Absolutely. Mainstream gaming will ensure that most games will be done in 3D. However, there will still be plenty of 2D games to go around, especially from the indie side of gaming. Whatever happens, 2D and 3D games will always be around.

The truth is that there is no true definition for the word "art," so it feels pretty pointless for me to go into the "are video games art" debate. Quite frankly, I'm tired of it.

What makes The Path unique is the very simple interface that it carries (if you at least played the demo you would understand), along with the fact that you don't have to follow the story at all. It encourages players to not go to Grandma's house, and even not to collect anything in the game. Unlike most games, it isn't about killing, driving, scoring points, etc. anything that you would normally expect from a game; it strives to be a non-game, to appeal to people who don't like the majority of the games out there.

There is really no definition of "game" either. It is all just a matter of opinion. If you don't like The Path, that is easily understandable. Everyone has different tastes and we need to be able to respect them for that.

Well, the problem with that is the fact that I've already registered for classes at DeVry. I probably would have to go to a community college after I get my bachelor's degree in Game Design and an MBA degree in Entrepreneurship to have a chance at being able to understand the role of an artist in a video game. But thank you for making that kind of a suggestion.

Is there anything else that you feel I could do to help myself know the art of video games?

Edit: Then again, I likely will move to a different state and enroll at a different DeVry university within my second year of learning about Game Design, so maybe I will be able to find a place that also offers the art portion of gaming. After all, Illinois is not a very good place for video games, but some place like Boston, California, or Washington certainly will have something better to offer.

I've watched a lot of movies in the past. While I am not as much of a movie fan as I was before, I certainly liked many indie films.

Hmmmm.....let me come up with a list of some that I enjoyed:

- Clerks
- A Space Odyssey
- One Who Flew Over the Cookoo's Nest
- Reservoir Dogs
- Se7en
- Memento
- Pulp Fiction
- The Texas Chainsaw Massacre
- Halloween
- Kiki's Delivery Service
- Princess Mononoke
- Spirited Away

For some reason, I cannot remember anymore indie films that I've enjoyed watching, and there definitely were many that I did like.

I wouldn't blame violence in games as the driving factor behind a lack of innovations. I personally believe that the graphics rush is the reason for it. Graphics rushed so far ahead of everything else that the rest got left behind.
To explain it with different words;
Let's say we've got a couple of good friends. They play a lot of Soccer together and in the Beginning they're all equally good. They have to come up with plans to win matches (innovate). As time passes, one player starts to become a lot better at Soccer than his buddies. It's not by much at first and the difference isn't immediately obvious. However as time goes by, he has gotten so good at soccer that his friends just can't keep up anymore. The result is that they no longer come up with plans (no more innovation) since no matter how good those plans are, that one player will be the decisive factor for the success of your team.

That's the kinda state games are in currently. It's only recently that the other areas are finally starting to be developed again. We've seen vast improvements in interactivity and production values and there are a lot of new great ideas. They're furthermore experimenting with new Input-methods. I think that in a year or two, when the graphics rush has finally calmed down, we'll finally see a lot more innovative games being made again. Or just games that are well done and well rounded.
And I firmly believe it will calm down soon since there isn't much they can do anymore. They can keep on cranking up Textureresolutions and come up with all sorts of nifty new technologies, but in the end the cost will no longer meet the payoff.

So, no it's not the violence that "killed" Videogames, it's the graphics rush that forced Videogames into a cocoon, waiting to be born again.

I suppose you're right. Graphics are usually the reason why games these days are so unoriginal, but then again, that isn't to say that we shouldn't see anymore games like Portal, Marble Madness, Myst, etc.

 And yes, Deus Ex was quite impressive in that you could play it non-lethally, such where you could possibly even avoid every enemy completely, not even using non-lethal weapons on them. But after playing so many violent games, from child-ones like Mario, to mature ones like Resident Evil and GTA, it has really bored me to death. I even watched about a hundred or so remarkable to really horrible films (i.e. A Space Odyssey, The Godfather, Halloween, The Evil Dead, Mario Bros., 1984, Blade Runner, Space Jam, etc.) with violence that it really doesn't seem very intriguing to me at all anymore.

Games like The Path are really looking to take gaming into a new direction and that fascinates me enough to make me consider making non-violent games only that are so fresh and different from most of the games that we have seen today.

Besides, isn't the reason why so many people still are not interested in video games the fact that too many games are centered around violence?

I think that there have been way too many games focused on violence, and in some cases, it might have contributed to a lack of innovation in this industry. Even with games trying to offer more emergent gameplay, like Deus Ex and Far Cry 2, and with procedurally-generated content in games like Dwarf Fortress and Spelunky, it has not added up to anything else other than more guns, swords, monsters, fighting moves, and anything else that has to do with violence.

It can also be said that this has hurt many games' storylines, due to the fact that many of their non-violent actions are reserved for cut scenes to handle. A couple of years ago, Chris Crawford argued that video games are dead. He said that there has been a lack of focus on the people, instead more on things, objects. Chris thinks that there is no possibility of such a huge amount of innovation as that of the 70s and 80s unless more games take up non-violent gameplay (even those that normally would be known for violence).

Is Crawford right, or is the industry okay with the state that it is in right now?

Hello, everyone. I'm new to TIGsource.com's forums, and I have yet to start going to college. But my plan is to go into Game Design, and my dream has been to get a degree in it, along with an MBA for Entrepreneurship, in order to possibly work on my games by myself.

Before, one of my advisors at DeVry told me that everything in Game Design is offered at the Addison Campus, but just yesterday, after signing up to register for Session B, which starts on August 31st, I found out that everything but the art aspects of it are offered there. If I ever want to be an indie game developer, and work on low-budget or no-budget games alone, I also would need to understand the art side of gaming as well. I still feel that I will end up taking roles as a game designer, producer, and programmer in the future, though.

Could anyone please give me any advice as to what I should do?