Anyone else a bit offended at claims Heavy Rain's writing is Oscar Worthy?

[binary solo]

LordTheNightKnight said:

binary solo said:
I'm afraid, Mr. LOTK (and Mr Ebert and many others who think maybe one day video games could be an art form), that you missed the transition from video games being some sort of fun thing that a few kids do to being an art form about 2 (or maybe even 3 or more) generations ago. As soon as video game developers started using recognised artistic methods and techniques (story telling, music, voice acting (cut scenes), visual artistic design, etc etc), if it wasn't an art form before then, it certainly became one at that point.

That's objective, not subjective. Because it's based on an objective definition of what is art (dictionary) not some movie critic, or other pundit. In fact it is so blindingly obvious that video games are an art form that the desperation is, in fact, on the side of those who want to exclude it from the hallowed halls of artistry. From my perspective it's incredulity that people can't recognise the blindingly obvious and a desire to edify the ignorant that drives me to comment on the video game is art topic. That and the fact it's actually video game makers who want to be accepted as artists, not just gamer fans wanting to gain some sort of validation of their chosen leisure activity. Please note it was a game developer who spoke on TED against Ebert's obstinant attitude, or rather in favour of video games as art, not some rabid gamer fanboi foaming at the mouth over Ebert bagging his/her favourite activity. The desire for recognition comes from within the industry, not just its fan base.

This thread (on the wider matter of art) makes the fundamental error (like many other commentators) of categorising bad art as not being art. A bad painting is still art, though it may never see the light of day. So therefore it also makes the mistake of claiming that there is some form of quality standard that must be met before something can be granted the status of art. The state of being art is not something conferred by outside observers, especially not self appointed critics. Something is art because it exists within the sphere of an art form. The worth or merit (qualititative goodness or badness) of a given work of art is what the "audience" decides.

On Heavy Rain itself I haven't seen enough of it to make a judgement on the quality of the writing. If the script were to be taken as is (well with minor alterations as necessary to make the transition) and turned into a movie my guess is that it would not garner rave reviews. Actually the mere fact that you can judge Heavy Rain as being well scripted, or poorly scripted or somewhere in between is an admission in itself that video games are art. If you can judge the artistic merits of something then you are making a judgement based in the realm of the arts. Ergo what you are judging is art.

First of all, there is no "of" in my username, so the abbreviation is not LOTK.

Second of all, I'll bite games are already art. But it's still not a good idea to hold bad art up as a way to prove a medium is art.

@ your first of all: ummmmmm would you believe me if I said the "O" is from "Lord"?...no I didn't think so. OK it was a straight screw up in trying to acronymise your username.

@ your second of all: My point is (perhaps not well said) that people such as Ebert and others like to point to bad examples of video game art as a way to reject all video games as art, when it's not a legimate line of argumentation. So, I'm not using bad VGs as an argument in favour of VGs being art. I'm saying people CAN'T use bad video games as an argument against video games being an art form. Video games, like all art forms, have their masterpieces and their trash. What defines a masterpiece in video game terms is a completely different set of criteria from what defines a masterpiece in other artistic media; and they are not directly comparable even between movie-like games and movies. Video games can be argued as being in the ascendant in that what is a masterpiece keeps being redefined. Most other artforms are at their peak or even on the descendant in that the great masterworks have already been made and no one is producing works of the same quality any more.

I've read/had discussions with some people who think painting is really a dead art form because there is nothing new to do or explore with painting; it's all re-hashing existing ideas and material. Now, they say, it's really about sculpture for the purely visual arts. My friend, who is a painter, likes to disagree somewhat.