Games are art. Present your case!

[PTSpyder]

I had this argument with my teacher when I compared video games with Shakespere. Games, though they started out being toys, they have evolved into a form of art like most all entertainment before it. She then said that she feels Shakespere was more sophisticated. I said, the plays he wrote were, for the time, written for the the entertainment of the common man, just like games. She was speechless like she should be. But on the other case majority of the game community are little kids and stupid people, but games like Mass Effect and games that require thinking that those people are avoiding are starting to give games a good name.

Well said, nothing more to add to the conversation. [/thread]

 

[Bovver]

Legacy of Kain, amazing story, makes you want to know more about that world and very in depth characters each with thier own motives.

Also Pac-Man bring up the great question of "Why?" Why is he in this place? Why eat the yellow balls and ocasionally fruit? and Why are there ghosts?

 

[Blindswordmaster]

Specific games are not a useful example in this case. The question is if games are an artistic outlet for the user, not if their visuals are impressive. The case is easy enough, games make you think, they require you to learn and grow within a specific limits. In any other time period besides ours, these would have been the requirements for something to be considered an art form.

Quite sage wisdom, sir. Also, I will accept visuals alone as explanation, but so much more can make a game art. Graphics, storytelling, compelling characters, game-play, focus, and prevailing themes can elevate a game to greatness. The dark forbidding world of Metro 2033 instills you with fear with its oppressive atmosphere. Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age: Origins tell epic tales with compelling characters that rival Star Wars and Lord of the Rings.(ME2 even made a whole legion of fans care for a character that never shows her face) Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare brings an experience to rival most war movies. Bioshock brings an underwater distopia that is a character in itself. I know games are art. You know it too, but this thread is for you to argue your case to the non-believers. You are here to fight for your past-time. Make me believe you!

 

[Blindswordmaster]

Shadow of the Colossus, Bioshock, Mass Effect.

Your case is strong. But please, explain why. You can't just drop names here.

Sorry, I'll elaborate.

Shadow of the Colossus has that rare ability where if you took a screenshot at almost any time it could come out looking like a beautiful work of art that could rival most paintings that I know of.

Bioshock has an amazingly strong setting, and the immersion factor is huge. Also, watching that game can be almost as fun as playing it, so even if it wasn't a game and instead just a movie it would be a great thing to watch.

Mass Effect's story is amazing, with a well fleshed-out world with many memorable characters. I still remember that guy who wanted his wife's remains at the Citadel; and, if a game can make you remember obscure back characters like that, it deserves to be ranked among the other art forms.

Happy now?

I'm never happy. But, yes.

 

[NeutralDrow]

I believe that video games are art and are equal to other modern mediums(like movies). Games are a legitimate medium and aren't just toys for kids and frat guys. Allow me to present the following hypothetical situation: You are called as a witness to argue on behalf of video games. What games would you use to argue your case and why?

I would argue that the entire case is utterly meaningless. I would force the court to present to me their definition of "art." Then I would demand to know what exactly removes "toys" from that definition.

Attempt to bring the argument back to consoles before I receive my answer, and I will refuse to respond. Arguing whether games are "art" without genuinely defining what "art" is has no legitimacy beyond "whatever my douchebag mind believes to be worth paying attention to."

 

[crudus]

Yes they are. They tell a story. They are getting to the point where they are exactly like the "chose your own adventure" books. There are games that I will not consider art (God of War for example). To take it to the next level games need to reward you for playing an actual person in alignment games rather than hinder you like they do now (See KoToR and Mass Effect 2).

 

[Noone From Nowhere]

Let's see...

1.Some of the 'greatest' works of art were made for money, not personal expression inspired by the beauty of life/nature/divinity, at least it has nothing to do with the artist's inspiration. (see: The Sistine Chapel and Mona Lisa)

2.They have lots of naked or nearly naked muscle bound/beautiful men (or 'man-animal' hybrids such as the Minotaur)and women dressed in less than they would in everyday life but significantly more than the 'manlier' men often engaged in acts of wanton violence, macho posturing or invoking religious symbolism. (See: the works of Frank Frazetta,nearly every piece of ancient heroic artwork out of Greece and Rome.)

3.They were looked at as crass,commercial crap when released initially but fans in high places take what was made for the masses and elevates it into something for the cultural elite.(See: the works of William Shakespeare)

1 and 2 are done and done but 3 is still underway as more and more celebrity gamers speak out on behalf of the pasttime,so, yeah, Games are pretty much are already.

Add-On!:Whether games are 'High Art' or 'Low Art' is up to the observer, be they 'snobs' or 'slobs' or anything in between.

 

[Blindswordmaster]

I believe that video games are art and are equal to other modern mediums(like movies). Games are a legitimate medium and aren't just toys for kids and frat guys. Allow me to present the following hypothetical situation: You are called as a witness to argue on behalf of video games. What games would you use to argue your case and why?

I would argue that the entire case is utterly meaningless. I would force the court to present to me their definition of "art." Then I would demand to know what exactly removes "toys" from that definition.

Attempt to bring the argument back to consoles before I receive my answer, and I will refuse to respond. Arguing whether games are "art" without genuinely defining what "art" is has no legitimacy beyond "whatever my douchebag mind believes to be worth paying attention to."

You, sir, have a fantastic career in law ahead of you. That, or politics.

 

[WayOutThere]

Allow me to present the following hypothetical situation: You are called as a witness to argue on behalf of video games.

Hello hello! You are attending this conference on the issue of games as art. You wish to know the answers to the questions: Are games art? In what way do they achieve this? How much artistic value do they have compared to established art forms? And, come to think of it, what is art in the first place? You are skeptical, as you should be considering you are all non-gamers and especially considering how little artistic value games seem to have contributed in the past (I can't, even myself, think of any games I could call art without having to add in a serious qualifier) and you seek answers to these questions. I am here, as you know, to argue that games are an art form (or are at least capable of such) but you do not know that I also wish to argue that games are, in terms of their potential, the greatest of all art forms.

First, I must propose a definition of art:


art- that which is put to the use of exploring emotions

To say that art explores emotions is pretty straight forward but notice the phrase "that which is put to the use of". This phrase is meant to exclude things such as forum trolling or, on a larger scale, the death of a loved one as artistic experiences. An experience must be put to this use actively by the one engaged in it to be an artistic experience. Now, onto games...

Why are video games art? First of all, what does the concept of "games as art" really mean? What does it mean for a game to be art? To answer this question you must identify what is unique to games that allows them to have artistic merit. If you identify a quality found in games that can be found elsewhere as capable of artistic merit you're identify those other things as art forms and not games specifically, right? So, what is unique to games that allows for the possibility of them to be art? The answer is simple, video games are interactive. This is a quality found nowhere else. Are paintings interactive? Sculptures? Movies? Books? No, this quality is found in games alone.

What is the significance of interactivity? Imagine this, you have just found out your best friend has betrayed your resistance movement to the enemy Zargons and they have been wiped out. Do you kill him or let him live? Or, imagine this, you are running for your life in a jungle from a slick insectoid creature that, if caught, will open your flesh and deposit beetle-like creatures in you that will eat you from the inside out- you've seen it before. Notice the difference between this and any other story? It's you we're talking about! It you who has to decide to kill or let live his best friend! It you whose life is on the line!

Video games make it you we are talking about. Interactivity allows for the possibility of immersion in a world tailored to be whatever the game designers say. Think of the possibilities there are here! Think of what will go through your mind if the possibilities are made that real and ask yourself what other medium is capable of making the consequences of your actions fall on you! Think about the possibilities of how emotional experiences within a game could be made! Now, think about how these possibilities are being squandered...

The technology has been vastly improved but the will has not. The vast majority of gamers don't want an artistic experience or even a particularly deep one. They basically just want to blow a bunch of stuff up. This is why I have to defend games as art in the first place. This is why the worth of games as art hasn't been made blatantly obvious. Games are shockingly expensive to make. That which gets made is that which gets bought as only then a profit will turn. Since gamers don't demand games with artistic merit they don't get made and that, my friends, is a real shame.

Thank you for your time.

 

[BlindMessiah94]

I had this argument with my teacher when I compared video games with Shakespere. Games, though they started out being toys, they have evolved into a form of art like most all entertainment before it. She then said that she feels Shakespere was more sophisticated. I said, the plays he wrote were, for the time, written for the the entertainment of the common man, just like games. She was speechless like she should be. But on the other case majority of the game community are little kids and stupid people, but games like Mass Effect and games that require thinking that those people are avoiding are starting to give games a good name.

I find your premise intriguing, and agree with you and disagree with you.
I agree games are an art form. And there are many games that are written well.
My problem with your premise is that Shakespeare invented or at least popularized a plethora of poetic and literary techniques and devices that are used and abused to this day by almost every writer out there, including game writer's.
He is a great writer to emulate though, don't get me wrong. Quite a literally genius.
Your teacher is just probably a snob who thinks all video games are bad and had no argument for you.
Calling Shakespeare more "sophisticated" as her argument to your statement is just unfounded.
Games can be quite sophisticated and complex. Look at Shadow of the Colossus, or Eternal Darkness.
Maybe if your teacher took two seconds to analyze both sides she could come up with a better rebuttle.
Still, I'm glad you put her in her place.
[small]I'm just a Shakespeare fanboy[/small]

 

[Reklore]

Hello hello! You are attending this conference on the issue of games as art. You wish to know the answers to the questions: Are games art? In way do they achieve this? How much artistic value do they have compared to established art forms? And, come to think of it, what is art in the first place? You are skeptical (especially seeing how you are all non-gamers), as you should be especially seeing how little artistic value games seem to have contributed in the past, and seek answers to these question. I am here, as you know, to argue that games are an art form (or are at least capable of such) but you do not know that I also wish to show that games are, in terms of their potential, the greatest of all art forms.

First, I must propose a definition of art:


art- that which is put to the use of exploring emotions

To say that art explores emotions is pretty straight forward but notice the phrase "that which is put to the use of". This phrase is meant to exclude things such as forum trolling or, on a larger scale, the death of a loved one as artistic experiences. Art must be put to this use actively by the one engaged in the experience. Now, on to games...

Why are video games art? First of all, what does the concept of "games as art" really mean? What does it mean for a game to be art? To answer this question you must identify what is unique to games that is allows them to have artistic merit. If you identify a quality found in games that can be found elsewhere as capable of artistic merit you're identify those other things as art forms and not games specifically, right? So, what is unique to games that allows for the possibility of them to be art? The answer is simple, video games are interactive. This is a quality found nowhere else. Are paintings interactive? Sculptures? Movies? Books? No, this quality is found in games alone.

What is the significance of interactivity? Imagine this, you have just found out your best friend has betrayed your resistance movement to the enemy Zargons and they have been wiped out. Do you kill him or let him live? Or, imagine this, you are running for your life in a jungle from a slick insectoid creature that, if caught, will open your flesh and deposit beetle-like creatures in you that will eat you from the inside out- you've seen it before. Notice the difference between this and any other story? It you we're talking about! It you who has to decide to kill or let live his best friend! It you whose life is on the line!

Video games make it you we are talking about. Interactivity allows for the possibility of immersion in a world tailored to be whatever the game designers say. Think of the possibilities there are here! Think of what will go through your mind if the possibilites are made that real and ask yourself what other medium is capable of making the consquences of your actions fall on you! Think about the possibilites of how emotional experiences within a game could be made! Now, think about how these possibilities are being squandered...

The technology has been vastly improved but the will has not. The vast majority of gamers don't want an artistic experience or even a particularly deep one. They basically just want to blow a bunch of stuff up. This is why I have to defend games as art in the first place. This is why the worth of games as art hasn't been made blatantly obvious. Games are shockingly expensive to make. That which gets made is that which gets bought as only then a profit will churn. Since gamers don't demand games with artistic merit they don't get made and that, my friends, is a real shame.

Thankyou for your time.

what he said.

 

[razormint21]

Video game as an artform? A great example would be Killer 7 by Suda51

Points

1.Plot wise, Killer 7 is a very deep and intricate plot. Take it at face value, you'll realize that it's just another video game with a political undertone. Explore it deeper, and you'll find out that K7 actually messes on many levels. Politics, spirituality, morals, and even the theory of God. Combine that with the clean writing, and you'll get convincing arguments.

2.Aesthetically speaking, K7 was unique, why? Because of it's presentation. This is a great example of a uniform execution of post-modern styled Japanese art. During gameplay, you see the characters and the environment in cel-shaded glory. Cutscenes are presented using various mediums of animation, such as western, the engine rendered and the ocassional anime style. Althoug it varies, you'll never lose feel, consistency

3.Gameplay is even artistic. It's a rail shooter/FPS hybrid. While the idea seems stupid on paper, in actual use, it's quite comfortable and easy to get used to. Take notice of the camera for example. It uses an odd angle, but if you actually focus, not only does it give a good panoramic view, it actually allows you to prepare for your enemies. I have always believed that K7 is one of the innovators of the now famous over-the-shoulder camera.

The only possible flaw of K7, is the plot itself. It takes numerous passes for one to take familiarity of the plot. Full understanding can only be achieved after numerous analysis. And personal interpretations of the many messages embedded within can only be made after full understanding. It's not really filled with closure, with all loose ends tied, but no one can really prove why the Mona Lisa had no eyebrow right?

These are the only points i can give for now. Always remember, Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Aesthetics and art are limited to the comprehension and interpretation of the many people who will view them

 

[Jfswift]

To quote a friend, "Metal Gear 4 was the best movie I ever played."

My reason for this choice is that it is both visually appealing and offers a mature storyline.

 

[Crystal Cuckoo]

Braid is a very blatant example of how games can be works of art. And why wouldn't it? It's so pretty....

But generally, if a game has a certain art/graphic style and/or has an interesting, plot-driven story, then it can be considered art, in the same way literature and films can be considered art.

 

[dabronc7]

Looking at it from purely storytelling (like a movie) then obviously KOTOR, BioShock, Mass Effect and anything else BioWare has made. These are experiences that connect the viewer with the media, allowing them to emotionally react when events happen to characters within the game universe. Pushing beyond movies, games allow the viewer to alter the story in some cases as to what they believe to be the correct plot line. This type of mutual interaction between media and viewer is impossible in movies, television, scuplture, painting etc.

But I ramble, simply put, games create emotional responses from people that view it, just like art.

 

[Chknboy]

Artwise I'd actually like to mention TF2, instead of striving for realism it presents flying body parts and gore in a fantastically 50's super-stylized world.

I also just have to mention World of Goo, if you haven't played it yet, SHAME!

edit: though I probably wouldn't present TF2 to a judge as a beautiful work of art.

 

[Singularly Datarific]

Braid.

A game designed from the ground up to inform you that you are wasting your mind, your time, and your life playing video games. That the amount of mental gymnastics required to get the secret ending without a walkthrough is on the same level as the type of thought that split the atom... except you have accomplished absolutely nothing with it.

But fuck that, right?

Weeeell, it could be argued that is a bit less counterproductive.
Actually, I want to see what geniuses can do in these games...

 

[Rhayn]

Kotor, show me a kids toy that will cause you to become so connected to characters and have a near heart attack from the shock of the twist which still ranks in my top "out of left field" twists in any medium.

Agreed. I only recently discovered the game myself, and perhaps it's just spur of the moment, but I'm having a hard time remembering if I've ever felt so many emotions in such a few hours. It ranged from confusion, anger, regret, hate, sorrow and pride. It was... glorious. When I finally finished, I felt almost like an emotional wreck.

If anything that provokes so many emotional responses isn't art, then I don't know what is.