Meme Machine Memorial Thread of Things You Saw on Reddit

[drew]

shut the fucking fuck up fucker

[naff]

Yeah math isn't art (i was really meaning how it plays a part in games uniqueness as it's an intrinsic part of a game), I forget it's based on reality sometimes. Sure games didn't create immersion, but your role as a player is pretty different compared to when reading or watching films.

I just can't buy this whole 'games didn't bring anything new to the art table hence they're not art' bull. Does it mean if they call themselves an 'interactive film' they can be considered art?

[The Dark Shake 3000]

Except it's true. Games didn't develop a new way to immerse one's audience. They are literally movies wherein you control an avatar of some sort, but they are still moving images that someone else created and rendered for you. They are employing techniques created and mastered by other art forms.

[Great Rumbler]

I had way more fun playing Just Cause 2 than I ever did staring at some dumb Picasso painting.

Vidja games > "Art"

[Fresh Prince]

Except it's true. Games didn't develop a new way to immerse one's audience. They are literally movies wherein you control an avatar of some sort, but they are still moving images that someone else created and rendered for you. They are employing techniques created and mastered by other art forms.

Ho ho ho....

[Phoenix Dark]

Games aren't an art form. They bring nothing new to the table, but rather combine elements from various other art forms (yes, even the "immersion" aspect is not beholden to video games). All other art forms created new forms of expression; games do not.

Rules and interactivity. One of Ebert's great mistakes is dismissing rules as not being applicable to art, but if rules are a part of the authorial message then they are an avenue of art. Rules and gameplay are the camera lens of videogames. Just because many games do not explore this does not make it true. I often cite Super Metroid, but that is mainly because you can speedrun the game and still understand the story, and the reason is because the rules and gamplay relay the story. Since you know the Metroid that stops short of killing you is different, and you only understand this because the rules are kill or be killed, except those which do not go through with killing you, then you understand that the Metroid which is required to complete the story is different. At no point during the game does the game stop to tell you "this is your baby metroid".  It does not rely on the convetions of other art, it does not stop and explain through text, or through a passive viewing like film, but through the actions the player enacts. This part of the stoyr has been understood over the years merely through gameplay and the rules of the game which state in game title and experience that metroids are hostile enemies.

That's Ebert's argument though, not necessarily one in the overall argument of whether games are art. Your Metroid example is interesting but at the same time, how exactly does it argue games are art?

[The Dark Shake 3000]

Except it's true. Games didn't develop a new way to immerse one's audience. They are literally movies wherein you control an avatar of some sort, but they are still moving images that someone else created and rendered for you. They are employing techniques created and mastered by other art forms.

Ho ho ho....

Explain thyself.

[drew]

shut thyself up

[The Dark Shake 3000]

We're having an interesting discussion here drew, one which you as usual have contributed nothing to.

[Fresh Prince]

If you say 'other art forms' that means you consider videogames art since it belongs to that group.

[The Dark Shake 3000]

If you say 'other art forms' that means you consider videogames art since it belongs to that group.

What? Did you read my first post on this matter? As I explained, the reason games aren't art is because they only employ elements that other forms have created, and have not contributed anything to the art of self expression themselves.

[etiolate]

Is the game of chess art?  Is a 100 meter dash art?  I don't think so.

But the moves within a game of chess can be art.

The NBA dunk contest is based on some idea of authorship and art to the dunks presented. Someone who goes up and does a dunk that someone has done before with no new flavor or twist will not be graded as highly as someone who does something both captivating and new, or who does a previous dunk with a new and authorial twist(Think T.S. Elliot's idea of Tradition and individual). It is still a game, still a separated part of a greater game based on rules, and these dunks can be seen within that area of rules(in fact those chosen for the contest are chosen based on their ability to show this art within the game). This is another mistake Ebert makes.

Which gets to Shake, and his idea that performance art does what games does already. Art is art; videogames provide another avenue. It is hard to escape any idea of what comes before in doing something different, but I choke when thinking that performance art and videogames offer the same artistic expressions. Performance art is still far more passive.

[naff]

Except it's true. Games didn't develop a new way to immerse one's audience. They are literally movies wherein you control an avatar of some sort, but they are still moving images that someone else created and rendered for you. They are employing techniques created and mastered by other art forms.

Yes but what if you just call it 'interactive film?'. It's then an art form right.

[treythemovie]

Video games can be art, but rarely, if ever, because of the "video game" aspects of it.

[The Dark Shake 3000]

Except it's true. Games didn't develop a new way to immerse one's audience. They are literally movies wherein you control an avatar of some sort, but they are still moving images that someone else created and rendered for you. They are employing techniques created and mastered by other art forms.

Yes but what if you just call it 'interactive film?'. It's then art.

No it's not. It's employing elements from other works of art, but video games as a whole is not an accepted art form because they haven't invented anything themselves. This is the entire point of Ebert's argument, one which so many of you continue to miss and misinterpret.

[Ichirou]

Games aren't art.  Monopoly isn't art.  Hungry Hungry Hippos isn't art.

[The Dark Shake 3000]

Games aren't art.  Monopoly isn't art.  Hungry Hungry Hippos isn't art.

MICHIGAN distinguished mentally-challenged fellows ASSSSSSEEEEMBLE

[Cheebs]

Games aren't art.  Monopoly isn't art.  Hungry Hungry Hippos isn't art.

Ichi a fellow adopted member of the Michigan distinguished mentally-challenged fellow pack also in agreement? Looks like the MI distinguished mentally-challenged fellow Pack moves as a unit this battle.  

[naff]

Except it's true. Games didn't develop a new way to immerse one's audience. They are literally movies wherein you control an avatar of some sort, but they are still moving images that someone else created and rendered for you. They are employing techniques created and mastered by other art forms.

Yes but what if you just call it 'interactive film?'. It's then art.

No it's not. It's employing elements from other works of art, but video games as a whole is not an accepted art form because they haven't invented anything themselves. This is the entire point of Ebert's argument, one which so many of you continue to miss and misinterpret.

But if it's just a film it's art because films can be art? Also would it be enough to consider it unique(hence bringing something new to the art table hence being art) if it lets you experience ideas and situations in an entirely different way to any other medium?

[The Dark Shake 3000]

Film editing is an artistic process that films invented. Name something that video games have done that no art form before them were able to achieve with similar results.

[Ichirou]

I've always thought the whole "games are art" dudes are just saying it because they don't want to admit (even to themselves) that they waste their free time on what is essentially the TV version of games like Operation! and Mousetrap.

[The Dark Shake 3000]

I've always thought the whole "games are art" dudes are just saying it because they don't want to admit (even to themselves) that they waste their free time on what is essentially the TV version of games like Operation! and Mousetrap.

Fuck, I'm even willing to admit a game can function as art to a particular person, but the fact remains that games are not an accepted art form. There is no debating this. And this is Ebert's argument in a nutshell.

[Cheebs]

It's hilarious NONE OF US in this weird distinguished mentally-challenged fellow pack of shake, pd, me, and ichi ever argue on anything at eb. We have like the bond of WW II vets or something, where no one else on EB will ever be able to connect and know our struggles.

[etiolate]

Games aren't an art form. They bring nothing new to the table, but rather combine elements from various other art forms (yes, even the "immersion" aspect is not beholden to video games). All other art forms created new forms of expression; games do not.

Rules and interactivity. One of Ebert's great mistakes is dismissing rules as not being applicable to art, but if rules are a part of the authorial message then they are an avenue of art. Rules and gameplay are the camera lens of videogames. Just because many games do not explore this does not make it true. I often cite Super Metroid, but that is mainly because you can speedrun the game and still understand the story, and the reason is because the rules and gamplay relay the story. Since you know the Metroid that stops short of killing you is different, and you only understand this because the rules are kill or be killed, except those which do not go through with killing you, then you understand that the Metroid which is required to complete the story is different. At no point during the game does the game stop to tell you "this is your baby metroid".  It does not rely on the convetions of other art, it does not stop and explain through text, or through a passive viewing like film, but through the actions the player enacts. This part of the stoyr has been understood over the years merely through gameplay and the rules of the game which state in game title and experience that metroids are hostile enemies.

That's Ebert's argument though, not necessarily one in the overall argument of whether games are art. Your Metroid example is interesting but at the same time, how exactly does it argue games are art?

Which part is Ebert's argument?

I am arguing rules and play as the artistic merit of videogames. Now games have become before videogames, but I think as a format that videogames best offer the ability of art as opposed to other forms of game since they often encompass other arts while providing its own art. My SM point is that the play experience is art, that it offers a narrative, a creative expression, an artistic feel and experience which are unique to games and which is manifested through the confines of the games medium. Super Metroid as stills, as watching a youtube of the game, is not the same as the experience of playing it.

[Himu]

I've always thought the whole "games are art" dudes are just saying it because they don't want to admit (even to themselves) that they waste their free time on what is essentially the TV version of games like Operation! and Mousetrap.

Agreed.

[The Dark Shake 3000]

It's hilarious NONE OF US in this weird distinguished mentally-challenged fellow pack of shake, pd, me, and ichi ever argue on anything at eb. We have like the bond of WW II vets or something, where no one else on EB will ever be able to connect and know our struggles.

Eh? Ichi and PD argue with you all the time about politics and I argued with you about Conan's career taking a nosedive just within the last few days The thing is this argument is pretty cut and dried, and all four of us understand why Ebert is right.

[Ichirou]

I'm willing to admit that elements within games can be art (art design, CG modeling) but they are not art because they're games, but because they're a subset of another medium being used for a game.

[Cheebs]

It's hilarious NONE OF US in this weird distinguished mentally-challenged fellow pack of shake, pd, me, and ichi ever argue on anything at eb. We have like the bond of WW II vets or something, where no one else on EB will ever be able to connect and know our struggles.

Eh? Ichi and PD argue with you all the time about politics and I argued with you about Conan's career taking a nosedive just within the last few days The thing is this argument is pretty cut and dried, and all four of us understand why Ebert is right.

Don't ruin it bub, we are a family and our family comes first.

[Himu]

Film editing is an artistic process that films invented. Name something that video games have done that no art form before them were able to achieve with similar results.

They allow you to control an avatar. Though that doesn't make it art by default.

[The Dark Shake 3000]

I'm willing to admit that elements within games can be art (art design, CG modeling) but they are not art because they're games, but because they're a subset of another medium being used for a game.

Exactly what I posted previously. Games can employ elements of art but video games themselves, as a whole, are not art.

[naff]

Film editing is an artistic process that films invented. Name something that video games have done that no art form before them were able to achieve with similar results.

That could be considered an extension of editing a script for the theatre except the environments are shot with a camera and played on a screen instead of being re-enacted live. And you need to think of shot composition. Where film really stood out from other art forms was being able to tell a story akin to a novel accompanied by moving pictures hence you could have exposition with a picture instead of a description of the picture... Film is an amalgamation of theatre and lit. Wow, it didn't bring anything new to the table. Must not be art.

[Ichirou]

Film editing is an artistic process that films invented. Name something that video games have done that no art form before them were able to achieve with similar results.

They allow you to control an avatar. Though that doesn't make it art by default.

A mouse cursor could be considered an avatar, in which case Xerox did it first.

[Cheebs]

Film editing is an artistic process that films invented. Name something that video games have done that no art form before them were able to achieve with similar results.

They allow you to control an avatar. Though that doesn't make it art by default.

you can control a paintbrush as an avatar. painting no longer art. OOOH SHIT

[The Dark Shake 3000]

Film editing is an artistic process that films invented. Name something that video games have done that no art form before them were able to achieve with similar results.

They allow you to control an avatar. Though that doesn't make it art by default.

Except everything is predetermined anyway. You're not adding anything to the game; all that you do in a game is something various individuals spent months animating and designing. It is basically a movie with choose -your-own-endings; you may choose the ending, but the ending itself is not something you added to in any way.

[The Dark Shake 3000]

Film editing is an artistic process that films invented. Name something that video games have done that no art form before them were able to achieve with similar results.

That could be considered an extension of editing a script for the theatre except the environments are shot with a camera and played on a screen instead of being re-enacted live. And you need to think of shot composition. Where film really stood out from other art forms was being able to tell a story akin to a novel accompanied by moving pictures hence you could have exposition with a picture instead of a description of the picture... Film is an amalgamation of theatre and lit. Wow, it didn't bring anything new to the table. Must not be art.

No. Film editing is a process NO art form has done previously. What you're basically arguing now is that "well maybe films aren't an art form", which is

[Ichirou]

Films as art is an argument that's been resolved for decades, quietID.  That's one battle you don't want to fight.

[naff]

Film editing is an artistic process that films invented. Name something that video games have done that no art form before them were able to achieve with similar results.

That could be considered an extension of editing a script for the theatre except the environments are shot with a camera and played on a screen instead of being re-enacted live. And you need to think of shot composition. Where film really stood out from other art forms was being able to tell a story akin to a novel accompanied by moving pictures hence you could have exposition with a picture instead of a description of the picture... Film is an amalgamation of theatre and lit. Wow, it didn't bring anything new to the table. Must not be art.

No. Film editing is a process NO art form has done previously. What you're basically arguing now is that "well maybe films aren't an art form", which is

Why because there's a specific job attached to it? I understand the editing process but don't understand why it's completely unique.

[The Dark Shake 3000]

What a pethetic turn of events. Going from "bu bu but games could be art!" to now trying to debate whether films are art to save face. Really? Did we really have to take it there so quickly?

Come on, guys.

[etiolate]

Noone is debating that films aren't aren't art Shake. You stated that film editing is unique and someone pointed out that any authorial editing begins long before film existed and it blew over your head.

[The Dark Shake 3000]

Film editing is an artistic process that films invented. Name something that video games have done that no art form before them were able to achieve with similar results.

That could be considered an extension of editing a script for the theatre except the environments are shot with a camera and played on a screen instead of being re-enacted live. And you need to think of shot composition. Where film really stood out from other art forms was being able to tell a story akin to a novel accompanied by moving pictures hence you could have exposition with a picture instead of a description of the picture... Film is an amalgamation of theatre and lit. Wow, it didn't bring anything new to the table. Must not be art.

No. Film editing is a process NO art form has done previously. What you're basically arguing now is that "well maybe films aren't an art form", which is

Why because there's a specific job attached to it? I understand the editing process but don't understand why it's completely unique.

Film editing is not like editing a novel. It is an individual choosing which images and sounds to juxtapose with one another to create an experience. This is not like novel editing, and just because they use images and sounds doesn't mean it's just a mix of photography and music. The art of film editing is an accepted art that was necessitated by the existence of films.

[BlueTsunami]

Some purists don't even believe Film is art, mainly due to the amount of hands involved in the process. They think that at a certain point it becomes more of a product than a pure central vision. With that said, there are movies where the Directors vision? is a huge influence and that comes through.

With games  the industry still in its infancy (or moving at of it), it really hasn't gotten to a point where all the facets in a game are as cohesive as film is. So its hard to call a single game art in that sense. Plus it needs old dudes like Ebert to die off so we get to a progressive point where 60 year olds are reminiscing about making fat loot and headshots and shit. Videyagames

[The Dark Shake 3000]

Noone is debating that films aren't aren't art Shake. You stated that film editing is unique and someone pointed out that any authorial editing begins long before film existed and it blew over your head.

Except you guys don't really know anything about film editing then if you think it's akin to editing a novel

[naff]

Film editing is an artistic process that films invented. Name something that video games have done that no art form before them were able to achieve with similar results.

That could be considered an extension of editing a script for the theatre except the environments are shot with a camera and played on a screen instead of being re-enacted live. And you need to think of shot composition. Where film really stood out from other art forms was being able to tell a story akin to a novel accompanied by moving pictures hence you could have exposition with a picture instead of a description of the picture.. Film is an amalgamation of theatre and lit. Wow, it didn't bring anything new to the table. Must not be art.

No. Film editing is a process NO art form has done previously. What you're basically arguing now is that "well maybe films aren't an art form", which is

No that piece in bold is sarcasm. I believe films are art. Just don't think the editing process is what makes them art if you believe that an art form needs something completely unique to be considered art.

[Himu]

Film editing is an artistic process that films invented. Name something that video games have done that no art form before them were able to achieve with similar results.

They allow you to control an avatar. Though that doesn't make it art by default.

A mouse cursor could be considered an avatar, in which case Xerox did it first.

Yes, but a mouse cursor doesn't let you explore imaginary worlds or allow someone fall into a scene and control what happens.

You could say the same thing about film: film is an amalgam of various disciplines. All films are thousands of photos spliced together with sounds and music included. No matter how you cut it, those are merely elements. That doesn't mean film has evolved on its own though. The problem with vidya games is that they attempt to mimic other art forms rather than doing their own thing.

Games like Out of this World or Silent Hill 2? Yeah, I could totally consider them art because they take the interactivity thing to the next level and don't attempt to be movies (in the case of shitty shit MGS games) or books (stuff like Planescape. They take what games are good at and do their own thing. What you're basically arguing is that film shouldn't be considered an art form simply because it's an amalgam of various disciplines, but of course you aren't saying that because you consider editing to be an art (and it is) while interactivity can't possibly be under consideration.

Hence, why I have labeled you all as hypocrites as you are using the same argument you've used against me (that I don't consider what I don't like to be art, which isn't true) and using it as a basis of your own argument here and now.

Your definitions of art are textbook and lifeless.

[The Dark Shake 3000]

Film editing is an artistic process that films invented. Name something that video games have done that no art form before them were able to achieve with similar results.

That could be considered an extension of editing a script for the theatre except the environments are shot with a camera and played on a screen instead of being re-enacted live. And you need to think of shot composition. Where film really stood out from other art forms was being able to tell a story akin to a novel accompanied by moving pictures hence you could have exposition with a picture instead of a description of the picture.. Film is an amalgamation of theatre and lit. Wow, it didn't bring anything new to the table. Must not be art.

No. Film editing is a process NO art form has done previously. What you're basically arguing now is that "well maybe films aren't an art form", which is

No that piece in bold is sarcasm. I believe films are art. Just don't think the editing process is what makes them art if you believe that an art form needs something completely unique to be considered art.

No, but the invention of film editing is what makes films an accepted art form.

[Ichirou]

Some purists don't even believe Film is art, mainly due to the amount of hands involved in the process. They think that at a certain point it becomes more of a product than a pure central vision. With that said, there are movies where the Directors vision? is a huge influence and that comes through.

With games  the industry still in its infancy (or moving at of it), it really hasn't gotten to a point where all the facets in a game are as cohesive as film is. So its hard to call a single game art in that sense. Plus it needs old dudes like Ebert to die off so we get to a progressive point where 60 year olds are reminiscence about making fat loot and headshots and shit. Videyagames

BlueTsunami calls for Ebert's death in the name of the "Video Games Are Art" cause.  More at 11.

[Great Rumbler]

The way I see it, art is expression. A means of conveying an idea, an emotion, or a truth of some kind. Whether or not every single game does this is ultimately irrelevant because they are many games that do, meaning that videogames are a valid art form.

Now, I'm not a art major and I'm not going to be pretend to be an expert in art and art styles, so feel free to post laughing smiley faces or whatever in response.

[drew]

[youtube=560,345]Hxx2KcPWWZg[/youtube]

[The Dark Shake 3000]

Himu: Interactivity is not something created by games. And just because games take it to "another level" doesn't mean they created an actual form of expression or artistic process that did not exist before, hence meaning they are not an art form but rather an amalgamation of other forms.

[BlueTsunami]

Some purists don't even believe Film is art, mainly due to the amount of hands involved in the process. They think that at a certain point it becomes more of a product than a pure central vision. With that said, there are movies where the Directors vision? is a huge influence and that comes through.

With games  the industry still in its infancy (or moving at of it), it really hasn't gotten to a point where all the facets in a game are as cohesive as film is. So its hard to call a single game art in that sense. Plus it needs old dudes like Ebert to die off so we get to a progressive point where 60 year olds are reminiscence about making fat loot and headshots and shit. Videyagames

BlueTsunami calls for Ebert's death in the name of the "Video Games Are Art" cause.  More at 11.

THERE WILL BE BLOOD. NO ONE UNDERMINES THE GRAPHICAL AND WRITTEN ACHIEVEMENTS OF METAL GEAR SOLID 4: GUNS OF THE PATRIOTS™

[Himu]

Film editing is an artistic process that films invented. Name something that video games have done that no art form before them were able to achieve with similar results.

They allow you to control an avatar. Though that doesn't make it art by default.

Except everything is predetermined anyway. You're not adding anything to the game; all that you do in a game is something various individuals spent months animating and designing. It is basically a movie with choose -your-own-endings; you may choose the ending, but the ending itself is not something you added to in any way.

This argument is futile as doing various things in games does change results. if you play Silent Hill 2 at really low health, you get an ending where the character ends up drowning himself. If you heal constantly and make sure you're good to go, you end up with an ending where he overcomes his struggles and continues to live on.

In other mediums, the result is always the same. So I don't know what you're even arguing.

[The Dark Shake 3000]

Games can be art, guys. That is not what I am arguing.

Holy fucking Christ.

[Ichirou]

Yes, but those endings were all programmed by individuals who spent months designing which endings were determined by which paths you took and whatnot.  Which was Shake's point.

I mean, by that reasoning, Choose Your Own Adventure books are artistic as well, since doing things in various of those books changes the endings you get.

[The Dark Shake 3000]

Film editing is an artistic process that films invented. Name something that video games have done that no art form before them were able to achieve with similar results.

They allow you to control an avatar. Though that doesn't make it art by default.

Except everything is predetermined anyway. You're not adding anything to the game; all that you do in a game is something various individuals spent months animating and designing. It is basically a movie with choose -your-own-endings; you may choose the ending, but the ending itself is not something you added to in any way.

This argument is futile as doing various things in games does change results. if you play Silent Hill 2 at really low health, you get an ending where the character ends up drowning himself. If you heal constantly and make sure you're good to go, you end up with an ending where he overcomes his struggles and continues to live on.

In other mediums, the result is always the same. So I don't know what you're even arguing.

But what are you actually creating? If you think your choices actually effect the content of the game then

You realize stealing a car in Grand Theft Auto is not something the game spontaneously does when you want it to, right? People took time rendering that and making sure you could steal that car if you wanted to. You are not suddenly making the game do something it is not pre-programmed to do.

EDIT - Thank you, Ichi. For a second I thought I was literally losing my mind

[drew]

Holy fucking Christ.

christ fucking and or being fucked (maybe a gravy train of some sort) could be considered art

[etiolate]

Not really Ichi. A choose your own adventure book will play itself out with only a passive audience.  Much like post-ironic net behavior, videogames bring the audience on stage. Every moment can be a choice. A book only requires you to turn the page, and if you if you fail then you die(in the choose your own adventure). Not that those books don't have some correspondence to games. It's just that in games the page turning is the story, is the art.

[The Dark Shake 3000]

Not really Ichi. A choose your own adventure book will play itself out with only a passive audience.  Much like post-ironic net behavior, videogames bring the audience on stage. Every moment can be a choice. A book only requires you to turn the page, and if you if you fail the you die(in the choose your own adventure). Not that those books don't have some correspondence to games. It's just that in games the page turning is the story, is the art.

Except those choices are still pre-determined. Do you really think any ending you get in a game wasn't animated and rendered beforehand?

Do you know how games work?

[Himu]

Himu: Interactivity is not something created by games.

Immersion isn't something created by games, but everyone remembers the hallway in Resident Evil where dogs pop out of the fucking windows and every single time when replaying the game, they're wary of that hallway for that same reason even though they know what's going to come.

I think some horror games and adventure games are the few examples of games that could be considered art, because they often evoke an emotional response from the player through that immersion. I'd even go as far as to say that I prefer a horror game to a horror movie. Horror movies don't really do anything for me despite loving them to death. But a good horror game? Oh mama.

When I'm painting, yes, I get immersed. But it's not the same type of immersion as I get when I play Silent Hill 2.

I think that level of immersion can really benefit games in the long run because it's something totally different than what you get from painting or watching a movie since you're the one in control. You can discount it and say "well games aren't the first to do it" but not to this degree, and I think that's worth noting.

Is it an art form? Not really no. But can some games be considered art? Yeah, I think so.

[Himu]

Games can be art, guys. That is not what I am arguing.

Holy fucking Christ.

Oh, then you agree.

[The Dark Shake 3000]

If you think Silent Hill is art, by all means. But video games are not an art form.

Like I said, I am arguing whether games are an art form. If you think a game is art, then it very well could be. But video games as a whole are not an art form. And the game itself is not a work of art.