Vinny Caravella's Top Ten Games of 2013

I think Vinnie is HAWT

Also, I don't have the zelda nostalgia factor, but other than that I largely agree with this list thing here.

I've all but forsaken my PS3 due to my PC and new console, but The Last of Us has had me interested all year. I might just have to linger over to my PS3 another time.

Man, different games at number 1 for each staff member so far. That overall GOTY discussion should be interesting. Or maybe they'll just all say The Last of Us and go home.

Using this definition, 99% of movies and books and painting and sculpture and music aren't art either. Michelangelo didn't just wake up one day and decide he wanted to paint the Sistine Chapel for free.

Why the hell does the video editor have the best written list so far?! succinct and personal, yet smart and written with no small degree of flair. Awesome job Vinny!

This whole nostalgia factor excuse used to dismiss zelda on goty lists by some people is really ignorant and irks me. I have never played a link to the past and a link between worlds is easily my game of the year, no nostalgia needed. Why is it so hard for some people to believe that it's a fantastic game in its own right, independent of past zelda knowledge?

I find that my tastes usually align closer to Vinny's than other staff members, so I'll have to check out those on this list I don't have already have. Good writeup!

I have to laugh every time someone says "I haven't played this game but....."

@slightlytriangularrectangle:

How is it different to anything else in humanity?

People want to add meaning to the things they like, but every object can be considered a product or art depending on how the audience receives it beyond the creators' intentions. The only distinction is merely conceptual. In the real world, monetary compensation doesn't define how much art a product is. You are confusing the definitions of business and idleness, Art doesn't need to be created from the perspective of idleness to be art, nor does it need to avoid the concept of compensation or avoid the idea of business.

Of course the artistic integrity of art is defined by how much it is capable of avoiding ANY ideological distortion to it's message, but that is beside the monetary considerations, and it applies to anything outside the creative drive of the creator. Any unwanted creative distortion makes art less art, but some of the best known works of art in history have been created with a degree of distortion, in fact it is impossible to know what isn't distortion. For art, even the praise of the audience or something as abstract as the concept of beauty can be a distortion.

Clearly movies, and books are considered art, and nowadays they are fully tied to commercial viability, even in the most artistically based projects, the reality of life is that any production of any kind requires an investment. And ANY human investment of any kind can be quantified as work, no matter how abstract. It is only natural for a creator to want to secure the possibility of creating more creations. Ideally better and more ambitious creations with further ideologic purposes... Likewise, from the consumer OR audience side (again, a purely symbolic distinction), the creator hopes that the product OR art will resonate with as large an audience as possible. And it is also natural for this audience to wish and expect more creations or products of the same quality or artistic vision.

Likewise you seem to think that there is some manmade object that is not a "product". You seem to have a very wanton definition of product, which comes from the latin "to bring forth" which simply refers to creating or modify an existing object for its human use. Only the more modernised western view sees products as something made solely with the purpose of receiving payment ( which isn't true either, seeing as a most successful commercial products also start from a creative/ aesthetic / ideologic endeavour beyond just money ).

You are just compartmentalising because of some cultural prejudice and conceptual misunderstanding.

Good list Vinny! I really enjoyed reading this one.

Reading this, I just have to ask: Why don't we have more articles written by Vinny? This was a very fun read! As always, the need for more Vinny is strong!

I think that new Zelda game is worth playing for the music alone.

VINNY! Love you man, nice list.

I held off picking up Zelda when it came out because I tend to buy too many games at once and I had it in my head that I needed to finish Pokemon X before I could let myself play another 3DS game. Man the routes and dungeons between the last two Gyms and the Elite Four are a slog. But after nearly 40 hrs on the game clock I finally saw the credits roll in Pokemon on Saturday night and booted up A Link Between World immediately.

Holy crap guys, A Link Between Worlds is amazing! I know I'm a bit late to this boat. I work at a video game developer and was hearing a lot of people around me talking about how amazing it was and they were finishing it, which is amazing considering how busy these people were. We were crunching on hard deadlines for multiple projects and somehow the people who seemingly didn't have much time for games earlier in the year were finishing A Link Between Worlds.

For me it is the pacing that really makes A Link Between Worlds work for me. Removing the half of the dungeon design that used to focus on finding the map and finding the item really makes each dungeon more exciting as you can immediately start solving cool new puzzles. Giving you a laundry list of dungeons allows them to really space out of the plot. The fact that when you finish the first three dungeons the guy just telepathically tells you to go get the Master Sword instead of saying "Now come see me I've got something important to tell you." just really helps that game flow. I really liked some of the character moments they worked into Skyward Sword but they really need to take a hard look at A Link Between Worlds for their pacing cues in the next console Zelda.

Great list Vinny! I plan to do my own user list again (as is the tradition for me) but I still need to play a bit more of a bunch of games to finalize my list. The Last of Us has been leading since I finished it on the week of release but man am I impressed by A Link Between Worlds so far.

Driving over 8 hours today i listened to a lot of podcast and the one where Brad was discussing Zelda, i think i counted 8 times he kept referring to it was the "same" as the original. Basically, like most Nintendo games, its nothing more than a MOD.

@cybexx: Agree with this, and would like to add that it's refreshing that they didn't include a three hours tutorial.

Vinco: We Deal In The Truth

This is so well-written. Particularly the thesis in the "Gone Home" section.

Dammit Vinny! Stop being perfect at everything!

All these lists just make me realize that I barely played any of this years games. I feel like I'm contantly going to be a year behind with games from now on.

And what would the paintings look like if those people were not constrained by money? What if they had the freedom truly to create what they wanted, without fear of failing to market their wares. Even the promise of patronage without any strings attached instills some fear within the mind of the would-be artist, fear that the final product may not meet the desires of the beneficiary; thus the creativity of the work is compromised. True art cannot be compromised. It is not beholden to the dollar. It is not bound to the desires of anyone but the artist . It is, in its simplest form, the purest expression of creativity. And pure creativity cannot exist alongside that which corrupts.

Many worthy men have wasted time attempting to create a definition for art, while challenging others to defend theirs, perhaps surely as I do now. I seek merely to demonstrate that we--our friends, family, town, city, nation, race--will never agree upon a single definition for art. The best alternative is simply not to care. I ask you, why should it matter whether video games are art? Would your favorite video game appeal to you more if a bunch of random people convened, discussed, and suddenly declared that the game was to take upon itself the label of "art"? Play video games because you enjoy them, not because you need a subjective label to govern them.

Celebrated by whom? By you, or by others who tell you that the work should be celebrated?

Yes, that is my argument.

@sydlanel:

"People want to add meaning to the things they like"

Finding meaning within something that is liked is fine. Attempting to add, or impose, meaning onto something is dangerous, as it risks distorting the original creation and often ties the creation's meaning to symbols.

"every object can be considered a product or art depending on how the audience receives it beyond the creators' intentions"

I disagree. Unless the artist (one not driven by money) wishes to incorporate the audience, his work is solely a product of his creative mind alone, and is not concerned with outside reception.

"In the real world, monetary compensation doesn't define how much art a product is."

Cite your source for this statement, please. You cannot, can you? Art is subjective. It cannot be chiefly agreed upon. At its worst, "art" is used as a term, a label, that restricts. I argue that video games need not be classified as art, as such a classification is meaningless. Video games hold their value not through labels but through the active enjoyment people receive while playing them. That enjoyment is--and should be--separate from some subjective term.

"Any unwanted creative distortion makes art less art, but some of the best known works of art in history have been created with a degree of distortion."

Art is an absolute state. It either is or is not. If something is compromised to the point that it becomes "less art," it ceases to be art. Money compromises.

"Clearly movies, and books are considered art"

Considered art by whom? By you? By me? By some self-appointed organization that seeks to tell others what they should value?

"[Books and movies] are fully tied to commercial viability, even in the most artistically based projects ... It is only natural for a creator to want to secure the possibility of creating more creations."

I, as an artist, wish to create a painting of a rectangle. I know that triangles sell the most. My final product becomes that of a slightly triangular rectangle. Have I realized my original creative desire?

"the creator hopes that the product OR art will resonate with as large an audience as possible."

Then the creator is not an artist. True art is not concerned with audience reception; it is solely the will of the author's uncorrupted creative mind made physical.

"You seem to have a very wanton definition of product, which comes from the latin 'to bring forth' which simply refers to creating or modify an existing object for its human use."

I am a simple man. I speak only English. I deemed GiantBomb's readers intelligent enough to pair "product" with "profit" given the context of my post. Forgive me my flagrant barbarization of the much-nuanced--yet somehow oh-so-rigid--English language.

"You are just compartmentalising because of some cultural prejudice and conceptual misunderstanding."

I find your concluding statement a trifle humorous given that my original post (and this one, too) was based on the subjective, relativistic nature of defining art. That you would accuse me of "misunderstanding" an entirely subjective concept only bespeaks your own failings.

I'm finished. There's a whole lot of subjectivity for you to browse your way through. As you do, please try to focus more on my larger point that video games need not be bound by some subjective label.

Solid list Vinny! There's a few games I didn't play there, but accrediting games to art is something that sadly a lot of gamers overlook. Even more so is that while people compare them to other mediums, that it's a highly flawed comparison, and I hope that 2014 will help move games and the writing that goes along with it to a more "independant" art.

@slightlytriangularrectangle: are you a 17 year old stoner?

*blows into bubble pipe* verily...

thanks vinny!

@slightlytriangularrectangle Well, clearly as you are describing art as a subjective absolute which cannot be proven or disproven ( nor interpreted ), you cannot consider videogames not art either. Enjoyment is also a personal non measurable relative abstract term which holds no meaning for anyone other than the individual enjoying, so that is pointless as well... It seems that you are deciding to define everything as whatever you want and of course it can't be discussed because you don't abide by the definitions?... great you just made communication useless. And yes, there are definitions of art, and I couldn't find a single one of them that denies the possibility of compensation for the produced art.

So! Not only did you miss the point of your own comment since you are attributing a purpose to the creation that you can't really know ( you can't be sure if the creators' purpose was to make money through videogames ), and you cannot simply assume the purpose of the creator as a business, or if its creation simply inspires monetary compensation.

You also fail to actually express why in any situation adjusting to a need might lessen the artistic purpose, if there is a natural need to create art for a purpose in the first place, after all Money is an abstract social construct that simply represents the ability to acquire goods, many of which could be required for the art itself. Why is one need more noble than others, and more importantly is it possible to create without any intent?

Also, in your discourse, you unintentionally and carelessly discredited accepted and very worthy art-pieces and art-forms by some subjective self-imposed standard, AND you also demonstrated that its pointless to respond... congratulations... you won at internet.

So what is the Citizen Kane of paintings ?

ART IS ART.

The Last of Us is increasingly becoming all I can think about.

Man, I love it when Vinny writes. He has the best analogies and metaphors that are both funny and make total sense. The college friend thing with Assassin's Creed was seriously spot on.

I've seen The Last of Us on almost every list, but it never steals first place. So close, yet so far!

I love you Manny Calavera.

@slightlytriangularrectangle: The only valid definition of art is an expression or application of creative skill and imagination. Most people would add where the purpose is primarily to be appreciated as such. I don't agree with the last part. Any expression of creative skill and imagination is art. Some of my favorite works of art are from Jacques-Louis David. His works were not primarily motivated to be appreciated, but were a propaganda tool during the French revolution. However his creativity and imagination coupled with incredible skill makes them some of the best examples of art being created at the time.

There are snobbish 'artists' out there that would wave their superiority over others and dictate what is or is not art, but a carpenter making a chair is art, an architect designing a house is art, A video game designer creating a video game is art. Even the plastic fork I used to eat my Christmas dinner is a work of art (it isn't a particularly moving or meaningful piece of art, but the design is certainly an example of creativity, skill, and imagination).

I dunno how much you care about context and knowledge about old games, but if you can I recommend emulating Link to the Past; you won't get the same experience as you would have in day one obviously, but I imagine it'd add to the experience of playing LWB.

Well, you're wrong. You're simply, flat out, wrong. All money is is a motivation. If you're going to dismiss anything that was motivated by money, then you'll also need to dismiss anything that was motivated by love/hate/curiosity/etc etc. In which case nothing is art.

Absolutely this, I really hope we can see some more written pieces from Two-Pens every now and then.

[deleted]

Good list, Vinny, but man, I am actually way more happy at the number of users profoundly rebutting all the ridiculous points @slightlytriangularrectangle made.

And to say that people should stop trying to find meaning in things including video games is utterly laughable. Finding meaning in things is one of the defining elements of being human.

Also saying that attaching meanings to things that aren't "meant by the creator" is dangerous is such a narrow-minded perspective of criticism. Ignoring authorial intent (aka formalism) is just as valid a way of approaching games criticism.

I don't even agree with what you're saying that people nowadays need games to have meaning for them to have value. For chrissakes just look at Vinny's own list. I've played GTA V and SRIV and I can safely say that those games don't attempt to say anything too "meaningful" but they still earn spots on a list of a man who thinks games are art. I'm assuming Dead Rising 3 and DmC also don't go into too much emotional or philosophical territory either. Those games fall into the "fun" column for a majority of people, and they get their props. Hell, I also have GTA V and SRIV in my top 10 list (with SRIV getting second!) along with games like Guacamelee!, MGR, and even Tomb Raider which treads well-worn ground with its adventure story and character arc.

Is it really so bad that some people weigh other games more because it moved them beyond simple pleasure and/or made them think? It's a reality that can't be denied.

I know not why I choose to respond to these posts, when it is clear that those to whom I am responding will distort my arguments. But I suppose I shall continue to do so, if only for amusement.

Do you not see the fallacy of these two statements you have made? You are suggesting that an objective definition of art may be given, yet, at the same time, you are calling others "snobbish" for forming their own definitions about art. Are not you then "snobbish" for arguing that there is an "only valid definition of art"? As I mentioned before, art is subjective. Suggesting that one person's definition of art is to be used with authority over all others is pointless. People will choose to believe what they want about art. In my mind, my definition of art is correct. Yet I am not suggesting that Vinny, whom my original post was directed at, is wrong in forming his own opinions about art. I was, and am, questioning why it should matter whether games are art--a question that no one has attempted to answer yet.

When you attempt to define something with a label ("art" in this instance), you attempt to relegate it to a category. Its very existence becomes bound to the mandates of the category. It can no longer exist on its own, can no longer be viewed in its own right. Calling video games art, regardless of whether they actually are, suffocates the potential for video games to mean different things to different people. After all, if a video game is viewed as art, then it has to abide by the standards of art, and cannot contain personal meaning that runs counter to the standards under which it is held.

Thank you for telling me that my subjective opinion is wrong. I fail, though, to see why I would have to dismiss love, hate, and curiosity. All three are natural human emotions and quite important to the creative process. Money, though--money is not at all natural. It is an artificial symbol upon which many have collectively placed value.

As for "nothing" being art, I did not say that. Perhaps you are? It seems that you are on the path to forming your own definition of art. That is good. Move beyond what self-appointed authorities tell you, and find value in your own judgments.

@josephknows:

"And to say that people should stop trying to find meaning in things including video games is utterly laughable."

I did not say people should stop doing such. In fact, I wrote, "Finding meaning within something that is liked is fine." That seems fairly explicit to me.

"Also saying that attaching meanings to things that aren't "meant by the creator" is dangerous is such a narrow-minded perspective of criticism. Ignoring authorial intent (aka formalism) is just as valid a way of approaching games criticism."

Not only do you misunderstand my argument, you flat out misrepresent it. I do not know whom you are quoting, but I certainly did not write "meant by the creator." And my point has nothing to do with the intentions of the author. My point is this: when attempting to find meaning in an object, it is usually a good idea to start by evaluating the object in its natural form in order to understand that which is native to the object. Or, put in simpler terms, it is a good idea to look "within" the object. Through the process of looking at what is natural to an object, a person may discover subtleties that would otherwise go unnoticed. A particular phrasing within a story may stand out; a brush stroke within a painting, catch the eye; a quick gesture within a movie, reveal the body's form. However, when you attempt to "add" your own meaning to an object, you risk seeing something that is not there. You may lose yourself in symbols, perhaps falsely seeing that particular phrasing as emblematic of some deeper meaning, or that brush stroke as representative of the painter's emotion, or that quick gesture as testament to the human body's ability when placed under stress to contort itself in such a way that betrays the inner workings of the human mind and thus in doing so reveals the true functioning of the human spirit so as to convey to everyone that the gesturer wishes to have his opinions heard emphatically beyond all hopes and dreams for all eternity from the moment the gesture is made until the moment time ceases to exist, and thereafter.

Do be careful when attempting to add meaning to that which you have not created. You may very well find yourself completely misrepresenting the words of others ...

"Is it really so bad that some people weigh other games more because it moved them beyond simple pleasure and/or made them think? It's a reality that can't be denied."

No, and that is exactly my point. People should seek enjoyment in video games through enjoyment itself. Whether someone enjoys a game because they find it emotionally moving or because they want action and adventure does not matter. Attempting to classify video games as "art," however, or by using any other restricting label, does matter, as it prevents video games from reaching their full potential, that of something entirely free from restrictions, bound not by convention nor mandates, but only by the imagination.

All this talk of Gone Home has just made me buy it. I need to see for myself what's so good about it. Great list from Vinny though. I'm gutted I've just sold my 3DS so I'm going to miss out on Zelda.

And your definition of art is that anything that was paid for or made for the purpose of profit cannot be art. Which excludes most painters pre-19th century since they were always commissioned to paint. I'm not even going to comment. It will have to speak for itself.

It's not if video games are art or not, rather if video games can be art. You say that video games cannot be art. Not even video games made for free and distributed for free for the sake of art, because video games cannot be art. Personally, I'm not dismissing video games outright as an art form. Anything else that simply cannot be art because of it's medium?

Some very strict regulations on what's art, I must say. I hope I don't have to deal with you as a curator.

My original post was focused specifically on video games that are made for profit. Looking back at it, I perhaps should have better worded my initial premise.

Can video games that are distributed for free be considered art? Perhaps. You of course have to take into account some tricky variables, such as whether a person/development studio created a free video game for indirect profit. That is, he/they created the game in order to build support for future marketed products. But beyond such variables, I would say that freely distributed video games can be considered art when driven by creative expression. Yet, again, as I have posted previously in these comments, I think that calling video games "art" is lazy and unnecessary. Games can be explored and evaluated much better when not stuck behind the inherently troubled banner that is "art."

And you did not answer my question of whether you would enjoy your favorite game more if a group of random people came together and agreed that it was art.

@slightlytriangularrectangle: You know some of art history's most widely recognised masterpieces were in fact commissions? What I'm saying is that definition is retarded

EDIT: That'll teach me to be a dick before reading the rest of the comments

Wow Vinny, I think you should put words to page more often, I really like the style of this list, and more Vinny is always welcome. Really well done, thank you.

Damn, that opening paragraph.. awesome stuff, Vinny, really good writing.

No, your original posted stated that: "I'll never buy into the argument that games are art. Video games are products, whether sold by small studios or corporations, meant primarily--and often solely--for profit." You said games cannot be art, because they're made for profit. Now you're just backtracking on that argument saying games can actually be art, as long as the intent is not monetarily. That said, at least you're not limiting art to specific mediums anymore, which is a troubled banner if anything when it comes to art. Now you just to have drop this whole "intent" thing and realize art can have different intentions and still be art.

Also I didn't answer your question, because it's not relevant. It doesn't have anything to do with what's art and what's not, which this discussions was about. But let's just say that my opinion on things can change, and random people saying things could be one effect of that. Or not. It's hypothetical question with no clear answer.