[QUOTE="Vaasman"]this is why I have long since stopped bothering to argue anything here. TC has long since established that he has no intention to ever compromise ever on DA2, so why people keep posting these page-long rebuttals is beyond me. All this really does is depress the hell out of me because I seriously find this unflinching defense makes me think worse of the game.JynxzorEh I'm guilty of posting rather lengthy and wordy posts myself but I just find that there were 5 posts under the same name before any other posts rather funny. and they were all long posts. I think Texas has put more thought into the story than the people at BioWare ever did heh, but thats just my opinion. My general opinion is that DA2 failed where it's predicesor did a decent job, the story in DA2 feels far too forced to be in the same series. I guess thats hard to say as it's only the second game in the series but as a spiritual sucessor to baldurs gate "that was BioWare saying that" they seem to have strayed off the beaten path a good bit. I'm sorry to say I didn't really enjoy my romp through Kirkwall as much as I had hoped. Fun game but didn't live up to what I was expecting, everyones got there own opinion and I'm glad I get a chance to hear everyone side of the story. It's when one party feels they are right and everyone else is wrong is when problems start to arise. I just broke Kevin's post into pieces instead of trying to reply to it all at once. And you think David Gaider and his team didn't put much thought into the story? Its clear that they did. Do I think DAII is perfect? No, far from it....and I referenced a review that gave the game a 7/10.
Dragon Age Origins is so grossly overrated its not even funny (series spoilers)
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Hey man your entitled to your opinion I just found the story far better in Origins than I did in 2, personally it felt lackluster and wasn't really wieghty for a Bioware game. Not that it was a terrible story it's not bad actually but when I think of Bioware I think of more dynamic story progression and routes.
It's a crying shame that the characters are fleshed out so well and you spend so little time actually conversing with them, if they wanted to make it about how you drive your team to new paths via rivalry or friendship/romance I feel they should have focuses the actual story progression around your team instead of shoehorning it in on the side almost.
The only characters really affected by the main plot is Varic and your sibling, everyone else is along for the ride or has a predestined goal they could care less about you caring about in the long run.
Because if you aren't willing to give in even a little then this isn't a conversation, it's more akin to banging you head on a wall, or possibly two legless roosters cockfighting. You've only served to root people even further in the ideals that you disagree with.why should I compromise? texasgoldrush
Do me a favor, and say something bad about Dragon Age 2's story.
Hey man your entitled to your opinion I just found the story far better in Origins than I did in 2, personally it felt lackluster and wasn't really wieghty for a Bioware game. Not that it was a terrible story it's not bad actually but when I think of Bioware I think of more dynamic story progression and routes.
It's a crying shame that the characters are fleshed out so well and you spend so little time actually conversing with them, if they wanted to make it about how you drive your team to new paths via rivalry or friendship/romance I feel they should have focuses the actual story progression around your team instead of shoehorning it in on the side almost.
The only characters really affected by the main plot is Varic and your sibling, everyone else is along for the ride or has a predestined goal they could care less about you caring about in the long run.
You can converse with your companions, in the context of the story. In multiple times in their three companion quests, the "Investigate" option lets you learn more about them. Then there are "questioning beliefs" quests, gifts, and some scenes that lets you talk to the characters and learn more about them. This is a better alternative than what past Bioware games did, glorified codex entries in between missions. All the DAO companions did was talk about their past and may have one short quest. And its not like you can talk to them anytime you like. Once they had their 3 conversations and their quest finished, they say absolutely nothing. in ME2...Jacob even says "I am not big on forcing these talks".....how DAII handles characters is better than in the past. Plus, they get three "loyalty missions". Hey, I learned about Isabela's mother, when I gave her a Rivani Talismen. Gifts lets you learn more about your companions. The story in Origins is just not good. Some parts were great, but as a whole, it was an unfocused cliched mess. It also justified the Bioware Cliche Chart and showed how Bioware were reusing plot elements over and over again. It was fine for Jade Empire, but it was telling for DAO. Bioware had to change things up.Because if you aren't willing to give in even a little then this isn't a conversation, it's more akin to banging you head on a wall, or possibly two legless roosters cockfighting. You've only served to root people even further in the ideals that you disagree with.[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"]
why should I compromise? Vaasman
Do me a favor, and say something bad about Dragon Age 2's story.
Just did a while ago...the cameosI also said the sarcastic dialogue is the writings weak link as well.
True dat, at least the story in Dragon Age 2 was original, unlike the half-assed The Lord of Rings ripoff story in Dragon Age: Origins.
And having said that, the only character that I liked in Dragon Age 2 was Varric.
A) You don't have to agree with me but personally as far as the main story goes "if you can even call it the main plot" your team is pretty nuetral to the situation and are effected by it only by association of your main characters morals as they will stick with you if you play your conversation cards right and if not they just sit it out. B) Again if they wanted your characters to take more focus I feel the interaction was limited at best, sure it was better than Origins but it was still lackluster as to what it could have been. I still think the story should have revolved around your team more if it was meant to be a more central theme of the game otherwise it feels half-assed to me.Jynxzor
A) DAO is far worse at this....if you think they will disapprove, do not bring them into the party and nothing happens. The only thing that will anger a party member if she is not in the party is destroying the ashes. Leliana will get upset back at camp and you have to persuade her to stay. in DAII, you are encouraged to max out there friendship or rivalry.
B) It actually doesn't. It revolves around Hawke and the city of Kirkwall more. I found that non companions such as Leandra and Gamlen Amell, Cullen, the Viscount, Petrice, and the Grand Cleric were nearly as important as the companions.
And DAII while a traditional narrative, is not a traditional VIDEO GAME narrative. There is actually obstacles and adversity, but instead of these being created by an antagonist, its created by human nature...and in DAII's case, the human nature to fight over ideals, for money, and even killings done by people gone mad, such as Bartrand. The antagonist of DAII is the darkest side of human nature, and this dark side of human nature is in both the antagonists and the companions.
And unlike most stories, this antagonist wins. The city of Kirkwall falls into chaos and bloodshed because all the hatred, distrust, and extremism boil over. That is the point of the game. Instead of being a heroic story about how a hero overcomes evil or adversity, its a descent into hell with Hawke and company caught in the middle or even participating. Some of Hawkes actions even escalate things.
Think of it like a Cormac McCarthy work, where in some of his novels, the dark side of human nature is proven when the protagonists are either killed or broken. Look at No Country For Old Men...and that film won Oscar for Best Picture.
texasgoldrush
You make it sound like DA2 is a Shakespearean masterpiece of story telling which we poor plebeian can't grasp. In your tentatives to praise DA2 you spill all kind of hatred for DA:O because apparently in order for DA2 to shine you have to lower its predecessor as low as possible. It makes you wonder if DA2 was made for DA:O fans or for those who hated DA:O.
I'm sorry but I just don't see this magnificent piece of art you're seeing in DA2.
[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"]
And DAII while a traditional narrative, is not a traditional VIDEO GAME narrative. There is actually obstacles and adversity, but instead of these being created by an antagonist, its created by human nature...and in DAII's case, the human nature to fight over ideals, for money, and even killings done by people gone mad, such as Bartrand. The antagonist of DAII is the darkest side of human nature, and this dark side of human nature is in both the antagonists and the companions.
And unlike most stories, this antagonist wins. The city of Kirkwall falls into chaos and bloodshed because all the hatred, distrust, and extremism boil over. That is the point of the game. Instead of being a heroic story about how a hero overcomes evil or adversity, its a descent into hell with Hawke and company caught in the middle or even participating. Some of Hawkes actions even escalate things.
Think of it like a Cormac McCarthy work, where in some of his novels, the dark side of human nature is proven when the protagonists are either killed or broken. Look at No Country For Old Men...and that film won Oscar for Best Picture.
edidili
You make it sound like DA2 is a Shakespearean masterpiece of story telling which we poor plebeian can't grasp. In your tentatives to praise DA2 you spill all kind of hatred for DA:O because apparently in order for DA2 to shine you have to lower its predecessor as low as possible. It makes you wonder if DA2 was made for DA:O fans or for those who hated DA:O.
I'm sorry but I just don't see this magnificent piece of art you're seeing in DA2.
I almost spit my coffee out trying not to laugh when he compared DA'2 story to a Cormac McCarthy Novel.
That alone is sig-worthy.
Oh indeed it doesn't destroy characterisation it just doesn't make their characters stronger than they should. But you're right in that regard, they characters for most of the part are good, and even though I might point out a variety of consequence is lacking the positives out weight the negatives. Perfectly right as well, yep, that's my point, I don't mind these fixed events that happen, but imagine if there were more outcomes with consequence for you and them and the character development in the aftermath. That would be pretty outstanding.1.Ok,your right on the limiting choice but that doesn't destroy the characterisation in the game and on point If you don't interact or do what Merril wants, she leaves too.... Heck, Isabela leave in part 2 if you don't help her witht he book Fenris leaves if you don't help him with his master. An on anther point is Morrigan loves you, she stops having sex with you....Is it a bad thing that you can't change her mind? Now I understand your point, you want to see different things happen to the characters base on your choices and they are their, you just have to find them.
2. I like to ask you what the nice or nasty choices were? The thing is that their never was on choice that really was good or bad. Just Shellfish or selfless. And on point then action were never grade on a character you play. This game never has an indicator that state that the character you played, Hawke, was good, bad, nice or mean. Every indicator in this game is with the allies you have and that lean on weather they like what you are doing or not. That is all that wasgraded and not one is an evil character or even a fullu good character at that. How can this game fall into the problem which the game tells you that your doing good or bad thing if the main character him self don't have a good/bad indicator?
dreman999
I meant more that 'selfish' = 'nasty', 'selfless' = 'good', in the context you put it. You're correct the game doesn't say you're either with a visible meter but it does change the dialogue your Hawke says when you're not in control. Not to say that's a bad thing. However what I would have proffered was something that didn't indicate if a character was a 'rival' or a 'friend', as that's too obvious, and it affects your choices - as an example, you change your quest dialogue choices to be more of + friend with 'X' character.
Good point, it would be hard to indicate how characters think of you, but I think by listening to their dialogue in response to your decisions, and paying attention to their reactions could be more compelling than 10+ rivalry (ect.) popping up. But this would be hard to pull off.
[QUOTE="edidili"]
[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"]
And DAII while a traditional narrative, is not a traditional VIDEO GAME narrative. There is actually obstacles and adversity, but instead of these being created by an antagonist, its created by human nature...and in DAII's case, the human nature to fight over ideals, for money, and even killings done by people gone mad, such as Bartrand. The antagonist of DAII is the darkest side of human nature, and this dark side of human nature is in both the antagonists and the companions.
And unlike most stories, this antagonist wins. The city of Kirkwall falls into chaos and bloodshed because all the hatred, distrust, and extremism boil over. That is the point of the game. Instead of being a heroic story about how a hero overcomes evil or adversity, its a descent into hell with Hawke and company caught in the middle or even participating. Some of Hawkes actions even escalate things.
Think of it like a Cormac McCarthy work, where in some of his novels, the dark side of human nature is proven when the protagonists are either killed or broken. Look at No Country For Old Men...and that film won Oscar for Best Picture.
Kandlegoat
You make it sound like DA2 is a Shakespearean masterpiece of story telling which we poor plebeian can't grasp. In your tentatives to praise DA2 you spill all kind of hatred for DA:O because apparently in order for DA2 to shine you have to lower its predecessor as low as possible. It makes you wonder if DA2 was made for DA:O fans or for those who hated DA:O.
I'm sorry but I just don't see this magnificent piece of art you're seeing in DA2.
I almost spit my coffee out trying not to laugh when he compared DA'2 story to a Cormac McCarthy Novel.
That alone is sig-worthy.
DAII has no main anatgonist as a character, neither does the novel No Country For Old Men (Anton Chigurgh is NOT a main antagonist). Of course Cormac McCarthy is better....but it just so happens DAII and some of his works deal with the same themes.And actually NCFOM is one of McCarthy's lesser works...its actually a better movie than it was a book.
[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"]
And DAII while a traditional narrative, is not a traditional VIDEO GAME narrative. There is actually obstacles and adversity, but instead of these being created by an antagonist, its created by human nature...and in DAII's case, the human nature to fight over ideals, for money, and even killings done by people gone mad, such as Bartrand. The antagonist of DAII is the darkest side of human nature, and this dark side of human nature is in both the antagonists and the companions.
And unlike most stories, this antagonist wins. The city of Kirkwall falls into chaos and bloodshed because all the hatred, distrust, and extremism boil over. That is the point of the game. Instead of being a heroic story about how a hero overcomes evil or adversity, its a descent into hell with Hawke and company caught in the middle or even participating. Some of Hawkes actions even escalate things.
Think of it like a Cormac McCarthy work, where in some of his novels, the dark side of human nature is proven when the protagonists are either killed or broken. Look at No Country For Old Men...and that film won Oscar for Best Picture.
You make it sound like DA2 is a Shakespearean masterpiece of story telling which we poor plebeian can't grasp. In your tentatives to praise DA2 you spill all kind of hatred for DA:O because apparently in order for DA2 to shine you have to lower its predecessor as low as possible. It makes you wonder if DA2 was made for DA:O fans or for those who hated DA:O.
I'm sorry but I just don't see this magnificent piece of art you're seeing in DA2.
Because DAO is nothing special, its generic, its inconsistanly written, and it doesn't take risks. I thought that when the game was released, and when compared to Mask of the Betrayer and The Witcher, and even Bioware's other games. The story is relevant, it tries to go far above what most games try to portray, it seeks to prove Ebert wrong, that games are art. And while the many gameplay and especially techinical aspects don't work, the wiritng does. It is more complex than most games, it does require constant attention unlike most RPGs....Its not Planescape Torment good, but it is a very well written and very relevant game. And I am not the only one thinking this....see review link I gave Kevin.it seeks to prove Ebert wrong, that games are art. texasgoldrush
Who gives a crap what Ebert thinks about video games seriously. He is just an old man who most probably never played a game. He may have seen his nephew playing some super mario or tetris and that's all he knows. Plus who's to decide what's art anyway, it's highly subjective. If this is considered modern art than everything goes.
and btw you are really obsessed with cliche stories. Almost every great movie I've seen has a cliche in it. It's how you tell that story that counts most.
[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"]it seeks to prove Ebert wrong, that games are art. edidili
Who gives a crap what Ebert thinks about video games seriously. He is just an old man who most probably never played a game. He may have seen his nephew playing some super mario or tetris and that's all he knows. Plus who's to decide what's art anyway, it's highly subjective. If this is considered modern art than everything goes.
and btw you are really obsessed with cliche stories. Almost every great movie I've seen has a cliche in it. It's how you tell that story that counts most.
There is common story elements, but then there are ripoffs. Origins was a ripoff. All it was was LOTR with gore.Ebert is wrong, its games like DAII that prove him wrong.
The story is relevant, it tries to go far above what most games try to portray, it seeks to prove Ebert wrong, that games are art.texasgoldrushNo.
I have read things that need to be taken in with a grain of salt but this. This ridiculous.
There's over praising and over analysing and then there is just tremendously bad. In one fell swoop that statement is a hop, skip, and leap over the line.
Dragon Age 2 is not an example of 'games as an artistic medium with merit'; nor is it a game that exclusively relies on individual functionality to establish and theme with proper meaning behind it.
It's power fantasy, as are most games in general.
It's statements like these that HURT the 'games as art' debate.
Ebert is wrong, it's examples like this that make his argument hold weight.
[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"]The story is relevant, it tries to go far above what most games try to portray, it seeks to prove Ebert wrong, that games are art.skrat_01No. I have read things that need to be taken in with a grain of salt but this. This ridiculous. There's over praising and over analysing and then there is just tremendously bad. In one fell swoop that statement is a hop, skip, and leap over the line. Dragon Age 2 is not an example of 'games as an artistic medium with merit'; nor is it a game that exclusively relies on individual functionality to establish and theme with proper meaning behind it. It's power fantasy, as are most games in general. It's statements like these that HURT the 'games as art' debate. How am I overpraising? I am just stating the HIGHLY OBVIOUS portrayals of the themes. What if I call Planescape Torment a meaningless piece of trash that had absolutely no meaning? Its just a game...right Writing a game off its also ridiculous.
I am not a huge fan of Xenogears and I find it forced and overrated, however, I am NOT going to write off the relevant themes it tries to portray.
No. I have read things that need to be taken in with a grain of salt but this. This ridiculous. There's over praising and over analysing and then there is just tremendously bad. In one fell swoop that statement is a hop, skip, and leap over the line. Dragon Age 2 is not an example of 'games as an artistic medium with merit'; nor is it a game that exclusively relies on individual functionality to establish and theme with proper meaning behind it. It's power fantasy, as are most games in general. It's statements like these that HURT the 'games as art' debate. How am I overpraising? I am just stating the HIGHLY OBVIOUS portrayals of the themes. What if I call Planescape Torment a meaningless piece of trash that had absolutely no meaning? Its just a game...right Writing a game off its also ridiculous.[QUOTE="skrat_01"][QUOTE="texasgoldrush"]The story is relevant, it tries to go far above what most games try to portray, it seeks to prove Ebert wrong, that games are art.texasgoldrush
I am not a huge fan of Xenogears and I find it forced and overrated, however, I am NOT going to write off the relevant themes it tries to portray.
No I meant in the context of 'arguments for video games as art', I've seen countless games overanalyised and overpraised as examples of 'art'.Which is again.
Horribly wrong and damaging to the argument that games are of such merit.
In this example, it is blindingly clear why it isn't, and to add it to the pile of games that are worth being considered is just going to drown out those that potentially do.
I am not a huge fan of Xenogears and I find it forced and overrated, however, I am NOT going to write off the relevant themes it tries to portray.texasgoldrushI find this to be blasphemy, more than the actual game even.
No. I have read things that need to be taken in with a grain of salt but this. This ridiculous. There's over praising and over analysing and then there is just tremendously bad. In one fell swoop that statement is a hop, skip, and leap over the line. Dragon Age 2 is not an example of 'games as an artistic medium with merit'; nor is it a game that exclusively relies on individual functionality to establish and theme with proper meaning behind it. It's power fantasy, as are most games in general. It's statements like these that HURT the 'games as art' debate.skrat_01How am I overpraising? I am just stating the HIGHLY OBVIOUS portrayals of the themes. What if I call Planescape Torment a meaningless piece of trash that had absolutely no meaning? Its just a game...right Writing a game off its also ridiculous.
I am not a huge fan of Xenogears and I find it forced and overrated, however, I am NOT going to write off the relevant themes it tries to portray.
No I meant in the context of 'arguments for video games as art'. Which is again. Horribly wrong and damaging to the argument that games are of such merit. But DAII proves the video games are art....it proves that games do have meaning and relevance, it proves that games can not only be fun, but be throught provoking. You are trying to call it just another fantasy game and its not. It actually breaks away from fantasy convention.There is common story elements, but then there are ripoffs. Origins was a ripoff. All it was was LOTR with gore.
texasgoldrush
That's all it was? Really? Did lotr have the mages vs chantry conflict? Or the caste system of dwarfs. These were not just simple sidequests in DA:O but big parts of its story. I didn't see the ruthless fight for power in the dwarfs of Lotr nor the racism towards the elfs. Neither did I see the oppression of mages and the consequences of that. Yes DA:O had the "gather armies to kill the bad guy" but you can find that in a lot of stories and movies, not only in lotr. It served as a backround to set the setting on which everything else will happen.
It resembles lotr of course because of its tolkien influence and didn't you ever thought that it's exactly because of that reason that peoples liked it? Elfs, dwarfs, big dragon in the end. It was a classic fantasy rpg and there was nothing wrong with that.
But DAII proves the video games are art....it proves that games do have meaning and relevance, it proves that games can not only be fun, but be throught provoking. You are trying to call it just another fantasy game and its not. It actually breaks away from fantasy convention.texasgoldrushNo, no it doesn't.
Games had proven they could be thought provoking long before damn dragon age, as well as meaning and relevance. Just because a game can provoke thoughts, has creative merit, or establishes something unique within the medium does not mean it is art.
Not at all.
Dragon Age 2 is not held back as a 'fantasy game' in being 'art'. I'm talking about theme, and the foremost theme in Dragon Age, the first and the second is the heroes journey, one of empowerment, nor does the game do anything unique within the medium mechanically to explore this theme on an emotionally compelling level with its own identity.
First and foremost the game wasn't intended to be created as art, it's purely piece of entertainment in the context of the above, as games generally are.
'Dragon Age 2 is different from fantasy convention it is art'
That alone, if that's how art was considered then we would be holding up so many damn games on a pedastle the argument for games as art would be worthless.
So if you are going to hold up a game as art, instead of a shred of artistic value then damn well do it properly.
Otherwise thats chalk one up to Ebert, and as you've estblished none of us want that.
DAO is Mass Effects ugly cousin and DA 2 is Mass Effect 2s ugly cousin. IMO DA2 is better than DAO but not by much they both look like they should be on a PS2Not really. Dragon Age Origins is one of the best RPGs of the decade. A nice mix between the classic and the modern. Dragon Age 2 is pure unadulterated trash. And it's funny that you mention KOTOR and ME considering they are the weakest Bioware games, besides every Bioware game follows the same structures and cliches if you get past the different settings.
ampiva
[QUOTE="ampiva"]DAO is Mass Effects ugly cousin and DA 2 is Mass Effect 2s ugly cousin. IMO DA2 is better than DAO but not by much they both look like they should be on a PS2 I don't think either would be possible on PS2...Not really. Dragon Age Origins is one of the best RPGs of the decade. A nice mix between the classic and the modern. Dragon Age 2 is pure unadulterated trash. And it's funny that you mention KOTOR and ME considering they are the weakest Bioware games, besides every Bioware game follows the same structures and cliches if you get past the different settings.
Shielder7
Just because a game can provoke thoughts, has creative merit, or establishes something unique within the medium does not mean it is art.
skrat_01
What do you mean by that? That's exactly what art is. A painting has creative merit and can provoke thoughts.
And please stop it with this Ebert guy. He admitted that he never ever played a video game before thus laughing at the face of everyone who bothered to take him seriously. How can anyone takes him seriously when he gives an opinion for something he knows nothing about. He may be wise in other fields but when it comes to video games and what they're capable of he knows not more than my grandad does which is nothing.
No, no it doesn't.[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"]But DAII proves the video games are art....it proves that games do have meaning and relevance, it proves that games can not only be fun, but be throught provoking. You are trying to call it just another fantasy game and its not. It actually breaks away from fantasy convention.skrat_01
Games had proven they could be thought provoking long before damn dragon age, as well as meaning and relevance. Just because a game can provoke thoughts, has creative merit, or establishes something unique within the medium does not mean it is art.
Not at all.
Dragon Age 2 is not held back as a 'fantasy game' in being 'art'. I'm talking about theme, and the foremost theme in Dragon Age, the first and the second is the heroes journey, one of empowerment, nor does the game do anything unique within the medium mechanically to explore this theme on an emotionally compelling level with its own identity.
First and foremost the game wasn't intended to be created as art, it's purely piece of entertainment in the context of the above, as games generally are.
'Dragon Age 2 is different from fantasy convention it is art'
That alone, if that's how art was considered then we would be holding up so many damn games on a pedastle the argument for games as art would be worthless.
So if you are going to hold up a game as art, instead of a shred of artistic value then damn well do it properly.
Otherwise thats chalk one up to Ebert, and as you've estblished none of us want that.
[QUOTE="edidili"]
[QUOTE="skrat_01"]
Just because a game can provoke thoughts, has creative merit, or establishes something unique within the medium does not mean it is art.
texasgoldrush
What do you mean by that? That's exactly what art is. A painting has creative merit and can provoke thoughts.
And please stop it with this Ebert guy. He admitted that he never ever played a video game before thus laughing at the face of everyone who bothered to take him seriously. How can anyone takes him seriously when he gives an opinion for something he knows nothing about. He may be wise in other fields but when it comes to video games and what they're capable of he knows not more than my grandad does which is nothing.
Ebert is wrong and an idiot when it comes to anything but movies....and he is wrong then. He is irrelevant other than the fact that he reviewed movies for a long time. Ebert has forgotten more about movies than you'll probably ever know. He doesn't know games, but saying his opinion on movies is wrong is flat out asinine.[QUOTE="skrat_01"]
Just because a game can provoke thoughts, has creative merit, or establishes something unique within the medium does not mean it is art.
edidili
What do you mean by that? That's exactly what art is. A painting has creative merit and can provoke thoughts.
And please stop it with this Ebert guy. He admitted that he never ever played a video game before thus laughing at the face of everyone who bothered to take him seriously. How can anyone takes him seriously when he gives an opinion for something he knows nothing about. He may be wise in other fields but when it comes to video games and what they're capable of he knows not more than my grandad does which is nothing.
Ebert is wrong, I don't disagree about that.Read his argument. To generalise it's that video games not being art is that they are first and foremost games; they are about play and function and focusing on these rules, not about a focus on exploring complex themes (an inherent conflict it's suggested), least on an emotional level.
Now there is a point to be had here, games are guilty of that if you broadly generalise, however he is unfamiliar with games aside from a very general perspective (there is a generation gap here), and yes he isn't 'gamer'. Does that make what he say irrelevant? Hell no. Is he correct? Well no, not that either.
We as gamers all know that games hold artistic value, yes even Dragon Age 2 holds some; as gamers we know games have the capacity to make us feel, learn, experience and explore; however this doesn't mean that games are at an equally high level of other developed and explored mediums.
They sure as hell aren't.
Nor does it mean these said games are generally examples of games as 'art', why? Well as I said in my post:
"Dragon Age 2 is not held back as a 'fantasy game' in being 'art'. I'm talking about theme, and the foremost theme in Dragon Age, the first and the second is the heroes journey, one of empowerment, nor does the game do anything unique within the medium mechanically to explore this theme on an emotionally compelling level with its own identity. First and foremost the game wasn't intended to be created as art, it's purely piece of entertainment in the context of the above, as games generally are."
Don't discount what he is saying, just because he doesn't play games doesn't mean he should be withheld from criticising, and he does raise points - even if they're only matched by an unwillingness to shift perspective and some quite frankly wrong statements.
We as gamers are guilty of this, bloggers and posters throw around why games are art without knowing what it means; covering regions from visual art to the notion that absolutely anything can be defined as art; all without even challenging arts perception.
Instead more often than not it's all based on what creative merit as you put it, or value a game might have. Merit doesn't make a game definative.
Which is why I am saying, we should be better than this when justifying a game as art, if we wan't to prove Ebert entirely incorrect.
Yes games can be properly debated as being art - and they sure hell have the capacity to be, and there are some stronger examples out there to justify that, but wild claims, let alone nothing substantial doesnt help, it detracts
It doesn't prove it at all, not in the slightest sense. Dragon Age 2 holds some artistic merit. Lots of games do for their own various reasons (visual design, narrative etc).I never said that DAII is the first to prove it....I just says it proves it. You are arguing pointsd I did NOT make. And you are arguing points I did NOT make all over your thread. And a game can be created to be both art and entertainment, like most movies, games and music usually are.
texasgoldrush
This is not an example of games as a piece of art, or even a basic bastion in proving games are art, and I have not read a single compelling shred of evidence to prove it is.
Be it cultural acceptance, exploration of themes via functionality etc. etc.
A game can be created as 'art' and be successful from a 'commercial' (entertainment perhaps isn't the best word), standpoint just like a film. Don't interpret that as 'if it has artistic merit it must be art then'.
Ditto!And please , for all that's sacred , tell me that this in your sig is happening!man, i say overrated and underrated topics should be banned, their soooo redudant, look everything is going to be overrated to someone and underrated to someone else. You didn't like dragon age origins, alright i get it, but still this is suited for a blog and not system wars because your talking about ONE game and not SYSTEMS. The mods need to get on their hustle and stop these blog suited topics. I come here to be entertained by system fanboys and fanatics.
Chris_Williams
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment