MrEco wrote:You must be confused. You see, I never said that popularity = good quality. Please read my post again dear sir. I was saying that popularity doesn't = shit quality.
Something can be good and popular, or good and obscure. There's room for both. Likewise with being bad and popular, or bad and obscure.
And despite my example, I never stated good games are shit, in this particular example (Oblivion), they're subpar/mediocre and overhyped. Usually the casual consumer can't understand or appreciate the subtle nuances or complexity of products that critics and hardcore fans love, hence simpler products sell better despite the fact that they're not as high quality as those less popular/hyped gems.
So using Argumentum ad populum is inane because the casual consumer simply doesn't know any better - and in many cases hasn't got the time/intrest/effort to do anything about it.
It's worth stating that in many cases games that deserve more recognition yet are fairly obscure (aka hidden gems) are that way because of economic and various other reasons, not because the casual gamer is too thick to enjoy the game in question.
MrEco wrote:Also, comparing Vivaldi, a completely instrumental form of music to modern day music which is primarily lyrical based, is aiming for a completely different audience, and in some cases uses computers to synthesize the actual music? Well you might as well compare video games to books and say that all video games suck because they aren't as well written.
We're comparing a WRPG to other WRPGs.
Violent By Design wrote:Your definition of art comes off as very cliche (and I swear, I see this all the time in the video game community, you're even mentioning the same games).
That's because I'm following the mantra of those who dispute video games as an art form - aesthetics and music aren't enough to turn a video game into art. The work needs to be cohesive, all it's different parts need to work together and it needs to have a message/point. That's the same way movies work.
Violent By Design wrote:There is good art and bad art, saying one game isn't art because you felt it is lifeless makes no sense. It is still art regardless. Art is entirely a personal thing, regardless if it stimulates you or not is really irrelevant. Calling something art shouldn't strictly be a compliment of its quality.
Enlighten me, what is your definition of an "art game" (or rather a game that thappens to be art, as "art games" are usually pretentious indy games that ignore the whole gameplay part of video games). Seems to me like according to your definition all games are art, if quality or nothing else for that matter has any effect on whether a game can be considered to be art or not.
.
