/int/ – No shittings during wörktime
„There is no place like home“

File (max. 4)
Return to
  • Allowed file extensions (max. size 25 MB or specified)
    Images:  BMP, GIF, JPG, PNG, PSD   Videos:  FLV, MP4, WEBM  
    Archives:  7Z, RAR, ZIP   Audio:  FLAC, MP3, OGG, OPUS  
    Documents:  DJVU (50 MB), EPUB, MOBI, PDF (50 MB)  
  • Please read the Rules before posting.
  • Make sure you are familiar with the Guide to Anonymous Posting.

No. 24653
29 kB, 400 × 400
66 kB, 1000 × 667
Can games compete with traditional mediums like books and movies, if not will they be able to in the future? How does the perception of a story change in an interactive medium? Which games do it well, what works and what doesn't? Is storytelling even important in vidya?
Ernst loves generals so let's make it broad.

I will posts my opinions below, I want to blend into the crowd
No. 24654
>Can games compete with traditional mediums like books and movies
I think they can compete just fine with movies and TV series, but I don't think anything can really compete with the book for story telling since a book can have so much detail and worldbuilding in it compared to the other mediums.

For the parts that are missing in a book, your imagination can often fill in the blanks, I don't find that to be the case with visual stuff like movies and games.
No. 24658
408 kB, 1920 × 1080
680 kB, 1920 × 1080
942 kB, 1920 × 1080
156 kB, 1920 × 1080
>Which games do it well, what works and what doesn't?
Мор. Утопия/Pathologic

There's really nothing quite like it in terms of writing, world building & both the breadth and depth of philosophical concepts explored. It'd be even impossible to describe what it is "about", rather it is about the whole human condition. You can read more about the game e.g. here (though of course it'd be ideal to just dive into it without reading too much): https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2008/04/10/butchering-pathologic-part-1-the-body/
It's the only video game I would have no qualms putting on equal terms with other works considered "high art". While many other games can be considered to have storytelling on par with books/movies, most of the time they end up too "cinematic" and linear, meanwhile Pathologic manages to uniquely leverage the medium, e.g. through the three perspectives the different characters give you and through a greater degree of freedom than most story-focused games offer (all the while subtly ridiculing the player for still being bound to play through the story).
Though the interactive element of games (even if highly literary) & their complexity (and therefore proneness to imperfection) make them closer to maybe rituals in regard of the affect they produce and the insight that can be gained from them.
No. 24660
I think that with the type of game it depends.

Like a book or a movie never changes, even if you do. This often can have the eerie effect of never seeing the same story twice despite watching the exact same thing three different times in your life. But with a video game not only is it possible for that to happen, but to literally see a completely different story with different content each time.

I would say that what actually makes it such a problem is because vidya is a completely new medium in a for profit industry that doesn't have literally thousands of years worth of storytelling in its medium to fall back on, and in that regard one could easily make the same argument for books as one could for oral traditions, which are way older.

So in short, one of the biggest problems with vidya is also attracting pretty shitty writers and having lower standards for the audience with only a few decades of history to draw from in refining the medium.

In terms of what specifically you just described with filling in the blanks I would say this is one area where it can shine, and is probably part of why I mostly like city builders, 4x, crpgs and the like. None of these games had a linear story with the same predictable outcome no matter what which makes each experience often fairly unique.

The reason this is so important of course is also that I personally believe vidya has the highest potential out of any artform for the way the picture changes with you. There is quite simply no other medium on the planet that does that, which is why I think it can be a transformative, even borderline holy, experience that is simply underjtilized. Literally every single game session has the potential for being an elaborate psychodrama in a way that no other medium can possibly hope to match. I mean just think about it: Oscar Wilde envisioned such a thing in The Portrait of Dorian Grey, a book written about a painting that transformed with the viewer as a reflection of his own soul. That is not something that could ever truly be tried before on one part of canvas and for once in human history you can literally watch it transform with you and showing you unique things each time.

Like take a 4x game for example. Your first biggest obvious choice is which race, and with one door opened the others are now all closed to what you will experience, and often what the subject says about your, your interpretation of them, and what you want to play. The other big choice is galaxy size, shape, how much water and so on, which also dramatically changes the narrative as everyone sharing one big map on islands is going to be more peaceful and trade based whereas all sharing a single continent or island is going to be a much more bloody one.

You make all these choices and then depending on game can try out different tactics and strategies and meanwhile nothing is really on rails, so you can deliberately keep a game going past easy conquest win to try and get a soft power win and see what happens and all along you're sort of telling yourself an epic space opera.

4x is well known for enabling this story to happen, called a recap story I think it's called. It also helps capture an often key ingredient of art, which is not pure possibility, but rather constraint, and it is often that constraint where the artist expresses himself more purely. In the form of a 4x, this becomes the actions of AI and random events with how the viewer reacts to them. It may seem as pure possibility, but it often forces your hand. And so, I think it enables a very good form of storytelling just there alone, although needless to say it depends on whether you mean it as for bydlo, in which case the written language becomes terrible romance novels, or whether it is the sort of person who considers everything as an artistic act.

I think the other key consideration is seemlessness of the artistry of one constructing it for you, which in DnD terms would more be the game master, much like the writer, who guides you on in such a way that your guided choices all feel as more spontaneous acts rather than coached decisions, which in a sense is what every artist is aiming for more or less.

In summation I would say that vidya has the greatest potential of any art form ever devised that is just often poorly utilized. I have encountered untold number of purely trash games for empty mindless repetitive entertainment, and yet there remain a few gems that have stuck with me for the longest time as a sort of collaborative storytelling. Among these are Planescape, Tides of Numenera, VTMB, and KOTOR 1 and 2, as well as to lesser degree Fallout and Wasteland 2. Personally I found KOTOR to be a nearly religious experience, though it may have also been time and place, and just purely on accident.

For instance, going in blind I had no idea just sticking my lightsaber in a vent was going to kill a guy. I kept thinking myself this big damn hero and justified my own actions and grey morality through that, long before realizing the epic plot twist, which became more absurdly blurring of the fourth wall as I not only accidentally killed the guy and thus both me and my character experienced going down that slippery slope to the dark side with the whole "I...I didn't mean to...I just wanted to scare him a little not kill him..." but also I kept trying to answer the computer at first with what I think is the right decision or the "morally correct" choice to make and it failed me, and then I began answering the questions as i myself would and really bizarrely to me at the time managed to win perfectly once I realized I could pick the options for what I would choose personally instead of the ones I think are expected of a moral character. What I found was so fantastic partly because I didn't know that I really was Revan both in the game and by perhaps making one too many incredibly ruthless amoral decisions when fighting a war, which even offended one of my friends during a RISK game once because I needed to get my armies through his territory to face off a mutual threat and butchered in cold blood however many of his men on that territory and told him that army was "expendable" and to just take it back next turn. I think it taught a greater lesson on war too, as I can safely sit here as an armchair twat and bitch about the British perfidy but quite frankly if I was in that position where the outcome of WWII was unknown it's entirely conceivable I would have sunk the French fleet and slaughtered my ally's sailors too just like they did.

This is quite simply not the kind of thing that can happen in a book. I can react to characters and the novelist can encourage me in a direction all he wants, but it's still the same story being told to me and thus can be rejected in a sense that vidya cannot. That so much of vidya is prosaic, formulaic bullshit is not the problem of the medium, in a similar manner to how scifi used to be thought of as the biggest piece of trash genre of writing out there whereas today it is pretty commonly accepted as one of the deeper thinking man's genres of writing.

I personally think that, without too many revolutionary changes in technology or societal collapse or whatever, that in a hundred years time vidya could easily be developed into one of the highest art forms in existence.

It also is sometimes completely unintentional. Like for example reviews of Star Citizen, or in my case some indie game where it was just my character trapped in a box in a dark room. It was by far a better avante garde experience than any insipid little art show I've ever been to. I saw an art museum in NYC and I was not impressed, although the glass garden was cool looking at least, but all of it was simply uninspired. But this? Being trapped in Unity engine in a dark room with no light, in a box, playing at night trying to figure out if I could even do anything at all? That was the first time I had truly been impressed by a piece of art in as long as I can remember.
No. 24662
>Is storytelling even important in vidya?
No, and I think the delusion that it should be a chief concern of games is making videogames much worse at what should be their main priority which is gameplay.
Games should not even try to compete as a storytelling medium because that's not their point. I'd rather play Super Mario 64 or Super Monkey Ball (AKA something that actually takes full advantage of the medium) than some indie walking simulator.
The storytelling of games emerges from their very gameplay, such as memories of beating a certain level or various events that happen in multiplayer games etc
No. 24667
I think the problem isn't focus on story itself, but an attempt at an imposed narrative by the author. Games can be a great medium of story telling, as long as the story is emergent and treats the player as a participant rather than an observer. And I mean the player, not the character controlled by the player.

I can also enjoy narrative focused games as long as the story does not try to contradict the actions of the player. Example: max payne. The story is almost entirely separate from the gameplay, but the only thing the story asks of you is to enact the scenes where Max kills a bunch of mobsters, which does not contradict neither max's character (he kills a bunch of mobsters, nor the gameplay (the gameplay is killing a bunch of mobsters).

I also intensely dislike this fashionable trend of having a meta-narrative, where the game directly addresses the player, like in spec ops the line or far cry 4. It's annoying when the author tries to insinuate that the actions of the player are somehow the cause of the imposed narrative when the author didn't give the players any tools to affect the narrative in the first place. It's like the game is trying to be post-modern, when the medium of video games is post-modern by nature in the first place (you can't impose a narrative on gameplay), so they go back to the literary approach: go back to a linear story paradigm and try to invoke post-modern elements there, instead of having getting rid of the narrative in the first place.
No. 24669
To build on this, I think the many references to worldbuilding as an important part of storytelling in this thread are misguided. Worldbuilding is rarely a significant factor in something's ability to tell a good story. In many cases it detracts from it by taking away your most powerful tool, the imagination of the audience. It will fill in the small gaps it finds to be important to fill and it will do it in the best way for that audience. What's important is that a setting capture the important parts of what is trying to be conveyed, and that those parts are able to fall within reasonable suspension of disbelief. Anything beyond that is for the author at the end of the day because it's not really relevant to the audience.

There are some cases where the worldbuilding is an aspect of the greatness of the work, such as Tolkien but at the same time, those stories, written properly, could easily eschew most of the background and focused entirely on what was relevant and remained quality stories. In video games, STALKER is an excellent example, in that you get the bare necessity of 'Chernobyl is weird', and 'get to the NPP'. The ins and outs of the world outside the zone, and even in places of the Zone that you don't participate in aren't really touched on in any great depth, and when they are mentioned it's usually done to create the feeling that pervades the game rather than trying to actually build up a wider world.
No. 24674 Kontra
509 kB, 774 × 893
Games have different genres, and it is not logical to put all of them in "single" category. Plot-heavy CRPGs and text adventures is litteraly interactive fiction books, I don't know what question in it.
No. 24679
>Games can be a great medium of story telling, as long as the story is emergent and treats the player as a participant rather than an observer. And I mean the player, not the character controlled by the player.
That is literally what I just said yesterday. I know it was unspeakably long winded and maybe even repetitive, but still.

>I can also enjoy narrative focused games as long as the story does not try to contradict the actions of the player.
All this falls under the "well done" part, and the problem today is that a lot of indie developers are out there producing just okay mediocre games that have poor writing. It's like everybody with a typewriter or microsoft word or a blog now suddenly thinking he's a novelist on par with Vonnegut or Hemingway. It often looks like shit because the developers themselves are shit at writing.

>I also intensely dislike this fashionable trend of having a meta-narrative, where the game directly addresses the player, like in spec ops the line or far cry 4
I haven't played those but again, it's the problem of being done well. You can break the fourth wall when the story is good. The worst is self congratulatory bullshit.

Again it depends. I would count worldbuilding and atmosphere as pretty integral parts of VTMB. Pillars of Eternity just didn't do it very well. And sometimes it just doesn't work well for the genre, like Endless Space and Galactic Civilizations III. In those cases worldbuilding itself may detract, yes.

Any game except like Donkey Kong or Doom can and should have something where it can tell a story or allow the player to tell themselves a story.
No. 24680
VTMB doesn't do much that it doesn't need to. Most everything in that game serves a purpose within the game. You don't get much if any of the in-universe lore about mages, werewolves or the fae, hunters are just kind of there to punish you for breaking the rules rather than being particularly fleshed out etc.

You have a setting tailored around a gameplay experience. The strengths of its atmosphere come from what information exists and how it's conveyed in a pretty natural way rather than the worldbuilding properties of the OWoD itself.
No. 24693
163 kB, 1600 × 900
156 kB, 1600 × 900
106 kB, 1600 × 900
>I also intensely dislike this fashionable trend of having a meta-narrative, where the game directly addresses the player, like in spec ops the line
Man, as I read this I was thinking of Spec Ops and then you said it. Don't get me wrong I think the game was done well (as a game / shooter) but story wise I get what you're saying, it makes you do a thing then punishes you for it the rest of the game. It's an interesting concept and one I haven't seen in a game before, so I did quite enjoy it.

I even have screenshots of my playthrough back in 2016, I forgot how good that game looks.
No. 24845
19 kB, 474 × 266
On some level storytelling itself usually doesn't have to do more than it needs to do. Purple prose is one example of breaking this rule. There's no need or use in a novel for filler content. Like when a man walks into a room, you don't need to describe every single thing, like what else was sitting in a table, what the magazines on the table were about, the color of the rug, whether he showered that money and the brand of his cologne etc. similarly to how you don't don't ned need anything in a shot besides exactly what you intended in film and photography.

In VtMBs case it's kind of an odd one because I think they did too much and possibly a few times but definitely once introduced too much shit without explaining it. The Hengyokai is the worst offender. This only makes sense for someone who's steeped really deep, and I mean really deep into the lore. It didn't help that the model looked pretty terrible too. Since I was playing a Malkavian my first run I sincerely believed it to be just some weird retarded Malkavian specific thing and even then I was like yeah that's a bit much, since at the time I hadn't get read Kindred of the East. I had no idea that was even a thing and was equally puzzled when I encountered it the second time, as I'm sure many others were as well.

The problem with VTMB is that they tended to introduce way too many lore elements in a way that at times came off sloppily, and at others worked fantastically. Like for example the haunted hotel actually worked so well not just because the scene itself was so well done, because of how well it got integrated into the overall story so you can understand that Cainites like the Giovanni are messing with geists. What sorta worked but sorta doesn't is the Fae charm, because it's really not talked about at all and is just sorta there as something that stands out, but at the same time that's literally exactly how even a 300 year old vampire might encounter something like this, all of which creates the overall impression of a dark and forbidding world where assuming anything is incredibly dangerous, and where there are things, ancient and powerful and unknowable things, that scare even the worst ancient monsters you've ever met.

It also tended to integrate the story, atmosphere, lore and gameplay really well, since no matter how big and badass and manipulative you think you are, you're still just the plaything of another regardless of how much you think you're carving your own separate path. This is partly what I mean about integration of the audience with story because you, the player, are often operating under the illusion of having way more choice than you actually do to the point where most people forget how completely linear the story actually is.

Done poorly, you can end up with this
which reminds me of the terrible decision Troika made of having the early Sabbat member directly addressing the player "you in the audience may get a little wet." I have no idea why anyone made the stupid decision to leave that one.

Still, I think VTMB is a great example of storytelling in vidya. It had a lot of lore to draw on that other games didn't, sure, but there were times where that hurt the game more than helped.

In terms of the Hunters I think it worked too, because you ended up fighting a Society of Leopold member who actually was a threat so it helped show you exactly why drawing attention was such a bad thing, despite the fact that most of the time you feel more like it's other vampires getting pissed with you to worry about, but then you understand exactly why they are all so pissed with you to begin with. What would've been bad is if the whole Society of Leopold segment wasnt there because then you could see the seems too much and it'd just be an awkwardly implemented gaming mechanic. You also get to see how there are far off consequences to your actions, far enough that if you survive past these nights not just vampires but even the great grandchildren of mortals may remember you and cause problems later on.

What saddens me is that there's no game that really runs with that. VTMR sorta did but it was so obviously on rails and nothing would change no matter what you did. What would be cool is if the choices you made in the first half of a game completely changed the entire second half when you awake from torpor into the modern nights. Bioware at least sort of attempted this but sadly we got Mass Effect 2 & 3 which was a horrible wasted opportunity since I deliberately let the council die so in one fell swoop I could defeat the Reaper, advance my species' cause, and create the kind of solid leadership that was needed for the fight to come.

Instead what I got was a retcon with yet another retarded useless council failing to take decisive action with nothing at all changing. What a terrible wasted opportunity that was at showing unintended consequences.
No. 26387
<>Can games compete with traditional mediums like books and movies,

why not?
different tool gives different result/product.
some shit will fit a game better than a book or movie

ADOM for example is only known because unlike other games it has some fullscale setting and some kind of story instead the usual "kill the bad guy"
No. 29003
Gameplay is the core aspect of video games, so you should ask yourself: could this game with little effort be turned into a movie, book, comic etc... and have the same memorable effect?

My favorite video game is Silent Hill 2, and everything that makes it great for me: the interplay of story, visuals and music, they come from other established mediums. The gameplay is not an esencial part of what makes it great for me. I don't know of any game that could be considered on par with the best works from the traditional mediums were this happens.
No. 29015
Gameplay itself is a form of interactivity, which is best described as the interface of a person with the storytelling, and sometimes in such a way as to alter what is being told. I have actually seen few films that are on par with a game like Tides of Numenera. Games simply add another dimension to storytelling in the same manner that film added another visual dimension alongside music and storytelling around the campfire, or rather adding a soundtrack and motion picture to literature.

I would say the main problem is like you said the adaptations from one media to another are rarely ever good, be it film to vidya, or vidya to film, or vidya to novel, or novel to film, because something is usually lost in translation in like manner as I am a firm disbeliever in reading plays rather than seeing them enacted. But this is not a problem of vidya alone. Ask yourself when is the last time you ever even heard of a film/series adaptation to vidya being good? People like to talk about how trashy vidya movies are (it's true) or vidya books (also usually true but I'm sure some are not) but I've also not heard of even one single film to vidya being good. Telltale is a great example of producing this schlock.

I'd only be rehashing my original points right now but the problem of vidya is the same thing with movies and that is that they're usually schlock only because it is poorly written garbage produced for the masses to make money for the least amount of effort possible and making something truly good involves risk. There is no risk inherent in making yet another absolutely terrible Adam Sandler film. It's never going to be good, but it's reliably going to make money from stupid bydlo just like making yet another shitty Call of Duty game, and sadly the actual reason why something truly good isnt made often in literally any media is because it's a niche market and consumers of it are more rare, and good creators of it even rarer. There are possibly millions of books out there and the majority of them are absolutely atrocious romance novels, Russian nationalist pulp fiction meme books, or horrible "Big Duke fights terrorists Russians and bears and saves Annabelle" sort of action pulp books. The art form of writing I think is unfairly praised at this point mainly because it has had centuries upon centuries of refinement to where we can say look at the vast body of good work, whereas film and vidya have had a century and only a few decades respectively to refine their craft and create a body of work. I have seen nor heard of few truly remarkable or even good films in the past two decades and much the same can be said for vidya, although the few that were really good and memorable stand way taller than most films and books.
No. 29019
>Can games compete with traditional mediums like books and movies

They can't. They don't have any artistry, they're made of cut&pasted elements. Games are more like pinball machines. You just need to do the right steps to go through the platformer/rail shooter.
No. 29020
150 kB, 1300 × 951
>They don't have any artistry

I remember participating in this thread when it was borned. Now I don't want to go thru it again and just throw up this question? Why is it that that many people share your opinion myself tbh lean towards it as well, but at the same time I think a game could be a piece of art somehow. Is it because it was an outright product of capitalist economy, of the cultural industry? Is it because its entertainment and not sublimity that is at its core?
No. 29021

It's because a game is a GAME. It's not a fundamentally narrative medium. It's a game world that sets up some rules and you have to git gud at those rules to win. If there's any art it's incidental, like music or visual set pieces in the game, rarely, a good story, but you can't really say that about the gameplay itself, which is what 90% of the game is about. If you knew anything about how games and game levels are designed you could see this, but unfortunately you're another lab rat that can't see outside the maze.
No. 29022
You're talking about the wrong genres. Video games encompass many different genres some of which are basically nothing but toys. Other games, like even RTS and FPS, may be toys, but can be their own deep storytelling narratives like for example Dead Space, Bioshock, and Starcraft. Then there are other games which basically just interactive visual novels like RPGs. Planescape Torment is perhaps the best example of this. On some level it's less of a game and more of a fully interactive book where your decisions change the ending of the story. These games are much less like toys and more like malleable visual books or films than anything reseming a toy at times. If you think a game can't be an engrossing and deeply well told story then you're simply playing the wrong genre of games.
No. 29023
It's because quite frankly they're playing the wrong games. I've been trying not to outright say it because it's such a presumptuous and low brow thing to say that perhaps misses the point, but frankly if you sincerely hold these opinions it's probably because you have such shitty taste in games. Like you can't just write off the whole art form of cinema as being shit if all you ever watch is capeshit. Of course you'll think such things if that's all you ever watch. This is not to mention the fact that games aren't just about effective storytelling to be good but require effective use of a whole variety of art forms including the visual arts (basically painting in digital form some of which are quite literally like exploring paintings) and sound design which in certain games is so good I'd dare to say it rivals some of the greatest composers. This includes certain WH40K games and Divinity: Original Sin. They often have real composers doing their soundtracks.

So to say that basically games are all garbage with no artistry involved I think really says more about your own personal tastes than anything else.
No. 29024
> but unfortunately you're another lab rat that can't see outside the maze.

stop the kohltalk, I stopped 'gaming' many years ago and never was the meme of gamer anyway.

So a game is not contingent like a piece of art? What I'm thinking about when I consider that a game could be a piece of art, it would be in the experience it could provide, just like art is bound to an experience. The contingent and thus variable experience in encounter with a a piece of art is not given with games?
If I understand you right, the focus in games is on design which is not art and can never be, since design has an inherent boundary that separates it from art? I have to agree, I never encountered a game that gave me the same affect as pieces of art.

I wonder if the perspective of a game plays also a large part in that limitation. The angle from which it all is shown or encountered. Game design then inherently closes itself of from ever being art then, just to sum up your position.
No. 29026
>Games simply add another dimension to storytelling in the same manner that film added another visual dimension alongside music

Ten years ago I would had completely agreed. Maybe it's an age issue, but the play aspect seems to me now more related to recreation, or well, play, than to art. Not to say it's not important, it's an aspect of our nature, and that of many other animals.

>film and vidya have had a century and only a few decades respectively to refine their craft

Many masterworks that are still enjoyed today were produced during the firsts decades of cinema. Do you think anyone outside academia will still play our 'vidya classics'?
No. 29027 Kontra
795 kB, 797 × 443
fug I meant:
>Do you think in a century anyone outside academia will still play our 'vidya classics'?
No. 29028
What really becomes apparent in the last posts against the art thesis is as that games are games foremost. There logic is different to a work of art we could say.
Yet I wonder if there could be an interference. Then again as you said movies from back then are enjoyed by cineasts.
Both film and games became popular within capitalist era, both can be entertaining and commodities. So the difference must lie elsewhere when there is one. Is it perhaps in the plane of interaction between subject and object?
No. 29029 Kontra
53 kB, 500 × 333
>I'm a historian of early 21st century digital gaming culture
No. 29030 Kontra
But to be fair, it is likely to happen in that exact way.
No. 29035
I wasn't getting that philosophical. My point is that a game is like a pinball machine except in cyberspace. Instead of having targets popping up mechanically for your ball to hit and a painted board, you have virtual targets and textured walls. Most games are no more "art" than a pinball machine is. If you look at an FPS game's level design, you're essentially in a box or a corridor where beyond the painted wall of a building there is literally nothing. Can chess, hopscotch and solitaire be considered art? Or those games where you guide a marble through a maze?
No. 29036
This article by brian moriarty was an interesting read.
Not sure if I agree with the conclusion, but I guess it is true that bideo games aren't art in the romantic sense, but I do believe they can be art in a pythagorean sense: something that conveys a fundamental truth.
No. 29037
Name those films from the first decades of cinema that are considered masterpieces or classics, and bonus you actually have to have seen those films to say so.
No. 29042

I watched this video a few years and IIRC it did a good job of covering the way videogames should tell stories.
No. 29044
211 kB, 1920 × 1080
267 kB, 1920 × 1080
111 kB, 1280 × 720
147 kB, 700 × 1008
Do you honestly think anyone still reads or watches the classics or plays or goes to see famous paintings outside of academia is as valid an argument. Your whole central premise is appealing to popularity, which like I said is a thoroughly shit metric to go by. It reminds me a lot of this k*hlposter Fin's ideas on it which is, namely, a discussion of only the most absolutely bydlo or simplistic arcade style of games which are exclusively designed as nothing more than literal games without any substance to them, like most platformers, roguelike, and various I don't have the words for what I'm describing but basically the early Nintendo and SEGA consolized pixelized indie arcade kind of shit. Of course those games are just toys because that's solely what they're made to be. FTL is the typical example of that, or Cuphead although at least in the case of Cuphead it's clearly visual art in which case do you mean to tell me that games like Cuphead or Gris, despite not being anything more than essentially shitty arcade games, are not displays of art in it's own right that somehow transcends the fact it's mechanically nothing but a toy? I mean just look at this thing
This is quite literally Art. It might be kind of a shitty platformer, but it is quite literally art. Because that is what it is. Whether it's basically just a game mechanic strapped onto art or whether bare game mechanics just have art strapped onto it as a toy is a different discussion but in the case of Gris that is quite clearly pure art and it is basically just exploring a series of paintings.

Like this guy here (unless that's just your proxy) clearly is strawmanning. I find it interesting how you very conspicuously have dodged my mentioning Planescape Torment, or hell, just about any other crpg or rpg for that matter. You're taking the absolute worst examples possible of "art" in a videogame to try and prove your point which in it's own right strikes me as you basically internally conceding the argument already and only showcases how terrible your standing really is that you have to resort to conspicuously dodging all discussion of things like RPGs, crpgs, simulators, 4x, grand strategy, RTS, pretty much anything that can possibly have an actual solid narrative and/or incorporate lots of genuine visual arts as well as musical compositions into the piece, relying instead on clearly just shitty platformers and FPS corridor shooters with nothing but action music in order to prove your point.

In that case I have already offered you my rebuttal on specifically the pinball-genres as you refer to it like Gris as a platformer and furthermore would like to mention Sunless Skies/Sunless Seas as an example of roguelikes that are quite clearly art and I'm also going to bring up Inner Chains as an example of an FPS that is at least in my opinion quite clearly art.

I'm not actually even going to bother with trying to argue from my position of strength which is rpgs/crpgs I'm so confident in the totality of my point's self evident correctness that I'm just going to directly refute what you seem to think is your strong position which is those type of clearly more arcade style "pinball machine games" like roguelites, FPSs, platformers and etc.

First of all, I want you to explain to me how Gris is not art. This is a platformer.

Second of all, I want you to explain to me how Sunless Seas and Sunless Skies is not art. Now, it might not actually be a very good game, and the battles are so incredibly tedious, boring, and just painful to play that it is arguably only worthy of playing precisely because it is art and not a game worth playing. I've heard Sunless Skies is much better but I haven't gotten back into it yet with Seas, which hasn't got much of a soundtrack but is good nonetheless, and is much more worthy for its art style and funny/dark and spoopy writing.

The next game I want you to tell me how it's not art is Inner Chains. I've written about this before and I've liked it so much specifically because it is literally like getting to go through the picture frame of a Beksinski painting and walk around and explore it. Now, in this case I will grant you that the writing itself was terribly disappointing, and the combat itself actually pretty much sucks I guess if you're an avid FPS fan but it's not actually that terrible, but purely for the visual style and spoopy weird strange atmosphere is why I would actually recommend you this game. Because again, it's pretty much just a Beksinski painting you get to actually walk into and try to survive in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQBpjAiDDv0

Explain to me how none of these games are art or have artistic merit please.
No. 29053
>RPGs, crpgs, simulators, 4x, grand strategy, RTS, pretty much anything that can possibly have an actual solid narrative and/or incorporate lots of genuine visual arts as well as musical compositions

Let's break this down.

>RPGs, crpgs, simulators, 4x, grand strategy, RTS

None of these are art. Nor are their real-world table-top analogues. Tabletop RPGs aren't art. Wargames aren't art. Risk isn't art. How are you trying to argue that simulators are art? How is a flight sim or Euro Truck Simulator supposed to be artistic?

A game like Planescape or Baldur's Gate is still nothing but a game. Some sprites moving around a pre-rendered map and doing damage to each other. That's not "art".

>that can possibly have an actual solid narrative

Having a narrative alone isn't enough to make something art, let alone good art. If that's your criterion then an episode of the TV show Friends is art. In games this is even less true because the narrative is interrupted for gameplay.

>and/or incorporate lots of genuine visual arts as well as musical compositions

Just by your admission that there are "genuine" arts like visual arts and music, differentiated from gaming, you've shown that you are at least dimly aware that games aren't art, and any artistry in them comes from those other media.
No. 29057
I was referring to certain CSM games, like Cities Skylines being able to build a model miniature of a city, or Tropico which is art in the contemporary idea of artistic statements.

>still nothing but a game.
This isn't true
> Some sprites moving around a pre-rendered map and doing damage to each other. That's not "art".
Then you totally don't get the point. Most of Planescape itself is specifically a deconstruction of that to where you don't even get XP for killing anything and instead only get XP from dialogue and quest completion. I'm obviously specifically talking about the writing itself.

>Having a narrative alone isn't enough to make something art
You're basically at this point arguing that literature is not art.

>Just by your admission that there are "genuine" arts like visual arts and music
That wasn't what I was saying at all. My point was that on some level an action movie soundtrack isn't necessarily art, or rather isn't good art, but more to the point that other mediums of pure art are components of most games these days.
>differentiated from gaming
Because the game mechanic itself isn't really art and most games transcend that. What you're trying to argue about is core game mechanics being the sole component of making a game. The only thing that I've talked about being not art is the pinball arcade style games which if you actually read and understood anything about my post I both specifically mentioned that broad categorization of games and then refuted it, speaking of which you have yet to address any of my three specific points regarding how even those titles can be art which I posed to you here
>First of all, I want you to explain to me how Gris is not art. This is a platformer.
>Second of all, I want you to explain to me how Sunless Seas and Sunless Skies is not art.
>The next game I want you to tell me how it's not art is Inner Chains
I specifically mentioned how a game mechanic is a component of making a game in the same way certain artistic techniques of a brushstroke, choice of paint over charcoal etc is a component of making a painting in the same way that making an advertisement is. You're dismissing an entire medium in the same manner as saying all film isn't art because filming is a technique and component in making a commercial ergo anything filmed cannot be art.

Serious question are you that IQ89 retard from k*hl who's been shitposting all over the place here particularly towards the Hungarian?
No. 29059
>I was referring to certain CSM games, like Cities Skylines being able to build a model miniature of a city, or Tropico which is art in the contemporary idea of artistic statements.

How is a simulation of those things art? That's like saying a banker's risk forecast model is art. Tropico isn't even making any kind of statement, it's a basic builder with a Cuban theme.
No. 29060
>and instead only get XP from dialogue and quest completion.

Oh, so choose your own adventure via dialogue menus and moving quest item A from point X to point Z. Still not art, sorry. Just a game.
No. 29061
Serious question, are you >>28765? Because I actually am a programmer and the artifice behind games is all exposed to me. I see them for the haunted houses they are.
No. 29062
>You're basically at this point arguing that literature is not art.

Nice strawman. I said having a narrative isn't a sufficient condition for being art. Which is true: a commercial with a story in it isn't art.
No. 29063
So we are at the point to piecemeal the question of what is art or artistry...
Further discussion is pointless before we not approach this question. If games are not art, was makes them different to art, we could make at least a negative definition at first.
No. 29064
64 kB, 474 × 566
And I know how things like writing and film editing are done. So? Yes it does actually ruin certain things for me by knowing exactly how a thing is done and peeking behind the wizard's curtain so to speak haha hey that just reminded me does anyone here remember "nobody beats the wiz!"? but that doesn't change anything just because I know how something is composed and can spot errors and understand all the basic mechanics behind how something is done, and if that's really how you see games and you do game design I get you're probably a pretty fucking shitty game designer. On that note, exactly what "programming" do you even actually do? Because if you mean you used rpgmaker or just worked on trying to make your own indie title then no, you're just projecting your own shitty projects onto everything else, like trying to say " I work in graphic design/I'm a video editor for a big company and see how it's all done so everything that has to do with graphic design or video is not art."

If you make a statement like
>because I actually am a programmer and the artifice behind games is all exposed to me.
Then you actually have to back that up buddy.
I'm not even entirely sure what you mean by "artifice" either. You do realize that all forms of art are quite literally by definition artifice, right? Like sculpting for instance. Or the way a film is actually made. It makes it extremely hard not to notice the wires and springs behind sometimes even the best of well shot scenes where you can just see the actors for who and what they are and all the falsehoods behind every play, wherein the difference between a good and bad actor is merely how much they allow you to forget or ignore that fact of the total lack of spontaneity or genuine depth or warmth or sincerity behind every bit of dialogue, or the way thousands of different splices of film get edited and discarded or rearranged in any order.

All of what you seem to be saying pretty much just sounds like your own basic experiences with trying to make a crappy platformer game because you sure as hell don't sound like anyone who's ever worked on a major project or made anything like a narrative driven game. Like I said, it sounds to me more like all of what you've been saying says way more about you and the games you play/know how to make.

It isn't a strawman. Do you even know what that word means? You're at that point where you're pretty much arguing now that literature is not art because I would regard games like Planescape Torment and Tides of Numenera to be at core essence a form of interactive literature. I see game making as a chance for us to fully explore the expansion of art in an interactive way, where the transaction occurring between viewer and art becomes blurred to the point of even being eliminated and the viewer becomes an active participant in that art which in it's own right I personally find rather exciting and can't even fathom how some of the great writers, painters, composers, playwrights and poets of the past couldve seen video games as an opportunity to use practically sorcery to achieve their original aims. Just imagine what even a guy like Salvadore Dali or M.C. Escher could have done had they been born in time to explore this new medium.

At what point does the literary arts no longer become itself just because you need to move around and interact with something in a virtual world just to read the next chapter? I've been exploring Ember and while the writing itself varies from not that bad to contrived to cliched to being unable to ignore the lack of proofreading it's actually been pretty entertaining nonetheless. As a game itself it's pretty basic and like a super casualized barebones version of a crpg I've probably spent thrice the amount of time reading all the various lore backs as I have actually been playing the game itself.

Like I said, in certain instances it can become more an argument of whether it is art strapped onto a game engine, or the game engine is strapped onto the art. In Gris' case--which I might add you have fully ignored for the second time my initial question regarding how Gris, Inner Chains, and Sunless Sea isn't art--I would actually say that it's barely even a game at all but rather art that's just barely strapped onto a few game mechanics to make it justifiable as selling a game as opposed to a bunch of water color paintings, or rather a barely disguised excuse for interactive watercolor paintings.

I've been willfully ignoring that tedious debate the whole thread because it never actually goes anywhere.
No. 29065 Kontra
476 kB, 2045 × 3000
Actually speaking of which that just reminded me, I never actually understood why The Sopranos got called a masterpiece by so many people. I kept thinking about Sons of Anarchy while I was writing all that as well as Interstellar for an example of how really really good cinema is done, but I mean just...Jesus. Their film editing was so choppy it often bordered on the nonsensical, and I never got why some of the cardboard actors were excused so much. Like I get that it was somehow innovative for its time in the sense that SoA and GoT were also pretty innovative for their total willingness to brutally axe main characters seemingly out nowhere at least in the first few seasons (both of which began to suck more when it became clear that certain characters were just unkillable along with the stupidest deus ex machinas imaginable), but what I never understood was how it became so well regarded to the point where criticism of it became heresy not just to viewers but also critics--but then again, I feel similarly towards the original Deus Ex.
No. 29162
Because those things replaced culture in our society. You actively denounce their demigods and fables which give them meaning and entertainment in their lame lives. You attacked the last remnants of their soul.
No. 29443
Max Payne was exeptional in this.
No. 29452
dwarf fortress seems to head more and more in the direction. imagination and some artistic skill (eg kruggsmash) do help.
No. 29463