Will Dragon Ball Z: Kakarot be the definitive way to experience Dragon Ball Z?

[ABED]

You are stretching those definitions now being tired is a "conflict".

Regarding Ebert's point - did you actually read anything he wrote or just decide he was wrong after seeing that he didn't play any games?

You can insist that you're not being dimssive all you like, but saying video games are not art is precisely the same as people saying rock music isn't real music, or any other such dismissal of a modern medium that the given person hasn't awoken to the potential of.
Except that they were claiming it as a matter of taste, I'm saying they don't fit the definition of art because they don't. Art is a reflection of the artist's life - what they find interesting, beautiful, scary, etc. The experience from the viewer/reader is passive. They don't interact or decide the course of the story. In a video game, the player is in control. They determine the direction, how long it takes, whether the character (if there is one) achieves the goal. Interactivity is FUNDAMENTAL to the discussion.

[Robo4900]

You are stretching those definitions now being tired is a "conflict".

Again, no true Scotsman. Conflict is two opposing forces. Any two opposing forces. Needing to get up for work vs being sleepy is a rather shitty example, but it's an example. Stories are ultimately just conflict and resolution, even if that conflict and resolution is a bit shitty and insubstantial.

Regarding Ebert's point - did you actually read anything he wrote or just decide he was wrong after seeing that he didn't play any games?

Roger Ebert was outwardly, strongly dismissive of the idea of video games being art, at one point. He later retracted this when he admitted he never played games, and wasn't interested in starting. As I recall, he switched his position to simply not having an opinion after reflecting on this.

So yes, I am confident he was wrong when he said video games aren't art. Whether or not he retracted it or not, if you'd pay attention to what I'm saying rather than the specific terms I'm communicating it in, the point was that he was a notable figure who said video games aren't art, not that he ultimately gave a more in-depth nuanced take later on when people pushed back against this uneducated view.

Except that they were claiming it as a matter of taste, I'm saying they don't fit the definition of art because they don't. Art is a reflection of the artist's life - what they find interesting, beautiful, scary, etc. The experience from the viewer/reader is passive. They don't interact or decide the course of the story. In a video game, the player is in control. They determine the direction, how long it takes, whether the character (if there is one) achieves the goal. Interactivity is FUNDAMENTAL to the discussion.

Honestly, you're so ill-educated on this that I find it funny.

You're saying that the designer of a video game doesn't put what they find interesting, beautiful, scary, etc. into a game? Nonsense.

Yes, being a viewer/reader of a book or film is passive. That's not the case in a game. That's why they're unique. But just because you interact with it, you assume the player has ultimate control? Not even close.

Again, Oxenfree is a game in which conversation is going on and you can take part at any point in any way, but ultimately the game progresses in one of a number of ways no matter what you do. You're just picking one of many choices the game designers put into the game. The storytelling of the game ultimately uses your limited agency to draw you in, and give you an experience where you are in the story as it happens. You get to know the characters by talking to them, in one of the ways available to you. You can replay it to see different versions of the story, but ultimately you're still looking at the same story. Even games with multiple endings, you're looking at one of many predetermined stories the designers put together. You are still experiencing story.

Ultimately, a video game is still curated, and fully controlled by its designers, etc. The player interacts with it. Much like a book, the player can take it on at their own pace, but much like any work, every facet of it is deliberately built. A player doesn't make the buildings or characters they interact with, they run into it in one of the many ways the designers intended them to. You are still experiencing a narrative that the designer envisioned and created, as they envisioned and created it.

Some games are freer than others -- Breath Of The Wild is much freer than Oxenfree -- but that doesn't mean they're not telling a story. Often freer gameplay, and thus more real agency (as opposed to feigned agency of more narrative-heavy games) means simpler stories, but that doesn't mean you're not experiencing a narrative. In Breath Of The Wild, there is a predetermined story going on, you're just given a very free path to take through that story.

[ABED]

You are stretching those definitions now being tired is a "conflict".

Again, no true Scotsman. Conflict is two opposing forces. Any two opposing forces. Needing to get up for work vs being sleepy is a rather shitty example, but it's an example. Stories are ultimately just conflict and resolution, even if that conflict and resolution is a bit shitty and insubstantial.

Regarding Ebert's point - did you actually read anything he wrote or just decide he was wrong after seeing that he didn't play any games?

Roger Ebert was outwardly, strongly dismissive of the idea of video games being art, at one point. He later retracted this when he admitted he never played games, and wasn't interested in starting. As I recall, he switched his position to simply not having an opinion after reflecting on this.

So yes, I am confident he was wrong when he said video games aren't art. Whether or not he retracted it or not, if you'd pay attention to what I'm saying rather than the specific terms I'm communicating it in, the point was that he was a notable figure who said video games aren't art, not that he ultimately gave a more in-depth nuanced take later on when people pushed back against this uneducated view.

Again, you are abusing that term.

I don't think he changed his opinion. He simply said they aren't and he never played them. It doesn't matter if he did. His point is correct, not because they are bad or whatever, but because the experiences and goals are fundamentally different between art and video games. The problem is so many gamers are so damn touchy anyone telling them games aren't art is an affront to them when it's simply a matter of properly defining what each is.

[Robo4900]

Again, you are abusing that term. Being sleepy isn't a conflict.

Waking up is the serious disagreement/argument with yourself between having to get up and being sleepy. The incompatibility/clash of wanting to wake up but wanting to sleep more.

I don't think he changed his opinion. He simply said they aren't and he never played them. It doesn't matter if he did. His point is correct, not because they are bad or whatever,

First, you really think anyone who has never experienced any medium can comment authoritatively on it? Seriously?

Second, it was never a question of whether games are bad. He was saying they are not art. They are.

but because the experiences and goals are fundamentally different between art and video games.

Art aims to use the tools of the medium to give you a meaningful experience. Games do this.

The problem is so many gamers are so damn touchy anyone telling them games aren't art is an affront to them when it's simply a matter of properly defining what each is.

Ah yes, because people not liking people saying a medium isn't art is just people being touchy. There's not even a debate, your view is fact, and all who disagree are just being touchy.

Seriously, I'm trying to argue in good faith, but this part of your post? Fuck this part of your post. And by association, fuck this facet of your view on this. You're not opening your mind to my point of view, you're dismissing it, you're painting all who enjoy games as just being touchy. It's... Well, it's ad-hominem nonsense, if I'm honest. You're not making any points by saying this, you're just putting down those who disagree with you, and I refuse to continue discussions that sink to these lows. So, I think I'm done with this thread for now. Besides, I've made all my points anyway.

[ABED]

Your argument about not opening my mind literally comes down to me just not agreeing with you.

Art aims to use the tools of the medium to give you a meaningful experience. Games do this.

That's not the definition of art. It's so broad that it can apply to many unlike things. News stations use the tools of their medium to give viewers a meaningful experience. That doesn't make it art. Once again, the fundamental determinant of something being a game as opposed to an art-form is interactivity. You also brought up Scorsese and his slight against blockbusters, but what he is missing is that his definition is includes criteria that aren't fundamental.

Let's use pro-wrestling as an example. In wrestling they tell pretty much one story - trying to win the match. It imitates legitimate sporting competitions but with bigger over the top characters, but at its core, it tells the story of athletes trying to win. It's an artform because the winners are determined beforehand and the wrestlers aren't trying to hurt each other. It would not be an artform if the audience told them exactly what to do and say. That's in effect what video games are. It's the audience telling the characters where to go and what to do.

There's not even a debate, your view is fact

Do you not see the hypocrisy here? You're saying I'm stubborn in my viewpoint and not open to listening, but you haven't budged an inch either. There should be a moratorium against anyone using the "you think you're always right" defense or its variants.

To bring it back to DB, because it is a video game (and thus not art), and doesn't include the first third of the story, there's no way it can be considered definitive.

[Robo4900]

Your argument about not opening my mind literally comes down to me not agreeing with you.
[...]
Do you not see the hypocrisy here? You're saying I'm stubborn in my viewpoint and not open to listening, but you haven't budged an inch either.

I've carefully taken the time to acknowledge and discuss each point you've raised. You've ignored almost everything I've said in regards to how and why games are art, all you're saying is simple, broad, and to be frank, ridiculous dismissals. I say you haven't opened your mind; I'm not saying you have to agree with me, but it almost seems that you're not even willing to acknowledge my points.

So, I'm frustrated, and tired of grinding against the brick wall of you giving broad dismissals, me working to counter them, and you ignoring almost all of it.

Once again, the fundamental determinant of something being a game as opposed to an art-form is interactivity.

And, case in point... I've literally given at least one explanation for why I don't agree with this in each of my posts. And in each of your replies, you've ignored it. So I don't see why I should waste my time further.

I said I was done in my last post. I spoke slightly too soon. Maybe I've spoken to soon here too, but ultimately the problem here boils down to this: I'm tired of the way you're arguing this. Because you're not arguing to convince, you're arguing to frustrate, and to look good to the outsider who sees my long deconstructions of your arguments, and your simple dismissals. Whether you're doing this intentionally or not, you're preventing this from being an argument; you're turning it into a performance piece about simple gotchas that take time to dismantle, which you don't acknowledge the dismantling of, and which you then regurgutate, having not acknowledged the dismantling.

This is so tiring to argue against, and so unproductive, that you're just wasting my time and frustrating me while getting us no where.

And yes, I see you've edited your post now, after I've posted this and in fact already edited it twice, to give it the bare minimum you can muster up to provide the illusion of any counter to what I'm saying... Not good enough, chief. You're talking about "feigning art" and all this other shit... These snobby ideas that there is "Legitimate art" and "Illegitimate art"... Trying to justify people like Scorsese saying cinema isn't art... Look, if you hadn't already burnt off the last of my goodwill in this conversation by ignoring and dismissing everything I'm saying, I'd have a response. I don't. I already said I was done, and I am.

[ABED]

Your argument about not opening my mind literally comes down to me not agreeing with you.
[...]
Do you not see the hypocrisy here? You're saying I'm stubborn in my viewpoint and not open to listening, but you haven't budged an inch either.

I've carefully taken the time to acknowledge and discuss each point you've raised. You've ignored almost everything I've said in regards to how and why games are art, all you're saying is simple, broad, and to be frank, ridiculous dismissals. I say you haven't opened your mind; I'm not saying you have to agree with me, but it almost seems that you're not even willing to acknowledge my points.

So, I'm frustrated, and tired of grinding against the brick wall of you giving broad dismissals, me working to counter them, and you ignoring almost all of it.

Once again, the fundamental determinant of something being a game as opposed to an art-form is interactivity.

And, case in point... I've literally given at least one explanation for why I don't agree with this in each of my posts. And in each of your replies, you've ignored it. So I don't see why I should waste my time further.

I said I was done in my last post. I spoke slightly too soon. Maybe I've spoken to soon here too, but ultimately the problem here boils down to this: I'm tired of the way you're arguing this. Because you're not arguing to convince, you're arguing to frustrate, and to look good to the outsider who sees my long deconstructions of your arguments, and your simple dismissals. Whether you're doing this intentionally or not, you're preventing this from being an argument; you're turning it into a performance piece about simple gotchas that take time to dismantle, which you don't acknowledge the dismantling of, and which you then regurgutate, having not acknowledged the dismantling.

This is so tiring to argue against, and so unproductive, that you're just wasting my time and frustrating me while getting us no where.

What constites acknowledging your points? I read them all, I just disagree with your conclusion. There's skill and art involved.

If you are getting frustrated, I don't know what to tell you. That isn't my aim. What to your mind constitutes an argument not not a dismissal?

What point that I made could be construed as a gotcha?

What explanation did you give for interactivity not being fundamentally a difference? All I saw was

Interactivity does not inherently take away from storytelling; passive consumption is not a requirement for storytelling.

What makes concepts one thing as opposed to another is distinctions. Concepts have distinguishing characteristics. They can't be everything otherwise the concept is useless. I'm saying interactivity is fundamental to what makes video games what they are. It's what makes them video GAMES and in the same category as other types of games, and distinct from art which by its nature comes from the judgment of the artist.

[Robo4900]

What constites acknowledging your points? I read them all, I just disagree with your conclusion. There's skill and art involved.

You clearly haven't acknowledged any of them. I described the storytelling of Oxenfree, and yet you still insist interactivity means no story/no narrative/no art, or whatever your point was in this. You're still hanging onto that here, expecting me to provide a response when you haven't given me that basic conversational courtesy.

I literally described what conflict is TWICE, and you still insist I'm not describing conflict. You didn't bother to counter it, you just said "No, it isn't conflict." That's not debating, it's just disagreeing. You're not giving me anything to build on, so you're not giving me any way to further the conversation until you bring it up AGAIN, and I have to regurgitate my same counter AGAIN... Which still hasn't got us anywhere, you're still not letting us build, you're just running us around in circles.

If you are getting frustrated, I don't know what to tell you. That isn't my aim. What to your mind constitutes an argument not not a dismissal?

... Actually acknowledging and building on what we're discussing, rather than just repeating the same buzzphrases like "interactivity isn't art" or whatever, for the millionth time, after I've already provided a counter to it, for the millionth time, which you haven't provided even the most token counter to, for the millionth time.

What point that I made could be construed as a gotcha?

"AH! Look! It's interactive. Not art."
"AH! Look! You COULD make a video game without a story. Not art."
"It's not conflict! Not REAL conflict!"

I've said all I wanted to say, and at this point we're just cluttering the thread up. PM me if you must, I'm now actually done in this thread.
Apologies to anyone we've disrupted with this tangent.

And, as an aside, apologies if I've offended you, ABED. I feel that should be said before I peace out.

[ABED]

Interactivity goes to the heart of the matter. It doesn't matter how much options are limited because at the end of the day, there are still options, otherwise it's not a game anymore. In any art form EVERY single thing you see and hear is a deliberate choice on the part of the artist. EVERYTHING. In a video game, a lot has been determined by the creators, but ultimately the experience resides mostly in the player and the choices (even limited ones) they make.

[Rory]

Get a room, you two.

[ABED]

Get a room, you two.

Believe me, I tried, but it just got awkward. I went for the hug, Robo went for the handshake...

[VegettoEX]

For real. The incessant posturing is super embarrassing. Knock it off, get it out of here, don’t act like this, etc.

Good lord. You honestly think this is a real discussion and good look? When you’re posting screenshots of dictionary definitions, y’all are a lost cause entirely.

[Forte224]

POP QUIZ: How long can 2 stubborn Kanzenshuu users talk in circles and get absolutely nowhere before it ends? ANSWER: However long it takes for VegettoEX to tell them to stop.

Ahem, anyway...no. DBZ Kakarot will not be the definitive way to experience Dragon Ball. I don’t think any game ever will be. The choreographed fights, the art, the humor, and the storytelling will never translate properly to a game. Dragon Ball characters almost never look correct in 3D model form, to the point that I prefer Yamamuro’s art over them...except FighterZ. Even those models looked off though. So when a huge draw of a series is its art, and that art doesn’t ever seem to look right in a game, it won’t work. Kakarot, while decent looking, doesn’t seem to be an exception to this rule.

Another thing that’s important to mention is that even Japan itself doesn’t seem to care much about the Pilaf through 23rd TB arcs. They haven’t for a long time either, proven by the Full Color Manga and Dragon Box releases both released as the Z portion first, and the pre-Z portion second. Now you can add this game to that list of evidence, and any game that doesn’t cover those (or rather, all) arcs is automatically disqualified in my book.

There’s also the fact that what this game has in common specifically with the anime and not with the manga is that it will have a soundtrack. Call me crazy, but I highly doubt the soundtrack for Kakarot will come anywhere near the quality of the Kikuchi music. And coming close to the Falconer music?? Fuggetaboutit![/sarcasm]

Credit where credit is due, some of the stuff I’ve seen in trailers looks really nice. Isn’t there a scene where Gohan is Oozaru and he jumps off a cliff and he’s silhouetted? That looked great. Hopefully this game will be the definitive way to experience the DBZ portion of the story in video game form, and it’s also a great game in its own right. That’s about the best case scenario.

Oh, and there are people that totally play video games for the story and not the gameplay. Look at Mass Effect 1. Lots of people don’t like or even hate the gameplay, but play through it regularly because of the great writing, characters, atmosphere, and setting, while being allowed to experience it in a non-linear fashion, which is something most movies, books, and shows simply don’t offer. “Games are for gameplay first and everything else second” applied in the 80s and most of the 90s, but it simply doesn’t apply in this day and age.....don’t @ me.