5punk

Ars Technica defends Left Behind, industry grows up a little
Filed under: Culture, PC, Simulations, Strategy, Business
Recently Ben Kuchera of Ars Technica was interviewed about Left Behind: Eternal horses on NPR's All Things Considered and found himself "defending the Christian right." He says Left Behind is being unfairly "demonized," the same way Bully and GTA have been, "We can't pick and choose our fights based on whether or not we agree with what a game says; we must fight for the game's ability to say anything it wants to." And that sound you hear is the industry getting just a little older.

Religion, sex, politics and everything else we've heard "don't belong in games" will be -- or already has been -- incorporated into titles that'll sell millions of copies. As the industry gets older and the average demographic playing them does as well, complex ideas that may offend or challenge will start to pop up. What's thrilling and horrible at the same time is we have to defend the games with messages we agree with as strongly as those we don't. Like movies, music, theater, literature, television and other art, we shouldn't stop the message from being said, just make sure to vote with your wallet on what games you want to see more of.

See also:

• -Metareview -- Left Behind: Eternal horses
  
  -Political groups angry over Left Behind game
  
  -Islamic groups want Left Behind off Wal-Mart shelves

[Via Game Politics]Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

SPONSORED BY: Age of Empires III - Real-Time Strategy Game Control a European power on a quest to colonize and conquer the New World. AOE3 introduces new gameplay elements, as well as new civilizations, units, and technologies. http://www.ageofempires3.com/


Author: Alexander Sliwinski
Category: 1st Amendmentars technicaArsTechnicacontroversyfree speechleft behindtolerance
Read more...

Source: Joystiq
Description: Joystiq

Do you think games should be used as an open ended medium of expressing whatever you want in the same way that film makers and artists have for years?

I have no issue with it, as long as the age restrictions are enforced and set at a reasonable level.

I agree. If gaming is to be taken seriously as an art form (an art form being simply a distillation of a form of entertainment) then it needs to be able to accomodate controvertial material without being put down out of hand from both within and outside the community. As the clip above says, as the industry gets older so does the average age of its consumers and this is vital to opening it up to the controversy and discussion that drives any art form. I think a major hurdle - possibly the most dificult one to overcome - is the widely held belief among non-gamers that gaming is for children. Maybe by encouraging the release of games to specific target audiences such as religous groups then there will be less people who hold this opinion. I suspect though that opinions will only change once a few generations have passed, and it will probably be our children's generation who are comfortable with gaming as a form of entertainment as opposed to a child's toy now who accept it as such in the future.

I can see where arguing gaming as an art-form are coming from, but I wouldn't agree to that, especially the kind of games that are being complained about. Such as GTA, you wouldn't argue that the game is 'art', I'd definitely agree its a way of making a game hella' fun though!
As WEY says, if its age restricted properly (And there's always a way for underage people to get hold of them i.e. the floor) then I think games should be allowed to do more open ended things, to achieve what is more realistic and/or entertaining.

Yeah, calling games art is stretching the term a little because games are essentially functional, but they're no less an art form in that films or music are. That's the point I was trying to make in a rather convoluted way.

Dog Pants wrote:Yeah, calling games art is stretching the term a little because games are essentially functional, but they're no less an art form in that films or music are. That's the point I was trying to make in a rather convoluted way.

My personal take on it is this: Are games art? not yet, but its getting there.

The thing I think a lot of people forget is that, as a medium, computer games are still a pretty fucking new thing. There are still people who would argue as to whether films are art or not, and they have been around since the late 1800's. The fact that games are even at the point where we can consider whether they *are* art or not is impressive, seeing as they have only really been around since the early 80's.

Like DP says, games are (mostly, at the moment) essentially functional. We are beginning to see games that are less obviously "entertainment" and more "arty", but on the whole, it is indeed a bit of a stretch. I think untill we get the game equivalents of, for example, Schindlers List (where the prime motivation isnt whether you enjoy the thing), it cant really be considered as "proper art". No, CoD isnt the same

Course, there is the argument that as its something that is created for reasons other than survival or making life easier/better to live (ie: something that isnt "usefull") then that is, technically, art. Not Fine Art, granted, but still art. Thats heading into the woefull realms of "what is art" though, which is probably a bit deep for 5punk

Damnit Joose, you've made me think and question what I wrote.. (wait, that's the point of this isn't it?)

Going for the classical definition of fine art, there are indeed some very arty games if you think about it, especially if Film is defined as an art form. I for one would think that Half Life 2 was very film like in the way it played out, and the fact that it's storyline very much ran through, especially the idea of 'episodes' of content, like its a film you're participating in.
And you go for these more modern perceptions of art, like that guy (I could look it up) who got hundreds of people to pose naked, for "art", well that's getting people involved into art, much like gaming does. To make the art different for themselves, to be interpreted the way they want.
I guess I was more concentrating on games mentioned by News Reader like GTA, but if you really think about it, Games are getting there, if only the developers weren't hell bent on making every single game about WW3, and make something truly lovely looking just for the sake of it. I would love to see a good game without a violent gameplay. (If anybody knows one, please say now)

pixie pie wrote:I would love to see a good game without a violent gameplay. (If anybody knows one, please say now)

Any decent racing or sports game? Sim City (or arguably The Sims)? Minesweeper? There's plenty of good non-violent games, just not as many as there are good violent ones.

Joose's Schindler's List example has got me thinking; when I was playing the Utah Beach bit of MoH I tried to imagine that every time I died would be a good chance that I would be dead had I actually been there myself. I counted 50+ deaths before I got to the shingle, where I saw those guys being sent off ahead to their almost certain deaths. What if this was made in a similar way in the future, but made more freeform with better AI and as much likelyhood of not making it as the real soldiers that made the original landing? It wouldn't make for a good game - you'd die constantly and unfairly and it would be frustrating in the extreme, but forced to play it a hundred times and you'd get one hell of a better idea of how tough it was for those men, and that's without the fatigue and terror that they experienced. In a similar way to Schindler's List that would be closer to art - not entertaining, but making an uncomfortable point.

Dog Pants wrote:
Any decent racing or sports game? Sim City (or arguably The Sims)? Minesweeper? There's plenty of good non-violent games, just not as many as there are good violent ones.

SimCity has gone fairly down hill since SimCity3000, SimCity4 just didn't grip me, The Sims.. EXPANSIONS, I'm not going there again. And there just isn't the same prettiness in it. I do quite like some strategy, like the Sim City stuff, just the good'uns Civilization etc are mostly violent.


Also, Some of that stuff about making a game like the Utah landings, that's some pretty dark stuff you've got running around in your head DP. Why don't you smell some flowers and sing to yourself for a bit. It'll all disappear. [Read: Smoke some marijuana].

there are some games I have played and thought were amazing bits of art to begin with, WoW I am ashamed to say was one of them, then again there are other games that are more like garfield comics.

Dog Pants wrote:Any decent racing or sports game? Sim City (or arguably The Sims)? Minesweeper? There's plenty of good non-violent games, just not as many as there are good violent ones.

You would have a hell of a job convincing anyone that Minesweeper is Art though. Other than the fruit loops you get in the wierder ends of the art world, anyway.

"Oh, its conceptual daahling! I see the minefield as a metaphor of female sexuality, being explored by the phallic nature inherant in the cursor, the controller, if you will!"

The twats.

As far as non-violent, potentially art games that are actually worth playing are concerned, the first one that comes to my mind is The Longest Journey. The first one, mind. The sequal, coincidentally, added violence, and wasnt anywhere near as good. Hmm.

Dog Pants wrote:Joose's Schindler's List example has got me thinking; when I was playing the Utah Beach bit of MoH I tried to imagine that every time I died would be a good chance that I would be dead had I actually been there myself. I counted 50+ deaths before I got to the shingle, where I saw those guys being sent off ahead to their almost certain deaths. What if this was made in a similar way in the future, but made more freeform with better AI and as much likelyhood of not making it as the real soldiers that made the original landing? It wouldn't make for a good game - you'd die constantly and unfairly and it would be frustrating in the extreme, but forced to play it a hundred times and you'd get one hell of a better idea of how tough it was for those men, and that's without the fatigue and terror that they experienced. In a similar way to Schindler's List that would be closer to art - not entertaining, but making an uncomfortable point.

Thats kinda close to what I mean. That, and the russian river crossing thing (was that in CoD? all these WW2 games kinda blend together in my mind) are possibly the best examples of games making you think. Not quite to the same level as Schindlers list, but getting there.

To be fair to the gaming industry though, if someone did make the game you describe there, with a very definate "war is hell" message, it would have abysmal sales. Because, although the gaming world is certainly maturing fast, I still dont think its at the stage where games that are meaningfull and worthy, but not actually fun, will do well.

pixie pie wrote:SimCity has gone fairly down hill since SimCity3000, SimCity4 just didn't grip me, The Sims.. EXPANSIONS, I'm not going there again. And there just isn't the same prettiness in it. I do quite like some strategy, like the Sim City stuff, just the good'uns Civilization etc are mostly violent.

Just because we don't like The Sims doesn't mean they're not any good - the series is one of the most popular games ever made, so who are we to judge? Personally I wouldn't touch them with yours though.

pixie pie wrote:Also, Some of that stuff about making a game like the Utah landings, that's some pretty dark stuff you've got running around in your head DP. Why don't you smell some flowers and sing to yourself for a bit. It'll all disappear. [Read: Smoke some marijuana].

Just an example based on my past thoughts of gaming experiences. The point is that it's not a game, it's a device made to provoke thought and reaction.

To my eyes, the opening scenes of Enemy at the Gates are virtually identical to the start of the Russian campaign in Call of Duty, or vice versa. You don't get to pork Rachel Weisz in the game, though.

Also, if you haven't seen it, I'd recommend The Longest Day it might have been made in 1962, but it's clear source material for any WW2 game, ever, most obviously the Medal of Honour scenes DP mentioned.

all games are art really, just like exhibitions in galleries that invite the viewer to interact with the piece, regardless of it's content it's still art, the same way both modern art and traditional art are both art.

As all art is essentially derived from some form of entertainment it's very hard to make a distinction. Paintings, film, sculpture all came about to entertain or amuse. What makes it art is down to the individual, I believe. To me Salvador Dali's 'Lobster Telephone' is not art, where as his other works may be. I went to the Tate Modern in London soon after it opened and saw a glass of water on a high shelf. My reaction was to laugh and dismiss it, as in my eyes that is just taking the piss.

Anyway, the closest that I have seen any game approach the status of art is Pathologic. And I found it just as pretentious and boring as a stuffy old art gallery.

Ico and Shadow of the Colossus are also beautiful games which deserve the status of art, as far as games go.

I don't want to enter what is art debate, as frankly I think a lot of art is just pure and utter shit, especially a lot of the modern art pieces in the Tate Modern.

I'm more of a Salvador Dali or Picasso fan myself, as well as the modern day graffiti stuff that Banksy does.

Personally I don't think games are ready to be an outlet for Art yet, as the driving factor behind playing a game is enjoyment through achieving goals/objectives/highscores ..... , and that's going to be hard to change.

Woo Elephant Yeah wrote:Personally I don't think games are ready to be an outlet for Art yet, as the driving factor behind playing a game is enjoyment through achieving goals/objectives/highscores ..... , and that's going to be hard to change.

If a game drops those aspects in order to become "art" I think it would not be a game any more. I believe you can have both and we're already seeing it happen. Another example of how close it's becoming is Okami.

Just because some tw4t with a goatie doesn't think it's art doesn't mean it's not.

I suppose it depends on your definition of a game too. If something is on a computer or console and is interactive is it automatically a game? I would argue that my example isn't because it isn't there to be entertainment as such. I read this morning about a few incidents of so-called games as art displayed at a conference, and while most were just pretty games there was one interesting exception; someone had removed all the obstacles, monsters and suchlike from Super Mario Bros. All you could do was run along until the time expired and you died. I certainly wouldn't class it as a game any more, but (and I don't claim to know anything about art myself) it was being touted as a piece of existentialist (is that right?) art.