[General Discussion] Games as Art

How many games this ebert guy played to post comments on the medium?
There was interview of clivebarker few days back , and he was praising games as most creative medium to express art, a nextgen form of art.
Different people different views , but atleast one should go in depths of sea rather than speculating depth by standing on shores.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Quote:

There is a structural reason for that: Video games by their nature require player choices, which is the opposite of the strategy of serious film and literature, which requires authorial control.

So his idea of art has to be non interactive?

So I guess the "choose your own adventure" books are not art all.

And alot of post modern art as well. Alot of them have encourage audience interaction at galleries. Better avoid those too Ebert!

Fact is, untill Ebert shows he actually knows all about games TODAY, his words means jackshit. At least GFF people are well aknowledged on most modern gaming genres before debating on this, so at least their opinion and view on this whole matter has better crediblity.

I personally believe games are art. They got story telling, music, visual arts. Every game have those factors save maybe the story part. But since games invoke thought and feelings, as do art, I believe games are an artform.

Whether it is a piece of good art or HIGH art however, its all opinion... I think Ebert should have used the term High Art as oppose to "art". Art is such a general term that it doesn't work in the argument. If he's trying to compare Mario with Mona Lisa, well then at least we get it. But saying games are NOT art and never will be? Not true in my opinion.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Games as art? Indeed!





I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

I'd say that games can be art, but most games don't even manage to reach the level where they could even be called bad art. Extremely few games indeed reach the level of being fine art, and even then the judgement is extremely subjective. I'd class almost any game designed by Mizuguchi as art, and I would also consider the Katamari games to be art. Okami definitely fits on that list, and Zelda games manage to achieve art for brief periods. I've never played a whole Zelda game which remained artistic to the end though.

That list is, of course, a non-exhaustive one, even in my own opinion. I'm just throwing out recent games that impressed me with their level of artistry. There are many more, but I'd need to think about it to be able to give a proper account of why exactly I think they are artistic. I do think that we now have the video game equivalent of the "art house movie". There are games which really aren't for general consumption, they only appeal to the gamer willing to dig deeper and work harder for a more subtle kind of entertainment.

Most amazing jew boots

Well, according to the generally agreed upon definition of "art", all video games should be recognized as such. With the basic criteria at hand, there isn't even much room for discussion.

Of course, this doesn't mean you can't value a particular work of art more than others. But categorizing some games as art and others not is just plain stupid.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Quote:

So I guess the "choose your own adventure" books are not art all.

The Choose Your Own Adventure books are a really bad example, considering they contain pulp writing worse than any Hardy Boys concoction.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Bradylama

If you view a game as the sum of its parts, rather than simply the embodiment of its interactivity, then yes I don't think it's a logical falsehood in any way to give the game credit for possessing good art. That's because when people are referring to the game, they are referring to the finished product, and not simply the gameplay.

What if, however, the interactivity involves elements which are traditionally defined as art, as per Planescape: Torment? Does the writing or story stop becoming art by virtue of the player interacting with it? Does it have to be experienced passively in order to be deemed art?

I'll consider this a discussion/discourse between you and myself Brady, at least for now. Let me know if you want to use orion person guy's definition of art, though. I think that'd halt me in my tracks.

So, uh, the writing/drawing/movies within the game itself wouldn't stop being art. I think those elements stand for themselves is all. I'm saying that the game itself is not art. I think it's perfect to say "The game possesses good art." This makes sense. "The game IS art" is what I have an issue with.

Stop me if I'm this too literally.

How does the game take credit for these pieces? Even as those pieces of design and writing come together, the game merely hinges these things together. If everything suddenly became stick figures and dots, you would lose the aesthetic that was there... yet the core game ideas would still exist. When you remove the shell, where's the art? If you strip a human being of his skin, he's... well, skinless. He doesn't cease to be a human being. If you strip him of the clothes he might be wearing... he's quite naked. Yet, are the clothes human?

I'm trying to see why Ebert too the stance he did, and I'm of the mind that he viewed "games" as a vessel. Something that helps enrich the experience of the things contained within. It seems many people are willing to paint broad strokes with the term "interactivity." Your coffee maker is interactive, your soda can, and backpack are interactive. Are they games? Are they art? Are all games RPGs?

No.

I do feel the game that threads together those things doesn't stand as art. Interesting point with Planescape, as the game element helps the player experience the established story... that doesn't mean that the game is the literature or writing. The game is the interaction of that, it is a tool. Is a hammer art? Are the stereo speakers that play your music, art?

As I try to view a "game" as a sum of its parts, I don't see where the game becomes the writing, becomes the drawing, or are the movies that comprise it. I see a very distinct separation between the "game" and these things. Again, why should I stop this.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Rock

Of course, this doesn't mean you can't value a particular work of art more than others. But categorizing some games as art and others not is just plain stupid.

Then I imagine you think that all films are art. A definition of art that I have often heard is that it is made to stimulate the mind as well as the senses. I reject the notion that most games stimulate my mind. I play many games which don't require the intervention of my mind from beginning to end, merely my reflexes.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Quote:

How does the game take credit for these pieces? Even as those pieces of design and writing come together, the game merely hinges these things together. If everything suddenly became stick figures and dots, you would lose the aesthetic that was there... yet the core game ideas would still exist. When you remove the shell, where's the art? If you strip a human being of his skin, he's... well, skinless. He doesn't cease to be a human being. If you strip him of the clothes he might be wearing... he's quite naked. Yet, are the clothes human?

You have to admit, though, that the naked person is going to give off a much different impression despite still being the same person.

If you strip away all of those elements from a game, you still have a game, but it lacks context. It lacks something which the player can identify with. In the end games are made to provide an experience, and discounting the elements which comprise that experience seems incredibly naive. Color isn't art, but if you remove all color from a painting, is it still a painting? The piece still conveys an image. The viewer can still interpret it, but a lot of what elicits reactions from the viewer is no longer there. The piece is the worse for it.

Quote:

I'm trying to see why Ebert too the stance he did, and I'm of the mind that he viewed "games" as a vessel. Something that helps enrich the experience of the things contained within. It seems many people are willing to paint broad strokes with the term "interactivity." Your coffee maker is interactive, your soda can, and backpack are interactive. Are they games? Are they art? Are all games RPGs?

If that were the case, and a game was just a vessel for the art (which is really the other way around), then I could also make the argument that film is merely a vessel for the screenplay and acting performances. That wouldn't fly, though, since the film itself is popularly considered to be the piece, not the individual elements which comprise it.

Again, why does this standard not also apply to the interpretation of a game?

Quote:

Is a hammer art? Are the stereo speakers that play your music, art?

On their own? No. But if you can give them context within a piece then they can become art. If you can interpret a game as an art piece, then the gameplay is given that same context. The only hurdle is the willingness to interpret a game (the whole package) as art.

Quote:

Again, why should I stop this.

For the same reason that writing, acting, and cinematography become the film.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Electroplankton isn't artistic at all. All it does is demonstrate the different ways of using the DS' touchscreen.

Things like Odin Sphere, 3rd Strike, Yoshi's Island.. that's what I consider art.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

It lacks something which the player can identify with. In the end games are made to provide an experience, and discounting the elements which comprise that experience seems incredibly naive.

But why is it naive? I don't want to steal your thunder, everything before this cut was very well put. I really don't disagree with what I cut out, but I have issue with this section because while the game does provide an experience... it's still not the drawings, it's not the writing, it's not the FMV/CG work... it's a game. Games don't need a story to be a game, I've seen that very well established. Games don't need music to be a game. Movies don't need dialogue to be movies, yet they would still be considered a movie.

I find it a bit too simple that most players are willing to say "It features writing and stuff, it is art." I'm pretty certain it doesn't work that way. I feel that people who consider themselves gamers are too willing to try and qualify for special labels and treatment based off their interest.

Quote:

Again, why does this standard not also apply to the interpretation of a game?

The argument you present would not be false... yet the movie would still be a movie. Even with that interpretation. A movie is a vessel for those things. There's no other term for it. Art has several things to define it, I do find issue with the game trying to slip in on things that are already established as such.

Quote:

The only hurdle is the willingness to interpret a game (the whole package) as art.

Point taken.

Quote:

For the same reason that writing, acting, and cinematography become the film.

The film needs those things to be a film. The game doesn't need writing or acting or cinematography to continue to have goals and gameplay. I am playing with interpretation though, and I'm not going to force someone to try and conform to that... I will say that collectively I do see your point. I do find it better that someone is willing to indulge in this rather than just agree half-heartedly.

How ya doing, buddy?

Quote:

But why is it naive? I don't want to steal your thunder, everything before this cut was very well put. I really don't disagree with what I cut out, but I have issue with this section because while the game does provide an experience... it's still not the drawings, it's not the writing, it's not the FMV/CG work... it's a game. Games don't need a story to be a game, I've seen that very well established. Games don't need music to be a game. Movies don't need dialogue to be movies, yet they would still be considered a movie.

Hmm. I think I've probably misrepresented myself here.

You're right that if you remove those elements from a game, then the game is not art. Tic-tac-toe is not art to be sure, but I still believe that many games can be interpreted as pieces of art by virtue of the experiences they provide. At its base, a game only requires mental function (sans meatspace sport u no), but then roleplaying games allowed players to engage their person as an active part of the gameplay, becoming a type of performance art that is mutually enjoyed. Now games have multimedia presentations which require a range of sensory function, and elicit a much wider range of emotions when done right.

What I take issue with is that games are categorically denied art status, even though some games, I feel, can be fairly interpreted as collaborative works of art.

If somebody tried to claim, though, that Pong is a work of art, then I'd laugh in their face.

Some games are art, others aren't, much in the same way I wouldn't call Friends art by virtue of it being a tv show.

You're right that "It features writing and stuff, it is art," doesn't work and I wouldn't dare make that claim. The point I'm trying to get across, though, is that individual games should be interpreted as a piece rather than simply as a game (from an art perspective). Though that's admittedly impossible if you're not willing to entertain the possibility of a game being art.

Quote:

The game doesn't need writing or acting or cinematography to continue to have goals and gameplay.

That depends, I think, on what the stated goals of the game are. Let's replace acting and cinematography in films with storytelling and aesthetics for a game. If the goal is to make a martial arts game, then the piece doesn't need either storytelling or aesthetics, since what is represented in Virtua Fighter is just as easily represented with stick figures. Yet, if the goal is to create a game that forces the player to negotiate the political intrigue of a Renaissance-era Italian court (there was a game like this believe me, but I forget its name) then it does require those elements to accomplish its goal.

Lastly:

Quote:

I feel that people who consider themselves gamers are too willing to try and qualify for special labels and treatment based off their interest.

I don't think it's so much that, as it is a desire to have their hobby recognized as a potential medium for art, like film and music hobbyists. If they feel that it's art, then why shouldn't it be? It needs to be seriously debated instead of presented one-sidedly as was the case with Ebert's speech and his dissenters. In light of all the games I've played, I think it can definitely be done.

If people start going off into the realm of rentseeking, and demanding Federal grants (which I already disagree with in principle ) for independent developers, then you're talkin' crazy talk.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Hmm. I think I've probably misrepresented myself here.

You're right that if you remove those elements from a game, then the game is not art. Tic-tac-toe is not art to be sure, but I still believe that many games can be interpreted as pieces of art by virtue of the experiences they provide. At its base, a game only requires mental function (sans meatspace sport u no), but then roleplaying games allowed players to engage their person as an active part of the gameplay, becoming a type of performance art that is mutually enjoyed. Now games have multimedia presentations which require a range of sensory function, and elicit a much wider range of emotions when done right.

I think when I strip these additions to the bare bones game, that's when I find myself asking the question again. I wouldn't relegate that status you mention (RPGs) to just one genre, because several different varieties of games offer you choices. If I strip the choices of the enrichment they receive from cinematics or rich and deep writing, we'd still see the player choosing a different path that dialogue trees usually represent with different emotionless options available to them. We dress them up with things such as alignment and other little quirks... yet the game element is still there.

It's true you can illicit those emotions, but I think we need to agree on what we define a game as. Which I see is still up in the air. My definition, I want to say, is a dry and heavy handed one.

Quote:

What I take issue with is that games are categorically denied art status, even though some games, I feel, can be fairly interpreted as collaborative works of art.

If somebody tried to claim, though, that Pong is a work of art, then I'd laugh in their face.

Some games are art, others aren't, much in the same way I wouldn't call Friends art by virtue of it being a tv show.

I can agree that an individual game has the potential to be art off this. A friend of mine did mention that games are created usually to make money. Games do offer experiences, but it's funny that a lot of references on IGNs list were big name releases that sold a lot of copies. What does this have to do with anything? I don't know... I think I had a point and then realized I had no clue where I was going or what I was talking about. Commercialization, or something.

Uh, anyway, back to the thing I agreed on. I think games have evolved to a point where we expect certain things to be there, where we want certain traits to be there in order to be entertained now. Yet the mindless games are still capable of entertaining us as well. Because of this, I don't see "Games are art" being an accepted notion anytime soon. But I would say you're correct on the individual interpretation of certain pieces. The reason I say that is because of one of the examples you provide.

And that's when taste and a lack of it gets to shine through. I know I suck, so we're already in for some fun there.

Quote:

You're right that "It features writing and stuff, it is art," doesn't work and I wouldn't dare make that claim. The point I'm trying to get across, though, is that individual games should be interpreted as a piece rather than simply as a game (from an art perspective). Though that's admittedly impossible if you're not willing to entertain the possibility of a game being art.

The stance I take is my best attempt at playing Devil's Advocate to a gaming journalist's stance which happens to be "I hate gamers." I respect the guy a great deal, and I want to pursue it because of the nature he had in a similar topic on games and art.

He wasn't willing to see a game as art, because of how he defined his terms, his argument was pretty tight. He is definitely a person who wasn't going to entertain the possibility of a game being art because of things I've pointed out earlier. Stripping a game down for instance. Something I hadn't even thought of doing. Sad thing is that it makes sense to me, though I feel a greater appreciation for games outside of some label such as "Art."

Quote:

That depends, I think, on what the stated goals of the game are. Let's replace acting and cinematography in films with storytelling and aesthetics for a game. If the goal is to make a martial arts game, then the piece doesn't need either storytelling or aesthetics, since what is represented in Virtua Fighter is just as easily represented with stick figures. Yet, if the goal is to create a game that forces the player to negotiate the political intrigue of a Renaissance-era Italian court (there was a game like this believe me, but I forget its name) then it does require those elements to accomplish its goal.

This seems a bit narrow to me, though I would like to play this game you mention. Not sure where I would place my chips on this one.

Quote:

I don't think it's so much that, as it is a desire to have their hobby recognized as a potential medium for art, like film and music hobbyists. If they feel that it's art, then why shouldn't it be? It needs to be seriously debated instead of presented one-sidedly as was the case with Ebert's speech and his dissenters. In light of all the games I've played, I think it can definitely be done.

I am of the mindset that those who seek validation this particular way, will never have it. I think the uniqueness of games goes beyond just "art." I've seen nerds do it with art, because they aren't comfortable to put down a comic on their "favorite books" list. I digress, I do agree with you now that there is individual potential for art. I wouldn't say "Games are Art", but I am willing to concede that games can be. A friend and I were discussing this and he said this:

Quote:

It is (games are) everything you can and can't do, expressed in some medium (Usually visually)

I then remembered the feelings I had when I played games I enjoy. I don't want to get into self-affirmation here, but being that I love games and all... something just clicked there. It was something unique, something I only feel when I play games. If I have to call that feeling art, then that's not a problem. There are so many things I've done in games that I won't ever experience in the same way.

Games enrich art, even if that isn't enough to some people, I would say it's something to be proud about.

Quote:

If people start going off into the realm of rentseeking, and demanding Federal grants (which I already disagree with in principle ) for independent developers, then you're talkin' crazy talk.

Government abuse is the right of all sentient beings, Brady. How dare you.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Quote:

My definition, I want to say, is a dry and heavy handed one.

Well, I could only really think of RPGs before video gaming, because miniatures gaming doesn't exactly constitute anything that could be considered art, even though everything about Games Workshop properties certainly are.

Quote:

This seems a bit narrow to me, though I would like to play this game you mention. Not sure where I would place my chips on this one.

It'd be a real feat if you could play it. It was an old text-based game, so the aesthetics were admittedly interpretive. It probably won't be Vista compatible.

How ya doing, buddy?

While I would personally go with Bradylama's idea that games are like an experience and that its delivery can be considered art, I do realize that I'm kind of skirting the problem of how you would define a videogame.

So, I would argue this: You can't have a videogame without having an established art medium. Otherwise, the game simply wouldn't be able to communicate with you. Unlike sports and such, there is more to a game than just limitations. You don't have boundaries and infinite action within them - you have very specific actions that a game allows you to take. In other words, the game designers are still mostly in complete control of what you can or cannot experience (Save for mods and emergent gameplay of course) because they are in control of what actions you can take and what consequences those actions can invite.

I suppose the main thing comes down to whether you would consider a choose your own adventure book to be capable of being art, because games are essentially an expansion on that. There are key differences though, like how not every choice would necessarily bring you forward as in a choose your own adventure book (You could choose to, say, stand there and punch at the air without progressing), but I think for this argument the concept can be seen as the same. What do you guys think about that?

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

I don't think of doing nothing as a choice, to be frank. I mean, you could argue it as such from a semantical perspective, but if somebody started to think of it as a legitimate choice, then they're retarded.

I think it's a shame that most games aren't like a Choose Your Own Adventure, since they have such a tendency to put everything on rails. That's fine for your Halos and Quakes, but if you're gonna call a game an RPG I'm going to expect some sort of appreciable consequences for my actions. (The Witcher seems to be doing this)

This is also a big part of my love/hate relationship with adventure games. In the end, I love the experience and absolutely hate the game. The mechanics always demand overturning every single nook and cranny for the sake of pixel hunting, and despite being purely story there is no gaming aspect to it. Adventure games could make a serious comeback if the player was given control over how the protagonist behaves, where it wants to go, and what it does. The convention is that there's always a "right" way to do things that the developer has pushed on the player.

Something like story interaction as opposed to story absorption was admittedly harder to do back in the days when art resources were poured into creating 3D models to import as bitmaps, or further back when everything was driven by pixels, but tradition is the bane of the genre. Indigo Prophecy accomplished a lot of what I'm talking about, but was destroyed by scheduling constraints and ended up with a non-sensical climax.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

The problem with Indigo Prophecy is that its director seemed to be in love with the "illusion of choice," something that I do enjoy ("Yeah, I sliced and diced 'em") but can't get behind as the driving methodology behind a game.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

I'm not exactly tooting Fahrenheit's horn for having three different endings you can choose during the climax, regardless of how you did things throughout the rest of the game. That was essentially the biggest problem with Deus Ex.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Since its ENDing, the choices to select them, should be concentrated to End chapter,epilogue or climax scenario, it works better.

If you want game with real choices and in which choices in beginning can affect endings, play Rawdanger, excellent game.

I don't know if its new
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/...NTARY/70721001

Roger wants attention, read his comments, he sounds like shit.

Most amazing jew boots

I've played Raw Danger and it's a great game. It does more or less do the same thing as Indigo Prophecy, though (The difference being it doesn't go to shit at the end). Your choices for the different endings tend to happen right AT the ending, and this is true for the first guy you play as as well as the scientist.

And Sexninja, the point is not that Indigo Prophecy allows you choices at the end just that it allows choices all through the game, none of which really make a difference. Plus, the choices that you get at the end tend to come in what order you do things. It's not really "Will you do this? Or this?" so much as it is "Since you did this, this happens." And again, unlike Raw Danger this is the only time you get choices at all. Hence, the "illusion of choice." Raw Danger does it, but the choices are actually made by you and the consequences make sense, too, so it's forgivable.

I think it's a bit misleading to say choices you make at the beginning affect the ending, though. Your choices usually DO have some kind of effect, but they tend to be immediate (At least, for that point in time, not necessarily for you the player).

I was speaking idiomatically.

I think there's two solutions to the endgame disconnect between your choice of endings and what you've done during the rest of the game:

1. Choices are limited in accordance with character alignment or story-related variables.

2. Games have individual endings for factions, communities, individuals, etc. This validates the player's choices throughout the game while not limiting endgame options.

Quote:

Roger wants attention, read his comments, he sounds like shit.

No shit, does he own a farm? I don't think I've ever seen so many strawmen.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Nick

I've played Raw Danger and it's a great game. It does more or less do the same thing as Indigo Prophecy, though (The difference being it doesn't go to shit at the end). Your choices for the different endings tend to happen right AT the ending, and this is true for the first guy you play as as well as the scientist.
.

Want to make some corrections since you used capitals AT

1. RD is game about life and suvival of characters, so the whole scenario and ending of city doesn't matter, the end of the particualar character matters, whether he/she survived or not. I don't know how many paths you have explored, but you can certainly end the game in the begiining like in Amber case and the Isaac case, the story will not even START if you will leave the customer(isaac) and will give yourslef(amber) in.

2. and the first guy josh you mentioned.
If you will leave with/without in chopper stepahanie, you will get different ending of the whole game(the tower scene will not come, so will the fate of disc will e unknown), since his actions trigger later scenarios and events so IT does matter the end and the whole game.

3. Further more his actions can only unlock Keith in the END.


4. As far as city goes, i agree that fate of city is dependant only on one guy(doc) but again before that all the survivors leaves, so they survive. To hell with city , it already got ruined. And it was just his purpose to save city. Take notice of how every character has differnt purposes and role.
If you think the city fate is important and the hallmark of whole game i would say the disc and its exposue to public is the meat of whole game, which again depends upon initial actions of Josh and isaac , as it will make the disc situation different in the repoters(keith and isaac love interest) scenarios.

RD is complex game since action of one guy can alter scenario of other even in later stages.
i hope to have such comlpexity in Masseffect.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

I think there's two solutions to the endgame disconnect between your choice of endings and what you've done during the rest of the game:

1. Choices are limited in accordance with character alignment or story-related variables.

2. Games have individual endings for factions, communities, individuals, etc. This validates the player's choices throughout the game while not limiting endgame options.

In case of RD , as i said things are way comlpex and both of your rules apply yet they not.
But RD achieves the perfect execution, how it connects and all.



"Since its ENDing, the choices to select them, should be concentrated to End chapter,epilogue or climax scenario, it works better."

I said 'works better' because every game with complexity of choices msierably fails to achieve to do so. I am amazed how budget title RD came from nowhere acheives the complexity so smartly.
How many games we have played like this?
In order to make every choice connected to later parts and endgame, developers screw the whole game like fahrenheit, and thats why its etter be avoided.
Execute it perfectly or don't bother.

FELIPE NO

Quote:

2. and the first guy josh you mentioned.
If you will leave with/without in chopper stepahanie, you will get different ending of the whole game(the tower scene will not come, so will the fate of disc will e unknown), since his actions trigger later scenarios and events so IT does matter the end and the whole game.

3. Further more his actions can only unlock Keith in the END.

I know this, and this is exactly what I was referring to. Your actions do have an effect, and it's great. I'm just saying that your ending choice does occur right before the ending like in Indigo Prophecy, Raw Danger just does it better. You choose to go on the helicopter, thus you chose to end the game that way. You choose to keep going, and thus have locked yourself on the path to getting on the girl's father's helicopter. It's not necessarily a bad thing, it's just that in Indigo Prophecy your choices weren't that clear cut (And in some cases it wasn't clear that you were making a choice by doing something), so it sucked.

I brought up its similarity to Fahrenheit because you claimed that choices in the beginning of RD affect the ending, where usually this is not actually the case. If the game ends early because you chose to do something, that's still making a choice right before the end. It's all just semantics really, but I wanted to make sure you understood what I was referring to.

Quote:

I said 'works better' because every game with complexity of choices msierably fails to achieve to do so. I am amazed how budget title RD came from nowhere acheives the complexity so smartly.
How many games we have played like this?
In order to make every choice connected to later parts and endgame, developers screw the whole game like fahrenheit, and thats why its etter be avoided.
Execute it perfectly or don't bother.

I think you're confused here. Fahrenheit didn't even try to connect choices to the endgame. There essentially WEREN'T choices, you were just fooled into thinking there were. The only choices you got were near/at the end, and most of them weren't even clear on what kind of effect they would have. And I'm not talking Fallout Junktown style, I mean "Do you kill these soldiers first or the AI?" It just felt sloppily put together. There was a choice before that that DID have an effect, but even then it was easily overwritten.

If anything I think Raw Danger did try to do this in some ways, though small. For example, treating Stephanie badly will have her not refer to you as her boyfriend later, and whatever you call the doctor in the school girl's scenario will carry over to his. It's nothing major, but it can be done and Fahrenheit certainly didn't even try. Raw Danger's choices that affected the ending came when you were facing that potential ending, but they did so in a way that made sense. That's why I liked it.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Guess i'm reviving a dead thread, Regardless I'm suprised no one's mentioned Killer 7. I felt that game was one of the most artistic titles I had ever played, It had a lot of "mind fucks" story wise and was one of the few games I had to spend a lot of time thinking about to understand the story line. It also had a weird sound track that went a long perfectly with the game. I'm suprised no one mentioned this yet.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

You didn't understand the story(well almost evryone didn't), because the story is incomplete.
Mikami said this, due to budget they had to cut many things.

There's nowhere I can't reach.