Is gaming culture really ready for games to be considered art.

[AngleWyrm]

...And what do you mean by "art"?
Do you mean "This is MY show, and you are the audience"?
Do you mean "I'm tired of thinking, just entertain me"?

...As to the art question neither. What I mean is something that has true artistic merit, that is a thing of beauty that contributes to the culture as a hole rather then being a few moments entertainment. Something that stays with you and makes you think.

Something that made me think was Fallout-3, when I had to decide what to do about Bob. I actually paused the game and went outside for a smoke to ponder the decision. Eventually I decided that the world would not be a better place if we all had a friend like Bob.

I still remember that decision and what fun it was to make it, years later.

 

[someonehairy-ish]

I think you're probably right.
I also think that you should replace all the instances of 'there' in your post with 'their.'

 

[him over there]

Seriously. If they are then not being treated that way doesn't mean they aren't. If they aren't it doesn't detract from them in any way. Just leave games alone and let people play them and let people make them. Problem solved.

 

[everythingbeeps]

Tired of this. Games aren't art. They can be artistic, yes. But that doesn't make them "art".

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

does it make differece?

some poeple think it is

some think it isnt

it doesnt change anything

yeah basically this

there isn't some magical membership card that gives you infinite free DLC with "like a sir" benefits annually.

...

IS THERE?!?!?!

but yeah, i really don't give a shit personally..i play games for fun, not to sit there and have a stick up my ass pondering it's atmosphere and revolutionary ideas.

 

[SatisfyingProvolone]

http://www.aionline.edu/game-art-design-degree/courses/

/thread

 

[everythingbeeps]

Tired of this. Games aren't art. They can be artistic, yes. But that doesn't make them "art".

That's a... strange definition of art you've got there. By that logic, games can be fun, but that doesn't make them entertainment.

Well, no. I wasn't talking about fun vs. entertainment. I was talking about artistic vs. art....did you even read my post? The words are RIGHT THERE, and I'm pretty sure I spelled them right.

 

[everythingbeeps]

Tired of this. Games aren't art. They can be artistic, yes. But that doesn't make them "art".

That's a... strange definition of art you've got there. By that logic, games can be fun, but that doesn't make them entertainment.

Well, no. I wasn't talking about fun vs. entertainment. I was talking about artistic vs. art....did you even read my post? The words are RIGHT THERE, and I'm pretty sure I spelled them right.

My point was what's the difference between something being artistic and something being art? Surely one implies the other?

Eh...no. You can be athletic without being an athlete. One is a thing, the other is a quality, and having the quality doesn't necessarily make you the thing.

 

[Evilpigeon]

There is not a unified gaming community that holds one universal opinion. I'm sure there are plenty of gamers who're eager for added depth and several of the games put on a pedestal as the best of gaming have this extra layer already see: Deus Ex, Bioshock was examples of games that have something to discuss. Especially as far as making compelling single player goes, making more arty games appears to bring some really good results, I don't think anyone is going to complain if more games attempt to give some deeper meaning to their story lines.

 

[Vault101]

does it make differece?

some poeple think it is

some think it isnt

it doesnt change anything

yeah basically this

there isn't some magical membership card that gives you infinite free DLC with "like a sir" benefits annually.

...

IS THERE?!?!?!

but yeah, i really don't give a shit personally..i play games for fun, not to sit there and have a stick up my ass pondering it's atmosphere and revolutionary ideas.

*takes shiny card out of wallet* there is actually

you just don't have one

 

[Alexnader]

Not really sure how that answer the question. Or is even really relevant, we are talking about the gaming culture not the games themselves. Halo reach may be a fine game and beautiful peace of art dose not it dose not mean the culture is ready to discuss it as such. It is my view that the current gamer culture is itself the barrier not the games.

The only way to attract mature gamers who are looking for a deeper experience is to create games that offer such an experience. You can't yell to the gaming market "grow up assholes, as soon as you do I'll stop making Call of Duty 32 and start making the most artistic game ever!". The deep and meaningful game needs to be made first and it needs to be made with compelling gameplay as well, then the general market will begin to look for deeper experiences in their other games.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

does it make differece?

some poeple think it is

some think it isnt

it doesnt change anything

yeah basically this

there isn't some magical membership card that gives you infinite free DLC with "like a sir" benefits annually.

...

IS THERE?!?!?!

but yeah, i really don't give a shit personally..i play games for fun, not to sit there and have a stick up my ass pondering it's atmosphere and revolutionary ideas.

*takes shiny card out of wallet* there is actually

you just don't have one

But...but I'm commander shepard, and this is my favorite card on the citadel?

*paragon score fails*

shit....

 

[him over there]

Tired of this. Games aren't art. They can be artistic, yes. But that doesn't make them "art".

That's a... strange definition of art you've got there. By that logic, games can be fun, but that doesn't make them entertainment.

Well, no. I wasn't talking about fun vs. entertainment. I was talking about artistic vs. art....did you even read my post? The words are RIGHT THERE, and I'm pretty sure I spelled them right.

My point was what's the difference between something being artistic and something being art? Surely one implies the other?

Eh...no. You can be athletic without being an athlete. One is a thing, the other is a quality, and having the quality doesn't necessarily make you the thing.

An athlete is just someone who pursues that quality to the point where it can be used to describe them. There are one hell of a lot of games that do the same. OK, I get that there are some games that are only artistic, but I don't see what stops the ones that want to be from being art.

I think what he is trying to say is that games have a sort of contradictory quality to them where games possess many of the elements that art does yet they also possess many that are mutually exclusive to art.

 

[DigitalAtlas]

Nope. Not at all. Games aren't respectable currently, and publishers just want to make profit.

Art isn't about profit.

Also, fans aren't ready as proven with hate of Bioshock and Mass Effect 3. How can we advance without appreciating each and every stride?

 

[NiPah]

I fully agree with Reven. Except I am not really worried about the culture as a hole if we can change our internal conversations the culture will change eventually. Nor I am not jumping down and saying take my hobby seriously because its art. What I am saying is that if developers and gamers want this to be considered art they have to hold games to a higher standard. I think we should all want that regardless of are personal opinions on games as art since it should make for better games.

I don't like the idea of "holding games to a higher standard", I like the idea of "holding artsy games to a higher standard". This kindof thinking leads to attacks on certain games not deemed art, "look at that new DoA game, boobs, it's bringing down gaming as a whole!", well look at any other genre, Piranha 3D didn't bring down movies as a whole, crap romantic books don't bring down people's opinion of The Raven, ect ect.

The true issue is most games labeled as "artsy" these days are either shit or just not fun, this does much more damage then the gaming culture or boob physics will ever do. If my friend passed me a game and said "dude this is a great art game" I'd already think "oh this will be about as much fun has hanging out in Starbucks debating the merits of the new apple product", not "oh wow I'm going to have an afternoon full of fun playing this!".

I don't play games for art, modern art is boring, camp, useless little turds of the worthless surrealist movement. Maybe I'm jaded from from working in an art museum for a few years, but the only art I want in my games is pretty buildings, interesting sky boxes, and a nice beat.

 

[Racecarlock]

No. We're not ready. And it's not for any reason stated above.

Think about it. If games have the label of art conferred upon them, all of those supposed "Art gamers" will look down their noses harder than they ever have before. I'll have twice the amount of people calling me a 12 year old for enjoying call of duty as I do now. I just want to play the kind of game I enjoy without being looked down upon and being blamed for the destruction of the industry or creativity or whatever. If this happens, I will never catch a break from it.

 

[JoesshittyOs]

How many times have we answered this question now?

It doesn't matter. Games have been art since Pong.

 

[ReinWeisserRitter]

I think the more important question is why anyone should give a damn.

The answer? They shouldn't.

 

[Irridium]

No.

If a game came out that was a legitimate work of art, exploring the tenuous link between sexuality and violence, or the metaphysical implications of life after death, in a way that didn't involve large breasts and larger guns than one thing and one thing only would happen. The majority of the gaming community would throw up their hands, demand a new ending, review bomb the game and claim that they're doing it in the name of getting what they deserve when they pay for a product, not asshattery.

I used to argue for games as art, nowadays I think that the majority of gamers are either actual children, and thus unable to get it, or manchildren, and the few who aren't don't get involved in the debate at all.

That wouldn't happen at all.

What would happen is that it would completely bomb sales-wise due to little-to-no marketing since most wouldn't know how to market it, and in the end most gamers would just look at it as pretentious.

 

[geK0]

Isn't the differentiation between art and non-art subjective?


Plenty of people consider games art, and I don't see any black holes swallowing the entirety of the gaming community : \ I'm pretty sure there are no real issues that need to be "handled". Besides, I`d rather be part of a fandom than a community of pompous, whine-swilling, pretentious twats.