The first matrix was good, the other two were cinematic abortions.

I don't know if games can be hardcore. However I think the way the player chooses to play the game can be hardcore.

I agree that most games wouldn't stand up to films with regards to storyline and dialogue, and the voice acting is often terrible. I wonder if that is one of the reasons vg movies do so badly.

That's why I find it so hard to understand why games try to emulate films so often. How many of the WWII shooters try to be like Saving Private Ryan or Band Of Brothers? They even go so far as to use many of the same actors for voices. They won't live up to them because they don't even try to match the cinematic quality, especially in terms or camera work - which is rather important in a visual medium. They need the balls to experiment more and try to find their own style so that they can bring something new and exciting to the table.

Well, it's beginning to happen. War games which challenge war: MGS3. Fantasy which makes society look at itself: Final Fantasy 12. Deeper characters: DMC3.

Two of the biggest barriers in making better games are (1) game designers don't know enough about history and aesthetics, and end up copying other genres instead of innovating, and (2) the pressure to make money - you have to sell 500,000 copies just to break even.

The first problem can be solved by better education - universities should teach game design, people who make games should be cosmopolitan and have extensive cultural literacy.

The second problem is tougher. The big franchises have the resources and stability to allow creators to shine, e.g. the MGS franchise is bankrolling Hideo Kojima.  On the other hand, "Shadow of the Colossus" and "Ico" were magnificant games, but never turned a profit. Fortunately, Sony had the sense to continue to invest in the team behind those games.

I think eventually governments will have to get serious about co-financing game development, just like most non-US governments support their local cinema and television industry. You don't pick winners, but you can provide tax incentives, create educational infrastructures, do other clever things to create a game-literate society. Korea has been doing something like this for awhile.

I certainly applaud game maker's attempts to create artistic games, but I tend to agree that they're going about it all wrong. As you point out, the games that most of us tend to play are heavely indebted to the sci-fi and fantasy realms that we geeks tend to delight in, which is almost always a very poor setting for serious artistic expression. Add to this the fact that most of these "serious" games tend to feature singular heroes with either genetically super or magical powers, and that these heroes often go on to save the world from the "Bad guys (however that may take shape in any given game), and you have the makings of an action movie a la the Matrix -- again, not a bad thing in itself at all, but more a work of stylized fiction than a serious art. 

I'm looking forward to trying Bioshock, as there is certainly a great deal of buzz at the moment suggesting that it may take an important step forward in artistic value for traditional games (that is, games where you blow up hundreds of bad guys). I'm still suspect, however, as I think many are still very peeved at Roger Ebert's recent dismissal of gaming as a serious art form. 

Sorry about going off topic with my first post ever, but Nintendon Switch in 2017! It'll all make sense some day.

*7*

Just becuase the first trailer looked like drama.. according to sony its an action/adventure game(like uncharted or ratchet).

 And that's where there's a disconnect for me and games being an artistic medium. Storytelling "through" a game, as opposed to use gameplay as the means of provoking emotional. I brought this up in another thread, even games that I feel have a (relatively) decent story still often feel like a different experience then how you play the game. Cutscenes and such might have some potential for emotional arc, but the gameplay is always intended to just be fun. And deeply moving things typically aren't fun.

I brought this up in the BioShock demo, I liked the city and the chance to explore it, untill I got to fight something. 

There's nothing wrong with it's combat system persay, it's that it feels completey different than when i was taking in the details. It's fast and fun, as opposed to eerie and haunting. I'm shooting lighting from fingertips to electricute people who dove into water after setting them on fire just like Roy Mustang. The entire plasmid thing just seemed added to to engross the "core" gamer demographic with "Look, it's not all looking around, you also get cool powers and can kill people in all kinds of crazy fun ways!". I find it an admission from the developers that they felt the game's cinematic aspects were not enough to sell it in the numbers they wanted, and needed a hook. And you get a game that's "Deep and disturbing" and "fun and cool" which to me just clashes with on or another.

Until a game devolper has the bravery to intentionally make thier game something other than fun, you won't see many outside the gaming demographic who respect gaming as an art medium, and deserably so in my opinion. Eternal Darkness did do such a thing in a minor way. The bulk of the gameplay was traditonal puzzle solving and monster fighting, but the insanity effects were there to confuse and disorient you. Telling you your controller is unplugged, or that your game was being deleted, or trying to trick you into thinking your TV's video mode changed. They weren't intended to be fun, they were meant to annoy and possibly upset as part of the game's themes of sanity and reality. However these things only happen when your Sanity bar is low, so in that sense, it's a traditional gameplay mechanic. Merely a side effect of one of your health bars getting low. Now if these had been constant through-out the game in an attempt to drive a player over the edge, that would be interesting. I don't think this would meet my abstract concept of artistic gaming, but it might be another step there.

That's all just me though, and for the record, there's absolutely nothing wrong with games being made so you have fun, just like there's nothing wrong with watching a fun movie. I'm just trying to highlight my difference in belief about a game that could be considered artistic, and a fun game with decent storytelling aspects.

EDIT: I decided to actually just read the spoilers from Games Radar (I won't spoil anything so don't worry) but I have to say this just seems to echo's Bod's sentiment of games set in the sci-fi and fantasy realms and how it is a poor setting for serious artistic expression.  A couple of the plot twists I actually mostly called in playing the demo, but I won't say anything else.

Having played video games my whole life, I find it funny what constitutes "hard core". Back in the day, games like Contra or Super Mario were main stream. RPG's and light gun games were for the hard core. Then there was a time where non-Street Fighter fighting games, or non Nintendo/ Sega systems were for the hard core. In the 32 bit era, games like Final Fantasy, Metal Gear, and Mario 64 were main stream. Games like Rez, DDR, and Vagrant Story were for the hard core.
Now, if a Contra game is released for the Wii, it'd be considered a game for the hard core. If a game that didn't have a big following in the 90's like Dance Dance Revolution (which was for the hard core back then) came out today, it would be another example of Nintendo going main stream.

Long story short, the definition of hardcore differs based on what the majority is playing. There is no set definition of hardcore games. It's just a term that more avid gamers use to build themselves up.

Like Itsamii, I find most VG storylines to be abhorently dull and unimagined. There are exceptions to this rule and I generally enjoy these games intensely. However, if the gameplay blows I find it hard for me to sit through any game no matter how good the story is. (There's only so much fun I can have makeing the same menu choices over and over in combat)

Gameplay will always be most important to the success of a game. If people want stories they'll read a book (LOL) or watch a movie or TV show. Any really good story added to really good gameplay is an unexpected bonus.

@d21lewis: I think the shift came gradually as more buttons were added and the with the shift to 3d. A game like contra can be "pick up and play", todays games are longer experiences, with more complex control schemes and more gameplay elements that are too much for the (cough... intelligence... cough) of the main stream consumer. But this thread is more concerned with the lack of the truly deep games (I mean Academy Award, Sundance, Pulitzer level.)

@BrainBoxLTD: I agree that most of the depth that I enjoy from a game is from the game play. But I don't see why, with even last gen tech, we don't see more mature and realistic content. I understand it's hard to make truly realistic and fun experiences because you need an excuse to kill enemy after enemy. But where are the attempts at realistic gameplay with out senseless mass-murder of zombie insect nazi robots?

The stealth genre was going pretty good, but due to sales concerns have returned to a more action oriented style of gameplay.

Of course I am not just talking about storytelling, controls, graphics or plot. I am going on about a full effort about all of these, while keeping the player engaged. It is a tough challenge, and I can understand why many of you think it won't happen (I don't think it will happen either). I would like to see attempts at it though.