Talk:Videogame art
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. | |
|
VG To-do:
|
||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Machinima, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to machinima on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the main project page and join or contribute to the discussion. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. [FAQ] |
| Mid | This article has been rated as being of Mid importance within machinima on the importance scale. |
| This article has been rated for quality and/or importance, but no comments have yet been left. | |
Added the Ludology mergeto; while I don't think either Ludology or Machinima encompasses this article's content completely, "Artistic computer game modification" seems, to me, to be crying out to be merged, or split between several articles, or . . . something. It seems a bit overbroad. Also, from what I understand, Treewave writes their music on older computers, especially C64s, but not necessarily inside game environments. Anyone have any thoughts? - Tzaquiel 09:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] why merge?
I don't see anything to be merged here. This would the same mistake as merging Video art with Video, Internet art with Web design, Sound art with Music, etc.. Game-art is an artistic genre, not a design technique. One change that could be done though, could be to rename the article as "Computer game art" (as a branch of Software art) so that it includes not only modifications, but also simple "artistic" games created from scratch. --spAs 13:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'm in agreement. "Computer Game Art" or "Videogame Art" sound much better defined and less all-encompassingly cumbersome. I'll rename the page in a week or two if there's no objection. - Tzaquiel 18:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose merging - this is a distinct subgenre of digital art and not the same as machinima. Strongly support renaming this article "videogame art" (prefer this to "computer game art") as it better describes the range of work in this field. When/if that article grows too big, we can split part of it off into a "Mod art" page (prefer that shorter and more commonly used title to "Artistic computer game modification"). - DryCleanOnly 21:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- Yeah, merging is out for me, as well. I made the merge recommendation many moons ago, when there was not an awful lot of content here. The article has come into its own and has a good deal more focus than it did previously, and certainly deserves to be kept - but the name still kind of sucks, IMHO. Tzaquiel 13:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Removed cleanup spam tag in artists section as it seemed inappropriate given that all the links were internal Wikipedia links. Also removed timeline section as it was so incomplete (3 items) it wasn't worth having. DryCleanOnly 13:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] References
The so-called references are not actually cited in the article, and also need to be assessed for their worth (reliabity, relevance, etc). In addition, sections such as "Well Known Video Game Artists" are a magnet for dickheads looking to promote themselves.--Drat (Talk) 05:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Constructive edits and consistency
I added back the links to the Clarke/Mitchell book and journal which was removed the edit "16:57, 6 December 2007 JzG rm spam masquerading as source". It is unclear why this link to a book was deleted and the other links to books were kept - it seems arbitrary and undermines the editor's claim that it was being removed as spam. There aren't many books specifically on this subject (videogame art) so to remove the link to one will restrict the helpfulness of this article substantially. It also seems arbitrary to delete the links to Mauro Ceolin's artworks (for example) and not to Julian Oliver's (this was done by someone else, not JzG).
Could people try to add more meaningful content to this page? Apart from the introduction, there is little analysis or discussion on it. The article is just being edited to death - going through the edit history, it seems to be just be various artists adding links to their work, and other people deleting the text as self-promotion and the links as spam. When there is a bit of self-promoting text, there appears to be just a knee-jerk reaction to removing it, rather than assessing the artistic value or importance of the artwork/artist mentioned and rewriting the offending text to tone down the self-promoting aspects and place the artist in context. Try to be more constructive.
--DryCleanOnly (talk) 19:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
