The hilarity of people defending the art style of Sonic Boom never ends.
It’s a cliche that never fails to occur over the internet. Millions come out in defense of controversy at a moments notice. Whether it’s RE5’s killing of Africans to GTA being the focus of video game violence, the defense squad will quickly form a line to piss all over the dreaded complainers.
This tells you just how backwards internet people(nerds) really are. Complaining is taboo in backwards societies. Most well-informed people understand that complaints have a positive social function, and that dissent should not be buried. Discontent should be treated as a valuable resource. Instead, it’s automatically dismissed or frowned upon. Buzz words like “appreciation” are often thrown around in that reflex responses toward customer dissatisfaction are “you should be glad they made something for us anyway”. This is the medieval logic of lower expectations: no complaint is valid, since things can always be worse than they are, and we should always be grateful.
What caused internet gamers to ascribe to a curse of bureaucracy where we find ourselves pinned against a wall with rabbid forum goers foaming at the mouth screaming at us when all we voiced was a complaint about a video game? While the simple answer would be the mind control argument of how game developers “suffer” to make games for people (it’s not uncommon for that thought process), it’s more of a psychological response born out of a disgust for people in general. Sounds confusing as hell, doesn’t it? Lets put it into perspective.
I was watching 2 movies over the weekend. The Iron Giant and Dogma. Both movies are delicious. But both of them contain at least one character who describe themselves as artists. Dean from Iron Giant sells scrap but mentions that as soon as he turns it into art, he can’t just give them away. Dean performs a service of selling what is trash to people, but what happens when he turns all of his trash into art? In Dogma, you have an agent of hell (I think he played Dave in the Chipmunks and Syndrome in the Incredibles) who says that the reason he went to hell was because God was angry at him for not joining his army against Satan… or something (I didn’t really pay attention). The agent’s reason for not serving in this army was because “he was an artist”, which is rebuked by Salma Big Boobs that Elvis was an Artist, but also served in the army as well.
What do both of these characters represent? People who believe they are artists who do not desire to serve other people. An independence to please themselves rather than others. Which doesn’t sound too bad, I mean who wants to be someone else’s bitch for a living? The artist goes into a life of self-gratification. They usually create things not for the amusement of other people, but to seek validation. Often times, an artist might create a work of art that has no logic or reasoning to be accepted as “true art cannot be defined.” Some art pieces they create can be offensive as well. Like a painting that shows a guy sucking some woman’s tit (I’ve owned one too! Hehe). Whatever the case, art is used to do what? Express the personality and thoughts of the artist. Art is expression. The artist is inherently selfish.
The statement “True art cannot be defined” is really a euphemism for “My expressions cannot be judged by public opinion”.
So, we could say that Artists create art to validate their ego. Or (like regular people) just sell themselves out to make money making designs for companies and whatnot. The problem with the artist angle is when the artist tries to use entertainment to validate his or her ego.
The entertainer is in a completely different mindset. The entertainer is the penultimate people pleaser. They create work not to seek validation, but for the amusement of other people. The entertainer is one who desires to serve others. Make em laugh, make em cry, but ultimately, make em smile. They are inherently selfless.
Look at anime. What is the entertainment? Shit like Senran Kagura where the Silicone is a helluva. What is the Art? Shit like Gundam that expresses how much war sucks. The silicone easily wins (Gundam was originally not very popular when it first began).
When you look at video games, people will often times consider games to be art because “things can be expressed”. This is a lie. Games can and will never be art. They were created for the amusement of other people. What was an arcade? A room where people could just come in and enjoy cheap thrills (emphasis on cheap, and arcade game was cheaper to play than it is for a retail game to buy). Not some art gallery where people look at screens and go “hmm, what an exquisite piece of work here!” Art is not easily digested by the masses. Entertainment is made for public consumption.
Video Games fall under the category of entertainment given it’s status as devices of public consumption. However, the nerds believe games to be art that must be glorified and “respected”. Nerds dub themselves “Hardcore gamers” to disestablish themselves from the public. Why would they bother?
Well, Nerds in general, being social outcasts, usually have a negative perception of people in general. You can find them as those that use the phrase “people are stupid/assholes” simply because they have been mistreated by society. It’s not uncommon for the Nerd to have a negative outlook on people and society based on these experiences, and would often times develop unwarranted superiority based on having more intelligence in fields such as mathematics, science, engineering, shit like that. In the midst of their social isolation, they might actually become selfish in that they don’t want their favorite hobbies to be shared by the mainstream folks because then the nerds would lose their sense of “uniqueness” and individuality. So they fight tooth and nail (the keyboard warriors) to ensure that they alone can enjoy this hobby, or enjoy it in the right way. So they describe video games as art to further dictate that it can only be enjoyed and “appreciated” by a select few people, being those in social isolation. People who can “appreciate” art think of themselves as intellectually superior to the masses. Nerds already think of themselves as intellectually superior to the masses which is further enhanced by their preconceived disgust of the masses. As art cannot be easily digested by the masses, it gives them a sense of unwarranted self importance. Nerds
This is one of the reasons why the marketing gimmick of “Hardcore vs Casual gamers” worked so well to have the internet hate the Wii because the Casuals were referred to those of the masses which the nerds despise.
That said, they sympathize with the “artist” as art is created not to appease people, but rather the artist. This is why you hear about why Call of Duty sucks, or why NSMBW sucks. They’re both games that appeal to the public rather than the nerds. They’re not “art”. You’ll hear more praise for The Last of Us and Heavy Rain before they could say one good thing about Mortal Kombat. Why sympathize with the artist? Well, as crazy as it may sound, Nerds are socially inept which makes them incapable of expressing themselves normally in public out of fear of social scorn. Their fear and disgust of human beings make it difficult. But seeing how people can actually express themselves through “art” essentially gives them a platform of communication. The internet is populated by nerds because it gives them a platform to express themselves without fear of public scorn.
As the nerd does not enjoy sharing space with people, they do not understand the concept of “entertainment”. How can a nerd understand the fundamentals of entertaining people? They don’t even like to share their company! A person who does not enjoy the company of other people would be repulsed at the idea of entertaining other people! And so, they associate with the “artist” mentality of pleasing themselves. And since many nerds dream of becoming game designers, could you imagine all the ego chest humping they would do if they were allowed to make games? Oh wait, they already are. Thanks Aonuma, David Cage, Sakamoto!
So going back to Sonic Boom, with a fanbase that is so fucked with itself, arguments like “Knuckles’s design being logical, therefore it’s good” is simply a reflex response of the nerd psychosis. Not understanding the concept of entertainment, they laugh and taunt the complainers of the character designs. This is why it is so hilarious to me. The supporters of these ridiculous designs don’t really believe their own junk. They simply find no value in pleasing people. An artist they are or wish to be, indeed.
Conflicting Views 
It’s true, Knuckles design is logical and therefore it’s good.
That’s why I decided we should redesign Sonic’s face to be filled with scars and horrible disfigurements and swollen pulsating wounds. After all he had several adventures before so it’s “logical” for him to have a face like that and therefore it’s good design.
But yeah, good article, every interesting look at the nerd psyche.
This blog post aptly describes the Lords of Shadow fanbase. Have you seen how insane they are? They compare LOS2 to Devil May Cry 3 and even try to claim that God of War copied Lament of Innocence & Legacy of Kain Defiance. Either way both Gow & LOS have terribad game design but for some reason LOS is much more “RESPECTABLE” due it being classified as “high Art”
by the morons who love LOS so much that they use European reviews (That they can’t even fucking read, LOL!) to prove how superior an artform that their game is.
Btw are there any other game related blogs that keep it as real as you do? I check up on you blog every week, because it’s funny as hell. Even when I don’t agree with some of the stuff you say, you at least have a point that explains & rationalizes the social dysfunction of modern gaming.
Most of the trash I see on e-net are written by insecure dipshits who have forgotten that games are a social experience. Not some elitist ass lonely nerd pc master race bullllshit.
Ugh, Castlevania fans make me puke. They bend over backwards because LOS sold more than all other Castlevania titles of recent (which isn’t bad persay, but they’re saying Castlevania doesn’t need it’s own merits to succeed.)
I’m kinda sad with Castlevania in general.
There’s one other blogger by the name of Sean Malstrom that has more insight than mine. You won’t get anything for Sega insight, but mostly Nintendo. Though you might want to beware, his fans gave him heat for sexism at some point. But if you don’t like Nintendo at the moment, he’s your hero.
Another one would be “heatseekerzone”. It’s fairly recent, but goes more in-depth on fandoms in general.
What? Games are not art? Many games needed to be produced by artists, otherwise they would not exist. Especially games where story is is bigger factor then in the other games.
How about movies? Are they according to you also NOT an art? Because they are made for a mass public consumption? At least most of the movies we can think of on the spot.
Now you made me think that art is a bad thing. That if masses like something then it is not an art. And those who like art are nerds and outcasts suddenly, which is something they should not be. I feel rather sad now.
I think he means they aren’t seen as the kind of art you would find in an museum or general exhibit. Yes, the games had to be made with artists in order to make the worlds we play in, but it doesn’t generally make them art in general, but just a part of the bigger picture, being an interactive medium of entertainment. About movies, as well as cartoons, again, not all of it it considered general art, but entertainment with art in it. What the author is talking about here, in my point of view, is that people are trying to look at games as art in general rather then entertainment with art being a part of it.
I never go to museums or anything like that… but I still always did adore games as an art. No matter if it’s the “art” of making character models, textures, setting the scenery or the story of the game (if there is some).
And it suddenly makes me a nerd and social outcast… which might as well be truth. So I kind of get it.
I don’t know if it should be a general thing that “games should not be art”. Take Silent Hill 1 for example. Before it became a series, the game was designed more like an fantastic interactive story. And the devs claimed that they were even surprised that the audience found the game scary. They were just expressing their creativity. They could as it was the first game in the series, not knowing if there ever will be another game in the series. In that case, you can make a game as a piece of art and sell it to those people who like it. If it’s the first or the only entry, there is nothing like: “cater to the masses”. The second game is in fact a sad romantic story (just listen to the music) with monsters obscuring your vision to see it – but those are part of the story too, which strikes you as you realize it. I can hardly not call it an art. And despite the Silent Hill games became rather mild with the newest entries, it’s probably not from the lack of trying, but from the lack of the proper knowledge. And today it is probably the only running survival horror series – with Resident Evil officially abandoning the survival horror genre and new series like Dead Space unofficially abandoning it too. The point being is that when you start a series, it’s a pretty viable choice to start it as an art, since you are not dragged down by any expectation what should be in the game (maybe except for expectation coming from it’s genre, but I think that trying not to completely to adhere to these expectation is a good thing too). But once you start building another and another entries to the series, you are suddenly being restricted by your “fans”. And I don’t know how much healthy it is.
Just imagine a perfect team that would be able to make a perfect Silent Hill game with an atmosphere that is just like the original games – and then you told them to not make the game like a piece of art but rather like an entertainment for mass market. I am almost sure that exactly this happened with Resident Evil, yet author still dislikes it’s last entries. They shifted the focus to make it more “game-like”, since FPS genre is something with intense action and so on and so on (he wrote an article about FPS and why it’s entertaining game genre), yet the true horror experience is probably something that is much closer to the “art” then the “entertainment”.
You’ve got other games that are more “art” then games. And I am sure that those are not known nor played by masses. Yet it’s not a sign that those should not exist. Again an example with RE that was discussed by AlphaOmegaSin:
(5:20)
“You were just trying to tell them what they were going to like because there is a LOT MORE people who like this other thing.”
(7:20)
“They called it a niche market – This is a smaller market and they wanna go for a MUCH BIGGER market.”
By trying to cater to the “mass market” just because it’s what “most gamers want” makes the industry to loose it’s variety. Author is making a point that people who shun away from society are nerds and they like art. And that games should not be this kind of art made for them. But people who like games as art are still part of the industry’s variety.
But like he said – convincing the masses to love the art is impossible and it goes against those who love the art. If something is mainstream, it’s gonna be burned out sooner than the other thing. But I wouldn’t condemn calling games an art. At least some of them.
But don’t think that this somehow justifies the artstyle of Sonic Boom. No matter what artist intent, it’s just bad. The art should be a medium to communicate with people. And the only thing that communicates to me from Knuckles’ design is: “Oh hey, so I really AM stupid.” Damage controllers can’t convince me otherwise. It is not logical like Roger says. The bandages are not logical to symbolize the speed. Speed was always symbolized by Sonic’s spines, as their shape with spiny edges is what we associate with speed. They just made him more ruffled now so he in fact looks slower, not faster. People were complaining that Knuckles is not doing much and he’s being stupid,… so they made him bulkier, so his head looks even smaller compared to the rest of his body… Yeah, logical.
In the light of the “art”, I understand their creative decision to have a completely another take on the series. But they just lie when they claim that this is what hopefully the old fans will like. They must know that old fans won’t like it. It’s even worse when we realize that we were ignored again. The overall premise and tone SEEMS to be more “Adventure-like”, yet the details scream: “Na-ah.” I think I am not talking only for myself when I say that we hoped that this Sonic continuity might have been so much better for us, replacing the Japanese one as our favorite. So the comments like: “If you don’t like it, stick with Japanese Sonic,” are completely out of place.
And the whole cooperation with a company which makes toys for toddlers is scary as hell. I am convince that the Sonic Boom art style has nothing to do with “art”. If the game was actually driven by the art, it would be so much better imho.
What I’m saying is that “art” is something people assume can only be “appreciated” by the most sophisticated of people (since a lot of art is made as an expression of the artist that many people just won’t get). Entertainment has standards to follow (IE video games). Lumping games into the Art category means that games would not have standards to follow, which would explain why gamers bend over backwards defending every mistake ever in the video game world (Dante’s hair piece is a fairly recent example. Everything Nintendo does, as well).
Well, that means you have a different definition of art. Game can be an art in the sense of “artist expressing himself”, but that kind of game is then propagation of the artist and people who like the same kind of art more than a game. It doesn’t have to be a bad thing – like Botanicula (I couldn’t come up with a better example, these games are not really well known and popular). It has it’s audience, maybe even the sophisticated one… But that’s different kind of game. This kind of games is based on art. Sonic, Devil May Cry and many others are far from that. Their standards indeed shouldn’t be overridden by some guy in suit because he has his artistic vision. Especially since this vision is not really artistic but uninformed and uneducated. Even artists can’t work illogically and randomly. And what Sonic Boom team does is NOT an artistic intention in the slightest. It’s more an attempt to attract children. Gamers who defend this claim it’s art. But they are the only ones. The devs themselves know that all the design choices are just shallow things to attract shallow and unexperienced audience for it’s look. They know that these choices are not an expression of some great artists in the team but rather choices to attract young children. (Well, this is more the case for Sonic, for DMC, it might really be the artistic vision but w/e).
“Shit like Gundam that expresses how much war sucks. The silicone easily wins (Gundam was originally not very popular when it first began).”
You already heard it or not, Tomino deliberately set up the first four Gundam shows to end up point having depressing endings so he doesn’t have to do sequels. They ended up successful.
*end up having depressing endings
I thought the 2nd one (Zeta?) had a depressing ending because he was going through some shit.
But no, I did not hear that. Though I’d believe it. The Japanese hate making sequels.
Also, you talked about how Japan love dem silicone more than Gundam, but the reason why otaku and its silicone-addicted culture is so popular in Japan nowadays can be (somewhat) traced back to Gundam, as detailed in this video.