Are video games art?

[Panken]

(I was not sure if i should put this in the off topic forum, so i put it in the gaming forum because its about video games.)

I was thumbing through an old GameInformer lastnight and read the editors note. And he brought up the discussion of games being art? He used Halo 3 as an example. Saying that the game looked pretty, but it did not live up to the hype or beyond his expectations. And this made me think. Is a game art because it looks good, or is it art because it is a good game. Games like Halo 3, Crysis, and Velvet Assassin look good, but are not as good as they could have been. But what about games like Killer 7, No More Heros, and REZ. They look amazing, in their own respect, but some of those games are very strange and not many people like them. What im asking is what is art when it comes to a video game?

 

[IntoxicatedKnight]

Metal Gear Solid...5!

 

[BolognaBaloney]

What is art in general? You can't define it in games until you first define art itself.
art can be different things to different people, I see art as a means of expression, so for the most part I do not see games as art, because you are playing through someone's creation. But I do believe that games can be artistic, or have very artsy styles about them.

 

[Blights]

X-Blades, some say the game is good, but for me its mindles button mashing and with no need for a health bar. Its a Beautiful game though, the cel-shading is nice.

 

[DrunkenKitty]

Videogames are media. When most people think of the word art, they usually mean visual art. Most people would consider the concept artist modeling and texture artists of a development team to be artists, but not the programmers and everyone else that works on a game. If you consider all media to be art, then videogames are art.

Halo 3 is bad art. Why the hell would they use that as an example? Something like "The Path" would be much more suitable to that discussion.

 

[KissofKetchup]

I say yes they are art. Just by the graphics alone they should be art but also they take from every other form of art. Video games can use foreshadowing, personification, plot twists, and just about any other literary technique. They can also borrow film techniques like bullet time slow-mo, or copy an entire genre like Max Payne has done with film noir. Video games can bring out emotions just like any other form of art. They also can be used to communicate a message or idea, like any other art form.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

For the reason that you can't just throw mascots and pixels on a screen and call it a good game, games are an art and accordingly have to be designed and balanced with care. They can also have deeper reasons for being art, like writing, art direction and aesthetics, the general experience of the environment, messages and themes... etc.

If good advertising can be considered an art, absolutely.

If your standards involve a deep story or experience, possibly.

If you only consider art stuff that you hang in a gallery beside the Mona Lisa while stuffy old men scrutinize it between toothpick servings of bad cheese and sips of Merlot, very few paintings qualify as art.

 

[Panken]

I was trying to get an idea of what art ment to other people.

Art to me is originality. Games like Killer 7 and REZ are very original and i would personally call them art, however games like Resident Evil 5 and Burnout are fun to play, they are not that original.

 

[IntoxicatedKnight]

I'll be serious now...to me games are art because I can enjoy them, like you can enjoy a piece of music or a really great film. Games can be seen as art as they are an expression of what the game developers want to convey, in particular, gaming auteurs such as Hideo Kojima and Tim Schafer as they are producing something they want an audience to react to and discuss.

But what about games like Killer 7, No More Heros, and REZ. They look amazing, in their own respect, but some of those games are very strange and not many people like them. What im asking is what is art when it comes to a video game?

Your point here is interesting, Killer 7, No More Heroes and REZ are completely crazy and not everybody 'gets' them. They are expressed in a way to make people think/feel about the game, thus creating said reactions like mainstream titles.

 

[JaffaKira]

I'd have to agree with BolognaBaloney on this one, art doesnt realy have a definition and I think that its down to a persons views as to whether they see games as art.

Personally In my opinion games such as the new Prince of persia are art due to the graphic style being as it is.

 

[Frank_Sinatra_]

Halo 3 is bad art. Why the hell would they use that as an example?

Because it was the EIC of GI, and he uses dumb examples most of the time.

On topic: You can't define art, just like you can't define what a weed is.
By definition a weed is something that I don't want to be there, so I could remove my tree and say it was a weed but I'd get complaints about a missing tree.
Now video games fall into that same pit, just reorganize it to make sense. I won't do it because I just woke up and my brain isn't working.

 

[BolognaBaloney]

Halo 3 is bad art.

That's your opinion, not a concrete fact. All art is subjective to begin with.

 

[MusicalFreedom]

I don't think they are, but that's only because I don't take games seriously in any way. I try not to think about it, since I don't want to get to the point where I'm typing paragraph after paragraph about games, going into meticulous detail about graphics and gameplay, cos I'm just like, whateverrrrrr

 

[Mr. Fister]

What is art in general? You can't define it in games until you first define art itself.

This.

And I think only certain games can qualify as art. Games like Okami, REZ, Shadow of the Colossus, and others showcase how beautiful modern games can be. Games belonging to certain genres, like sports, casual puzzles, and military shooters are more for entertainment purposes than to be artistic.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

And I think only certain games can qualify as art. Games like Okami, REZ, Shadow of the Colossus, and others showcase how beautiful modern games can be. Games belonging to certain genres, like sports, casual puzzles, and military shooters are more for entertainment purposes than to be artistic.

I disagree for the reason that I could take a screencap of Super Mario Bros 3, print it out, frame it, and hang it from a wall, and it'd look awesome.

Since the advent of books, theater and paintings wasn't art almost synonymous with entertainment? This only really changed when we started getting television and deep forms of human expression became common place.

 

[Librarian Mike]

Art is the expression of a creative mind. So yes, games are an art form. That being said, games are just like everything else in that most of them are nothing special. The real issue for me isn't whether or not games are accepted as art, but that gaming culture matures (i.e. interesting female/minority characters as the norm rather than the exception). The fact is that until that day comes, gaming will be looked down upon by most people.

 

[Manji187]

Ok, this will seem off topic at first but bear with me. Ever seen/ read Naruto Shippuuden (the anime/ manga)? Doesn't really matter if you did or did not...there are two guys in it that discuss the nature of art. The one says: art is that which endures time. True art is ageless. The other argues: art is that which surges fiercely in a vivid moment of beauty, like a display of fireworks (and then wanes). These two are mutually exclusive: ageless (for ever) - moment (a time frame). I'm still trying to figure out for myself what games are.

And now for something 'completely' different (but relevant): If art is that which looks good graphically... then by new standards Chrono Trigger isn't art.. FFVII isn't art. What I'm saying is, a game is so much more than just graphics, but with all that superhardware all the emphasis seems to be on graphics (realise this: there are still 2d games out there that beat some 3d games).

Personally I find the current gaming industry in decline. Story takes a back seat (or the trunk, in a body bag). You've suddenly got all these 'artists' bragging they modelled, textured, animated and rendered something really cool, well guess what...with enough time and a not necesserily powerful computer with an Internet connection you can teach yourself that shit. Plenty of forums, tutorials, programs to find. Wanna call yourself a real artist? Try oil painting on a canvas, or sculpting. With all these powerful software tools these days, Photoshop, Painter, Zbrush, everybody thinks they've got the right to call themselves an artist if they 'designed' their own avatar.

I know I must sound like a frustrated raving madman by now... but it's just so infuriating to see people confusing art with craftsmanship. Everybody can hold a pen, write legible sentences full of correct spelling, grammar, syntax... that doesn't make the person a writer. Being able to speak doesn't automatically make a person an 'orator' (ancient Rome reference). So why should it be different with the gaming industry... they've got skills I'll give em that...but with enough time and effort so can you. What they have that you probably lack is confidence. What the label artist kind of hides is the fact that they also learned, were also noobs once.

What I'm actually trying to say is, we're all creators (of ideas, books, music and so on) and with enough perseverance and hard work we can all be in time called artists.

 

[Clashero]

Define art. For me, art is a creation that is meant to affect the viewer emotionally in some way, whether it is to make them think, laugh, cry or feel satisfied.
Technique is what allows an artist to create the art. Most video games are technically wondrous, but fail as art.
If I had to give an example of a video game being art... mmm, Today I Die comes to mind. So does The Longest Journey.
However, it's possibly for a game to not be art as a whole, but still have some artistic features. I would not consider Halo 3 art, since I found the story to be insipid and unable to make me feel anything other than a realization of how dull it was, but the art direction in that game is fantastic. The armor, the ships, the aliens, everything looked beautiful and had a very unique style.

 

[Anachronism]

They can be art. Some games are, but some most definitely are not.

You could argue that an "arty game" is one which has good art design, and you wouldn't be wrong. Take Shadow of the Colossus, for example. The graphics are very dated by today's standards, but the art design is so good that it doesn't matter; it still looks really good, in my opinion.

You could also argue that an "arty game" is one which has an emotional impact, which is probably more along the lines of what we're looking at here. So in that regard, an arty game would be one that has a point to it beyond simply the gameplay, and would probably have a strong narrative and good characterisation as well.

But really, the definition of art itself is subjective. Everyone has to decide what art is to them, and only then can you decide which games are artistic.

 

[DrunkenKitty]

Halo 3 is bad art.

That's your opinion, not a concrete fact. All art is subjective to begin with.

Anything said by anyone that can't be proved is the opinion of the speaker. Of course that's my opinion. If it makes you feel more comfortable just imagine a "Well, I think..." at the beginning or a "... in my opinion" at the end of all of my statements.

In terms of gameplay, the only thing that Halo 3 offers that Quake didn't ten years ago, is the melee attack and that's a fact.