Games as art

[Lvl 64 Klutz]

It really depends on the game. I mean, no one would argue that Halo 3 is art...I hope. But the Mass Effect cutscenes and the entire game for Shadow of the Colossus...how are those not art?

This mistakenly requires that art be appealing to be considered art, but that's not necessarily true at all. Also, I believe at this point none could argue that the many components of a video game can be art, but I don't think I could really say whether the game itself is art or not. I mean, philosophers are still arguing over whether *films* should be considered art.

 

[Anarchemitis]

I say we start doing Waaaaaay more cartoon games like Team Fortress 2 or Ratchet & Clank because:
A) People love how they look, realism panders to no one.
B) They portray less realism, therefore significantly less [what can be described as] hardcore violence.
C) From a technical standpoint, cartoony characters are typically lower-poly, easier to shade & render and Cel-shaders are very easy for computers to process, giving more processing power to other more complex tasks, such as physics, lighting, blur or other special effects.
D) And again, Yay! Cartoony Graphics!

 

[Dosed]

I say we start doing Waaaaaay more cartoon games like Team Fortress 2 or Ratchet & Clank because:
quote]

I love cel-shaded graphics, I mean XIII looks bloody beautiful and that was a brilliant game. Sly Racoon looked pretty too, less of a good game though. However if developers focus on just making games an art-form then how could we ever expect decent game play, I mean a game is meant to be extremley interactive. If we played something which was restricted by immense graphics we wouldn't have many decent games tbh.

PS. Ratchet & Clank is one of the best series ever

 

[ComradeJim270]

Games CAN be art. I would agree with that statement. But I cannot agree with the statement that games ARE art. There are plenty of games out there which are no more artistic than a printout of an Access database with doodles all over it.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Story telling, music, visual design. Games are a combination of many art forms and thus have amazingly good potential to be valid art.

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

It really depends on the game. I mean, no one would argue that Halo 3 is art...I hope. But the Mass Effect cutscenes and the entire game for Shadow of the Colossus...how are those not art?

This mistakenly requires that art be appealing to be considered art, but that's not necessarily true at all. Also, I believe at this point none could argue that the many components of a video game can be art, but I don't think I could really say whether the game itself is art or not. I mean, philosophers are still arguing over whether *films* should be considered art.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that art must be appealing. I just meant that games have the potential to be art, but aren't automatically art. Perhaps using Halo 3 as an example was a bad idea.

 

[Shadowed Thief]

Let me get something straight. I like Beck and the MGS series, but let's be honest not everyone understands. I played the hell out of MSG3, i didn't understand it, but it was awesome. What I meant when i started this thread was that some people don't see games as art, and see them as childish games. I believe thats complete BS. Most games can be considered art, and it really all comes down to personal opinion. I'm just saying that some games are more artful than others. I don't think anyone would say that Elmo's ABCs is the reincarnation of the Mona Lisa in videogames, but some might, and everyone has their own definition of art. What it comes down to is that games are not things that people outgrow after 3rd grade, but they're expanding into many different niches and forms.

I've also noticed that a lot of people are defending certain games or bashing me for insulting Beck or MGS3 (bad ideas, I admit) which was not my intention. But that goes to show that games are becoming so diverse that you can't group them together into a general term anymore!

 

[KreacherOfbloodandRank]

I think that the big problem with MGS in general is the major contradiction it brings to the table. It makes the claim that war is not something to be glamorized and fascinated over, yet at the same time the game itself appears to be glamorizing warfare.

But getting back to the issue at hand, I would not say that Video games are the "highest form of entertainment", because that sets a dangerous precedent. It leads to the question of "what does a good form of entertainment do?" We can say that every medium is equal to every other medium in that they all allow for artisitic and intellectual expression. as far as quality goes, the culture decides what is "high art" and what is not. As we see the "nintendo" generation of the 80's and 90's move from adolesence to adulthood, we are beginning to see them take on a broader cultural role because video games are what the nintendo Generation values. they grew up with the medium and are now focused on expanding it.

 

[ayoama]

I don't think all games are "art" but I do think some games are art.

Bioshock mixes a stunning, carefully constructed visual design, an interesting and subtle narrative and an underlying philosophy. In this case I feel that it IS art, mostly because of the careful creativity you can fell practically oozing from the game.

Okami attempts to present a visual design that looks like a japanese painting as well as telling an interesting story that conveys japanese mythology quite well.

Shadow of the Collossus is a striking look at lonliness, loss, redemtion, isolation, violence and love, conveying the whole plethora of emotions with remarkable skill.

I believe all of these count as "art" because of how they mix the elements of Narrative, Visual Design and Gameplay to present an interactive world and an experience most movies and novels cannot hope to display, and while both of those mediums offer their own pros and cons, I feel that certain games definately hold up in this field.

I loved your comment, because:
1) you mentioned how videogames need to create an experience, which is what emerges from the interweaving of all the elements you listed; as I feel that art is something more than a sum of cool features, I really think that games have to take a step in that direction.
2) the titles you cited manage to call the gamer for attention mentally, indirectly asking for them to give a personal meaning for what they make happen on the screen, while keeping them emotionally and sensorially absorbed, making them feel they're in front of something beautiful in its own peculiar way. They leave something for you to interpretate with your whole being, and in this sense I believe they are a perfect example of artistry.

 

[Anarchemitis]

Red Alert 2 was art in a way that cool buildings can unfold out of the ground and everybody is colour-coded on a battlefield.

 

[Koopmans]

Ok lets take a look at a (admittedly very abridged) definition of art...

Art - the products of human creativity;
- the creation of beautiful or significant things;
- a superior skill that you can learn by study and practice and observation
- a particular type of creative production generated by human beings, and the term usually implies some degree of aesthetic value. An artist makes a work of art for various purposes, such as creating an experience for others or as part of a ritual
- The formal expression of a conceived image or imagined conception in terms of a given medium

Now games fit under a number of these and I find it hard to believe there is any argument about their validity as an art form, after all shitting in a fish tank can be art so why not games? Because it is done for commercial gain? Well so is art really, just look at the prices pieces sell for, maybe some people still do art for arts sake but to dealers particularly it has become just another big business.

Drong makes a KEY point to this argument, and jezz8me also puts in a good point with -

"Art is in essence creation and no one can judge what is or is not art. Mary Kate and Ashlee's Sweet 16 can be art, i would not see it as so but no one can argue against somethings artistic merit. (See: Andy Warhol, Da Daism ect"

- and yet ppl like thebobmaster say that Halo3 isnt art...was not, EACH AND EVERY piece of EVERY GAME, created for the experience of others? and created after much practice of the creator? - and therefor i submit that PLAYING the games is also an art... as Drong has said "a superior skill that you can learn by study and practice and observation" is not being able to play a game well something that is learnt through the study, observation and practice of the game and others?

- Koopmans

 

[Nugoo]

I'd say that, in this respect, video games, as a medium, are a lot like film; some games are made to be nothing more than entertainment (any EA sports game, most licenced games), while others (anything by team ICO) are unarguably artistic. At this point, I think that most games tend to the former category, but video games are a perfectly valid medium for the latter.

 

[Credge]

I play video games for fun. For the life of me, games like ICO bore me to death. It has nothing to do with them being breath taking (because it was). The gameplay has to be something worth playing.

Currently, there are about 7 games that have been made in the past 3 or so years that are actively worth my time playing. All of the other games in my collection are from past this point. In fact, there is a large void (from about 2003 to 2000) that I didn't buy a single game simply because they weren't very good.

Nintendo 64 games excluded of course.

Edit: I can't regard video games as art. Video games offer much more than your typical art piece. A good game will have the following elements of art inside of it:

Music
Visual
Narrative

Movies also fit this bill.

 

[Johnnyweird]

I think that gaming is definitely a form of art.
In the early days of film, it was seen as a novelty, a little interesting light show.
The progress of video games to an art form is a little slower than film's, but there's so much potential there. I can't wait to see what will become of the industry 20 years from now.

 

[The Franco]

I don't really want to jump directly into a battle of opinions right now, but this is one of the few times when I can quote Double Fine for a reason other than my egregious sense of self importance.

Are games art?

Zzzzzz. Oh, sorry, could you repeat the question? I fell asleep.

Ok, I just can't help myself. As someone who has attempted programming and barely escaped with my own dignity, I believe all games to be art. Except Battletoads , that game is inquisition level torture.

 

[OriginalUsername]

I don't think games can be classed as art by default. I think games that try to be artistic can be classed as art, like Shadow of the Colossus for example.

 

[Koopmans]

I told one of my mates about this and he replied with -

Many actually consider games "not artful", so to speak, beacuse they are interactive. Thinking of art as somthing that one sits back and enjoys. Music, pictures, movies, these are all idle "art", or mainly anyway. You sit back and enjoy them and think about them. Games however require you to play them to experence them. Although your still sitting on your bum, your on the ball, think quick. You cant sit there and go "Ohhh look at the pretty tree! I wonder what it symbolizes...." beacuse theres a half chance that the tree could attack you, and besides, blizz's graphics arnt that good anyway. This does not nessicarly stop it from being art though, and give the person a very differnt experence. WoW, for example, allows you to chose the specific experence that you want to have, where you want to go and what you want to do, and doesnt restrict you to whats right in front of you as music / movies / pictures do.

but i think people are missing the point-
The Game is CREATED by the Creator, Experienced and practiced by Us

"- a superior skill that you can learn by study and practice and observation
- a particular type of creative production generated by human beings, and the term usually implies some degree of aesthetic value. An artist makes a work of art for various purposes, such as creating an experience for others or as part of a ritual"- Drong

-Koopmans

 

[AnGeL.SLayer]

theres more to "art" then narrative

Agreed. What your saying is that you'd rather play a good story than go and read one. Are you a big reader? If not perhaps you should rethink this whole thing.

When you say 'art' you really should look at all the aspects that come with it. You basically just said what the other thread is about with reality in games. We don't play for reality we play for fantasy. A good story that takes us away from reality, more often than not. Something that is not only pleasing to the eyes but also the mind. You can see it in the trend of the games that are big sellers. When talking of art with games you need to consider many more factors than just the story. You should consider that a good story with poor game play isn't going to be a big deal. Its when you combine many factors that you get a good game. Consider a book that has a wonderful story line but is poorly written. Grammar is horrible, spelling is ridiculous. Would you read it again and again? No. Not in less you wanted to pull your hair out. It shows that they only focused on one aspect and didn't care about any other part. We are trying to get a nicely balanced scale here, not a job half finished.


^_^

 

[Anarchemitis]

And with games as art simply from pictures and ignoring the words, I say again that art-based graphics are sooo much better than realistic graphics. As shown in the picture to come. It'll be a teapot with a reflection raytraced & advanced lighting vs. the exact same thing with cel-shading.