Anytime someone tells me that Game Design/Creation is not an art form, I am deeply insulted. Games allow developers to tell stories that take the imersion of a player to an extent second only to real life experiences, and to convey emotions that make us tremble with amazement. As far as I am concerned, Game Development is the most singularly ''pure'' art that can be achieved in this world, regardless of what the end user thinks of the gameplay. And though our art is not as far advanced as the Film Industry in the conveyance of emotion (GOD, I loved Gladiator), it is evolving into the new form of storytelling that will eventually move to dominate the entertainment industry.

My personaly feelings on this ''phenominon'' known as Game Development...

-Brent Robinson

Sorry, clarity has never been my strongest point.

What I was trying to say is that there are different expectations between litreature and games (obvious?).

I remember a time not so long ago when I had become very short tempered with people. After a bit of contemplation, I had realised that I was doing something very similar to what I was doing when playing Baldur's Gate 2: I was skimming through conversation looking only for pertinent imformation and to hell with the rest. Which was a bit of a pity, since when I made myself slow down and read some of the extraneous text, I found it really quite entertaining. However, something about reading text on a computer is inherently different to reading it in a book.

This, I feel, places a limitation on game plots and characterisation because they too often unimportant information (the old tacked on plot and stereotypical information: you almost know what they're going to say before they say it - even though it my not have occured to your character in the game). Where was I? Yes... although text is the most easily stored data, it is also the least accessible.

So although non-linear plots and the like will go a long way towards making games more immersive, you will then have a lot of trouble making these 'colourful' to people.

I'll use the example of Jagged Alliance to exemplify this. In JA2 you are pretty much bereft of an explict plot (apart from liberating Arulco) and you are not forced into doing anything else. From the outset, you can pretty much do what you want, when you want, subject to your military strength. There was a cast of 50 or so characters, who all communicated through digitised speech. This meant that their distinctive voices all gave them excellent characterisation, until you realised that their responses to game events were supificial. Now if JA2 was mostly speech and it took up a CD, imagine a game with a non-linear development plot that had good, adaptive characterisation.

Now it could be done using simple text, but I think a lot of people will miss out. I'm sorry, but the idea that good game design included the types of media used to communicate...

I had no intention of I was disrespecting game design/writing. I am a relative newbie, so forgive my presumptiousness.

Edited by - Arinae on January 1, 2001 9:37:22 AM

And yes, I did actually post in the wrong forum. Should have been in game writing...

I''ve gotten a little confused here. Can someone please clarify what exactly we are talking about. Game Design as art? Game Design as literature? What exactly are we trying to pin point here? If this is anything relative then i don''t believe that game design is an artistic disapline. You could apply an artistic disapline to your game design methodology but that would only produce arty games. Also it would only allow you to say that "My" method of game design is art NOT game design is an art (generalising). No?

A designer doesnt need to know everything about code, they just have to have an appreciation for its limitations and how those limitations affect features they may wish to include in their design. - Drew

quote: Original post by Anonymous Poster
Game design and plot/writing are not related in any significant way.

If you ever start to seriously develop a game, you''ll discover just how wrong you are.

quote: Original post by Anonymous Poster
Thus your whole point is moot, and belongs in the writing forum.

I''ve said this in another post as well - there is only one person in this forum that decides if something really belongs here or not, and that''s me. I''d appreciate it if other people would stop trying to impose their idea of what this forum should or shouldn''t be about. There''s been enough discussion on that in the past few months already, with the new writing forum.



People might not remember what you said, or what you did, but they will always remember how you made them feel.
Mad Keith the V.

more bitching.

I am not text, I am not organized pixels, I am not killed by turning off your monitor, I am not isolated by turning off your computer. I just am.

Conshape Electronic Arts

As for me a game is art just like any scuplture or drawing.

Unluckly in general something is art when everyone thinks about it as art.

Despite of this perverted POV, every time you express yourself by creating somewhat which was inside your head you''re an artist.

Something which has been created by drawing, modeling, composing music, writing a plot, programming could be only defined as art.
Sum up all arts and what you get? Simply a more powerful form of art! Otherwise I couldn''t understand why people are still considering art The David of Michelangelo... several thousand years ago people already had statues, drawings, etc.!

It''s interesting when you talk about art saying the point is what you left out. Centuries ago this sentence would have been considered nothing but crap. Works of art were simple representations of truth until the twentieth century. Nowadays the perception of art is changed. Someone who wants to represent "cosmic" truth in a work of art is mad... no way out.

When you''re watching a film you don''t have to interact. You only focus on what''s happening. First films were nothing but technical excercises, and only after several decades filmmakers could bring people fascinating plots represented with the help of technology in the form of special effects.
Just like films are a great improvement over classic art, adding movement and being able to exactly represent what the author intended to describe in the book, games are a still greater (and harder to assimilate) improvement: you can interact. As long as you want to read a book because it''s short, to watch a film because the actors are famous, to play a game because it''s simple and you don''t want to think... you''re not experiencing art.
Just like books and films, games can be pure entrartainment or something more. It''s a user choice to play what they want.
If you look at the games we have today, you can find some of them are slightly closer to art than all games we could play 10 years ago.

Simply, the time hasn''t come yet....

Counter example: Counterstrike. The story? you are a terrorist or counter terrorist. Kill the opposing team (or accomplish your mission, killing the other team is easier though). That''s the whole story, and that''s all it needs. Multiplayer is where it is at, most multiplayer games don''t rely on a story or writing. The players write the story as they go. Sure single player games might need the crutch that is story but multiplayer games don''t. Really there is no need for people to insist that written story plays a role in every game. We aren''t all making single player games.