Jump to content

Guardian

Members
  • Posts

    444
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Guardian

  1. i'd like to add to a working definition of art as something organized by conscious beings a condition that allows for found art.. it would make the finder the artist, because he is the one who initially sees it as art. in some way, his mind is perceiving organization--is this the same as organizing? this isn't relevant to videogames, but i wanted to tidy up the idea of art.
  2. that completely makes no sense. ---------------- frankly, i have no sympathy for people (and i've seen it before, not just here) who refuse to even consider the possibility that games can be art simply because their first purpose was to entertain. the first purpose of visual art (painting, drawing, etc.) was to communicate. films have always been about entertainment. what is the problem? why can't something be both? the fact is that anything organized by a conscious living being can be called art. if you consider architecture art, you must consider videogames art. architecture seems a good example to me because people move through buildings, see them from every conceivable angle, and interact with them physically. videogames are all art. if you accept that videogames are art, which you should, then you need to consider it as an artistic medium in relation to what other mediums have to offer. videogames are possibly the first interactive art medium and therefore allow for the most variable experience in the art's perceiver. for this reason, neither artistic direction (aesthetics) nor subject matter (content) are the most important areas of the medium. rather, gameplay is probably the primary element (the true core) of a videogame.* there are obvious problems that result from this and make it difficult to judge any particular piece. nonetheless, after many, many experiences have been had by multiple people, it becomes possible to discuss the relationships between the game's design and the player's experience. this discussion is called "game design theory." its very existence proves that games are art, because humans are discussing the best ways to refine their organizations, their creations. *when art direction, subject matter, and other factors all complement gameplay to the utmost, these disparate elements appear to fuse together in a glorious synergy birthing a unity of a game. to me, i'd like to move on to questions like: is ico so successful in this criterion for elemental synergy because of the simplicity and minimalism of its every facet? btw, in case you didn't extrapolate: super mario 64 is an example of an entertaining but mediocre and unfulfilling work of art. ico is an example of a masterpiece. do i win, daddy?
  3. i'm not saying it is a less worthy candidate for "art" status. i am, however, saying that in my personal experience it is less great art.
  4. questions: should i play on hard in any of the games, including the first? and is the lonely old lady scene worth the platinum version?
  5. because it didn't do nearly as good a job as ico did. super mario 64 only achieved one aspect of ico's physicality, and that is fully realized 3d landscapes that you travel over. i never felt as much in sm64 that i was a part of them. they were many, separate, and disjointed, unrelated in theme and physical location. you teleport around between different landscapes through magic paintings. you can never gaze into the distance and remember what it was like to be in a specific place two hours ago and what you did there. you don't feel any connection between the location of star 37 and star 65.
  6. well, that depends on who's reading/listening to me. short answer, yes, i do. but i don't care. i'm excitable and sincere, so i'm bound to be. or maybe that's not true. but i don't care.
  7. there! that's exactly what i mean! or at least, this is the case with ico, and it is what i think a game should strive for and why i celebrate ico so much. *almost* any other game, i can play it and feel the parts, i can feel the influence of the art direction on the mood of the game versus the character's control and physics on my experience, etc etc. but in ico the physics is the art direction is the castle is yorda is the physics and what i am trying to say is so much more real than the pseudo-zen-fanaticism that this sounds like.
  8. yes, i think. i think that is at least some of what i mean. another condition that comes out is the unprecedented concreteness of the physical 3d world. because you travel through everything you see, you can pause for a moment at any point, upon entering into any new area, and gaze about, zooming, looking far back towards a rooftop you traversed two hours earlier, and you can actually make out the route you took. you can identify distant buildings and remember what it looks inside them and what you did there. the world of ico was more real to me than the real world, where i get in my car and drive from one point to another without feeling that there is any meaning to the space in between. in fact, the world's physicality may be my favorite thing about the game. it is something i have never, ever experienced anywhere else.
  9. and what i think is that the gameplay would necessarily be something different. maybe you're right. especially from the prior-to-the-game point of view, maybe you're right, of course it wasn't incubated in an egg, either. but i've been trying to describe how the game feels to me and to think about what makes it so unique.
  10. what i meant was that the act of playing the game and the physicality of the environment--usually concepts that strike me almost separately in games--are absolutely the same. getting from one point to another in ico, for me, was not like i was a boy with horns, but like i was the whole castle complex itself. it was as much in the foreground, as much a character, as ico himself, and since the interaction between them is exactly what the simplified gameplay amounts to, there is a total sense of oneness for me in the game. it's not like a house where the carpet and insulation and boards and nails are fitted together; it's like a house that was hatched from an egg inside which these parts and materials incubated until they fused together completely. it's almost as if the game design had absolute uniformity and was just one thing, one idea applied to every necessary aspect of a game, so that the aspects are not even different from each other. so that, like i said above, there is no difference between pulling levers and art design and ico. tell me if i've stopped making sense.
  11. yes, but the most important thing, and i think this is what is at the center of ico's uniqueness, is that there is no discernable line separating the "art direction" from the "gameplay". they are not different aspects of this game, but they are totally intertwined. as a game, ico seems to be a whole, not a collection of interacting parts, which is what almost every game ever made (at least after the early arcade era of pong and joust) feels like to me.
  12. i don't think that's true. i think ico takes 3d platforming and does something entirely new with it, simultaneously refining it and simplifying it to the point where the game is nothing but interacting with the environment. maybe in a superficial sense it is true that the gameplay remains derivative of earlier 3d platformers, but in a deeper way the implementation of whatever elements it has borrowed is so reformed that it may as well be called an original gameplay design rather than a reinvention.
  13. first, i have seen on the back of the xbox silent hill 2 case that "even more secrets are revealed". which version, xbox or ps2, is best? i was going to get ps2 because my silent hill and silent hill 3 are on playstation. second, i'm just starting the first game. does this "lion key" & "scarecrow key" junk ripped from resident evil fade out eventually? what do i have to look forward to? make me excited!
  14. you think i'm being cheap? i have felt like i'm on the defensive since i joined this forum. d-side is the worst offender, the type of poster who doesn't even respond to what you have to say.
  15. i agree with this. but he is still an utter cock. and it's not helping. the problem is, i think he's got some serious arrogant spite thing going on. i think that if i were to type three pages on what makes ico a successful experiential work of art he would just go wanking in some other corner.
  16. again, i've made no claims to. i seem to be confused. do i owe you something here? you know, why don't you get me started. you seem to have a pretty good idea of what i should be talking about.
  17. Guardian

    fable

    i think about fable every freaking day. PEEEETEEEEEEER don't you do me wrong
  18. Guardian

    Chu Chu Rocket

    i tried it on a gba emulator and disliked it. the control scheme was very uncomfortable for me, and i couldn't intuitively manipulate the arrows. the game offers three methods--which do you all find best 1) to start out with and 2) period? is "a and a direction" the "pro" setup? someone tell me what's up.
  19. lucasarts sounds like they're running a goddamn factory or a coal mine or something. who would have thought that there are fun people who like star wars a lot and make games at the same address as jim ward? why does he keep saying "insanely great"? he's an idiotically typical manager-type trying to look hip, trying to sound like a gamer. because a top-notch creative game is something we would describe as "insanely great". maybe it is. but you can tell what he's doing with the phrase. manager wants to play buddy as he whips ya.
  20. is the baldur's gate series very much like nwn or kotor? i don't think the intra-party interactions are well-implemented at all. it really is a great thing to have going on, but it feels so terribly contrived and separate from the main gameplay whenever it "happens". and again, worst of all, it just. doesn't. matter. when will i get to play a role-playing game that's really a role-playing game? bioware games almost play themselves. they might as well be movies. once in awhile i can press a button on my remote to tell my character that his level is too low and he should take a break from saving the galaxy and go fight more rats. when you remark upon immersion and epic world and things like that, at least when it comes to the bioware games i've played, it really seems like there's a quantity thing fooling people, like mk said. for example, the detailed graphics that stretch into the distance on the secret caribbean planet near the end of kotor can in no way trick me into not noticing the confining borders of my mini map, and those confines themselves somehow never stop the game from sending me back and forth on fetch quests that are just excuses to do nothing that has to do with the star forge. i think, since their environments can seem neither to win nor lose no matter which way i look at them, that bioware's real problem (and i keep using this word, but it seems the right one) is that everything is so obviously contrived. the so-called characters, mission set-ups, and other set pieces are devoid of charm in the context of a game. they may be alright on their own at times (i have to admit that i laughed a lot at hk-47) but for the most part the effect that they are programmed to have on the gameplay--the same effect that they will have every time you play the game--is obvious and just not fun (because it's obvious? not sure, really, why it's not fun. but it's not.). somehow i can tell that this so-and-so tribe leader asking me to reason with the opposing group's elder councilman is just a robot giving me something to do so i will eventually have a dungeon with goons to fight and, occassionally, an exciting new jedi robe to pick off of a corpse and try on. the tribe leader is a tool. literally. and i can feel his grip on my course in the game, and it's cold and metallic as it wrenches me about. it might seem unfair to complain about set pieces in an "rpg" when, just for example, squaresoft has been refining (never straying from) contrived characters, stories, and events in their games for a long time. yet the difference is that final fantasy games do not pretend not to be built from set pieces, so i do not notice that my game is made of them. my knowledge that i am playing a contrived program is suspended, much like my knowledge of physics when i watch spiderman 2, and i am able to enjoy the events and characters as if i really had anything to do with them. of course, this becomes more difficult on replays, because deja vu has a way of letting your subconscious know that something is amiss. nevertheless, on a single playthrough, the classic console-style rpg succeeds in convincing me of something real whereas bioware's computer rpgs do not, and perhaps cannot, because they try so hard to put on an appearance of vast open-endedness. in kotor, i must have heard almost every single line of dialogue; i listened to every cultural background and tried almost all options available to me. i talked to everybody. and it really does seem like a huge quantity of painted dolls with voiceboxes at starwarsland have fooled a lot of players into feeling something big and epic. everyone's always talking about omg the alignment system, you can be either good or bad! but the people in the game won't treat my character any differently either way, and this even includes the people in my party. it's just sad. it only matters when you hit the big glaring dialogue lever with malak at the end of the game. the game wants so badly for me to think that it's organic and open-ended that it just makes it more obvious to me that it is the complete opposite. and that's the real problem vs. other games where it's okay that they are contrived.
  21. neverwinter nights. its main campaign bothered me for many of the same reasons that kotor did, but at least its d&d system was better. still not really fun in any way. i might try jade empire. but i expect it will be the final cut on their wrist.
  22. have either of you kotor dislikers played any other bioware games? any of the pc "rpg"s? i think you can start to get an idea of what they strive for in a game... and they achieve it consistently. and it's very, very lousy. HEY WEINER. why don't you reply to me in a more detailed manner? and don't just say "you're wrong, so wrong" five hundred times and pretend it's an improvement.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.