Games as the Creative Discipline for this Century

[Valiant]

Do you think or believe that Games have reached a point where they can be considered to have surpassed all other mediums, art forms and variations of entertainment whether it be literature, photography, film , cinematography, design, science and technology or beyond to fuse all of these elements together to go beyond what was once considered or accepted as the pinnacle of creative pursuits.

http://www.youtube.com/DeusExOfficial#p/a/u/2/hoRwOux7Ofw

For example this trailer for Human Revolution surpasses anything I have seen in terms of presentation since The Inception sneak reveal and also extends beyond it with the new release of the Purity First Campaign

http://www.youtube.com/DeusExOfficial#p/a/u/0/akaos1U8Rto

Games utilise and exploit all forms of mass communication marketing technology ideas creativity and beyond to always be one step ahead of any other area.

Why do you feel that is?

Is the future of Games something beyond the bite sized virtual addiction of social games or are these just a phase, will anything disintgerate the power of these networks are they another platform in themselves to run complimentary and not antaganistically to other more established areas of the industry like AAA Development and has the era of the Smartphone accelerated so fast that the majority of the games industry are still playing catch up?

If Corporations have more power than the Governments these days like Appple, Nintendo, Microsoft, Sony, Google, Oracle and beyond where does that leave us?

With the recent hacker scandal and all that it pertains are "Anonymous" some kind of elaborate new age Games Company racking up Points with each new systemised attack and coordinated self publicity.

Where should we "Expect Us" next?

So in essence what is the state of Games now and what lies in the next decade not only for Gaming but Technology as a whole?

[charlesr]

I think there's a generation of gamer that has grown up with game devices as an extra feature in their life that needed to be saved up for and cherished. Thus people collectiong GBA consoles and GBA games.

However, gamers coming through now have mobile phones that are capable of games we could only have dreamed of 10 years ago and for them it's a natural part of their everyday tech gear. This means that games are starting to become as natural for the masses as making a phone call, espcecially with the ability to download a demo in the blink of an eye (ok a few blinks). You'll never see anyone collecting mobile phones as a gaming device or collecting mobile games - firstly it's not possible, but also, it's not cool - an old mobile phone is a social stigma and by association, the games on the old mobiles.

This natural move from dedicated device to do-it-all means the market has changed, although the industry is doing a sterling job of catching up and trying to please everyone at once.

Also the move to download services will kill huge swathes of the internet that rely on affiliate links to sales of physical items to fund their provision of informative content. If no physical items are being sold then unless XboxLive and PSN and Ovi other digital download platforms start offering affiliation, then the only revenue streams left over are advertising and/or subscription models.

[Golgo]

Certainly not "surpassed". But games have certainly matured to the point where they can be considered alongside those other artistic media as offering different experiences but ones of equivalent value. That is, as long as games are not judged falsely on the aesthetic/technical criteria specific to those other media, e.g.: don't expect games to have as compelling or complex a narrative/characterization as great literature; don't expect games to have the emotional immediacy of great music; etc. Why should they?

What "was once considered or accepted as the pinnacle of creative pursuits", by the way? I don't believe that anything of the sort has ever existed.

[toythatkills]

I read the OP and I do not have the slightest idea what any of it means. Can anyone translate?

If I've understood the first paragraph correctly, I can only answer "are you completely insane? Of course not."

[Golgo]

^ Quite obviously it's a well-meaning attempt to open a discussion about the merits of gaming in relation to other creative media. No need to get precious about the precise wording and occasional hyperbole.

[cutmymilk]

Its all a bit babbly isn't it!

For the answer, no it's not as revered as films or music and never will be. Probably for the best. We all know what happens when gaming becomes more mainstream.

[Bort]

If anyone had missed it. It's Valiant.

Time to walk away before any more of his codswallop.

[toythatkills]

^ Quite obviously it's a well-meaning attempt to open a discussion about the merits of gaming in relation to other creative media. No need to get precious about the precise wording and occasional hyperbole.

I wasn't getting precious, I genuinely don't understand half of what the OP says and how it relates to everything else in the OP. What do Anonymous have to do with how creative games are? It seems like there's about ten different issues and I've no idea what the actual question is.

But if the question is "are games more creative than other forms of media?" then that's absurd. Games are ridiculously limited and even the most "creative" games are just old games with a new skin. I mean, take Shadow of the Colossus, a game that many probably would see as the pinnacle as games as a creative medium; break it down and it's a guy taking on a bunch of bosses. It's the same game you've been playing forever, and every game is the same. There's very little creativity in gaming, there's only the illusion of it. Games will never be able to do what movies do because people just aren't interested in that stuff. I watched Blue Valentine the other week, one of the most affecting love stories I've ever seen. It could never work in a game because games need heroes and villains and destinations and quests. They can't just tell stories because they don't have an audience that would accept it. They can't be creative.

[Dirty Sanchez]

No, they haven't surpassed other mediums. The growth of the medium is fantastic but have a long way to go to compete fully with the other forms of art.

I don't see games being far and away ahead of other mediums in terms of marketing - downloadable books, internet capable TV/DVD/Bluray, a hundred and one media links for all forms of art. Games are just on the bandwaggon, not leading it.

I'm not sure about your intentions about the direction of gaming, I think you need to split your discussion into genres. Mobile gaming for example is far from a AAA title as could be. They are completely different beasts serving different markets. Lablelling both under just games is unwise.

After that your post seems to fire off at a number of tangents, I'd suggest a new thread for each one, too distracting in this thread.

[Golgo]

^ Games "can't be creative" because they can't tell stories? Abstract painting doesn't tell stories, either.

SotC: "Break it down and it's a guy taking on a bunch of bosses." Absurd reasoning. Many things can be broken down like that. How about Godfather, Part I? But what do you leave out in the 'breaking down?'

[charlesr]

If anyone had missed it. It's Valiant.

Time to walk away before any more of his codswallop.

Valiant has promised not to do any more ARG posting here (thus reinstating the account).
This thread is an attempt at a proper discussion.

[wakka]

^ Quite obviously it's a well-meaning attempt to open a discussion about the merits of gaming in relation to other creative media. No need to get precious about the precise wording and occasional hyperbole.

Well meaning it may be but it makes absolutely no sense. We don't have to praise everything!

In terms of games as a creative medium on a par with literature, music and film, it seems pretty evident that they haven't at all reached that point yet, nor should anyone have expected them to. The medium has been around for the blink of an eye, really thirty years at most. Don't get me wrong, I love games to pieces and am obsessed with them like most people on here, but they can hardly be mentioned in the same breathe as - for example - literature in terms of artistic achievement.

Gaming is still so fresh and so new in my opinion, no one knows where it's going yet. And that's what makes it so exciting! Comparisons are often made between games and film, but really they're such different mediums that we have no idea what the future creative possibilities are for games.

[toythatkills]

^ Games "can't be creative" because they can't tell stories? Abstract painting doesn't tell stories, either.

Abstract paintings aren't a narrative form (not that doesn't mean there aren't stories in them). If we're judging games for what they are, then compare them to things that they're like. The point isn't about stories, really, it's about what games can do. Games are restricted (probably by their audience) because the audience needs well defined goals. You can't tell a story like you can in a film or a book because if the protagonist doesn't have a clear, well-defined goal, then there's no way for the player to get involved. This is a limitation of games as a medium, and there's not enough creativity in the medium to get around it, or even if there is nobody would be interested in buying it.

SotC: "Break it down and it's a guy taking on a bunch of bosses." Absurd reasoning. Many things can be broken down like that. How about Godfather, Part I? But what do you leave out in the 'breaking down?'

See above. At the start of SotC you're pretty much told "KILL ALL THESE THINGS." That's your story. That's your aim. That's the only reason people can get involved because without that clear goal, there'd be nothing there. In the Godfather, Part 1, the characters aims and goals and motivations are free to be revealed slowly and fluidly, and it's able to leave gaps for the viewer to make their own judgements.

We all enjoy games, that's fair enough, but there's no point pretending they're something they're not.

[Golgo]

^ Your argument keeps coming back round to the assumption that videogames are inherently/ineradicably a narrative form, on which criteria videogames inevitably look poor. My point, for what it's worth, is that this is not necessarily the case. Tetris and Lumines have no story. Anyway ... doesn't this kind of discussion get boring, ...and fast?

[toythatkills]

Somewhat, yeah.

My point about narrative games is to give some comparison. If we're going to say that x is more creative than y, then the only way to judge it is in the areas in which they're similar. Outside of that, there's no comparison to be made and so no discussion to have.