Are we really seeing a new age of gaming?

I will say this for gaming, I've got to the point that due to the scripting in GTA IV, the Prince of Persia games and Mass Effect that piss poor dialogue really can throw me out of a game.

So, you're saying that GTA IV was well scripted as opposed to Prince of Persia titles and Mass Effect? The way you worded that post towards the end threw me a bit.

He means all three are well scripted.

I meant due to how well those games are written it's hard for me to deal with badly written games nowadays. I've just come to expect most games to have a script which is at the very least engaging.

I'll never get into the whole games as art thing, but as pulpy fiction games like Mass Effect, BioShock, GTA IV are miles ahead of the games produced last Generation.

It's possible to have high concept games with large production values and great scripting, but I don't think anyone's ever going to deem video games as art.

Goddammit, Cordo.

I don't want any new fangled vidya games bein' no art.

That's great, but now we're in for 5 pages of bickering about it.

Someone should PM me later and let me know how that goes.

Hey, it's better than another atheism debate.

I believe it's worse. I base this view on no evidence or logical reasoning, but I don't need to because it makes me warm and moist in my Irrational Place.

I want copious, damn near gratuitous amounts of artistry in my games, I don't need my games to be classified art. End of discussion.

Art or not (and really, does it matter?), I agree with Spike that those titles really set the bar as to how the story can be written in a game. Sure, I like my Puzzle Pirates and hell, digital backgammon, but if you're going to give me something with a plot, make it worth my while. I'm looking at you, Space Marines.

It may be the first real "era" of gaming where the developers actually attempt to pull at your heartstrings, but there have been plenty of games that have made me emotionally involved for years.

I think the early Squaresoft years from 1994-1998 gave a lot of games like Chrono Trigger, FF6, FF7, Tactics, Xenogears, etc that gave plenty of moments that got its players emotionally involved in the game. Metal Gear Solid is another example.

As for video games being art... I would say that at least 70% of the movies coming out in the past decade should not be called art if video games are not art. If we are going to define art at its lesser form as being dung thrown onto the portrait of the Virgin Mary, there is no way we cannot call video games art IMO.

Would we call porn art?

Well... I would if the guy painted Rembrandt on her stomach post coitus.

Yeah we're seeing a new age of gaming.

It's hi-def.

That's the major change we've seen. Graphics.

I haven't had the emotions tweaked in me since... christ... Longest Journey? Grim Fandango?

I think that we are in a new age of gaming and I would partially agree with you that the hi-def graphics brings a real sensory experience to the video game player.

I also believe that co-op play has been so advanced that it could be labeled as the new "it" in video games.

The other major part of this era of gaming has to be the melding of online play with gaming. Not WoW type games, but rather the Playstation Home and the Xbox Live experience.

If you've ever had an emotional reaction to a Squaresoft game I question your mental stability. Also reproduction of existing art, without comment or intent, doesn't represent art.

Pssh.

There's nothing wrong with games like Final Fantasy 6 or Chrono Trigger eliciting an emotional reaction. The level people took it to later on, in the post-FF7 world is the problem. People crying over Aeris and making that particular moment in gaming a part of their identity takes the whole thing quite far.

I don't think, now that I'm older, that I'd have the same level of investment or emotional involvement (however you want to put it) in a game like Chrono Trigger. But I do remember a time where I did, and I think of that as maybe being a result of the fact that those RPGs were sort of like childrens' fantasy novels. I don't really have a problem with the younger me being strangely saddened by the final words of Azla, the Reptite, as he chooses to die with his entire species even though Ayla tries to rescue him.

Call me mentally unstable!

I tend to think that games-as-art is a debate contingent on what our definition of art is. Most people seem to assume that their personal definition is the same one common to everybody, but this isn't really the case. There's quite a bit of philosophical disagreement, for instance, about what exactly constitutes art.

I think some games have been "artsy", or could be called "arthouse" games in the same way some films are called "arthouse", but that's as far as I'd go.

Home & The Live Experience are services that surround the gaming. Much like an operating system.

They are, in essence, boring.

There's nothing about them that couldn't have been done last generation, in fact - Second Life has proven it was done last generation.

Co-operative play was done in more games, and better - last time around too. People playing online more has left split-screen gaming for dust, which I see as a step backward if anything.

It's desocialising gaming even more.

Graphics are the only thing this generation has brought to the table.

I totally agree with you. I was 11 years old when CT and FF6 came out and they were like my childhood fantasy novels. I'm not gonna say I cried during Aeris' death (I didn't), but I think that it's inappropriate to make claims that one is unstable because a video game elicited an emotional response.

I think that plays into the definition of art. Art is what you make of it. There is no real definition of it. While I don't find most recent (post 1990) mainstream horror films to consist of art, someone else may see differently. That's not a knock on them, but it's just personal preference.

I find video games, especially many recent ones, to be art. I just believe that the emotional element of video games goes back a lot longer than suggested.


I disagree. Many of the services that are provided by xbox live could not have been done or done well enough to be worthwhile until the 360's release. Whether it's downloadable content, downloadable games, or downloadable movies to watch on the 360, I really don't believe the online programs of the 360 or the ps3 could have existed with the xbox or the ps2.

As for online co-op play... I hate split screen immensely. I think the idea of playing a game with people scattered around the world is a novel and great idea. I'm not a real fan of co-op play in most games per se, but the idea is changing the way games are made today.

Just look at the recent games. Can we really think of a truly single-player game that has no co-op or online play? I think of Bioshock as the only one.

Well what about Rockband and the way PSN and Live are used with it?

That's an incredibly myopic view to take. It's always easy to look at the current state of gaming and gaze back lovingly at the games of yore.

The fact is that in terms of sheer narrative in games we've never had it better. For the first time we're approaching almost cinematic levels of design and mise en scene, and I don't think videogame writing has been so consistently good. Sure games like Sam and Max may have extremely funny dialogue, but they're also games built on concept. Games like Mass Effect and GTA IV have actually tried to create characters and tell stories that are contextualised by their gameworld rather than being encumbered to it.

There's always been writing in videogames, but only recently has their been non-comedy writing which felt natural. Games like System Shock and, sigh, PlaneScape may have philosophical musings and the like but they're also woefully presented and there's nowhere near as much life to them as you get in games nowadays.

That's broadband limitations only. It was easily doable, it simply wouldn't have had an installbase that could use it efficiently.

Downloadable content has ruined this generation with sloppy coding and patching. It's not improved my gaming experience at all, I spend far too much time downloading patches for things whilst I could be blowing shit up.

The gaming experience this generation is simply more expensive. And looks prettier.

There's absolutely nothing this generation i've found to be revolutionary besides the Wii's motion sensing control which has been squandered.

So now we're expecting revolutions with each new console? Which means essentially that the only consoles you like are the Amstrard, NES/Master System and PS1.

This generation has had moments - Bioshock is the one that really springs to mind, but everything else i've played before.

It may well be the wrong view to take, but i'm struggling to see what you guys are playing that is so revolutionary.

Mass Effect was certainly great, however since Deux Ex really set Action RPGs up, it hasn't been beaten - this isn't me reflecting on its greatness, the characterisation of that game leaves Effect looking a little plain and lifeless. Even when playing it now.

Graphics are becoming photorealistic, but that'll only get you so far. Also, GTA4 can go beat itself for being boring. Characterise people in an interesting, original and exciting setting.

We're discussing 'new ages' of gaming. Since graphics have been the only real improvement from Microsoft and Sony, then the only consoles accomplishing the "new era" seem to be coming from Nintendo.

The big 2 are more worried about their "community building tools" and not about what we're doing on the machines in the first place - playing games.

By the time i've finished typing this, another patch will be available for one of my many consoles. Yay.

And there was me thinking that the characterisation in Deus Ex was a horrible element of a game that got most things exactly right.

The thing is that the Housers took a fucking risk with GTA IV and whilst you'll make the judgement call that it was boring there decision to strip back and take a different approach to GTA narratives has to be commended.

Taking risks doesn't always pay off. It's to be commended, that doesn't mean it's free from critique.

I know you like the game, you know I don't. I don't see our disagreement beyond that.

If you honestly think that Microsoft and Sony don't care about games then you're obviously not taking a look at the whole spectrum. It's easy to paint Sony and Microsoft as the end of 'gamers gaming' what with those delightful non-profit organisations Atari, Sega and Nintendo having their status be diminished or completely revoked, but they care as much about gaming as anybody else.

Sony has invested tons of money into developers like Team ICO and Level 5 and effectively let them do their own thing, whilst Microsoft has allowed Molyneux the chance to make his Fable games and they've stuck with and supported Rare even when their ventures were probably financial cancer.

And my point isn't that the writing nowadays isn't deeper, it's that it's professional and human. It's not layers of wordy introspection, it's writing from people who at least seem to understand what a human conversation sounds like. GTA IV's main plot is dull but it's focus is on a cast of about half a dozen characters who all seem individual and all seem a lot more human than most videogame NPCs.

We've had that before. It's not this generation producing that, it's not an evolution. It's a momentary spike in the community where we get a Farenheit or a Grim Fandango or Bioshock.

If it were consistant, i'd agree. You most of all are aware that the stereotyping this generation is beyond compare - that doesn't lead to interesting dialogue or likeable characters.

Just to say, I fucking love our gaming debates. It's genuinely refreshing.

Gears of War is noticeably bad because of the fact that so many games get it right. I'd say that BioShock, Mass Effect, GTA IV, Kane and Lynch, the Hitman games, Condemned 2 (a game I hate, but which has an interesting script), The Darkness, Dead Space (from the looks of things), Haze and Drake's Fortune all do stuff with their characters and writing which is leagues ahead of the last gen.

Even games like Mercenaries 2 and Crackdown which are light on story feel more fleshed out.

Drake's Fortune was actually a fantastic little game that was driven really well by the cookie-cutter plot, but surprisingly well written i'll grant you that.

Mercs 2's dialogue, storyline and overall arc should be more offensive to you if even I find the stereotypes and one-liners pretty terrible.

Crunchy APCs does get me everytime though.

Jennifer Mui seeing an APC and making a Die Hard reference sort of inured me to the game. I also think the entire thing operates on some bizarre meta level, it's hardly taking itself seriously.

It doesn't really deserve to be in a discussion about the quality of in-game writing though either.

A real test is the shoddiness of MGS4's dialogue when the rest of the production values were so high.

The Metal Gear games have always had shoddy dialogue though, it's part of the charm or something. Batshit insane plots with rudimentary, and reference strewn, dialogue.

I could understand Metal Gear Solid's dialogue, and ignore most of the attempts to establish a back story.

4 was beyond ridiculous. Did you get a chance to play it in the end? It's the perfect example of new-age gaming, but it's beyond bizarre how much they padded even simple greetings out.

I mentioned this in another thread, but COD4 deserves to be held up as an example of how to do this right as well. The writing wasn't always the best, and having Token Black Soldier rap over the end credits did introduce my face to my palm rather quickly....but that game was hellbent on putting the player into the worst kinds of situations to hammer home the importance of what must be done, and that's closer to a synergetic evolution of story and gameplay than a lot of games, even this gen.

Good writing isn't enough to evolve video games; making that good writing interactive in new, engaging ways is.

Which is something Bioshock practically revolutionizes, given that there are very few cutscenes in the game and most of the dialogue occurs during gameplay.

MGS4 was a dissappointment(MGS3 was a personal all time favourite).

However, I will give it a few big wins. The start of the third level had glimpses of greatness with the moody noir streets. There were some scenes thta had excellent transitions from cutscenes to game play. And the split scene work with the 'microwave section' had me on the edge of my seat.

Getting the plot across with dialogue was torturous, but some of the cinematic techniques used merged excellently with the game play.

(oh and the game was pretty good when we were allowed to play it)

For me it was two steps forward and two steps back.

And quickly on the 'Games as Art'. My conclusion after partaking in those previous threads was that they are 'Functional Art'. The two parts are:

1. A game or puzzle. It is a competition against a person or computer with win lose scenarios. This is the functional aspect. Alternate functional aspects may be a simulator (Gran turismo) or a tool (creational aspects like Spore or Mario Paint)

2. Artistic elements. Music, stories, virtual sculptures. These elements are often throwaway (Who cares about the music in pac man) or fully fleshed out aspects (people buy RPGs for the story).

A comparison I use for Functional Art is a throne:
1. It's a seat. (functional)
2. It's meant to be impressive and show power in much the same way as a sculpture would. (art)


I think much of the debate is about where these two aspects cross. One argument is you buy the game for #1 and #2 is just window dressing. That's certainly true for a lot of games where the story is basically useless (Street Fighter for example).

On the other hand, I suspect many game designers are looking at interesting ways to merge the two more closely and that's a good thing.

Revolutionary in the way that Half-Life was doing it several years earlier?

I still feel Half Life's intro is better than Half Life 2's. And I love that frickin' game.

I think revolutionary is a difficult word to use here. It'd imply major change, whether for better or worse - and the fact this generation will be all about online gaming, social networking and downloadable content - admittedly all of which has been available on the PC platform for a while (being the trendsetter, as always) its down to console gaming to make it accessible to the mainstream.

We really need a game this generation that changes the rules of how we play games before we can call it a new age. A Shadow of the Colossus or something.

Heavy Rain might do that, but i'm doubtful. It'll almost certainly be a graphically superior Farenheit.

And once again I ask why do we need things to be revolutionary to be great? It's such a bizarre expectation. Half Life did the 'no cutscenes' thing first, but games like Half Life 2 (especially Episode 2) and BioShock did it far better and far more interestingly.

I agree that it doesn't need to be revolutionary to be great. CoD4 is an example of something tried and tested, but simply beautifully made and great to play. Same with Bioshock (yes, it's been done before).

I disagree in that Half Life 2 did it better. To be honest- it's not got anywhere near as good a plot and it's difficulty is just south of retarded. Heh, sorry dude.

The wrong way, I might add. Easiest game ever. Also, I found the in-game cutscenes in HL much more interesting at the time. HL2's mostly underwhelmed me.

Funny how that works.