Which shall be the solution to the "Gamer Question" ? Will those consumerist liberal faggots get the gulag?

Which shall be the solution to the "Gamer Question" ? Will those consumerist liberal faggots get the gulag?

I just wanna talk vidya man

Show them the way

Considering how video games were basically dead within the Eastern Bloc, I fully hope video games stay dead in the new one.

...

All gamers get a shave by the people's razor and a bath in the people's tub.

There is no other way

Nah, games under socialism will be a lot better and it will be a good tool to influence youth.
Also the most sold vidya is tetris, made in the soviet union if you didnt know

holy shit that's pathetic

Get drunk with him and aimlessly roam the streets of Paris.

Shall we make this a /leftyvidya/ thread?
Recently learned to use the GECK, pretty cool even if I can only do really simple stuff.

As the tech grows so does your average persons access to technology. 50 years ago the idea of your average person being able to make high quality videos on their own was unimaginable.

If you're talking about the learning curve for designing games just imagine the endless hours a painter puts into perfecting his craft. It really not that different.

No idea why I'm even arguing this btw. I think people who defend vidya are usually faggots. I just think you're pretty off in your criticism.

No

Would you still admire communism if it destroyed that ease of access to technology, is what you should be asking. I think it would. I think the current rate of technological production is a capitalist thing, and all technology that's stuck in that loop is going to produce as much art as you see being pushed.

Plus video games aren't a communal activity in their current form, you can't go out and appreciate video games as a community. Like film, though the similarity exists.

I never said that. I said the accessibility to a society on its technology defines art. Technology comes with strings, the more you need, the more strings you require. There isn't anything video games can do that music can't.

What about movies? Modern cameras would have the same problems you outlined with computer hardware.

Are drawings done in ms paint not art because they require proprietary software and expensive hardware? Even if you're doing ms paint art on a laptop from the 90s that you found in the trash?

I'd say that's a flimsy definitional requirement tbh. From the sound of it you are saying that paying for the tools that you use necessarily influences your artistic vision (which may indeed be true) but why would that make something not art? If you pay a hefty sum for a slab of marble to make into a statue does paying for the marble influence your vision so much that no matter what you turn the marble slab into it could never be considered art? What is the price-point where something stops/starts to be art?

And while, yes the community exists on the internet. All of it requires a computer with access to the internet. The community wouldn't exist without Capital.

People need to imagine how they could produce video games in a community without the need for the internet, and without the need for our current rate of technological production, for it to really be the "socialist" method of production you see

Man, please don't.

My dude have you even heard of Korea

Every Gamergater will be forced under penalty of death to construct the Gamer Gate: A massive fenced-in area the size of Rhode Island, where everyone who has ever bought a video game will be thrown inside along with a pack of AA batteries and a Sega Jaguar.
We will keep them there until they die, serving their penance.

True, but you can still use film more easily than say, a computer chip. You can produce film and analog methods far more easily than a computer chip.

And I don't think modern Hollywood is art either for the same reason I don't think Video Games are art. I agree.

Because at the point we're at it ceases to be made for the purpose of creating art and starts to be the production of entertainment with enormous amounts of both social and technological strings attached with a team that's focused on producing a vision the publisher wants.

That's not art. As long as it is that way, it's not art.

Film can be art. Werner Herzog can always exist, picking up a camera when he did and just setting up a stage play and rolling it.

With video games it's not the same. Less is always more.

...

There's no reason communism would destroy the internet and free information. In fact we'd be able to take expensice developer packs and make them freely available. There's a lot of positive avenues for adding to what's already become a much more accesible medium.

And on vidya being communal. This really depends. Creating them can for sure a communal experience. As for playing them that is a question between single player amd multiplayer or whatever.
But you fool. Books are "single-player"? So now you just seem like you're full of shit.

Kek what? Music can't give the observer narrative choice, visual storytelling, or the level of immersion that a video game can provide.

SPOILER ALERT
Video games were made prior to the ubiquity of the internet.

wew comrade

My dude have you even heard of libraries

My dude America is getting rid of public libraries in favor of private ones

Novels are single player, but that's not my main point for criticizing the idea for, what video games as they are, to be art.

And I don't think that modern attempts at socialism will destroy the internet and free information, but it will definitely put a halt on the current rate of technological excess of hardware that's required by publishers to churn out what they do.

We need to imagine a world that isn't like what we live in today, without the access to hardware, expense, and purchase, before we can just say video games are art. We need to imagine a world where video games can be art.

That's a given but movies were far more inaccessible and difficult to produce the further back in time you go so you're kind of refuting your own point.

I guess they have nothing else in their life. Pretty sad if you think about it.

wow what an original thread

A book can, an exhibit can. Even urban design can. Plenty of things can that don't require you to commodify everything.

And? They suffered similar problems. I don't need to bring up Atari.

I was arguing with that guy but here's where I cant stand gamers.
This has never added anything to a narrative. It is only a net loss.
From a shitty third-person camera. You should be arguing for scenery design instead.
Nothing compared to what is accomplished in film and literature.
Holy shit gamers are such brainlets.

I thought we're talking about gaming in communism brosevski

But nonetheless for different reasons that allowed the Eastern Bloc to produce them anyways, while video games they could not.

It is not a failing of the Eastern Bloc they could not, rather, it is a failing of the West it could reach a point where it could.

Any book can be multiplayer. Reading doesn't stop when you look away from the text, the discussion in your book club is just as important as reading it alone in your bed.

This just seems like an inconsistent definition. What you're saying is that the end-result itself is defined by the social-structure under which it was created. It puts your definition in a position where you could have two exact copies of the same movie, or game, or song, or picture, or what have you, and one would be art and the other would not be. An observer who didn't know the history of the creation of what they are looking at would be fundamentally unable to tell the difference - to that person both would be art.

I guess to frame it differently, what you're saying (I think) is that 'art' created under… capitalism? With sufficient-if-undefined resource requirements? I'm unsure of that - but what you're saying is that some creations are purely a product, while other -even if identical in final form- products are art.

That's just a weird definition my man. Why can't products be art? What can't art be products? Understanding the history of an artists creation can give you a greater appreciation for the art they create, but calling it something other than art because of a social-structure that the artist was born into seems incorrect.

An average person right now living under capitalism will have to spend more money to make an art piece by drawing than one by using hardware.
You see most people now a day own a computer, sure third world countries dont have it that easily but soon every proleteriat will own a piece of hardware and technology will get cheaper and better until it will hit a point where thats no longer the case.
Sure making a pencil drawing is gonna be something that will cost a very minuscule amount of money but other pieces of hand painted art are not as cheap as one might think, think canvas, oil etc. One person without a desktop or laptop might even find it cheaper to but those pieces of hardware plus a drawing tablet, this form of produced art in the long term is very cheap compared to spending money on more canvas/paper and paints.

On another note I would like to ask comrades on the notion of selling art, I've been to a restaurant and there they had paintings being sold. I could very much learn to draw that myself since I have already knowledge of art. Any of you make abstract art that you sell to Rich people who are as insane as to think that has a price as high as a low end car?

Other things being able to provide a similar experiences doesn't really mean much.
All the things you just listed have been commodified to hell and back. That's kind of the nature of capitalism.

Fuck off. I'm not a gamer. Have games reached their potential to become art? No. Do I think that outside of the constraints of profit and ownership they could? Sure.

gamergators are potential comrades, have mercy for they do not know what they do

This is nonsense though. The obsession with better amd better hardware is all a smokescreen. If you actually look at modern triple-AAA games they waste time amd resources on texturs that have hardly improved for three generations. If anything people, without a profit motive, will pull back and concentrate on concept BEFORE worrying about always having the most advanced tech.

And I'm still not grasping it. And I'm growing less optimistic that you have a genuine reason for criticizing it.

You just sounded like a fucking brainlet dude. Vidya needs better critics and defenders.

...

Trust me, dude, you aren't the genius critic you think you are.

Is that to say that there is a tipping-point where enough of a particular medium is spread wide enough (globally?) that it becomes a tool to create art (and potentially products) instead of just a tool to create products?

The upfront costs for making digital art are pretty substantial. Adobe is pretty much the industry standard and that alone can be an arm and a leg. To say nothing of the tablet, whatever software you end up buying ;^), the PC, all that can be a pretty big investment. If I just wanted to draw a picture I could get a newspaper tablet and a packet of charcoal for less than five bucks.

At least throw us a dev kit so we can make some decent games for that piece of shit.

It's an Atari Jaguar made by Sega. A priceless artefact.

Art is definitely a product of its time, yes. The time it was produced should be considered when we're defining art or not. Video Games since their inception have been a very capitalist product, I wouldn't consider board games art the same way I wouldn't consider video games art. Both are commercial products. But with video games its worse because it currently requires the pace at which technology is created to be actualized by a publisher. And the way video games are made are always socially pushed.

However I see the potential in it to be art.

Art created under capitalism can still be art, but I'm saying video games are different because the expense of the technology required makes a publisher makes something less artistic.

Analog technology is at a point where it's basically so dirt cheap it's free. I think culture creates truly great works of art when the method of its production is more free. Look at what's truly inexpensive today, that's where you can create art.

Without the constraints of the market, art becomes free. That is what I am saying.

No need to get defensive faggot. You already proved you're a moron.

'art' in the sense of commercial high art is 100x more arbitrary and marketised than videogames could ever be, at least people buy videogames because they like them and want to play them, people buy art to speculate and hope it increases in value and to show off their wealth.

So in a sense, I am saying video games can be art. But that we cannot imagine a world they are produced that is much different than our own, while saying video games can be art, that's what's troublesome to me.

Rich suburbanite honkies love abstract art, in my experience usually because they have little in the way of art education or skill, but making something "abstract" is both easy and saves the artist the trouble of making something identifiable because everyone is allowed to "make their own meaning" etc.

Unless you live in a really affluent area you'll probably do decent. Over known some cats that became relatively well known and have old ladies that really desire their art and will pay a good bit for it.

To be honest, bullshit. No. It doesn't require the same degree of technological production. Capitalist art can still be critiqued for being capitalist, but it's still art.

The more something becomes a product, the more it fails.

Right now, the only thing keeping publishers happy is slapping on gambling and drm and micro transactions to even an existing product of commercial excess.

I do not think, video games are even at the capacity to be considered the "cheap" art you're describing.

And you proved that you're a needlessly hostile, narrow minded dullard with no imagination.

No It was purely a scientific motion. There will be a point where technology cannot get smaller unless we can produce quantum hardware cheaply. This means computers will have a point where its just isn't logically to have a huge ass computer because as I said it will reach a point where we cannot produce smaller hardware.

Yeah thats the thing man no one buys this software so you only end up spending on hardware.

Your Holla Forums-tier defense of vidya already placed you at the bottom of the intellectual barrel. Suck my asshole if you think I'm the one with a "narrow mind".

I hate the fact that the worst of the left got handled so easily by the laziest of the center and pretty much made some version of the right in charge for the rest of our lifetimes. Thanks idpol.

Cave Story was made in a dude's off hours while he was working some shit office job. Games are more accesible than you think.

But they can't be made without hardware, my problem is the hardware itself.

And further, this can change when it becomes cheap enough. But still, the method for which video games are capable of producing requires a hardware market that needs to be evaluated in a way where it's easier to access for all, without a need for a market.

I don't know if I'm explaining myself well enough. What I'm saying is, everything I'm saying is subject to change at a later date. For right now, I don't think what capitalism and its culture is producing is art. It demands too many sacrifices on itself and too much to spend for it to be easily accessible to all to just create.

That makes its audience one where only people within it can enjoy it or create it, which alienates a large chunk of the population from making it. I just don't see a way video games are art.

You mean like the computer itself? Everyone at least has a cheap laptop these days. I have writer friends and they do everything on a laptop. 50 years ago they would have been doing everything on a typewriter. I doubt the 2hu guy needs the most cutting edge tech to make his girly shooters.

You played LSD?

Good cinema and good music can all trace its root to one thing: Poverty.

If it becomes harder for those in poverty within capital to create art, the harder it becomes for an artistic culture to arise from it that's lasting.

All that technology requires an assembly line method of production from computer giants who didn't just exist out of nowhere and don't exist without their own context in time.

I'm still extremely skeptical video games can be art as long as the method for their existence is purely at the whim of the way hardware is currently created. It goes all the way down from this point.

Thanks for responding that question user. I live in an area where rich people are common and I know people who own business where a lot burg stupid ladies go, he will let my exhibit my art and sell it.
Do you feel like an interesting bullshit stories of the artist will put more value on pieces ?

Yet still, the hardware alone is a significant investment, at least it was for me.

Also, only slightly related, but a fun little fact about technological progress, up until the 80s typography was a serious art requiring knowledge of metal working, printing, and design techniques that had been in development since Gutenberg. The dot matrix printer rolls in, and destroys the entire industry practically over night. Master typographers and printers lost their jobs, and all the old wooden printers were just burned, while the lead and steel type were melted down for scrap.

They don't even teach you how to make a steel punch or anything like that any more. It's all computers and shit. That's fine I guess, but I can't help but find it a little sad

Computers are an extremely useful tool though. And with all these competing manufacturers the industry is extremely inefficient. I don't see why a socialist society would not try and make these technologies more widespread amd more efficient. So in my mind it can only get better.

That's spooky. Job loss sucks but there's no reason to cry over the loss of less efficient technology.

That is nostalgia my man. That fetishistic attitude towards things of the past that made tasks more complicated will not get you anywhere

Absolutely, depending on how you do it. It can be a real tasty morsel to dangle out in front of a bourg if you're trying to make a sale. It adds to the "uniqueness" of the piece, which of course adds to their own uniqueness.

I don't mean to make it out like this is an easy, slap some paint on canvas, do nothing kind of gig, by the by. Not that I get that impression from you, I just don't want to make it out like a complete piece of cake. You've got to do all that artfag shit if you want to make a career or anything like serious money out of it, which can be a lot more effort than some people expect.

Hope this helps duder

Technology is cheaper to produce, sure. But right now video games exist in an environment where their production is at a limit where not all producing hardware can enjoy it and produce it.

That's my problem. The culture for creating the art itself doesn't exist so it's stuck in a loop, where only the current method of production can exist for it to be made. And the current method of production ensures the toxic soup we currently see, and have seen, video games in past and present.

I think art is one area where it can only exist if all have the capacity to create it, if that's limited in any way it becomes easier for it to fall out of the definition of art. Film can be art, it also can be a product. It's more of a product now than it's been, ever I think actually.

Video games really are the same way.

If you ever hear of a great artist you will always see someone dirt poor who was attracted to the arts because it was something they were capable of producing themselves. That's not a coincidence.

I mean he's not wrong. Capitalism destroys art.

Didn't Warhol and other artists already do this kind of cynical "you retards will make anything high art" kind of thing? I don't know anything about "art" art though so correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm more concerned with the centuries of development in artistic technique and design theory that were just tossed on the heap, as opposed to the tools themselves being lost. Kind of like making manuscripts for example, that themselves were left by the wayside when Gutenberg got going. There's an incredible amount of technical and artistic skill that went into both of those things, and I think it's a shame to lose that to technology. Shouganai.

As an aside, there are some wonderful videos on youtube that detail the old creation processes for traditional art like that. Getty museum has a great little video on making manuscripts from start to finish, and there's also a video that talks about the traditional school in Paris for weaving tapestries. I really recommend them for anyone that likes watching people make stuff by hand.

I feel like this can be achieved with the activity being more of a hobby that you do when under influence without having to study more than a few books.

I don't know much about Warhol, but I wouldn't be surprised. He certainly wasn't the first one, though. It is a petite bourgeois stereotype, and there are definitely plenty that actually can create and appreciate actual art, but the former seem to dominate over the latter.

It feels like you're missing something here. If someone made a deal with a movie studio today to make a movie however they want in exchange for directing some typical shitflick that guy's managed to get a chance to make genuine art right? What if he starts his own studio and makes hisnown movies? Or just takes donations? Why can't this all happen with video games? With capitalism it's always going to be a struggle to live as an artist and people are always succeeding and failing in every medium.

Personally I don't really feel like films are any more or less capable of art now than they were in the last century and my main disagreement with you is that video games are really not all that different from other mediums which you're accepting as art.

>>>Holla Forums13586112

Oh I also recall that a lot of art movements in the past have been about "taking back art from the rich snobs". Is thay what dada is? I have art friends who talk about this stuff but I'm always half listening.

My man you are absolutely retarded, do you know how much paint cost before cheap synthetization processes were invented in the 1930's?
By your definition any painting before 1930 isn't art

I always thought that this type of analysis never gets into account those stuff like silent hill that sold a shit load and are wildly regarded by critics tonhas some extent of "artistic element". The same goes for who says vidya can't be art: if the object not only entertains you but purpotedly tries to give you a different point of view about life or a special kind of feeling/emotion it's art.

If commies came to power in the West, they would send anyone who doesn't suck party cock to Gulag. I don't know anyone in GG who's that far left, so you can count us all in.

"not wanting to suck cock"
eat a dick normie

I think he'd just let out a short, irritated grunt with a totally unsurprised expression

All gamers will be gulagged and there's nothing you can do about it

Fuck you, leather man.

Not that guy but video games in their current form are limited by the way in which we interact with them. They don't really leave the same kind of space for contemplation that more traditional mediums have by way of their observational nature. When you're knee deep in the actual action of a narrative you don't necessarily have the time to self reflect on what's being presented to you which inhibits the extraction of a deeper meaning.

Did you reply to the wrong person?

Anyways, Silent Hill is itself a team being let to do whatever as long as it's "generally what the studio wants because Resident Evil is big right now and Konami needs its OWN horror game right now" and they ended up twisting their favorite movies (Lynch, the El Topo guy) and books etc into a game which just happened to be a critical darling. These things happen for sure.

You're off when you say "tries to entertain you" though. Lynch just does whatever the fuck he wants to do and doesn't give a shit what you think about it but his movies are still fairly popular among the regular film buff crowd. (and everyone and their mom has seen Twin Peaks and Blur Velvet)

But other than that yeah man it's pretty rare games get made with a real "artists vision" in mind. I'd count godhand as something with an actual artist behind the wheel btw.

Meh, I am more worried about muds than about you.

Gamers do co-create it. Either by online-communities, by writing fan-fictions to generics or by gameplay.

welp

Well me and that guy were talking about it purely in the context of actually producing the art. Not the specifics of the medium itself.

I kind of agree with you though but not with this specific example maybe. Tarkovsky purposefully put long silent shots in his movies so you'd have to contemplate. Some movies pull you in like a dream and have a more "knee deep in the shit" aspect than most video games. So I'm not sure if you're really capturing the shortfalls of the medium here.

Art is dipping your hand in the blood of a dead animal and hitting the wall of your cave with it.

t. anarcho primitivist

Dunno about his movies but Lynch walked out of Twin Peaks after the network required him to focus more on the actual murder mystery as opposed to the meandering of the smalltown bullshit it was degenerating into by the midpoint

That's actually not totally true. The network was pressuring Lynch to reveal the mystery and he and Frost relented. They later regretted it because the show fell apart after that. The real reason the show fell apart though is because both of them went off to make their own things and the show was without a strong creative grasp (Lynch) and someone to deal with the bureaucracy of the network (Frost). Lynch still ended up coming back for the last episode which ended up being one of the best episodes of anything in tv history though. And my main point was that it was still a weird Lynch thing that was really popular despite being weird. Even more so with Blue Velvet where he had 100% control of and it still ended up being a hit.

Anyways fuck you for not having seen Blue Velvet. Would not be friends with.

Oh and emphasis on "pressure". They were never going to get the show cancelled if they didn't relent. The show just happened to lose a lot of popularity afterwards and THEN got cancelled. Once again producers NEVER know what people want.

But your role as passive observer never really changes so that contemplative space still exists for the most part. Modern blockbusters that are hitting 2500-3000 shots per movie are definitely an exception but I'm pretty confident that they aren't made with the intention to be contemplated. I'm not trying to say that every movie is inherently art by the nature of the medium it's just that video games haven't figured out how to utilize their dynamic perspective to reach the level of art. I think it's entirely possible tho.

What the fuck. Modern blockbusters make me fall asleep. I was talking about shit like Tokyo Story that has the same specific pace and atmosphere for so long you end up completely lulled into it, or Inland Empire where the movie makes you feel like you're trapped in a mental asylum against your will. That's the general kind of stuff I'm talking about when I say it pulls you in. Nothing to do with the number of shots or how "action packed" it is.

Yeah I agree with you. Maybe. There's definitely some strong attempts in the vidya medium. It's just not something that has a culture behind it. It's always really random and sporadic. Which is something I agree with the other poster about I guess.

It can't be art if the people who produce what is possible to create it cannot create it themselves. If the workers themselves cannot be artists, then it ceases to be art.

so you're unironically saying is correct and only the most primary folk art actually qualifies as Art?
epico

Music can be art, film can be art (and it can not be art), even urban design can become art,

Video Games cannot be art, without significant hurtles, as it stands.

Right. Shit like Inland Empire and Tokyo Story while being completely engrossing still maintain that observational role by virtue of the medium. Whereas a blockbuster is throwing so much information at you at such a rapid pace that it does lose that contemplative space. I just thought it was more analogous to the less reflective experience that video games provide.

Well they're so engrossing that you really can't form an opinion on them until it's all over. There's no real reason you can't have the same experience with a video game. For instance in something like MGS2 you have the game intentionally taking you through a tutorial several hours into the game. There's a reason it's bogging you down with something like this and I believe it's intentional. This is what I mean when I say I'm not sure you're really grasping what I feel like are the shortcomings of the medium.

Tbh i think Doom wads should be how gaming is done under socialism. The software and engines are made open source and people get creative and collaborative and its all done organically.

...

Significant hurdles is right, a game made by one person has the best chance at being art as a whole for a game. Collectively made art is rare, and nearly impossible considering how many artists and programmers are involved. Parts of games can be art, a beautiful background or well drawn character model, but they are likely not done collectively. As we all know, collective partnerships always fail to achieve what was dreamed up by one.

Here's a better reason: Videogames are such an infantile medium that a game whose message was just "peace is good and being lonely is bad" managed to become a huge cult hit revered by thousands for it's deep and profound story. Games are not very thought-provoking because most people who develop videogames are focused more on it's systems rather than it's stories (i.e. they're designed for pure shallow hedonistic entertainment) and those who try to tell stories through videogames either regurtitate or do the opposite of what they have seen in other videogames, movies or anime, or reject the systems part entirely, refusing to use it even to express a message or emotion. That said there's some ok arthouse stuff going on in sites like itch.io

I can only imagine the hideous forms of life that will evolve after a decade in that torture chamber.

Are you talking about the new nier? Ya kind of seem like a huge fag if you're entire basis for offering a "take down" of vidya comes from some recent blockbuster game made by a director that never had much more going on than "uh what if I made a video game like eva lol".

Thank you word filter. That's much better than what I wrote.

Wait what filters to torture chamber?

opinion discarded

I had already discarded yours my man.

Whatever, gamer boy.

I wonder why gaming draws so many reactionaries to it. Is it because of the violence, personal high scores or something more? What about games that are more introspective like Silent Hill, Ico, Aquanauts Holiday or a plain old sim like Simcity?

I miss the old gen-x'er days of psx and saturn.

This but unironically

Most reactionaries heavily invested in gaming see it as a safe space (heh heh) where they can ignore or project all troubles and unfulfilled desires into, not to mention make it a huge part of their identity (and sometimes, their perceived status as social outcasts). Hence why they reject videogames that would seriously challenge their ideology and outright despise anything that seems to threaten their vision of videogames as escape vehicle into a bubble none may intrude. Therefore, whenever they see it apparently threatened by an outside force (such as SJWs, hipsters, casuals, little kids, what have you) they can do nothing but react.

It's the virginity and social isolation. They game because they are losers. Losers tend to be highly reactionary in the west for some reason, especially if they are white and have a dick. No idea why this is. Fortunately most white dudes aren't like this.

It provides a feeling of volition, competency, and accomplishment, to people who for one reason or another possess none of those things.

There's always /svidya/.

Sure is reddit up in here.

video games are a product that was produced in a time to create a product, not to express oneself. Therefore, we evaluate it as a material product and not as a subjective artwork because thats how it was originally designed to work as. People painted and acted all the time before there was a money motive behind it.
So more or less what youre saying right?

Agree

This is lie, it's just not as common. There are very nice paintings in my town made by army of art students, are they not considered art? Old folk songs were also most likely made collectively, or at least versions of them we know now are.