Quote:
Originally Posted by TotalAnarchy
...
|
What can I say, as a mere mortal I am trying to judge only how it appeals to me, not how I would define art. I think you are over analyzing it, trying to rationalize and measuring everything in levels of creativity. In the end, it's just my personal perception of atmospheric involvement and awe. Sorry, a 100 stories building may take a lot of effort but, depending on how it was designed, it can feel as bland and uninspired as many modern games. Technical achievements have great value to technicians, but not necessarily to the layman (maybe some practical value, but that's not the case for games).
No one would be silly enough to claim a team of 100 people didn't put some level of dedication in a product. But you can safely say not all things mankind build are truly inspired, in fact a very small share of them are. Like I said before, a techincal focused product is different. They are creative? Definetly, but that doesn't translate automatically into the feeling of wonder for the players.
All of this brings me back to my original point. Talented writers, drawers, among others, don't seem to be much present in game industry any longer, which is a shame.
In the end, we seem to differ in what we consider art. Since I am against trying to rationalize much these subjectives concepts, I will simply refer to it as awe inspiring and atmospheric engagement (like I said, I am simply a mortal and can only judge from my own perspective). I have read the article, and I will repeat what I posted earlier: art for art's sake is pointless and will lose all of it's intended value.
Finally, an addendum: I don't understand why you consider any contribution to a game as art but can't see Monkey Island's well-crafted game as such (and I have never said anyting about "ultimate").