David Cage (Heavy Rain) talks about games being nowhere close to film as a story telling medium

[ptdebate1]

[QUOTE=Segatarious]I only brought it up because this is the first time I have seen a major dev (who specializes in stories in games) strongly criticize the quality of stories in game. That is rare, as far as I know. If anyone has even one other example, please post it.

And a plot is essential to the art of  narrative, which is what Mr Cage and I are specifically talking about.

[/QUOTE]

Hideo Kojima:"Games aren't art"

He basically echoes Roger Ebert's ideas.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/news240106kojimaart

He later reverses this position when asked to comment on the fact that his work has been featured in a Smithsonian art exhibit:

"To me, games are a collaborative art, or a synthesis of various things—technology, story, and art."

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/artsdesk/visual-arts/2012/03/19/still-solid-metal-gear-creator-hideo-kojima-on-the-art-of-video-games/

[ptdebate1]

[QUOTE=Vexer]ptdebate-Well most people wouldn't call Heavy Rain "subpar", quite a few people(the critic included) enjoyed it.[/QUOTE]

Eesh. Agree to disagree

[scotland171]

[QUOTE=Segatarious] Look at this board as proof. It has no plot, no deeper meaning, no underlying narrative or moral....just discussions, that end at any time, or are derailed or become pointless in short order, any kind of random outcome, and never a resolution. [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Rev]Ironically, Steer did this exact same topic like 6 months ago. I'm pretty sure it was locked after a bunch of grueling debates.  [/QUOTE]

Ironically, this thread itself is a metaphor for an interactive narrative, like a video game.  Begin with the same premise, but where the story leads will be different. 

That is not a criticism, but simply a difference. It reflects a vitality drawn from being interactive that is absent from static media.  Moby Dick is static, what changes is the person reading and interpreting it. One can read many things into and get many things out of Moby Dick, but Ahab dies in all of them.  A game based on Moby Dick would not, should not, carry the hammer of the morality play Melville was preaching, but rather could become something else.  

Our discussions are just that, people talking.  Maybe we'll reach a consensus (those Sega Master System controllers are just second rate compared to the NES controllers) or maybe agree to disagree, or just wander off somewhere else.  That's not a negative.  Its also not random.  Maybe this time we'll agree to stop overanalyzing and play a game of tag with Sut.   Tag, you're it. 

[BanjoPickles1]

I think that I have different standards for different mediums. I still hold literature up as the defacto art form. It has survived the ages, through countless dead languages; we have gone from writings on stone walls to national chains of book stores. It is narrative in its purest form.

Film, to me, is literature for the eyes and the ears. Though it is a relatively new art form, dating back to the earliest part of the 20th century, performance art preceded it by countless centuries. It has evolved, over time, and spread it's limbs to include television, the silver screen, on/off Broadway, street performances, etc.

Video games, however, have been a part of our culture for, oh, fifty years or so. They were not created to be a form of expression, but rather push technology in interesting, more interactive directions. Ralph Baer, creator of the Odyssey, even toyed with the notion of streaming games directly to the homes of consumers. Flash forward a few years to Al Alcorn and Pong. They put one machine in the corner of a bar, with a tray (I think) attached to the unit for quarters. Needless to say, the game proved to be a massive hit and a flood of imitators hit the scene.

If memory serves, it really wasn't until the 90's that people started aiming towards elevating gaming into something else. You even have people today who feel, whole-heartedly, that the term "video game" is obsolete! Is this an accelerated evolution, or are gamers just desperate to accelerate the natural progression (if that makes any sense)?

I personally think that the argument is stupid and pointless. There is no right, or wrong, answer and it really boils down to personal philosophy. What I don't get, as far as Roger Ebert's opinion is concerned, is that while he doesn't consider video games to be art, he considers the original Halloween to be art? If he knew anything about the history of that movie, as it pertains to John Carpenter, he would know that Halloween was nothing more than an exercise in commerce that accidentally stumbled upon a new set of rules for a new generation. That is no different than Mario single-handedly rewriting the rules of platforming (Nintendo cared less about art and more about gaining ground in the west), Final Fantasy VII's influence over future jrpg's, Hideo Kojima's success with the Metal Gear Solid series, etc..

I honestly believe that games are art, if anything because they made me FEEL a certain way, and that is my definition of art: tapping into a feeling. However, I do believe that gamers try too hard to get their hobby to sprout a few chest hairs, take up smoking, and get a real job.

[HardcoreSadism1]

[QUOTE=Steer]
I only brought it up because this is the first time I have seen a major dev strongly criticize the quality of stories in game.
[/QUOTE]

It's more than bringing it up, because you only play Internet Brand Loyalty, not Games.

[QUOTE=Steer]
The game industry has literally zero landmark games, from a serious and artistic stand point, to show for, in all its years, in all of its games and its billion of dollars in productions.
[/QUOTE]

You have a pathological resentment towards the industry since its beginning. As unhealthy as it is surreal.

[Segatarious1]

[QUOTE=scotland17][QUOTE=Segatarious] Look at this board as proof. It has no plot, no deeper meaning, no underlying narrative or moral....just discussions, that end at any time, or are derailed or become pointless in short order, any kind of random outcome, and never a resolution. [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Rev]Ironically, Steer did this exact same topic like 6 months ago. I'm pretty sure it was locked after a bunch of grueling debates.  [/QUOTE]

Ironically, this thread itself is a metaphor for an interactive narrative, like a video game.  Begin with the same premise, but where the story leads will be different. 

That is not a criticism, but simply a difference. It reflects a vitality drawn from being interactive that is absent from static media.  Moby Dick is static, what changes is the person reading and interpreting it. One can read many things into and get many things out of Moby Dick, but Ahab dies in all of them.  A game based on Moby Dick would not, should not, carry the hammer of the morality play Melville was preaching, but rather could become something else.  



[/QUOTE]

You cannot change story leads without destroying your moral. Without a moral, the narrative has no point. That is not art, the randomness of it all would make it like life, except not nearly as deep as life. Because it is obviously  impossible to program anything resembling the complexity of life. Life creates art, to explain or appreciate life. Games can only be games, or simulate life in a cheap way.

In today's narrative games, you have to complete a game play objective to advance the plot. Or, you go on a side quest, which is an optional game play branch away from the main story, and not necessary to complete the story. That is cheap and tawdry to art. If the story is so damn important, and has to be told, why are you throwing cheap game play in there to interrupt it? Again, even a compelling narrative in a game would be destroyed by the game play.

Making a life simulation game, Like the Sims or Animal Crossing, is not art, because it has no point. People may find it fun, but it is not art, because their is no resolution, and there is no point to the story, just to play as long as you are still enjoying the game world.

Arcade games are not art - they may have a premise to 'explain' the game play, if they even have that. They are games in the purest sense - the game is all about becoming skilled at the game play. It succeeds and fails based on how fun it is to play.

So this leaves Mr Cage, in search of his Game Narrative Holy Grail, with vague, unattainable goals - that he postulates will happen 'incrementally' (if at all), and grasps at the straws of 'interactive Shakespeare', which is nothing, and means nothing. That is the same as me going into my garage, looking at the wrench set grandma gave me for Christmas, and saying 'jet pack'. Sure it is theoretically possible I will build one, right? But none of have any notion of how it could happen at all, and taking apart the vacuum cleaner for the hell of it should not be called 'progress' towards this goal.

[Vexer1]

Steer- That last post made no sense whatsoever, you haven't given one single solid argument on why games cannot be art. 

[LoganRuckman1]

I believe video games are art. Why? Because MY personal definition of art is anything that can evoke emotions from you. And video games do that for me. The beauty of it is, I'm in control the whole time. Compare that to, say, a movie, in which I'm simply a bystander watching a story in which I have no choices or control over what happens. I also use my imagination a lot more with video games than other art forms, as I often like to create my own little story for whatever game I'm playing. And I can personally tell you that Majora's Mask, just as an example, is a game that has evoked more and stronger emotions from me than any painting or sculpture ever has or ever will. Video games, from my perspective at least, are a higher artistic medium than, say, paintings and sculptures.

[Vexer1]

Well said, the Mass Effect series has made me feel more emotions then any piece of art in a museum.

[scotland171]

[QUOTE=LoganRuckman]I believe video games are art. Why? Because MY personal definition of art is anything that can evoke emotions from you....Video games, from my perspective at least, are a higher artistic medium than, say, paintings and sculptures.[/QUOTE]

By that definition, stubbing your toe is art.   Having to fart and feeling embarrassed is art.   Being evocative is neither necessary nor sufficient for being art. 

As to video games being 'higher art' than paintings or sculpture, my friend Trololo and I think that art appreciation requires knowledge and experience.  These are needed to appreciate other media, and adjudicate which if any is art and of what caliber.   Perhaps you just meant, that in your experience, video games have evoked more emotions or imaginative thoughts than any painting or sculpture you've seen.