Well, I don't really care what anyone on the Today Show says. And I agree with the video games are art argument, so does Smithsonian American Art Museum.

Yep, I suppose its much better to resign to a life of work, pop out 2.5 children, get a minivan, a shopping habit, rack up debt that we can never pay off, get involved in politics that we will never have a chance of swaying, get lobotomys and wait to die.


because everyone knows, if you play teh vidja games, they control all of your mental faculties- all the time, tuning you into a zombie that can't possibly fathom the concept of responsibility :ahhh:

Excuse me, Today Show? The '90s were 21 years ago. It's time to get past 21-year-old views on an art form, thanks.

The amount of narrow-minded idiocy displayed by those people in that one paragraph is astounding.

Not really, it can effect people, more than games do, and im not going to judge it beucase I dont look at that stuff. Games however I do look, and see little emotion or anything really. Please give examples of emotional parts of games, becuase there arent many I am aware of.

When Lavitz died in Legend of Dragoon.

Anyways, I was just shocked that people still have these kind of views in this day and age. Chances are though, they are aware of the statistics, but will say anything for a bit of attention.

Halo: Reach effected me in a "awe man, now I'm kinda depressed" kinda way. On the other end of the scale the Ending of Mass Effect made me feel like "Hell yeah! Take that, giant space-squid!"

Most RPGs including (off the top of my head):

Final Fantasy VIII & X
Phantasy Star II & IV
Deus Ex
Mass Effect

Emotional doesn't just mean you cry your eyes out.

Every time a game makes you feel an emotion, that's doing what an art form sets out to do. Every time the game makes you feel excited during a particularly intense scene, or scared while playing a game like Amnesia, or sad like the ending of Red Dead Redemption, that's what an art form is supposed to do. I'd bet anything you've experienced that firsthand more than you realize.

Everyone is weird. Gamers are no exception.

During the opening sequence of Bioshock when you're entering Rapture and Andrew Ryan's recording is telling about his dream.

Or in Dragon Age Origins when Loghain's accusing your party in the capitol near the end of the game, or when he abandons the king in the beginning.

Or the end - epilogue of RDR

There are more example of course, but I'm getting around to watch a movie so don't have much time - besides, that's a fair list of examples in games that put emotions in me.

EDIT:

And this is very true.

the way I look at it, 70-s and 80's advlts werent exposed to as many games.. but someone in their 30's has been, or has hd the chance to play video games for their whole life..
its not a "kid vs advlt" issue to me. its just a new norm, if that makes sense

:huh:


Meh. I don't even know who these people are, I couldn't care less what they consider normal.

Mass effect I just watched and felt nothing. Just "oh thats cliche" I also felt annoyed with how stupid it looked the normandy diving down before shooting, then the explosion and shep standing on the wreckage. (the last part I was alsmost vomiting) and I was just wondering why certain things happened or why the villan didnt do other things.

No emotion from me.

I dont play JRPGs, dont have a good enough PC for Deus ex, and never felt anything in mass effect. I liked Soverigns music, but other than that nothing.

I know that, but only moments I find are sad, I have found no other emotions in games.

Entertainment is art.

If movies are classed as art, video games should be classed as art. They're the same thing only with interaction.

I don't really think you can say that just by watching it. For one thing, with a video game, you have been the one fighting the monsters, you have been the one saving (Or slaughtering) the innocents. You, not anyone else. Makes it much more powerful because you feel like you did it.

Pretty sure it needs some emotional value.


I meant watching the end cutscene with soverign.

I agree you need to play it to get full impact but like I said I just didnt find mass effect emotional.


This is going offtopic.


So who are these people and why should I care about thier oppinions ?

Agreed, however I don't get sad with the end of RDR, I'm like "TAKE THAT!"

EDIT: refering to the real ending of course

You want me to give you an example so you can say "I don't see how that's emotional, it didn't make me emotional"? You say paintings can affect people, but you don't look at that stuff. So, you're really only going by what's viewed as a fact in society. There's no universal opinion that games "affect" people because a large percent of the population still doesn't take them seriously. Now, you don't feel for either of these two things - games or paintings, but you are sure that one of them is art and the other isn't. I think you're believing the stereotypes. I've heard similar things so many times - people that generally aren't familliar with art at all tend to just repeat something that must be true - they don't feel that paintings affect people, but they'll say it anyway.

The fact is, games can affect people as much as paintings do. They're just not "officially" recognized as art yet. But that does not change what people can feel. But it's not just about whether you feel anything - whether you're sad or angry when playing that game. The very parts a game is made out of - the amount of talent, designing and inspiration that goes into a game - make it a work of art. Artistic minds work on creating it.

Ah. Well different strokes for different folks, I guess.

I'd suggest the discussion of games as art divert to a different topic so as not to derail this one. After all, this one discusses an interesting subject on its own - the disconnect between gamers and non-gamers and the stereotypes either side prescribes to when viewing the other.

Very briefly... Yes, I can see what the hosts are saying, but I think they're not articulating themselves all that well. In a sense, the thought of some of these advlts playing video games IS weird. Many of them never grew up with video games, and were introduced to them only recently. Others only picked it up through their children. And some will have played videogames for the better part of the last 30 years - plenty to be considered lifelong gamers. But in the same vein, it's no weirder than using a smartphone for texting and internet use, which has more universal acceptance. This is a case of bias and stereotypes at play - the hosts don't realize that the majority of gamers aren't the basemant dwelling pimply people - they're just normal advlts looking for the occasional diversion from the stresses of life, and replacing time that used to be spent watching sitcoms and news, in part, with videogames.

They are legally recognized as art and protected by the first amendment IIRC.

They host a news/entertainment show ( as if those two aren't synonymous these days ) and apparently live a lifestyle that makes them find advlt gamers laughable. Sometimes I wish people would just roll over these issues. If there was no money/publicity in bashing advlt gamers, they wouldn't do it.

Really? I honestly did not know this. I'm sure many others didn't as well, as all I ever hear are discussions about how they cannot be compared to film - even though there was a time when film wasn't recognized as a form of art.

Well, yeah. That's the epilogue, though. That actually slipped my mind when I typed that. Hmm... how do I say this without people who haven't played the game yet getting VERY mad at me... I don't think I can, so anyone who hasn't played the game, for the love of god don't click the spoiler tag.

Yeah I understood what you meant