New York Times Names Games Of The Year, Kind Of Misses The Point
Mass Effect has been named the NYTimes game of the year, but I detect a hint of Roger Ebert in the rest of the review, however.
Halo 3 is a polished gem of a science-fiction shooter. But that is all it is. It has suitably spruced-up graphics, and some of its new online features are welcome additions. But it is a refinement of the time-tested Halo formula rather than a daring attempt to provide a new sort of experience. That’s enough to generate hundreds of millions of dollars, but it is not enough to inspire.
What exactly are they expecting here from a sequel? That's like expecting the next Harry Potter film to not be about wizards. They have a similar assessment of Super Mario Galaxy.
Super Mario Galaxy presents similar questions. Galaxy is finely tuned and a worthy member of the Mario pantheon. Almost anyone can have fun playing it. But as with Halo, Galaxy is at some level mostly a reinvention of classic play modes.
Again, SEQUEL. Don't expect art from Halo or Mario, they sell because people have fun playing them, not because they're artistic. And as groundbreaking as Mass Effect is in character development and story, the eventual sequel won't change the formula much. (Assuming you aren't already counting the game a sequel to he KOTOR series) Here's their opinion:
In its choice of milieu — science fiction — Mass Effect is not ambitious at all. But with its focus on character development, personal growth and moral tension, all fueled by a graphics system created to evoke emotional empathy, Mass Effect points the way forward.
Fantastic, and I'm suitably impressed by the game. But that doesn't mean I don't enjoy stomping goombas. That's the trouble with art I suppose. It's subjective.
NYTimes names Mass Effect game of the year [Joystiq]
Sgt. Sausagepants
Posted to Video Games on 24 December 2007
· Comments (12)
Other stuff like this: halo 3, mass effect, NY Times
videogames are not art... and wont be for a long time.
videogames pretend to much to be movies, and they forget what they are.
That is why you get games with wonderfull cinematics and dialog, but fail in the one thing they should focus, Gameplay.
I know, gameplay alone does not make the game. Neither do cinematics.
You know, I just played Super Mario Galaxy for the first time last night, and it really did just feel like a spruced-up Super Mario 64.
I agree with the Halo comments, though. It's a sequel. The second one, at that. What were they expecting? At least there weren't any Arbiter levels.
I agree with NYTimes. Being a sequel is not an excuse for lacking originality. That's like excusing crappy formula sitcoms by saying, what do you expect from a sitcom? Just because a game is FUN doesn't make it noteworthy or even GOOD. Unless of course you abandon the idea of evaluating games as art rather than toys...
Actually Morrigan, I disagree with you and agree with you.
I think games ARE art. (Not all games, of course) The problem for the NYTimes, Ebert, what have you, is that it's such a different form of art they can't reconcile the difference. But in the end, the goal of any form of art is to make people feel and think. Some games do that. Some books do that. Some movies do that. The rest is merely entertainment, and that's ok.
I do agree that they often try too hard to be movies, an easy mistake to make in such a graphical medium. The best games are able to stretch beyond that, and that's part of what makes them art.
So, um, by the NY Times' logic, does that mean that Godfather II didn't deserve to win best picture? Because that was just more of the same, too, right?
Nope, I'm with the times as well, for the reasons given above. Your main argument seems to be "games aren't art", but is there a reason they can't try to be?
From what I've heard, Mario Galaxy is tons of fun, and I actually loved SM 64 to death. Being the most fun game apparently doesen't earn you a reward though. It's not about fun in the real world. It's about lesbian sex scenes. *that* would have been a departure from the formula...
Wootini: I'd agree with you, but Godfather II was a substantially different movie, and a superior one at that. Unlike modern movie sequels, that wasn't so much of a sequel as the rest of the story that we didn't get to hear the first time around. It wasn't like "Those Wacky Corleones got themselves in another wild caper!" It was more like "Here's the stuff we didn't have time to show you last time. Sorry!"
That being said, I agree wholeheartedly with Mass Effect for GotY. It's not about lesbian sex scenes or big guns or scary aliens, but the way the events of the game make you feel, how they carry you along the story and involve you with the characters. Is it necessarily art? Perhaps not, that's up to each individual judge. But Mass Effect IS something fresh in a genre that has been growing stagnant and leaning to one of two choices: Quirky JRPG, or free-form sandbox nightmare. I appreciate the fresh breath.
And Morrigan, I don't know why ANYONE is complaining about ME's gameplay. It's a freakin' blast and it all makes sense. Maybe it's just me, but every firefight feels new and fresh to me, and the use of various bits of cover and abilities makes the experience that much more fun.
SgtSausagepants and others:
Well yes, i agree that videogames can be art, but they are a medium that needs to explore its own posibilities better.
The level of interaction and the way they treat the story needs to better suit what the games can do. If they keep pretending to be movies they will get nowhere.
I like silly games (Who doesn't) and i agree that some games can be artistic, but they seem to be stuck in the horror and the action genres.
Anyone who doesn't think games can be art should play Okami, or Shadow of the Colossus.
Videogames are art. Period.
Any place that gives Mass Effect Game of the Year clearly didn't play any other games this year.
@ Fuzzypaws: I was just gonna mention Shadow of the Colossus. And Ico.