Like to read, don't like to play.

Discuss and discover all the great games of yesteryear!

Moderators: mknott, NickThorpe, lcarlson, Darran@Retro Gamer, MMohammed

User avatar
Crunchy
Posts: 2123
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2005 10:43 am
Location: Claymorgue Castle

Post by Crunchy » Mon Sep 15, 2008 1:04 pm

GarryG wrote:
Crunchy wrote: There is far more "art" in modern games than there ever was in the stuff we used to play.
Doesn’t that depend on your definition of ‘Art’?
Certanly in one very real sence The latest GTA has much more ‘Artwork’ content than something like REZ. But does someone spending a month to animate twenty different ways od bashing a car, or crushing a coke can make it a more artistic game?
Is REZ, or something Like Fluid, or even D2/E0 intrinsically more artistic because of the design concept?
Of course it comes down to a definition of what is "art". The point of art isn't just to make a pretty picture. And somebody spending many months to animate a car for a modern 3D game isn't necessarily any more artistic than somebody spending the same amount of time designing sprites for a 2D shmup. An artist who produces "art" attempts to convey a message or theme or emotion or something that comes through in the media used. The picture is more than just a picture, for example. Art isn't just about visual style though.
There are far more modern games that explore themes and philosophies and emotions and moral choices, and subsequently the designer's own personal messages regarding those things, than there is in the older generations of games. In fact, with modern games these sort of things are fast becoming staples of the story driven genres. The designers and developers now have the hardware resources to create games that try to go beyond the usual confines of the hobby and offer genuine, if at times ham-fisted, concepts and subtexts that aren't a requirement of the genre involved. On one level Bioshock is just another fps, and yet the game has a lot to say beyond the obvious game mechanic at its heart. With Bioshock, as in most art, you can ignore the subtext and just like the picture itself. You can just blast through the game and enjoy it at its most basic - a straight fps. In all honesty, how many older games operate on multiple levels of perception in this way? With most older games it really is a case of What You See Is What You Get. And realise that Bioshock was deliberately designed to be the way it is. The retro games we enjoy were almost universally created with whatever the programmer could get to work within the limited hardware they had. Creating a work of art, or anything approaching it, was the absolute last thing on the programmer's mind back then. There was artistic creativity, no doubt about it ... but there was very little in the way of "art". All you can do is take a retro game, view it in a modern context and label it as art because the styling is so different to what we have now and it takes your fancy in some way. That's more of a reflection of the player rather than the original creator of the game and what the creator was aiming at when the game was produced.

Modern games aren't high art. If games can ever be considered art at all. We're unlikely to see any modern game displayed in The Louvre any time soon. But modern games are definitely more "arty" than retro games.

At least from where I'm standing. It's all debatable. Just like real art. :wink:

User avatar
Antiriad2097
Posts: 27001
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 2:48 pm
Location: http://s11.zetaboards.com/RetroLeague/
Contact:

Post by Antiriad2097 » Mon Sep 15, 2008 1:16 pm

Isn't practically all of Automata's output geared more toward the art concept than the execution, though they finished on a high with Deus Ex Machina which is hard not to accept as a piece of conceptual art.
The Retro League - Where skill isn't an obstacle
Retrocanteen, home of the unfairly banned
Tom_Baker wrote:I just finished watching a film about Stockholm syndrome. It started out terrible but by the end I really liked it.

me316
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 1:34 pm

Post by me316 » Mon Sep 15, 2008 1:55 pm

I can easily go back and play old games as I find some (not all) stand up to todays standards and some current games look as if they belong in the past and not in a good way and i've been playing games since the early eighties and I find the games that are put on a pedistal like Zelda Ocarina of time could easily be made into a top down RPG and still be just as good. Games like Gunstar Hero's still look great and play great too, so I think it's down to the indiviual and how nostalgic they are and you need a bit of an imagination sometimes to look past the crappy graphics and get to thewhat's important the gameplay.
Games Graveyard rules!!!!
http://gamesgraveyard.podomatic.com

User avatar
8bitgamer
Posts: 151
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2007 12:55 am

Re: Like to read, don't like to play.

Post by 8bitgamer » Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:24 pm

theMot wrote:I find these days im more into reading and study old games rather than playing them.
If you like to read about old games, you may be interested in my book, which you can read up on by clicking on the link below.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests