idea of interactivity as art yet in some form other than mashing together a collection of odd tidbits from other mediums.

You might say then, that the gaming industry is open to the idea of people like David Cage or Peter Molyneux, but these people can't really be considered artists as much as they are celebrities, gaming is entirely a PR machine, if you're forced to turn to independent products then there's little to no hope that gaming will ever elevate itself beyond simple for fun games. Art comes out of mainstream film, literature and etc. all the time, but when you see the state of the gaming industry and the hostile climate towards innovation and unusual experimentation brought on by the various publishers and companies above the development studious, it's a bit depressing to realize that there's not going to be much elbow room for anyone actually trying to expand gaming as an art.
I'm not saying it isn't possible, it is, but no one is getting it done right. So ultimately as far as it has progressed it can only be compared to other mediums, and as such it has not done nearly as well, especially in its frank emulation of those mediums.
There's certainly a craft in the concept of game development, but that's like a carpenter working on a stool.

I can write some stupid spiel about Stephen Dedalus and his funny little questions in Portrait and how it seems subjectively that anything could be art, but that would be avoiding the point and devolve the argument into unnecessary nuance, ultimately you have to compare, and if there is no real comparison, then you have to say "they just haven't done it right yet".

 

[TwinkieGorilla]

But the thing is, when you say this you sound like a Beatles fan who could never be convinced that another artist could perform even on the same level as the Beatles, because he defines goodness by how close something is to the Beatles, and nothing can ever out-Beatles the Beatles.

no, because that would be a person's opinion. video-games are NOT taken seriously as an intellectually relevant art-form on a large scale in our current time in history. there is NO opinion about this. it is a fact. an unfortunate one and one which needs to change, but it is still a fact. you're coming at this entire conversation so defensively that it's blinding you from seeing the points being made.

this isn't about me weighing the worth of one thing next to another, in fact this has nothing to do with ME. there is nothing you could use to prove my first paragraph in this post wrong.

 

[Per]

stuff

I get what you're saying. Just one thing:

Also your analogy is kind of pointless, you're comparing something within a medium to something else within the same medium

The point is more about gearing your expectations in one direction, it's like standing and watching a protoplasmic blob trying to evolve, and you're egging it on and going, "Now grow legs! LEGS!" and after ten minutes you notice that behind your back it had been evolving machine gun blobs and they're letting you have it.

Edit:

you're coming at this entire conversation so defensively

I'm acknowledging that Eyenixon is making good points when he's laying them out instead of just telling me to reread his posts/telling me I missed the point/telling me I don't care/telling me what he says should be so obvious/letting on that I'm just pressing keys for the sake of my ego. I don't know where you got the idea that we're fighting a war over this. It could very well be true I'm being defensive the way you mean it, but I don't know what that is; it doesn't help me understand. I'm assuming that there are differences in viewpoints and definitions and perceived premises that are responsible for our differing conclusions, but you seem to discount this possibility and saying flatly that I'm ignorant. In any case I promise you that I'm not arguing against my own better knowledge, and I'm giving examples of what I'm talking about. If you dismiss that then I can't say much more.

 

[TwinkieGorilla]

The point is more about gearing your expectations in one direction, it's like standing and watching a protoplasmic blob trying to evolve, and you're egging it on and going, "Now grow legs! LEGS!" and after ten minutes you notice that behind your back it had been evolving machine gun blobs and they're letting you have it.

if you mean this to be an optimistic vision of the future due to a revolution from independent companies, developers and artists...well, it's certainly very optimistic and i'd love to see it happen...but what we need is for one of those blobs with a machine gun to mutate into the side which the majority of spectators are staring at.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

Point Lookout's Swamplurks are even more similar.

The color is closer but the model is the same and that's what I was really looking at. It looks like a "fishman" of sorts and I can believe that Creature from the Black Lagoon is the basic stylistic start for most such creatures but I still don't see a heavy resemblance.

Here in Sweden we have local newspapers with gaming sections that post commentary and links to free casual games and stuff like I Wish I Were the Moon or Today I Die. I think a lot of it will have to do with a gradual generation shift in media and elsewhere to the people who grew up in the 80s and 90s and for whom all this gaming stuff belongs to their natural frame of reference.

Well Sweden is ahead of the US then because the most we have is some college papers with pretty crappy reviews written by people who aren't qualified, in either the field of writing or experience with games. I'm with you about the shift though, I do think that things will advance as the younger generations start moving up but the folks who grew up in the 80s and 90s may only be the start, it may be the folks who grow up in the 2000-2020's who will really take it where it needs to go. The 80s and 90s kids will be the start of the shift but I feel as if after arcades died (in the US at least) that gaming went back to being less publicly accepted and has just really started going back to being culturally accepted in the 2000's.

I also consider flash games (or games like them, I think PopCap Games) a different can of worms than... traditional (?) games. I'm not saying that they can't be good but that they are an entirely different experience. Flash games have really been advancing though, it'll be interesting to see what their successors will look like.

 

[patriot_41]

I said I watched it being played. I don't have the skills/experience/whatever to operate efficiently in this perspective, as it confuses me, because it limits my scope of view. I can play fps onli IRL. And art direction is clearly evident - color palette, overall design direction etc. Lots of fine, intricate detail, which suggest technology much more advanced than the fifties and more reminiscent of design decisions ala Battlestar Galactica and the Matrix. The vault, to me, looked like the inside of a ship in top notch condition. Maybe I sould've said it otherwise: art direction is not horriblе as a whole, it just totally misses the point. And the retarded animation doesn't help me much.

Yeah, you've just proven my point. You have no idea about Fo3's art direction or Fallout's world for that matter.

Fallout's tech is not tech of the 1950s. It's tech of the retrofuturistic 2070s.

I have yet to encounter a banana in Fallout. And no, the only element which I can call 50-ish is the Pip Boy. The weapons concepts confused me the most - some were in perfect condition, others looked like they'd fall apart every minute and there seemed to be no logical visual flow between the two extremities - like they were form separate games. That I find stupid.

You don't see the 1950s because you haven't played the game. Videos only give a very rough idea about the gameworld art direction, as you can't stop and examine what you see.

It says it is, yet it is generic sci-fi with a wasteland and some 50's thrown in.

So first you say the only 1950s thing is the PIP-Boy, now you say "some". Make up your mind.

None of the three directions matched the other - like a world wholly built out of different patches of land, which shouldn't/couldn't exist together. I really don't intend to buy and play this, just to prove my point. I could browse for screenshots, but I don't think it's worth the effort.

So instead you'll pretend you know everything about Fallout 3's art direction. How quaint.

It was a valid quest in a FO2 location. It wasn't even an easter egg. So it's no less an influence than the Blade Runner movie.

Let me quote you: "I don't care who the fuck makes it, if they make it wrong." Lo Pan and half of San Francisco was wrong.

You don't acknowledge it. Hypocritical, much?

My point, as stated above is, that one is a piece of stretchable material (probably spandex), reminsicent of Star Trek or Logan's uniform (in Logan's Run) - a slick, simple design, quite popular around the time. The other is a mixture between a light padded protection clothing and work overalls. It's no t a different interpretation, it's a different kind of clothing from a different world/era/civillisation. It doesn't match the original era, the original influences and is a type of clothing which is more logical to be encountered in today's movies.

And why is it a stupid design decision? The Vault suit is one of the most important elements in the game and, according to it, it's standard Vault equipment.

And it's designed to be standard vault equipment, easily repairable and quite a bit more useful than a standard jumpsuit for Fo1. As I said, different design, basing on the same sources, but not going for the spandex type body suit.

WTF does that even mean? Where did I even say it? Or suggested it? I was unhappy that I couldn't find and show you, that the robes in the originals were a garment made of cloth, and not a combination of padding, bionics, fantasy elements and other kool stuff. Because it's hard (impossible) to find the technology to create something of that complexity in the barren nuke-desolated wasteland. And if you theoretically could, it wopuld be stupid to waste on aesthetics of a simple piece of clothing. And that's valid for most of the game decisions. I'm not saying it's ugly or without merits, it's just wrong.

Because there is no detailed concept art or description in the game, you are in no position to decide what's right or wrong.

I don't like the end result that much, but I don't hate it either.

Show me one instance of a piece of garment worn in the 50's that remotely resembles the robes in Fallout 3. There isn't. It's just underthought - it's kool, but pointless. Like the whole game.

See, this shows just how ignorant you are of the subject you're complaining about. You are complaining about a single piece of clothig and then extrapolating it to the entire array of outfits available in Fo3.

Which is kind of sad. You're pointing at a single piece of concept art, instead of familiarizing yourself with the game and what it actually has to offer.

Then again the game wasn't intended for me, so there's no point in trying to prove me wrong. It's a different game, deprived of everything I loved in the originals and targeted to someone with different skills/tastes/mindset than mine.

Irrelevant to the topic at hand.

I cannot familiarize myself with the game, because there are enough elements to put me off it. You may agree with the vault suit change, but it was and still is one of my favorite elements in the game. And it's simple. If they got that wrong, why bother?

If I can take out so many crap randomly it would be a painful and unpleasant experience to endure it. As I said - I do not like fps or tps and I don't think the sequel to my favorite game should force me to play them just to see, that Bethesda got something right. They had got something right in Morrowind too, but that just made the disappointment bigger, becasue Morrowind could have been a great game.

San Fran didn't bother me, as I started Fallout with the seconmd installment. I was confused as to where the Shi have so many extremely powerful guns at their disposal, but that was pretty much it.

 

[jero cvmi]

i'm late for the discussion and just read quickly through the whole thread, so ignore everything if it sounds redundant.

first off, nice article; yeah game journalists try too hard to take their jobs and themselves seriously. journalists in general do that.

now about games vs forms of art like comic, cinema, music and so on, has anyone mentioned the historical context factor?

Games are here since the late 80's, and it's not like there has been any serious innovation or breakthrough in art on any medium that got widely popular in these years. Innovative stuff tends to get marginalized and become "niche", that's just how stuff works in this specific period of time.
Comics evolved and matured mainly in the 70s, but that was a period of cultural evolution in general. Same goes for cinema and the 20's.
This may sound pessimistic, but i don't think games will mature as an art form sooner or later just because it's early. It might happen, it might not, and it won't happen independently of the course of the rest of popular culture.

TL;DR: games will be stupid and devolving as long as culture is stupid and devolving. And that may very well last forever.

Also: alec, games can be mentally stimulating. Has nobody mentioned Fallout? Fallout with its cheesy b-movie writing, does it better than any other game i've played, because it's masterfully set on a very well thought out imaginary world that speaks for itself. It's the only game (i've played) that went beyond plain farse or satire and actually triggered (some) deeper thinking.
It did it better than Planescape Torment, that's brilliant and deep and all as an in-joke for DnD fiends, but other than that, for regular people it's just an Infinity Engine RPG on top of a very well written fantasy text adventure.
Is there any other game than Fallout that non-gamers bitch and moan about on the internet?

*Insert lame excuse for bad writing like it's late, i'm drunk, english is my second language etc. etc. here*

 

[Tagaziel]

I cannot familiarize myself with the game, because there are enough elements to put me off it. You may agree with the vault suit change, but it was and still is one of my favorite elements in the game. And it's simple. If they got that wrong, why bother?

They got it wrong? Sure, the spandex was nice, but you still haven't explained why variety is bad.

If I can take out so many crap randomly it would be a painful and unpleasant experience to endure it. As I said - I do not like fps or tps and I don't think the sequel to my favorite game should force me to play them just to see, that Bethesda got something right. They had got something right in Morrowind too, but that just made the disappointment bigger, becasue Morrowind could have been a great game.

Uh, no you didn't take many crap out. Actually, you picked three concept arts from our gallery and tried building an entire argument around it, failing miserably, because you have no idea what you're talking about, outside three pieces of concept art.

San Fran didn't bother me, as I started Fallout with the seconmd installment. I was confused as to where the Shi have so many extremely powerful guns at their disposal, but that was pretty much it.

It didn't bother you, so obviously it must be completely Fallout.

On the topic of worthwhile games...

Deus Ex made me think on the subject of political doctrines, our current democratic system and its flaws and reconsider my beliefs.

Books and movies, in my opinion, are fine to make statements, to give a complete outline of an idea, a philosophical system, a political doctrine. By eliminating input and manipulating the audience, they are very handy for conveying thoughts.

Games, reliant on gamer input, are different in this regard, making it difficult to deliver a complete idea to the player. However, they have an extreme capacity for asking questions of the player, challenging his beliefs with interactivity alone.

 

[moyogo]

I'm too late to sort through everything, I trust major points have been addressed.

Nice bloggy thing BN, I'm in agreement.

What's not nice is people being medium nazis (books only!) and name dropping - Kant didn't make a video game! Therefore games always dumb! I think there's potential for video games to make people thing about fundamental questions - it just isn't happening. I hope people who are on the other side of this argument understand what they have to prove - that NO game, existing or that could exist, can make people think.

Also, as someone who's done a good bit of philosophy (no grad school yet though), I do not think the written word is a better way to understand the world than other ways. Care to put classical music into words? How about sex? Music and sex are kind of a big deal, and the best knowledge we can have of them are from direct experience.

 

[patriot_41]

Uh, no you didn't take many crap out. Actually, you picked three concept arts from our gallery and tried building an entire argument around it, failing miserably, because you have no idea what you're talking about, outside three pieces of concept art.

If your point is, that I should play the game to just to build a better case, you're wrong. I don't need to step into a piece of shit to know that it is one. If you, on the other hand, need to examine it throughly, kick it, lick it and than claim, that it is rather similar to a banana (claiming that it's roughly banana shaped and curved and yellowish), or that there are even traces of banana in it, so be it. You may be right, but I'm not convinced. I'm not continuing this argument, because it is pointless.

 

[alec]

Also, as someone who's done a good bit of philosophy (no grad school yet though), I do not think the written word is a better way to understand the world than other ways. Care to put classical music into words? How about sex? Music and sex are kind of a big deal, and the best knowledge we can have of them are from direct experience.

This is funny.

no, because that would be a person's opinion. video-games are NOT taken seriously as an intellectually relevant art-form on a large scale in our current time in history. there is NO opinion about this. it is a fact. an unfortunate one and one which needs to change

Uhm... no.

I think there's potential for video games to make people thing about fundamental questions

Now ask yourself whether video games are the right kind of medium to address these fundamental questions (which I take to be questions about love, life, death and so on)? Or is there mayhaps another medium that would suit that purpose way better? Hey: maybe the brain actually benefits from having to focus mainly on controlling a character in a virtual world, listening to music and interpreting the virtual surroundings while at the same time pondering about life, the universe and everything else? I dunno, maybe it does, you guys will obviously know this better than me (again), but meh... somehow I don't think it does. And if you really want to address fundamental issues, shouldn't you at least kinda sorta do some effort as in, like, not spending ten lines of dialogue on it, but mayhaps a decent book that can, like, build up a case and maybe come up with something innovative about the subject as well? How on Earth do you want to cram stuff like that into a game? And why would you? Make a documentary if you want to educate the masses, give them a game if they want to entertain themselves.

Focus on that which makes games stand apart from other media: the interaction. What they share only in part with other media just isn't their strong point in the first place. It's in fact utterly ridiculous to pursue that when it is so goddamn clear that games still have a long way to go before they reach maturity. It's like if movie pioneers like Chaplin would have said: 'You know what? Fuck all that moving picture stuff, it moves just fine the way it does right now, so let's just focus on dialogue so that people will eventually accept this new medium as something akin to... good dialogue.' No: you first get your own shit right and then you add and experiment with the other elements.