Interesting (and fun) question, though a tough one to answer since it's one of those "depends on the game/genre" things.

To get specific for a second, I guess melee combat is one of mine - that is, melee combat that's based on skill, whether it be dexterity or thinking. Specifically what I had in mind was something like the boss battles in a typical Zelda game, or the supremely quick combat in Ninja Gaiden. (The combat in God of War is fun, but since it's slightly button-mashy it's not as intriguing to me as that of Ninja Gaiden's.) There's nothing like the visceral thrill of decimating opponents, but the sense of accomplishment of is much greater when you know you've gotten through it using either extreme finger dexterity, clever brainwork, or both.

Another one would be micromanagement in many JRPGs, such as Espers / Materia in Final Fantasy VI / VII respectively or the Sphere Grid in Final Fantasy X. Pokemon would be a prime example, but admittedly I have never ever played a Pokemon game. Perhaps Pearl/Diamond will be my first. I suppose it's because I like to tinker - it's why I like fiddling with my PC and PC games, and so building up parties and evolving my player characters and their skills give me that similar sense of satisfaction. 

[QUOTE="MrCHUP0N"]

[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]Shouldn't Nintendo surpass Microsoft in marketshare before making such absurd proclimations?MarcusAntonius

This is what they call, in business, "projections." Peter Moore did the same thing when he proclaimed that the first year of the Xbox 360's existence would see 10 million units shipped worldwide. So basically, what you're asking businesses to do is to not offer the projections and remaining mum on the information that their investors want to see. Right.

It's a beautiful day for condecension isn't it?:|

Moore's projections were dead-on as there were over 10 million not only shipped, but actually sold.

For anyone at Nintendo to suddenly claim PS2-like numbers within such a reletively small time frame and to do so before the Wii has even been on the market for a full fiscal year is indeed absurd especially coming off bringing up the rear last gen. I chose the word correctly.

It's interesting that you say "to do so before the Wii has even been on the market for a full fiscal year" when the news for Peter Moore's claim came out in late June of 2005 (did you bother to even click the link?) - before the Xbox 360 even launched. It's also interesting that you entirely ignored the reasons for why the estimations could mathematically work out, as well as the difference between projecting sales from an analytical standpoint as opposed to guaranteeing them. Absurd? If you'd be willing to concede that Moore's claims were also absurd (which they weren't), then I'd concede to your usage of the word - if it wasn't flat-out wrong in the first place.

Shouldn't Nintendo surpass Microsoft in marketshare before making such absurd proclimations?MarcusAntonius

This is what they call, in business, "projections." Peter Moore did the same thing when he proclaimed that the first year of the Xbox 360's existence would see 10 million units shipped worldwide. So basically, what you're asking businesses to do is to not offer the projections and remaining mum on the information that their investors want to see. Right.

Personally, I have a gut feeling that 35 million units sold in the US is a bit too optimistic. But what's so "absurd," as you want to put it, about that projection? 2012 is nearly five years from now. After five months, Wii has sold 2.1 million in the US. Mathematically, that works out to 5.04 million units for the first year of its life (Fall of '06 to Fall of '07) if it keeps its pace... and it remains supply-constrained. We also know that holiday sales can likely see a sales spike. We also know - or, at least, I cynically believe - that the Wii library ain't all that hot right now. (Then again, its new target market might be loving the lineup that's currently out - who knows?)

Also keep in mind that because Wal-Mart keeps its own counsel when marketing numbers are concerned, all NPD numbers exclude sales from one of the biggest, if not THE biggest, nationwide stores out there.

Factor this all together - the potential for an expanding library in terms of quantity and quality (by Nintendo's eyes), an under-estimation of publicized unit sales due to the lack of Wal-Mart figures, and the potential for greater sales once Nintendo gets its manufacturing process together to overcome the constrained supply, and it's not hard to see why the Nintendo financial folk can estimate an average of 7 million units per year for five years. 35 million.

Again, I personally think this is optimistic. But it's in no way absurd. I remember seeing the same reaction from my friends re: 360, who scoffed at Peter Moore's claim of 10 million worldwide. I told them it made perfect sense, and I believed Moore would be either correct or very close. Turns out that shipment estimate was pretty on-point (ctrl-f for "We've sold 10.4 million consoles in 37 countries").

There is a certain amount of arrogance in all of the big execs over at all three companies. But I'm willing to bet that they don't have hot-headed idiots running sales analysis. They've got professionals doing this - pros that know more than you or I can ever claim to know. There's a reason behind their thinking, and even if the numbers don't end up looking like what they thought, most of the time the reasoning behind their thinking is analytically sound (if not, again, a little optimistic). Definitely not, well, "absurd" though.

1) NG does seem to be coming along well. It will be interesting to see how DS owners, who have cold shouldered such games in the past, receive it. and EDIT he was dizzy with delight at the fact the DS is getting a full game whose maker doesn't have the stated aim of removing all challenge from it. Is your definition of a lecture? Fascinating.

CarnageHeart

I'm pretty sure he's also referencing your disturbing history of inserting smarmy comments into every Nintendo-positive thread, not just this one. You can dance around it all you want, but the history's there and in other places where people haven't been so nice about holding back "well-written troll" commentaries.

2) Shrinking a picture is your definition of fair? Interesting to know that you think that. That does become relevant if the PSP pictures are somehow doctored. I ask again, are they accurate or does the capture process somehow upscale them? You're the GS guy, not me, so I'm honestly interested in reading your response.

CarnageHeart

This point is not targeted towards anyone in particular. I'm not debating right or wrong with regards to item (2), and again I'm not directing this at any one poster in particular, but I just thought I'd clear some things up in general. I've never trusted any screenshot of any game in terms of knowing how that game will look in my hands. To be frank, most screenshots of DS games leave me gasping for fresh air because they look horrendous on a high-resolution computer screen.

The DS lacks any type native texture filtering, and it shows when I'm used to seeing bilinear, trilinear and the holy-grail anisotropic filtering. In PSP still shots, I see that some characters lack some polygons when I'm used to PS2 games (these are not knocks on either system - they are just things I notice through still screens to illustrate why I personally don't trust them).

However, the same DS and PSP games look magnificent in person. That's all that really matters - what the game looks like in person, and the fact is that the DS screen is physically smaller than the PSP screen. If screenshots are to be trusted (and I think not, but whatever), they should be viewed at the resolutions that the game systems provide. Mielke saw the game in person. And, yes, he does overexaggerate. That's the Mielke Way. It's unfortunate, too, but anyone familiar with him knows that he's plenty knowledgeable about games - moreso than anyone of us here on this forum. In any case, my point is that I hope we can stop bickering over screenshots and try to analyze the games when we see them - but that's a utopian hope that probably won't ever be fulfilled.

3) I stand corrected, but technical merits are a part of the score.

CarnageHeart

From the same review guide :

"We Rate Games According to the Current Standards of Their Platforms and Genres
Every gaming platform is different, especially in terms of its technical features. However, we believe high-quality gaming experiences are possible on all the gaming platforms that we cover. So we review games against the standards of their respective platforms by implicitly comparing them to other games on that same platform and, to a lesser extent, to other games in that genre. As a result, our ratings of games on different platforms are not intended to be directly compared to one another. However, relative comparisons do apply, so a game that scores poorly is a poor game by any standards, while a game that scores extremely high is an outstanding game by any standards."

Edited (thrice) for clarity. [Yes Shen I *am* going to the park - the family is just slow in getting ready.]

Maybe we shouldn't be trying to patch the title of Art on something which doesn't entirely fit the idea of art. Art, as i see it, is purely communication of an idea through a medium which stimulates our thoughts and emotions. You could say that video games do this, BUT they are also functional through entertainment. THIS is what sets games apart from ART.

And to those who said architecture is art...you are wrong. Architecture is similar to games where the building serves a PURPOSE for human dwelling. The aesthetic qualities of a building ,if it is truly designed properly, also contributes to this functionality.

Art is purely aesthetic and does not serve a functional purpose. It is there to be enjoyed and to communicate an idea to other people.

What we should be grouping games with is the CREATIVE industries, such as music, film, tv, photography, journalism, design etc.

Games serve a purpose...to entertain. This is what separates gaming from art and this is why it cannot be called art.

selbie

You couldn't be more wrong yourself, my friend. Unless, of course, you don't consider film or opera or - hell - Beethoven - art. In some circles, artwork existed to entertain as well. Think of the commission piece that the buyer paid an artist to paint or sculpt or whatever just so the buyer could hang the painting or stick the bust in his house and admire it. To be entertained by it. To bask in its aesthetic beauty because, hey, the thing looked awesome. That's a purpose. That's a function. Unless, of course, you want to start debating the meaning of purpose and function...

[QUOTE="MrCHUP0N"]

Some stuff goes beyond black and white. Some stuff does not.

Oilers99

That's a very "the world is not black and white" statement you've got there. :P

Precisely. And yet the very nature of that statement means that some things must be absolute. My purpose in saying that was that people often use that to say "nothing can be right or wrong," and, well... the world is not black and white. :P

[QUOTE="MrCHUP0N"]Do tell, but I'm pretty sure I won't be convinced unless that "yet" factors heavily into the argument.Oilers99

The word "yet" does factor heavily into my argument, because like I mentioned, I fully believe that videogames are, as a medium, far more potent than other storytelling media.

Anyways, before any argument can begin on whether something is art or not, you have to get the semantics straight. I use a defintion for art that goes something like this: A work that a particular person finds emotionally and/or intellectually significant.

But that's been in games before. Most people have connected with a videogame emotionally or intellectually. So why aren't videogames art yet?

Because the artistry is in the games, not of the games. Videogames are not art yet because artistry in videogames has little to do with what actually defines the medium. It's like taking a photograph of a painting masterpiece; the photograph is commendable for sharing the artistry of the work, and maybe that might be the only way for many people to experience the art of the work, but the art is the painting, not the photograph. In the same way, there have been many videogames that contain artistry, but they tend to be movies or books contained within videogame form.

Most videogames boil down to their simplest namesake--games. They are just entertainment products meant to have specific rules and objectives... nothing more. Nothing wrong with that, but it should not be incorrectly called art. The word may be stretched too thin these days, but the true meaning of the word persists. Products of personal significance. Videogames are capable of it, but there hasn't been one design yet that pulls it all together.

I'd like to respond, though first I'd like to say I appreciate the thought that went into this. However, I'm still not convinced. I'll focus on your photograph analogy. A photograph of a painting, depending on how it's framed, set up, and thematically taken to present an idea, could be considered art; - but I don't even have to go there. Let's talk about what I think you're getting at, which is that the photo is in this case simply documenting the painting. Now let's try to - unsuccessfully - apply this to games. The game, in the end, is the final aesthetic object that culminates from the very pieces you're talking about. The story. The visuals. The sound. The design and engineering. The game is not merely a container, a documentation of these disparate elements. The game is the culmination of these elements, and conversely, these elements are the game itself. The elements are pivotal and the very core of what makes the game what it is. The intent is to use these separate pieces in tandem, in concert with each other, to build off each other and finally create an object of aesthetic, intellectual or emotional value.

You do say what the idea of "art" means to you. Given your "intellectual value" criteria, one might say that a textbook is art. I'm not bringing this up to argue whether or not it is, but rather to address AtomicTangerine's point (now you have me hungry for an orange, Atomic... gee thanks) in that he said terms can become too broad and vague. So, I'll do the cop-out route - but a cop-out that is still valuable nonetheless to spur further thinking and discussion:

"...the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects"

Now, "aesthetic" circles right back to "art" so the only meaningful definition we can use here is:

"pleasing in appearance"

Thoughts?

"[Games] are just entertainment products meant to have specific rules and objectives... nothing more."

So here you run the risk of excluding entertainment and art, a mistake that many have made. You also want to speak the minds of the developers of said games yourself, which is another mistake.

Finally, why is a work that is put together as "patchwork" excluded from being art if it satisfies your definition of intellectual/emotional value? Paintings have the cartoon, the paint, the frame and canvas, and the idea behind the painting. A great work of architecture - a building - is practically the poster child for "patchwork." What of a symphony? An opera or musical? A film? 

Okay dude, I think I got a better way of summing up my opinion:

Is NASCAR a sport? Many seem to think so, and many think not. The word sport has become so broad and vague that neither party can say they are right anymore, so it's a moot point. Same thing with saying games are art.

AtomicTangerine

And just what made the word "sport" so broad and vague? Perhaps the accepted and popularized misuse of said word? Similar to, dare I say it, the term "role-playing game?" I can appreciate subjectiveness, vagaries, and definitely opinions. However, they don't necessarily apply to everything and certainly aren't "correct" with everything people talk about. Some things, yes; other things, not. And before anyone says, "The world is not black and white," using that defense to try to win every argument is defying that very idea itself. Some stuff goes beyond black and white. Some stuff does not.

[QUOTE="MrCHUP0N"]What I haven't heard yet is a convincing, logical argument for why games are not art. Any takers? Because, frankly, they are. The best I can do is repeat what m0zart said. What I have trouble expressing in words, he states as plain as day.AtomicTangerine

Yeah, except you haven't heard any arguments based on logic and facts in this whole thread. The truth is that nobody here is right or wrong.

I think m0zart'd disagree.

EDIT: I just realized I should clarify: I've never seen a logical, convincing argument for why games are not art whereas I've heard logical ones as for why they are. The aforementioned m0zart was one of the fellows I chatted with on this subject with more words than he provided here.