Execution / Game

[Froge]

This thread is about two different things, but you may only discuss one of them in your posts. The reason why this thread is like this is because I find the traditional one-discussion thread to be too boring, and like TCR with the games industry, I want to revolutionize the idea of thread-making by trying something completely new.

If you post about both of these two topics, you will be permanently branded with the Chronofrog™ mark of shame.

~

There are no good stories, only good execution

Looking back on my favourite books, films, and games, I can honestly say that their plots weren't really that good. Take Amnesia for example: "Naive Britishman chased by malicious otherworldly entity seeks to save himself by performing immoral occult experiments." Or just look at any really popular film: "Crime-ridden city terrorized by insane clown is saved by hero who only presents himself in a bat costume." What made all of these stories actually interesting was how they are executed. Amnesia was a good game because the immersion and the notes made us feel that we were Daniel, and thus we felt sympathy for him when we learned the truth behind his story.

Which leads me to believe that "good" stories don't exist - only good communication. I'd argue that all stories fit one of two categories: a personal experience, or an imitation of another's personal experience. The only thing that makes one story stand out from another is how they are communicated to its audience, but there is no such thing as an inherently "better" story. Do you agree or not?

~

Video Game is highest form of art

In its most basic form, art is an appeal to the senses. I think in all societies two art forms are dominant: visual arts (drawing, painting, sculpting, etc.) and music. There is also, in some more advanced societies, literature as well as mathematics. In recent times we have witnessed immense popularity in the fusion of art forms. Before the creation of the symphonic poem by Liszt, the thought of putting music alongside visual images to enhance the experience was not common. Then came movies, a complete bend of visual, musical, and literary art forms and it was also tremendously popular. We also have cartoon and manga that blend visuals and literature.

The most recent blend of art, video games, completely fuses together art, music, literature, and one new art form that was mostly absent in other media - mathematics. This "art" is most evident in the idea of game mechanics. When a player learns the mechanics of a game, solves puzzles, and conquers obstacles, I believe that those logical processes going through their mind are much the same as the logic behind solving a mathematical problem. When video games first came out, they were just a blend of art, music, and math, but as we all know literature (storytelling) has been added to the mix as well. No other medium has yet to combine all these art forms so successfully.

Could it then be argued that the video game is the highest form of art, because making a good game requires mastery at all four of those mediums?

~

Choose.

[Bridge]

Do you agree or not?

I don't. Poor stories with little character development yet excellent execution can only be called okay if looked at in an "objective" way. You might love them, which is totally fine, but you can't in good conscience compare them to good stories told well. This is the crux of style vs. substance.

Could it then be argued that the video game is the highest form of art, because making a good game requires mastery at all four of those mediums?

It could, if you consider quantity more important than quality. Even if you don't, each artistic medium provides a different experience. In music, the emphasis is on sound. In painting, the emphasis is on the visual. In novels the emphasis is on the written word. Film is not inherently superior because it combines these aspects - often many corners have to be cut to achieve the desired goal because film comes with its own set of limitations. As do video games. I think it's fallacious to assume that because video games engage more senses than other forms of art that it has more potential. It doesn't at all. I would liken it to some extent to the uncertainty principle. In order to get the results you want you have to let go of some aspects in favor of others, but you cannot do both to an equal degree. I would say that is what mastery over an artform actually is: embracing these shortcomings and finding how to bend the elements you have at your disposal to your will in spite of them.

[Ashtoreth]

Bridge, you're so bold!

If you post about both of these two topics, you will be permanently branded with the Chronofrog™ mark of shame.

And what happens to those who don't post about any of the two topics?
___
Edit: Question answered

[Froge]

It could, if you consider quantity more important than quality. Even if you don't, each artistic medium provides a different experience. In music, the emphasis is on sound. In painting, the emphasis is on the visual. In novels the emphasis is on the written word. Film is not inherently superior because it combines these aspects - often many corners have to be cut to achieve the desired goal because film comes with its own set of limitations. As do video games. I think it's fallacious to assume that because video games engage more senses than other forms of art that it has more potential. It doesn't at all. I would liken it to some extent to the uncertainty principle. In order to get the results you want you have to let go of some aspects in favor of others, but you cannot do both to an equal degree. I would say that is what mastery over an artform actually is: embracing these shortcomings and finding how to bend the elements you have at your disposal to your will in spite of them.

I disagree. In the case of video games, quantity does play a role as well (though quality is of course still more important). Every game is judged on a variety of criteria such as gameplay, graphics, plot, soundtrack, etc. No game is ever praised because it presented the prettiest graphics or the greatest story ever but lacking in all the other criteria. The best games such as Amnesia, are, in my opinion, much harder to put together than an excellent painting or book.

It's also why there is a lot of criticism against games like Dear Esther or AAMFP, as those games felt like taking a step back by essentially removing the "math" part - solving puzzles and overcoming obstacles, that is.

[VaeVictis]

Funny you should bring this up. I'd always thought of video games has potentially a very high art, given that an effective piece combines visuals, music, writing and acting in modern instances. I say potentially because, well, most games fall short of this in my mind. Yeah, I'm a bit of a snob in this regard, but I hold this medium to a higher standard than, say, music by itself. As you pointed out, Amnesia definately meets the criteria, amd surpasses in many aspects. Sorry for typos, I'm on an iPad mini.

[Mechavomit]

Do you agree or not?

I don't. The plot is bad if it's characters are not developed properly, lack motivation, when the story is poorly structured or when some parts are rushed or skipped all together. But most often it's the characters that ruin a potentially good story, imo.


Or maybe I just don't understand what you mean by "execution".

[Bridge]

I disagree. In the case of video games, quantity does play a role as well (though quality is of course still more important). Every game is judged on a variety of criteria such as gameplay, graphics, plot, soundtrack, etc.

We're arguing two different things. I'm not contesting that games don't have more criteria, but that this doesn't make them better by default. Nor am I saying any aspect of games is redundant, but simply that it is a fundamentally different experience.

No game is ever praised because it presented the prettiest graphics or the greatest story ever but lacking in all the other criteria. The best games such as Amnesia, are, in my opinion, much harder to put together than an excellent painting or book.

You cannot say games are capable of specializing in absolutely everything. For example, you don't have a first course of Skittles followed by a pepper steak with black coffee and lemon slices for desert. All debatably great things in their own right, but they all represent the extremes of their respective specialization. Typically you pick things that complement each other or contrast each other in just the right way. But without considering how each element relates to the other, you get a poor meal that has no consistency. Same principle applies to games. If you have a certain type of gameplay you need the other elements to either embellish it or provide a counterweight for it, but they need to be fundamentally connected to it. Imagine playing Mortal Kombat with The Rite of Spring as the score, a visual style based on a Dali painting and Moby-Dick as the story. Sound like a mess?

EDIT: No matter how much time you spend agonizing over it, you will never create a perfectly balanced game that takes each of its elements to their full potential, it's not possible. That's not to say each element is incapable of being great, just that you can't say books are inferior because they only engage one "sense". Books have certain limitations that other genres don't, but books also have certain things endemic to themselves which other genres cannot reproduce to as great effect. However, that doesn't mean great video games can not be as great or even better than great books.

Before the creation of the symphonic poem by Liszt, the thought of putting music alongside visual images to enhance the experience was not common.

Opera? Ballet? Theater?

[Cuyir]

I barely see games as art so, no, it's not the highest form of art. I've only played a handful of games that were ''special'' and why were they special? Because of one or two of its elements were incredible, not all of the elements that make it a game.

There's a reason why people that try to master a lot of things aren't as good as people who specialize in one. I think that's what happens with games. You have many elements that betray the others (key culprits are usually narrative and gameplay mechanics). Games are about GAMEPLAY, so when you make a game with a ton of cutscenes (firmly looking at Cage and his ''games'') you can praise the story, the music but the part that makes it interactive is poor. But then if you make a game that's all about the gameplay it tends to affect the narrative.

I can only think of a single game that was able to marry gameplay mechanics with all the other elements: The Last Of Us.

With movies and all that you have three core components that work in sync: writing, picture composing and sound. These aren't as likely to muddle one or the other, like what happens with videogames.

Books are razor sharp focused and thus writers can have tremendous impact with their exposition. I've played games/movies that I wish were novels for example.

Music is music, y'know? Simplistic but everyone knows about the usual musical geniuses and masters so no need to really explain this one.

[Bridge]

post

I disagree with basically all of this.

I can only think of a single game that was able to marry gameplay mechanics with all the other elements: The Last Of Us.

Then you haven't played very many good games.

[Cuyir]

@Bridge: I have played a shit ton of games in my lifetime. I really can't think of any other game that married all the elements without making it feel clunky as games usually do to me.

Something is almost always off. Either the production value (visuals, sound, music, etc.) is incredible but it's *just* encircling a standard game that does nothing special with them or it's just a game that's focused entirely on gameplay (which is fine, of course) and then one of the other elements (usually narrative) suffers. It's basically a trade off a long long long list of games make.

I am almost sure that we're disagreeing on a definition basis (ie I have a much stricter view on games and the effects of the other elements on them).

Honestly, I am fanatical about a lot of games but I can only think of TLOU being the only game that uses all the elements without being clunky. The game's tone, theme and even Joel's and Ellie's characterization are seen THROUGH gameplay, not just ''SHHHH CUTSCENE".

F.E.A.R 2 (a game I absolutely love) is just a horror shooter with a nice universe, production values and narrative...but it's still a shooter. It doesn't have gameplay mechanics that furthers the narrative, it's just...gameplay. I can argue that the game's production values (seen in the aural and visual hallucinations) directly reflect the narrative and events through gameplay but it's still not enough in my book.

Dead Space series (a series I love also) does the whole hallucination thing very well too(that's tied into gameplay) but it's just a third person horror shooter. It does offer a lot of characterization through Isaac's grunts and the way he fights off necromorphs but still not enough. Still feels off. Still feels like there's a disconnect between the elements. Still feels like one or more of the elements aren't being used to their best because they have to build gameplay around it.

Metroid Prime (a game I worship) does a lot of things incredibly well. Masterful even. But again, it feels off from time to time.

The topic in discussion was ''Videogames are the highest form of art'' to which I said no. The trade offs affect it too much in my point of view for it to be the ''highest form of art''. Such trade aren't seen in ''purer'' art forms.

And I feel like I have to state my experience with games. Videogames have always been my favorite entertainment medium, followed VERY closely by music, written works and movies. So my point of view isn't from some snob that recently discovered games and is trying to make them lesser. It's just how I see them. I'd rather have a masterful focused experience that has zero tradeoffs than one that brings a lot of other elements together but suffers a bit for it.