32 footsteps, I totally agree that game rankings skew towards the older games, and I think that that's one promising indication of "maturity," although I still believe it's nostalgia-led. That said, on a value basis, there's no comparison to me that people would prefer to play newer games to older ones.
In music, however, people still buy Beatles albums--Pink Floyd still has like the 3rd best-selling album of all times in the States. Further, there's a vibrant indie/underground scene in music, books, movies--none of this is happening with games.
Probot, if NES and Atari is Nosferatu and Metropolis, then let's take a more recent example. I find it hard to believe that anyone would play Ratchet and Clank 1 over whatever the newest iteration is. Same for Rayman. Same for most FPS's. Same for Civilization. There's a sense of progress here that doesn't necessarily exist in pure "art." That said, I think you've hit the nail on the head when you mentioned Tetris. To me, the greatest "art" that gaming has produced is more abstract, like Tetris, or perhaps SimCity or something non-linear.
John Scalzi's article is pretty good--I don't agree with all his points, but I think it's fair to say that the elegance and beauty of gaming is in the playing of it. Not the overblown music or script or even graphics (I'm think FFVII here) but in the elegance of Tetris or the wonder of GTA. It's like a rollercoaster or chess--there's a visceralness that doesn't have to be art to be compelling.
The biggest fallacy is trying to compare gaming to a narrative-driven medium like movies. It's tough--you're just not going to win against that kind of arguments. The question of how much of this is intrinsic to the gaming medium and how much is a function of the people creating games is uncertain to me. Although my gut says that it's both, but more skewed towards the platform's nature.
I think you may have misunderstood me. My point is this, given the option between today's latest and greatest and yesterday's latest and greatest, most would opt for today's latest and greatest in videogames. The same is not at all true for other media, regardless of whether it's "art."
Classic games will have a forum, yes, no one doubts that, but not considered at par with the contemporary games--and as cruel as it may be, I believe price absolutely has implications. It may not be artistic worth, but the market does have some bearing on the item's relevance.
But that's only a part of the bigger question, which is why gaming is not yet "mature"--which is an altogether different issue. Part of it is that it's an interactive medium, yes. Part is its relative youth, although 20 years is hardly young anymore, esp in today's accelerated climate. Part of it is the increasingly high cost of production and technical requirements. Who knows, maybe it will always be shinier blood and guts with some edgier materials.
Probot, I disagree that one would pay the same amount for Street Fighter II as one would for Prey. On the other hand, I'd definitely pay as much for North by Northwest on DVD as I would Bad Boys 2. (Much as I love both movies.) And I'd be terribly surprised if there wasn't a huge nostalgia factor involved with the newly released old games. For example, I just can't imagine that anyone would go back and play Castle Wolfenstein 3D except as a nostalgia piece, despite its ground-breaking nature. Do I think there are timeless games? Sure--I think that the original Zelda, Fallout, and the SCUMM games are timeless. But perhaps that's a factor of those kinds of games not being made anymore, rather than feeling as if they are exemplary independent of time. Another words, there's rarely the sense or pace of "progress" that you see in videogame journalism. The closest I guess would be movies with special effects, yet another computer-related effort.
And Marlowe and Johnson may be relegated to the English class-room, but Faulkner and Proust and Shakespeare sure ain't. When's the last time you heard that the golden age of gaming was Atari? Or even NES?
That said, it got me thinking that perhaps game construction critique WOULD be an interesting read. It'd give you some voyeuristic thrill--kind of like a deconstruction of car design in those car magazines or what have you. That'd be interesting, not sure for how long though. Honestly, I actually enjoy reading those stupid "Tom Versus Bruce" things in CGW and whatnot. They're fun--and it's encouraging to see mainstream game media not following "preview then reviews then cheatcodes" all the time!
Thanks Dave! I meant that question more as a hypothetical, as it seems that my monitor is much cheaper than an equivalent HDTV-ready LCD tv/monitor. So is it just the signal converter that costs so much?
If I have an LCD monitor that can display 1900X1200,why in god's name can't it be an HDTV? If not 1080i, at least 720p or whatever, 480p. Can someone help?
I agree largely with Agee's post above--as Metal Gear creator said (paraphrased,) games aren't the same as existing art. Before everyone jumps in, what he meant was that no one revisits old games the same way people revisit old films or music or books. Due to the way games and gameplay are increasingly attached to technology, you don't have that timelessness that other art forms have. Ergo, less criticism. That said, Lester Bang didn't really do criticism so much as sensationalism. THAT, I don't understand why there hasn't been a great critic borne.
Secondly, I totally disagree with Joystiq's post that people don't want criticism any more. Look at the phenomenal success of Pitchfork. Say what you will about the level of criticism and quality, but these certainly aren't 2-line summaries or "journalism" in any sense.
Add to that example Slate, as some one mentioned, as well as the continued strength of NYTimes book reviews, movie reviews, what have you--I think there is a open area for game criticism. It may actually help game developing if there were more concrete critiques rather than, "it sucked, controls were crap." Perhaps it would help if more game reviewers were failed game makers. :)
Klosterman responds to "critic" critics
Jul 12th 2006 4:10PM (Joystiq)In music, however, people still buy Beatles albums--Pink Floyd still has like the 3rd best-selling album of all times in the States. Further, there's a vibrant indie/underground scene in music, books, movies--none of this is happening with games.
Probot, if NES and Atari is Nosferatu and Metropolis, then let's take a more recent example. I find it hard to believe that anyone would play Ratchet and Clank 1 over whatever the newest iteration is. Same for Rayman. Same for most FPS's. Same for Civilization. There's a sense of progress here that doesn't necessarily exist in pure "art." That said, I think you've hit the nail on the head when you mentioned Tetris. To me, the greatest "art" that gaming has produced is more abstract, like Tetris, or perhaps SimCity or something non-linear.
John Scalzi's article is pretty good--I don't agree with all his points, but I think it's fair to say that the elegance and beauty of gaming is in the playing of it. Not the overblown music or script or even graphics (I'm think FFVII here) but in the elegance of Tetris or the wonder of GTA. It's like a rollercoaster or chess--there's a visceralness that doesn't have to be art to be compelling.
The biggest fallacy is trying to compare gaming to a narrative-driven medium like movies. It's tough--you're just not going to win against that kind of arguments. The question of how much of this is intrinsic to the gaming medium and how much is a function of the people creating games is uncertain to me. Although my gut says that it's both, but more skewed towards the platform's nature.
Klosterman responds to "critic" critics
Jul 12th 2006 1:22PM (Joystiq)Classic games will have a forum, yes, no one doubts that, but not considered at par with the contemporary games--and as cruel as it may be, I believe price absolutely has implications. It may not be artistic worth, but the market does have some bearing on the item's relevance.
But that's only a part of the bigger question, which is why gaming is not yet "mature"--which is an altogether different issue. Part of it is that it's an interactive medium, yes. Part is its relative youth, although 20 years is hardly young anymore, esp in today's accelerated climate. Part of it is the increasingly high cost of production and technical requirements. Who knows, maybe it will always be shinier blood and guts with some edgier materials.
Klosterman responds to "critic" critics
Jul 12th 2006 12:31PM (Joystiq)And Marlowe and Johnson may be relegated to the English class-room, but Faulkner and Proust and Shakespeare sure ain't. When's the last time you heard that the golden age of gaming was Atari? Or even NES?
That said, it got me thinking that perhaps game construction critique WOULD be an interesting read. It'd give you some voyeuristic thrill--kind of like a deconstruction of car design in those car magazines or what have you. That'd be interesting, not sure for how long though. Honestly, I actually enjoy reading those stupid "Tom Versus Bruce" things in CGW and whatnot. They're fun--and it's encouraging to see mainstream game media not following "preview then reviews then cheatcodes" all the time!
Panasonic's 32 and 26-inch Viera LCD televisions
Jul 12th 2006 12:02PM (Engadget)Panasonic's 32 and 26-inch Viera LCD televisions
Jul 12th 2006 10:47AM (Engadget)If I have an LCD monitor that can display 1900X1200,why in god's name can't it be an HDTV? If not 1080i, at least 720p or whatever, 480p. Can someone help?
Klosterman responds to "critic" critics
Jul 12th 2006 8:56AM (Joystiq)Secondly, I totally disagree with Joystiq's post that people don't want criticism any more. Look at the phenomenal success of Pitchfork. Say what you will about the level of criticism and quality, but these certainly aren't 2-line summaries or "journalism" in any sense.
Add to that example Slate, as some one mentioned, as well as the continued strength of NYTimes book reviews, movie reviews, what have you--I think there is a open area for game criticism. It may actually help game developing if there were more concrete critiques rather than, "it sucked, controls were crap." Perhaps it would help if more game reviewers were failed game makers. :)