Games to change the public view of video games.

[Strafe Mcgee]

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.

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."

Yes indeed. Art is something that can be interpreted in more than one way- 1984 could have been viewed by Russian Communists as a piece of western propaganda. You cannot define how someone is going to read any message that you put on paper, since something can be defined in so many different ways. In games this becomes even more of a factor, especially in open world games such as GTA, where you cannot define the exact experience that the player is going to have. This makes it far more difficult for games designers to expressly portray a message as they do in films, books or paintings. Even in tightly scripted games such as Half-Life 2 or Call Of Duty 4 the developer will have trouble trying to exactly define the experience a player is going to have. This becomes even more diluted by varying interpretations of the game made by the player.

However, games have the potential to be so much more powerful than cinema or paintings because of the levels of immersion that are possible. Take survival horror games: the good ones are usually far more terrifying than any equivalent movie due to a greater ability to immerse the player in the action. I believe that eventually developers are going to realise that the best way to take games forward is to use the same tools to immerse a player emotionally. It may take 10 years, it may take twenty, but that is the way forward for games. It's not having photo-realistic graphics or huge amounts of user-created content. It's about creating an experience for the player that will stay with them like the best movies do.

Heh, that was far more analytical and wordy than I intended. Here's what I think are some of the best examples of games as art:

CoD4
Half-Life 2
Grim Fandango
Bioshock
GTA4
Silent Hill 2

Can't think of any more just now, but I've got to go to work. Cheerio!

 

[Iron Mal]

Trying to convince people of the beneficial, harmless and child-friendly side of gaming while still ensureing the rabid, violent popualtion are not alienated is going to be very difficult if not impossible. Without a doubt the 2 extremes will never blend.

If developers focus on making games more family friendly and playful then the hardcore combat veterans will feel somewhat abandoned since they probably will be more interested in fast paced shotgun carnage than color based puzzle solving. However, if they keep down the path of gore, guts and mutilation then not only will gamers world-wide not hear the end of it from people like Jack Thompson but it will severly limit the number of games kids and even young teenagers can play (it does bother me when I hear what sounds like an 8 yr old over the mic in Condemned 2 or FEAR).

 

[Johnn Johnston]

Mass Effect gets my vote.

Compelling story, and you have to make choices. If you've played the game, you know the one I'm talking about. A few weeks ago, I used it as my example in a school debate with the motion "Video Games are not an art form". We went against the motion and won by 15 votes to 8.

 

[AntiAntagonist]

Yes indeed. Art is something that can be interpreted in more than one way- 1984 could have been viewed by Russian Communists as a piece of western propaganda. You cannot define how someone is going to read any message that you put on paper, since something can be defined in so many different ways. In games this becomes even more of a factor, especially in open world games such as GTA, where you cannot define the exact experience that the player is going to have. This makes it far more difficult for games designers to expressly portray a message as they do in films, books or paintings. Even in tightly scripted games such as Half-Life 2 or Call Of Duty 4 the developer will have trouble trying to exactly define the experience a player is going to have. This becomes even more diluted by varying interpretations of the game made by the player.

Depends on what is being communicated. A person that never heard of GTA before who simply explores without doing any missions may notice the insensitivity of radio show hosts, or the ineffectual nature of the police. While these are all considered thematic if you consider the entire game, whereas if you limit the player experience to non-story gameplay then these themes become more important.

I hope my tone reads as civil discourse, as I know forum writing sometimes gets heated over miscommunication.

edited for clarity

 

[AntiAntagonist]

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.

That doesn't account for interactive art installations such as the Adbusters projects. In such situations the artists do not keep complete control and revel in giving others freedom to give their own voice. I do agree that art is interpretive, much of what I've written so far is based on that idea, but I believe art isn't until it is consumed. Therefore to take that one step further: the act of consumption (reacting to a play, considering a documentary, deciding how to treat a character based on their role in the plot, etc) is itself a part of the art.

edited to eliminate nesting

 

[JaguarWong]

That doesn't account for interactive art installations such as the Adbusters projects. In such situations the artists do not keep complete control and revel in giving others freedom to give their own voice. I do agree that art is interpretive, much of what I've written so far is based on that idea, but I believe art isn't until it is consumed. Therefore to take that one step further: the act of consumption (reacting to a play, considering a documentary, deciding how to treat a character based on their role in the plot, etc) is itself a part of the art.

I see your point but disagree with the expansion.
Books, paintings, plays, dances or sculpures that could be considered art (because obviously not all can) are works of art to be regarded, to be viewed and interpreted. I would say that the piece and the audience are not together the art but that the art and the audience are entirely seperate.

Interactive art however, as you point out, is a different matter entirely.
It could be argued, for instance, that games are to interactive art what a school childs drawing of a cat is to the Mona Lisa. They are both pictures but only one is art.

In short (too late?) I believe it is exceedingly rare for the interactive element of a video game to have been implemented as a continuation of an artistic vision the way it is with interactive art.

 

[The Other Steve]

Okay, I'm a little bit insulted to think that games can't be art.

Art is SUPPOSED to be interactive. In fact, it's that very feature of it that makes it art. Art isn't art unless it's interpreted, explored, and analyzed. A game forces you to do this far better than a flat picture and even better than a moving picture. Saying you can't consider MGS as art because you can just run in circles firing you gun is like saying the Mona Lisa isn't art because it's just a picture of a chick and that's all you see.

That being said, the sheer effort in making a game prevents it from working in a very good, unified message in most cases.

 

[AntiAntagonist]

I see your point but disagree with the expansion.
Books, paintings, plays, dances or sculpures that could be considered art (because obviously not all can) are works of art to be regarded, to be viewed and interpreted. I would say that the piece and the audience are not together the art but that the art and the audience are entirely seperate.

Interactive art however, as you point out, is a different matter entirely.
It could be argued, for instance, that games are to interactive art what a school childs drawing of a cat is to the Mona Lisa. They are both pictures but only one is art.

In short (too late?) I believe it is exceedingly rare for the interactive element of a video game to have been implemented as a continuation of an artistic vision the way it is with interactive art.

I can definitely wrap my head around the idea that games rarely use interaction artfully. For every Rez or Seaman there are a zillion Halo or Mario knockoffs.

However the idea that an argument could be made that a game is like a child's drawing isn't the same as it being like a child's drawing. The very fact that art is subjective makes the source (sometimes) inconsequential. The above example also renders an interesting question: does the artist require a message to have their work be considered art, and if so how complex an idea must it be to be considered art?

edited for link and readability

 

[The Other Steve]

The above example also renders an interesting question: does the artist require a message to have their work be considered art, and if so how complex an idea must it be to be considered art?

Well, I suppose what makes art art is the viewer and their perception of a work. If someone sees a beautiful, moving image in their view of Halo 3, then it's art. They must have been looking awfully hard, though, IMO.

Games CAN be art, but they generally aren't. I'd say most "artistic" games are typically ones with less development time, such as certain online Flash games.

 

[AntiAntagonist]

Interactive art however, as you point out, is a different matter entirely.
It could be argued, for instance, that games are to interactive art what a school childs drawing of a cat is to the Mona Lisa.

There is a problem with this statement: games vis-avis interactive art is a consideration of different forms of media and childrens' art vis-a-vis the classic masters is a consideration of both time and ability.

 

[AntiAntagonist]

Well, I suppose what makes art art is the viewer and their perception of a work. If someone sees a beautiful, moving image in their view of Halo 3, then it's art. They must have been looking awfully hard, though, IMO.

Games CAN be art, but they generally aren't. I'd say most "artistic" games are typically ones with less development time, such as certain online Flash games.

I believe there are already instances of game as art, but there are no agreed upon variables to determine such a premise in the gaming world. I'm arguing that games have the ability to be art as well.

The question to which you pointed was more related to the link I gave in that post. Mary Olmstead is a very young artist who specializes in abstract paintings. My point was that she could be painting what a dog is to her for all we know and if that's the case why is her work considered art, other than her intuitive understanding of design principles in abstract media.

 

[monostable]

Sorry, guys, but I have never played psychonaughts, so I have no idea what it is about, or how it plays, but has anyone suggested Wii Fit? C'mon, everyone's seen that video on youtube!

 

[Silver]

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.

I agree about the myst series.

The other part would have made me laugh if I hadn't heard it so many times before. You have a pretty narrow view of how things work. In America there are guns everywhere. Lots of them. Saying that that isn't one of the reasons murder rates in America is 10 times higher than in say, Sweden is just lying to yourself. The avaviability of guns is dangerous. If everyone has a gun, that means every criminal has a gun. If there is a gun in every household then it's very easy for criminals to get guns. Guns kill people.

"There is proof that areas with more restrictions on guns, have higher gun realated crimes, because law abiding citizens can't own/carry them."

And that is just pure bullshit. If the restrictions on guns were actually real restrictions and not allowing just half the people in the country to have them, that would never happen. When you have so many guns in a country, so easily accesible, all criminals will be able to get guns, easily. Very easily. Any criminal who wants a gun will be able to shoot people.

If you instead had a sane restriction policy, like say, France, Sweden, Norway or any number of other countries, you wouldn't have to deal with so many people getting shot, because neither normal people nor criminals would have such easy access to guns.

 

[Geoffrey42]

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.

That article actually made me depressed by the time I was done.

 

[JaguarWong]

There is a problem with this statement: games vis-avis interactive art is a consideration of different forms of media and childrens' art vis-a-vis the classic masters is a consideration of both time and ability.

Okay, badly stated, my point is that interactive art and interactive entertainment are as different as a painting and a piece of painted art.

I didn't check out the link (maybe later) however;
Whereas it is true that art is entirely subjective I don't believe it's as true that what is considered to be art is subjective.

 

[Johnn Johnston]

I second Psychonauts. Imagination in game design has never been so clear, with each level warranting a new stage of "Wow. I was not expecting that."

/lauding

 

[Silver]

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.

That article actually made me depressed by the time I was done.

Me too, but then I realised that if he played here, I would stick around and listen, and so would a couple of other people too (at least the ones waiting for me to move) and then I got a little happier.

 

[Alex_P]

"Art" in the most narrow, old-school way is pretty dead in all forms. In Western society, the structure and context needed to create an aura of reverence just isn't there anymore. Old art still has some little vestige of that as a result of cultural memory, perhaps, but that's it.

"Art" in the sense of creative, expressive, beautiful stuff... well, that can happen in any medium. I kinda like that kind more, anyway.

-- Alex

 

[AntiAntagonist]

That article actually made me depressed by the time I was done.

Me too, but then I realised that if he played here, I would stick around and listen, and so would a couple of other people too (at least the ones waiting for me to move) and then I got a little happier.

Unfortunately that's not what the video portrays.

edited blablabla nesting blablabla