Gamers are Knee-Jerk Reactionaries.

[m0zart1]

[QUOTE=Steerforth]I'm sorry Mozart, I just can't see Ebert in his chair breaking down some plot in a videogame. I just can't. I agree with him on one thing, art need a message.[/QUOTE]

Me either, yet he does it on a collective scale.  Again, that's the point -- he has nothing to say on the matter because he hasn't experienced any of it.  He's being a critic in lieu of actual evaluation.

[QUOTE=Steerforth]If you can name to me a game that has some sophisticated plot that is provided insight into the human condition, please do. ( Or whatever you happen to define as artistic, thats what I look for.)[/QUOTE]

I can name a slew of games that carry important points about the human condition within them right off of the top of my head.  Silent Hill, though a horror game, carried a number of important issues about human behavior in a fight-or-flight situation, as well as showing some of the deeper sides of nightmare situations, such as the real horror a father faced while facing the loss of yet another loved one, so much so that he could be heroic and face seemingly horrific surroundings.  Silent Hill 2 dealt with human loss, recovery from such loss and recovery from abuse, and the significance of seeking forgiveness for wrong deeds.  Ico dealt with the isolation of a cursed individual, and Shadow of the Colossus dealt with the blackness of the human heart, particularly when a protagonist does what he thinks is heroic only to realize in the end that he was the villain who slaughtered innocents as he's being sucked into the void.  Majora's Mask dealt with behavior in critical situations, particularly the end of the world scenario, in which the morality/ethics of various normally "good" individuals is twisted for evil.  It also dealt with the necessary healing to undo the effects of these behaviors.  Even something as silly as Ocarina of Time showed an interesting quandry as Link, little more than a child in mind and heart, had to take on not only the responsibilities of an adult, but the body of one too.  You probably don't see things like that because you likely don't look for them, but I find them to be fascinating inklings of the potential that video gaming as a medium has.

[QUOTE=Steerforth]Most games I play involve princesses baking plumbers cake, and maybe a kiss on the cheek if I'm (or Mario's) lucky. Generally speaking, the less time Nintendo spends on a story, the happier I am with the game.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, that would be my seven-year-old godson's take on it too.  Of course, he also thinks Crashbox is the greatest show on Earth.

But as that's him (and apparently you too), and not everybody, I'd think you wouldn't be so narrow-minded as to think you have the complete answer for what the rest of us are looking for.

[QUOTE=Steerforth]Most games that I don't play, invlove people shooting the piss out of other people, or driving cars real fast, or killing cops and hookers, and so on and so forth.[/QUOTE]

That is your choice.  But do you think you speak for everybody?

[QUOTE=Steerforth]Long story short, in my humble opinion, Ebert has a half nelson on you and is getting back points.[/QUOTE]

<AD_HOMINEM>How could he not?  He weighs over 300 lbs.</AD_HOMINEM>

[Steerforth]

"a" -  Do you live in the UK? If not, you are dead wrong. How can a US Politician push to "ban" a game that Nintendo and Sony refuse to liscense for their systems in the first place?

Also, if you are referring to Romney, he ain't talking about banning, he's just looking for the most rigorous way to fine retailers for selling content to minors that is deemed inapropriate for minors. Thats why I do not understand the gamespot uproar, this is so obvious even I, player of simple and childish games, can figure out! I love how the Gamespotians forswore not to vote for Romney because of this single issue. Who is their "Pro-violent and Sexualy Explicit Videogame" politicion? Hilary Clinton? Lol. I can't wait to make my Youtube video for the Republicans! Maybe in 2008 we can call in our votes on a cellphone!

As for you Mozart, the games you are listed are fine games, no doubt. I even played a couple of them. But never once did OoT or Majoras Mask raise those questions to me. Mostly they were fun to play, and any headscratching they caused on ol' Steerforth was when he could not figure out what to do next.

To each their own, and no offense. I just think you are fighting a lost cause here.

[m0zart1]

[QUOTE=Steerforth]As for you Mozart, the games you are listed are fine games, no doubt. I even played a couple of them. But never once did OoT or Majoras Mask raise those questions to me. Mostly they were fun to play, and any headscratching they caused on ol' Steerforth was when he could not figure out what to do next.[/QUOTE]

You'll have to forgive me if I don't seem particularly concerned that you didn't see those things.  Good art and entertainment serves many purposes for many individuals.  The common movie-goer wasn't interested in deeper questions raised by Star Wars or Lord of the Rings either, and when those things were being pondered or raised, it likely flew way over their heads.  That doesn't mean they weren't there of course.

[QUOTE=Steerforth]To each their own, and no offense. I just think you are fighting a lost cause here.[/QUOTE]

Eh, to paraphrase from one of my favorite films (and a great work of art to boot), Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, sometimes lost causes are the only causes worth fighting for.

[a1]

[QUOTE=Steerforth]

"a" -  Do you live in the UK? If not, you are dead wrong. How can a US Politician push to "ban" a game that Nintendo and Sony refuse to liscense for their systems in the first place?

[/QUOTE]

No, I live in the U.S. And no, maybe politicians didn't directly ban Manhunt 2, but they are the sole reason it was given an AO rating in the first place. After the GTA sex mini-game scandal politicians were all up in arms about how the ESRB didn't rate the game properly (as though Mature 17+ somehow meant kids could play it, but that's an argument for another day). This caused the ESRB to be on its toes, and Manhunt 2 was the unlucky victim that they made an example of. If the sex minigame in GTA wasn't blown out of proportion Manhunt 2 would have gotten the M rating it should have received.

My point is that politicians speak of stopping sales of M rated games to minors, and rating games properly, but they've never played the games in question. God of War had a sex minigame built in, and was equally as violent as GTA; the only reason it wasn't banned is that politicians had no awareness of it, just as they have no awareness of any game they lobby against.

Let me just say this Steerforth: none of these politicians (I'm not gonna name names because then we get into a political discussion) give a rats ass about the children. If they could impress voters by banning Pokemon and Mario, they'd be perfectly happy to do so, because they have no interest in them.

[KanYozakura]

[QUOTE=a]Let me just say this Steerforth: none of these politicians (I'm not gonna name names because then we get into a political discussion) give a rats ass about the children. If they could impress voters by banning Pokemon and Mario, they'd be perfectly happy to do so, because they have no interest in them.
[/QUOTE]

Which is exactly why most people don't care if games do get banned: it doesn't affect them personally.  Why care about artistic expression and freedom of speech when American Idol and the football game are on?  Freakin' sheeps.

[Iain]

[QUOTE=a]Let me just say this Steerforth: none of these politicians (I'm not gonna name names because then we get into a political discussion) give a rats ass about the children. If they could impress voters by banning Pokemon and Mario, they'd be perfectly happy to do so, because they have no interest in them. [/QUOTE]Yeah, absolutely. When politicians want to ban something, mopre often than not it will come down to trying to impress some reactionary voter base they are trying to pander to.

Even age restricting video games is something I am not very comfortable about. Especially as there is no reason n or rhyme to the way it is done. Apparently children can not cope with swearing or even mild sexual references but they can cope with extreme violence. I remember with San Andreas, the level of violence was largely ignored in favour of a synthetic scandal about a hidden sex mini-game. Personally the most offensive thing I found about San Andreas was that it didn't live up tot he standard set by Vice City.

[Koopa W.]

As someone who studies films, I know for a fact Deep Throat didn't get nominated for an Oscar.

[Edward M]

I was thinking of having a "knee jerk" reaction, but then I saw the name and thought, well it's just Mitt Romney.  He's the kind of guy who will say anything to get elected, and it appears like Hillary, hes gonna pick on gamers.  I'm sure if he gets elected(which he wont), he will "forget" about all this and go back to getting 600 dollar haircuts.


But on the issue at hand, I hate it when politicians stick their noses where it don't belong.  I do not believe it is the role of the government to define what is obscene. Would he consider a Loony tunes game overly violent because daffy duck gets shot point blank with a shotgun by Elmer Fudd? Also he would have to create a new government board to determine which games are unacceptable.  He couldn't use the ESRB, because as one of the few correct things Jack Thompson has said, that would be unconstitutional. You cannot have criminal laws based directly off a private organization's judgments.    So he would have to create a new governmental organization, which would cost money, and make more bureaucratic requirements.  This would generate negative press so I am positive he wouldn't do it.  He's just looking for a campaign issue, to get above 15 percent in the polls, and it probably won't work.

I'd rather not have the government doing that, we got better things to spend our money on.  When the government does that, that means they are determining which speech is appropriate, and which is not, and builds the stepping stones to starting unconstitutional actions, like FCC decency standards. Study the George Carlin case, the supreme court ruled against his 7 dirty words routine by 5-4.  Imagine how different television would be if just one judge ruled differently.

  I myself refuse to vote for anyone who doesn't support freedom of expression, which severely limits my options.   Lets just say I do a lot of write in votes. 


And about Roger Ebert, not calling games art, He has admitted before he has never played games.   He has probably seen GTA 3 or Mario in the press and has found it to be immature or saturday morning cartoon like.   He has probably never seen say Grim Fandango or Shadow of the colossus. I consider those to be of the quality of Toy Story or Spirited Away, both of which he gave 4 stars to.

I noticed someone brought up Midnight Cowboy.  I consider that a fantastic movie.  It most certainly did not deserve the X rating, and I'm sure it got it because it broke a taboo of the time, portrayal of homosexuality.  Now imagine if the censor board a politician would support started banning stuff based on taboos being broken.  Its already happening on the airwaves as Howard Stern has mentioned.    Oprah Winfrey has never gotten an FCC fine even though she will sometimes talk about very sexual explicit stuff such as Swingers, orgasms, etc.   But she does not break the taboos Howard Stern does, so she doesn't get fines.  Do you want to see this in video games?  I think not.   So don't elect any of these politicians.

[Steerforth]

Good response, "a"

Let me just say this Steerforth: none of these politicians (I'm not gonna name names because then we get into a political discussion) give a rats ass about the children. If they could impress voters by banning Pokemon and Mario, they'd be perfectly happy to do so, because they have no interest in them.

Well, some people on this issue are truly motivated by childeren's welfare,  there are family watchdog groups that try to hold the ESRB to account, and work hard to keep this issue in front of the general public and politicians. 

Easy to throw all politicians in one box, and unfair as well. But I don't disagree that 1. it is a very easy for a politician to grandstand this issue, with little danger of getting burned, 2. Rockstar has a target on its back from the games it has released in the past.

But gamers would be ahead to admit there is a real problem here, even it cannot be solved perfectly. There is no question that most "M" rated games are designed to appeal to kids. They are too young to play them according to the rating system, but the developer would not make it financially without their money. I doubt many people could honestly dispute me on that.

And there has been plenty of evidence, not to mention common sense, that  violent images and game interaction will negativly affect a kids developing brain. Obviously it will not make every young player a killer, but they will be more aggressive and violent, and desensitised in general. When you sell virtual murder and mutilation as entertainment, strive to make the next game more visualy realistic and graphic than the last, and a prime buyer of your product is kids, you have a moral and ethical problem. Government is just one way society is trying to address that problem.

Myself, I am in favor of greater vigilence on this issue, and  support greater enforcement of existing laws. People sound off about 'less governement' when it happens to suit them, but I believe in holding government accountable. If you have a law in the books, you had better enforce it, or else it is a farce. We have enough farce in this country as it is! If you can't or won't enforce it, get it off the books.

[Quill]

Games and art... hmm the two terms sure don't seem to go together. Is hopscotch art? How about chess? Perhaps there's an art to playing them... but I think that's a little different. Also the chess pieces could be art but the game or concept of  the game... I don't think so.

So what is it that makes Video Games different?

I feel that most Video Games do classify as art. The medium itself is not inherently art though because of things like Tetris. Obviously this game has artwork in it but that doesn't make it art itself. That's like saying my house is a piece of art because I hung a few paintings on the wall. There's no message behind the gameplay... it is there for pure entertainment purposes and that's it. Yes, it makes me feel something but so does an apple or the sight of someone crying. So saying that something that is fun is art... doesn't cut the mustard for me.

Now when you look at the games that have narrative or are trying to do more than just be fun I'd say they all quantify as art. This ranges from Super Mario Bros. to God of War to Elecktroplankton. (Electroplankton I believe is the best piece of video game art that I've ever experienced by the way.) However the ones that try to have overwhelming complex narratives and take focus away from the experience of interactiviy in the game are some of the worst pieces of art I've ever seen. The Metal Gear Series is particularly guilty of this... though it isn't the worst piece of art I've seen.

However I think the fun factor should always supersede any message or any artistic intention in the game. If it isn't fun or enjoyable... screw it. Personally I suffer through enough horrible entertainment that is supposedly 'dark' or 'serious' that is just downright wretched.

The entertainment vs. art is another interesting issue. I think in most cases mozart is right. They are in fact one in the same... but not always. Just as my previous example as before games are just entertainment.

There's no art behind tic tac toe or connect 4. They are just games and ways to pass the time. These things are in the minority though. Most of the time art and entertainment are one in the same.... although I've seen some art that isn't very entertaining either. Many Yoko Ono pieces come to mind as examples.

I think all this kind of relates to my final issue which is why don't people inherently think of video games as art. I  think there are  a number of reasons some mentioned in previous posts and somethings I've already mentioned like their connection to more conventional games.

I feel a large reason why games aren't taken seriously is simply the times we live in. In this post-modern era of art where every yutz that picks up a paintbrush or slams his head against a piano is considered an artist. This is pure hogwash that stems from the Dadas... (Not sure if that's spelled correctly).

What does this have to do with games and multimedia in general? Executives. Guys that are paid to basically manage the  money on project that thing they're just as talented as the artists they paid if not more so. Most of them have no artistic training and are all looking for that success 'formula', which doesn't exist by the way. They think they are artists just because they say they are. Even film didn't have to deal with that originally.

Yes, I do realize that paintings and other works of art were comissioned in the past by the wealthy but they put their trust in the artist. They knew they weren't artists themselves so they trusted the painter or musician to make want they wanted.

The situation happens in almost every form of collaborative art today from music to animation to video games. They're all looking for that formula and just rehash things over and over again. On a personal level its becoming hard to say that any of these things are art once you've seen/heard them 1000 times before.

Hooray for the post-modern condition!