Support NeoGAF

[SantaC]

found it on txb forums...

There are likely to be fewer games for the next generation of consoles than for the current machines, a games conference has been told.

This is because it will take a great deal of time and money to produce games for the new consoles, said independent developer Tameem Antoniades.

The good news is that the games will offer much more than current titles.

"We have the opportunity to elevate games to be the tenth art," said the co-founder of Just Add Monsters.

Games for the PlayStation 2 and Xbox take between 400 and 500 man months of work. But a game for the next gen machines could take at least 1,500 man months.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3630726.stm

 

[Kabuki Waq]

its the nintendo way.

 

[The Take Out Bandit]

As a Playstation 2 owner, I welcome this news.

There are too many good PS2 games out.

 

[neptunes]

If fewer games = less shovelware then I'm all for it.

Though I doubt thats the case, just take a look at the pc gaming.

If anything, next gen will open the door to many job opportunities, or outsourcing

 

[lexi]

If fewer games = less shovelware then I'm all for it.

Though I doubt thats the case, just take a look at the pc gaming industry.

The PC gaming industry is exactly like the console gaming industry. Heaps of shovelware with a few gems.

 

[Gahiggidy]

"We have the opportunity to elevate games to be the tenth art," said the co-founder of Just Add Monsters.

Games are not, and never will be, art.

 

[lexi]

Games are not, and never will be, art.

The same thing was said about music.

 

[Fatghost]

Games are not, and never will be, art.

I don't believe this news.

 

[Gahiggidy]

At best its a craft. People who say othersise are showing an insecurity.

 

[swoon]

The same thing was said about music.

itw asn't thought.

games should be art, they aren't, yet.

 

[neptunes]

The PC gaming industry is exactly like the console gaming industry. Heaps of shovelware with a few gems.

While I agree with your statement

what I meant was that pc game developers always have new and advance hardware to work with each year, but the amount of pc games never decrease.

 

[demon]

Games are not, and never will be, art.

You obviously don't have a fucking clue what "art" is.

Some games are not art. Some games contain art. Some games are art. This is nothing new.

 

[Gahiggidy]

Having "art" doesn't make it more or less of a game.

The defining characteristic of games has little or nothing to do with artistic expression.

 

[DarienA]

We heard this statement at the beginning of the current generation... didn't happen.

 

[neptunes]

Having "art" doesn't make it more or less of a game.

The defining characteristic of games has little or nothing to do with artistic expression.

What defines artistic expression then gahiggidy?

 

[Fatghost]

At best its a craft. People who say othersise are showing an insecurity.

I still don't believe this news.

 

[neptunes]

Gahiggidy, do you believe that some movies can be considered art?

 

[Gahiggidy]

Most movies are stories.

 

[Musashi Wins!]

Define art.

Define game.

Then I can follow this better.

 

[COCKLES]

Hopefully they'll learn to spread the titles out over the next gen instead of cramming them all into one holiday season. This October - Dec is just the silly season.

 

[Gahiggidy]

Define art.

Define game.

Then I can follow this better.

Well, do you consider some board games to be art?
How about toys?
Rides at amuesment parks?

All those things can be said to be creative... but reallly not in the realm of artistic expression. VideoGames are confused with movies and such because they share the same medium... TV. VideoGames are much more akin to the old-fashion pinnball machines, pool tables, and other parlor games. They are about playing not story telling, not creative expression.

Just because they can be used as a medium for art doesn't mean they should, at the very least not thier purpose. VideoGames are primarily about play. And there is nothing wrong with that.

 

[Chony]

This is true, only in that teams will need to be much larger, making smaller companies harder to compete. Just look at the jump each genration. Sprites get more detailed == takes longer to make a more detailed sprite, same goes for 3d models and worlds. The coding of the game shall take about the same amount of time and man power as this generation, a lot more work will need to be put into art, sound, the engine etc.

 

[Ill Saint]

A bunch of stuff

Are you an artist? Are you in a creative / artistic industry?
Are you somehow involved with art, do you study it, look at it actively etc.?

 

[SantaC]

Hopefully they'll learn to spread the titles out over the next gen instead of cramming them all into one holiday season. This October - Dec is just the silly season.

I agree. I actually want to play great games in spring/summer also.

 

[belgurdo]

Games are not, and never will be, art.

no

 

[PkunkFury]

Art can be interactive

 

[Gahiggidy]

"Creating a form of entertainment can't be considered art, real artists are others. I don't consider myself an artist, for example, it would be insulting towards real ones."

– Shigeru Miyamoto

I'll take his perspective over Mr. Antoniades'.

 

[Amir0x]

Games most certainly can be art. That's the most ridiculous statement ever.

First of all, even if you don't consider the gameplay aspects, there's a little thing called art direction which every game has. It takes artist and talented game developers to craft something in a game worthy of merit, and there's absolutely no doubt that it can be art.

 

[TheDiave]

"Creating a form of entertainment can't be considered art, real artists are others. I don't consider myself an artist, for example, it would be insulting towards real ones."

– Shigeru Miyamoto

Amen to that... If that's how Shiggy feels, I'm in agreement. No matter how badly you want to (or probably do) slag Miyamoto and Nintendo, they're responsible for some of the greatest video games of all time.

 

[DDayton]

Games can contain artistic elements, and there can be art inside games... but I'd agree that games, as a whole, aren't what we'd traditionally consider "art".

Then again, old toys can be considered art, can't they? Video games are considered toys, so...

 

[Speevy]

Games are not art, but rather activities. The more compelling the activity on the screen, the better the game is.

Activities are made more compelling by any number of things.

Art is only made more compelling by a few things.

 

[Outdoor Miner]

Gee, I remember reading the exact same thing 4 years ago.

Doesn't look like much has changed since then has it?

The costs for producing a SUPEROMGMEGAT0N AAA 9.8MININUM type of game will definetly rise. The MGS's and FF's of the world will no doubt see their expenses balloon.

 

[Prospero]

Games are not, and never will be, art.

In 2003, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in IDSA v. St. Louis County that games are art, and are therefore protected speech with respect to the First Amendment.

Link. There's a link to a PDF of the decision off of that page.

 

[Virgin Wii]

I would define a game as "art" if it evokes a particular emotion while playing. If a game frightens you, if you feel a sense of wonder or awe, then I believe it to be art, since the purpose of art is to bring about emotion.

 

[Speevy]

Then everything is art, and we shouldn't be arguing about it. Shigeru Miyamoto is even art. Whee!

 

[Virgin Wii]

Your post makes absolutely no sense.

 

[Speevy]

Your post makes absolutely no sense.

I would define a game as "art" if it evokes a particular emotion while playing. If a game frightens you, if you feel a sense of wonder or awe, then I believe it to be art, since the purpose of art is to bring about emotion.

You said that if I feel a sense of awe or wonder by playing Superman 64, then you consider that game to be art. Therefore, all games are art. Further, since other things bring about emotion, those things can be art too, no?

 

[SentientStone]

I consider games to be the next evolution in the medium of storytelling (or at least in terms of letting the audience become immersed in another world), so from books -> movies -> games (yes, I am skipping lots of stuff inbetween).
"If" someone considers a book or movie to be art, then they should consider games to be art too.

 

[MrparisSM]

I consider games to be the next evolution in the medium of storytelling (or at least in terms of letting the audience become immersed in another world), so from books -> movies -> games (yes, I am skipping lots of stuff inbetween).
"If" someone considers a book or movie to be art, then they should consider games to be art too.

You hit the nail on the head.

 

[Virgin Wii]

You said that if I feel a sense of awe or wonder by playing Superman 64, then you consider that game to be art. Therefore, all games are art. Further, since other things bring about emotion, those things can be art too, no?

Are computers art, then? Afterall, you get an emotional rush once the newest and best PC arrives at your home. Don't you?

Is this your reasoning? If it is, your reasoning is flawed.

A computer may result in an emotional reaction, but that isn't its purpose. Super Mario 64 may thrill you, but its purpose is that you have fun playing the game.

Take a game like Silent Hill. Is its purpose to be fun? No. It wants to scare you. If you're having fun, it's doing something wrong. Take a look at ICO. Was it created to be the most fun playing game of all time? No. Then why do people play a game like this if it isn't particularly fun?

Think about this.

 

[Speevy]

Art is, by definition, the product of human creativity. So you're not really able to exclude anything there.

Here are other definitions.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&oi=defmore&q=define:art

 

[Ironclad]

I consider games to be the next evolution in the medium of storytelling (or at least in terms of letting the audience become immersed in another world), so from books -> movies -> games (yes, I am skipping lots of stuff inbetween).
"If" someone considers a book or movie to be art, then they should consider games to be art too.

Absolutely. The effort that goes into a movie or book is 1/10 of what goes into making a game. Art may be subjective, but take one look at a screenshot from Wanda and the Colossus and tell me that's not art.

 

[Speevy]

Are computers art, then? Afterall, you get an emotional rush once the newest and best PC arrives at your home. Don't you?

Is this your reasoning? If it is, your reasoning is flawed.

A computer may result in an emotional reaction, but that isn't its purpose. Super Mario 64 may thrill you, but its purpose is that you have fun playing the game.

Take a game like Silent Hill. Is its purpose to be fun? No. It wants to scare you. If you're having fun, it's doing something wrong. Take a look at ICO. Was it created to be the most fun playing game of all time? No. Then why do people play a game like this if it isn't particularly fun?

Think about this.

I don't play Silent Hill (part 2, anyway) because it sucks.

If certain games are "fun" and others are "art", then sign me up for the fun. Please. Suddenly art comes to exclude Nintendo. :lol

 

[Virgin Wii]

Of course, it could do both. Like Wind Waker. Made me cry.

 

[Speevy]

Of course, it could do both. Like Wind Waker. Made me cry.

Goro (from Mortal Kombat) scared the shit out of me when I was a kid. Therefore, MK is art. :lol

 

[Virgin Wii]

I would scare the shit out of you if you got me angry. I'm art! Wee!

 

[jiggle]

 

[Pellham]

In 2003, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in IDSA v. St. Louis County that games are art, and are therefore protected speech with respect to the First Amendment.

Something doesn't have to be art to be protected speech. Are newspaper articles art? No, didn't think so. Who cares about one court's decision in one country? That doesn't define video games as art on a global scale.

Video games are not art, video games are games. They're a form of entertainment and the only reason people want to think of them as art is because today's gamers only care about glamour and glitz in their games, which is "art" to them. Nobody cares about gameplay anymore.

Of course this is not an argument that can be proved, since there is no real definition of "art" in the sense that people are trying to argue it.

 

[Fatghost]

In 2003, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in IDSA v. St. Louis County that games are art, and are therefore protected speech with respect to the First Amendment.

Link. There's a link to a PDF of the decision off of that page.

I believe this news.

 

[neptunes]

ah jiggle, I remember that piece from my art history assignment in art class.

René Magritte one weird surrealist artist, but his work is art nevertheless