Games as Art: How Does it Not Matter?

[Thaius]

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.)

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.

...

Really? Film came into its own, became an independent art form unique from any other medium, and you're saying it should have stayed at pointless pictures of running horses? You're really saying film would have been better without Casablanca, Citizen Kane, Star Wars, Inception, The Dark Knight...

For that matter, are you really saying animation like Spongebob is more acceptable and less of a perversion than a drama like Full Metal Alchemist, or a psychological thriller like Death Note? For that matter, you're really saying something so ignorantly ethnocentric as to imply that every work of Japanese animation is a disgrace to the medium of film?

I honestly have nothing to say to you at this point. I honestly have no idea what to say to someone so misguided.

 

[SimuLord]

Games as a whole are not art, but the components that make them up are definitely art.

For example: graphics, music, story.

Rather than drag out "Roger Ebert is Still Right" Standardized Rant #4, I'll just drink to this, except for the story part because let's face it, most game stories are about as artistic as finger painting at the school for severe intellectual-disability special-needs children.

 

[Thaius]

Games as a whole are not art, but the components that make them up are definitely art.

For example: graphics, music, story.

Rather than drag out "Roger Ebert is Still Right" Standardized Rant #4, I'll just drink to this, except for the story part because let's face it, most game stories are about as artistic as finger painting at the school for severe intellectual-disability special-needs children.

So are most film stories. And most works of literature. And most of every other artistic medium. Beyond that, Douk admitted I was right about this when I posted the following:

"Every art form is a combination of other art forms. Are you going to claim music is not art because it involves composition, playing various instruments, singing, and poetry? Is film "not art" because it involves photography+movement, audio, music, acting, writing, and much more? Is stage drama not art because it involves acting, writing, staging, lighting, music, and more? Only with video games do people claim that a joining of various art forms into one cohesive, independent work is not in itself art; it really is an illegitimate argument."

 

[Halo Fanboy]

Just thought of something else. Games are not a medium while films (or VHS or DVD or Blue Ray) and books are medium. Film is just a specific way of storing information (the artform is the creation of the motion picture) ditto for books. As a result film can be educational, a vlog, a movie made for the purpose of art and entertainment or whatever. Games are merely games not a medium (If anything the disk, floppy, cart or anything else the game is stored in is the medium.) Software games should obviously not be used as vlog, or a message or a record or a piece of art, they are their own thing in a large spectrum of software that could be used for art. Sony even has some art available to get on their game platform. I don't care if interactive art becomes it own thing as long it leaves games alone.

Also I will conced that RPGs and adventure should probably have a story (cause of all the dialouge trees.) Having a story in strategy, action and puzzle is clearly a bad idea though.

 

[Thaius]

Just thought of something else. Games are not a medium while films (or VHS or DVD or Blue Ray) and books are medium. Film is just a specific way of storing information (the artform is the creation of the motion picture) ditto for books. As a result film can be educational, a vlog, a movie made for the purpose of art and entertainment or whatever. Games are merely games not a medium (If anything the disk, floppy, cart or anything else the game is stored in is the medium.) Software games should obviously not be used as vlog, or a message or a record or a piece of art, they are their own thing in a large spectrum of software that could be used for art. Sony even has some art available to get on their game platform. I don't care if interactive art becomes it own thing as long it leaves games alone.

Also I will conced that RPGs and adventure should probably have a story (cause of all the dialouge trees.) Having a story in strategy, action and puzzle is clearly a bad idea though.

Um... no. Sorry, not at all. You do realize when we're talking about "the medium of film" or "literature," we're not talking about the physical storage, but the works stored on them, right? Video games are the exact same anyway, in that a work of interactive art, the product of a designer and team's creativity, is stored on a physical object. If anything, you just pointed out a vital similarity.

As for vido games not being used as a message of anything, you're just wrong there. Example: last Valentine's Day, I programmed a short, simple game for my girlfriend. It was a simple visual novel, with some pictures, romantic music, and text that appeared as she clicked. Now and then I offered her some choices, and the message would change a bit based on her responses (though would still carry the same love message, obviously, even through different responses). She cried and showed it to all her friends for the next few weeks.

Look, if you don't value art in games, that's fine. But to say that they should not involve art is just asinine. In the end, what do people remember most about Final Fantasy VII? What made Mass Effect 2 so great? What was undisputedly the greatest, most impacting and shocking moment in Bioshock? You don't have to see it, but don't go telling everyone they shouldn't.

 

[Halo Fanboy]

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.)

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.

...

Really? Film came into its own, became an independent art form unique from any other medium, and you're saying it should have stayed at pointless pictures of running horses? You're really saying film would have been better without Casablanca, Citizen Kane, Star Wars, Inception, The Dark Knight...

For that matter, are you really saying animation like Spongebob is more acceptable and less of a perversion than a drama like Full Metal Alchemist, or a psychological thriller like Death Note? For that matter, you're really saying something so ignorantly ethnocentric as to imply that every work of Japanese animation is a disgrace to the medium of film?

I honestly have nothing to say to you at this point. I honestly have no idea what to say to someone so misguided.

Your counter examples make this so easy, its like you're reading my mind. Death Note is possibly the most fail adaption ever, FMA isn't so bad but yes Spongebob is several times more worthy of existing than either of those pieces of shit. I'll explain why. Anime has an obsession with detailed character designs. This is the antithesis of animation. Animation is about movement, the moment when you have two characters just talking to each other is when you've failed as an animator. Not to mention most anime has horrible animation ESPECIALLY the ones you list (okay the Greed fight was kinda cool.) Death Note is an animation based on a comic which is 90 percent talking and internal monolouges. WHY WOULD ANYONE THINK THIS WAS A GOOD IDEA? Just read the manga to see these series in their proper format with being able to avoid the anime versions' horrible plots as an extra bonus. I'll admit that anime isn't the only cause of the problem when we had some extremely lazy animators back in the day (Hanna-Barbera) but anime has a huge market share on animation right now and most of it is pretty bad. Change "anime" in my post too "anime adaptions" I don't wan't to generalize too much.

Also read these:
http://insomnia.ac/commentary/how_cartoon_animation_steered_off_course/
http://johnkstuff.blogspot.com/2009/11/cartoons-and-chainsaws.html

Edit: my spelling is horrible today.

 

[Halo Fanboy]

Look, if you don't value art in games, that's fine. But to say that they should not involve art is just asinine. In the end, what do people remember most about Final Fantasy VII? What made Mass Effect 2 so great? What was undisputedly the greatest, most impacting and shocking moment in Bioshock? You don't have to see it, but don't go telling everyone they shouldn't.

No saying that something that you don't value shouldn't be in a game is the only reasonable thing you can do. Your little nongame you made is cute but it obviously has no value AS A GAME. Games can have sentimental value (anything can) but imagine if the game industry was taken over by that sort of stuff. It would be ridiculous.

Look if we stretch the definition of a medium "an object that can transmit something" (water to electricity) then the term will be vauger than the word art before long. Most of the info read off a game disc isn't even visible to the player! Is every random piece of software a medium now? Are random internet cookies that infiltrate my computer a medium now?

And the only shocking moment in Bioshock is when I realized that the game was horrible.

 

[Thaius]

Your counter examples make this so easy its like you're reading my mind. Death Note is possibly the most fail adaption ever, FMA isn't so bad but yes Spongebob is several times more worthy of existing than either of those pieces of shit. I'll explain why. Anime has an obsession with detailed character designs. This is the antithesis of animation. Animation is about movement, the moment you when you have to characters just talking to each other is when you've failed as an animator. Not to mention most anime has horrible animation ESPECIALLY the ones you list (okay the Greed fight was kinda cool.) Death Note is an animation based on a comic which is 90 percent talking and internal monolouges. WHY WOULD ANYONE THINK THIS WAS A GOOD IDEA. Just read the manga to see these series in their proper format with being able to avoid the anime versions' horrible plots as an extra bonus. I'll admit that anime isn't the only cause of the problem when we had some extremely lazy animators back in the day (Hanna-Barbera) but anime has a huge market share on animation right now and most of it is pretty bad. Change "anime" in my post too "anime adaptions" I don't wan't to generalize too much.

Also read these:
http://insomnia.ac/commentary/how_cartoon_animation_steered_off_course/
http://johnkstuff.blogspot.com/2009/11/cartoons-and-chainsaws.html

Really?

Okay, well at least I get it now. You're under the idea that cartoons are somehow inherently designed to make people laugh (as a chainsaw is designed to cut wood), and anything else, any attempt at realism or serious drama (or even something so simple as semi-realistic character models) is a perversion of the purpose of animation. How wonderfully... wrong. I can't even think of a fitting word.

You know why anime is what it is? Because while we were making movies in Hollywood, Japan did the only thing they could with their budget: animation. Meaning to them, animation was film. No one said, "I want to make a serious, emotional, and complex crime drama, but I can't because all I can do is animation!" They did what they could with what they had. If you're capable of putting yourself in their shoes for a second, you could see how this works.

This is nothing short of some sort of blind traditionalism with a bit of ethnocentrism to top it off. You're taking the first cartoons our culture made and claiming them to be the only way anyone should ever make cartoons, completely ignoring the possibility that other cultures might view them differently, or that they could maybe serve a purpose besides the very first thing they were ever used for. Imagine a world where nothing developed past its original form. We would have no progress, no invention. It would be a society in which mankind is content with where it is, has no desire to expand, explore, or create, but simply to make something and leave it as is.

It actually makes sense now; it's really the same thing with video games. Video games were originally games, products so simple they were pure-to-the-core games, with nothing else added. And it would seem that, according to you, that's how they should stay. No advancement outside of technological power, no additions, no originality, just continuation of the same concept with the same goal, the same definitions, and no expansion. No exploration as to what video games can be, or what they can become.

Especially when it comes to art forms, the first incarnations are not at all reflective of their potential. So much more can be accomplished, but if we look at them like some sort of construction tool to be used for one thing only, we are limiting ourselves, limiting our creations, and limiting our very creativity as human beings.

I'm sorry, I really don't mean to be offensive, but this mindset is appalling to me.

 

[Thaius]

Look, if you don't value art in games, that's fine. But to say that they should not involve art is just asinine. In the end, what do people remember most about Final Fantasy VII? What made Mass Effect 2 so great? What was undisputedly the greatest, most impacting and shocking moment in Bioshock? You don't have to see it, but don't go telling everyone they shouldn't.

No saying that something that you don't value shouldn't be in a game is the only reasonable thing you can do. Your little nongame you made is cute but it obviously has no value AS A GAME. Games can have sentimental value (anything can) but imagine if the game industry was taken over by that sort of stuff. It would be ridiculous.

Look if we stretch the definition of a medium "an object that can transmit something" (water to electricity) then the term will be vauger than the word art before long. Most of the info read off a game disc isn't even visible to the player! Is every random piece of software a medium now? Are random internet cookies that infiltrate my computer a medium now?

And the only shocking moment in Bioshock is when I realized that the game was horrible.

Sorry, I was using the term "medium" as has been used in reference to art for years. Sorry about that. Consider that the context then rather than pointlessly arguing over semantics.

I never said all games should be like the random little visual novel I made for my girlfriend, but the fact that it's possible means your assertion that video games can't hold messages like vlogs or journals is incorrect. The point is that you're considering video games to be, as I said in my above reply, only one thing, incapable of being anything else. Your mind is completely closed to the possibility of using them for any reason other than that for which they were originally created, back when we had little to no knowledge of their true potential. That is saddening to me, but it's obvious I cannot argue with a mindset that is so very set against everything on which my ideas on art are founded.

 

[sneakypenguin]

It matters for legal reasons. If games aren't an artistic medium, they aren't protected by freedom of speech laws. snip."

If you talking about american laws then all that matters is if it can be classified as speech. Protesting and journalism aren't classified as "art" but rather a protected form of speech. So the art label as a legal protection against infringement isn't really needed and could even be construed as a hindrance if the medium is considered to be valueless art (though that also would be hard to prove)

sorry if someone else pointed this out i didn't read all 3 pages.

 

[Thaius]

It matters for legal reasons. If games aren't an artistic medium, they aren't protected by freedom of speech laws. snip."

If you talking about american laws then all that matters is if it can be classified as speech. Protesting and journalism aren't classified as "art" but rather a protected form of speech. So the art label as a legal protection against infringement isn't really needed and could even be construed as a hindrance if the medium is considered to be valueless art (though that also would be hard to prove)

sorry if someone else pointed this out i didn't read all 3 pages.

You are certainly right, though in the case of a medium like this, which tells stories and conveys messages as its form of speech, there would not be much blurring the line between its classification as speech and art. I'm not sure it could be seen as speech without logically considering it art as well. But you are definitely right.

 

[The Cheezy One]

Art = subjective, as does fun. if a game is fun, and can be classified as art, great, but im not going to lose any sleep (or maybe i will) if a non-arty game is fun, but im not going to play a game just because its arty.
it does matter, just not as much as fun
a with the previous poster, its food analogy time!
fun = taste, art = appearance.
im not a chef, so i cant appreciate display as much as some, but ill be damned if i cant tell a good sausage sandwich!

totally not gay.
OT: Games that are arty can be oh-so fun. look at half life 2 or rather the first part of it. bioshock, braid, metro 2033.

somehow i saw that coming, but you know, i thought "the escapist users are far too mature and sophisticated to make such a low brow joke

 

[The Cheezy One]

since when was the heavy sophisticated?

have you seen his dancing?

 

[Halo Fanboy]

If Japan really had a problem with budget then the first thing they should have done is scale back the detail on the characters to allow for better animation. Not that it really matters, the situations under which something was produced don't effect the quality of the product.

And just to clarify my position here since I get the feeling you're done talking to me: I don't consider tradition or nostalgia in my reasoning on what entertainment forms should be, my ideas are based on logic that was conveyed to me by my betters that I've come to accept along with my personal taste.

"Video Games should not feature movies or large amount of text that don't assist in explaining the mechanics nor should they have scenes where nothing you do has any value on the outcome of the situation (this includes things like the final scene of SoTC where you must let the PC be sucked into a hole to his doom.)"

"Movies should not have ridiculous amounts of dialouge that would better be suited for a play or book, they should focus on cinematic technique, effects and varied and vivid locations."

"An animation should not feature two characters standing still talking in a somber tone."

All these conclusions can be reached because each entertainment form has something it does best and ignoring these things is squandering their potential (note entertainment form is a way better and more precise term than medium.)

Don't be so hurt by this exchange of opinions. I try not to be.

 

[Blind Sight]

I, for one, am sick of the argument more then anything else. Just because arguing is going nowhere, if someone feels that a game isn't art, then it isn't art to them. You can go on and on about a game's merits and strengths, but it will not convince them. It's just that simple, perception is reality, what we believe is what we see.

I personally do see some games as carefully crafted art, but it's not my job to go around telling people that. The fact is that for someone to understand why games are art they have to experience a deep, interactive event that causes them to reflect on both themselves, and their reality (this is, at least, my definition of art. Yet another problem: defining the concept of art when many different people have different thoughts on it). Talking about games as art does very little, the real benefit is from the experience. And this is why the anti-gaming lobby is so vocal about treating them as games: because that's all they are to them.

Talk, argue, scream until your lungs bleed, but it won't convince someone who doesn't care or believes they're right. The only way they can change is by their own choice, they have to experience games and figure out what they mean to them. If they feel they're just glorified toys, that's fine. If they feel they're weapons of Satan used to pervert their children, well that's wrong, but fine too.

And yes, games being seen as art could help deal with the censorship debate that's currently going on. But just saying that 'GAMES ARE ART' over and over again, even with evidence, will fall on deaf ears unless they've actually had a game cause a paradigm shift in their life. And to be fair, there's not a lot of games out there right now that can do that. Let's face it, gaming hasn't even produced its Citizen Kane yet (Shadow of the Colossus is very good, but let's face this as well: it is somewhat overhyped in the art debate). Gaming's pretty much in the same phase right now that film was when they started using sound and colour (case in point: lack of decent narrative in most work, lack of involving characters, lack of deep study into character motivations, lack of innovation, and a focus on the use of film cliches and logic in order to force the plot forward. This doesn't apply to all games, but it's still very common). How can you expect people to take it seriously as an art form when it still has plenty to figure out?

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.

"To the aesthete football is an art form, an athletic ballet. To the spiritually inclined it is a religion." -Paul Gartner

Once again, very subjective. I know that Walter Camp described American football as 'a bizarre dance of war and competition, a crafted masterpiece of what it is to be American.' Lots of folks in sports view them as a form of art. This turns into the whole 'what the hell does art mean anyway' argument, but still, to say that a game and art are, by law of the universe, completely separate, is somewhat foolish. I may not see the beauty in a football tackle or a rugby scrum, but in the end there are people that do. It's not just 'common sense', it's merely your opinion, there CAN BE artistic value within competitiveness, it just depends on who you are. I'm not trying to start a big fight here, just thought I'd point out the common 'my opinion IS THE LAW' fallacy that happens once and awhile around here.

 

[Thaius]

If Japan really had a problem with budget then the first thing they should have done is scale back the detail on the characters to allow for better animation. Not that it really matters, the situations under which something was produced don't effect the quality of the product.

And just to clarify my position here since I get the feeling you're done talking to me: I don't consider tradition or nostalgia in my reasoning on what entertainment forms should be, my ideas are based on logic that was conveyed to me by my betters that I've come to accept along with my personal taste.

"Video Games should not feature movies or large amount of text that don't assist in explaining the mechanics nor should they have scenes where nothing you do has any value on the outcome of the situation (this includes things like the final scene of SoTC where you must let the PC be sucked into a hole to his doom.)"

"Movies should not have ridiculous amounts of dialouge that would better be suited for a play or book, they should focus on cinematic technique, effects and varied and vivid locations."

"An animation should not feature two characters standing still talking in a somber tone."

All these conclusions can be reached because each entertainment form has something it does best and ignoring these things is squandering their potential (note entertainment form is a way better and more precise term than medium.)

Don't be so hurt by this exchange of opinions. I try not to be.

Okay, sorry about that. I try to keep my cool in these things, but... well you have to understand. I study all kinds of storytelling, from literature to film to stage. And I keep coming back to video games as, due to their interactivity, the best medium for the art of storytelling. I've dedicated so much of my time and energy to studying and theorizing about how video games can act as a wonderful and effective storytelling medium by placing the player into the story rather than having them just passively observe. So when you say that video games should stay as far away from art as possible, you are discounting almost everything I plan on building a life, career, and purpose around.

That sequence you mentioned in Shadow of the Colossus, for instance. Though it's not "fun," it is an example of one of my favorite interactive storytelling strategies. It places the player in a situation where something horrible is about to happen, and they are given control. However, no matter how hard a player struggles, no matter what they do, or how hard they try, they cannot change what is about to happen. It gives a sense of hopelessness that a non-interactive medium simply cannot give, because only in a video game could the player actually experience that rather than just watch it. It's one thing to see someone fight an impossible battle and eventually lose: it's another thing entirely to try, to strive and strain to survive, even when the situation is ultimately hopeless. It's something that only video games can do, and it's only one example of how they can be so much more impacting than other storytelling art forms. Plenty of other things make it so that putting the player deliberately into a story situation makes it much, much more effective and emotional than anything else is even capable of.

See, and this is where, with all due respect (sorry for not showing it before), I see no validity in your views on this subject. You seem to basically be saying that if it's not a specific strength of an "entertainment form," it's bad to do it. Which I would strongly disagree with, as that immensely takes away from the potential not only for artistic advancement and exploration of the "entertainment form," but also limits the things that can be done with it in the first place. From what you're saying, a drama or romance film should not exist. Nor should animation ever involve serious drama. Video games basically shouldn't have stories at all.

But this makes no sense. Why not explore? Why not see what else the medium is capable of? It's like you're taking a static definition of what it is and claiming that anything outside that definition has no right to be near it. If video games can tell effective stories, how is there any reason why we shouldn't explore that possibility? Why on earth would we restrict ourselves to a single, immobile definition and discount anything outside of it? Art never progressed by doing that.

 

[kouriichi]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kTs4hUImXc
^ tell me thats not a work of art.^

For a group of people, to make that out of litterally nothing, makes it so.

To think that someone was accually able to take a blank space on a computer, and turn it into masterpeice 90% of the people who played the game would remember, means it holds some weight.

Name your favorite painting by Jackson Pollock. Now name the most beautiful scenery youve seen in a videogame.

Which one comes to mind first? Pollock's "No. 5", or the scene in FF7 when Aeris gets rocked by Sephiroth?

Art is something that touches you deeply ((LAWL deeply)). Its something that leaves an impression ((LAWLZ THATS WHAT SHE SAID!!))

Art is something made to be admired. Something to remember for time to come. Yes, many games are art. And it does matter that they are. What makes the "Mona Lisa" a work of art, that doesnt also make Frank West ((he covered wars you know)) a work of art too?