Annoying Trends In Games, In 2006!
Having stumbled upon this while checking out a webpage of a GSW commenter, I'm delighted to present Dave and Nihongonauts' '6 Annoying Trends in Games 2006' article, as petulantly readable a piece of writing as anyone could hope to expect, yay.
One of the highlights is 'Unwarranted Paranoia Over Microtransactions', for which it's noted: "The public has reacted with complete panic and paranoia, insisting that publishers will soon ship “incomplete” games that require additional purchases to fight the last boss, finish the race, or otherwise do what has heretofore been considered a part of a normal retail game. This is, needless to say, complete and total bullshit and a waste of time to even think about."
Also zinged, 'The Games As Art Debate': "Look up the f*cking word “art” in a dictionary! Any dictionary! See that part about the “conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements”? How about the “human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature”? This means that all games are art. Period. If my interpretation of the arrangement of a brick in an otherwise abandoned lot is aesthetically pleasing, then it fits the definition." Why do I get the feeling that this isn't the last word on that subject?
Comments
New word of the day: assholitude!
Good piece though and pretty much on the money (especially on the idiotic pastime of console launch bashing).
Posted by: Ollie Barder | January 24, 2007 6:01 AM
The whole art debate is bs. The game is about fun, the minute you tried to argue whether a game is art, you forget the whole reason you played game in the first place. You play game for fun, not for some cultural enlightenment/revelation.
Posted by: eaglearcher | January 24, 2007 6:04 AM
According to that definition of art, those silly commercials that get
broadcasted to my TV every day are art to. I still don't think games are art and will enjoy my games, art or not.
Posted by: Cruds | January 24, 2007 7:57 AM
I have a quote from a Nokia rep at E3 stating that they want to do just what is stated they won't for microtransactions: give you part of a game with the purchase then show you other parts of the game you have to buy to keep playing.
It's not like these fears are unfounded.
Posted by: Shapermc | January 24, 2007 8:35 AM
Yeah, I'm afraid of Nokia's impact on the gaming market.
Posted by: Joe | January 24, 2007 10:05 AM
maybe YOU play games for fun and not for enlightenment / revelation. i play games for a variety of reasons, of which fun is only one. but i do think the "games are art / games are not art" debate is circular and pointless and a waste of time.
Posted by: dessgeega | January 24, 2007 11:03 AM
every person i hear that claims that games are not art in any way whatsoever is another person i want to punch in the goddamned face.
seriously, i've never heard a single defense of the anti-art sentiment that is, in any way, intelligent or well-reasoned.
Cruds- of course they're art. plenty of museum art sucks (subjectively speaking), but it's still art.
Posted by: mercatfat | January 24, 2007 12:21 PM
Yeah so whats your point? The difference between that crappy art and a video game is that that the maker of that crap had total freedom to make it crap. Video games is most are a compromise between the makers idea and what sells, if the guy upstairs tell the maker it will not be made, than that game will never become a reality. It's a craft and you need skilled, creative people to make work, no doubt about it. Still It's not art its a product, it's got to be marketable.
Rembrandt van Rein's paintings are considered art yet if you could ask him he would say he's a skilled craftsman. If he would decide to go all out and make a Cubism style portrait, his client would say that he's crazy and would not buy it. Hundreds of years from now someone might look back at us and says: Wow what great entertainment did these people in the 21th century make with those limited tools they had back than, thats just art. do I care? No I'll be dead by than.
And what exactly is the art part in games? the code? the graphics? the narrative maybe? Any of those things can exist right now without being embedded in a game. Maybe those thing can be called art that doesn't make the entire game art. Just for the heck of it lets call Photoshop art too.
Ever wondered why graphic design is not art, most of it looks really good doesn't it?
As for that punching in the face remark, those are some strong words for someone who is post anonymously on some internet blog. What intelligent stuff did you come up with besides "plenty of museum art sucks"?
Posted by: Cruds | January 25, 2007 6:06 AM
I don't consider myself anonymous, but the internet is still serious business and no place for joking around.
But to keep things short, take a modern art history class or two, if you get the opportunity. Your definition of art, it seems, is far too stringent.
Posted by: mercatfat | January 25, 2007 6:27 PM