How has this not been posted yet? Retro VGS

[Kombi]

G'day all.

 

Joined a few days ago and spent my spare time reading this thread, now finished - Wow!

 

Big fan of Retro Gaming Roundup, which is how I ended up here and reading this thread.

 

I have been a fan/supporter of SoCal/Parrothead/Mike K in the past.

Loved SoCals segments on RGR. I'm a member of SoCals GameGavel forum, Subscriber to his Retro Mag and as a result was happy to support him in the Retro VGS. SoCal had earnt my trust to back him in the VGS without a prototype.

Now that chance has been used. If the Retro VGS starts a campaign on Kickstarter with a working Prototype next month I won't be backing it. All the issues with moving goal posts, a team heading in different directions, and ALL the other issues that came to the front during its campaign that have been covered in this thread, no way that could be repaired in such short time.

In 6 months I may consider it but the trust of me backing it regardless is gone. I will be a late contributor if at all. After I watch and read all interviews and seeing what they come up with.

 

@PiperCub and UKMike keep up your great work and get the bloody forum transferred or start from scratch to the RGR site ASAP please.

 

As for this forum I'm looking forward to venturing out of this thread and see what else it has. It appears everyone on the thread has a podcast, blog or YouTube channel lol and their are definitely some personalities on here.

[Newsdee]

I couldn't agree more with a few points made here on retro gaming. A lot of what we find interesting just won't transfer to future generations unless we somehow create a link or make things accessible.

 

Nintendo is kind of doing that by shamelessly recycling their inventory. Their latest gimmick is to have figurines which unlock some emulated games with save states that you can play for a couple of minutes after loading. Like or hate it, it is an interesting way to make people directly experience parts of games they might never see (and conveniently point them to the full version).

 

Carts/Discs have some charm as a way to select games to play... relying on the luck of what you'll find in a store, or choosing one on the shelf because you like a label. But for that to happen they have to be accessible to play; having them framed because its a super rare cart won't help.

 

I guess there might be a niche to sell popular recent games on a cart, which could be done after the game is mature (think "game of the year" editions).

[Akito01]

http://www.hardcoregamer.com/2015/10/07/limited-run-games-to-offer-exactly-what-the-company-name-says/171038/

 

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1121596

 

I can't help but think that these Limited Run Games people have found a way to scratch the itch that the RVGS was trying to scratch, without the burden of launching an entirely new platform. Specifically, if the idea behind the RVGS is to give a physical media form to smaller modern indie games, then this approach does so for platforms that people already have and own. It also, by the nature of the 'limited run', suggests a certain degree of collect-ability as well.

[phoenixdownita]

Video games are an art form like any other media. Literature, Music, Movie, Theater, Dance, Fine Arts, Graphic Arts, and Yes, Video Games. Creation of a video game is a multi-discipline art form often requiring the collaboration of many creators (or one closet homebrewer), and as well the skillful playing of a video game could be considered a type of "performing art." Think of the game controller as the instrument. and the TV screen the recital.

I disagree on all the "art form" arguments including when it is applied to movies, music etc....

Some of them are art, most of the production is NOT.

 

If it was all art then my last vacation movie is art (Movie kind) , my dance club dancing was art (Dance kind), the garden gnomes are art (Sculpture kind), my house is art (Architecture kind), the cereal box is art (Print kind), my singing in the shower is art (Music), my passport picture is art (Photo kind) etc...etc...etc....

 

There's craftsmanship involved in professionally making any of the above (exclude the shower singing), sometimes lots of it, but by far it is not automatically art.

We tend to use the term art too liberally in my opinion, and every time we deal with audiovisual medias we get into the cycle.

The David of Michelangelo is art, the block of marble out of which it was cut is not, although the artisan at the quarry that had to cut it out must have employed quite the skills.

 

In the middle of these media there's indeed some of it which is definitely art, but consider all of it art is just preposterous.

The fact that videogames employ interactive audio visuals in and on itself does not make them art .... by the same token then all board games are art and why not any game at all it is art then?

 

Again lots of craftsmanship goes into it, lot's of artistry is involved (in the sense of creativity) but the result is by no mean automatically art.

 

So I disagree in considering all the music art (the jingles in advertisement are hardly artistic but some are) especially commercial one, the same goes for movies, books, paintings, acting and every other creative human endeavor including video games.

[Bill Loguidice]

I disagree on all the "art form" arguments including when it is applied to movies, music etc....

Some of them are art, most of the production is NOT.

 

If it was all art then my last vacation movie is art (Movie kind) , my dance club dancing was art (Dance kind), the garden gnomes are art (Sculpture kind), my house is art (Architecture kind), the cereal box is art (Print kind), my singing in the shower is art (Music), my passport picture is art (Photo kind) etc...etc...etc....

 

I think the basic idea is that it's generally accepted that those forms of media can be art, while, for various reasons, including their interactive natures, it's not generally accepted that videogames can be art. Of course, that's ridiculous, but I think as an issue it's becoming increasingly irrelevant. As nearly everyone games these days, even if they don't consider themselves gamers per se, old attitudes and ideas about videogames are slowly dying out. The trend and overall long-term outlook is a positive one.

[phoenixdownita]

 

I think the basic idea is that it's generally accepted that those forms of media can be art, while, for various reasons, including their interactive natures, it's not generally accepted that videogames can be art. Of course, that's ridiculous, but I think as an issue it's becoming increasingly irrelevant. As nearly everyone games these days, even if they don't consider themselves gamers per se, old attitudes and ideas about videogames are slowly dying out. The trend and overall long-term outlook is a positive one.

I put in red the keyword.

My main point was around the fact that "can be" != "is"

I agree that videogames can be art, most of them are simply not (although they may contain some elements that on their own right sometimes are art).

[Chris++]

There's no difference between "art" and "entertainment." Someone's "art" is simply something he has made. This is true whether anyone likes his work or not. We need to lose these goofy distinctions ("high art" and "low art" are especially ridiculous). They're lingering offshoots of class envy and have nothing to do with one's personal, subjective reaction to a creative work -- the only real reaction, in other words, regardless of how cattle-like people can be with the media they buy.

[phoenixdownita]

There's no difference between "art" and "entertainment." Someone's "art" is simply something he has made. This is true whether anyone likes his work or not. We need to lose these goofy distinctions ("high art" and "low art" are especially ridiculous). They're lingering offshoots of class envy and have nothing to do with one's personal, subjective reaction to a creative work -- the only real reaction, in other words, regardless of how cattle-like people can be with the media they buy.

Really ..... so a programmer's code is automatically art as he built it ..... so all the code ever wrote (compilers, OSes, games, excel, word) are work of art

BTW on the same vein I would not consider art what I do in the toilet after Thai food, and there's no doubt "I made it" and it's also "unique" to that particular time and day and Thai restaurant. Arguably at time I am also mildly entertained by it .... still no art.

 

I would use the word art when form trump function on purpose.

 

"Entertainment" also is not a given, art depicting war scenes is hardly entertaining more like "introspective" but still art.

Edited October 9, 2015 by phoenixdownita

[jaybird3rd]

To have an intelligent discussion of whether games can be "art," we first need an agreed-upon definition of what "art" is, which brings us into the realm of aesthetics. Clearly, "art" has to mean something more than "whatever someone happens to make" or "whatever someone says it is" or "whatever someone thinks is entertaining", because then everything would be "art" and we wouldn't need a whole branch of philosophy devoted to the subject.

 

Whether games can qualify as "art" is an interesting question, but it's probably off-topic for this particular thread. But for whatever it's worth, here is Roger Ebert's take on the subject.

[PlaysWithWolves]

BTW on the same vein I would not consider art what I do in the toilet after Thai food, and there's no doubt "I made it" and it's also "unique" to that particular time and day and Thai restaurant. Arguably at time I am also mildly entertained by it .... still no art.

 

 

Reductio ad absurdum.

[phoenixdownita]

 

 

Reductio ad absurdum.

Or Proof by contradiction.

[Flojomojo]

It seems this thread has gotten a little off track. Can we go back to the subject at hand? Does a bullshit artist produce art?

[Chris++]

Clearly, "art" has to be something more than "whatever someone happens to make" or "whatever someone says it is," or else we wouldn't need a whole branch of philosophy devoted to the subject.

 

Well, that would be my argument: We don't need such a branch of philosophy. Taste is subjective. This is also why I disdain "ratings" and so-called "critics." They're useless, because the enjoyment or usefulness of a created thing is up to the individual.

 

If certain things are to be classified as "art" and other things as "entertainment," who gets to decide? The very need for the distinction between the two is based on the false -- albeit very old -- premise that certain creative works are more "important" than others on some level. According to whom? And what does it have to do with the unique spectator's personal enjoyment or lack thereof?

 

If you were to give two people twenty albums, twenty books of all types and twenty movies, place them in separate rooms and ask them to list which items were "art" and which were "mere entertainment," their lists would be radically different. And yet you wouldn't tell either one of them, "You're wrong." When a word is based entirely on an individual's personal response to something -- and there obviously can't be any other valid criteria -- the need for the distinction doesn't even exist.

 

But purely functional code? That's a good point. It's worth thinking about.

 

If the coder said, "Well, I consider this my art. I know it's mostly functional, but I feel that I take an artistic approach to figuring out how to do things most efficiently," you wouldn't tell him that he was wrong. You might say, "Well, I disagree," but the knowledge would be presumed that it's up to him to consider the code however he wishes, with no skin off your ass.

 

So again, since it's a matter of individual opinion, why even have the word "art" as something different from any other type of creation? And is code-writing utterly devoid of creative thought? Not in my experience.

 

But then, I've always found the fun of writing a game to be partially due to its combination of so-called left brain and so-called right brain activity. It's a cool pairing of different kinds of thought. This is why it's more impressive if one guy writes a good, well balanced game than a whole team.

 

 

 

...but it's probably off-topic for this particular thread.

 

Oops...uh...good point!

[roland p]

But purely functional code? That's a good point. It's worth thinking about.

 

If the coder said, "Well, I consider this my art. I know it's mostly functional, but I feel that I take an artistic approach to figuring out how to do things most efficiently," you wouldn't tell him that he was wrong. You might say, "Well, I disagree," but the knowledge would be presumed that it's up to him to consider the code however he wishes, with no skin off your ass.

 

So again, since it's a matter of individual opinion, why even have the word "art" as something different from any other type of creation? And is code-writing utterly devoid of creative thought? Not in my experience.

I'm a 100% believer of the creativity that is involved in creating important pieces of code. Coding is not a 'hard' science for me, there are just too many pieces you must connect, too much variables, too much possible solutions.

 

I think that if music and movies are considered an art, then games must be too, since they can incorporate both, and add some interactivity. It can be a form of expression.

[phoenixdownita]

I'm a 100% believer of the creativity that is involved in creating important pieces of code. Coding is not a 'hard' science for me, there are just too many pieces you must connect, too much variables, too much possible solutions.

 

I think that if music and movies are considered an art, then games must be too, since they can incorporate both, and add some interactivity. It can be a form of expression.

The issue for me is that we are too quick to generalize.

 

Movies: would you consider a documentary (which is a movie) about Hiroshima A-bomb art?

Books: would you consider the manual (which is a book) of your Microwave Oven art?

VideoGames: would you consider a sport simulation of say football which is as realistic as possible (gfx wide) art? Then what about the actual sport itself which said simulation attempts to get as close as possible to?

Music: how about the McDonald's advertisement jingle? Is it art?

 

I understand the point that bits and pieces of artistry trickle thru and that some works have quite the artistic flare to them, what I disagree is that everything is art just because it's a book or a movie etc...

 

Creativity in and on itself is not art (hence different words) but art is always a work of creativity (it is just a necessary condition not a sufficient one).

 

I believe we tend to confuse "labor of love" with "work of art" but we won't settle it here if you want to consider all Videogames art it's up to you, I merely consider the fact that some art form is expressed in some Videogames but that's it for me.

Edited October 9, 2015 by phoenixdownita

[+5-11under]

Plenty of things can be called art. The question is is it good?

[phoenixdownita]

To be back on topic, I don't agree also that building a retro console for modern "retro" games with artificial scarcity imposed on production runs is a good thing.

It doesn't make sense to make something for the "collectors".

Collectors tend to be very attracted to whatever it is that they collect when it becomes rare, but artificially creating scarcity, hence rarity, would not automatically qualify the objects in question as collectibles.

 

Rare games are now sought after for their rarity not their enjoyment factor.

Making a console with the intent to control that seems to be a very bad idea.

But then again that's just me.

Edited October 9, 2015 by phoenixdownita

[bojay1997]

http://www.hardcoregamer.com/2015/10/07/limited-run-games-to-offer-exactly-what-the-company-name-says/171038/

 

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1121596

 

I can't help but think that these Limited Run Games people have found a way to scratch the itch that the RVGS was trying to scratch, without the burden of launching an entirely new platform. Specifically, if the idea behind the RVGS is to give a physical media form to smaller modern indie games, then this approach does so for platforms that people already have and own. It also, by the nature of the 'limited run', suggests a certain degree of collect-ability as well.

Yep, that's the first thing I thought about when I saw the announcement about this new company yesterday. Granted their focus is on PS4 and Vita, but there's no reason somebody couldn't take this model and expand to PC or indie games (sort of like Indiebox, but without the other physical goodies). One of my biggest issues with Retro VGS all along has been the lack of any compelling reason for people to buy a unique platform just to buy games that are already available elsewhere and would likely be developed on PCs or other systems that didn't rely on custom hardware. It seems like they could just cut deals with developers to release games on physical media for PC or other current platforms and skip the whole hassle of trying to fundraise and build a machine people don't need or want.

[StopDrop&Retro]

http://www.hardcoregamer.com/2015/10/07/limited-run-games-to-offer-exactly-what-the-company-name-says/171038/

 

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1121596

 

I can't help but think that these Limited Run Games people have found a way to scratch the itch that the RVGS was trying to scratch, without the burden of launching an entirely new platform. Specifically, if the idea behind the RVGS is to give a physical media form to smaller modern indie games, then this approach does so for platforms that people already have and own. It also, by the nature of the 'limited run', suggests a certain degree of collect-ability as well.

 

hahahahaha

 

Wow. Well, there you have it. Physical releases of digital-only is definitely not a completely original idea but this just goes to show the RVGS team- if your idea sucks, is too expensive, or takes too long to bring to the market, someone else will find the right way to do it and steal your thunder.

 

You can patent your console all you want but you cannot patent a business practice. That's one of the reasons I tell people to not worry about missing the boat on a "revolutionary" Kickstarter idea. If it's so revolutionary then bigger, more competent and capable companies will jump on it and deliver a product before the Kickstarter backers even get theirs. How many Oculus challengers have we seen on the market?

[toiletunes]

To be back on topic, I don't agree also that building a retro console for modern "retro" games with artificial scarcity imposed on production runs is a good thing.

It doesn't make sense to make something for the "collectors".

Collectors tend to be very attracted to whatever it is that they collect when it becomes rare, but artificially creating scarcity, hence rarity, would not automatically qualify the objects in question as collectibles.

 

Rare games are now sought after for their rarity not their enjoyment factor.

Making a console with the intent to control that seems to be a very bad idea.

But then again that's just me.

But then they can call it 'retro' AND 'rare' while being neither.

[TrickyT]

 

Collectors tend to be very attracted to whatever it is that they collect when it becomes rare, but artificially creating scarcity, hence rarity, would not automatically qualify the objects in question as collectibles.

 

I think all of the Amiibo crazy nutjobs would disagree with that.. Those people scare me..

[Keatah]

Creating artificial scarcity is such a turn off. I just move on and forget about it. Eventually months or years later I run into whatever it was dirt cheap. And I feel good for not having been a completionist collectard.

[Andromeda Stardust]

 

Is that Ron Jeremy on Pat's shirt??

Pretty sure Ron Jeremy is not a baseball playa.

[PlaysWithWolves]

Hey guys, don't forget that on Oct. 21st you can buy your 1 of 6500 Back to the Future Part II-inspired Pepsi Perfect bottles for only $20.55!

[Andromeda Stardust]

I know the topic has moved on, but I gotta respond here.

 

 

 

Whether games can qualify as "art" is an interesting question, but it's probably off-topic for this particular thread. But for whatever it's worth, here is Roger Ebert's take on the subject.

I read the article, and respectfully disagree with the author. Graphics whether contained rudementary pixels or hand painted HD backdrops, character models, 2D or 3D, are art. Chiptunes as a form of musical expression, are art. Level design. I could go on and on but the topic goes back to drive home the fact that games are designed to be consumed by the public or are merely a means of timewaste or entertainment. Sounds like the musings of someone who does not play video games.

 

And yes, there are good games and bad, games filled with art and games that are fairly devoid of it. Can we just accept that video games are another form of expression? So many indie games take on a style all their own. They make you feel things. RPGs tell a story.

 

I dunno. Getting too far off topic. Maybe start a new thread?