MovieChat Forums > Zeruda no densetsu: Kaze no takuto (2003) Discussion > A masterpiece on Story and Visuals, yet ...

A masterpiece on Story and Visuals, yet lacking in gameplay...

posted 17 years ago by clockworkpi
20 replies | jump to latest

Games are an unusual form of art. They combine many forms of art, movies, music, story, visual art, but there is one that is unique to Video Games. Gamplay. This art form can have it's up sides, and it's bad sides. I believe that, although it was too easy and didn't par up in gameplay standards, it mastered the Story and Visual Aspects. I enjoy the Visuals, even though they are cartoony. They are "Modern Art". It is beautiful, in it's own way. And the story is riveting, I beleive, with the flooded ocean and all. However, Gameplay is somewhat lacking; it didn't deliver fully. And so, I believe, It mastered everything except Gameplay, the most important of all the art forms in video games.
----------------------------------------
I'm never gonna die... Only old people die.

[–] UESC_Marathon 17 years ago

Well, thats a new critique of the game at least. I think most people would disagree with you though. Maybe you could explain what exactly you found lacking in the gameplay? It was pretty similiar to Ocarina of Time's gameplay, and that is often called the greatest game of all time. If anything I would say that Wind Waker played even more smoothly. Everything was wonderfully intuitive, at least for me. The combat I especially thought was an improvement over the already excellent combat from Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask. Really the only thing I remember irritating me was the boat's controls. It seemed silly to make players play a song everytime the wanted to change course.

One last note: I wouldn't consider gameplay mechanics an art. They're just an interface to let us expierience the game designer's vision.

[–] clockworkpi 17 years ago

Well, what I found lacking is that it was easy. Plus, pretty much everyone hates on it, so I just would like to provide a kind of white flag.

----------------------------------------
I'm never gonna die... Only old people die.

[–] UESC_Marathon 17 years ago

Okay, thats a fair complaint. I don't think that the low difficulty detracted from the funness of the combat or the imersiveness of the game world though.

[–] cestlefun17 17 years ago

I agree. Video games are not an art; they are games and do not have any deeper analytical value beyond providing entertainment.

The Arts:
visual (paiting, sculpture, etc.)
literature
music and spoken word
performance (live theater, ballet, etc.)
moving image (motion pictures, television)

Oscar Buzz's Favorite Best Picture: The Sound of Music (1965)

[–] UESC_Marathon 17 years ago

Exactly what quality do games lack that make them incapable of being art? You might only be looking for some quick entertainment in games, and admittidly thats all most games provide, but I believe some games can transcend mindless fun and become truly beautiful experiences. Some examples of games that have moved me would be: Legend of Zelda, Shadow of the Colossus and Metal Gear Solid. I believe these games take wonderful peices of traditional art, such as graphics, music, etc... and combine them with interactive gameplay to make an experience greater than the sum of it's parts.

[–] cestlefun17 17 years ago

While it takes artistic talent and thinking to design and create these games, the work itself is not a piece of art. You cannot analyze a video game in the same sense you can analyze a novel or a film or a painting.

Oscar Buzz's Favorite Best Picture: The Sound of Music (1965)

[–] UESC_Marathon 17 years ago

You have to remember that video games are still a very young medium and are still settling technologically. You can't compare them to great works of literature. Even comparing them to the great early silent films is unfair, because those grew out of live stage plays and so had more inspiration to draw from. So video games are primitive, yes, but even at this early stage in their developement some truly beautiful works have already been produced. Have you ever played Ico, or Shadow of The Colossus? These aren't games that you play just to have fun and kill some CP enemies, they're immersive worlds that inspire awe, reverence, sadness and wonder. Isn't that the essence of art; to communicate feelings and emotions?

I'm not arguing that Tetris or Super Mario Bros. are brilliant works of art. They're just great entertainment. I do believe though, that games have the potential to be much more than that. They haven't even come close to realizing their full potential yet, but some games have hinted at what might be possible.

[–] cestlefun17 17 years ago

Art is subjective, so what exactly is art and what isn't is subject to debate. There is some debate over whether video games are art or not, but the general consesus is that a video game is a product meant to entertain and is not art. Whether this will change twenty years from now remains to be seen, but it is unlikely that it can ever be classified as art.

A video game does not produce the same experience every time it is played, and does not produce the same experience for everyone who plays it. A movie for instance, will still be the same no matter how many times you, or someone else watches it. The words of a novel will not change each time you read it. While a play will be different because the actors will change and each director will have his own interpretation, the experience is still the same for everyone in the audience at a given performance. The important thing about art is that it is the same experience for everyone viewing it, so that everyone is taking a different meaning, emotion, or interpretation from the same piece, and it is through this that art is able to be discussed and enlighten us on the human condition.

The only forms of human creativity that can accomplish this are:

The Visual Arts
The Art of Literature
The Art of Music and the Spoken Word
The Performing Arts
The Art of the Moving Image

Oscar Buzz's Favorite Best Picture: The Sound of Music (1965)

[–] UESC_Marathon 17 years ago

From what I've seen, gamers and those in the gaming industry tend to think that games can be art while those who are more or less unfamiliar with gaming view them as mindless entertainment. Remember that other newer mediums such as comic books and even film were not seen as art when they first came into being.

As for video games not producing the same emotional response every time it is played - well, neither do films, musics, plays, books, paintings or any other art form you can think of. This is obvious; otherwise everybody would have the same opinion on every work of art. Do you think that everyone takes away the same thing from a film like Pink Floyd's The Wall? It's the same with every work of art, peoples expieriences will vary depending on who they are, what frame of mind they are in when the view the artwork, what they choose to focud on, what their preconceptions were beforehand, what events in thier own life they can relate the work to, and their level of understanding of the piece. It would be pretty dull if everyone took away the same thing from a piece of art every single time!

You're right that films are the same for whoever watches them, but you seem to have overlooked the fact that games are too. If there is an event in a video game then the game designers put it there. Most games have linear structures, so while players might progess slightly differently, they will all get the same narrative journey. And even if the game is non-linear, it won't change with the player. Maybe I chose not to play through any sidequests in Zelda. I would probably get a poorer expierience then someone who explored the game fully. Maybe I chose to read Orwell's Animal Farm simply as a story about farm animals. Same idea: I would get a different expieience from someone who took the time to understand all the subtleties.

[–] cestlefun17 17 years ago

As for video games not producing the same emotional response every time it is played - well, neither do films, musics, plays, books, paintings or any other art form you can think of. This is obvious; otherwise everybody would have the same opinion on every work of art.

I'm saying that the artwork is the same for everyone, but each person has a different interpretation of it.

A film or a novel or a painting will not change depending on who watches/reads/sees it. It is there and exists in the same form no matter who experiences it. But even though we are all watching the same thing, we all take different things from it. That is art. It's the reason why, for example, a telephone pole is not a piece of art. It looks the same no matter who sees it, but for everyone it is just a telephone pole. Conversely, a video game is not a piece of art because everyone plays it differently (even linear games - some people may find it challenging and die a lot, while another will breeze right through) and therefore no two people will have the same experience, so whatever interpretation, emotions, etc. felt by any two people stem from two different experiences.

About comic books being art: That is pretty iffy. It depends on the comic book, I guess, and would have to be classified under the Visual Arts, never Literature.

Oscar Buzz's Favorite Best Picture: The Sound of Music (1965)

[–] UESC_Marathon 17 years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interactive_art

It looks like we have different definitions of art; I would define art as any creation that communicates a specific emotion or feeling. Video games can definitely accomplish that, and that's all I ask of a piece of art. I would just like to add one thing: I don't see the point in restricting "art" to a mere five different categories. I don't know about you, but I don't see art as some sacred concept that cannot be tampered with.

Anyway, I hope that you can at least see the beauty that I find in viedo games, whether or not you call them art. That's all that really matters.

[–] cestlefun17 17 years ago

OK, I guess we can agree to disagree. Those five categories are incredibly broad, and continue to expand as new technology is invented (photography, in Visual Arts, for example). The only modern category is the Art of the Moving Image. Maybe video games will someday be considered as a separate category, but right now, the general consensus does not consider video games to be an art.

I will not read the article you linked to, because it is Wikipedia.

This is a very interesting article. It's opinion is that video games have the potential to be considered art in the future.
http://www.gamecritics.com/feature/editorial/videogames_art/page01.php

Oscar Buzz's Favorite Best Picture: The Sound of Music (1965)

[–] UESC_Marathon 17 years ago

You seem to be of the opinion that art is defined by the general public. Does it really matter that much whether the majority of people "accept" video games as art? That should have absolutely no effect on whether you personally consider them to be art. Also, if games can convey emotions just like the "official" art mediums, does it even matter if you or I consider them art? They aren't going to change just because some pretentios prick like Roger Ebert admits them into the list of accepted art forms. Sometimes I think people make the term "Art" so specific that it becomes irrelevant. If all "art" is is a list of five different mediums, then really, who cares?

[–] cestlefun17 17 years ago

Sometimes I think people make the term "Art" so specific that it becomes irrelevant. If all "art" is is a list of five different mediums, then really, who cares?

There has to be some general consensus about what is and isn't art. If you roll a lump of clay into a ball, is that a sculpture? No, of course it isn't, even if you consider it to be art. Art is an incredibly broad subject. Those five mediums are incredibly broad and are not as specific as you think.

Note that video games are definately a form of applied art, but they are not considered a fine art.

Note that the subcategories I'm listing is not a definitive list by any means:

The Visual Arts
painting
photography
printmaking
sculpture
mosaic
tapestry
ceramics
among many, many others

The Art of Literature
prose
poetry

The Art of Music and the Spoken Word
classical
rock-and-roll
rap
all other styles of music
narrative story
performance poetry

The Performing Arts
play (long form)
play (short form)
musical
opera
ballet
other dancing styles

The Art of the Moving Image
film (long form)
film (short form)
television (miniseries or made-for-television movie)
television (episodic)

Oscar Buzz's Favorite Best Picture: The Sound of Music (1965)

[–] UESC_Marathon 17 years ago

But I still don't see what the point of trying to make strict rules about what can or can't be considered art. What can that accomplish other then inhibiting the creativity of the market and lowering peoples standards for artistic quality in games. I agree that to communicate we need to have a general agreement of what the term "art" means, but like I said before, I don't even see why people would care about the concept of art if all we define it as is a product in one of a list of mediums. It's just so arbitrary.

Also, while an agreement on what the term art means is necessary for communications sake, I don't see that the majority opnion should be a factor in our decisions of whether a particular piece of work should be considered art.

Like I said before though, I have no problem if you personally don't see games as art. I just hope that it is based on your own expierience with the medium and your own interpretation of what makes something a work of art, and not just on the "general consensus", which I believe is made up largely of people who are unqualified to say anything about video games. And remember, the general consensus was once that films and rock music were mindless entertainment, so whether or not video games are or are not a valid form of art, the general consensus would almost certainly be that they aren't.

[–] cestlefun17 17 years ago

The rules are not strict at all. It's not like a group of people got into a room and wrote down every single type of art. There is no exact definition of art, so it's fine to have your own opinion of what you consider art, but it is also important to take into consideration what other people are saying too.

I love video games, by the way, my favorites being The Legend of Zelda series. They are very entertaining. The artists who work on video games (yes, they are artists) are very talented, but I cannot consider the video game as a whole an artwork. It's not because video games are new (as you mention with film and rock music), it's because they are experienced in an entirely different way than other art forms.

Oscar Buzz's Favorite Best Picture: The Sound of Music (1965)

[–] UESC_Marathon 17 years ago

Alright, fair enough. I have no arguments with that.

[–] clockworkpi 17 years ago

I beleive that, what Video Games actually are, are a collection of diffrent forms of art, a collection of all you have listed, blended together to create something totally new. Some stories blend into thought provocking stories; then there's Super Mario. I would just think that the graphics in WW, are in fact one of the best forms of art, in diffrence to totally realistic graphics.

But, concerning comic books as a form of art; just like other mdeiums, not all comic book is art. Those ones that are about 16 pages long with no character development that is frequently portrayed in animation, that's not art. However, there are comic books that are not like that, such as The Watchmen, The Dark Knight Returns, Year One, just to name a few. So, remember, not all of what you is stated is art; art is a few of the best of them. So, just like that fingerpaint a three year old made, not all music or visual art or
oving Picutres, or whatever, is art.

----------------------------------------
I'm never gonna die... Only old people die.

[–] mikepyro 15 years ago

So what if they make people experience something in different ways? how does that in anyway effect the standards of art? Someone may watch a movie and think "wow this is crap" while another thinks "wow this is beautiful" the same goes for games. In fact, video games prob combine just as much level of art as film ie. Scriptwriting, computer and visual art, concept art, entertainment. people can laugh, cry, or scream in a video game experience, depending upon the source. I'm not saying there are more affecting videogames than movies, not even close, some are pure popcorn entertainment (Gears of War, Resistence) just like blockbuster movies. But what matters is a person's perception of art. Fine, you can label your artforms into categories and ignore videogames, but you still should acknowledge that many can view games as art.

Okami (a masterful, emotional story with graphics created from and with old japanese watercolor painting style)

Metal Gear Solid (a 4 game spanning epic involving more detail and plot twists than any war thriller as well as a deep message on the horrors of war)

Zelda (captured the imagination of children and adults everywhere, a main principle regarding the ideals of art)

Psychonauts (the most awe inspiring level design, which start as concept drawings, and imagination, far more than most novels and films can ever hope to achieve. Not to mention the funniest game I've ever played)

[–] Picnic10 8 years ago

Cestlefun, you're using some Roger Ebert type definition of what art is.

Being able to have multiple interpretations of a fixed presentation constitutes art to you. Yet a videogame like Catherine largely has the same gameplay experience throughout and the distinctiveness of it could make it be called 'art'.