The future of video games

[Blorx]

Nah, I read it, I just did not find the original subject matter sufficiently meaty or interesting to respond to. I was puzzled by how using technology to create pictures was somehow less artistic. That's like saying that modern films are less artistic because of all the new technology. Theh Matrix isn't artistic, they're just using fancy technology!

Oddly enough, I don't find the Matrix or Avatar artistic at all. However, I do find that Hayao Miyazaki, as well as Pixar, films are adequately artistic, even if a bit childish at times.

[Renegade_Turner]

Oddly enough, the low budget Afro Samurai game has technologies that allow cuts in character meshes that then become 2 separate objects and let physics take over and, in fact, it's done rather elegantly. If they can do it, why can't larger companies? Hell, why can't indies? Indies tend to be the innovators.

Afro Samurai got fairly mediocre reviews and no one seemed to think it was that remarkable. I can't imagine that's such a great example for what games should be doing.

Nah, I read it, I just did not find the original subject matter sufficiently meaty or interesting to respond to. I was puzzled by how using technology to create pictures was somehow less artistic. That's like saying that modern films are less artistic because of all the new technology. Theh Matrix isn't artistic, they're just using fancy technology!

Oddly enough, I don't find the Matrix or Avatar artistic at all. However, I do find that Hayao Miyazaki, as well as Pixar, films are adequately artistic, even if a bit childish at times.

That's not the issue. I don't mind whether or not you thought they were good films. Your reasoning for it would be the issue. Claiming a film is not artistic because it uses advanced technology is bizarre.

That's like someone from the Stone Age saying someone painting a picture with a paintbrush or drawing a picture with a pencil isn't art because they're using tools that weren't there before. Do you not see the futility of such a silly point?

[Blorx]

Oddly enough, the low budget Afro Samurai game has technologies that allow cuts in character meshes that then become 2 separate objects and let physics take over and, in fact, it's done rather elegantly. If they can do it, why can't larger companies? Hell, why can't indies? Indies tend to be the innovators.

Afro Samurai got fairly mediocre reviews and no one seemed to think it was that remarkable. I can't imagine that's such a great example for what games should be doing.

It's not, and I never claimed it was. I claimed only that it had that technology.

Nah, I read it, I just did not find the original subject matter sufficiently meaty or interesting to respond to. I was puzzled by how using technology to create pictures was somehow less artistic. That's like saying that modern films are less artistic because of all the new technology. Theh Matrix isn't artistic, they're just using fancy technology!

Oddly enough, I don't find the Matrix or Avatar artistic at all. However, I do find that Hayao Miyazaki, as well as Pixar, films are adequately artistic, even if a bit childish at times.

That's not the issue. I don't mind whether or not you thought they were good films. Your reasoning for it would be the issue. Claiming a film is not artistic because it uses advanced technology is bizarre.

That's like someone from the Stone Age saying someone painting a picture with a paintbrush or drawing a picture with a pencil isn't art because they're using tools that weren't there before. Do you not see the futility of such a silly point?

Yes, in some ways, I do. But I also see that computers don't show emotion. Algorithms don't show emotion. Symmetry generally doesn't show emotion.

[Renegade_Turner]

That's a silly argument too. Computers don't show emotion? Paint brushes don't show emotion. The person using them shows emotion.

The same way Eric Chahi was an artist, Fumito Ueda is now. The computer tools are just their paint brushes, the computer screens their canvases.

Like I said in another post in another thread, I vote games like Another World are more emotionally powerful than any painting done by Michaelangelo or Da Vinci.

Keep in mind that the bar for graphics keep getting higher ...infact, that seems to be the only bar that continually gets raised over time from game to game ...

The bar keeps rising, but the room for improvement is rapidly decreasing. Giving 3D glasses features to games isn't going to breathe any new life into it either. As it is, graphics can't get much better. They've already pretty much reached the summit of what can be expected of graphics.

If they make some new significant visual leap which improves graphics as much as graphics improved from Medal Of Honor 1 to Modern Warfare 2 then I will honestly eat my only hat. And I fucking love that hat.

[Blorx]

That's a silly argument too. Computers don't show emotion? Paint brushes don't show emotion. The person using them shows emotion.

The same way Eric Chahi was an artist, Fumito Ueda is now. The computer tools are just their paint brushes, the computer screens their canvases.

Like I said in another post in another thread, I vote games like Another World are more emotionally powerful than any painting done by Michaelangelo or Da Vinci.

Point taken. Maybe I'm just being an old-timer. >.>

[Renegade_Turner]

Despite being 16. I don't understand your reasons.

[Blorx]

Despite being 16. I don't understand your reasons.

Yes, I know I'm 16. Being an old-timer in thinking. =P

I don't really know. It just seems that true artistry is becoming a rarity, and that, even though it will take an artist to create something truly artistic, even though things are being made easier, that the bar will be set lower as the industry becomes flooded with half-assed attempts at art. Soon, people won't really know the difference, just that true excellence will be few and far between.

Hell, look at the gaming industry. It doesn't take much to see all the half-assed attempts (I'm looking at you, ET!) that were there before commodities like GameMaker came around.

Sheesh, look at modern art and rap. What are those?! Music used to be an art form. Rap is music's speed bump, and a lot of modern art is just random swirls of color.

[Renegade_Turner]

I agree with you about that pop art stuff and so on. Modern contemporary art and all that bollocks. Doesn't seem to require any work or inspiration. Some Scottish guy won an award for art for making a white room with lots and lots of light bulbs on the ceiling turning on and off every few seconds.

Anyway, you can't generalise. For every few people jumping on the coat tails of fads (I'm looking at you, abstract artists), there are some people actually trying to create something worthwhile.

You complain about modern rap, but you probably haven't bothered to listen to some of the rappers which are actually focused on the original focus of rap music. Immortal Technique, Lowkey, Devlin. Listen to a record by any of those and then revise your ill-informed opinion.

I seem to recall you liking some of that nerdy American college rap. I don't even know what it's called, it was just so godawful. Like that guy with the song about a college party. It wasn't the thematic content of the song, it was just the unbearably bland and uninteresting take on the topic.

Find me that many notable rappers and artists there were from older years. There's always exceptions. That's why they're called exceptional. Because they're rare. There's still people there these days, they're just still the exceptions.

[Blorx]

There are some rappers trying to make rap unique. Very few, though, and they aren't what people think of when they think of rap. Most people think of the speed bump to music

As a side-note, it blows my mind that people can write articles like this about art games when pop art is so damned horrendous. I do agree that Edmund deserves the criticism, but the people that really get Passage understand the masterpiece Mr. Rohrer created.

[cameleopard42]

Blorx, you say that you think true artistry is becoming a rarity, but it seems like people have been saying this forever, and probably always will. In the words of Theodore Sturgeon, "Ninety percent of everything is crud." 90% of games are crud, 90% of shows are crud, 90% of movies are crud, 90% of radio is crud, 90% of books are crud, 90% of paintings are crud, 90% of music is crud, and 90% of the next big medium will likely be crud as well. The bar has been lowered many times before by the printing press, motion picture, phonographs, and the like. True art has always shined through, and I think always will.

[Blorx]

Blorx, you say that you think true artistry is becoming a rarity, but it seems like people have been saying this forever, and probably always will. In the words of Theodore Sturgeon, "Ninety percent of everything is crud." 90% of games are crud, 90% of shows are crud, 90% of movies are crud, 90% of radio is crud, 90% of books are crud, 90% of paintings are crud, 90% of music is crud, and 90% of the next big medium will likely be crud as well. The bar has been lowered many times before by the printing press, motion picture, phonographs, and the like. True art has always shined through, and I think always will.

I guess you're right. I don't know, it just seems it's getting closer and closer to dying out. =\

[h2ostra]

I have no problem with "modern art" (disclaimer: I know very little about art history) in the sense that you are using: random swooshes an minimalism (and by this, I am referring to visual, physical medium art). Certainly, there is a lot of it that has absolutely no emotional impact on me at all, but the same is the case with much of "conventional" art (for instance, I find still life paintings to be boring as shit, usually). In fact, I would say that I rarely find any emotional power in paintings, aside from some swooshes of red and grey.

A friend and I were discussing something similar, which I kind of forget, but I remember his quote: "Yeah, anyone could do that, but he did do it, and that's the difference"

[Renegade_Turner]

There are some rappers trying to make rap unique. Very few, though, and they aren't what people think of when they think of rap. Most people think of the speed bump to music.

The same as everything. There's never significantly more people who excel at an activity compared to the amount of people who participate in that activity when compared to any other activity.

Also, I don't understand people's obsession with "unique". Nothing's unique anymore. This doesn't mean you should be tagging the same guns and money subjects that everyone else does, but it doesn't mean someone else taking a unique subject that no one cares about should be more preferable.

Just because rap isn't your preferred medium, that's no reason to give the same old bullshit every other musical snob gives. That's not very "unique", is it?

As a side-note, it blows my mind that people can write articles like this about art games when pop art is so damned horrendous. I do agree that Edmund deserves the criticism, but the people that really get Passage understand the masterpiece Mr. Rohrer created.

On the contrary, I think that article was fantastic, and epitomises a lot of my misgivings about the opinions of indie game fans and art game fans. There seems to be such a tunnel vision a lot of the time directed at games who offer something "unique" or "innovative", even if said innovation is nothing that anyone could find enjoyable whatsoever.

For the fact that I don't particularly like the smell of fecal matter, I'm not going to do any brown-nosing towards indie groups. I'm a member of the Wolfire forums because I support Wolfire, not because I support indies. There are plenty of horrendous indie games too, and just because they're done by one person does not convince me that person deserves my money any more if the game is awful.

For example, I find Bad Company 2 is very deserving of my money. I find Zombie Driver, however, is very undeserving of my money.

On the other hand, the new Alien Versus Predator game deserves no money, but N+ does.

There's no absolute. There's just as many great and terrible indie games as there are great and terrible mainstream games.

[Blorx]

The same as everything. There's never significantly more people who excel at an activity compared to the amount of people who participate in that activity when compared to any other activity.

Also, I don't understand people's obsession with "unique". Nothing's unique anymore. This doesn't mean you should be tagging the same guns and money subjects that everyone else does, but it doesn't mean someone else taking a unique subject that no one cares about should be more preferable.

Just because rap isn't your preferred medium, that's no reason to give the same old bullshit every other musical snob gives. That's not very "unique", is it?

I'm not so much giving rap as a whole shit, as I am giving the standard for rap shit. And if it continues to be the standard, rap will continue to be a speed bump, regardless of how you look at it. Standards are what move us forward, whether we like where they take us or not.

On the contrary, I think that article was fantastic, and epitomises a lot of my misgivings about the opinions of indie game fans and art game fans. There seems to be such a tunnel vision a lot of the time directed at games who offer something "unique" or "innovative", even if said innovation is nothing that anyone could find enjoyable whatsoever.

For the fact that I don't particularly like the smell of fecal matter, I'm not going to do any brown-nosing towards indie groups. I'm a member of the Wolfire forums because I support Wolfire, not because I support indies. There are plenty of horrendous indie games too, and just because they're done by one person does not convince me that person deserves my money any more if the game is awful.

For example, I find Bad Company 2 is very deserving of my money. I find Zombie Driver, however, is very undeserving of my money.

On the other hand, the new Alien Versus Predator game deserves no money, but N+ does.

There's no absolute. There's just as many great and terrible indie games as there are great and terrible mainstream games.

I understand that all well and good, but people give Passage a lot of unnecessary shit. Passage was meant to be what the Path and the Graveyard, and possibly even Fatale, are. They're meant to be more of a moving work of art than a game. It's not even really right to call them a game, so much as an interactive picture. Do you understand where I'm coming from? A lot of the misgivings behind art games are in the name. They're not intended to be games, just art in a new medium.

The same can be said for A Slow Year. It's been dubbed by its creator as a collection of game poems, a "video game chapbook." However, it's meant to be the interactive version of a poem of the Imagism style, not a game.

I'll be the first to admit that, as much as I respect Derek Smart, and I get why people love the guy, I really hate his games.

[Assaultman67]

Back to the original topic ...

I can't imagine having procedurally made textures, procedurally made shaders, procedurally made animations, procedurally made meshes, procedurally made sprite effects, as well as procedurally made maps ... being a part of a game that could compete with modern day graphics or game play ...

It would be the ultimate cluster fuck of code ... a simply mind boggling amount of code ...

And some of these are easier than others ... how the hell would you write a procedural algorithm able to design human NPC's from scratch without having them look like stick men? especially if you don't use a library of faces such as this program does.

Do you plan to define the contours of the human body with mathematical formulas? What about the different textures you see on the character itself? how do you plan on making a formula that can procedurally design different clothing?

No way in hell you could go into that kinda detailed code in a single game ...