Classic Literature as Insipiration for Video Games

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

If you haven't heard, there is a new video game coming out called Dante's Inferno, and you guessed it, it is is based on Dante's epic poem, The Divine Comedy.

As far as I know, this is the first direct video game adaptation of a classic piece of literature. Sure, the God of War franchise bases a lot on Greek mythology (and is not the only game to do so), and there are many games with a historical context, or games that even refer to literature, but Dante's Inferno is the first to claim total inspiration from a piece of literature, and that it is from a centuries old poem is rather daring. No other game has done this, barring a Robin Hood or Hercules (or something along those lines) game I'm not aware of.

Now, the game developers do not claim to be making a exact adaptation, they are taking many liberties. You have to if you want to turn Dante's poem into a hack and slash game. They are basing the story of the game on it--a man chasing his lost love through hell. Most of the inspiration comes from the vivid imagery of the poem, as the hero (who they have named Dante for the game) traverses the circles of hell.

Now, some are undoubtedly going to look at this in disgust, and think it is disgraceful because of what they are using Dante's poem for. The only reason I will think it is disgraceful is if the game turns out to be a piece of crap, something that seems unlikely from what I've seen of the game. I think this is a great idea actually. If anything, it will make kids (and adults) aware of the poem, and maybe it will even lead some to read it. And maybe some will enjoy it. And maybe some will go on to read more literature. A lot of maybes, sure, and probably unrealistic, but it could happen. I think making people aware of the literature is something positive in of itself.

So, there are two things I wanted to bring up for discussion. First, what do you think of classic literature inspiring video games? Good idea, horrible idea? And second (and this one could be more for the gamers that must be lurking on these forums) what other pieces of classic literature could be used for video games? Modern sci-fi and fantasy doesn't count, as a multitude of Lord of the Rings games already exist. Ones that came to my mind are The Three Musketeers, The Odyssey, and as mentioned above, Robin Hood.

A demonstration for Dante's Inferno can be seen here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSr_vMOXEH4

[JBI]

My question is a) what will the game play be like, and b) who will the targeted audience be for the game. It isn't a fighting game surely, as Dante doesn't fight - it isn't a puzzle game, as Dante doesn't solve puzzles - what could it possibly be, if it is close to the text, and if it isn't, why bother with it anyway?

edit: this from wikipedia:



Dante's Inferno is based on the first part of Dante's Divine Comedy. The player controls Dante, a veteran of the Crusades who must chase his beloved Beatrice and free her soul from Lucifer. As his pursuit takes him through the 9 Circles of Hell, he must battle monsters and face his sins, his family's past, and his war crimes.


That's not just an insult to history, and to literature, but an insult to Italian culture. Sorry, I don't care how good the game play is, that's insulting to the history of the text - Dante was not even alive for the major crusades, the last one, which wasn't really one, taking place in 1272, when he was 7. But then again, the rest of the plot seems contrived, and essentially misses the whole purpose of the text, and what Dante stood for.

Perhaps though, the action fighting could be fun, but I doubt it - I bet the game is tedious, it certainly sounds tedious.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

The game actually looks excellent. The gameplay looks very similar to the God of War series (should be in the video). The game looks very polished and well made. If you don't like the style of those games, then you obviously won't like it.

Like I said, the developers have already admitted that the most inspiration for the game comes from the poem's imagery. I don't see how it is insulting . . . it is basically an homage to the poem.

And it is targeted to the same audience that all video games are: gamers.

[islandclimber]

wow... that's pretty brutal...

How about a game for Crime and Punishment :p getting to run around as Raskolnikov would be quite interesting...

Or a Shakespeare game, where one got to play Characters from the plays... Extreme Hamlet! or Romeo and Juliet! ahh, what large corporations won't do for money...

I don't think this game will at all increase the number of people who read Dante... Or will really even increase awareness of his work... I just don't see a video game doing that...

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I have no doubt that it will at least increase awareness of his work among gamers. The magazines, articles, and TV shows that have featured stories about the game have not at all been shy about highlighting the fact that it is based on the poem. So, really, it has already increased awareness, lol.

[islandclimber]

but everyone has heard of Dante, and the Divine Comedy (or so I would hope)... do you honestly think this video game will increase the number of people who read it?

[Dr. Hill]

I would play a Crime and Punishment game. It'd be like the Sims for several days and then a moment of Assassin's Creed, then the Sims for several days.

[JBI]

wow... that's pretty brutal...

How about a game for Crime and Punishment :p getting to run around as Raskolnikov would be quite interesting...

Or a Shakespeare game, where one got to play Characters from the plays... Extreme Hamlet! or Romeo and Juliet! ahh, what large corporations won't do for money...

I don't think this game will at all increase the number of people who read Dante... Or will really even increase awareness of his work... I just don't see a video game doing that...
You may want to take a look at this movie gag:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1N-BHH4B31A

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

In reference to islandclimber:

You may hope, but I really doubt that. I know most of my friends (outside of college) have no idea who Dante is or that the poem even exists. If I asked them who Dante was, most would probably say that guy with the big sword from the Devil May Cry games.

And, I do believe the game will increase the number of people who read it. Realistically, hundreds of thousand of people will play this game. Of all those people, I do not think it is a stretch to think some of them will seek out the poem, especially since it is in the public domain. Hell, the game itself might even come with the poem. I wouldn't be surprised if it did.

[JBI]

In reference to islandclimber:

You may hope, but I really doubt that. I know most of my friends (outside of college) have no idea who Dante is or that the poem even exists. If I asked them who Dante was, most would probably say that guy with the big sword from the Devil May Cry games.

And, I do believe the game will increase the number of people who read it. Realistically, hundreds of thousand of people will play this game. Of all those people, I do not think it is a stretch to think some of them will seek out the poem, especially since it is in the public domain. Hell, the game itself might even come with the poem. I wouldn't be surprised if it did.

It won't matter - the poem is still going to be significant whether they like it or not, or read it or not - millions of people will read it, as, quite simply, it has a language essentially based on it. What the game does, essentially, is cause confusion, by giving people a false portrait of Dante - Dante as sword wielding Crusader trying to save the sluttish Beatrice from the depths of hell or whatever.

I don't know though - personally I like video games to be 2d, and not require thinking. As soon as they turned 3d, they essentially lost any appeal they may have had for me.

[JacobF]

As someone who shares an equal passion for both video games and literature, I didn't revolt in disgust when I first heard about this game, but I didn't care for it either, and I still don't. Not only does it sound like a shameless cash-in on a classic work of literature almost to the point where it's a parody, but an unimaginative derivation of two well done action games, Ninja Gaiden and God of War.

So quite simply, it seems like a mediocre game. The best video games, like the best works of literature, have their own original universes and characters (from a single player perspective). Dante's Inferno doesn't sound like it has an iota of originality, other than the fact that it's the first game to claim that it bases itself off a classic poem.



So, there are two things I wanted to bring up for discussion. First, what do you think of classic literature inspiring video games? Good idea, horrible idea?


It's difficult to say because I've never observed any direct inspiration from classical literature in video games. I'm sure if you tried hard enough you could point out a game with deep characters, such as Grand Theft Auto IV or Mass Effect, and find character or plot parallels with classical works, but I think that would be purely incidental and I doubt that game developers have ever consciously drawn inspiration from classical literature (except for Dante's Inferno). I have, however, seen allusions to classics; the "vorpal sword" from Jabberwocky can be found in many fantasy games, for instance.

But games are above all a form of entertainment, so my knee-jerk judgment tells me that it's best to leave the classics alone, especially when the "inspiration" is so brute force as in Dante's Inferno.


And second (and this one could be more for the gamers that must be lurking on these forums) what other pieces of classic literature could be used for video games?

Since you have limited the definition of classics to exclude modern fantasy and sci-fi, I guess I have to revert back to my previous statement and say it's best not to "use" pieces of classical literature for video games. Many games get a lot of inspiration from science fiction and fantasy novels (Dune and 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea come to mind), though the most impacting sources of inspiration for video games are movies.


And maybe some will enjoy it. And maybe some will go on to read more literature. A lot of maybes, sure, and probably unrealistic, but it could happen. I think making people aware of the literature is something positive in of itself.

I'm sure quite a few gamers will enjoy the game (it has flashy graphics!) but I doubt it will encourage them to read more literature. There are gamers who read and gamers who don't read. We live in a generally literate culture, libraries are available, so if the latter group really wanted to read they would be reading by now. I grew up with both video games and books: I learned about video games when I turned on my parents' Original NES, and I learned about books from finding my Dad's old Hardy Boys collection. Books inspire people to read, not video games.

[Adagio]

Hmm. I'm not sure about this one. I think the game itself, whether based off of Dante's comedy or not, looks awful.

As for the game bringing awareness to Dante's epic poem, well, it just sounds like a conjured up excuse. I mean look at the majority of films out there, most of the storylines are from novels. I have never, and I mean NEVER watched a film, thought 'yeah okay, that was awesome, now let's read the novel!', it just doesn't work like that. A huge part of reading a novel (especially those who aren't literature lovers) is the plotline's mystery - being revealed chapter by chapter. For example, look at The Lord of the Rings trilogy - the films make the story seem action packed and fast paced with that hollywood cringe for comedy. Let's face it the majority of society, whilst they may read, aren't literature lovers who would pick up The Divine Comedy, or Shakespeare, or Milton, or even Dostoevsky for a fun and entertaining read. It just doesn't happen. What on earth could make you possibly think that a game, whos audience is targeted at teenagers and video-game lovers, is going to attract anyone pick up Dante's poem? Come on now. Even if they did, after playing a slash-'em-the-****-up like that, they will be disappointed with the poet. I am a lover of films, I must say. Brokeback Mountain blew me away, I haven't read the book, but that kind of acting is superb and I could really enjoy the storyline. As a child I read, and adored, the Harry Potter series. Now I know alot of people on here slate them and against writers like Shakespeare, Dante etc. she doesn't compare. However, this author first started this passion that I have for literature. I remember when a new book would come out and you could guarantee that on that day thousands of children would be reading - with passion, with excitement, with fury and would understand the power literature has. Now look at these films. Children will no longer queue for a book. They won't be up until the late hours gripped with finding out what happens next. No, instead literature's pages are burnt as our 21st century technology proceeds to wipe it out. This game won't bring awareness; it will throw Dante futher into the shadows. All they have left is to turn it into a movie and completely destroy it.

It is a shame. Games used to be great. I mean look at the Metal Gear and Final Fantasy series - they are beyond awesome. I think gamers should stick to writing their own storylines, they work best that way. If it were up to me I'd ban these companies for turning literature into some kind of heartless trash. I cannot help feel sorry for these writers as their works of art are destroyed and distorted. I mean, it's absurd if you think about it, you don't get people reworking Monet's paintings and making money off of it, so why should people create a brutal (don't even get me started on the violence) retelling of an epic poem and collect their pay?

[Madame X]

It's difficult to say because I've never observed any direct inspiration from classical literature in video games. I'm sure if you tried hard enough you could point out a game with deep characters, such as Grand Theft Auto IV or Mass Effect, and find character or plot parallels with classical works, but I think that would be purely incidental and I doubt that game developers have ever consciously drawn inspiration from classical literature (except for Dante's Inferno).
Call of Cthulhu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_of_Cthulhu:_Dark_Corners_of_the_Earth) is shamelessly fashioned after Lovecraft's Cthulhu Mythos...not classical literature, per se. But then there's always Bible Adventures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_Adventures) for, but not necessarily sanctioned by, the NES. ;)

[lattywatty]

I think teenage boys (the game's target audience) couldn't care less about the origin behind the game (sorry for generalising; I'm a teenage boy myself!) so I don't think it'll increase awareness at all. In fact, I expect many won't even realise that it's from that and think that it's an original story.

As for other games that could work... Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde? It could be a mix of action, stealth and substance-mixing?

But any game deriving from any book would be emphasised a great deal and most of the time I expect the story will be lost along the way.

They could surprise us with an epic Shakespeare game though... who knows?

[Paulclem]

I think there is a lot of scope for the use of classic literature in games. There are already lots that have been mentioned already, and I could add James Bond on the PS2. Why not? Games andbooks target different audiences, and there's nothing wrong with that. The Divine Comedy game is just a setting really- though I speak with no knowledge of it.

Teenage boys grow up and develop new interests too. Who can say what will lead people to literature. It probably won't be a game, but no mater. They stand on their own reputation.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Well, I know I have picked up books because a movie was based on them many, many times. And I never claimed that the game was going to lead a lot of people to seek out the poem, but with the multitude of people who will be playing the game, it is exremely unlikely that not one gamer will seek out the poem.

And, as mentioned before, the developers have stated that the majority of the games inspiration comes from the imagery. And I still think it looks like a really good game.

[Barbarous]

I just don't understand why they needed to make this? What is the point besides ruining a classic? :lol:

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Well, the ultimate point is to make money.

[Hank Stamper]

i think when video game designers have to turn to classic literature for new ideas = scraping the barrel .. i have no interest in computer games anyway being a grumpy old man averse to such trends, but i thought the yooof of today were only interested in games that involve guns or cars (or preferably both).. i'm fairly sure there will be an absence of both in this game (really!), so i can't see anybody getting too excited about this...

and will it turn people onto the poem who might otherwise never read poetry? i'm taking a MASSIVE wild stab in the dark with this one ... NO!

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Someone, somewhere will pick up the poem because if this game. Of this I have no doubt.

And there are many games without cars andguns that are big. There are many that are really popular that aren't violent or explicit at all, like Little Big Planet, and the majority of games on the Wii.

[Hank Stamper]

but aren't the majority of games on the wii virtual reality sports type games for people who are too lazy to do the real thing? let's all stand in the living room playing tennis... just buy a racket and go to a club.. much better fun, much better exercise!

but yeah i was making tongue in cheek sweeping generalisations.. i'm sure there are plenty of popular games that don't involve guns and cars, i just can't imagine dante's inferno being one of them!

[Madame X]

Someone, somewhere will pick up the poem because if this game. Of this I have no doubt.

I think we should rather be asking if this Dante-on-steroids will manage to tempt what remains of that rare breed of boorish bibliophiles on this planet into the exciting world of...electronic gaming! :banana:

[Drkshadow03]

. . . I mean NEVER watched a film, thought 'yeah okay, that was awesome, now let's read the novel!', it just doesn't work like that. A huge part of reading a novel (especially those who aren't literature lovers) is the plotline's mystery - being revealed chapter by chapter. For example, look at The Lord of the Rings trilogy - the films make the story seem action packed and fast paced with that hollywood cringe for comedy. Let's face it the majority of society, whilst they may read, aren't literature lovers who would pick up The Divine Comedy, or Shakespeare, or Milton, or even Dostoevsky for a fun and entertaining read. . . . I mean, it's absurd if you think about it, you don't get people reworking Monet's paintings and making money off of it, so why should people create a brutal (don't even get me started on the violence) retelling of an epic poem and collect their pay?

Three points:

1) I can say with complete honest that I have seen a movie and then wanted to read the book. One concrete example off the top of my head is A Clockwork Orange. Saw the Stanley Kubrick film first, and wanted to read Anthony Burgess' book. I also know my brother started reading the Harry Potter books after he watched the films.

2) When Lord of the Rings came out on film LOTR book sales spiked. In fact, this happens any time a book comes out on film. When a film adaptation of Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice comes out people book sales spike significantly. Ergo, the logical conclusion is that, yes, many people do in fact want to read the book after seeing the movie. I will add, however, that usually the movie needs to be successful in the box office for it to have this impact. Whether you are for or against making literature in a video game, it will be interesting from sociological-economic perspective to see if it suddenly spikes up sales for Divine Comedy.

3) They can collect pay for ripping off old artists because copyright law doesn't protect something that old. Copyright laws are already BAD ENOUGH (sorry, little kid you can't draw Mickey Mouse on your little crappy school project that is making no profit whatsoever or Disney will sue you). There is nothing wrong with reworking and borrowing from older literature in theory, not legally or artistically.

[Adagio]

Three points:

1) I can say with complete honest that I have seen a movie and then wanted to read the book. One concrete example off the top of my head is A Clockwork Orange. Saw the Stanley Kubrick film first, and wanted to read Anthony Burgess' book. I also know my brother started reading the Harry Potter books after he watched the films.

2) When Lord of the Rings came out on film LOTR book sales spiked. In fact, this happens any time a book comes out on film. When a film adaptation of Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice comes out people book sales spike significantly. Ergo, the logical conclusion is that, yes, many people do in fact want to read the book after seeing the movie. I will add, however, that usually the movie needs to be successful in the box office for it to have this impact. Whether you are for or against making literature in a video game, it will be interesting from sociological-economic perspective to see if it suddenly spikes up sales for Divine Comedy.

3) They can collect pay for ripping off old artists because copyright law doesn't protect something that old. Copyright laws are already BAD ENOUGH (sorry, little kid you can't draw Mickey Mouse on your little crappy school project that is making no profit whatsoever or Disney will sue you). There is nothing wrong with reworking and borrowing from older literature in theory, not legally or artistically.
Okay, so you watch a film and it may inspire you to pick up the book - that's great. However, why did you want to read those books? because the film was enjoyable. Every adaption of a book is usually nothing like the reading experience - reading is alot more personal than watching someone else's interpretation of the work we all know that. What if (and many of these exist) the adaption sucks? Will you still want to read the book then, or will you be put off? The fact is ALOT of people watch movies, and alot of movies are based off of films. It's not really fair. The Lord of the Rings, A Clockwork Orange and the Harry Potter series were successful. What of the ones that aren't?

But yeah, fair enough I do enjoy movies and in my younger days I used to really enjoy videogames. Perhaps it just irritates me because certain works that I love have been made into cringey money-making products. I mean how much better would it have been if they took their inspiration from Dante's poem and create a really terrifying Hell for an original hero and some great characters to be trapped in?

[Drkshadow03]

Okay, so you watch a film and it may inspire you to pick up the book - that's great. However, why did you want to read those books? because the film was enjoyable. Every adaption of a book is usually nothing like the reading experience - reading is alot more personal than watching someone else's interpretation of the work we all know that. What if (and many of these exist) the adaption sucks? Will you still want to read the book then, or will you be put off? The fact is ALOT of people watch movies, and alot of movies are based off of films. It's not really fair. The Lord of the Rings, A Clockwork Orange and the Harry Potter series were successful. What of the ones that aren't?

But yeah, fair enough I do enjoy movies and in my younger days I used to really enjoy videogames. Perhaps it just irritates me because certain works that I love have been made into cringey money-making products. I mean how much better would it have been if they took their inspiration from Dante's poem and create a really terrifying Hell for an original hero and some great characters to be trapped in?

Actually it would've been cool if they took Dante's hell and you can choose different characters to play, but the different characters are different famous writers (Shakespeare, Dante, The Beowulf Poet, Emily Dickinson), and they have special movies based off their work: Shakespeare has an acting ability where he can shape-shift into different Shakespearean characters and gain different defensive/fighting attributes and techniques, The Beowulf Poet already comes with sword in hand, Emily Dickinson can spin villians into words with her voice. So then you get to play around with an original story that needs to explain why all these literary giants are trapped into Dante's hell. Maybe the villains aren't just the denizens of hell, but also other writers. Make the story more puzzle-oriented than action-oriented.

[mayneverhave]

The player of Dante's Inferno will be inclined to read the Divine Comedy until he realizes what he's gotten himself into and is bombarded with constant allusions to mythology, Roman history, Italian politics, theology, and esoteric numerology.

I'll admit the very concept of the Inferno interested me even in my early teens when I first bought the book, but it takes more than just a passing interest to attempt a in any part thorough reading of the poem.

[Paulclem]

Agreed. All of that is missing from the video game. What the developers want is an interesting setting with which to set a familiar scenario. I don't see a problem with them doing this, but it will not encourage a reading of the poem. Literary courses may do that, but not necessarily.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I think the original poster is correct when he states that more people will read Dante as a result of this game, it is a mathematical certainty. However to what extent, and to what range and depth is entirely another matter.

Computer technology and literature are coming closer together with the impact of media and digital technologies, sure, but at the same time they are still worlds apart. The instant gratification required in the majority of computer games, is a totally different experience to that of reading a substantial text, such as the DC.

I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of those who do go out and buy the text after playing the game, will give up after the first few stanzas. At the most it will be cast aside when the next game comes out with all its flashing promise.

I'm not belittling computer games, (computer games which are strongly pushed as an art form by British government policy today) but that computer games and literature seldom mix.

I just can't see the individual who demands the instant gratification in a computer game taking any real pleasure from this work. For surely, this is a text which demands several readings and a whole host of critical and historical understanding in order to appreciate it properly.

[mayneverhave]

I heard that in the 4th level of the game you get to fight Aristotle, and he throws copies of the Rhetoric at you!

[Drkshadow03]

I heard that in the 4th level of the game you get to fight Aristotle, and he throws copies of the Rhetoric at you!

They should make it so you have to read the entire rhetoric as a bonus challenge on a television screen no less. Twenty bucks says there would actually be some gamers who would do it in order to have completed ALL of the game.

[Drkshadow03]

I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of those who do go out and buy the text after playing the game, will give up after the first few stanzas. At the most it will be cast aside when the next game comes out with all its flashing promise.

I'm not belittling computer games, (computer games which are strongly pushed as an art form by British government policy today) but that computer games and literature seldom mix.

I just can't see the individual who demands the instant gratification in a computer game taking any real pleasure from this work. For surely, this is a text which demands several readings and a whole host of critical and historical understanding in order to appreciate it properly.

A couple of the guys and gals in my English grad classes listed the study of "the aesthetics and cultures of video game" as one of their intellectual interests.

To address you're other points, I know you mentioned "the vast majority" (thus allowing for a minority), but I still want to urge everyone to be careful about stereotyping. I know plenty of gamers who read good books. And vice-versa. Plenty of readers who dabble in the occasional guilty pleasure of video games. In fact, I even know few university professors. I spent the morning reading Jane Eyre, and now I'm going to go play my Xbox.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I think the original poster is correct when he states that more people will read Dante as a result of this game, it is a mathematical certainty. However to what extent, and to what range and depth is entirely another matter.

Computer technology and literature are coming closer together with the impact of media and digital technologies, sure, but at the same time they are still worlds apart. The instant gratification required in the majority of computer games, is a totally different experience to that of reading a substantial text, such as the DC.

I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of those who do go out and buy the text after playing the game, will give up after the first few stanzas. At the most it will be cast aside when the next game comes out with all its flashing promise.

I'm not belittling computer games, (computer games which are strongly pushed as an art form by British government policy today) but that computer games and literature seldom mix.

I just can't see the individual who demands the instant gratification in a computer game taking any real pleasure from this work. For surely, this is a text which demands several readings and a whole host of critical and historical understanding in order to appreciate it properly.

I agree with you. I do think many will pick up the poem, though I do suspect that most will discard it after a few lines, when they are completely lost. But, like the above poster states, there are a lot of gamers who are literature lovers and vice-versa. I'm one of them. Maybe this game will get them to read the poem, and some of them may get into it.

[a_little_wisp]

I heard that in the 4th level of the game you get to fight Aristotle, and he throws copies of the Rhetoric at you!

This made me smile. A lot. I even laughed. And I kind of pictured it being followed by a chorus of: "yaaay!"

I'm a gamer ("gamer girl" as some say) and one of my friends showed me the trailer for it - the graphics are stunning, sure, and I'd like to try it out.

Dante's Inferno itself is near and dear to my heart. I will always remember standing in front of my AP class and reciting the inscription from the gates (beginning of Canto III) as part of an exam grade and remembering being ultimately creeped out when our teacher read us bits aloud (yes we were in highschool, yes she still read to us, yes it was amazing). What a page-turner that one was.

While we were watching the trailer, we were making jokes about how they've completed changed the story, but I don't think I'll be able to resist just seeing what little things they may have kept, for kicks.

"OH MY GOD YOU GET TO RIDE ON GERYON?"

But enough of that -

I do still believe that the best games are the original stories with original worlds consisting of mythologies of their own (Final Fantasy series, for instance), but just like movies today, people won't be able to resist turning our favorite pieces of literature into stories that vaguely resemble the original (it really is for the money, after all). We'll gripe and scream, but people will still do it - and out of curiosity, or boredom, or maybe a little of both, the audiences are still going to look into it.


I agree with you. I do think many will pick up the poem, though I do suspect that most will discard it after a few lines, when they are completely lost. But, like the above poster states, there are a lot of gamers who are literature lovers and vice-versa. I'm one of them. Maybe this game will get them to read the poem, and some of them may get into it.

Mutatis, agreed! Most of my gamer friends are big readers as well, and who knows - maybe Alighieri will get more attention. After all, I know people who love to point out inconsistencies as a hobby (me).

I'm not quite sure what other books near and dear to me I want to see turned into games/movies ... I'll think on it tonight and maybe post on it later.

[bluevictim]

I mean, it's absurd if you think about it, you don't get people reworking Monet's paintings and making money off of it, so why should people create a brutal (don't even get me started on the violence) retelling of an epic poem and collect their pay?I'm having a hard time seeing the absurdity. Handel retold the story of Saul (among many others) and collected pay, Leonard Bernstein retold Romeo and Juliet and collected pay (West Side Story), what's wrong with using an epic poem as inspiration for a game?


I just don't understand why they needed to make this? What is the point besides ruining a classic?I have no idea what this game is like, but I don't really see how it could ruin any classics. How does this game ruin anything?


I just can't see the individual who demands the instant gratification in a computer game taking any real pleasure from this work. For surely, this is a text which demands several readings and a whole host of critical and historical understanding in order to appreciate it properly.

I agree with you. I do think many will pick up the poem, though I do suspect that most will discard it after a few lines, when they are completely lost. But, like the above poster states, there are a lot of gamers who are literature lovers and vice-versa. I'm one of them. Maybe this game will get them to read the poem, and some of them may get into it.I'm puzzled as to why it is such a big deal whether or not this game gets people to read and/or appreciate Dante's poem. It seems like a lot of posts in this thread find this to be the only way the existence of this game can be justified (I just picked a couple of posts out of the many to quote). If it's an enjoyable game, what does it matter if its players pick up Dante?

[JacobF]

If it's an enjoyable game, what does it matter if players pick up Dante?

I think I have to agree with this. It's fairly obvious, at least from reading more developer interviews and watching trailers, that the developers don't care about following the story of The Divine Comedy. They want a marketable product, and the idea of Dante's Inferno will surely make gamers shell out cash in hopes of killing underworld creatures in dark and twisted environments. Not observing any possible parallels between it and the poem.

That being said, I still don't think the game itself will be very good. I won't lie, I enjoyed seeing some of the concept art and watching it in action, but it doesn't look like it'll offer much in terms of game play. And there are so many games gutting the market right now that there really isn't any room for another derivative one. I don't doubt it'll sell well, though, as gamers can generally be suckers for good looks.

[Adagio]

At bluevictim and JacobF -

Using inspiration from an epic poem is fine and like you said JacobF if the game is enjoyable then that is all that matters. However, why the hell (no pun intended - well, maybe a little) are the designers using the title 'Dante's Inferno'? that is the link, the parallel, between the game and poem. Like I stated earlier why didn't they just get inspiration from the poem and use their own creativity in creating some really great characters with some depth.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Maybe the characters will have depth. Doubtful, but it is possible, and as the game is not out yet, we don't really know.


I'm having a hard time seeing the absurdity. Handel retold the story of Saul (among many others) and collected pay, Leonard Bernstein retold Romeo and Juliet and collected pay (West Side Story), what's wrong with using an epic poem as inspiration for a game?

I have no idea what this game is like, but I don't really see how it could ruin any classics. How does this game ruin anything?


I'm puzzled as to why it is such a big deal whether or not this game gets people to read and/or appreciate Dante's poem. It seems like a lot of posts in this thread find this to be the only way the existence of this game can be justified (I just picked a couple of posts out of the many to quote). If it's an enjoyable game, what does it matter if its players pick up Dante?

Well, I guess it is a big deal here because that was the question I asked to be discussed in my OP, lol. I agree, the most important factor for this game will be whether or not it is an enjoyable experience for the gamer. I just wanted to get some thoughts from the literary minded.

[JacobF]

However, why the hell (no pun intended - well, maybe a little) are the designers using the title 'Dante's Inferno'? that is the link, the parallel, between the game and poem.

From TV shows and movies, Dante's Inferno, The 9 Stages of Hell, and even just the character Dante has fitted itself into pop culture, and this isn't the first time that the idea of Dante's Inferno has been used outside the poem. Just using that name isn't an automatic parallel between the game and the poem. As I said in my previous post, it's just a marketing tool.

Like Romeo and Juliet -- you hear of it referred to all the time in music, TV shows, movies, and even though not everyone has read the play, everyone knows just by hearing those two names what it implies.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I'm puzzled as to why it is such a big deal whether or not this game gets people to read and/or appreciate Dante's poem. It seems like a lot of posts in this thread find this to be the only way the existence of this game can be justified (I just picked a couple of posts out of the many to quote). If it's an enjoyable game, what does it matter if its players pick up Dante?


Well, I guess it is a big deal here because that was the question I asked to be discussed in my OP, lol. I agree, the most important factor for this game will be whether or not it is an enjoyable experience for the gamer. I just wanted to get some thoughts from the literary minded.

That's a fair counter and one that I agree with, however there is still a part of me, call it selfish or whatever, that sort of wants to promote literature and reading. Certainly the way to do that is with a book, and not a computer game, but this thing will mean that more people will pick up Dante for sure.

I think that when most people have something that they are passionate about they want to share it with others. I think this is part of the human condition to some degree, it's the same with many aspects of life. (Incidentally I would also promote road bikes as a cool means of transport. Dump the car and use your legs!)

In my daily live I come across hundreds of young people who play computer games, surf the net and everything else, but have never read a book. I guess some part of me wants to address that balance in some way, though I am certainly not dogmatic or insistent in any way.

Why it is such a big deal whether or not this game gets people to read and/or appreciate Dante's poem?

I don't know, I guess I just see it as such a bloody waste.

[bluevictim]

Like I stated earlier why didn't they just get inspiration from the poem and use their own creativity in creating some really great characters with some depth.Isn't that pretty much what the creators of the game tried to do?



I think that when most people have something that they are passionate about they want to share it with others.
...
Why it is such a big deal whether or not this game gets people to read and/or appreciate Dante's poem?

I don't know, I guess I just see it as such a bloody waste.Fair enough, but it seems a little narrow-minded to call it a waste just because it doesn't get people to read Dante (as opposed to calling it a waste because it's not an enjoyable game). I wonder how we would react if we encountered a discussion dismissing Moby Dick as a waste because it doesn't get people interested in marine biology, or The Crying of Lot 49 because it doesn't get people interested in information theory, or The Snows of Kilimanjaro because it doesn't get people into mountaineering.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Fair enough, but it seems a little narrow-minded to call it a waste just because it doesn't get people to read Dante (as opposed to calling it a waste because it's not an enjoyable game). I wonder how we would react if we encountered a discussion dismissing Moby Dick as a waste because it doesn't get people interested in marine biology, or The Crying of Lot 49 because it doesn't get people interested in information theory, or The Snows of Kilimanjaro because it doesn't get people into mountaineering.

But that's the nature of the beast, it's just a question of perspective in the end. Naturally though, I value literature above computer games and so see it in those terms.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Moby Dick would make an excellent mini-game. Maybe a downloadable game? :lol:

[virginiawang]

To make a game out of classic literature is one of the most offensive ideas I've ever come across. To twist a piece of literature out of its natural shape and adapt it into some practical use insults not only the work of literature itself but its writer as well. I am sure a writer may want to jump out of his grave and vent his complaint immediately after he sees a game created out of his work. In my opinion, literature is art. We are supposed to appreciate it by our hearts.

[Barbarous]

I have no idea what this game is like, but I don't really see how it could ruin any classics. How does this game ruin anything?

Can you see a distorted view?
(keep in mind that Dante is huge muscular figure with a skeleton scythe)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdqY2a9iRXw

[mayneverhave]

I have no idea what this game is like, but I don't really see how it could ruin any classics. How does this game ruin anything?


No, obviously it will not ruin the Divine Comedy. The poem has survived nearly 700 years, there's no reason that a video game (no matter what its quality) could even remotely ruin Dante's reputation. The people who determine its reputation - i.e. academics - will not take the game into consideration, and the people who determine the game's reputation will not take the poem into consideration.

But of course to imagine Dante as a muscular Crusader-figure wielding a large scythe is to completely miss the point of the Inferno, and therefore the game certainly misrepresents the poem, and thereby the poem in public consciousness.

[Drkshadow03]

Can you see a distorted view?
(keep in mind that Dante is huge muscular figure with a skeleton scythe)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdqY2a9iRXw

Heh. Whatever. That game looks like fun!

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

To make a game out of classic literature is one of the most offensive ideas I've ever come across. To twist a piece of literature out of its natural shape and adapt it into some practical use insults not only the work of literature itself but its writer as well. I am sure a writer may want to jump out of his grave and vent his complaint immediately after he sees a game created out of his work. In my opinion, literature is art. We are supposed to appreciate it by our hearts.

So, I'm assuming you feel the same way about all movies adapted from classic literature?

[King Mob]

There's a spanish adventure game adaptation of The Name of the Rose, called La Abadía del Crimen (Abbey of Crime).

I haven't played it but it seems it's good. You can download it here (http://www.abadiadelcrimen.com/). It's in various languages.

And there's already a Robin Hood adventure game from Sierra called Conquests of the Longbow. From 1991 or 92. And it's here (http://www.abandonia.com/en/games/173/Conquests+of+the+Longbow+-+The+Legend+of+Robin+Hood.html).

[LitNetIsGreat]

No, obviously it will not ruin the Divine Comedy. The poem has survived nearly 700 years, there's no reason that a video game (no matter what its quality) could even remotely ruin Dante's reputation. The people who determine its reputation - i.e. academics - will not take the game into consideration, and the people who determine the game's reputation will not take the poem into consideration.

But of course to imagine Dante as a muscular Crusader-figure wielding a large scythe is to completely miss the point of the Inferno, and therefore the game certainly misrepresents the poem, and thereby the poem in public consciousness.

That's true about misrepresentation in the public consciousness. You get the Frankenstein, bolt through the neck, dumb monster effect; of course nothing like the original.

Yes, literature, film, computer technology are different mediums and directors can do with it what they like, but it ain't half irritating sometimes.

Having said all I have said however, I don't really care about the game much, one way or the other.

[Adagio]

That's true about misrepresentation in the public consciousness. You get the Frankenstein, bolt through the neck, dumb monster effect; of course nothing like the original.

Thinking about it, film has actually - and in a sense with Dracula too - distorted this work. I mean the majority of people in one of my classes, back in school, thought that Frankenstein was actually the monster's name. Just think of all the teenagers and game players that will now assume that Dante was some kind of demon killer.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Thinking about it, film has actually - and in a sense with Dracula too - distorted this work. I mean the majority of people in one of my classes, back in school, thought that Frankenstein was actually the monster's name. Just think of all the teenagers and game players that will now assume that Dante was some kind of demon killer.

Yes absolutely. Film has massively distorted Dracula and Frankenstein, they have taken on a whole new myth, which has nothing to do with the novels which bred them. Just consider the huge amount of film spin-off's that these two novels have had too.

Of course the game will never be widely popular, but many of those that do will still associate something outrageous with it as you say. Really the Divine Comedy is a supreme work of literature, but look what the modern world does with it.

Anyway with a bit of luck we will be able to purchase "Dante's demons" with every Happy Meal soon; or something like that.

[mayneverhave]

Thinking about it, film has actually - and in a sense with Dracula too - distorted this work. I mean the majority of people in one of my classes, back in school, thought that Frankenstein was actually the monster's name. Just think of all the teenagers and game players that will now assume that Dante was some kind of demon killer.

Not only that, but the poem's Dante actually faints from fear on occasion.



Anyway with a bit of luck we will be able to purchase "Dante's demons" with every Happy Meal soon; or something like that.

And hopefully a nicely detailed one of Ugolino gnawing on Ruggieri's head.

[mono]

All media, whether books, films, video games, newspapers, or magazines, will continue erecting off each other, because they inspire each other, some more directly than others. Personally, I do not feel bothered by their making a game out of Dante's Inferno, and, following the supplied YouTube link I felt quite impressed by the graphics, but what I really dislike involves the misrepresentation - Dante rescuing Beatrice from Lucifer? From what I recall, there exists nothing in the whole of The Divine Comedy that resembles this elementary plot; if anything, I would say Beatrice actually rescued Dante by sending Virgil to him to guide him through hell and purgatory. I do not think the makers of this game adapted it from Dante's Inferno, and I question if the makers read any more the Cliff's Notes edition to create it; they took Dante, Beatrice, Lucifer, and hell, subtracting even the basics of the epic plot, then added the predictable heroism to give the game some brainless Mario-and-Luigi-rescue-the-Princess-from-Koopa-like hype. I agree with others that it would take a lot to ruin The Divine Comedy, but the makers of this video game have certainly given it a beating.
As to whether this should inspire gamers to read The Divine Comedy, and I wish them all the luck, I do not feel confident many of their undoubtedly strong thumbs could get through the first canto, provided what a misrepresentation this video game suggests. I have felt inspired to read a book, having seen the movie, or something along those lines, but at least the movies tend to follow the bare essentials of a novel's plot; this video game, on the other hand, bears no similarities. A gamer would more likely begin reading Inferno expecting to encounter some heroic tale of a man attempting to rescue his deceased love from Satan holding her hostage, then feel overwhelmed with the total change in plot, the great amount of history, politics, theology, and other such allusions, and particularly find that Lucifer never held Beatrice hostage, but that she sat in a high circle of paradise. The misrepresentation would seem overbearing, I think, for the average reader, and most, I think, would likely toss the book away with exclaimed frustration in a cracking, peripubescent voice. If the game actually followed some kind of resemblance to the plot of Dante's Inferno, I would have a different opinion, but this sounds like one of the most absurd media adaptions I have ever heard of, created quite obviously by people who have no intellectual capacities away from a game console. Even if the makers had created the game according to the plot, I do not think it would go well amid fans and gamers - sure, it sounds adventurous, but the complexities sound too great.

Actually it would've been cool if they took Dante's hell and you can choose different characters to play, but the different characters are different famous writers (Shakespeare, Dante, The Beowulf Poet, Emily Dickinson), and they have special movies based off their work: Shakespeare has an acting ability where he can shape-shift into different Shakespearean characters and gain different defensive/fighting attributes and techniques, The Beowulf Poet already comes with sword in hand, Emily Dickinson can spin villians into words with her voice. So then you get to play around with an original story that needs to explain why all these literary giants are trapped into Dante's hell. Maybe the villains aren't just the denizens of hell, but also other writers. Make the story more puzzle-oriented than action-oriented.
As much as I appreciate and respect your creativity, please tell me you meant this as a joke, Drkshadow.

Moby Dick would make an excellent mini-game. Maybe a downloadable game? :lol:
I guess I stand by my opinion that media will keep expanding off of each other, and I would likely not play it (not a fan of video games), but as long as it would bear some resemblance to the plot, I feel curious how it would turn out, especially if it inspired some people to read Melville's masterpiece. Since heroics, action, and conquering seem such common themes in video games since they started, Moby Dick might go well, but I would advocate more for something like Cervantes' Don Quixote, where one can play as a brainless knight committing almost random acts of violence and perjury in the name of chivalry.

[Drkshadow03]

As much as I appreciate and respect your creativity, please tell me you meant this as a joke, Drkshadow.

Psht, you're just jealous you didn't think of it first.

[bluevictim]

But of course to imagine Dante as a muscular Crusader-figure wielding a large scythe is to completely miss the point of the Inferno, and therefore the game certainly misrepresents the poem, and thereby the poem in public consciousness.


That's true about misrepresentation in the public consciousness. You get the Frankenstein, bolt through the neck, dumb monster effect; of course nothing like the original.

Surely I'm not the only one here tickled by the irony of all this hand wringing about misrepresentating Dante to the public, when The Divine Comedy did essentially that very thing to Virgil?

[higley]

Guys, guys. I think we're not appreciating the enormous raw potential we have here, the possibility for great and marvelous things. I talk, of course, of Clash of the Classics: Brawl Arena. Can Darcy take on Rochester? Can Holden Caulfield out-angst Rodion Raskolnikov? Who can kick off more tragically in a head to head death match, Juliet or Bovary?

I think this is worth exploring.

[Barbarous]

I think it's perfectly fine to have a classic influence a game due to it being in the same vein as a movie or even another book (as someone pointed out earlier, this Virgil in The Divine Comedy) But as I pointed out earlier the unclear and distorted view the game throws upon the players is obnoxious, that being the bottom line.

[mono]

Psht, you're just jealous you didn't think of it first.
:lol:

Surely I'm not the only one here tickled by the irony of all this hand wringing about misrepresentating Dante to the public, when The Divine Comedy did essentially that very thing to Virgil?
Good point, very good point, but at least Dante kept Virgil as a man and fellow poet of honor of mutual Italian descent; Virgil maintained his literary roots throughout the Inferno and Purgatorio, and Dante saw him as a man of virtue, patience, and influence. This video game does even give Dante the justice as a poet, but instead an immense warrior clad in armor, battling Lucifer and his cronies for Beatrice, allegedly trapped in hell. Dante may have taken Virgil a bit out of context in The Divine Comedy, but he hardly portrayed the epic poet as a fictional character, rather as a dignified, wise, and tolerant individual; the gaming industry, however, has taken Inferno ridiculously far out of its context, going to so far as to subtract the plot, using only its basest elements.

[Adagio]

The thing is, if this game is successful will that then inspire the creators (i forget the company name) to look at other epic poems and literature to create their next project? I think so. In fact, as they wanted a sword-wielding hero why didn't they just choose The Odyessy instead of 'Dante's Inferno', I mean atleast that way they didn't have to blow things completely out of context.

[Adagio]

Edit - double post.

[virginiawang]

So, I'm assuming you feel the same way about all movies adapted from classic literature?

No, quite the opposite. I've seen some movies made from classic literature that really touched me. Perhaps movies and theaters are also forms of art, and they do not devalue the original literature at all.

[Drkshadow03]

The thing is, if this game is successful will that then inspire the creators (i forget the company name) to look at other epic poems and literature to create their next project?

No. They'll just make a sequel. Duh.

[mono]

The thing is, if this game is successful will that then inspire the creators (i forget the company name) to look at other epic poems and literature to create their next project?
Indeed, if they felt they could bludgeon an epic poem like Inferno, they could easily pass it along to Purgatorio, but progressing to Paradiso would contradict the meaning of the game since . . . well, why did Dante go to heaven in The Divine Comedy again? If Beatrice awaited rescue in the hell, then obviously they should have no reason to meet in heaven - perhaps a place to escape?
I think the imagery definitely attracted the gaming industry to The Divine Comedy - even the title sounds alluring - monsters like Minos, the wrathful drowning in the river Styx, speaking trees, sinners trapped under ice - it sounds unsettling enough to put into a video game, but I wonder how much of even that they retained in the making of the game. Things like The Odyssey and The Iliad, I think, have gotten too Hollywoodized to turn into a video game any time soon, especially the latter; if they did, I would just wonder if Achilles would bear any resemblance to Brad Pitt. If they could dissect The Divine Comedy, I have no doubt they could do the same to Edmund Spenser's The Faerie Queene, but that poem does not likely contain enough action, the same to Ovid's Metamorphoses.
What about Greco-Roman plays? Oedipus has a bit too much incest for their taste, but you never know for sure where their joysticks will lead. Perhaps Iphigenia in Taurus or Electra? What about The Æneid?

No. They'll just make a sequel. Duh.
:lol::lol:

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

No, quite the opposite. I've seen some movies made from classic literature that really touched me. Perhaps movies and theaters are also forms of art, and they do not devalue the original literature at all.

So, video games aren't forms of art?

[mayneverhave]

So, video games aren't forms of art?

I definitely don't approach them as such. Some games certainly posses artistic qualities, but works of art? No.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Are you a serious gamer? Because I'm assuming you're not, because if you were you would know that there is as much if not more art involved in games as there is in movies.

[mayneverhave]

Are you a serious gamer? Because I'm assuming you're not, because if you were you would know that there is as much if not more art involved in games as there is in movies.

Depends on what you mean by "serious". I have an x-box 360 within eye-shot, and have been playing video-games since I was a child.

And I'm not sure serious has anything to do with it. I highly doubt a "serious gamer" or what I imagine to be a serious gamer - say someone who puts games on reserve - is interested in video-games as an art form. They're pure interactive entertainment. There's nothing wrong with that. I enjoy them, people enjoy them, but I don't think they transcend that.

[Dr. Hill]

So, video games aren't forms of art?

I love owning noobs on Call of Duty 4. I don't criticize the artistic value of it, because there is not any. There is, however, a very large entertainment value. I enjoy that.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

You don't see any artistic value in the extraordinary environments in Call of Duty? The lighting, the attention to detail, that has no artistic value? I often find myself just looking around and enjoying the scenery . . . maybe I'm unique in that way, but to say there is no artistic value there is incredibly narrow-minded. People have to create and build these games from their imagination, so how can there be no art involved with that? But, one may argue, that the Call of Duty series is based on real life things, whether it be current military or World War 2, and therefore no imagination is involved. I guess the same could be said about any realistic painting, then.

I will give you that most games are created with the sole purpose of entertainment (though a lot of art, especially literature, has the same goal), but to say games have no artistic value is, well, dumb. There are games now where art is even the main gola in the creation of the game. Games like Flower, Pixeljunk Eden, and Echochrome are evidence of this.

[Dr. Hill]

If you look around at the scenery you're shot in the face and teabagged. There is of course art in the game, there is art in every creation, but the main point is entertainment-- plain and simple.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I have gotten shot when I play a new level, and I'm looking around, actually. Never teabagged though.

Okay, I agree, the main point is entertainment, but art plays a large role.

Seriously though, if you can, check out those games I listed. Art is a huge part of those, and for Flower, art is the main point of the game.

[JacobF]

The whole 'games as art' discussion is pretentious and tired. Frankly, people who rush to label games as art aren't really gamers.

There are no games where art is the main goal in its creation. Plenty of indie games like Flower and Braid are unique, and they do have artistic qualities, but even those games are, above all, forms of entertainment.

In a similar vein, you don't play chess to observe the handiwork of the pieces.

[Zee.]

I sort of agree with the above poster, but art is in the eye of the beholder.
Video games are entertaining. When i'm killing ZOMBIES woo, in COD5 i'm not thinking about how beautiful they're put together. Visually though, some video games are stunning, so why can't they be considered works of art?


Another thing - i have been to PLENTY of exhibitions featuring video games created by people on display as art. So ah, in my view, yeah, they can be.



Also, i really can't stand it when people get so worked up over an adaption of something. If you're going to allow it to devalue the original piece of work then you're an idiot, good day

[mayneverhave]

I'll play ball.


I sort of agree with the above poster, but art is in the eye of the beholder.
Video games are entertaining. When i'm killing ZOMBIES woo, in COD5 i'm not thinking about how beautiful they're put together. Visually though, some video games are stunning, so why can't they be considered works of art?

If I were to take a screen shot of a still of a video-game, that screen shot would cease to be a game, and instead be a still image, i.e. a digitally created artwork. I'm not debating that beautiful graphics are not artistic; it's irrelevant whether visual art is created using paint or graphic design.

But a still image of beautiful graphics is not a game, and that's exactly why I said games have artistic qualities but are not art. A game requires gameplay, and gameplay is not art. If a game lacked gameplay it would not be a game, but a film.


Another thing - i have been to PLENTY of exhibitions featuring video games created by people on display as art. So ah, in my view, yeah, they can be.

That doesn't prove anything. The mere fact that there are exhibitions does not prove the truth of the claim their making.


Also, i really can't stand it when people get so worked up over an adaption of something. If you're going to allow it to devalue the original piece of work then you're an idiot, good day

I would agree. If your opinion of the actual Inferno were to change because of the b*stard Dante's Inferno videogame, then you are an idiot. The main thing at issue here is the misrepresentation of the poem to a mass audience, who simply doesn't know any better.

[Adagio]

I can only play games with good storylines - repetitive killing and missions don't interest me whatsoever. If the story doesn't hold my attention I get bored. Final Fantasy is not only the most captivating game I have played but also the most artistic. But yeah I agree to some extent that games are not art. However, I do realise the amount of artistic input that goes into some of them, especially games like Final Fantasy.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

That doesn't prove anything. The mere fact that there are exhibitions does not prove the truth of the claim their making.



How does this not prove anything? We say games can be art, he says he's been to exhibitions where games are displayed as art . . . I must be missing something.


The whole 'games as art' discussion is pretentious and tired. Frankly, people who rush to label games as art aren't really gamers.

There are no games where art is the main goal in its creation. Plenty of indie games like Flower and Braid are unique, and they do have artistic qualities, but even those games are, above all, forms of entertainment.

In a similar vein, you don't play chess to observe the handiwork of the pieces.

How is it pretentious? And if you think it's tired, don't participate.

And I guess I can't argue with you about Flower and Braid being mainly entertainment, since you state this as if you were one of the creators.

[Drkshadow03]

If I were to take a screen shot of a still of a video-game, that screen shot would cease to be a game, and instead be a still image, i.e. a digitally created artwork. I'm not debating that beautiful graphics are not artistic; it's irrelevant whether visual art is created using paint or graphic design.

But a still image of beautiful graphics is not a game, and that's exactly why I said games have artistic qualities but are not art. A game requires gameplay, and gameplay is not art. If a game lacked gameplay it would not be a game, but a film.


This borders on a No True Scotsman fallacy. You're preemptively defining what does and does not count as art (without actually offering any definition by the way) in order to exclude video games as potential art.

A game requires an interaction of gameplay, artistically rendered computer graphics, text, and sound. In other words, it is merely a different medium. Film requires a combination of sound by which I mean specifically music, visuals, and spoken text. The only specific difference you can point to is the lack of user-controlled interaction.

So if you consider films art, and films are merely the equivalent of games without user-controlled gameplay (your own definitions as you set it up in the post), then there is no reason to conclude that games lose their artistic quality once control shifts to a user.



I would agree. If your opinion of the actual Inferno were to change because of the b*stard Dante's Inferno videogame, then you are an idiot. The main thing at issue here is the misrepresentation of the poem to a mass audience, who simply doesn't know any better.

As far as a video game misrepresenting Dante. How exactly does that affect you again?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

This borders on a No True Scotsman fallacy. You're preemptively defining what does and does not count as art (without actually offering any definition by the way) in order to exclude video games as potential art.

A game requires an interaction of gameplay, artistically rendered computer graphics, text, and sound. In other words, it is merely a different medium. Film requires a combination of sound by which I mean specifically music, visuals, and spoken text. The only specific difference you can point to is the lack of user-controlled interaction.

So if you consider films art, and films are merely the equivalent of games without user-controlled gameplay (your own definitions as you set it up in the post), then there is no reason to conclude that games lose their artistic quality once control shifts to a user.






Wow. I eagerly await the rebuttal.

[mayneverhave]

How does this not prove anything? We say games can be art, he says he's been to exhibitions where games are displayed as art . . . I must be missing something.

Because gathering a group of people that all agree on something does not prove the truth of what they're saying. I can gather a ton of people that all believe Elvis is still alive and throw a big convention, but that would not alter the facts.


This borders on a No True Scotsman fallacy. You're preemptively defining what does and does not count as art (without actually offering any definition by the way) in order to exclude video games as potential art.

A game requires an interaction of gameplay, artistically rendered computer graphics, text, and sound. In other words, it is merely a different medium. Film requires a combination of sound by which I mean specifically music, visuals, and spoken text. The only specific difference you can point to is the lack of user-controlled interaction.

So if you consider films art, and films are merely the equivalent of games without user-controlled gameplay (your own definitions as you set it up in the post), then there is no reason to conclude that games lose their artistic quality once control shifts to a user.

What is the contradiction here? I've stated that videogames have artistic qualities - i.e. plots, music, dialogue, imagery - yes, like a film, but it is the user-interaction, i.e. the gameplay that is not art. Since gameplay is the vital component of a videogame, and artistic qualities like plot, music, and imagery are secondary, videogames are not art.

I think you can agree that gameplay is not art?



As far as a video game misrepresenting Dante. How exactly does that affect you again?

Who said anything about affecting me? I merely said that a Dante's Inferno game would misrepresent the actual Dante's Inferno. It has nothing to do with my personal likes or dislikes.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Because gathering a group of people that all agree on something does not prove the truth of what they're saying. I can gather a ton of people that all believe Elvis is still alive and throw a big convention, but that would not alter the facts.



What is the contradiction here? I've stated that videogames have artistic qualities - i.e. plots, music, dialogue, imagery - yes, like a film, but it is the user-interaction, i.e. the gameplay that is not art. Since gameplay is the vital component of a videogame, and artistic qualities like plot, music, and imagery are secondary, videogames are not art.

I think you can agree that gameplay is not art?




Who said anything about affecting me? I merely said that a Dante's Inferno game would misrepresent the actual Dante's Inferno. It has nothing to do with my personal likes or dislikes.

First, I would not agree that that act of playing a game is not art. 99% of the time, sure, but blanket statements like that are ridiculous.

And as to your Elvis comparison, a convention of people who believe Elvis is alive is not very similar to a video game exhibition. In one, you have a group of people basing beliefs on what they percieve as fact, and in another you have people basing what they believe on opinion. You could say the same thing for any convention ever created, since there will always be a group of people there who agree on whatever the convention covers.

[Dr. Hill]

The ever-expanding definition of art is too much already, I don't think that video games have to be included too. They have artistic qualities, but "art" as most people define it is not meant to entertain; instead it is meant to stimulate the mind in some way or another. The beautiful environments of a game are artistic, but the video game itself uses this "art" as a mere backdrop to its intention: entertainment.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

It all really comes down to a matter of opinion though. No one can give a strict definition of art that will (or should be) accepted by everyone. I can explain why a Jackson Pollock painting is art to my grandpa until I'm blue in the face, but he will remain convinced it is just paint thrown at a canvas and nothing more.

[Dr. Hill]

Very well. I'm humbly backing away from this discussion. I maintain that I've never considered a video game art.

[Drkshadow03]

What is the contradiction here? I've stated that videogames have artistic qualities - i.e. plots, music, dialogue, imagery - yes, like a film, but it is the user-interaction, i.e. the gameplay that is not art. Since gameplay is the vital component of a videogame, and artistic qualities like plot, music, and imagery are secondary, videogames are not art.

I think you can agree that gameplay is not art?



You pre-defining what constitutes art based off already accepted art forms. Gameplay in a component of the artistry of video games. Now I would also be committing a fallacy if I tried to make the definition of art fit video games because I think it should be included.

Nevertheless, I think video games should be taken as art on their own terms. It isn't merely that they possess artistic qualities such as music, plots, dialogue, imagery, but the new interactions provided by this medium. Even though it is user-centered doesn't disqualify it from art because literary arts in previous history have been user-centered (think Oral Myth, which we might call the literary equivalent of user-centered art). The fact that its primary purpose is entertainment doesn't disqualify it as art because I have argued time and again (http://beyondassumptions.wordpress.com/2008/08/26/why-do-i-read/) that the reason we tell stories (literature) first and foremost is for entertainment rather than enlightenment or some sort of nebulous aesthetic pleasure. There would be no real reason to present it as a story otherwise rather than a philosophical treatise or an essay.

Now it's true a certain tedium exists with gameplay, but the originality within the medium can also be found within the gameplay. Think some of the FF games (FFVII with the materia system for example). The gameplay was just as impressive and interesting as the award-winning visuals.

When we think of the gaming industry and history, we also come to realize it has all the features and cultural apparatuses that surround every other art form. There are clear-cut masterpieces that span the time period of video games (games mentioned as ground-breaking within the field that people still talk about to this day), it has popular magazine critics who review upon initial release, it has scholarly analysis in peer-reviewed journals, it has fan cultures, fan art being produced from it, etc.

I think looking at all these elements, it is clear that video games count as art. Saying a video game has "artistic qualities" rather than just admitting that it is a kind of art in its own right seems to be splitting-hairs. However, I think the real debate is whether it fits into a notion of High Art or Low Art, or High Art versus Popular Culture. Just like I would never deny that beaded wallet-making is technically art, I also could never picture myself saying beaded wallet-making possesses anywhere near the transcendence of a life-sized sculpted marble statue or an emotionally charged painting of David.

[virginiawang]

The impressions made by any sort of video games simply do not match those made by works of art, through which people engage in capturing beauty as one of their most important goals. I am sure any artist, no matter a painter, a writer or a musician will not feel flattered to have their works transformed into those funny games.

[JBI]

Wow. I eagerly await the rebuttal.

Let me oblige - my favorite video games have very little of that - I'm a fan of the old super-nintendo, as I find it has the right amount of complexity - no real thinking required, just jump and in the odd case, shoot - no plot, no fancy graphics, no fancy sounds (I usually play with the crappy music turned off), and no special writing either - the text generally consists of "new game" and "game over". All this talk of artistry is all find and dandy, but you are building on the same No True Scotsman - you define it, but miss completely, especially when considered that the history of games says differently - sound especially as seen now, is a new invention.

In that sense, I think the game ridiculous - I think most video games ridiculous, as even if you win, you get nothing out of it. In the 90s they had a great slew of educational computer games come out, which had perhaps a point (I would know, I was family friends with the owner of the largest company, and so had all of them) and functioned, but there really is no artistry in butchering some monsters in a reworked rendition of Dante's hell (without any of the Dante, though perhaps built in rings).

I don't know - I've coded for these sorts of things, and I'll tell you, the actual game itself is very unartistic looking behind scenes, and the actual visual and sound components are merely intense numbers calculating faster than you can see - the real expression behind that is merely superimposed images and sounds on a plain, waiting for user input - not a real painting or anything - perhaps there is artistry in the actual drawing of the sprites, and the building of the game layout, but the game itself doesn't, and isn't meant to function as a work of art -

But then again, I seem, in my head, biassedly of course, to regard playing these games as a sort of masturbation, so perhaps I'm not the one to judge.

[mortalterror]

Video games are definitely art, in my opinion. They just haven't been around long enough to produce millenium defining masterpieces. Fallout 2 has an amazing story. It's like The Road Warrior, if the movie lasted another 12 hours. I also dig the choose your own adventure aspect of the story. You can play through the whole game in about half an hour if you skip all of the tangential quests and encounters; so in a sense you could say that the game has a primary plot with several subplots. It has characters, setting, dialogue, escalating conflict, and dénouement.

I know some people take issue with the way that the audience becomes a collaborator and changes the artistic experience and no two playings are the same; but isn't that what people like about the theater? Each venture is a unique experience, similar but personal, ephemeral and transient.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

The impressions made by any sort of video games simply do not match those made by works of art, through which people engage in capturing beauty as one of their most important goals. I am sure any artist, no matter a painter, a writer or a musician will not feel flattered to have their works transformed into those funny games.

I think you mean they don't match works of art to you. I'm sure you aren't trying to dictate what leaves an impression on me.

And, JBI, since you don't even enjoy modern video games (as you have done nothing but bash modern gaming as a whole) I frankly don't see how your participation in this discussion is even relevant. And as to the whole numbers and calculations behind the pictures, please explain how this in any way detracts from the final product? Someone has to envision these environments, someone has to hear the music in their head before they make a video game. You talk as if the games are made by robots.

[virginiawang]

I think you mean they don't match works of art to you. I'm sure you aren't trying to dictate what leaves an impression on me.

When people reuse art in a way to have funny effects, they degrade it.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Um, okay...I'm not sure I entirely get what point you're trying to make.