So... My first own thread here. I want to write down an idea of mine, about how to classify games as art. I am fully aware that this topic has been discussed a lot on this board, but I faced the problem that people weren't making real points, just said "Yeah, they are".
I'm studying german literature, so I will try to link games and literature:
When it comes to narrative texts, say novels, non-lyric-tales some scientists cut a text in "histoire" (french for story) and "discours" (french for talking). That means simply that there is the stuff, that you are told, the story, the histoire, and the way it is told, the discours.
When it comes to games you face the porblem that there is basically the same histoire as in books, and accordingly the same rules and mechanismns. To explain that: Things that belong to histoire are things like character motivation (are they acting acording to their feelings or their reason, or because of their faith, or unontrolled?) and story structure (exposition, conflict, climax, solution).
But the discours, the way it is presented, is kind of laking in games these days. Barely a game uses complex symbolysm or metaphors. Beeing a mainly visual medium gaming faces the same problem as movies, metaphors and images are easy on paper but kind of hard to put on a screen.
May be one could see gameplay or athmosphere as a games way of presentation. But moste games are lacky in this area due to homogenized controlls. Let's say rightclick for alternate fire, wasd to move. It would make for a much better artistic statement when you had to move with a and o in game whose message is about life and death. But it would suck as a gameplaymechanic. So we kind of have the problem of a homogenized medium, which I personally can't solve. May be one of you has an idea.
And of course there is the ongoing killer-argument of "Well, anything is art." People see pictures of toiletts and cans, believe toiletts are Art. I am no expert on this, but I know that no constructive discussion can be made with the premisse: Well, it doesn't matter at all.
Popart is about quoting things. That's why it is funny, when the Simpsons rip on the godfather for the onethousandth time. Games don't quote anything, expect themselves. I'm not sure weather every Halo-clone out there can be seen as pop-art or weather it's just a mass-product.
Now... Wall of Text ends. What are your arguments (still not sure about the use of that word in english, always thout it meant a discussion as a whole, but I looked it up), when you want to declare Games as Art.
I'm studying german literature, so I will try to link games and literature:
When it comes to narrative texts, say novels, non-lyric-tales some scientists cut a text in "histoire" (french for story) and "discours" (french for talking). That means simply that there is the stuff, that you are told, the story, the histoire, and the way it is told, the discours.
When it comes to games you face the porblem that there is basically the same histoire as in books, and accordingly the same rules and mechanismns. To explain that: Things that belong to histoire are things like character motivation (are they acting acording to their feelings or their reason, or because of their faith, or unontrolled?) and story structure (exposition, conflict, climax, solution).
But the discours, the way it is presented, is kind of laking in games these days. Barely a game uses complex symbolysm or metaphors. Beeing a mainly visual medium gaming faces the same problem as movies, metaphors and images are easy on paper but kind of hard to put on a screen.
May be one could see gameplay or athmosphere as a games way of presentation. But moste games are lacky in this area due to homogenized controlls. Let's say rightclick for alternate fire, wasd to move. It would make for a much better artistic statement when you had to move with a and o in game whose message is about life and death. But it would suck as a gameplaymechanic. So we kind of have the problem of a homogenized medium, which I personally can't solve. May be one of you has an idea.
And of course there is the ongoing killer-argument of "Well, anything is art." People see pictures of toiletts and cans, believe toiletts are Art. I am no expert on this, but I know that no constructive discussion can be made with the premisse: Well, it doesn't matter at all.
Popart is about quoting things. That's why it is funny, when the Simpsons rip on the godfather for the onethousandth time. Games don't quote anything, expect themselves. I'm not sure weather every Halo-clone out there can be seen as pop-art or weather it's just a mass-product.
Now... Wall of Text ends. What are your arguments (still not sure about the use of that word in english, always thout it meant a discussion as a whole, but I looked it up), when you want to declare Games as Art.
