Games to change the public view of video games.

[shatnershaman]

Um "games as an art form" hmm Even though I am against this I guess Metal Gear Solid is a good choice if you can understand the story.

 

[shatnershaman]

The guy with a Halo avatar is actually opposed to games as an art form.....Must..not..make comment.

Go ahead I'm used to being written off because of my avatar.

 

[pigeon_of_doom]

Um "games as an art form" hmm Even though I am against this I guess Metal Gear Solid is a good choice if you can understand the story.

Kojima doesn't even believe games are an art form so I don't know if that can be used as an example. He plays around with artistic sensibilities within the game's context but I think thats as far as it goes with him.

http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2098≈Itemid=2

Also about the actual topic, I think that a less arty game would probably do better in changing public perception. Intelligent games never seem to have the impact on the mass market that they deserve so perhaps its down to very popular games like Halo to change perceptions (as perhaps it already has? suggested by the stereotype of the frat boy demographic playing halo on their 360s).

 

[JaguarWong]

Games are not an artform - it is almost impossible for an interactive media to be so.

Nethertheless the duality of the problem if the real thing of interest here.

If you introduce video games onto the uninitiated with the likes of say... Loco Roco or Tetris then when they are eventually exposed to games like Ninja Gaiden II or Mortal Kombat they are more likely to react with shock.
Depending on the sensibilities of that person this may or may not lead to complaints which in turn may or may not lead to tighter controls and eventual censorship.

The only reason that videogames have managed to largely avoid the censorship and the ban-hammer is that they hae been seen as a niche passtime.
The more videogames gain credibility as a source of legitimate entertainment then the more controls and restrictions will be placed upon them.

I see the entire industry being split through the middle in the not too distant future.
It may even end up in a situation where games that are lumped into the ridiculous "Casual" bracket are all that console gamers get - with more traditional games being restricted to the murky waters of the PC.

 

[shatnershaman]

I read through what he said, and what I feel he was saying is that mass appeal games - things like Halo, the GTA series, and the like - are not art, and have little chance of becoming art. The museum analogy seemed to me that he really considered his own games to be art - he's creating the works that go in to his museum, as he says.

Does that make Pyschonauts the Mona Lisa or something?

 

[Strafe Mcgee]

Does that make Pyschonauts the Mona Lisa or something?

NO! Psychonauts is a game with great art direction and originality, but it has several crucial flaws that stop it from being the iconic game that you point to when claiming that games are art. Is it funny? Yes. Is it original? Yes. Does it have rubbish platforming segments that will drive you batshit crazy? Yes. It succeeds despite it's flaws because it's Tim Schafer, but Tim's not adept at producing platform games and for a clearer indication of his skill, look at Grim Fandango. It's starting to annoy me that a lot of people on this forum will instantly refer to Psychonauts when there are several other games that can be used as examples of art.

As I said before, Grim Fandango is a much better example. In addition to it you've also got a whole load of games that people have mentioned here- Bioshock, Metal Gear Solid, Shadow Of The Colossus... These are all actually better examples of gaming as art than Psychonauts because they've integrated the gameplay with the story far more effectively than Psychonauts did.

 

[JaguarWong]

I'm sure I sid this somewhere else recently but anyway:
If you put a game in a gallery then it will sit there in the start screen - It i entirely possible for this screen and even the demo that auto-runs to be art - but this is not the point.

If the game in the gallery is playable then you could say that the game+the person+the onlookers response creates art - but this too is not the point.

The game as experienced by the player can not be art because, to take MGS as an example, the player could run around in circles for two hours firing his gun aimlessly into the airin the same same spot.
The interactive nature of any game negates the artistic vision.

I'm sure there are exceptions, No More Heroes for example, but they are very very few.

 

[shatnershaman]

You don't understand much about art do you? Do you even know why the Mona Lisa - as opposed to the many thousands, possibly even millions of portraits of women painted in that time - is the most loved and most famous?

No idea. Really don't care about art.

 

[wgreer25]

The Myst series would be a good example. I've only played the first 3, but I even got my sister to like them, and she hates computers. I would also add Okami.

On the note of people (politicians especially) who protest against video games. They are working on a law now in New York to make the ratings on the game box bigger and government regulated. I would like anyone to walk into an electronics store and grab the nearest game and the nearest DVD movie. Now which one can you spot the rating on faster? We all here know the answer. The same idiots who try and ban and censor games are also the idiots who try and ban and uber-regulate guns. There is no statictical proof that games/guns cause criminal behavior. There is proof that areas with more restrictions on guns, have higher gun realated crimes, because law abiding citizens can't own/carry them.

I know I got off on a tangent there, but I think the argument applies. It is ignorance that drives these poeple to ban and censor when they should be looking at the parents letting their kids play violent games. Now I am not trying to say that games are dangerous like guns, but I think you will get my point. Freedom of artists expresion trumps all, we always have the choice not to buy it.

Funny fact: There is only one gun law in the US that has been statistically proven to have lowered violent crime. Kennesaw, GA. The head of every household MUST own a gun and have it in the house.

Again, sorry to the off tangent remarks, but censorship and robbing us of our freedoms is a soapbox of mine.

 

[haruvister]

Dictionary definition:

art: noun. 1 (a) the creation of works of beauty, especially visual ones; (b) such creations thought of collectively. 2 human skill and work as opposed to nature. 3 a skill, especially one gained through practice

I don't see that the interactive nature of video games negates any of those definitions. And if games are disregarded as art on the basis that they are a collaborative medium, that means motion pictures can't qualify as art, which is laughable.

 

[wgreer25]

Games are not an artform - it is almost impossible for an interactive media to be so.

Nethertheless the duality of the problem if the real thing of interest here.

If you introduce video games onto the uninitiated with the likes of say... Loco Roco or Tetris then when they are eventually exposed to games like Ninja Gaiden II or Mortal Kombat they are more likely to react with shock.
Depending on the sensibilities of that person this may or may not lead to complaints which in turn may or may not lead to tighter controls and eventual censorship.

The only reason that videogames have managed to largely avoid the censorship and the ban-hammer is that they hae been seen as a niche passtime.
The more videogames gain credibility as a source of legitimate entertainment then the more controls and restrictions will be placed upon them.

I see the entire industry being split through the middle in the not too distant future.
It may even end up in a situation where games that are lumped into the ridiculous "Casual" bracket are all that console gamers get - with more traditional games being restricted to the murky waters of the PC.

I disagree with your statement that games are not art. I would say that there are definatly games that have little to no artistic value, but some that are reaping with it. But overall, artistic value is in the eye of the beholder. So to you, games are not art, but to me, some are. I guess that really isn't a dissagreement, it is just a matter of oppinion. I personally think that some of these modern art pieces that look like someone turned their trash cans upside down and call it art, are not art (but that is my opinion).

As to the censorship/banhammer. I would like to think that we would never get to the point of banning games in the states. But the rising popularity amoung adults (18+) is meaning there is more money in games (follow my logic here, I will get to my point). GTA4 made 500 million in its first week (largest entertainment release ever). This is a problem for the banhammer. Money drives all. The government will want to start imposing taxes and censorship to get more money for themselves. If the rating becomes government mandated, that is more money in their pockets. As games continue to make more and more money, the government will do everything it can to get some of that cheeze. So don't be fooled that they want to censor for our common good (and to take away our freedoms), they want money.

 

[AntiAntagonist]

I'm sure I sid this somewhere else recently but anyway:
If you put a game in a gallery then it will sit there in the start screen - It i entirely possible for this screen and even the demo that auto-runs to be art - but this is not the point.

If the game in the gallery is playable then you could say that the game+the person+the onlookers response creates art - but this too is not the point.

The game as experienced by the player can not be art because, to take MGS as an example, the player could run around in circles for two hours firing his gun aimlessly into the airin the same same spot.
The interactive nature of any game negates the artistic vision.

I'm sure there are exceptions, No More Heroes for example, but they are very very few.

Then in theory every person that read 1984 and didn't understand that it was a huge dig at communism made the entire work "not art". A player does have the option to be a loon, but even in a passive medium a viewer can be a loon and point at the naked lady's jubblies.

It is very hard to consider anything art if it isn't in context. Art may be scattered at your feet, but without the mind or time to appreciate it there isn't necessarily going to be any chord struck.

-

Let's not forget the old question of subjectivity. "I may not know art, but I know what I like." There are many games, films, paintings, etc... that won't be recognized as art because the mindset required to enjoy them isn't available on every street corner. I believe that one strength for games (as well as with movies, to a lesser extent) is that a mindset can be placed in the viewer's mind over the passage of time. In the German thriller M the killer whistles Peter & the Wolf just before he kills. In Silent Hill creeping dread is recreated with a variety of variables (level design, sound from the radio, enemy animation, etc).

After subjectivity and context all of it comes down to patience. 'Does the potential audience have the time to spare to go through the media?'

Despite the limited amount of interactivity I still tout Seaman as a work of art. Some of this is due to the questions that are asked of the player, and would not be the same experience if you were not interacting with the creature. However this game still suffers from the flaw of requiring quite a bit of time.

 

[LisaB1138]

I do believe it's a generational thing. I'm forty-five with three boys. The PS1 came into my house as a Christmas present for my (then) 6 year old son. It was a Toy. Nothing will ever really change that perception. Even though I've played lots of games and had a grand time with it, it's still a Toy somewhere in my brain.

And grownups don't play with Toys, at least not those that come into their houses as Xmas presents for their children. This puts it on par with Power Rangers, you understand. That's a huge perception to overcome. PC games now--computers have always been Grown-up, so games on PCs are for grown-ups---at least that's the perception.

So I doubt whether there's a game or type of game that's going to overcome the perception. While the occasional mom might play the Sims (I hear that game mentioned in conjunction with moms a lot. Can't imagine anything more worthless or boring,) most are going to be far to busy to play with a Toy.
*imagines*
"Can I borrow your 360 to play this, son?"

Hmmm . . . I just don't see to many parents going there. Just not a very parental position. Now me, I just muscle my way in there and say it's my turn.

As for games being Art---games can certainly be artistic, and portions of games can be Art, but I can't see the whole package being Art.

 

[JaguarWong]

Then in theory every person that read 1984 and didn't understand that it was a huge dig at communism made the entire work "not art". A player does have the option to be a loon, but even in a passive medium a viewer can be a loon and point at the naked lady's jubblies.

That's a poor analogy.
The reader of a book can not distort or destroy the message or point through their ignorance.
Millions of people don't understand the artistic value of many mnay works but that doesn't take that value away.

The only way that a game designer could achieve the same artistic control is to make a game that's unplayably restricting - which is probably why MGS comes p so often.

The act of playing a game, even if you didn't deliberately try to destroy the experience, is by it's very nature an oblique experience.

 

[AntiAntagonist]

Then in theory every person that read 1984 and didn't understand that it was a huge dig at communism made the entire work "not art". A player does have the option to be a loon, but even in a passive medium a viewer can be a loon and point at the naked lady's jubblies.

That's a poor analogy.
The reader of a book can not distort or destroy the message or point through their ignorance.
Millions of people don't understand the artistic value of many mnay works but that doesn't take that value away.

Just a simplification.

What I hear is that 'a game cannot be art because the player is not required to see the artistic part of the medium since they are allowed to avoid it or essentially misunderstand the purpose.' However in passive art a viewer may also avoid the artistic content via ignorance. If you consider the player with the perspective that they have a certain level of aptitude for exploration and interactivity then indeed they may entirely gloss over any amount of content for their ignorance.

The sad thing is that a reader of a book can destroy the message or point through ignorance simply because they had a different life than the author. They may not ever understand the joy of raising a child, and will always consider children as parasites of their own labor. However much loving affection a fictional child doles out on another character a person may be so lacking of empathy or depressed that they discontinue with anything that the author has to say. While Un Chien Andalou is perfectly understandable by French people of a certain age the work is nearly incomprehensible to those who haven't lived a life applicable to the work and understand the social/political happenings of the time. Even if you are explained these various happenings then they will not have the very same depth to a person that was aware of these on their own. "Dad press this, then this, then this and your will save the world while losing your soul."

A reader may also spread their perspective in other ways that ultimately destroy the message for other readers, which is largely through communication and commentary.

Another way to go about this is the lack of ability by the artist to explain the message which they are trying to convey. I am much more willing to see this as a possibility in games as there are simply so many backgrounds that are required to put something out the door. Then beyond that the designers/programmers/artists must still have the foresight to pace the vidja properly in order to evoke the proper response.

I do not consider the MGS series a piece of art, except for the first one perhaps. I find this unfortunate sometimes (really!) as I sometimes envy the excitement of fanboys.

edited for grammar

 

[JaguarWong]

What I hear is that 'a game cannot be art because the player is not required to see the artistic part of the medium since they are allowed to avoid it or essentially misunderstand the purpose.'

Then you misunderstand me.

My point is that all art is open to interpretation - that's what makes it art - a piece of art is a definite construct that is concieved with a definite point.
In order to convey that definite point the artist must have complete control of the art.

The reason I originally stated No More Heroes as an exception is because the act of the player buying/playing/finishing (or not) the game is itself the point being made.