Games vs. R-Rated Movies

Yesterday, I played San Andreas for the first time, and I was pretty surprised at the adult language and themes. The game has more cursing than all the other videogames ever made combined. Of course, compared to movies, its nothing - the dialogue is pretty much ripped straight from Boyz N The Hood and what not.

HOWEVER, Boyz N The Hood was made like 12 years ago. And that brings me to my point. Movies today are being sanitized for the PG-13 rating, and R is a pariah for even action filmmakers - there's no reason why AvP should've been PG-13 when all the Alien and Predator movies were rated R (at least, I think they were). This is a very bad thing for film in general, as it means director's visions are getting marginalized by the studios to turn in a bigger audience.

So, in this vacuum of films with mature themes and content, will games take their place? Are games like San Andreas and Half-Life 2/Halo 2, which are essentially highly fluid interactive action movies, going to take the place of R-rated gangsta and action movies?

It makes sense to me, and it means that videogames will become more attractive and accessible to the audience at large - adults will increasingly lack films that are made and marketed for them, and will in turn start to play videogames for them.

Opinions?

What's interesting to me is the seemingly inverted agendas the two industries have. Filmmakers and producers aim for the lowest common denominator and do everything they can to bring it down to a PG-13, while game developers strive to come up with new ways to make their games "edgier, darker, and more adult" in order to boost their sales.

Perhaps it's the availability of the games in addition to the lowered production cost compared to movies. They may be able to afford targeting a specific audience, like with GTA:SA. Film production, however, involves millions upon millions in production, casting and marketing, so it's understandable that they make it as accessible as possible.

There's still one major difference between the movie and video game industries and that's with regards to nudity. Seeing a pair of tits in an R-rated Hollywood movie is commonplace while in M-rated video games it isn't. I think that will change though as first-parties no longer forbid it. It's the final self-censorship hurdle of the gaming industry.

I don't know if games even need to fill this "gap" left by the lack of R-rated movies. An R-rating, or an M-Rating are not synonymous with sophistication, which is what the person who started this threat seems to be implying. Some of the best movies ever made clock in with some sort of PG rating. I think if anything, it's the film industry that has evolved at this point. 10-15 years ago movies were littered with cheesy Jean Claude Van Damme, Sylvester Stallone, and Steven Seagal action flicks that were ultra-violent, and guaranteed to get an R-rating. Now we see far less of these, and a more liberal smattering of half-way intelligent films, and much of the time people are more willing to go see them these days. On the otherhand, there are a lot of M-Rated games coming out these days that are now the ultra-violent titles, usually with a cheesy story. I really don't think that's a good thing.

Also, I'm not too keen on games' primary focus being on subject matter, be it dark, gritty, edgy, or otherwise, as this often is far to closely tied to the need for a narrative, which in turn makes it very likely that there will be sizeable amounts of storytelling in a game, thus slowing the pace of a game. If I want a movie I'll go see one. If I want to play a game, something which is supposed to be an interactive experience, I'll generally try to find a title that has me playing more than watching, and if story elements are necessary, hopefully I can get them in the least invasive way possible.

Really, one of the worst things to happen to games in the last 7 or 8 years is that people started to put focus on the question, "What is the game about?" and only after that asking, "What do you do in the game?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeoZeedeater

Seeing a pair of tits in an R-rated Hollywood movie is commonplace while in M-rated video games it isn't

---

Would you have expected a game with the language and shit of San Andreas just three years ago? The themes and content of videogames is evolving far faster than even I thought possible, and Im an optimist in general.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prome

I don't know if games even need to fill this "gap" left by the lack of R-rated movies. An R-rating, or an M-Rating are not synonymous with sophistication, which is what the person who started this threat seems to be implying. Some of the best movies ever made clock in with some sort of PG rating. I think if anything, it's the film industry that has evolved at this point.

---

Something will fill this gap, because there's a market for it. With regards to sophistication, I agree, but also its good to have games which have themes and content geared towards older people. This is an argument that pops up endlessly, especially when dealing with Nintendo fanboys who insist games should be all fruity colors and happy pastels and dark themes dont make a game good - this is self-obvious. The trick is, what does a game do with those dark themes? And recently, the past two years or so, theyve done a lot more than they have in the past. Its really encouraging.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prome

Really, one of the worst things to happen to games in the last 7 or 8 years is that people started to put focus on the question, "What is the game about?" and only after that asking, "What do you do in the game?"

---

Games now let you do far more, and in far better ways, than they did 7 or 8 years ago. San Andreas and Half-Life 2 are probably the 2 most interactive games ever. Judged in that way, their subject matter is irrelevant.

Everyone is getting lax these days. 5 years ago I would have never expected to hear the word Bitch on TV. Now they sling it all over the place. Bitch that, bitch this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Would you have expected a game with the language and shit of San Andreas just three years ago? The themes and content of videogames is evolving far faster than even I thought possible, and Im an optimist in general.

---

A few years ago I thought it was pretty funny that kids were playing the demo of The Getaway in EB with the volume on loud with the guy yelling "Fuck!" in a British accent for all the parents nearby to hear.

I do think gaming will catch up with all with pretty much every theme in other mediums. Things have been moving so fast lately in gaming and I love it. Even when I was a kid I wanted gaming to be more adult, more like it is now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Im an optimist in general.

---

I think that the gaming industry will get to the point where M rated games are the true equivalent of R rated movies. We've already seen some T rated stuff get away with both language and adult themes (Shenmue comes to mind instantly), and with the bar being raised for that stuff in gaming as a whole, it'll definitely trickle down into more T rated stuff, which will work for others, and will likely fail for those whose work is being harmed by it.

I've seen comparisons drawn between gaming now and the movie industry 30+ years ago, and they're quite apt. We've got a long way to go in terms of storytelling, and there are still far too few genuinely compelling gaming tales, but we're on the right track.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeremy

I've seen comparisons drawn between gaming now and the movie industry 30+ years ago, and they're quite apt.

---

30 years ago, the movie industry was at its peak. Its all been downhill since then. I highly doubt you would say the same about videogames.

More accurately, game developers have come to grips with the technology, the audience and what they want, and the fact that they're not supermen that can do it all. They hire writers to write dialogue, actors to do the voice work (instead of just letting the janitor do it - quite common in the 32-bit days if you remember), and so forth.

Because of this, you get the kind of leap from GTA3 to San Andreas (yea, GTA3 had good voice work but the dialogue and story was horrible).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

30 years ago, the movie industry was at its peak. Its all been downhill since then. I highly doubt you would say the same about videogames.

---

explain how 1974 was the best year for movies, ever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

So, in this vacuum of films with mature themes and content, will games take their place? Are games like San Andreas and Half-Life 2/Halo 2, which are essentially highly fluid interactive action movies, going to take the place of R-rated gangsta and action movies?

---

They can never actually "take their place" because video games and movies are inherently different. What I mean is that what I get out of playing a video game and what I get out of watching a movie are very different things, and I think most people would agree with this.

So just because I'm getting a whole bunch of gore and violence and nudity in a video game, I'm not going to all of a sudden not want to see the same thing in a movie (if it's called for in the movie, of course). It doesn't make me feel better about the fact that producers and directors feel the need to make everything so accesible nowadays at the cost of good and realistic content.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OmniGear

They can never actually "take their place" because video games and movies are inherently different. What I mean is that what I get out of playing a video game and what I get out of watching a movie are very different things, and I think most people would agree with this.

So just because I'm getting a whole bunch of gore and violence and nudity in a video game, I'm not going to all of a sudden not want to see the same thing in a movie (if it's called for in the movie, of course). It doesn't make me feel better about the fact that producers and directors feel the need to make everything so accesible nowadays at the cost of good and realistic content.

---

However, will it get to the point where people understand that if you want something with mature themes and content, you have to turn to videogames because movies are sanitized?

I believe so. Its happening now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

However, will it get to the point where people understand that if you want something with mature themes and content, you have to turn to videogames because movies are sanitized?

I believe so. Its happening now.

---

Eh, I think you're exaggerating how sanitized the movie industry really is in the first place. We still have hordes of horror movies coming out that, while they tend to be crap, still manage to cram in a decent amount of gore and violence.

There will always be directors like Quentin Tarantino who just want to tell a realistic story. About killing people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Yesterday, I played San Andreas for the first time, and I was pretty surprised at the adult language and themes. The game has more cursing than all the other videogames ever made combined. Of course, compared to movies, its nothing - the dialogue is pretty much ripped straight from Boyz N The Hood and what not.

HOWEVER, Boyz N The Hood was made like 12 years ago. And that brings me to my point. Movies today are being sanitized for the PG-13 rating, and R is a pariah for even action filmmakers - there's no reason why AvP should've been PG-13 when all the Alien and Predator movies were rated R (at least, I think they were). This is a very bad thing for film in general, as it means director's visions are getting marginalized by the studios to turn in a bigger audience.

So, in this vacuum of films with mature themes and content, will games take their place? Are games like San Andreas and Half-Life 2/Halo 2, which are essentially highly fluid interactive action movies, going to take the place of R-rated gangsta and action movies?

It makes sense to me, and it means that videogames will become more attractive and accessible to the audience at large - adults will increasingly lack films that are made and marketed for them, and will in turn start to play videogames for them.

Opinions?

---

Movies, on the whole, are far better devices in which stories are told. Most videogame stories that start out cool end up like Halo, in which loose ties to philosophy ruin the experience by overshooting their bounds. Also, games still use movies to tell their own stories in the form of cutscenes. This is why the Halflife series is so revolutionary and still is to this day. It storytells in a whole new manner, and in a manner that can only be done in its particular medium. It's an experience you truly cannot get outside of a videogame.

So no, I don't think they will replace them. Perhaps ride aside them if game makers learn how to tell a decent story through their own device, but not replace them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prome

Really, one of the worst things to happen to games in the last 7 or 8 years is that people started to put focus on the question, "What is the game about?" and only after that asking, "What do you do in the game?"

---

VERY interesting and good point. Get yourself an avatar and change your custom status. Posts like this earn you more than simple noob status.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrew

Get yourself an avatar and change your custom status. Posts like this earn you more than simple noob status.

---

Indeed :tu:

Videogames (and they really should be called something else, since the term 'game' is a heavily loaded word) as a linear narattive is a complete waste of the medium. You may as well just make a movie out of it (no Xenosaga jokes, please), except then one would quickly realize that the narrative does not hold up. It is interesting only because it is wrapped in a new shiny gimmick, where you have to senselessly beat on 100 slimes or solve some lateral-thinking puzzle to get the next part of the story.

Half-Life (2) is well-regarded because it is one of the few 'games' to get this -- even while having a completely linear progression. Everything happens around the player; the game is all about the player's experiences, not what some writer or designer prescribes to you.

The odd thing is, games that are normally thought of as having nothing in the way of narrative (sports games, fighting games, etc.) make much better use of it. These games still have a story to them, a narrative and a flow, but they are dictated only by the rules of the game and the actions of the players.

-Dippy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IronPlant

Everyone is getting lax these days. 5 years ago I would have never expected to hear the word Bitch on TV. Now they sling it all over the place. Bitch that, bitch this.

---

I'd say the opposite for movies. I remember Revenge of the Nerds showing bush, and a lot more 80's movies, at least percentage wise of R's, showing boobs.

There is seems to be some very subtle shitting on jrpgs in this thread. Despite a lot of jrpgs beating you over the head with moral lessons like "ZOMG IF WE WORK TOGETHER WE CAN DO ANYTHING XD !!111!!!!" I still think credit needs to be given to them for doing a few things movies can't.

They offer the player the ability to see a greater amount of the story’s world. They also allow the viewer to get to know the characters involved in the story a lot better than a movie can.

When movies try to do the former they fall flat on their face. Many would say that is exactly where george lucas has went wrong with the newest installments to the Star Wars franchise in that he tries way to hard to show the viewers larger and larger amounts of the world, instead of telling a good story.

The problem with J-RPGs isn't the large world to explore, it's that the story forces you to go through the whole thing. Personally, I'd love a more compacted story taking place on a segment of the world, with the rest of it open to explore if I want to. I still love a good RPG but I just can't commit to the 60+ hours they want from me, not to mention the story in most of them runs out of steam usually around the 3/4 mark.

Story in games should be as transparent as possible. Games are about doing, and every time I watch a cut-scene I'm not doing anything. One of the things GTA gets right is that it's 1% story, 99% gameplay, and the player is almost never rushed into doing story if he doesn't feel like it.

As for the mature/kiddie content, I just don't worry about it any more. I love Katamari Damacy, I love GTA:SA. Movies getting wussier and wussier over the years doesn't really enter into it, annoying as it is.

James

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James

The problem with J-RPGs isn't the large world to explore, it's that the story forces you to go through the whole thing. Personally, I'd love a more compacted story taking place on a segment of the world, with the rest of it open to explore if I want to. I still love a good RPG but I just can't commit to the 60+ hours they want from me, not to mention the story in most of them runs out of steam usually around the 3/4 mark.

---

I would like to see something like that made. The entire "OMG EVIL DARK GOD, we must beat HIM WITH GREAT JUSTICE, and HEART" is getting tired.

And why hasn't there been a jrpg about being evil and taking over the world? It is fucking obvious, and everyone would buy it, so WHY, WHY has it not been made yet?

The RPG Maker RPG was exciting to me for exactly that reason, as you played as something other than the conquering hero.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prome

I don't know if games even need to fill this "gap" left by the lack of R-rated movies. An R-rating, or an M-Rating are not synonymous with sophistication, which is what the person who started this threat seems to be implying....(and everything else he said).

---

Yeah. Case closed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James

As for the mature/kiddie content, I just don't worry about it any more. I love Katamari Damacy, I love GTA:SA. Movies getting wussier and wussier over the years doesn't really enter into it, annoying as it is.

---

I agree. I've always thought the "mature" label for games ratings was funny for a lot of reasons. But it seems like to me that people that are actually mature aren't going to be bothered if a fun game has fruity/girly/kiddish presentation. I guess the name implies that you have to be "matured" enough to not feel the urge to kill people after doing it in a game.

And Diffx, the only truth to your whole movie example is that most studios are spineless and ensure that certain "money-maker" movies either get a PG-13 for a wider audience or sometimes trim bits from an R movie so it won't get slapped with an unshowable NC-17. That definitely is stupid as hell, but the real problem is that most of those movies (moreso for the PG-13 scenario) suck so much in the first place. AVP would have been shit even if it was rated R (but probably a bit more entertaining). As far as "mature themes and adult content" in movies goes, there's just as many as ever, if not more than ever, and I don't think Hollywood has ever been the place to look for them anyway.

I don't know if games will ever catch up, but even if they do it would have to be almost solely to enhance the atmosphere and immersion, like in Half Life 2. I really love Metal Gear Solid, and think its admirable that Kojima tries to put meaning into his games, but on the other hand I can't imagine playing a video game and then having really profound cutscenes in between at the same level as a classic movie. I really have no idea whether or not games could ever break away from being pure escapism and have some kind of provocative reaction the same as the best movies or literature, but if so it's really far off and I don't think you could get there through jumping platforms and then watching a cutscene.

Paul Anderson should indeed have gone for an R with AvP, especially when Quentin Tarantino just went hog wild with Kill Bill.

Capcom didn't hold back when they made the still-excellent arcade game- aliens get splatted really nice, and the infectoids make a good mess when you take them down. A unaltered consumer port of it would be an M title for certain.

Mature content is needed only if it is crucial to the game's theme. In a Rayforce type shooter, an F-bomb in the radio chatter would be truly gratuitous and not necessary. When Sega cut the strong language from Silpheed for its Sega CD localization, it didn't dampen my enjoyment of the game. OTOH, Mortal Kombat would be "just another" fighting game without the gore.

In Street Fighter III, I can live without hearing Alex take the Lord's name in vain after being felled with a Jab- it doesn't affect the game play. Just saying "Damn" instead would've been fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Because of this, you get the kind of leap from GTA3 to San Andreas (yea, GTA3 had good voice work but the dialogue and story was horrible).

---

It's prolly just me, but I liked the story rom GTA3 a hell of a lot more than a lot of other games, including VC.

Btw., good topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James

Story in games should be as transparent as possible. Games are about doing, and every time I watch a cut-scene I'm not doing anything. One of the things GTA gets right is that it's 1% story, 99% gameplay, and the player is almost never rushed into doing story if he doesn't feel like it.


James

---

This is what helped me decide between GTA:SA and MGS3.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx, Nov. 2004

http://www.the-nextlevel.com/board/s...ad.php?t=32877

...

San Andreas has an amazing scope that has never been seen before in games, and it nails it.

...

GTA is an awesome, superbly executed action game with tons of shit. You really havent seen action games like that. And plus... man, San Andreas is an amazing sequel. They added and changed and improved every little bit of the game. It really is stunning.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx, Dec. 26, 2004

Yesterday, I played San Andreas for the first time

---

OH NOES! OCELOT IS DEAD! TIME PARADOX


Uh, anyway, I think the neutering of movie content contributes more to DVD sales of "unrated" versions than to game sales. You could make the arguement that more quality R-rated movies could drive up the demand for action games with explicit content, instead of one substituting for another. I remember when people raised a stink over Spielburg's decision to make Medal of Honor T-rated. Private Ryan definitely created a demand for a game with content as explicit as the movie.

Bet you had to break out the detective kit for that one.

I didnt need to play San Andreas to know it was the top dawg. :tu:

Y'know, the industry seems to be almost through the whole habit of putting blood and gore into games- Violent games of the 90's mostly seemed to use the violence to sell copies on shock value. Violent games of today use violence more as a means to further immersion in the story/atmosphere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by salmonax

OH NOES! OCELOT IS DEAD! TIME PARADOX

---

Awesome

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

I didnt need to play San Andreas to know it was the top dawg. :tu:

---

...so on that note, have you ever played a Nintendo game in the last 5 years? Or do you just assume they suck because of all the pretty colors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zerodash

Violent games of today use violence more as a means to further immersion in the story/atmosphere.

---

POP1's atmosphere > POP2's atmosphere

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IronPlant

explain how 1974 was the best year for movies, ever.

---

What a great question, I wonder why no one has answered it. ?

http://www.npr.org/dmg/dmg.php?prgCo...ref=WM&getAd=1

I heard MY MOMMA CRY


....THE NIGHT CHICAGO DIED...

Joy Division did a version of Seasons in the Sun that kicks a fair chunk of ass. It's like a midas touch designed specifically to turn shit into gold.

Anyone remember what the original topic was?

James

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tacos por Pepe

http://www.npr.org/dmg/dmg.php?prgCo...ref=WM&getAd=1

---

WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH THAT GUY!?

I'd punch him in the face if I could.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IronPlant

What a great question, I wonder why no one has answered it. ?

---

Not 1974 in particular, but the 1970s in general are considered the best for movies. Filmmakers were unafraid to take risks and did not worry about dumbing down movies for the general audience at large, and you had a time when mature, complex films were successful both critically and commercially. It was also a time when filmmakers, after honing their craft for 40+ years, had a wide array of tools to use. The Godfather I & II, Taxi Driver, Apocalypse Now, The Exorcist, Mean Streets, Patton, Chinatown, Star Wars, Deer Hunter, etc. Lots of really brave, adventurous, innovative filmmaking going on at that time that you just dont see nowadays.

I saw all those 70's movies on Betamax or as re-releases in the 80's. There were so many damn good movies in the '70's its pretty incredible. Even popcorn movies like Close Encounters and Jaws were pretty incredible.


(Also, 70's porn movies like Taboo II are great. download them.)

70's gaming - Sweet!

http://www.pong-story.com/pics/vm/vmlogo.jpg

The '70s were awesome for movies but just like video games some concepts have been improved upon over time so you can't just say everything was superior then. Crouching Tiger(among others) is a better martial arts movie today than Enter the Dragon currently is. There is no '70s equivalent of Lord of the Rings either.

1930-40's movies > everything else. Go and find some of the "Thin Man" movies on DVD and see why.

Taboo was one of the weirdest porns ever. It begins with some chick slitting her wrists and bleeding to death in a bathtub.

No wait, that was the Devil in Miss Jones...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeoZeedeater

There is no '70s equivalent of Lord of the Rings either.

---

But what about the animated version of Lord of the Rings that came out in the 70s? That was pure gold! Gold I say! :p

Part of what made the 70s great for movies is that the studio system broke down, as the old movie moguls gave way to corporate buyouts of studios. There was confusion about what direction to take during this time of transition, so a lot of young upstarts like Scorcese, Lucas, DePalma and Coppola go to do high profile projects they'd never get approval for if the old guard were still running the studios.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Not 1974 in particular, but the 1970s in general are considered the best for movies. Filmmakers were unafraid to take risks and did not worry about dumbing down movies for the general audience at large, and you had a time when mature, complex films were successful both critically and commercially. It was also a time when filmmakers, after honing their craft for 40+ years, had a wide array of tools to use. The Godfather I & II, Taxi Driver, Apocalypse Now, The Exorcist, Mean Streets, Patton, Chinatown, Star Wars, Deer Hunter, etc. Lots of really brave, adventurous, innovative filmmaking going on at that time that you just dont see nowadays.

---

Hmm, I would still say your orginal statement is debatable. BUT, if you were to say "it was the best period for film makers" I would agree. They don't get the same freedom they once did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prome

But what about the animated version of Lord of the Rings that came out in the 70s? That was pure gold! Gold I say! :p

---

I don't know about that. LOTR should have been longer. More artsy fartsy long shots of action and stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Not 1974 in particular, but the 1970s in general are considered the best for movies. Filmmakers were unafraid to take risks and did not worry about dumbing down movies for the general audience at large, and you had a time when mature, complex films were successful both critically and commercially. It was also a time when filmmakers, after honing their craft for 40+ years, had a wide array of tools to use. The Godfather I & II, Taxi Driver, Apocalypse Now, The Exorcist, Mean Streets, Patton, Chinatown, Star Wars, Deer Hunter, etc. Lots of really brave, adventurous, innovative filmmaking going on at that time that you just dont see nowadays.

---

Thank you Roger Ebert.

Part of the reason the 70s movies are deified is b/c all those movies were the movies the powerful generation of today (ppl in middle age who shape opinion) grew up on. I'd be willing to bet that if Martin Scorcese, Roger Ebert, Francis Ford Coppola, Steven Spielberg and all the 'important/serious' actors hadn't made/cut-their-teeth/grew-up-with 70s movies they wouldn't been seen in the light they are today. There are a ton of other reasons too (sandwiched b/w the 60s/80s make that decade look really good), including the fact that there were some really awesome movies, the creative explosion following the studio system and an entire generation of really talented/serious actors/directors/writers came into their own.

Anyways.

Part of the reason Hollywood turned away from Seagal-type action movies was that there wasn't any money in it. Shrek, Toy Story and other G rated movies make TONS of money b/c the whole family goes. Hollywood finally latched on to this and started toning down the violence/sex to get Mom/Dad into the seats (ever wonder why Independence Day, Spider-Man and all the other summer blockbusters shoot for PG-13?).

Anyways. (again)

But Hollywood isn't just about the money (see: the Oscars). Hollywood is comprised of two types of ppl: suits (and creators) that want the cashola, and artists that want to be recognized for their artistic talents. The videogame industry is cultivating a similar...um, culture. But whereas movies see this division along budgetary lines, videogames are beginning to feel this on a more fundamental level.

Videogaming is trying to decide if it will become an art form or not. On one hand, creators like Valve make games like Half-Life that, while not art, are clearly moving in that direction. On the other, companies like EA make games like Madden that don't pretend to be art and are actively moving away from that direction. Sports games, racers, fighters and even certain types of shooters are about 'having fun' first and 'honing teh_skillz' second. This type of game development resembles Monopoly. Fun. But not art.

Creators w/in the industry are themselves trying to figure out which camp they belong in (all while trying to keep a paycheck and often moving from company to company). Rockstar has found itself in a weird place. They create edgy, profane content that sells like gangbusters. This isn't all that surprising when the videogame market consists of 16-34yo males. Leaving aside whether dropping F bombs = Art, games will definitely mimic movies re: content...as the industry matures and is no longer dominated by 16-34yo males (we're already seeing this a bit in game length - 40hr/week workers don't want to play a game for 100 hrs - they want 8-10hrs of entertainment).

Anyways.

Great topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Meach

Videogaming is trying to decide if it will become an art form or not. On one hand, creators like Valve make games like Half-Life that, while not art, are clearly moving in that direction. On the other, companies like EA make games like Madden that don't pretend to be art and are actively moving away from that direction. Sports games, racers, fighters and even certain types of shooters are about 'having fun' first and 'honing teh_skillz' second. This type of game development resembles Monopoly. Fun. But not art.

---

Did I miss something where both types of media can not co-exist? Unlike its predecessors, the tools that videogames are created with can manyapplications. That is like saying a book can not be art because non-fiction books whose sole purpose is to inform exist.

(This may be just a semantic issue, really -- in that the question being asked is if videogames are a medium where art can be produced, and not if videogames are an artform. It may seem silly, but I think there is an important distinction there.)

-Dippy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Movies today are being sanitized for the PG-13 rating, and R is a pariah for even action filmmakers - there's no reason why AvP should've been PG-13 when all the Alien and Predator movies were rated R (at least, I think they were). This is a very bad thing for film in general, as it means director's visions are getting marginalized by the studios to turn in a bigger audience.

---

There is nothing wrong with this. At all.

Director's visions? :lol:

All those movies being 'dumbed down' for mass audience consumption? Cut-and-paste plots written by one screenwriter after another, then cycled through various focus groups and cleansed of anything offensive to be...consumed by fat Americans in air-conditioned theaters who are just looking for a way to waste a few hours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diff

So, in this vacuum of films with mature themes and content, will games take their place? Are games like San Andreas and Half-Life 2/Halo 2, which are essentially highly fluid interactive action movies, going to take the place of R-rated gangsta and action movies?

---

Let's hope not. R-rated gangsta/action movies are for 16yo males that think that stuff is cool (which it totally is). Hopefully games will become art and not just interactive, violent versions of Monopoly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diff

adults will increasingly lack films that are made and marketed for them, and will in turn start to play videogames for them.

---

I don't think adults are lacking films made/marketed for them. Again, violence/profanity are the reserve of adolescents, not adults. And currently the independent movie culture is seeing a great revival lately (thx Miramax) that caters exclusively to adults.

Videogames are not catering to thinking/mature adults b/c they can't (or won't). Why not? B/c creators are either convinced games are supposed to be glorified versions of Monopoly or they don't have the tools to implement their vision. Yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dipstick

Did I miss something where both types of media can not co-exist? Unlike its predecessors, the tools that videogames are created with can manyapplications. That is like saying a book can not be art because non-fiction books whose sole purpose is to inform exist.

---

Both approaches to the medium can co-exist (see: movies). But only if the artistic approach flourishes and survives. Comic books went through a similar phase where they were just escapist garbage. Some comics became art. But the medium (as a whole) is stuck in superhero-ville and has not broken out of the chrysalis of kitsch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dipstick

the question being asked is if videogames are a medium where art can be produced, and not if videogames are an artform. It may seem silly, but I think there is an important distinction there.)

---

Videogames are a medium where art might be produced. But no art has been produced yet. I'm going to go ahead and flame one of my all-time favorite game devs but it needs saying in this discussion. <flame>If the Blizzard approach to games becomes ultra-dominant, no art will come of videogaming</flame>

There is a very important distinction there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Meach

Let's hope not. R-rated gangsta/action movies are for 16yo males that think that stuff is cool (which it totally is). Hopefully games will become art and not just interactive, violent versions of Monopoly.

---

And how do you prosose games will become art?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Meach

Videogames are a medium where art might be produced. But no art has been produced yet. I'm going to go ahead and flame one of my all-time favorite game devs but it needs saying in this discussion. <flame>If the Blizzard approach to games becomes ultra-dominant, no art will come of videogaming</flame>

There is a very important distinction there.

---

Why is Blizzard the antithesis of art in the videogame industry?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OmniGear

And how do you prosose games will become art?

---

Good question! :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OmniGear

Why is Blizzard the antithesis of art in the videogame industry?

---

"Easy to learn, hard to master."

The_Blizz's motto sums up their creative vision. Their "ouevre" consists of competitive games that resemble sport. They make games that are easily accessible, fun to play and reward the dedicated gamer. The idea that something can be 'mastered' is not an artistic idea. Does one ever really 'master' a work of art? Of course not. One wrestles endlessly with what it means for oneself and for his fellow man.

Art, in its arduous, redemptive manner, tells us what it means to be human.

Art, in terms of certain things being defined as such, is also highly subjective.

I'm of the opinion that if photos of naked poop-smeared college students can be widely accepted as art, a lot of videogames should definitely be accepted as such.

The problem with "games as art" is that I play a game for entertainment, not deep thoughts. The story in a game shouldn't be art, it's just there to provide motivation for the action of the player. The look of a game, though artistic, is once again there to serve the action. About the closest parallel I can think of is dance, which is human action as art, but the real trick with a game is to make the player the dancer.

James

Well, we already have game snobs.

It's kind of like calling cooking art. It's artistic, and requires a ton of creativity, but I don't think I'll be considering the infinite permutations of the human spirit when I chow on a burger. :)

James

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James

The problem with "games as art" is that I play a game for entertainment, not deep thoughts. The story in a game shouldn't be art, it's just there to provide motivation for the action of the player. The look of a game, though artistic, is once again there to serve the action. About the closest parallel I can think of is dance, which is human action as art, but the real trick with a game is to make the player the dancer.

---

I disagree with the notion that games cannot be considered art, considering that creating a video game requires the amalgamation of several art forms. Character and level designs are created by 2-D and 3-D artists, soundtracks are developed by composers and musicians, and the story and dialouge are penned by several screenwriters.

Even if they were there to "provide motivation for the action of the player", I don't see how combining those artistic efforts invalidates the videogame from being art.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bacon McShig

I'm of the opinion that if photos of naked poop-smeared college students can be widely accepted as art, a lot of videogames should definitely be accepted as such.

---

Awesome. So you've validated the sophomoric expressions of artistic failures to...validate your chosen art form? Poop shouldn't be considered art. Videogames are definitely not art. The only difference is that society accepts poop as art (this is a fundamental threshold that must be met for games to eventually become art).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James

The problem with "games as art" is that I play a game for entertainment, not deep thoughts. The story in a game shouldn't be art, it's just there to provide motivation for the action of the player. The look of a game, though artistic, is once again there to serve the action.

---

Exhibit A for why games are not art.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cowdisease

I disagree with the notion that games cannot be considered art, considering that creating a video game requires the amalgamation of several art forms.

---

So does porn.

James is right, the intent is the thing.

The 1970s might have been a good time for American films, but not for films in general. The French, British, Japanese and Italian films of the 50s and 60s are the root of American films of the 70s. Any of those 70s filmmakers will tell you that. But those films you remember from the 70s weren't the biggest back then, and some are still undiscovered. At the time the cinemas were still plagued with disaster movies.

And why do people still think that films and games can even be compared, anyway? I thought we'd realized that the idea of an "interactive movie" was an oxymoron. Games are not films. Films are not games. Video games are like darts or whack-a-mole played on a screen.

Some perspective on how influential M-rated games have become.

There's a difference between Mario jumping on a goomba and seeing it flatten and Mario jumping on a goomba and seeing it's innards squish out.

Quote:

---

In fact, if not for the incredible success of Halo 2 and GTA: San Andreas the industry would have suffered a 21% sales decline in November. These two M-rated titles alone accounted for almost 30% of all sales during November and were responsible for more than $245 million dollars in revenue.

---

Right, the M rating sold the games and not the incredibly high level of quality. Got it.

James

What you all seem to think is that art lies in the creative process, and that it needs to be inherently a human endeavor. Nobody thinks nature is art?

'Art' as we know it is more in perceiving it rather than creating it. Art is something that engages the human imagination, but stays just far away enough from total human comprehension that it KEEPS them wondering. One never comes to fully understand what they see and experience. Art being "understood" or mastered in any way defeats its purpose utterly. Truly, the greatest pieces of art, those that have withstood the test of time, are that way because they continue to engage the human imagination. Were it ever to be understood, interest in it would have dropped long ago.

Video games still have a ways to go in that sense. The very nature of these games is for you to master them, understand them so you can take advantage of your knowledge to complete them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Revoltor

Taboo was one of the weirdest porns ever. It begins with some chick slitting her wrists and bleeding to death in a bathtub.

No wait, that was the Devil in Miss Jones...

---

Surprisingly, I have seen both. Oh, wait it was Taboo 2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TrialSword

What you all seem to think is that art lies in the creative process, and that it needs to be inherently a human endeavor. Nobody thinks nature is art?

'Art' as we know it is more in perceiving it rather than creating it. Art is something that engages the human imagination, but stays just far away enough from total human comprehension that it KEEPS them wondering. One never comes to fully understand what they see and experience. Art being "understood" or mastered in any way defeats its purpose utterly. Truly, the greatest pieces of art, those that have withstood the test of time, are that way because they continue to engage the human imagination. Were it ever to be understood, interest in it would have dropped long ago.

Video games still have a ways to go in that sense. The very nature of these games is for you to master them, understand them so you can take advantage of your knowledge to complete them.

---

Art is inextricably linked to creativity; the artistry of nature is a beautiful argument for the existence of a Creator.

I believe art can be, if not mastered, certainly understood, or at the very least, comprehended. We can understand certain aspects of a piece of art even if we never fully grasp all its mysterious intricacies.