Games as Art: How Does it Not Matter?

[Scobie]

DELETED

 

[veloper]

The most useful way to define "art", is as another form of currency. Art is crap declared valuable, by the circle jerk of the initiated.

Entertainment, decoration, information and craft, that is fine and good.
Art merely makes it very valuable, monetary wise.

Maybe we should start honoring skillful painters, pencillers, animators, designers and writers by calling them craftsmen, instead of artists. So to set them apart and above the pretentious fine art circle.

Fuck games as art.

Games = entertainment = good

 

[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.

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.

I think your putting too much importance on the subject, it's not like an instant on switch ... games won't go from the likes of MW2 to the games version of the mona lisa over night.

There are already great story telling games, heavy rain is one.

Slapping a title of art on something doesn't automatically get rid of the critics and "haters", for example if games become recognized as art manhunt will still be seen as a serial killers how to guide, GTA will still be seen as a training sim for "gangstas" and rapelay will still be the most outrageous thing I have ever heard of.

It would probably help matters but I think it's negligible.

 

[Thaius]

I think your putting too much importance on the subject, it's not like an instant on switch ... games won't go from the likes of MW2 to the games version of the mona lisa over night.

There are already great story telling games, heavy rain is one.

Slapping a title of art on something doesn't automatically get rid of the critics and "haters", for example if games become recognized as art manhunt will still be seen as a serial killers how to guide, GTA will still be seen as a training sim for "gangstas" and rapelay will still be the most outrageous thing I have ever heard of.

It would probably help matters but I think it's negligible.

I'm not saying it will be instant, but if games remain a plaything rather than being considered an art form, it will never happen at all. Of course there are great storytelling games: Heavy Rain, Mass Effect 2, Bioshock, Final Fantasy VI, VII, X... But they are mostly the exception to the rule. I'm not saying there will be any instantaneous effect, but it will definitely help things. If games are accepted as art, it will slowly help games become independent and creative in their presentation and creation: if not, we will be stuck playing with toys when they can be so, so much more.

 

[omega 616]

I think your putting too much importance on the subject, it's not like an instant on switch ... games won't go from the likes of MW2 to the games version of the mona lisa over night.

There are already great story telling games, heavy rain is one.

Slapping a title of art on something doesn't automatically get rid of the critics and "haters", for example if games become recognized as art manhunt will still be seen as a serial killers how to guide, GTA will still be seen as a training sim for "gangstas" and rapelay will still be the most outrageous thing I have ever heard of.

It would probably help matters but I think it's negligible.

I'm not saying it will be instant, but if games remain a plaything rather than being considered an art form, it will never happen at all. Of course there are great storytelling games: Heavy Rain, Mass Effect 2, Bioshock, Final Fantasy VI, VII, X... But they are mostly the exception to the rule. I'm not saying there will be any instantaneous effect, but it will definitely help things. If games are accepted as art, it will slowly help games become independent and creative in their presentation and creation: if not, we will be stuck playing with toys when they can be so, so much more.

You know there more than toys, I know there more than that, every person who has ever been on this site know there more than that, every person who makes these games know it ... so how will it help them being made?

Would J.K Rowlings or Roald dahl's books be any less great if they weren't considered an art form? The makers of the product don't decide how it's going to be, depending on how it is perceived.

I am sure people try to make there product as good as it can be, regardless of whether it is, or isn't considered art.

 

[Thaius]

I think your putting too much importance on the subject, it's not like an instant on switch ... games won't go from the likes of MW2 to the games version of the mona lisa over night.

There are already great story telling games, heavy rain is one.

Slapping a title of art on something doesn't automatically get rid of the critics and "haters", for example if games become recognized as art manhunt will still be seen as a serial killers how to guide, GTA will still be seen as a training sim for "gangstas" and rapelay will still be the most outrageous thing I have ever heard of.

It would probably help matters but I think it's negligible.

I'm not saying it will be instant, but if games remain a plaything rather than being considered an art form, it will never happen at all. Of course there are great storytelling games: Heavy Rain, Mass Effect 2, Bioshock, Final Fantasy VI, VII, X... But they are mostly the exception to the rule. I'm not saying there will be any instantaneous effect, but it will definitely help things. If games are accepted as art, it will slowly help games become independent and creative in their presentation and creation: if not, we will be stuck playing with toys when they can be so, so much more.

You know there more than toys, I know there more than that, every person who has ever been on this site know there more than that, every person who makes these games know it ... so how will it help them being made?

Would J.K Rowlings or Roald dahl's books be any less great if they weren't considered an art form? The makers of the product don't decide how it's going to be, depending on how it is perceived.

I am sure people try to make there product as good as it can be, regardless of whether it is, or isn't considered art.

I feel bad pointing to Extra Credits so often, but their "Free Speech" episode does a great job talking about this. Fact is, much as we know it's an art, most don't. You're absolutely right in that the makers of great art do their best, and those who appreciate it as such definitely can appreciate it regardless of societal acceptance; we gamers are a great example (those of us who see games as art in the first place, at least). Most people don't understand, or don't care, they just want a fun way to pass the time. Which, of course, results in the majority not taking it seriously, not wanting more artistically quality games, which results in more developers trying to play it safe and avoid powerful, sometimes controversial narrative in their games. Industries like this are shaped by the consumers. It's not that the makers of art don't know it's art, or don't try to make it as good as possible, but we would have more people making games for that purpose if we, the gamers, and for that matter the culture at large, wanted that. Not caring about video games being considered an art form will not accomplish that.

 

[boholikeu]

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.

Hey hey now, I thought we just had a discussion two weeks ago in which you conceded that gameplay could hold artistic meaning as well.

No fair going back on it now just because this is a different thread. =)

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.

This is a common argument, but it's flawed for a number of reasons.

The first and most obvious is that no one, not even proponents of art games, think that the entire industry should make stuff like that.

Also, Thaius' Valentine's game does have value as a game, in that it uses the components of video games to make its point. It features choices and interaction, and as such it could not have been made in any other existing medium (book, film, etc).

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.

Interesting train of logic, but if you follow it to it's conclusion I think you'll see that it actually poses a very good reason for why we NEED to explore art in games more.

Essentially, it's because games are the only medium so far that utilize interactivity as their main artistic element.

To illustrate this, let's look at your statements for other mediums:

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

Fair enough. Animation's strength is in exaggerated characters and situations. Makes sense.

"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."

Again, this is pretty logical, even though I'm sure there are many that would disagree with you. Movies are a much more visual medium than both drama and literature, so presumably if someone wanted to make a dialogue heavy story they'd be better off working in with of the latter two forms of art.

"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.)"

Now here is where the disconnect happens. You mistakenly assume that because player choice is one of the most important parts of video games that it should never be limited or taken away. That is like suggesting that since movies are a visual medium directors should never use a technique that employs a blank screen (like "fade to black").

What's more, the final scene of SoTC does add value to the outcome of the situation. The player is still afforded a choice (you could presumably keep jumping around and trying to stay out of the hole forever), and even though that choice is pretty one-sided it adds to the player's overall understanding of the message of the game. If this story were to be translated into a movie or a book, it would lose all the added levels of meaning that interactivity adds.

 

[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.

Hey hey now, I thought we just had a discussion two weeks ago in which you conceded that gameplay could hold artistic meaning as well.

No fair going back on it now just because this is a different thread. =)

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.

This is a common argument, but it's flawed for a number of reasons.

The first and most obvious is that no one, not even proponents of art games, think that the entire industry should make stuff like that.

Also, Thaius' Valentine's game does have value as a game, in that it uses the components of video games to make its point. It features choices and interaction, and as such it could not have been made in any other existing medium (book, film, etc).

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.

Interesting train of logic, but if you follow it to it's conclusion I think you'll see that it actually poses a very good reason for why we NEED to explore art in games more.

Essentially, it's because games are the only medium so far that utilize interactivity as their main artistic element.

To illustrate this, let's look at your statements for other mediums:

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

Fair enough. Animation's strength is in exaggerated characters and situations. Makes sense.

"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."

Again, this is pretty logical, even though I'm sure there are many that would disagree with you. Movies are a much more visual medium than both drama and literature, so presumably if someone wanted to make a dialogue heavy story they'd be better off working in with of the latter two forms of art.

"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.)"

Now here is where the disconnect happens. You mistakenly assume that because player choice is one of the most important parts of video games that it should never be limited or taken away. That is like suggesting that since movies are a visual medium directors should never use a technique that employs a blank screen (like "fade to black").

What's more, the final scene of SoTC does add value to the outcome of the situation. The player is still afforded a choice (you could presumably keep jumping around and trying to stay out of the hole forever), and even though that choice is pretty one-sided it adds to the player's overall understanding of the message of the game. If this story were to be translated into a movie or a book, it would lose all the added levels of meaning that interactivity adds.

... I love you.

 

[fletch_talon]

Art is an extremely important aspect of culture and society; this much is accepted fact.

Fair point.
But gamers can to an extent be considered a subculture. As such, games are already important to us, and as a whole are an accepted form of art. It doesn't matter to us what other groups think. Games are the artform that define our culture.

 

[Thaius]

Art is an extremely important aspect of culture and society; this much is accepted fact.

Fair point.
But gamers can to an extent be considered a subculture. As such, games are already important to us, and as a whole are an accepted form of art. It doesn't matter to us what other groups think. Games are the artform that define our culture.

But as you said, we are a subculture. It's not like gaming culture is somehow separate and apart from the rest of culture; both our subculture and the culture we belong to can affect each other in profound ways. The question is, will culture at large bring us down with ignorance, or will our subculture educate and benefit the culture at large? The way things have been going, both have been negatively affecting each other amidst the benefits, and an understanding by the culture at large is an incredibly important step to stop that from continuing.

Beyond that, it's important within the gaming subculture itself. Too many gamers complain about the lack of quality in the writing, acting, and storytelling of video games, and then go saying that as long as games are fun, they don't care if they're art. Until we recognize the need for higher standards and actually demand them, gaming will not develop artistically in the way that it should.

 

[oplinger]

Just checking back to prove a point.

Still not seeing it.

Sorry art, you will forever be misunderstood.

 

[Manji187]

Because art is just a word used to define something. Do you need to be able to describe games as a particualr word to be good and enjoyable? No, that's why most people don't care about this whole issue.

But if all we need is to enjoy our games in peace, this is exactly the mindset I find so distressing. Don't we also care about video games advancing? Don't we care about seeing the medium go new places, create new experiences, deliver gameplay and story like nothing has ever done? Without acknowledgement as an art form, how do we expect video games to actually go anywhere and develop as a medium? The fact that you're pinning enjoyment as the purpose of video games without reference to progress is exactly the problem.

"Progress" or advancing is a rather tricky concept IMHO. I mean..aren't contemporary games already going new places, creating new experiences, delivering gameplay and story like nothing before it? Games have come a long way...they have progressed and are progressing. Aren't they doing that despite not being considered art by the vast majority of people?

Correct me if I'm wrong...are you saying that until games are considered "art" they won't realize their potential as a medium at all or only to a minor extent?

But the potential of games as a medium is not something objective (some milestone out there for all to see). It's the choice of developers where they want to take it...and it's a choice made under all kinds of influences, especially business related (will it sell?).

I agree that the development of games as a medium would benefit from their being viewed as more than mindless entertainment/ quick fun to kill time....but it will take a lot more than just changing the perception of games. If gamers really want to play the "digital interactive equivalent" of Crime and Punishment or Citizen Kane (you really shouldn't take that too literal then they have to demand it from the developers...and how the hell are they supposed to do that? The influence of the gaming population on the games developed is virtually non-existant. You are basically forced to eat what you are served. You can complain, but it's not like the developers have to listen to you.

IMHO..the current business model (hit/ franchise driven, risk averse) is the real problem. It's stiffling to creative experimentation and exponential (instead of incremental) innovation. Yes, there are always the indies...but I can never escape the thought what product they would've delivered given some serious resources, like those of a big developer. Basically it's nice what they're doing...but it's never where the real action is.

 

[Thaius]

Because art is just a word used to define something. Do you need to be able to describe games as a particualr word to be good and enjoyable? No, that's why most people don't care about this whole issue.

But if all we need is to enjoy our games in peace, this is exactly the mindset I find so distressing. Don't we also care about video games advancing? Don't we care about seeing the medium go new places, create new experiences, deliver gameplay and story like nothing has ever done? Without acknowledgement as an art form, how do we expect video games to actually go anywhere and develop as a medium? The fact that you're pinning enjoyment as the purpose of video games without reference to progress is exactly the problem.

"Progress" or advancing is a rather tricky concept IMHO. I mean..aren't contemporary games already going new places, creating new experiences, delivering gameplay and story like nothing before it? Games have come a long way...they have progressed and are progressing. Aren't they doing that despite not being considered art by the vast majority of people?

Correct me if I'm wrong...are you saying that until games are considered "art" they won't realize their potential as a medium at all or only to a minor extent?

But the potential of games as a medium is not something objective (some milestone out there for all to see). It's the choice of developers where they want to take it...and it's a choice made under all kinds of influences, especially business related (will it sell?).

I agree that the development of games as a medium would benefit from their being viewed as more than mindless entertainment/ quick fun to kill time....but it will take a lot more than just changing the perception of games. If gamers really want to play the "digital interactive equivalent" of Crime and Punishment or Citizen Kane (you really shouldn't take that too literal then they have to demand it from the developers...and how the hell are they supposed to do that? The influence of the gaming population on the games developed is virtually non-existant. You are basically forced to eat what you are served. You can complain, but it's not like the developers have to listen to you.

IMHO..the current business model (hit/ franchise driven, risk averse) is the real problem. It's stiffling to creative experimentation and exponential (instead of incremental) innovation. Yes, there are always the indies...but I can never escape the thought what product they would've delivered given some serious resources, like those of a big developer. Basically it's nice what they're doing...but it's never where the real action is.

I'm definitely not saying that games won't reach their artistic potential until everyone sees it, or at least I'm not saying that they will have no artistic value until everyone thinks they do. But there is still a lot to explore in terms of how interactivity affects art and exactly how video games can do what no other storytelling medium has done before, and I don't see that being actively explored when we only have a handful of developers making them. Especially if the truly amazing artistic and experimental games don't sell half the time (see: Okami, Shadow of the Colossus, Beyond Good and Evil, Ico, Mirror's Edge, etc.).

You are right in that the business model is a huge problem for that, but I think part of the reason for that as well is that very few people see game development as an artistic endeavor. Only so many people try to make great art when they make their games, because most people don't see video games for the artistic medium that they are.

As for how to demand it, we as consumers vote with our money. Not only do we need to speak out and let them know what we want, but we have to stop settling and only help the success of the games that mirror what we want for the future. Not to say we should only buy the absolute best of the best art games: plenty of non-art games and not-so-perfect games are more than worth the money, especially considering all the games that try something new and don't quite make it perfect, but are still original and indicative of what we want (Mirror's Edge, for instance). But we just need to be more careful and selective.

 

[boholikeu]

... I love you.

Sadly, people tend to stop responding when you give a point-by-point critique of why their argument is flawed.

It's still fun to do though =) Glad you seemed to enjoy it as well, and thanks again for keeping this topic going. =)

 

[Manji187]

Because art is just a word used to define something. Do you need to be able to describe games as a particualr word to be good and enjoyable? No, that's why most people don't care about this whole issue.

But if all we need is to enjoy our games in peace, this is exactly the mindset I find so distressing. Don't we also care about video games advancing? Don't we care about seeing the medium go new places, create new experiences, deliver gameplay and story like nothing has ever done? Without acknowledgement as an art form, how do we expect video games to actually go anywhere and develop as a medium? The fact that you're pinning enjoyment as the purpose of video games without reference to progress is exactly the problem.

"Progress" or advancing is a rather tricky concept IMHO. I mean..aren't contemporary games already going new places, creating new experiences, delivering gameplay and story like nothing before it? Games have come a long way...they have progressed and are progressing. Aren't they doing that despite not being considered art by the vast majority of people?

Correct me if I'm wrong...are you saying that until games are considered "art" they won't realize their potential as a medium at all or only to a minor extent?

But the potential of games as a medium is not something objective (some milestone out there for all to see). It's the choice of developers where they want to take it...and it's a choice made under all kinds of influences, especially business related (will it sell?).

I agree that the development of games as a medium would benefit from their being viewed as more than mindless entertainment/ quick fun to kill time....but it will take a lot more than just changing the perception of games. If gamers really want to play the "digital interactive equivalent" of Crime and Punishment or Citizen Kane (you really shouldn't take that too literal then they have to demand it from the developers...and how the hell are they supposed to do that? The influence of the gaming population on the games developed is virtually non-existant. You are basically forced to eat what you are served. You can complain, but it's not like the developers have to listen to you.

IMHO..the current business model (hit/ franchise driven, risk averse) is the real problem. It's stiffling to creative experimentation and exponential (instead of incremental) innovation. Yes, there are always the indies...but I can never escape the thought what product they would've delivered given some serious resources, like those of a big developer. Basically it's nice what they're doing...but it's never where the real action is.

You are right in that the business model is a huge problem for that, but I think part of the reason for that as well is that very few people see game development as an artistic endeavor. Only so many people try to make great art when they make their games, because most people don't see video games for the artistic medium that they are.

As for how to demand it, we as consumers vote with our money. Not only do we need to speak out and let them know what we want, but we have to stop settling and only help the success of the games that mirror what we want for the future. Not to say we should only buy the absolute best of the best art games: plenty of non-art games and not-so-perfect games are more than worth the money, especially considering all the games that try something new and don't quite make it perfect, but are still original and indicative of what we want (Mirror's Edge, for instance). But we just need to be more careful and selective.

Yeah...well...voting with our money is what got us all an overdose on shooters (FPS/ TPS).

Also for "voting with our money" to be effective...it needs to be a coordinated, large scale effort and there's just no way anyone'll be able to boycott a new shooter by just sending the message around: "People, don't buy this game...this is not what you want as it will not move the industry forward in developing the potential of gaming as a medium". Free will and autonomy are tough like that. Also some (definitely not all/ most) shooters are just good, story and gameplay wise.

The default setting of the whole system is for gamers to eat what they are served while the industry pumps out more of it claiming it is what the gamer wants...as he's clearly buying it...thus voting with his wallet. It's a vicious self-perpetuating cycle. I hope the people that say "don't worry, it's just a phase...it will pass...like the isometric RTS/ RPG craze" are right.