Support NeoGAF

[hooijdonk17]

you don't think The Order is art? Or games at all?

Calling most videogames art would be like calling kindergarten drawings art.

 

[K.Sabot]

Video games of any magnitude larger than a single person's hobby project have and forever will be a mixture of business and art.

 

[travisbickle]

Calling most videogames art would be like calling kindergarten drawings art.

I think you're going to have to define what art is before we go down this road.

 

[Heretic]

Calling most videogames art would be like calling kindergarten drawings art.

Um...

 

[Ishan]

I think you're going to have to define what art is before we go down this road.

you know hes half right . but yes we can walk down this road too. The game industry is rarely art when it is (ico, journey etc) we appreciate it . but come on half the crap narrative wise is rubbish. because the focus is on gameplay and rightly so. unless you can interweave the two like tlou. and that game is for all the goty it got still divisive for many ppl

 

[DidntKnowJack]

Hyperbole at its finest.

you don't think The Order is art? Or games at all?

Sorry. I went for the easy laugh.

 

[anonymous_abc]

you know hes half right . but yes we can walk down this road too. The game industry is rarely art when it is (ico, journey etc) we appreciate it . but come on half the crap narrative wise is rubbish. because the focus is on gameplay and rightly so. unless you can interweave the two like tlou. and that game is for all the goty it got still divisive for many ppl

There are plenty of rubbish movies and books, yet we consider movies and books (in general) to be art.

 

[SighFight]

Calling most videogames art would be like calling kindergarten drawings art.

I would argue that almost every videogame contains more art than a modern art gallery! For the games there have to be people actually skilled in some way. For modern art you can really take kindergarten paintings. Just tell a fancy story and hype the "artist": voilà is worth millions. But no real art was created.

 

[Chariot]

I would argue that almost every videogame contains more art than a modern art gallery! For the games there have to be people actually skilled in some way. For modern art you can really take kindergarten paintings. Just tell a fancy story and hype the "artist": voilà is worth millions. But no real at was created.

Stop picking on Molyneux.

 

[Chaos2Frozen]

I would say the true art of video games is not music, story or artwork, but rather the skill of crafting all of these things together into with an interactive mechanics to make an amazing experience.

 

[GHG]

I just had a glance through the review thread that got locked...

My god hahaha. Can't wait for the real thing. This place shouldn't be as entertaining as it is.

 

[Zolbrod]

You know a thread has well and truly gone off the rails when it has devolved into the old "are games art" debate.

 

[DidntKnowJack]

I would argue that almost every videogame contains more art than a modern art gallery! For the games there have to be people actually skilled in some way. For modern art you can really take kindergarten paintings. Just tell a fancy story and hype the "artist": voilà is worth millions. But no real at was created.

Agreed. The typical game is comprised of an incredible amount of art assets that all come together to make up a game's world, its atmosphere, its setting. Not to mention the music. Even if a game's art direction is bad that doesn't automatically disqualify it from that designation.

 

[SighFight]

Stop picking on Molyneux.

You're right he adopted the modern art convertor pretty well. Don't actually do something, just tell a fancy story crap you dumped.

 

[GHG]

It's difficult to call anything art when you are forced to view it at sub native resolutions.

 

[SunBroDave]

Hyperbole at its finest.

You may not consider videogames to be art, and that's fine if that's your prerogative, but The Order is putting all of its emphasis on narrative, and narrative most certainly is art. And you can't quantify what value a piece of art has to someone. Or say that more of some piece of art equates to more value than another. It just resonates with you on a certain level or maybe it doesn't at all.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

Calling most videogames art would be like calling kindergarten drawings art.

They are art. They may not be high art, but that's a different conversation.

 

[Mushroomer25]

You know a thread has well and truly gone off the rails when it has devolved into the old "are games art" debate.

Already the Order threads this week have given us list wars, vague valuations placed on hours of entertainment, and blowjob price discrepancies.

Order-GAF is like a three-ring circus that never closes.

 

[Ishan]

There are plenty of rubbish movies and books, yet we consider movies and books (in general) to be art.

it took a while before movies matured enough and games are getting there. but not recognizing the chasm which currently exists apart from very few select games it just being defensive at best and ignorant at worst.

 

[anonymous_abc]

it took a while before movies matured enough and games are getting there. but not recognizing the chasm which currently exists apart from very few select games it just being defensive at best and ignorant at worst.

It sounds as if you are ignorant. There are plenty of movies that are considered classics from the early 20th century.

As soon as I take a pen and put it to paper I am producing art. Whether you will like the result or not is secondary at best.
As someone previously said.
You might want to define what art is before we continue arguing about what falls under that umbrella term for you.

 

[Ishan]

It sounds as if you are ignorant. There are plenty of movies that are considered classics from the early 20th century.

As soon as I take a pen and put it to paper I am producing art. Whether you will like the result or not is secondary at best.
As someone previously said.
You might want to define what art is before we continue arguing about what falls under that umbrella term for you.

wait thats as stupid as saying when i can type x = y is I can do great math.if you think that is amazing math good for you, but its not.

 

[BouncyFrag]

Already the Order threads this week have given us list wars, vague valuations placed on hours of entertainment, and blowjob price discrepancies.

Order-GAF is like a three-ring circus that never closes.

Be sure not to forget 480p and waist high sandbags.

 

[SunBroDave]

You might want to define what art is before we continue arguing about what falls under that umbrella term for you.

That's easier said than done, and one's ability to define what art 'is' shouldn't render their opinion on the matter valid or invalid. Having said that, there's no denying that storytelling is an art form.

 

[LapinAgile]

wait thats as stupid as saying when i can type x = y is I can do math.if you think that is amazing math good for you, but its not.

Math is a science, art is not. Again... this road is not for the snarky.

 

[Ishan]

Math is a science, art is not. Again... this road is not for the snarky.

well actually pure math is more artistic . im not a pure mathematician but i do know enough math to realize that great math has that aspect to it. And its not snarky its just realizing that something is mundane vs something is transcendental and that is not restricted to math or art or games..

possibly you need to have a better appreciation of math before you make that comment.

 

[Betty]

wait thats as stupid as saying when i can type x = y is I can do great math.if you think that is amazing math good for you, but its not.

Math doesn't need to be amazing to still be math, in the same way as games don't need to be good art to still be considered art and besides art is subjective to begin with.

A pile of elephant dung on a pedestal? ART

Radom colours of paint sprayed out of someones mouth onto a canvas? ART

It's all subjective, if you think games don't make good art that's fine but it's also entirely fine for someone else to look at them and proclaim them as art.

 

[LapinAgile]

well actually pure math is more artistic . im not a pure mathematician but i do know enough math to realize that great math has that aspect to it. And its not snarky its just realizing that something is mundane vs something is transcendental and that is not restricted to math or art or games..

possibly you need to have a better appreciation of math before you make that comment.

And perhaps you need a better understanding of art before you make blanket statements about it.

 

[SunBroDave]

well actually pure math is more artistic . im not a pure mathematician but i do know enough math to realize that great math has that aspect to it. And its not snarky its just realizing that something is mundane vs something is transcendental and that is not restricted to math or art or games..

possibly you need to have a better appreciation of math before you make that comment.

While thats a valid perspective, I feel like you're missing the point.

 

[Langdon Alger]

The Order is putting all of its emphasis on narrative.

Then why didn't they just make a CGI movie? And if all the emphasis is on narrative, then why not just watch a playthrough on youtube instead of "playing" it?

 

[Sir_Crocodile]

I remember reading a preview in december that was throughly unimpressed with this game. Hearing it's super short on top of that...this game is really not sounding good coming into the home stretch. Will be interested to see reviews.

 

[SunBroDave]

Then why didn't they just make a CGI movie? And if all the emphasis is on narrative, then why not just watch a playthrough on youtube instead of "playing" it?

Relax, Ready At Dawn have said it themselves.

 

[anonymous_abc]

wait thats as stupid as saying when i can type x = y is I can do math.if you think that is amazing math good for you, but its not.

There is a difference between good and bad art. Everyone will have their own take on that.
But only because you consider something bad art doesn't make it no art.

But again we come to the question what is art to you?

For me it's the product of a creative action.
- putting pen to paper, you betcha.
- playing an instrument, sure.
- building a car, definitely.
- coding a butt ugly game. bien sûr.
- positioning rubbish in a certain way, I'll take it.
- painting a canvass plain red, that's art.
- modelling Lara Croft's hair. jup

If you think art is only mona lisa, Beethoven and Journey. That's fine, but you have to tell us where you draw the line and why.

 

[Ishan]

And perhaps you need a better understanding of art before you make blanket statements about it.

you made the blanket statement before me .

 

[LapinAgile]

you made the blanket statement before me .

Speaking of the "chasm" that exists from where you perceive things need to go is pretty all encompassing. But I can see you are just here to ignore discussion and derail the thread so let's just end this now.

 

[Ishan]

There is a difference between good and bad art. Everyone will have their own take on that.
But only because you consider something bad art doesn't make it no art.

But again we come to the question what is art to you?

For me it's the product of a creative action.
- putting pen to paper, you betcha.
- playing an instrument, sure.
- building a car, definitely.
- coding a butt ugly game. bien sûr.
- positioning rubbish in a certain way, I'll take it.
- painting a canvass plain red, that's art.
- modelling Lara Croft's hair. jup

If you think art is only mona lisa, Beethoven and Journey. That's fine, but you have to tell us where you draw the line and why.

really were pulling out french to try and act important now?

putting pen to paper means nothing unless it results in something . And that something varies yes and now were going towards philosophical aspects of arts and science. I can draw a line and that can mean multiple things to many ppl.

Your argument is anything is essentially anything I do is good. Sure from a certain perspective it is true but not in general from a discourse level between multiple ppl. I can claim anything is amazing because I did it. that is essentially your argument. apart from the whole I dont know art vs science etc.

EDIT:

we can take this offline (pm if you prefer not to derail this thread. my intention was not to derail the thread but rather to respond to what you said. which i disagree with strongly)

 

[LapinAgile]

really were pulling out french to try and act important now?

putting pen to paper means nothing unless it results in something . And that something varies yes and now were going towards philosophical aspects of arts and science. I can draw a line and that can mean multiple things to many ppl.

Your argument is anything is essentially good. Sure from a certain perspective it is true but not in general from a discourse level between multiple ppl. I can claim anything is amazing because I did it. that is essentially your argument. apart from the whole I dont know art vs science etc.

EDIT:

we can take this offline (pm if you prefer not to derail this thread. my intention was not to derail the thread but rather to respond to what you said. which i disagree with strongly)

You are not making any sense and are only projecting your own agenda on everyones... oh... this is performance forum art. Carry on you genius!!

 

[SunBroDave]

really were pulling out french to try and act important now?

putting pen to paper means nothing unless it results in something . And that something varies yes and now were going towards philosophical aspects of arts and science. I can draw a line and that can mean multiple things to many ppl.

Your argument is anything is essentially good. Sure from a certain perspective it is true but not in general from a discourse level between multiple ppl. I can claim anything is amazing because I did it. that is essentially your argument. apart from the whole I dont know art vs science etc.

Again, totally missing the point. No one was arguing that 'math isn't art.' People were just making the point that it was difficult to impossible to quantify the value of art and scale that based on quantities like length, etc. Fair? Everyone chill out.

 

[Langdon Alger]

Relax, Ready At Dawn have said it themselves.

I'm chillin'. I didn't mean to sound defensive. And you're right, Ready at Dawn did say it themselves. But honestly, this seems like one game where you really won't lose out on much by just watching a youtube playthrough instead of playing it yourself.

 

[anonymous_abc]

really were pulling out french to try and act important now?

putting pen to paper means nothing unless it results in something . And that something varies yes and now were going towards philosophical aspects of arts and science. I can draw a line and that can mean multiple things to many ppl.

Your argument is anything is essentially good. Sure from a certain perspective it is true but not in general from a discourse level between multiple ppl. I can claim anything is amazing because I did it. that is essentially your argument. apart from the whole I dont know art vs science etc.

Again it's not about anything being good or bad.

 

[SunBroDave]

this seems like one game where you really won't lose out on much by just watching a youtube playthrough instead of playing it yourself.

Totally agree with you on this

 

[Ishan]

You are not making any sense and are only projecting your own agenda on everyones... oh... this is performance forum art. Carry on you genius!!

yes I am pretty friggin smart. and you dont make much sense either to me.

Again, totally missing the point. No one was arguing that 'math isn't art.' People were just making the point that it was difficult to impossible to quantify the value of art and scale that based on quantities like length, etc. Fair? Everyone chill out.

I agree, sorry i didnt respond to your comments earlier. I agree with what you said youve made fair points and been level minded about it.

Again it's not about anything being good or bad.

sure. again agree lets just drop it not a big deal just a philosophical discussion at the end of it as I said.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art

Art is a diverse range of human activities and the products of those activities, usually involving imaginative or technical skill.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_culture

"High culture" is a term now used in a number of different ways in academic discourse, whose most common meaning is the set of cultural products, mainly in the arts, held in the highest esteem by a culture.

 

[funkypie]

Having a narrative is not art and neither is reading a book. A good book is a piece of literature, not art. A Picasso is a piece of art, while 98% of games are not
I don't understand this games are art argument in some attempt to make a game appear better.

 

[Haly]

A good book is a piece of literature, not art.

I tried to avoid this thread.

I really did.

I've seen countless debates about whether games were or weren't art and they're all pointless.

But this is the very first time I've seen prose denied the label of "art" in a gaming discussion.

This is just some next level fuckery right here.

 

[SighFight]

Having a narrative is not art and neither is reading a book. A good book is a piece of literature, not art. A Picasso is a piece of art, while 98% of games are not
I don't understand this games are art argument in some attempt to make a game appear better.

I am not using the art argument in favor of The Order but I am 100% convinced that video games are art or contain a lot of art. From the creative part of thinking up all ingredients of a game to the technical skills required to create them there is at least as much art in it as it is in a painting. It may be good art or bad art in your world but to deny it is art at all seems weird to me.

Draw a picture -> art
Draw a picture and place it in a virtual environment -> not art?

Composing music -> art
Composing music and put it in a videogame to work together with the picture -> not art?

Mediating emotions and social observation in film, painting, monument etc -> art
Mediating the same in videogames -> not art?

Creating whole interactive worlds that represent the struggle of human excistence

Spoiler

(hyperbole)

-> not art?

Yes games are mainly for entertainment but who says art can't be entertaining. Making a game is a very creative process and as seen with many bad games it is not an easy one.

 

[Kazaam]

My God...the places these The Order threads went to. At this point these threads alone justify the full price and the game could come just as a nice little bonus. While I don't understand the need to label everything, I'll do it here and say Neogaf is art. These threads are art. God bless this game!

 

[GreedZen]

A look into the meaning and etymology of the word "art" would put a swift end to many a debate.

Well, i paid 60$ in PS2 days for Zone Of The Enders. Beat the game under 3 hours. Great gaming experience. I paid 60$ for ICO. Beat game under 5 hours. Great gaming experience. I paid 60$ for first Devil May Cry. Beat the shit out of game under 5 hours. Great gaming experience.

Great gaming experiences are worth 60$

What's the cut of point though?
Going forward I'd like for someone to make a well received (price aside) "AAA" game that has an average completion time of 15mins and cost $60us; then get feedback from people such as yourself.
I know some people like to act like money ain't a thing and they'll pay for things they like; however, everyone has a limit.


nb Searched and saw a different Forbes articles linked.

Paul Tassi at Forbes raises several interesting points:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertc...er-makes-a-flawed-argument-about-game-length/

So, assuming the five and a half hour playtime is wrong, and it’s more along the lines of seven or eight hours, does that make The Order a bad deal? That’s a complicated question, and this is a debate that’s been raging in the video game space for years now. Is “entertainment dollars per hour” an appropriate metric by which to judge a game?

All this is to say that I believe that games can actually be hindered by being too long, as the “value” you receive for “dollars per hour” is outweighed by the game feeling artificially bloated and being borderline impossible to complete for those with family/work/school responsibilities. Games like Dragon Age and Far Cry now make you grind out hours of side quests in order to be powerful enough to progress in the main story. Others like Destiny have a story that can be beaten in probably five or six hours, but players will spend hundreds more playing the same Strikes and Raids on repeat. It’s “content” without really being content.
Yes, this is technically a good value, given that for Far Cry and Dragon Age I’m paying roughly $1/hr for my entertainment buck, with Destiny probably being closer to $0.30, given how much time I’ve sunk into it. And yet, do I dislike other games because they’ve given me shorter experiences? Absolutely not.

Wolfenstein: The New Order, Shadow of Mordor, BioShock Infinite and The Last of Us have all been dramatically shorter than the aforementioned games, ranging from probably 10-15 hours with not much replayability to them, if any. And yet, they’ve been some of my favorite titles of the last few years regardless, because of how well their campaigns were designed, or how well their stories were told. I don’t regret paying full retail for any of them, even if they didn’t give me sixty hours of side-quests to pad out my experience.

And yet, is there a downward limit? Despite what I’ve said above, yes, absolutely there is. There has to be.
Despite the story-based games I mentioned being “shorter,” I don’t think a one of them is under ten hours, unless you’re doing a speed run. To me, ten hours seems to be about the minimum appropriate length for a campaign or story mode in a $60 game not attached to an overwhelmingly attractive multiplayer experience like you’d find in Halo or Call of Duty. I seem to remember completing most God of War games, for example, in about 10-12 hours. Even a game like Telltale’s Walking Dead has a five-episode story that ends up being about 8-10 hours by the end, yet that game sold new for $25.

As recently as a few months ago, Polygon’s Ben Kutchera wrote a column about his love of short games as a busy parent, citing The Vanishing of Ethan Carter as an example, which clocks in at about five hours of gameplay.
But the common thread? Again, all three of those games, and most other truly “short” games are indies, sold usually from $10-20. I think saying that “people who think short games suck are wrong” is something of a straw man argument. Probably everyone has had a good short gaming experience at some point or another, or at least recognizes that it’s possible. But there is a difference between $15 for four hours of Limbo and $60 for six hours of The Order: 1886. A reviewer can advise a fan to “wait for a sale” to pick up a short game if price is a factor, but obviously the dev wants to sell their game for the full $60 to as many customers as possible, and “waiting for a sale” often means “buying used,” which does nothing at all for those who made the game.

“Just because a movie is three hours long, it doesn’t make it better,” Weerasuriya says.
That’s true, but while a ninety minute movie costs as much as a three hour one, there is still a downward limit. If theaters and studios started charging $12 a ticket for a 45 minute feature, you can bet that there would be pushback, so much so that only rarely will you ever see a movie released that clocks in under an hour twenty or so.

It does seem plausible that The Order: 1886 may be scraping the bottom when it comes to the minimum accepted length for a $60 game if these campaign length guesses are anywhere close to accurate. The fact that Ready at Dawn didn’t counter with specifics that show the YouTuber is outright lying, and the game is really 10-15 hours, says that the five and a half hour estimate is probably not all that far off. Even with the benefit of the doubt and assuming somehow there’s an extra two hours in the game the YouTuber cut out, it’s still a tricky proposition to charge $60 for that.

As a result, The Order: 1886 has to simply be amazing. What is true about shorter games, is that the less time you spend with them, the better they have to be. Gone Home, Limbo, Portal and others packed a hell of a lot of brilliance into just a few hours. The Order will have to do just that or else it simply can’t even begin to make the argument that it’s worth the price. That $60 will have to be seen in the quality of the visuals, story, voice acting, and gameplay, if the actual physical content isn’t there. But the shorter the game, the better all those aspects will have to be in order to make it seem worthwhile.

 

[Knuf]

Wow, how is this thread still going?
The only thing certain here is that Eurogamer's on a mission to dismantle any The Order hype: next stop, their 5/10 don't buy it review!

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

A look into the meaning and etymology of the word "art" would put a swift end to many a debate.





What's the cut of point though?
Going forward I'd like for someone to make a well received (price aside) "AAA" game that has an average completion time of 15mins and cost $60us; then get feedback from people such as yourself.
I know some people like to act like money ain't a thing and they'll pay for things they like; however, everyone has a limit.


nb Searched and saw a different Forbes articles linked.

Paul Tassi at Forbes raises several interesting points:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertc...er-makes-a-flawed-argument-about-game-length/

Paul Tassi has basically nailed it. Short games are fine as long as they aren't too short; if they're too short they'd better be either cheap or spectacular.

 

[Micerider]

A look into the meaning and etymology of the word "art" would put a swift end to many a debate.





What's the cut of point though?
Going forward I'd like for someone to make a well received (price aside) "AAA" game that has an average completion time of 15mins and cost $60us; then get feedback from people such as yourself.
I know some people like to act like money ain't a thing and they'll pay for things they like; however, everyone has a limit.


nb Searched and saw a different Forbes articles linked.

Paul Tassi at Forbes raises several interesting points:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertc...er-makes-a-flawed-argument-about-game-length/

You miss the point, no-one is saying that games should be short. We are just arguing about the fact that the perceived value for a short game could very well satisfy someone at 60$. If a game is just too short for you and that the type of experience does not compensate, then by all mean don't buy it.

I hate games that "feel" too short because they couldn't realize their vision. But that happened to me with 30 hours games too. On the other end, I'm perdectly fine with a short game like Shadow of the Colossus because the game feel just right with the content it has and might actually be worse with padding or un-necessary content.

Other example : I really like Dragon Age : Inquisition but it's just too long for my taste and I think somz part of the content and the way it "flows" is detrimental to the game. I'm convinced I would have enjoyed it even more with a more focused approach trimming big chunks of fat.

Length is not always in direct relation with the enjoyement of the experience, it just has to be "long enough" to allow devs to convey their game right and make it feel like a complete experience.