Games as art - why do we even care?!?

[AD-Stu]

You have to remember that the game industry is about making money. Publishers want as much money as possible and if they release a game that is controversial and upsets people because of it's content, then that game and it's publisher are going to be dragged through the mud. Hell, even tame content is dragged through the mud.

Artistic games aren't financially viable because people don't take them seriously. It's not that being considered art allows games to be more exhaustive in it's topic, it's the steps taken to be considered a serious art-form and thus earn that title that allow it to do so.

The general populous ruins a-lot of things by misunderstanding things, just look at the ME 'sex scene' debacle. It ruins our enjoyment because they, who understand nothing of the medium, can effect what gets released.

There's not necessarily anything wrong with being "dragged through the mud" though - in fact games publishers often court controversy to increase sales. The Modern Warfare 2 airport scene, anyone? I'm not saying it was art, but it's proof positive that controversy doesn't always hurt sales. Same goes for pretty much the entire Grand Theft Auto series, and any number of other games.

Legitimate/traditional artists do exactly the same thing to draw attention and interest to their works. Andres Serrano and Spencer Tunick are just a couple of modern examples, and there are countless others dating back to the birth of "art" itself.

On your last point, how exactly did the original Mass Effect sex scene "debacle" ruin anyone's enjoyment of the game? It's not like it got the game banned or anything (if anything it probably scored it a few more sales) and I still enjoyed the game just fine. Nor did it have any effect on the sequels, as they have very similar (and potentially even more controversial) scenes in them.

Point is, none of this had any effect on my enjoyment of these games. I don't believe my experience with them would have been any different if they were considered "art".

 

[AD-Stu]

Are our egos really so fragile that we need games to be considered art in order for the time we spend playing them to seem worthwhile?

Yes, actually. That's basically it.

Gamers would prefer to be seen as patrons of a respected artistic medium rather than as people who waste significant amounts of time on childish and meaningless amusements.

I think it's an understandable desire, albeit one that can get a bit pathetic.

I can understand it too - I'm just thinking that rather than fighting the uphill/impossible battle of converting the way everyone else in the world thinks, gamers would be a lot better off if they just got over their own issues, ignored the whole labelling issue and enjoyed games for what they are.

 

[Lucem712]

You have to remember that the game industry is about making money. Publishers want as much money as possible and if they release a game that is controversial and upsets people because of it's content, then that game and it's publisher are going to be dragged through the mud. Hell, even tame content is dragged through the mud.

Artistic games aren't financially viable because people don't take them seriously. It's not that being considered art allows games to be more exhaustive in it's topic, it's the steps taken to be considered a serious art-form and thus earn that title that allow it to do so.

The general populous ruins a-lot of things by misunderstanding things, just look at the ME 'sex scene' debacle. It ruins our enjoyment because they, who understand nothing of the medium, can effect what gets released.

There's not necessarily anything wrong with being "dragged through the mud" though - in fact games publishers often court controversy to increase sales. The Modern Warfare 2 airport scene, anyone? I'm not saying it was art, but it's proof positive that controversy doesn't always hurt sales. Same goes for pretty much the entire Grand Theft Auto series, and any number of other games.

Legitimate/traditional artists do exactly the same thing to draw attention and interest to their works. Andres Serrano and Spencer Tunick are just a couple of modern examples, and there are countless others dating back to the birth of "art" itself.

On your last point, how exactly did the original Mass Effect sex scene "debacle" ruin anyone's enjoyment of the game? It's not like it got the game banned or anything (if anything it probably scored it a few more sales) and I still enjoyed the game just fine. Nor did it have any effect on the sequels, as they have very similar (and potentially even more controversial) scenes in them.

Point is, none of this had any effect on my enjoyment of these games. I don't believe my experience with them would have been any different if they were considered "art".

This discussion has been done to death, frankly. There is no right answer. You don't have to think they are art, that's fine. I already discussed this with another member on this very discussion and I'm a bit tired of all this back and forth. If you think I'm wrong, that's fine to. I don't much care. You have a wonderful day sir and/or madame and I'm off to play some RDR

 

[Zhukov]

I can understand it too - I'm just thinking that rather than fighting the uphill/impossible battle of converting the way everyone else in the world thinks, gamers would be a lot better off if they just got over their own issues, ignored the whole labelling issue and enjoyed games for what they are.

Well... yeah.

"Get over your issues, enjoy the things you like and to hell with anyone who says different" is about as sound as advice gets.

However, actually doing that is evidently harder than it sounds.

 

[AD-Stu]

This discussion has been done to death, frankly. There is no right answer. You don't have to think they are art, that's fine. I already discussed this with another member on this very discussion and I'm a bit tired of all this back and forth. If you think I'm wrong, that's fine to. I don't much care. You have a wonderful day sir and/or madame and I'm off to play some RDR

*shrugs*

If your concern is that video games not being considered "art" is limiting the kind of games we have access to, and that we'd have a broader range of gaming experienced available to us if they were, then I can respect that. I don't agree with it, but I can respect it.

FWIW, I firmly beleive something like Six Days In Fallujah is an isolated example and it was driven very much by economics, not art. A proposed television series or film that garnered that much vehmently negative press would probably have been cancelled as well, "art" or not because it's highly likely nobody would have paid to see it or bought advertising space during it.

Well... yeah.

"Get over your issues, enjoy the things you like and to hell with anyone who says different" is about as sound as advice gets.

However, actually doing that is evidently harder than it sounds.

Yeah - rock and a hard place, I guess. I just wonder how many gamers have even considered it as an option...

 

[Indecipherable]

My contribution to this thread is this:

1.

Games as 'art', in the terms of the ME3 furore, is just a pissweak excuse for someone producing a shit product and then not being able to take criticism. That's it. ME3 is a product for MASS CONSUMPTION. Over 3 million copies shipped. Harden up and join the rest of the world in understanding that 'the customer is why'. Unless, of course, you don't want to have a future in the industry.

2.

The video game industry is still in its infancy. A whole lot of people making the games are gamers themselves and are passionate about their product. They are NOT necessarily good businesspeople. They will be dragged, kicking and screaming, one way or the other. If you do not satisfy your customers, you will not have customers.

 

[JoesshittyOs]

It gets us a lot more props with the "real" world.

And unless you have the wrong definition, it is art. It's just that people are making a huge deal out of that, when it really doesn't matter. Art can suck. Art can be shitty art. That scribble that my 2 year old niece drew on my homework is art. And it sucks.

Believe me, I let her know how much it sucked.

 

[Phlakes]

Games as 'art', in the terms of the ME3 furore, is just a pissweak excuse for someone producing a shit product and then not being able to take criticism. That's it. ME3 is a product for MASS CONSUMPTION. Over 3 million copies shipped. Harden up and join the rest of the world in understanding that 'the customer is why'. Unless, of course, you don't want to have a future in the industry.

God damn it... They didn't produce a "shit product"- even the people who hate ending agree that the rest of the game is at least good. Since no one knows their intentions for the ending, no one can say whether they were just lazy, or meaning it as a sort of cliffhanger, or just trying to make it open ended, or anything else. All we know is that people didn't like it, and that has never been a reason for anyone to be required to change what they made. Harden up and join the rest of the world in understanding that when you buy something and you don't like it, you deal with it.

 

[Therumancer]

[

Because of legal protection, it wasn't that long ago that games as a whole were under fire by lawmakers claiming that they were not entitled to the same protections as other forms of media or speech. Video games being art allows them to be considered a protected medium, and helps ensure their place remains secure.

Could you be more specific? I'm not a lawyer, so maybe I'm missing something, but creators can protect all sorts of things that aren't classified as "art", so I don't see how video games are being left out...

Here is a starter link there is a lot on it, The Escapist also covered it heavily:

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2011/06/27/supreme-court-decides-video-games-case.aspx

The basic fight was that California wanted to make it a criminally enforcable offense to sell video games to minors as opposed to the industry self-policing through a private ratings system. The ratings you see on games now are a guideline created by the industry itself as opposed to by law makers, and have no real legal weight behind them. This incidently applies to other forms of rated media when you get down to it. A movie rating by the MPAA is not actually law because the goverment didn't create it. It's complicated and I won't go into the whole thing, but the basic point is that making it an actual crime to sell an "M" rated game to a minor is a sticky issue.

Due to the way the laws are written the goverment isn't supposed to have direct control over the media and the abillity to directly decide who can see or watch what, and what's suitable for the public or to whom in the public... even though it would love to have such power. The basic arguement was that games were differant from other kinds of media and could fall under goverment purview for this kind of control where things like books and movies won't.

The "Games Are Art" thing was always around but got big in the face of these battles due to the arguement being made that aside from just media and speech protection, as a form of art games should be beyond goverment regulation.

Seemingly the issue of "punishing people for selling mature material to kids" is benign, but was a big deal because just to take action would involve giving the goverment power it's not supposed to have, and create a dangerous precedent. "Games As Art" sort of became a big defense as everything possible was being thrown out to get the Supreme Court to tell the goverment it couldn't legally control video games.

 

[AD-Stu]

It gets us a lot more props with the "real" world.

And unless you have the wrong definition, it is art. It's just that people are making a huge deal out of that, when it really doesn't matter. Art can suck. Art can be shitty art. That scribble that my 2 year old niece drew on my homework is art. And it sucks.

Believe me, I let her know how much it sucked.

The question is though, why do we feel we need those "props" with the real world?

Will our partners/parents/whatever suddenly be OK with us playing games all night if we're "consuming art" rather than playing games? Would it even be a good thing if they were?

You raise an interesting point in defining art though. "Art" is an incredibly poorly defined, highly subjective term. There really is no definitive answer to the question "What is art?"

I sure as hell don't want to get bogged down in trying to answer impossible questions here. But given it's such a poorly-defined target, I think it's another reason this is kind of a hopeless/pointless cause.

 

[Indecipherable]

Games as 'art', in the terms of the ME3 furore, is just a pissweak excuse for someone producing a shit product and then not being able to take criticism. That's it. ME3 is a product for MASS CONSUMPTION. Over 3 million copies shipped. Harden up and join the rest of the world in understanding that 'the customer is why'. Unless, of course, you don't want to have a future in the industry.

God damn it... They didn't produce a "shit product"- even the people who hate ending agree that the rest of the game is at least good. Since no one knows their intentions for the ending, no one can say whether they were just lazy, or meaning it as a sort of cliffhanger, or just trying to make it open ended, or anything else. All we know is that people didn't like it, and that has never been a reason for anyone to be required to change what they made. Harden up and join the rest of the world in understanding that when you buy something and you don't like it, you deal with it.

1. There are numerous polls showing that a large amount of people have said the ending ruined the game, so you're wrong there.

2. It doesn't matter the intentions, only what we can perceive and enjoy. "You don't know what they wanted so you can't criticise" is shameful. So you're wrong there.

3. In the business world if people don't like what you are selling that's a serious issue. So you're wrong for the third time.

4. The final cavalier statement is exactly how businesses fail. My way of dealing with it, if they continue to disappoint, is to stop buying. And there's a whole lot of others who have expressed the same.

 

[AD-Stu]

Here is a starter link there is a lot on it, The Escapist also covered it heavily:

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2011/06/27/supreme-court-decides-video-games-case.aspx

The basic fight was that California wanted to make it a criminally enforcable offense to sell video games to minors as opposed to the industry self-policing through a private ratings system. The ratings you see on games now are a guideline created by the industry itself as opposed to by law makers, and have no real legal weight behind them. This incidently applies to other forms of rated media when you get down to it. A movie rating by the MPAA is not actually law because the goverment didn't create it. It's complicated and I won't go into the whole thing, but the basic point is that making it an actual crime to sell an "M" rated game to a minor is a sticky issue.

Ah. That strikes me as a uniquely American issue then - in my country (Australia) rating schemes and age restrictions are enforced by law for video games, movies and a bunch of other stuff.

 

[dobahci]

The reason why it's important to think about video games as art, and to show other people that video games can be art, is because we want others to know that this hobby of ours isn't simply equivalent to spending several hours a day masturbating. Why play games instead of simply spending that time jerking off? Because it's not just about killing time, nor is it just about fun or enjoyment, even though those are an important part of the experience. It's about wanting to see something new, to experience something you've never experienced before. It's about wanting to be challenged.

A good game, just like a good book or a good film, can enrich you as a person. It can change you.

Thinking of games as art changes the way we perceive the medium but also changes our expectations from it. To label the medium as art is to encourage game companies to push boundaries and try something new. To communicate to them that they need to start thinking about the artistic value of a work rather than merely the profit value of it is the first step toward getting them to start producing better games rather than merely pumping out lazy half-finished sequels with loads of DLC. Getting games classified as art means gamers must be thought of as an audience rather than merely as cows to be milked.

Games are a pretty new medium, still, and they're great... but they could be so much better. With games as art, the goal of game design shifts, and the result is better games! Such a view benefits not just gamers, but society as a whole, which would gain a rich, full new medium of artistic expression with so many possibilities yet to be explored.

 

[malestrithe]

I hate the games are art label because it only serves two purposes.

1. It allows reporters who love video games an opportunity to talk about them at work and still get paid for it.

2. As a marketing ploy to get you to play games that you would not otherwise play. Braid, Flower, Scary Girl, and so many other games have a following because some marketing executive called it an art house game and we gamers fell for it. They are great games on their own, but they did not explode in popularity until someone called them "art." I am sorry if you liked it, but Dear Ester bored the hell out of me. Nothing happens in the game. This game was labeled art and people flocked to it on droves and defend it for being boring because I somehow don't get it or some nonsense.

 

[Mike Richards]

I care purely because it's a state I feel games have already achieved on certain occasions and I have a deep disrespect for people who dismiss things out of hand without considering all the relevant facts.

My stance has never been games ARE art so much as games CAN be art, it's happened and will continue to happen but not all games are or should be 'art', however we decide art is defined. It can be found in everything from the entirety of Silent Hill 2 or single sequences like the endgame to Braid or a surprisingly effecting moment of gameplay from Splinter Cell: Convictions, and in my observation the people who deny such things rarely provide good reasoning to back up their claims.

That kind of stubborn, short-sighted talk annoys me in any setting but gets especially insufferable when it's directly connected to something I care deeply about. Games don't need the validation of other people, though obviously it'd be nice, but those other people need to either get on board or get out of the way.

 

[Formica Archonis]

Why do we even care if games are considered "art" or not?

Because the one who wants most to be seen as an adult is a child.

Alternately, gamers think the idiocy in California and the like will be wiped out if games are art. (Hint: It won't. Moral panics have picked media, genres, and groups of people as the next big evil, and will continue to do so.)

 

[Indecipherable]

Art is such a whimsical tag it seems almost pointless to debate it. Even if you decide it is art, there's nothing gained from it, and others are probably going to disagree anyway.

 

[Trippy Turtle]

Finally someone else who thinks like this. With the amount of complete shit that is being called art these days why does anyone care? Games are for fun. They are a form of toy. Is that so bad?

 

[Shoggoth2588]

Personally I couldn't care less about the games as art debate. I think it can be argued in a case-by-case basis some time but video games are just toys and, interactive stories. I like to think of it like this though:

Spoiler: If THIS is considered art

The Piss Christ

Spoiler: Than so too can this be considered art

 

[DeadYorick]

Its because Teenagers who only play Video games and don't do any other things people consider as art, care about whether or not their favourite hobby is considered meaningful, or whether or not they've wasted their lives.

Usually it's because of that. Truthfully I don't care since people interpret art differently. I mean you can find people who consider a stain on a piece of toast that looks like Jesus art.