I was really worried when I read the title and it had the word "art" in it, but you had some valid points and I agree with you. Its much easier for Activision to put out a new Guitar Hero which they know will sell a million or a Call of Duty which will sell multiple millions, then to try a new game.

I think EA is finally trying new things with their games like Dead Space and Mirrors Edge. I think they were both EA. But they still rely a lot on yearly sports franchises.

It's nice to see lots of peoples opinions and thoughts on this topic, as there tends to be a range of comments.

Sorry to anyone if I came across as the "Why can't you all stop being beneath me like little rats and like what I like?" type, that's not what I was trying to say or meant, the games I choose to like are my taste, there are games that are particularly good and well designed I can think of that I didn't like because of an aspect of that genre that just doesn't interest me. I don't want people to like the games I like, I want people to like games that have some effort put into them, and that trait exists beyond my approval. I'm just another person not the all-mighty decider of worthyness.

And In case you don't believe that, I wouldn't bother coming here trying to convince people that the games I like are better than the games they like, because I've been on the internet long enough to know you can't ever convince anyone of anything, they will always already have an opinion, and they won't be convinced otherwise, I came here to discuss the topic, not to try to make people conform to my taste, I know it wouldn't work, why would I waste my goddamn time?

And about the Wii, going into this gen I was expecting the new input method to create some great new ideas, but it's become more of a cheap gimmick rather than a new creative area to explore. The design of the Wii as a system was good, but the way things have turned out upsets me.

Most of the games I did mention are modern, because they're the ones I could remember at the time being in more recent memory, I don't think games have become shit now, I just wonder and worry if they will.

I don't remember who said games should try to focus on fun (And I'm too lazy to go back through and check :) ) but I'll still comment on that. Games Interactivity is what separates it and makes games as an art particularly special. Fun isn't the enemy of game-art, its more part of the diversity of it, a game doesn't have to have an amazingly written story to be good, the example I gave Serious Sam, is easily one of the most plot-hole filled poorly written games ever, but it chose to play that as a strength, got the stupid writing out of the way as fast as possible, and then used its time on a large range of monsters to deal with, so it invested its time into where it'll be the best at and that is fun. What annoys me is games that surround themselves with an atmosphere of boring (Note: Atmosphere != Writing, but they are closely related) then go on to be not that special or particularly well designed.

There are typically 2 loud "Things need to change" shouters, those saying games need to get more serious and challenge us as a person and our ideas and beliefs, and those who say games need to get back to being fun and that its the most important trait of games. I don't know why these two groups separate themselves, they're both under the "Game devs should put some goddamn effort into it" idea, and those two kinds of games can exist without harming each other.

@Silicon: Yes, digital distribution is a good hope for games, Steam for example has the potential to grow into a more innovative market place for games, as risk-taking doesn't risk as much profit loss, and is good for small-time devs starting out.

Well, I'm glad I didn't turn out to be a total annoyance to read then. :)

Yes, Activision is one of the companies I don't even bother with anymore, and I'm simply not buying any more of their junk. Mirrors Edge surprised me when I saw it was an EA game, but with EAs choice to publish Brutal Legend, a game by the designer Tim Schafer, whos last two games were total commerical flops but critical hits (See Psychonauts and Grim Fandango) I've started to trust EA again, whether Brutal legend turns out good or not won't matter really, the fact that EA are willing to take the risk makes me happy with them.

1. Art is a flawed term to use for gaming, just as it is for movies and litterature. By using the word "art" I believe people actually mean something else. Something which is harder to summarize with just one word. I believe what they're trying to say is they want games to be deep, sincere, atmospheric, narrative and emotional. But that's not art. I think it would better be described as 'sophisticated'.

2. No matter what we call it, even if we would call this characteristic 'art', the OP is wrong in his claim that games have become more mainstream and that developers chicken out instead of innovate. It's just not true. The proportion between 'mainstream-generic' games to 'original-innovating-emotional' games has not evolved towards an increased number of mainstream-generic games by time. It's actually the other way around. In the 80's it was all Pong, Karate, Pac-Man or shoot'emups. The 90's brought us a steady flow of deeper, story-driven emotional games and they've been here ever since in an increased ratio.

Like so many others, the OP is suffering from a memory disorder which is called nostalgia.

Art is damn hard to define, in this context I mean the craft of games, audio, visuals, atmosphere, story, gameplay, all coming together to create a particular intended experience for the user.

I don't particularly think that things have gotten shit now, and companies DO chicken out of things that are risky, Activision chickened out of Brutal Legend because they didn't see the ability to make sequels from it (The only reason acti does anything anymore.) Schafers game before that (Psychonauts) was rejected by publishers for being creative, which wasn't considered profitable, thats not an exaggeration, its what they said to Schafer, they literally said "Wow, this is really creative, too bad no ones buying creative right now". The publisher they did end up getting, Majesco, got there hands burnt from its commercial failure and are doing mindlessly shallow games now.

And to be honest the only games that have been any notable at all this gen have been on the computer from what I can see, most of the console games across the Wii, PS3 and 360 are just mindless sequels, blatant generic-cookie-cutter-games, or just bland. The few games that are selling me this gen of consoles aren't even out yet.

But maybe games were always like that, and I just have nostalgia like you say.

@Silicon: Actually digital distribution doesn't remove the real problem, which is high cost of development. And, pursuing the "art" is nothing but ramping up the cost and going towards smaller audience.
The only way to go around the issue is to expand the audience and lower the dev costs. Biggest enemy for "art in videogames" is the "art in videogames".

@Spummbuddy: I do agree that when talking about videogames as art, the element of art has to be in the interaction and how the control over the content is given to the player.

Problem in the OP was that it was rather typical rant about "system X doesn't have the games i want". Whether that was your intention or not, it still was what the OP seemed to hold inside.

Anyway, after reading your "explation post" you obviously wanted to complain about the lack of originality and creativity in games, which more likely will increase when popularity of gaming grows.

Everyone has their opinions, but personally i'm not disappointed at all with the new game ideas on Wii. The implementation of Wiis controls in the "old idea games", however, have been a little disappointing in quite a few (3rd party) games, mostly because they have "had to put the motion controls into the game".

Nintendo's one of a very small handful of developers that actually treat video games like art, so I'm really surprised you see them as the bad guys here. It's usually us Nintendo fans whining about rising dev costs and bigger studios eating all the small indie studios, as those are the main problems facing game art. Shovelware isn't the threat. The threat is too much money and too many people being involved in the development process. Only a few companies can afford to take chances, and even fewer of them actually do.

I don't think the Wii is forcing developers to make more shovelware. Shovelware is always there, and is always attracted to 2 things: the cheapest development costs and the largest install base. Because the Wii has both of these, it attracts the most shovelware, but the shovelware was always there on the PS2, PS1, SNES, NES, Atari 2600, and everything else, really, and to this day when I walk into an arcade I might only want to play one or two of the games. Even in magical Japanese arcades.

I completely agree that video games are a very high art form due to their interactivity and the way they can make you live through an experience unlike any other art form, and that most games fail to see this potential.

But I disagree with Slimebeast that it's about atmosphere and sophistication. I do think those are important parts of the art of video games, but not the main draw in most games. Video games have graphic art, music art, sound art, narrative art, cinematic art, level design (one of my favorite art forms), and yes, even gameplay art. To me Tetris is a beautiful work of art and Pajitnov is a genius.

Games can approach art in many different ways though, and none are really superior or inferior to each other. Some people like paintings, some people like sculptures. Some people like games that play like epic novels (Final Fantasy 4), some people like games that play like epic cinema (Final Fantasy 6), some people like music games, some people like games that look like beautiful paintings (Okami, Muramasa), some people like games that are physics-based sculpting games (level editors, Tetris, Boom Blox, whatever), some people like games that feel like acid trips, and for some reason some people like to play Doom clones for 15 years straight.

I majored in film studies.  Art's the only thing I know, which is why I can't get a real fucking job and can't even afford video games.

We have been seeing more story driven games ever since FFVII made JRPGs mainstream

@Rubang: Don't worry, you don't even want a real job. If you'd want one, you hadn't majored in film studies.

@Rol: He knows art. That's propably his problem.

On a side note, why do these threads derail the instant you enter them?