I forgot to say something .

Games can have a different impact as much as that you can pack multiple stories into one game, just as history could have been a different story. The message the game sends can be directly affected by the actions of the player. Like I said, thought, I don''t think it has been done yet. Or, at least not well.

-------------------------------------------
"What's the story with your face, son?!?"

Yeah, so/ How is that not an art? I think it''s even more art because of interativity.

Heh. Okay, Landfish, you said you were feeling confrontational.

quote:Original post by Landfish

Games are art. They say something. They say it to you, for the expressed purpose of making contact.

I know in our postmodern era defining art is all but impossible, but this is wrong. Art is a sharing/communicating of an experience that enriches and changes you on a deep, emotional level. Games are something that you play to learn and perhaps relax. The two are on the opposite ends of a continuum. The more a game becomes art the less it is a game.



--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

Pos-modernism is a backlash. It''s right about some things, but it tries to be a little too right to compensate for the 50+ years before hand.

By your logic, many of my favorite movies cannot exist. These movies teach me, they are funny, they get me to relax, but they are also serious, scary, and they are ART.

Just because something is spiritaully enriching or educational, doesn''t mean you didn''t have fun doing it. Viewing art can be fun. Hearing Art can be fun.

A game is fun. There''s no more to it than that.

Ok, I totally disagree with Waveinator, art and games are not mutually exclusive. Games can also be very emotionally moving. This is not my admission that games are art.

Art is created by someone/people to express his/her/their emotions, thoughts, feelings, opinions, etc. for others to view and to impact others.

The potential that games have is that the player can directly change this impact. It''s like putting a mustache on the Mona Lisa. It changes everything. Games have this potential. The player becomes the "artist" (for lack of a better term, creator?), and that is not something art can be or do.

-------------------------------------------
"What's the story with your face, son?!?"

Anon, if you think games are both, then tell me when was the last time you saw, heard, or experienced interactive art?

Back on subject though, I think that all games could really benefit from a good story. Even FPS could benefit from a story, as a cutscene is a good rest for your mouse hand . Seriously, I think that the movies in Thief did a wonderful job in adding atmosphere, and it would just be taking it one step further by putting a good story there. And then another step to putting the story into the gameplay.

Note: I never got very far in Thief, so it very well could have a good story.

-------------------------------------------
"What's the story with your face, son?!?"

Okay, Landfish, this is long but here''s some flamebait you can sink your teeth into:

So what? Writing in games is subpar, true. The writing quality, intellectual content, and storylines all could use some work. But they don''t matter as much as core design, because writing in games is peripheral.

Games are like songs. Songs may have good writing and story, but insofar as they do they''re nothing more than a support for the song. The music and singing is what makes the song, just as it is with design and games. To the degree that your game''s focus is on story and character over actual gameplay, you are not making a game. You are making something else.

As GAME designers, we are NOT making novels! We are NOT making film! We are not making "art!" Honestly, I have freakin'' HAD IT with the inferiority complex that some game designers have when it comes to other media!!!!!!! Just like songs, our work has merit beyond these forms of entertainment, and does not need them as some sort of lynchpin for validity.

Games are about action and activity. The difference between art and games is like the difference between talking and listening. With games, you do, you talk. With art, you receive, you listen. They are different activities that require different skills.

Game are about fun, progress, and winning. This directly limits what is possible in terms of expression. I do things as a player that make for great gameplay but absolutely boring story. The exact reverse is true for stories and films.

Bringing in the kind of dramatic content that you seem to be suggesting would be a very bad idea. As a game, Schiendler''s List or Saving Private Ryan or The Color Purple would be absolutely freakin'' terrible!!!! . Again, this is because there is a vast difference between doing and experiencing.

Please, by all means, endeavor to bring up the quality of writing and content in games, but please don''t forget what you''re making. You''re making a game. This means the focus should be on gameplay.

Now, if you''re making something else, fine, say so. Go join the hypertext fiction crowd, break out the stripped shirt and beret, and be an artiste. But don''t pretend that you''re making games.


--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

Woah, you''re forgetting something Wavy (can I call you Wavy ). Games have the capacity to tell freat stories, and be very emotionally moving while still being _games_. I thought the single player story in Vampire was a great story, and I think the game is very fun (especially Multiplayer ).

I agree that art and games are two seperate enteties. But they are not complete opposites.

-------------------------------------------
"What's the story with your face, son?!?"