Quick answer: Call of Duty is an art, a shitty one. kind of like a constant reprint of a pacoso. I know what you're thinking, that Pacoso is CoD 4. NO NO NO, that would be Counter-Strike.
Is call of duty an art?
- Thread starter luccadeas
- Start date
Recommended Videos
***Warning, spoilers***
I would not regard the multiplayer in CoD as an art, the single player however, does incorporate some artistic techniques such as the music and dramatic scenes. A couple good examples include the scene in MW2 where you step out of the trench in Washington DC only to see an epic battle raging on around the white house. Another example is when Roach and Ghost were betrayed by Shepherd.
I would not regard the multiplayer in CoD as an art, the single player however, does incorporate some artistic techniques such as the music and dramatic scenes. A couple good examples include the scene in MW2 where you step out of the trench in Washington DC only to see an epic battle raging on around the white house. Another example is when Roach and Ghost were betrayed by Shepherd.
Well, if you are desperate to defend Call of Duty as an art form you can say how they put you in the mind of a soldier and get you to feel how it is to recruit and work for the military and defending your country, Making you feel different and express more gratitude to the soldiers that fight for us. However, I do not consider it an art. It is almost the exact same game spit out time and time again, ruthlessly destroying our youth degrading them and needlessly making them want to hurl insults because the only people that play these games are teenagers, and honestly I can somewhat see them as tools for brainwashing the youth so that military and warfare looks more spectacular so that they get more recruits. That last one might be a little far fetched, but it is something I'm beginning to believe.
I wasn't the one you were arguing with, I just decided to butt in and point out that Terminator did perform pretty well at the box office.NicolasMarinus said:
Depends on personal definitions of art. COD is basically the generic action movie equivalent of video games. Sure the visuals, vistas, and explosions look pretty but in the end it's more or less a mindless few hours of fun.
I reserve art as something that emotionally moves someone in a significant way or gets them to critically think in a multitude of ways. So IMO Call of Duty isn't and probably won't ever be an art; and few multiplayer-centric shooters ever will be. That doesn't make them bad games though.
I reserve art as something that emotionally moves someone in a significant way or gets them to critically think in a multitude of ways. So IMO Call of Duty isn't and probably won't ever be an art; and few multiplayer-centric shooters ever will be. That doesn't make them bad games though.
To answer you question requires a bit of thought. First, a question.
Are video games art? A question that pops up all too often nowadays. One that we could debate until the end of days. However, I think the question (and subsequent answers) are misleading.
Just like films, novels, music, painting, and other forms of entertainment and expression, video games CAN be art. But, not all video games ARE art. Or rather, high art.
Art, by its definition, is simply a form of creative expression designed to elicit an emotion or range of emotions. Ergo, even the crappiest of games, films, etc, can technically be considered art. The real difference is in the skill required in the crafting of that art from and how well it expresses its creators thoughts and emotions.
So, is Call of Duty art? In the most basic of definitions, yes. However, would I consider Call of Duty to be artful or worthy of praise? Not by any stretch of the imagination.
Are video games art? A question that pops up all too often nowadays. One that we could debate until the end of days. However, I think the question (and subsequent answers) are misleading.
Just like films, novels, music, painting, and other forms of entertainment and expression, video games CAN be art. But, not all video games ARE art. Or rather, high art.
Art, by its definition, is simply a form of creative expression designed to elicit an emotion or range of emotions. Ergo, even the crappiest of games, films, etc, can technically be considered art. The real difference is in the skill required in the crafting of that art from and how well it expresses its creators thoughts and emotions.
So, is Call of Duty art? In the most basic of definitions, yes. However, would I consider Call of Duty to be artful or worthy of praise? Not by any stretch of the imagination.
Based on the definition that art is a creation born from one's mind, it's as much art as your SotC that gets tossed around so much.
I don't really agree with the whole "games are art" thing, but that's another discussion for another day.
I don't really agree with the whole "games are art" thing, but that's another discussion for another day.
THAT's exactly my point.Alexnader said:
The Iliad wasn't pedestal art, it was basically the Call of Duty of its day. Even now, it's not exactly thought-provoking. The only reason people read it now is because it's old. And it was popular. When Call of Duty is 1000 years old, people will play it and say "oh, wow, now this is art" just because it's old (assuming it survives).
I was actually kind of hoping someone would get the reference, and not just knee-jerk react like you did.
But whether or not something is art is somewhat of an intellectual discussion. After all, who else cares whether something classifies as art other than academics? And those same academics are pretentious. If people enjoy it, who cares whether some nerd calls something art? The real question is whether it is expression, and if so, does is qualify for legal protections based on that fact. It doesn't need to be art to be important enough to protect.
The knee-jerk reaction was to your elitist stance that "anyone who didn't get what you meant wasn't qualified for this discussion" rather than anything to do with the Illiad but thanks for the insight. I don't know anyone who thinks the Illiad is art even now, it's just an old story. Just like Cod will be just an old game (or already is depending on your point of view). I'd say people view the Illiad now because it's considered a classic, not because it's art (which in my mind it isn't). Just like people may play CoD in the future because people played the hell out of it now and was a "classic" game.Exile714 said:
As for your "who cares if something is classified as art or not aside from academics" question all I can say is most people who posted here seemed to and this is not an academic site by any means. The entire point of this thread was to discuss whether or not CoD was art, not whether or not CoD is worth conserving as a cultural icon or anything like that. Art should be open for discourse amongst everyone and we'd be better off for it if it was. Personally I believe works from all creative mediums can be art when applied in the right manner/context and there should be skilled people pushing the boundaries of all those mediums. If you can't be bothered with all that then that's fine, just don't try and say the entire debate is pointless.
the first modern warfare was an art. the rest of the cod games (after cod4) is more go there and blow up that place cause its cool.