• Video games: are they art?
    21 replies, posted
There seems to be a fair amount of controversy surrounding this idea, what's your opinion and what reasons do you have for them? [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Low-content OP, no argument presented" - Megafan))[/highlight]
Well the US government recognizes them as Art. [url]http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2011/05/12/video-games-now-legally-considered-an-art-form-in-the-us/[/url] Games are an equal medium to film. I really hate how people pull up Call of Duty and declare that games are not art. I could do that with Transformers 3 and declare games not art. Call of Duty is simply the action movie of the games Industry.
Yes. And with all art, there's good art and bad art. Surreal and conventional. Not to mention, a lot of indie games that put art first and storytelling second (Dear Esther, Little Inferno, Limbo, etc)
[video=youtube;2kEX9EOgVig]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kEX9EOgVig[/video] Good video on the subject.
It is a form of expression but it's also one of the newest and least developed
Only as much as they try to be. Bioshock Infinite has some beautiful vistas and a deep artistic style. CoD not so much.
It's determinant on their goal, Games like Bioshock Infinite and Journey offer great looking environments and unique art styles to immerse a player, whereas other games prefer to keep to the idea of simply being fun, I prefer the gameplay side of things over the Artsy side and I don't think a game should be judged on how unique it can appear.
Yes, but some pieces in the medium are more artful than others; some so seemingly artless that to call them art would almost be disrespectful to art itself. For example, film is art but in the broad spectrum of film exists both Citizen Kane and Sexy Asses 5. Once the medium of video games builds a longer history and has more examples of truly artistic games then the question won't even be asked any more. I think another big hurdle is the issue of the auteur. So much of art is the artist and because of the way games are made, it is hard to encapsulate a single vision. When there is a committee that sits down and decides what is best for a game or what is best for its sales then something is lost.
I think so, but its when they try hard to be art, that is having no fun involved and focusing on graphics or story to an extreme amount is when they lose the fun factor and gain nothing. Not saying graphics and story is bad, they are great infact, but a good balance is the best.
[QUOTE=Jabberwocky;40363779]... For example, film is art but in the broad spectrum of film exists both Citizen Kane and [B]Sexy Asses 5[/B]. Once the medium of video games builds a ...[/QUOTE] Woah man, Sexy Asses 5 has some of the best cinematography I've ever seen. But in all seriousness... I think that at this point in time, video games are only in their infancy; thus some games have to sacrifice enjoyable gameplay for an artistic/philosophical message, or vice versa.
[QUOTE=Ledivad;40363885] ...games have to sacrifice enjoyable gameplay for an artistic/philosophical message, or vice versa.[/QUOTE] Games don't have to do that. Bioshock used it's gameplay and setting together to bring us an epic story and provide a critical analysis of Ayn Rand and make us think about our perception of freedom. Explaining how would spoil the game but everybody who has played the game probably knows what I'm talking about. Most films are not about being artistic and conveying messages and most games won't be.
I'm at art school and frankly the whole discourse around 'what is art' is just the most ridiculous and boring thing I can think of talking about. I mean you can't [I]define[/I] art - that's one of it's inherent attributes, and it's the driving force behind a whole subculture of artistic creation (the artists who make art that questions what art is, etc). If we define art as something a bit more tangible and less philosophical and just say that art is a 'creation of something within a medium that expresses either ideas about the medium itself or ideas about the outside world' then yeah, video games are art. The whole notion of experimental gameplay explores a whole range of ideas surrounding the medium - that is, how can we make the actual interaction with the game interesting, fun and challenging. All games deal with general human ideas of good vs evil. Some games, like Bioshock Infinite, deal quite explicitly with ideas surrounding religion and race and gender issues and all the rest of it. Whether or not you want to say that they're 'art', I think they're definitely a very important tool for talking about ideas and getting messages and opinions out into the world.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;40363927]Games don't have to do that. Bioshock used it's gameplay and setting together to bring us an epic story and provide a critical analysis of Ayn Rand and make us think about our perception of freedom. Explaining how would spoil the game but everybody who has played the game probably knows what I'm talking about. Most films are not about being artistic and conveying messages and most games won't be.[/QUOTE] You cut off a very important word. [QUOTE]... [B]some[/B] games have to sacrifice enjoyable gameplay for an artistic/philosophical message, or vice versa.[/QUOTE] Although perhaps I should have been more clear initially. I just think that as time goes on, more games will be able to balance being enjoyable and delivering a deep message.
Just going to open this with my answer: Yes, they [I]are[/I] art, but there's an underlying problem that has nothing to do with whether or not it is. The problem with Video Games as art is that they rarely take advantage of their own medium in order to convey their story. Every medium of art brings something different and unique to the table that differentiates it from the other forms. Video games are unique in that they have the ability to tell many, many, many different stories (or the same story in different ways). Literature and film take you on one journey with a definite beginning and a definite end. But, when we watch a movie or read a book, we'll often think to ourselves [I]"In that situation, I would have..."[/I] But, we have no power over that. It's not our story. It's the protagonist's story. There's a lot of dissonance when you play a video game. Games differ from the other mediums in that you actually [I]control[/I] what is happening. [I]You[/I] are making the character move forward. [I]You[/I] made him punch that guy. [I]You[/I] made him jump off that building into a crowd of people. But, that's just the thing: it's not you. It's the character following your orders. You no longer have that [I]"In that situation, I would have..."[/I] phenomenon anymore, because you were just in that situation and were able to act the way you wanted to! But, in most (in fact, I'd say nearly all) games, you can't go through with this. Now, this has a lot to do with technological limitations, but hear me out. The problem stems from cutscenes or minimal amounts of choices. You give the player control over a character for a while and the player can make the character do what he or she wants the character to do. Then, suddenly, the creator wants to tell more of the story. The creator removes control from the player and, quite suddenly, the game stops being a game and adapts the qualities of a film. You are no longer the character, rather you are a bystander watching the character. And, again, quite suddenly, that awful [I]"In that situation, I would have..."[/I] thing comes back. Basically, what I'm trying to say is that video games are art, but very few games take advantage of their own medium and instead settle for what we currently have or use what is the current standard. An example of a game that bypasses these standards, for me, will always be Bastion, because it makes perfect use of the medium it was created in instead of relying on other ones to tell its story.
Half-Life 2 is also a good example of taking advantage of the medium [editline]20th April 2013[/editline] physgun, Havok etc...
[QUOTE=Barbarian887;40364102]Half-Life 2 is also a good example of taking advantage of the medium [editline]20th April 2013[/editline] physgun, Havok etc...[/QUOTE] Actually, HL2 is exactly what I think defines going [I]against[/I] the medium, story-wise. You're railroaded onto one exact path with zero choice as to what you could do. It has excellent gameplay and still tells a wonderful story, but the fact that their "cutscenes" have you literally standing there, completely unacknowledged most of the time really cuts on what could have been. The HL series is still excellent, but I wouldn't call it a pinnacle of storytelling in the medium.
I would think it's utterly impossible for video games not to be art, since they are an amalgamation of almost every art form.
[QUOTE=Unisath;40364175]Actually, HL2 is exactly what I think defines going [I]against[/I] the medium, story-wise. You're railroaded onto one exact path with zero choice as to what you could do. It has excellent gameplay and still tells a wonderful story, but the fact that their "cutscenes" have you literally standing there, completely unacknowledged most of the time really cuts on what could have been. The HL series is still excellent, but I wouldn't call it a pinnacle of storytelling in the medium.[/QUOTE] That can be used really well though I found that I really enjoyed the fact that FarCry 3 gave the player next to no control over the plot. It was like being stuck inside Jason's mind with him while he does all of these things and becomes this violent, ruthless guy despite wanting him to do different things
[QUOTE=Unisath;40364175]Actually, HL2 is exactly what I think defines going [I]against[/I] the medium, story-wise. You're railroaded onto one exact path with zero choice as to what you could do. It has excellent gameplay and still tells a wonderful story, but the fact that their "cutscenes" have you literally standing there, completely unacknowledged most of the time really cuts on what could have been. The HL series is still excellent, but I wouldn't call it a pinnacle of storytelling in the medium.[/QUOTE] In a movie you're railroadered onto one exact path, Because that is what the story requires. Games are the only actual interactive art for the viewer and it should make sure you stay on a storyline if there is a storyline to be done.
If, when judging something, you have to use anything but logic to reach your conclusion, you deal with art. There are games which I fundamentally love which other people think are terrible. There is no clear way of proving or disproving its validity with logic. I like difficult games, or games that simulate, or games that justify themselves intellectually. Some people play for arcade value. An analogy would be that Joe like classical art, whereas Jill likes impressionism. Neither can truly be said to be wrong, and therefore both are art. It's literally the same distinction that separates history and physics, or literature and chemistry. All have structural aspects, and if you got really technical you could probably define art along neurological axioms, but as it stands art is simply what is agreeable to the individual but not necessarily the group. Logic deals in axioms, in truths and in universals. Pathos deals with the individual and the emotive. Ergo, videogams are art. [editline]21st April 2013[/editline] I'd actually go so far as to say that this argument lies at the core of the current woes of the gaming industry. For the last six or seven years it's been in favor of a utilitarian, scientific approach to development. Each new game is franchised, iterated, "better" and overlooks the fact that the medium is an artform. We went from a graphics arms race to nit-picked, scientifically improved sequels and reboots to indie games. Just as each publisher and developer argues over what defines "content," it's probably going to mirror the argument in this thread. Look at Surgeon Simulator-- it's almost like a tongue-in-cheek jab at that design philosophy. It's a game made deliberately unplayable, unpredictable and based on spontaneity rather than a generation of feedback and improvements. Contrarily, the criticism of indie games is just that: they're all form and nothing else. Sort of like the way people criticize art installations where the project is just Christmas lights plugged into the wall, or an upside down urinal.
The stories video games can portray could be considered art with all their underlying tones, themes and messages. But I don't believe video games themselves are art. This coming from someone who grew up on them.
Of course games are art. They take all the same creative force to make them and can exert the same emotional reaction as any other art form. How could one possibly distinguish it? The problem is that most games are created to make money, not some "higher" purpose. This causes it to, oftentimes, be bad art.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.