and yet you dare to say that games are art, yet you dont believe that mario kart 64 is art, nice way to back pedal your reasoning, moron
lol
i can give you lessons on music and painting if you want
the fact that you can measure the artistic value of any piece of art based on technique, style, etc prooves how mute is the talk on how subjective is define art as good or bad.
saying that art is subjective, is subjective
btw
No, sorry if I was unclear. I assumed when you asked if I thought Mario Kart 64 was art that it naturally meant you did not.
I’ve previously established my stand that all salmon are fish.
We didn’t need a 6 hour RPGesque fighting game to have an engaging story. This is 2011, not 1998; this is BAREBONES when we were promised an ENGAGING story that would make use of all the characters.
what about instead of cutscenes, use the prefight animations to convey the story? I mean, they did bother to have characters tease each other… something SNK has been doing with KoF and Fatal Fury for over 12 years, and they do it better.
Maybe not a novel, but I mean, come on… try to show they bothered. A generic storyline for a mixed and matched team; but teams like Avengers, X-Men, Street Fighter, Marvel Villains, Capcom Legends could have used a bit more writing and a special team ending; that way they could claim they had a involving, engaging storyline devised.
It’s like the Halo BS; why should I have to read 3 books to get the background on who my character is? its BS, do it in the game; don’t put it in the manual or in out of game sources.
Outside of the CGI movies; there is no mention whatsoever about the supposed plot involving Dr Doom and Wesker; they could have made it the overarching plot, and have the heroes try to stop them and add prefight dialogue (even with text ffs, SOMETHING) and then WHAM, Galactus arrives and heroes and villains have to team up to stop the World Devourer.
Story wise, this is a wasted opportunity to bring the fighting games out of the rut they are regarding storyline. And even Namco tries to put in a bit more than the standard fare.
lol, again with the stupid rethoric, and the idiotic analogies, keep it up, you are making this boring day fun with all the dumb shit that you come up
and no, mario kart 64 is not art in any way
Standards =/= required
They don’t “need” to add those things to make a fighting game. They might need them to make a “good” fighting game by your standards or to sell well but fact is it is their choice to add them or not, it doesn’t stop being a fighting game if the endings are animated or not or if there is a story or if there’s a bunch of stuff to unlock. Story is not important to me so I’m not upset in the slightest by it having a bad one or none, but someone else might and it has a certain degree of importance to them.
by that logic you can say that we can ommit the chars and backgrounds and just leave the hitboxes against a white/black background, since even when its the standard to have them, they arent required
This post has won so many internets. All of the internets. All of them.
Well, yes. Again, we’ve grown accustomed to expect certain things, with varying degrees of importance.
This debate does not belong on fucking SRK to begin with.
Creator vs viewer is an incredibly tired discussion in this the 2011th year AD. You’re both right. If you don’t understand the relevance of this then don’t discuss art like you know any-fucking-thing. Your understanding of ‘intention’ is awful too. You might want to get your head out of your ass, you need your eyes to read and your ears to listen.
Stop arguing over wikipedia articles and britannica definitions. FUCK.
That sounds like a cool idea for an experimental indie fighting game actually. Reminds me of the Samurai Jack episode where he fought the ninja who hid in the dark while he hid in the light.
Though in this game charecters are required because of the word Marvel.
Congrats to Anemone for the very 1984 effort of attempting to define a word out of existence… bonus points for obstupificating the actual discussion into oblivion of the thread when it became clear his original point was total fucking shit.
there was a thread about that idea on FGD around the last year
chill out bro, im just passing time on the office, today is the monthly closing, and im have been stuck here since friday, i need to entertain myself :looney:
but yeah, we are here to talk about fighting games, no art, wich is a waste of time, since no one agrees ever, and more importantly doenst have anything to do with the topic of the thread
Anemone.
There are many reasons why games are NOT accepted as Art in many academic circles.
There are many reasons why game developers like Kojima and Fumito Ueda (well known for his “artistic” games) say their games are NOT Art.
Art is more than just ornament, Art need a reason, ideas a philosophy behind it, Art can entertain, but it is not an entertainment production. Beauty became accepted as relative in Romanticism, so Art doesn’t need to be “pretty”, but it need to be expressive.
Games need to be functional and accepted by the customer, they need to primary work and entertain, in its roots games are much more of a product than a genuine piece of Art.
You can’t say every book is a piece of Art, a book can be functional, or just a piece of pure entertainment. There is a huge difference between a technical guide and a small tale made just to produce some laughs and a even bigger difference between those examples and the work of Victor Hugo, Nietzsche, Nelson Rodrigues.
Sure you can always forget Human History, Art History, concepts and movements and call whatever you want Art, but I don’t think it will be a valid argument.
The same happens with movies, “Nosferatu” and “Vozvrashcheniye” are indeed pieces of Art, but “Transformers” or “Delicious Boobs 12” are entertainment productions, people behind them KNOW they are creating an entertainment production and not Art, consumers of this kind of production want fast entertainment.
Sure, there are many artistic details in games and entertainment, but artistic details doesn’t make a production pure Art. Music, ornaments and story in some games are full of artistic sensibility on them, but the concept of a functional game make the production primary an entertainment product.
Again, games need to be functional, need to primary be accepted and “work”, Art need to express ideas, concepts and emotions to be more than just “ornament”. For similar reasons Design production is not considered Art as it need to be functional primary and not expressive.
Ask yourself why games are not accepted as Art in many, many (if not all) academic circles, ask yourself why game developers well known for their “artistic” games say they work is not Art…even when it has aesthetic sensibility in it.
English is not my primary language, so I am not sure if I was clear enough.
Anyway, in my opinion, Angry Joe has many valid points in his review.
irate gamer loves mvc3
[media=youtube]hj-4uIaUM64[/media]
[media=youtube]srW8YGS-Ngw[/media]
This is an argument that no one will win. Anemone simply brought this up becuase he knows that his original point is shit. This is like the 4th change of subject from him.
Bull.
I just bought Just Cause 2 two weeks ago and already 8 hours into it. Guess what? HARDLY any cutscenes that don’t take more then 15 seconds. I spent most of my time just blowing stuff up (and you literally advance the game by doing that.)
Hell, even the first RE could take around 8 hours if you’ve played it the first time and that game wasn’t filled with cutscenes either.
There isn’t much of an excuse for Capcom not being meaty as their competitors, especially when they have the budget to do so. Considering Marvel had a lineup of animated shorts, and the recent anime x-men announcement…this was a missed opportunity.
[quote=“Gargantua, post:173, topic:121186”]
Anemone.
And I’m sure you are completely misinformed about their complaints. They complain that they rely to much on other mediums, which is the exact opposite of what many in this thread and especially this review are so clamoring for.
Also this group is far and few between. Rogert Ebert =/= academic circle, but I’ll get back to this later.
No they are well known for movies where you play a little puzzle to unlock the next cutscene.
Let’s here what Brenda Brathwaite has to say about games as art.
Can You Make a Board Game About the Holocaust?: Meet “Train” - Speakeasy - WSJ
And how does one successfully identify this intention of the artist? Since you can NOT prove intention in any case ever, then there is no point in basing classification on intention.
Then what of the absurdest art forms that have no meaning, but just simply explorations of the craft that they exist in alone?
Separating these two when existing in a capitalist nation is incredibly silly. The fact is that every form of art in a capitalist society needs to do the above to some varying degree in order for it to survive. Unless the artist is somehow supported indefinetly by an entity, there art serves the purpose to some degree to keep the art alive.
Look at Shakespear’s work for example, many of the pieces, most notably MacBeth, was made with the intent of keeping his acting studio alive, by appealing to the King/Queen at the time, who was their direct source of funding.
I said literature, which is much different from books.Books would also include instruction manuals and similar things.
I’m certain that history is on my side. Movies and photographs were not considered art until very recently, however once they became accepted, ALL movies to date are looked at as a form of visual art.
And how can you determine this with absolute certainty? How can you determine WHY a piece was produced?
Even more, how can you objectively prove that the first two pieces are superior to the later? You can’t do this either, and history shows any attempts at this to prove only temporary common held subjective opinions mascaraing as objective opinions, even within academic circles.
Your right that this is not where games shine as an artistic venue. No games excel at interaction, something that no other medium can give. Games can accomplish all that the greatest of orchestras can with just interaction.
No they don’t. We expect them to, but they don’t have to.
You are only listing the expectations set upon these, not what they actually are. The expectations set on a piece of work is not a way in which to comment on the actual work itself.
It’s comparable to the roster size complaint about MvC3 compared to MvC2, yes, with sequels people put the expectation for a bigger roster, but, it’s just irrational to think that way.
Why can’t we have a poorly coded, glitchy game, based around life as a man in a mail room left unfinished on purpose if Picaso can leave his paintings unfinished? Yes, people EXPECT you to finish your game, but you don’t have to.
Now, I’d also like to take a moment and dispell the stupid notion that games are not considered art in the academic fields.
Okay
Here I go
The Art of Video Games
bam done.
What you are doing in Just Cause 2 by blowing shit up to advance the game is called “grinding”. This is common in something like an RPG where you need to be this strong to beat the next cave or this much money to buy this thing to get the next area.
I can’t comment on RE, haven’t played it but looking at your comment, RE is supporting his argument that you don’t need to have cutscenes to make the game good, long, fulfilling, etc.
I think it was more of an issue with time than with money. All the DLC planned seems to suggest that budget was pretty high, other resources appear to be low.
I wonder how many more free game modes we will get.
Ya know on the subject of flawed reviews that I’ve been going off on as well, how valid are day 1 reviews when the game makers plan out, or later decide to add free DLC or patches? DLC seems to make life difficult for gamer and critic alike
Games stop being games when they have no goal.
It’s not irrational to expect sequels to fighters to include a larger roster because past franchises have set the precedent. No, it wasn’t guaranteed the roster would be larger, but it certainly isn’t irrational to believe it would be.