[RLacey]

Originally Posted by ILoveYou

I concider games to be art, something that tells you a story and in ideal situation the game is unique and makes you ponder.

This isn't a criticism per se of your views (honest!), but does that mean that you wouldn't consider Tetris to be a real game? Or Pac Man or Space Invaders, or even Pong?

[Bastich]

Originally Posted by SoccerDude28

There are a few gripes I have with next-gen. First of all, like the developer of ICO said, he is afraid that with better graphics, all the games will start looking the same. The guy from the Behemoth had a very nice analogy. He said would you rather go to a museum and watch real photos, or would you rather see paintings? That's the drawback of having animations that look like real life. All the games are starting to look similar.

This has already happened. Games are about as visually uninteresting as can possibly be for the most part. Part of my love of adventure games comes from the fact that in the early to mid 90's technical limitiations in 2D were lifted, allowing developers to do whatever they wanted, whether through claymation, puppets, cartoons, comics, FMV, or whatever. There were a lot of different visual styles being used.

Now everything looks the same. 3D killed the visual arts because until recently it has been too primitive to allow the freedom to do so.

The real problem now is that games have become too expensive to gamble with so we are stuck with sequelitis and bandwagon syndrome and independent developers (adventure games?) don't have the talent or the balls to do something different.

[sethsez]

Originally Posted by ILoveYou

The originality in games like Doom 3 or F.E.A.R. is... Well there's no originality in them. The graphics are plastic, the whole interface is boring and I honestly cannot find any plot in those games. I concider games to be art, something that tells you a story and in ideal situation the game is unique and makes you ponder. I've discussed this subject with my friend who plays alot of FPS-games yet he enjoys adventure too. His opinion was that games are just games. Nothing to do with art nor originality and their main purpose is to entertain. I disagree strongly with this but I accept the fact that not everyone wants to spend their time wondering what they should do with the current puzzle etc.

Do you have any reason to imply that puzzles are more artistic than action? What makes them so? It's not the first time I've seen this opinion here and for the life of me I can't understand what the justification is beyond "I prefer puzzles to action so puzzles must be more artistic." I understand that "art makes you think" but the thinking in adventure games certainly has more in common with solving a crossword than reading James Joyce.

As for the originality in the graphics, I think it's pretty clear you don't actually understand just what makes Doom 3 tick. The lighting in that game is the graphics, essentially. Every light source is placed with the shadows they'll cast fully in mind, which is why user-made maps have been so ugly in comparison. In terms of in-game lighting, Doom 3 made some huge leaps, both technically and artistically (and for many visual arts lighting is exceedingly important, which is why the advances Doom 3 made matter). Ironically, it seems you're paying attention to the technology rather than what's actually being done with it.

And why does plot matter? Music doesn't have plot. Paintings don't have plot. Sculpture doesn't have plot. Architecture doesn't have plot. Many forms of poetry don't have plot. Photographs don't have plots. Would you argue these things aren't art? Plot is hardly a requirement for art. Of course, this doesn't matter anyway since those games do have plots, albiet basic ones. But I see no reason for a game to require a plot to be art.

You're working from an extremely limited definition of "art" here... one that, in fact, excludes many accepted and established forms of art.

[ILoveYou]

"FOR ME, I CONCIDER, IN MY OPINION". READ & UNDERSTAND before you jump on me! ****ing retards

[sethsez]

"Screw you guys, I'm taking my ball and going home."

Your words aren't being twisted, they're being replied to. If you don't want anybody to reply to something you've said, don't post it in the first place.

[ILoveYou]

Originally Posted by sethsez

"Screw you guys, I'm taking my ball and going home."

Your words aren't being twisted, they're being replied to. If you don't want anybody to reply to something you've said, don't post it in the first place.

No offense but you're just pissed because you think Doom 3 is all that and I concider something else being "all that". Learn to accept other opinions and grow up.

[ILoveYou]

Originally Posted by sethsez

Do you have any reason to imply that puzzles are more artistic than action? What makes them so? It's not the first time I've seen this opinion here and for the life of me I can't understand what the justification is beyond "I prefer puzzles to action so puzzles must be more artistic."

As your attitude is already like this, I really don't feel like even bothering to answer but here it goes... And u have the nerve to say you didn't put words in my mouth...

Originally Posted by sethsez

As for the originality in the graphics, I think it's pretty clear you don't actually understand just what makes Doom 3 tick. The lighting in that game is the graphics, essentially. Every light source is placed with the shadows they'll cast fully in mind, which is why user-made maps have been so ugly in comparison. In terms of in-game lighting, Doom 3 made some huge leaps, both technically and artistically (and for many visual arts lighting is exceedingly important, which is why the advances Doom 3 made matter).

Ummm, yeah. LOL... I don't concider that being very original, sorry.

Originally Posted by sethsez

Ironically, it seems you're paying attention to the technology rather than what's actually being done with it.

Actually, if you read my message, you'd notice that I was speaking about what has been done with it.

Originally Posted by sethsez

And why does plot matter? Music doesn't have plot. Paintings don't have plot. Sculpture doesn't have plot. Architecture doesn't have plot. Many forms of poetry don't have plot. Photographs don't have plots. Would you argue these things aren't art? Plot is hardly a requirement for art. Of course, this doesn't matter anyway since those games do have plots, albiet basic ones. But I see no reason for a game to require a plot to be art.

Music has a theme, it has lyrics. I concider that being a plot. Paintings have a meaning and many of them have a story of their own. Same goes for the rest of your arguments. BTW. If you actually read my message, I said I understand people who like FPS and don't think games need to have a plot/story. So what's your problem? Cuz seriously, you don't have a point there.

Originally Posted by sethsez

You're working from an extremely limited definition of "art" here... one that, in fact, excludes many accepted and established forms of art.

No, not really. You're just having hard time accepting other opinions than the one you have.

[sethsez]

You know, you're the only one being insulting here (while everyone else is, you know, trying to discuss things) so telling me to "grow up" is rather strange. Calm down, you're getting riled up over nothing.

Edit: Ah, and you edited out your insults. Of course, you replaced it with rambling nonsense, but hey.

[ILoveYou]

Originally Posted by sethsez

You know, you're the only one being insulting here (while everyone else is, you know, trying to discuss things) so telling me to "grow up" is rather strange. Calm down, you're getting riled up over nothing.

Edit: Ah, and you edited out your insults.

You're beating a dead horse there. Sorry. Did you actually even read what I wrote? I guess not. I never said I don't concider FPS being art. I said that is what my friend said. READ and UNDERSTAND.

Originally Posted by ILoveYou

His opinion was that games are just games. Nothing to do with art nor originality and their main purpose is to entertain. I disagree strongly with this but I accept the fact that not everyone wants to spend their time wondering what they should do with the current puzzle etc.

[sethsez]

Of course, this was after you said that certain games had no originality, no this, no that, etc. You also said "I concider games to be art, something that tells you a story" and I took issue with this definition, in a civil way with no personal insults. Then you started flipping out because someone disagreed, started namecalling, insulted the board (which you deleted, but it was "**** this board" or something along those lines), and generally started being condescending as hell.

[Rulzern]

Lets see, Quake 4 and Doom 3 are terribly alike, just a few improvements, Painkiller was also clonish, and thos eare the only really new ones I can think of, but like I said before, think about the different time settings.

Doom 3 is scary - Quake 4 is action-packed
Doom 3 is a long-winded story of horror - Quake 4 is "go here, shoot this"
Doom 3 uses light and darkness in a way I have never seen before - Quake 4 doesn't really use light and darkness in any particular way
Doom 3 uses many tricks to make the player feel small and scared - Quake 4 uses many tricks to make the player feel powerful

The graphics are very similar, the engine is basicly the same, and they are both FPS' who are a bit lacking in the story and puzzle department. Don't the similarities stop there?

Back on topic, I agree with the animation comment, but I would also like to say that making life-like or fluid animations, and more so, animation systems, is very very hard and time-consuming. Making the animation systems hasn't become easier the last years, we only have more CPU cycles to throw at it, which isn't really a big bonus in the animation department. I'm looking forward to the day when these systems for manual creation of animations aren't needed in computer games, where a more modular system is applied to make characters make the movements needed to obtain a goal. For example: The goal of the character is to walk, so it has to know to contract it's muscles in a particular fashion to move it's legs, and maintain balance. This is far into the future, and requires vastly superior AI to the industry standard per the status quo though.

[ILoveYou]

[QUOTE=sethsez]

Originally Posted by sethsez

Of course, this was after you said that certain games had no originality, no this, no that, etc. You also said "I concider games to be art, something that tells you a story" and I took issue with this definition, in a civil way with no personal insults. Then you started flipping out because someone disagreed, started namecalling, insulted the board (which you deleted, but it was "**** this board" or something along those lines), and generally started being condescending as hell.

Yeah, the sentence also continued: "in ideal situation" etc. I never said all the FPS-games suck, I mentioned these games because they lacked originality by far when compared to other games like HL2. If you're a Doom 3-fan, then so be it. Just learn to accept that not everyone is.

Yes, I edited. That's because I don't wanna get banned from this board. No, I didn't insult you because you disagreed, I insulted you because you put words in my mouth and twisted them. You obiviosly didn't even read what I wrote, you just took some sentences out from their contex and "disagreed".

[sethsez]

Originally Posted by ILoveYou

If you're a Doom 3-fan

I'm not, because it's a horribly tedious game. But I'm also not going to say that it didn't bring anything new to gaming, because the lighting it offers is a huge step up in creating atmosphere.

[ILoveYou]

Originally Posted by sethsez

I'm not, because it's a horribly tedious game. But I'm also not going to say that it didn't bring anything new to gaming, because the lighting it offers is a huge step up in creating atmosphere.

See, I don't concider that being much of a new thing into the gaming. I might be wrong but honestly, I don't care about lightings and other "great" new elements. It is not my thing. So?

[SoccerDude28]

@Sethez: I really don't consider DOOM 3 as artistry at all. It is all black, with very bland character models. Lightning effects in games are technological advancements not art. I think you are confusing the 2. I would call ICO

art, or a game like Okami

art, both in terms of their graphical style and their emotions. (Okami judging by what I know about it from previews).

Compare these with this:


I personally do not consider black metallic corridors and lighting, and high res normal mapping to be art. Nor did Doom 3 instill any emotion in me while playing it, except that of complete boredom.


And on another note, I don't think we can compare today's market with that of the 90's. In the 90's, games cost about a 100,000 to make, so you only needed a couple 10's of thousands of copies sold to make a profit. Now the numbers are daunting. We are talking about 20 millions in some cases. That is more than what some budget Hollywood movies cost. So for these high profile games, you need to sell millions of copies or you are screwed. That's why Microsoft is trying to get my mother and dad, and possibly yours, and our sisters (if I had a sister) to buy the 360 by luring them with hearts and backgammon. The current demographic of games is not gonna cut it, and the way the games are being built today, I don't see that changing too much.

[ILoveYou]

Thank you. That's what I was after in the first place Thank God someone speaks better english than me

[sethsez]

As I said, I don't consider the lighting in the Doom 3 engine to be art, but rather, I consider how the lighting is used in the game to be art. There are many sections where the placement of items and light sources combined to create some amazingly imposing shadows, and since the actual environment was nothing but dull walls and random offices and such, the lighting really had to pick up the slack (this is the first time in a game that this has really been an issue... the play of light and shadows has a large impact in other visual arts, but since gaming had never really been able to do anything with it, it's just been a forgotten aspect). That's why I brought up user-created levels... they're almost uniformly dull looking, because they have awful lighting, which is what Doom 3 relies on.

Now, that's obviously not to say that Ico or Okami aren't art, because they are. But I don't think that gritty realism is inherantly not artistic. Doom 3 isn't whimsical or off the wall, true, but the placement of light sources and objects to create pools of light and shadow is really a very impressive element of the level design. The engine is impressive due to the fact that it allowed this to be done, but what makes it work is the actual execution. With different levels, it wouldn't have worked as well (and it certainly did fall off about halfway through anyway... that shot is from about 75% through the game).

For an example of what I mean, watch the scene with the introduction of Frank in Blue Velvet. The room is relatively bland, and lit differently the scene wouldn't have worked at all. But by focusing on a few scattered pools of light, the atmosphere is completely changed. Alien is another obvious parallel, where the lighting was more important than the actual sets. I feel that, in the first 25% of the game (and a few scattered areas later on), Doom 3 really did something spectacular with the arrangement of the lights and shadows.

And again... I don't even like Doom 3 as a game. In a way, my arguement ties back into the animation topic. The big picture gets all the attention, while the more subtle aspects that people don't notice but are nonetheless important get ignored.

[Ninja Dodo]

I'll just pitch in and say that like Squarejaw, my complete indifference to next gen games is matched only by the sheer amount of polygons being thrown at their HD screens...

If it wasn't for the promise of the next Nintendo, I'd be worried.

Regarding animation, apart from the obvious need for more attention to detail and character - something like this, I think, is the solution.

[Kolzig]

Originally Posted by Spitfire

I don't know what to say... But yes, the market will crash eventually, every kind of market does eventually. Eventually people WILL get sick of the many Doom 3 clones with extra polygones. And eventually there will be a lack of original ideas and people will probably bring back some older concepts. Like the new james bond game.

It would so awesome if someone were to make a new James Pond game for DS.

[AFGNCAAP]

ILoveYou, reread this thread and ask yourself whether any of the "****ing retards" was indeed twisting your words. You yourself noted that English isn't your first language, and it also isn't for, say, 50% of the board members, so all of us (me included) can relate to that. But with that in mind, I suggest you try to restrain from namecalling if you feel somebody is missing your point entirely, because it may be your fault as much as theirs. Thank you.


It's "consider" by the way.

Back on topic:

SoccerDude, I must agree with sethsez here. The game doesn't have to represent totally unique graphical style to be considered artistic. If Doom 3, and this is coming from someone who has zero interest in this series, uses lightning and shadows in an innovative and effective way, kudos to its makers. To use an analogy, it's like the difference between a unique and grounbreakingly told plot of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and typical, but humane and powerful story of Sideways. Both were awarded an Oscar last year, and both deserved it as they show enormous skill of the screenwriters.