Games Will Never Be As Deep

[Jumplion]

I think the saying goes "The eyes of the beholder" or something like that.

Besides its dictionary term, defining "art" isn't very easy as no two people have the same thoughts on what "art" is.

As Ivoryagent said in the first post and Purplerain, Movies have been here since 1890 and books have had over 5000 years to be considered "art" and I'd bet that people back then thought of them as nothing more than things to pass the time.

Give it time, be patient. Besides, I've said this over and over again (though I'm still not sure about htis) Virtua Fighter is in the Smithsonian isn't it?

 

[Retoru]

Art(noun):
1.
Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.
2.
a. The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.
b. The study of these activities.
c. The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group.
3.
High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value.

As you can see by the very definition of art, it is a very broad ranging concept. Now, personally I would opine that video games are "the conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of beauty in a graphic medium".

 

[Imitation Saccharin]

Art is the expression and application of human skill and creativity.

Given that definition

Given that definition you've gone off-topic.

 

[Alex_P]

If it's really well acted, I'd be okay with a simple story. But I'd still prefer a surprise or an interesting characterization in my "emotional" movies.

There are very few full-on surprises in film and literature. That's because most works say something and if you follow that you can tell what they're going to say next.

I'm trying to think back to when anything I've read outright surprised me in a big, meaningful way... hmm, you know, it would have to be like eight years ago or something.

-- Alex

That just means that all the forms of literature and film you have experienced in the last eight years are rather unoriginal pieces of work fashioned in the same used up (possibly commercial) pattern.

Or maybe it means most of the literature and film I've experienced in the last eight years isn't even trying to "surprise" me. It's not like Brothers Karamazov or "Hell is the Absence of God" or The Prestige are trying to be mystery novels.

-- Alex

 

[Imitation Saccharin]

Or maybe it means most of the literature and film I've experienced in the last eight years isn't even trying to "surprise" me. It's not like Brothers Karamazov or "Hell is the Absence of God" or The Prestige are trying to be mystery novels.

-- Alex

I'd recommend Primer?

 

[minoes]

Art doesn´t need a narrative, characters, or to be aesthetically beautiful.

 

[cerin616]

The reason that games aren't as much as art as movies lies in the fact that games can only say something, and do something, it has to be in a player friendly environment. for example, if you played Halo 3, and all the combat situations were at random rotateing angles, and the game stopped and flipped between people being attacked, it would be more artistic, but how the hell could you play the game?

Its not about what the message is, its about how its presented. You could take the best message in the world, but If you just throw it out there no one will care. Yet you can take a very basic message and dress it up and people will love it.

 

[Imitation Saccharin]

Art doesn´t need a narrative, characters, or to be aesthetically beautiful.

Please stop attacking the floor of the debate.

 

[Retoru]

Games are art, though some are just not as well done as others. I consider the finger paintings my son makes to be beautiful art. Are they masterpieces like a DaVinci or a Van Gogh? No, but they are no less art. Games are the same way. Not every game can be an artistic masterpiece like Ico or Okami, but that doesn't make then any less of a valid artistic expression.

It's a debate that's raged in some form or another for centuries, every new medium that is invented is derided and ridiculed until it becomes universally accepted as an art form. You think people considered cinema to be an art when it was just a few decades old? Over time as the medium grows and expands people begin to realize just how creative and artistic it can be, just as the medium of movies came into its own 50 or so years ago now the medium of games is beginning to develop its own artistic character.

 

[implodingMan]

Art is the expression and application of human skill and creativity.

Given that definition

Given that definition you've gone off-topic.

Please. No one else has? I put a nice little paragraph in that spoiler section there. The whole point is that video gaming allows a very different kind of character interaction compared to literature and film. It's still being developed of course, but to say that they will "never" be as "deep" is quite the statement to make. Just as in a comic book you can do things that you can't do in a movie, just like in a movie you can do things that you can't do in a book, video games can do things that nothing else can. Who is to say that this cannot be exploited? I'll post my example again, since you apparently didn't read it.

HL2 EP2 spoilers

Spoiler

That scene could never be better in a film because of the helplessness it places you in. Throughout the game you are used to being able to handle things your own way, always being able to move, and generally being able to handle any problem. After all, you just killed an army of striders. When you are being held there, the developers did one thing perfectly. You can move, but not enough to do anything or block your view. You feel as you squirm back and forth your potential. You know that if you just had your Gravgun you could make them pay. If this was a movie, it would be sad of course, since you would probably be attached to the characters, but without the crucial feeling of having all of your strength removed it just wouldn't be the same.

 

[Dr Spaceman]

In certain ways, video games may some day be even more affecting and powerful than movies and maybe even books. Video games are unique in the fact that the person enjoying the book/movie/game has direct control over the events. Put another way, you feel more responsible for the outcome. Video games, even games that are expressly linear, put the player in charge of the outcome: i.e. the end doesn't happen if you don't make it happen.

The example that springs to mind is Call of Duty 4. I'll attempt to avoid spoliers, but skip ahead if you want to be safe. In the final bit of the game, where the overall antagonist disables your vehicle and all of your squadmates are fighting and dying around you and you are completely unable to defend them, I felt like I had let them all down in some way. When Captain Price tossed me that pistol, I had no doubts in my mind as to what I had to do. Occasionally in FPSs, I feel slight remorse or confusion as to why I am murdering certain characters. Given the set of circumstances at the end of Call of Duty 4, I'm not entirely sure I (as in me, the real person) would not have reacted the exact same way.

Someone above mentioned that video games are a young art; that's true and it's exciting to see where it is going. But I think the important thing to remember is that we need to remember that video games have the potential to be art, and we're already seeing the beginnings of this take place. We're asking a lot of these game developers, but it is important to know that we've only scratched the surface as to what games can do. It seems like every year or so a game comes out that blows everyone away which redefines some notion of what a game can be. Portal did it. Super Mario Bros. did it. Something else will eventually remove all doubt from anyone's mind that games are indeed, art.

 

[WhiteTigerShiro]

The opening definition for "Art", as mentioned, is very restrictive. Video Games and movies are, as I hope I don't have to tell you, very different forms of media. This is the problem with the whole "Games as Art" debate to begin with. Some MOVIE critic states that video games cannot be art and suddenly everyone's in a tizzy to either prove him wrong, or take his side on it.

The thing that no one has ever really taken into consideration when they debate about this is the source. Of course if you look at a game in the same way you look at a movie you aren't going to think it's anything special. Going by the original poster's definition, ART isn't art. And that's why this entire debate has no real ground: If you have to provide a definition of the word you're arguing over, then it's already biased right there. It's like debating over whether or not a certain act can be considered love, but the person presenting the argument has to give a strict definition of the term. Well then of course the entire debate is going to swing in his favor, but that ignores the fact that love, like art, has many defining traits and qualities.

So... are video games art? Of course they are. Are they the same style of art as movies? Of course not. Just because something doesn't strictly adhere to one specific definition of a term doesn't mean that the term suddenly stops describing it.

 

[Alex_P]

The opening definition for "Art", as mentioned, is very restrictive.

Even given that, though, you can engage the argument successfully without needing to redefine it. Good examples have already been made.

-- Alex

 

[minoes]

Please stop attacking the floor of the debate.

Sorry. But what I´m trying to say is that, "Intention and Emotion", and the ability to transmit them correctly is what makes, video games and movies be consider as art.

 

[smallharmlesskitten]

For something to truly be art it is to have no purpose other than itself... thus the only things that can be art are sculptures, Statues, paintings and the like.

A FILM IS NOT ART!!!!!

It has more purposes than itself... now sush and let us play our arty games

 

[Alex_P]

Taxi Driver,

Meh, I'm bored.

Can you just give me some examples of stuff you think needs "surprise" to create emotional investment in the characters instead of a bunch of hypotheticals about what I do or don't read/watch/play/whatever based on two I posted on a forum?

-- Alex

 

[rossatdi]

Video games as art.
I'll define art for this thread as deep emotional resonance with characters.

You mean like actual painted art? Because that doesn't require deep emotional resonance with characters.

Surely the aim of emotional resonance with the piece is the goal as for that games can be exceptional at times. The best games is one where the motivation of the character becomes your motivation. JC Denton wants to uncover the conspiracy at the heart of Deus Ex and many people join him in this as the story progresses. The characters that you have come to like die because of your choices and, in so far as it's an immature medium, cause an emotional response.

Because of the unique technical necessities of making a game it is much harder to invest it with emotion. I am generally quite cynical towards people calling games art on a regular basis but Shadow of the Colossus? Yes, that is art.

As to your point of repetitive trying and failing, surely that makes the sense of achievement great and assuming the difficulty level is right, cause you to invest effort and therefore emotion to the game and it's goal, in the same way sport is.

Video games are unique in that they blend the feeling of rewards from games/sport with sympathetic emotions of art. It is no wonder it will take a while to find its feet.

 

[rossatdi]

For something to truly be art it is to have no purpose other than itself... thus the only things that can be art are sculptures, Statues, paintings and the like.

A FILM IS NOT ART!!!!!

It has more purposes than itself... now sush and let us play our arty games

That is the biggest bullshit line I've ever heard repeated. Simply put it's crap. Through out the history of art (of all kinds) the motivations have been diverse but always apparent because all artists need to get paid.
-Art is often used for state/religious/personal propaganda. Why else would someone employ an artist/sculptor/poet? In fact before the contemporary art world the ONLY reason for art was that it had other purposes!

Simple example. In Edinburgh there is a multitude of statues of British heroes. Note, not Scottish or English heroes. After the Act of Union and the continuing tension between the countries the powers that be commissioned works of great beauty that celebrated Britishness. Thus fulfilling a purpose, as propaganda pieces, and also being art.

 

[qbert4ever]

Art is what you make of it. If I say that Halo is more artistic then the Mona Lisa, or vice versa, who are you to tell me I'm wrong?

This thread is pointless. All you're doing is asking people to change your mind on a matter that is completely subjective. Not sure what your inspiration was, but unless there is some hidden meaning other then "I like movies better. Prove me wrong", then I would suggest people just let this die.