Games as Art: How Does it Not Matter?

[Thaius]

Wow, people keep talking to me. I enjoy it, but dang. Okay... prepare for another wall-o-text.

How can not caring be selfishness in this case? There is no purpose for intent for video games to be art. Do you think that developers really care about the video game they are making to be considered art? I bet most of them are praying that their video game coming out will not bust and put them in the red. Maybe in about 20 plus years from now, the makers will care that people will appreciate their game they made back then, but as art? I don't know. In my opinion, the number one reason why I don't care about video games being considered art. The word "game". I define game to playing it. Not looking at it to find some meaning out of it. But I do find sometimes that playing a game has meaning, but the game itself, I don't know what the game means or if it is supposed to mean something enhence I don't care to think about the game except to grade a game whether it is good or bad by it's play.

But don't be offeneded by that because I think like that about video games. I do that to movies as well. I don't go to watch a movie for it's artistic value. For whatever $$ it cost me to go watch it, it better be entertaining, period. That's it.

I am not saying that you personally should deconstruct and artistically evaluate all works of art. But understanding that a certain medium is in fact artistic is vital to the growth of said medium. If people recognized video games as a valid way to communicate messages artistically, do you think Six Days in Fallujah would have been shot down like it was? Would the airport scene in Modern Warfare 2 have been as controversial as it was? Would video games be allowed to cover controversial topics and explore more ways to make interactivity an effective storytelling tool? All these things are being held back by the lack of public acceptance of video games as art. Heck, on November 2nd, if the Supreme Court of the United States decides video games are not art, they will be subject to regulation no different from a controlled substance. You don't need to study and appreciate something as art, you simply need to understand its status as such. Until that happens with video games, the medium will be held back by public misconception.

As for not knowing if the game is intended to have meaning and such, welcome to the world of the English/Literature major. Analyzing works of art is always like that. It's not for everyone; it's fine if you have no interest in that kind of analysis. I'm simply saying it's important to know that it's there, and it's significant.

See, instead of labelling games art (which given the choice here I would happily make) I'd be more interested in stopping 'hidden-agenda puritanical moralists' from being placed in positions of power. Because, once they're done with this issue, who knows what bat-shit crazy thing they're going to try next?

I definitely understand that, but there is a bit more at stake here. Imagine what games could be if people looked at them more artistically, and if gamers cried out for more artistic games. We would have more games that challenge our perception of morality, that shake our moral views and inspire us to think more deeply into who we are and what we believe, more games that will actually make us cry, or inspire us to be better than we currently are. Again, watch that video, then watch pretty much all the rest of theirs, mainly the one after that, entitles Enriching Lives. I admit I cannot say it nearly as well as they do.

@Thaius; Very impressive description on the vital importance of story telling to the existence of humanity. I'm pretty sure that research totally backs up play as an important part of child development. Especially in terms of things like developing an imagination and socialisation.

I'm not sure why you narrowed down on competition as something that is required to make games important. Competition often adds spice to a game and is very important games that need spectators but it isn't a requirement for a game. Nor is playing with other people. Playing the game of walking home while avoiding the cracks on the pavement is a pretty common game and can be played solitaire with no real consequence for failure.

Being on TV like Starcraft in Korea isn't any sort of good measure of the importance of games since you are not fully engaging with the games by watching someone play them on TV. Lot's of people play video games, a lot of them single player.

Am I saying that games and narrative can never be joined? No, you can clearly attach a narrative to a game but it is a fallacy of definition to say that doing so somehow makes the game art. There is some crossover in how the two elements can be combine, like creating a story about how if you step on a crack in a pavement you will fall in to a shadow world, but the two are not the same thing. Creating the story about falling into the cracks without allocating more significance to the act of actually avoiding the cracks is less interesting.

So, games are mainly fun and games, not art, but playing is something we are hard wired to enjoy and we gain something from it. Play can also take many forms from riddles and word games to develop language, solitary imaginative play to develop more introspective and creative skills, mimic type play where you copy actions to learn skills, social type play where you learn rules of socialisation and organisation. Probably many others. Sure, video games can be made with all of those things that have a high level of challenge and competition but that isn't needed for them to have importance. Any more than stories are not important to you unless you are the best at reading and interpreting hard books or writing screen plays for oscar winning movies.

You are right about that: games are worth more than simply competition. I admit I was being a bit narrow on the value of games; I thought you were talking about how our culture values sports. But I still don't see logic in your idea as to why video games are not art. You seem to be saying that simply because games are games, they are not art. Which really doesn't follow. So can you clarify as to why interactivity disqualifies video games from being art? Or for that matter, why a game cannot blend gameplay and story into one cohesive creation?

I don't think of books/films as art. When you took art at school it was drawing/painting etc not "lets film a scene".

How we learned of art in school is too simple to be relevant. In the US, at least: our school system is beyond crap. Point being, art is a heck of a lot more than just painting and drawing; however debatable the term may be, this is general consensus. [http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=define:+art]

As for my argument regarding Fight Club, yeah, you missed the point. I was assuming you understood film's place as an art form. The point was that, if not for its artistic quality (its status as art is not up for debate), it would not be as entertaining. Any work of art (again, this includes film and other storytelling mediums) is dependent on the quality of the many artistic elements that comprise the whole; in the case of the movie, good writing, good cinematography, good story, good music, etc. In any artistic medium, good artistry equates good quality; even mindless action movies depend on good fight choreography, good animations and special effects, good cinematography, and good music to be effectively good at what it's trying to accomplish.

That link basically says everything is art, which means the word is useless. "the products of human creativity; works of art collectively" Everything needs some level of creativeness to be made.

snip...

If you cut the word (or other forms of the word) "art" out of your post it still makes sense, if even one part of the film's making was crap it would bring down the rest of the film in terms of quality, that isn't to say that quality is artistic quality.

I didn't post that link to say, "This is what art is." I posted it to say that, "art is a heck of a lot more than just painting and drawing; however debatable the term may be, this [that art is more than just painting and drawing] is general consensus." All I was saying was that art is generally considered to be far more than just drawing and painting; very few of those definitions were exclusive to that type of art (and those that were are pretty far down in priority). "Art" is a term that is very hard to define, so I definitely wasn't trying to do that. But you have to understand that "art" does not only refer to pictures, but to a great many products of human creativity combined with skill (or at least an attempt at it). But if you're going to insist that art is that narrow, I'm not sure this discussion can go anywhere.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

@Thaius; Interactivity is not enough to make a game by itself. Paintings are interactive and non linear in that you can look at them how you want to or even interact with them by slashing them with a box cutter if you wanted to. Naturally, I think you can find the edges of what is a game and what is art or even what is narrative and get confused wondering where the boundaries are but there are some things that are games and others that are art.

I think that it is possible to have an art game if it was created to be art by an artist and made for people who like art with whatever game aspect it had totally subservient to the art. But then it would mostly be art and not a normal game. This is a case where it would be a misrepresentation to call it a game. Although you could fault it if it included bad gameplay just like you could fault a game for having bad art. It is totally possible to include both elements in a video game but it is a video game that has elements of art.

The important thing is that the vast majority of games are created first to be played as games so representing them as art is not useful. Take away the game and you do not have good art but in many cases you could take away most of the story and graphics have a decent game. The cases where taking away either leaves nothing good are more interesting but possibly an example of something that lacks something fundamental.

 

[Cousin_IT]

By the same token those people who get so worked up about games not being taken seriously as art are just insecure & self-important, desperate for acceptance from the cultural elites they crave to be a part of but cannot access through traditional channels.

 

[Halo Fanboy]

I don't just not care about art. I want it eradicated from games. Art is not just worthless to games but is also ruinous to them. Games that focus on graphics or story or message will inevitably lose focus on the things that matter. Art is seperate from games and you yourself reinforce it every time you bring up meaning or narrative or any other things which are NOT NECESSARY TO GAMES AT ALL. Even a child understands how different basketball (a game) and the Mona Lisa (art) are. It's common sense! One is a challenge to overcome and the other is something you enjoy looking at or listening to. Why is there a need to combine these things? Because one is more highly regarded than the other? Lets just be like the ancient Greeks; they had their great works of art and had the Olympics.

Competition is the only way games can gain cultural legitimacy because that is the only merit necessary to GAMES.

 

[Imp Poster]

How can not caring be selfishness in this case? There is no purpose for intent for video games to be art. Do you think that developers really care about the video game they are making to be considered art? I bet most of them are praying that their video game coming out will not bust and put them in the red. Maybe in about 20 plus years from now, the makers will care that people will appreciate their game they made back then, but as art? I don't know. In my opinion, the number one reason why I don't care about video games being considered art. The word "game". I define game to playing it. Not looking at it to find some meaning out of it. But I do find sometimes that playing a game has meaning, but the game itself, I don't know what the game means or if it is supposed to mean something enhence I don't care to think about the game except to grade a game whether it is good or bad by it's play.

But don't be offeneded by that because I think like that about video games. I do that to movies as well. I don't go to watch a movie for it's artistic value. For whatever $$ it cost me to go watch it, it better be entertaining, period. That's it.

I am not saying that you personally should deconstruct and artistically evaluate all works of art. But understanding that a certain medium is in fact artistic is vital to the growth of said medium. If people recognized video games as a valid way to communicate messages artistically, do you think Six Days in Fallujah would have been shot down like it was? Would the airport scene in Modern Warfare 2 have been as controversial as it was? Would video games be allowed to cover controversial topics and explore more ways to make interactivity an effective storytelling tool? All these things are being held back by the lack of public acceptance of video games as art. Heck, on November 2nd, if the Supreme Court of the United States decides video games are not art, they will be subject to regulation no different from a controlled substance. You don't need to study and appreciate something as art, you simply need to understand its status as such. Until that happens with video games, the medium will be held back by public misconception.

As for not knowing if the game is intended to have meaning and such, welcome to the world of the English/Literature major. Analyzing works of art is always like that. It's not for everyone; it's fine if you have no interest in that kind of analysis. I'm simply saying it's important to know that it's there, and it's significant.

Well, now you are putting some context to your arguement and where you are going with this thread. Now, your adding censorship and regulation to gaming because it is not considered art, is different. So then let's take Dante's Inferno for example. If I recall, they took lust boss as likeness to Cleopatra. Let's say that people related to her got pissed and had request for injunction in court to stop the game being made. The game would lose? Glutton, glutton boss is some FAT, dirty monster made all obese people offended saying that not all fat people are gluttonous. Some people have a thyroid problem or something. So they order an injunction in the courts to stop the game. The game would lose?

Video games have some degree of abstractness it them. Game Artists/designers have to come up with something from their imagination to fill parts if not all. How can that not be considered art to them? Shouldn't they have the right to express their game how they see fit? It seems so simple to me it seems ludicrous. Doesn't suprise me though. It seems alot of stupid things are going to court just for the sake of job security for the courts in this economy.

 

[oplinger]

I didn't read everything here.

But from my experience, games as art should matter. Because they -are- art. Doesn't matter if we take them seriously. (Who took Scary Movie seriously?) It's the fact that if they are art, they should be considered art. It would be retarded to call it something else.

..Also i'm sure most people don't even understand what "art" is.

 

[Halo Fanboy]

As a limited defense of single player I would like to point out that while you don't compete against anyone real you still are gaining skill and overcoming obstacles which effectively makes what you are doing a game.

Most single player games do have actual competition though. Ranks/scoring create a rubrik for seperating better and worse players and even without that their usually a subjective way to determine if a player is good or bad based on competition against AI. A guy with a shit build order in single player is probably not much of a multiplayer opponet either.

 

[Lyx]

I've seen far too many people say that as long as the game is fun, they don't care if it's art or not. I've also seen people say that as long as they enjoy their games, artistic or not, they don't care if the medium is culturally accepted as art. Is it just me, or is this nothing short of near-sighted selfishness?

Okay, here comes probably the (to you) most alien reply you'll get.

I do not care about... "society". I don't care if "we" (of which i'm not part) get "justified" by others via acceptance. As long as videogames are not outright banned (thus, are allowed to exist), i don't give crap about what "the others" think. And for THAT (right to existence), no acceptence should be necessary. By my ethics, everything and everyone automatically has the "right" to exist, as long as it does not significantly disadvantage others.

I care about how healthy (which not just means popularity or profit) the medium "videogames" is. But for this, no acceptance is necessary. In fact, hasn't gamedesign, game-experience and in fact the whole IT-world gone downhill (except of technologically), since it became so popular? Oh, no fear - i'm not proposing to "get rid" of them. I'm just saying that there is no evidence to support that game diversity and quality depends on popularity (sure, you need a certain minimum market, but that minimum is a tiny fraction of where we are today).

What i'm getting at: The acceptance of "the others" is not relavant for a healthy gameculture at all (it may even be unhealthy). So what is this seek for acceptance and justification then good for? A lot of things, that all have little to do with the games themselves - all of them being things that don't matter to me.

You ask if thats egoistic? Do i owe "the gamers that want to feel justified" anything? Not? Then how do you come to this conclusion? I think i know how: "If you do not act altruistic, then you must be egoistic. Either you're with us, or you're against us." - well, that didn't exactly make your cause more sympathetic to me.

But to get to the meat of "my case". This whole searching of humans for stereotypes, imaginary institutions and "we're sooo indie... and we want to be accepted and assimilated into the collective"... i really cannot take this stuff seriously. More importantly: It has nothing to do with games. It isn't about the act of creating games, talking about them (culture!), experiencing them, etc.... it purely is society politics. Not just that, by trying to establish these stereotypes and stamps like identities, it even calls to modify games for the sake of those politics.

This is not something that i wish to support. I just like the "interactive medium" to be explored in many different kinds of ways. Heck, i don't even want these things to be "games". I'm perfectly fine with the medium being explored in ways, that don't fit the term games. I'm also fine with it being used for "art" (whatever that is). I'm fine with all of that as long as these .... interactive content things.... are made for their own sake:

For the sake of exploring them, for doing what one likes to do, for talking about it with likeminded people, for experiencing it together/alone, for fun/emotion/skillbuilding/curiousity/whatever... all that stuff - but not for some f****** "Daddy, accept me for who i am"-politics, nor for missionary "we need to convert the unbelievers"-conquests or for stereotypes.

 

[omega 616]

snip to end all snips!

By your own admission were not here to define what is art, were here so you can tell us why we should care if games should or shouldn't be classed as art.

Although I haven't read the other essays on this subject, I haven't read one thing from you to me, to persuade me to give a rats ass whether or not games are or are not art.

EDIT: will it effect games if they are considered art? Will it effect them if there not? To me the answer is not one little, teeny, tiny, bit.

 

[Thaius]

I am not saying that you personally should deconstruct and artistically evaluate all works of art. But understanding that a certain medium is in fact artistic is vital to the growth of said medium. If people recognized video games as a valid way to communicate messages artistically, do you think Six Days in Fallujah would have been shot down like it was? Would the airport scene in Modern Warfare 2 have been as controversial as it was? Would video games be allowed to cover controversial topics and explore more ways to make interactivity an effective storytelling tool? All these things are being held back by the lack of public acceptance of video games as art. Heck, on November 2nd, if the Supreme Court of the United States decides video games are not art, they will be subject to regulation no different from a controlled substance. You don't need to study and appreciate something as art, you simply need to understand its status as such. Until that happens with video games, the medium will be held back by public misconception.

As for not knowing if the game is intended to have meaning and such, welcome to the world of the English/Literature major. Analyzing works of art is always like that. It's not for everyone; it's fine if you have no interest in that kind of analysis. I'm simply saying it's important to know that it's there, and it's significant.

Well, now you are putting some context to your arguement and where you are going with this thread. Now, your adding censorship and regulation to gaming because it is not considered art, is different. So then let's take Dante's Inferno for example. If I recall, they took lust boss as likeness to Cleopatra. Let's say that people related to her got pissed and had request for injunction in court to stop the game being made. The game would lose? Glutton, glutton boss is some FAT, dirty monster made all obese people offended saying that not all fat people are gluttonous. Some people have a thyroid problem or something. So they order an injunction in the courts to stop the game. The game would lose?

Video games have some degree of abstractness it them. Game Artists/designers have to come up with something from their imagination to fill parts if not all. How can that not be considered art to them? Shouldn't they have the right to express their game how they see fit? It seems so simple to me it seems ludicrous. Doesn't suprise me though. It seems alot of stupid things are going to court just for the sake of job security for the courts in this economy.

There you go. That there is my exact point. Games are absolutely a form of expression, and whether you necessarily value that about them or not, acceptance of that fact is vitally important to their existence and advancement in our society. That's all I'm saying, and the entire reason I made this thread: not caring about games' status as art basically just says, "As long as I can have fun, who cares about everything and everyone else," even though games will have to advance to that point if we want them to continue growing.

 

[Thaius]

I don't just not care about art. I want it eradicated from games. Art is not just worthless to games but is also ruinous to them. Games that focus on graphics or story or message will inevitably lose focus on the things that matter. Art is seperate from games and you yourself reinforce it every time you bring up meaning or narrative or any other things which are NOT NECESSARY TO GAMES AT ALL. Even a child understands how different basketball (a game) and the Mona Lisa (art) are. It's common sense! One is a challenge to overcome and the other is something you enjoy looking at or listening to. Why is there a need to combine these things? Because one is more highly regarded than the other? Lets just be like the ancient Greeks; they had their great works of art and had the Olympics.

Competition is the only way games can gain cultural legitimacy because that is the only merit necessary to GAMES.

Do you know why movies are called "movies?" Or "motion pictures," for that matter? It's because when they were first invented, they were nothing but that: moving pictures. The term "movie" is just some cute word adapted from the word "move."

Let's say, when stories and sound was being added to the screen, people said the same thing. "We don't need stories! By definition, these are just moving pictures! Anything else is just peripheral at best, harmful at worst!" Let's say they saw no value in adding stories, characters, music, voices, or any other dramatic element because, based on the name, they are just "moving pictures."

Think about that for a second.

 

[Thaius]

snip to end all snips!

By your own admission were not here to define what is art, were here so you can tell us why we should care if games should or shouldn't be classed as art.

Although I haven't read the other essays on this subject, I haven't read one thing from you to me, to persuade me to give a rats ass whether or not games are or are not art.

EDIT: will it effect games if they are considered art? Will it effect them if there not? To me the answer is not one little, teeny, tiny, bit.

Then start paying attention to what's going on. Heck, if video games have no artistic value, they will be regulated in the US no different from a controlled substance starting November 2. How the crap is that not important?

Beyond that, how do we expect developers to shape up and start giving us games with better writing, more detailed stories, and multi-dimensional characters if we're sitting here denying the need for such things? Do you really think they'll give us all of that if we're content with the safety of the status quo?

Acceptance of games as art is absolutely vital to the advancement of the medium. Otherwise, developers will keep coloring inside the lines, governments will regulate games with an ignorant iron fist, and we gamers will forever be known as immature children who never "grew out" of playing with these worthless toys.

If none of that is important to you, I have nothing more to say on the subject.

 

[Thaius]

I didn't read everything here.

But from my experience, games as art should matter. Because they -are- art. Doesn't matter if we take them seriously. (Who took Scary Movie seriously?) It's the fact that if they are art, they should be considered art. It would be retarded to call it something else.

..Also i'm sure most people don't even understand what "art" is.

You get a gold star! You're absolutely right. Any chance you could back me up here?

Wow, that's a lot of posts in a row...

 

[KefkaCultist]

This is my answer to video game as art stuff:
Things considered artistic are: pictures (painting, drawing, collage, etc), writing (novels), and innovation (coming up with new ideas)
1st - pictures: any video game has many digital artists working years to create the game's environment and characters down to fine details, sure its not painting or drawing but using software isn't an easy skill either.
2nd - writing: EVERY video game has a story whether it be Halo, Gears, Starcraft, etc. and being able to write a coherent story is definitely an artistic skill
3rd - innovation: sure there are many rip offs (most FPSs) but there are also many games that have origional, brilliant ideas. another trait that I see as artistic

 

[Lyx]

Beyond that, how do we expect developers to shape up and start giving us games with better writing, more detailed stories, and multi-dimensional characters if we're sitting here denying the need for such things? Do you really think they'll give us all of that if we're content with the safety of the status quo?

Answer: Neither. It has nothing to do with that. "Growth" into full-on mainstream as you glorify it has never ever resulted in "deeper" content. And besides of that, they reason for the lack of those qualities, precisely IS mass-appeal, that makes experiments too risky. Millions are put into the development of a game and voiceacting plus expensive content has dynamicity in an iron grip. Thats why we don't get many experiments in the blockbusters - not "it's because we dont have this fancy moral stamp".

Acceptance of games as art is absolutely vital to the advancement of the medium. Otherwise, developers will keep coloring inside the lines, governments will regulate games with an ignorant iron fist, and we gamers will forever be known as immature children who never "grew out" of playing with these worthless toys.

To rephrase: "Advancement" is breaking free of the restrictions that only were created by popularity, by creating MORE popularity. No, i don't buy it.

To be really honest: I suspect (i do NOT know this and you did not say this outright), that your actual motivation is none of all the arguments you brought up - they merely serve as a justification for your desire to external justification and *expansion*. Phrased differently: You just want games to be "big" and "morally blessed" - and are implying that by this, some wonder will happen, that will make everything better and magically solve all issues.

Problem is: I am not aware of any evidence of the connection between this "bigger" == "heaven". In fact, the only evidence i know of suggests the opposite.

And there is a very simple reason for this lack of connection:

If you want to get people who are likeminded, all you need is to inform them.
Only to get people who are NOT likeminded, you need conquests, moral symbols, etc.

You do want to "convert" people who do not think like "us".
I do not have such desires - i just want to be with likeminded people. After all, what use do i have for people whom i could only get on my "side" by tricking them with something else, then what this is all about?

 

[MechaBlue]

Beyond that, how do we expect developers to shape up and start giving us games with better writing, more detailed stories, and multi-dimensional characters if we're sitting here denying the need for such things? Do you really think they'll give us all of that if we're content with the safety of the status quo?

Answer: Neither. It has nothing to do with that. "Growth" into full-on mainstream as you glorify it has never ever resulted in "deeper" content. And besides of that, they reason for the lack of those quality, right now precisely IS mass-appeal, that makes experiments too risky. Millions are put into the development of a game and voiceacting plus expensive content has any intent to dynamicity in an iron grip. Thats why we don't get many experiments in the blockbusters. NOT because "we dont have this fancy stamp".

I think it's closer to the cost of making games that influences the lack of experimentation as well as their reliance on corporations. Corporations don't care if a game is good or not as long as there is a profit to be made. Part of making it sell is appealing to as many people as they possibly can.

 

[Lyx]

I don't think that its "corporations" in general. A (not overly large) company could still be staffed by people that are interested in the products, and there have been lots of game companies that did focus on certain styles of games, just because thats what they wanted to do.

The "they only care about the profits" only kicks in, when you need to be expansionist and "big" to survive at all. The most direct way how this can happen, is a hostile takeover - but that is only possible if you're at the stockmarket. That in turn brings in shareholders, etc etc. I don't want to go into more detail, because that would heavily lead off-topic

 

[Thaius]

Beyond that, how do we expect developers to shape up and start giving us games with better writing, more detailed stories, and multi-dimensional characters if we're sitting here denying the need for such things? Do you really think they'll give us all of that if we're content with the safety of the status quo?

Answer: Neither. It has nothing to do with that. "Growth" into full-on mainstream as you glorify it has never ever resulted in "deeper" content. And besides of that, they reason for the lack of those qualities, precisely IS mass-appeal, that makes experiments too risky. Millions are put into the development of a game and voiceacting plus expensive content has dynamicity in an iron grip. Thats why we don't get many experiments in the blockbusters - not "it's because we dont have this fancy moral stamp".

Acceptance of games as art is absolutely vital to the advancement of the medium. Otherwise, developers will keep coloring inside the lines, governments will regulate games with an ignorant iron fist, and we gamers will forever be known as immature children who never "grew out" of playing with these worthless toys.

To rephrase: "Advancement" is breaking free of the restrictions that only were created by popularity, by creating MORE popularity. No, i don't buy it.

To be really honest: I suspect (i do NOT know this and you did not say this outright), that your actual motivation is none of all the arguments you brought up - they merely serve as a justification for your desire to external justification and *expansion*. Phrased differently: You just want games to be "big" and "morally blessed" - and are implying that by this, some wonder will happen, that will make everything better and magically solve all issues.

Problem is: I am not aware of any evidence of the connection between this "bigger" == "heaven". In fact, the only evidence i know of suggests the opposite.

And there is a very simple reason for this lack of connection:

If you want to get people who are likeminded, all you need is to inform them.
Only to get people who are NOT likeminded, you need conquests, moral symbols, etc.

You do want to "convert" people who do not think like "us".
I do not have such desires - i just want to be with likeminded people. After all, what use do i have for people whom i could only get on my "side" by tricking them with something else, then what this is all about?

Well your first post pretty sorely misunderstood my point, and I'm getting tired of explaining it, so I just left it alone. But at this point I should probably reply.

I never said I was going for either popularity or mainstream. For that matter, I never even said I was going for non-gamers (though I do think it is important for them to understand, but not necessarily to participate if they don't want to). But the artistic nature of video games is something that, as you can see by these three pages, most gamers don't even get.

I don't share the hatred for "the mainstream" that you and so many others do. In fact, I think hatred of the mainstream is just an overreaction to the increased number of bad games while ignoring the similarly increased number of good games. Ever hear of Sturgeon's Law? "90% of everything is crud." That was true back in the early days of gaming, and it's true now. But obviously, 90% of the amount of games back then is a lot less than 90% of games now, and the same goes for the other 10%. I've always felt that hatred of "the mainstream" is born of intense focus on the increase in bad games without paying attention to the fact that there are no less good games now than there were back then; there are just also more bad games. But that's getting a bit off-topic.

I wasn't saying we should be more mainstream, more accessible, or bigger in scale. I think those concepts have their place in the industry and in the art, but I hardly think video games should be based on those principles. I'm saying we, as gamers, need to grow up and start treating the industry like the artistic expression we so sorely want it to be.

We complain about bad writing and cookie-cutter characters in games, but then we sit back and say games don't need to be art because all we want is to enjoy our fun games in peace. We're hypocrites, and we're completely oblivious to that fact.

So no, I do not want games to be "bigger." I honestly don't care if the industry gets big, or if everyone in the world plays video games, or anything like that. But I do think it's important for culture as a whole, and especially gaming culture itself, to come to terms with the fact that video games are an art form with unspoken and unexplored potential. As long as we just sit here, content to enjoy our games in a little corner of self-gratification, we are leaving the medium itself to rot. We need to help move it in the right direction, as well as keeping it from being cheapened or outright destroyed by those who don't understand it. I made this thread because I see that as incredibly important for the advancement, and possibly the very survival of the medium, and I don't understand how people can sit by, watch this happen, and go back to playing games they see no more value in than simply an entertaining few hours.

 

[Halo Fanboy]

I don't just not care about art. I want it eradicated from games. Art is not just worthless to games but is also ruinous to them. Games that focus on graphics or story or message will inevitably lose focus on the things that matter. Art is seperate from games and you yourself reinforce it every time you bring up meaning or narrative or any other things which are NOT NECESSARY TO GAMES AT ALL. Even a child understands how different basketball (a game) and the Mona Lisa (art) are. It's common sense! One is a challenge to overcome and the other is something you enjoy looking at or listening to. Why is there a need to combine these things? Because one is more highly regarded than the other? Lets just be like the ancient Greeks; they had their great works of art and had the Olympics.

Competition is the only way games can gain cultural legitimacy because that is the only merit necessary to GAMES.

Do you know why movies are called "movies?" Or "motion pictures," for that matter? It's because when they were first invented, they were nothing but that: moving pictures. The term "movie" is just some cute word adapted from the word "move."

Let's say, when stories and sound was being added to the screen, people said the same thing. "We don't need stories! By definition, these are just moving pictures! Anything else is just peripheral at best, harmful at worst!" Let's say they saw no value in adding stories, characters, music, voices, or any other dramatic element because, based on the name, they are just "moving pictures."

Think about that for a second.

I already thought about that. Movies became less true to their artform and more like stage plays. Movies have loss part of their art as a direct result EXACTLY what your thrying to do to games. Movies have been subjected too the most widely accepted perversion of an artform ever besides possibly cartoons (see anime adaptions.)

EDIT: Just realized that because of film, plays are pratically a lost art. Most writers want to work on movies. Once again we've lost something good because everyone wants to combine everything into a big pile of garbage.