(08-02-2011, 11:51 PM)Omegajak Wrote: Not a fan of Fallout, Mass Effect, or Too Human.

Okay, yes, my friends keep on going about Mass Effect, and I've played it at their house countless times.

But I can't seem to like it, I just can't see whats so great about it.
And the character customization is shit.

(08-03-2011, 03:11 AM)FRET Wrote: I enjoy shooters.


That said, Halo and CoD are SHIT

Never really played halo for an opinion, but the only CoD games I found shitty were MW2 and Black Ops.

maybe because neither of them seemed like they were worth the hype.

Plus Call of Duty 2 was a pretty cool game, not gonna lie.







And yes, I really didn't like Mass Effect, either. I saw my brother play that all the time, and it just seemed like an immensely boring game.

i my self am not much of a fan of FPS games. though thats only in the aspect of playing them

if i find a game whose story i find interesting, like mass effect, I'll watch people play it so i can experience the story.

CALL OF DUTY BLACK OPS. Just can't get used to it.

hm, games i hate

idk if i really hate any games, but lets see what i can come up with


Angry Birds - Maybe it's a bit unfair to pick on an iPhone game, but I legitimately don't see why so many people like it. There's pretty much no challenge, and really no skill involved in winning, it's nothing but a diversion with passable visuals. I'm sure there are hundreds of more fun iPhone games (Doodle Jump, for one example), yet for some reason Angry Birds is huge. idk can somebody who likes angry birds explain the appeal to me

Golden Sun: Dark Dawn - Basically everything wrong with JRPGs in one game, and a pretty shitty followup to a pair of games I really liked. It was just amazingly boring, I've never been that uninterested in a game in my life (and i was pretty hyped for it).


uh thats it lol

I didn't really want to make a topic for this, but I guess this kinda fits in here?
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04/...e_art.html
Really old, but

I honestly can not respect Roger Eberts opinions. He seems to me so thick headed and old-timey.
He's ridiculous.

(08-06-2011, 01:43 PM)Rakia Wrote: I didn't really want to make a topic for this, but I guess this kinda fits in here?
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04/...e_art.html
Really old, but

I honestly can not respect Roger Eberts opinions. He seems to me so thick headed and old-timey.
He's ridiculous.

Video games have the potential of being art, just like anything else can be. I agree with Ebert that none of the examples Santiago gave are "art". This is rather misleading because art can have two meanings: the art of the artisan and the "art" of the artist. I'd liken videogames more with the former than the latter.

(08-04-2011, 12:31 AM)Glukom Wrote: Angry Birds - Maybe it's a bit unfair to pick on an iPhone game, but I legitimately don't see why so many people like it. There's pretty much no challenge, and really no skill involved in winning, it's nothing but a diversion with passable visuals. I'm sure there are hundreds of more fun iPhone games (Doodle Jump, for one example), yet for some reason Angry Birds is huge. idk can somebody who likes angry birds explain the appeal to me

People like angry birds mostly because it's one of those games that's simple enough where people can pick up and play with. kind of like pac-man and galaga in a sense really.

---

(08-06-2011, 01:43 PM)Rakia Wrote: I didn't really want to make a topic for this, but I guess this kinda fits in here?
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04/...e_art.html
Really old, but

I honestly can not respect Roger Eberts opinions. He seems to me so thick headed and old-timey.
He's ridiculous.

this is a pretty old subject you brought up.

From my stand point of view his opinions are vastly under thought. It's almost like saying movies and songs aren't art yet so many people believe they are.

Why he chooses to believe video games aren't art, If I recall correctly vipershark pointed out in a topic made for this was that anything can be an art.

It isn't so much that his perspectives are under-thought or that his viewpoint is wrong, everything he said is for the most part true; the issue is that he remains unconvinced, and he does so because no one has argued or proven the point that video games are intrinsically an art form - not that games are art, but that they have the potential to be (note: art is not a qualitative label) successfully.

Simply put, the argument santiago made was absolutely horrible and I don't fault him at any point for criticizing it. If that is the best that the games media can put out - if Bioshock is "art" to a gamer - then maybe we deserve to be criticized for that.

No More Heroes 2.

I hate that I beat it already

(08-06-2011, 02:32 PM)Diogalesu Wrote:

(08-04-2011, 12:31 AM)Glukom Wrote: Angry Birds - Maybe it's a bit unfair to pick on an iPhone game, but I legitimately don't see why so many people like it. There's pretty much no challenge, and really no skill involved in winning, it's nothing but a diversion with passable visuals. I'm sure there are hundreds of more fun iPhone games (Doodle Jump, for one example), yet for some reason Angry Birds is huge. idk can somebody who likes angry birds explain the appeal to me

People like angry birds mostly because it's one of those games that's simple enough where people can pick up and play with. kind of like pac-man and galaga in a sense really.

---

The difference to me is that most 'good' games have some kind of challenge or tension, or at least something to engage the player in whats happening. The only thing Angry Birds has is solving really simple puzzles, which in my experience don't take much skill or effort. Compared to something like Doodle Jump (a game just as easy to pick up and play), which has the player a lot more involved since they have to be precise when timing their jumps or else they lose, Angry Birds is really, really boring; yet Angry Birds is extremely popular (not that Doodle Jump wasn't popular, but it's a million times more engaging than AB's so it actually makes sense to me that it was). I'm guessing it's because of the level format, which makes it so the game has a decent length and offers consistently 'new' experiences, even though to me they aren't much different.


also yeah i think what ebert said wasn't entirely wrong, it was mostly that the examples and arguments given to him were pretty terrible

I think I came off a little extra just because he frustrates me. (From my perspective he's very judgemental about everything - but I guess that's what a critic is supposed to be like)
While some of his view points are valid arguments, they were very restricted, and like said under thought.

Video Games are no where near the level they can be at this point, and what I understood was that he took it at face value without much foresight, probably without trying what he's arguing against.

Novels, films, paintings, everything he considers art has had so much time to age and grow, and games are still doing that, but I don't think he understood that.






EDIT: Yeah NMH2 was quick Also going from place to place was annoying

(08-03-2011, 03:11 AM)FRET Wrote: I enjoy shooters.


That said, Halo and CoD are SHIT

personally, while i'm not a fan of cod, halo (at least reach) is really pretty fantastic due to custom games and forge mode, which allows the community to make their own maps, which in many, many cases means making their own kinds of games

check out some of these amazing ones
Revball - Soccer, except in Revenants
Avalanche - Dodge golf balls, race to the stop, ride down and drive through your goal to score
Speed - this one isn't very difficult but its cool
Tetris - dodge the things falling from the sky, control the hill to score

for a few examples, there are basically an endless amount of games, including stuff like racetracks, it's really pretty amazing


As for CoD, I'd agree that in my experience it hasn't been fun (but I've never played Modern Warfare which is apparently really good, so there's that).

The medium, in itself, is an art-form, because it can both be a way of the creator to express himself (which is where the word 'art' comes from, articulation), but can also be made for the sake of giving/sharing an experience or a vision to an audience, which I believe that is the definition of art.

However, there are few to no games which only principle of it IS to give or share an experience. All games does give experiences to the one playing it, but no games are there just for the sake of the experience, which is why Ebert is not convinced that games are not an art form, all videogames are first of all, well, games. They have objectives, goals, rules, etc, which for Ebert, keeps them from being art. Even games such as Shadow of the Colossus, Ico and Flower have those.

I do believe that videogames are art forms because while their primary objective might be to present a game, a challenge, etc, they end up, intentionally or not, giving experiences, visions, and emotions to those playing them. But, to evolve as a medium, we should put in our heads that our medium should not always be about a game, but, well, everything that an art form that has music, graphics, and interaction, can present. Unfortunately, we do not have any other directly, physically interactive artforms to compare, so it might be hard to make a videogame that is not a game, and only produced for the sake of art.

Art really is hard to define, not sure if my definition is completely correct and free of holes, because, for instance, yelling, in my definition, can be considered as art. Yelling can be made just to give to someone an experience, and it does provoke emotions on the audience, such as fear, surprise, or even laughter.


Art is often wrongly associated with quality, so just saying that if we are going to have a debate on this, keep this in mind. The more "artistic" something is, does not mean the more "refined" and "less shitty" it is.