Poll: Are Computer Games Art Or Entertainment?

[FireDr@gon]

With certain liberties being taken with old titles at the moment, fans of the aforesaid titles are up in arms because they feel that a classic has been vandalised.

It got me thinking, where do computer games stand in society? Are they art, entertainment, both or neither?

Should games be left alone like the Mona Lisa to be admired through the generations, with maybe some restoration along the way. Or should a game simply entertain and is it ok if someone wants to change them beyond recognition but keep, for example, the title?

Say your piece! Including what you consider art and entertainment would be interesting and useful to other posters

 

[Chibz]

VIDEO games are both art and entertainment, especially if done right.

 

[DanielBrown]

They're purely entertainment from my point of view. I don't get why people gotta label it as art just to defend that they still play games.

... and let the flame wars begin.

 

[FireDr@gon]

VIDEO games are both art and entertainment, especially if done right.

Care to expand on that point? Also you seem to think there's a difference between video games & computer games - want to point out why?

They're purely entertainment from my point of view. I don't get why people gotta label it as art just to defend that they still play games.

An interesting POV - I don't personally think that considering games as art is a defence to playing games - I dont think its something to be ashamed of - games/entertainment are just a distraction from the pressures of modern life the same way films and books are.

And if anyone's interested I ticked 'both'!

 

[D Moness]

Like every other piece of media i believe it can (and should be) both.

I mean different people like different things.

 

[GotMalkAvian]

Personally, I think that any work of art should only be released into the world in a state that the creator feels is "complete." As an artist, I feel that once I share something with the world, it's not entirely mine anymore, and it needs to stand on its own.

As for video games, I feel that some improvements are okay, and can actually be beneficial. The Monkey Island updates are a great example. The developers made use of new technology to vastly improve art and add voice acting while leaving the gameplay and story completely untouched.

As for whether video games are art or entertainment, I feel that they could be one, both, or neither depending on the game and the gamer. Art is purely subjective, and thus I don't feel that anyone is qualified to label anything as "art" or "not art."

 

[Jamboxdotcom]

games can be art. not always are they art, but not always are they solely entertainment.

Depends on the game, really. Something like Crysis is more art than entertainment, something like New Vegas is more entertainment than art, but they have elements of both just the same.

i'd actually put it the other way around. sure, Crysis is visually beautiful, but New Vegas had a lot of story elements i found very artistic. (the quest with Chief Hanlon made me literally cry)

 

[Ragsnstitches]

They're purely entertainment from my point of view. I don't get why people gotta label it as art just to defend that they still play games.

... and let the flame wars begin.

That isn't the reason why. I play games for entertainment only, but I can't accept it when people deny certain video games art status, just because the majority of games aren't. It's essentially grouping the whole medium under the industry label, with the option of Authorship and expression being rejected as an aspect.

The same logic should be applied to games as they are to film.

 

[OliverTwist72]

Eh I see them as entertainment only, I have yet to be emotionally moved by any video game I've played. I'm not saying that I don't enjoy playing games, or that I don't recognize other people seeing them as art, I just do not.

I also will support the argument that video games can be art, as I see that they can be. But if you're asking for my personal opinion I do not view them that way. The greatest thing about the "art question" is that art is so subjective from one person to another.

 

[FireDr@gon]

Like every other piece of media i believe it can (and should be) both.

I mean different people like different things.

So you believe the news should be entertaining?

I agree with your sentiment that everyone is free to veiw something in their own light. I suppose how anyone answers my question depends on their perception of art. To me art's more than just quality of visual asthetics - if genuine creativity was used to express something, make a statement or grab people's attention i consider it art.

 

[Eisenfaust]

i've never really understood why this question needs answering... not just on games but on any subject... at uni we spent an entire semester arguing whether psychology was a science or an art, but no one could ever see any practical benefit from deciding one way or another. i highly doubt it'll change anything, a definitive answer won't change the industry or the products it produces, it'll just make one chunk of the consumers overly smug, another chunk overly annoyed, and everyone else just overly confused

not to mention that without strict definitions it's basically a waste of time

 

[Canid117]

Who said art and entertainment are mutually exclusive?

 

[FireDr@gon]

Who said art and entertainment are mutually exclusive?

Not me - that's why there's the 'Both' option.

but no one could ever see any practical benefit from deciding one way or another.

To protect a work of art from changes, it must first be deemed art.

 

[D Moness]

Like every other piece of media i believe it can (and should be) both.

I mean different people like different things.

So you believe the news should be entertaining?

Sure i watch ENN: newsroom for that, america (and here since a short time) have the daily show. They make fun of news. Not all news should be entertaining just like not all games should be art

ps. Forgetting the british Have I got news for you (great satire program)

 

[DEAD34345]

In what way is saying games are art a defense? I believe games are a form of media, and thus capable of being art as much as any other form, but i would certainly still play them if i didn't think that.

 

[FireDr@gon]

Sure i watch ENN: newsroom for that, america (and here since a short time) have the daily show. They make fun of news. Not all news should be entertaining just like not all games should be art

ps. Forgetting the british Have I got news for you (great satire program)

Fair enough, but if you feel that way you might want to retract your last statement about how media should be both.

Also, satirical programes like 'have i got news for you' are created soley for entertainment purposes and make no attempt at actually reporting the news.

It comes down to purpose; the concept of a news program was created to inform, not entertain. I'll accept that the concept has evolved slightly over the years.

It could be argued that computer games were created to entertain and are evolving into art, just as the news has evolved from information into "infotainment"

 

[Jordi]

Define "art". I think everyone has a different one. In order to be at least somewhat general, I'll quote Wikipedia: "Art is the product or process of deliberately arranging items (often with symbolic significance) in a way that influences and affects one or more of the senses, emotions, and intellect."

I don't see any way that games could be excluded from the category of art given this definition, which meshes nicely with my feeling. If pictures, paintings, sculptures, books, pieces of music and movies can be art, why not games? I have never heard anyone have a good reason for this. The only argument that I keep seeing is that games are somehow not good enough to be considered art. But even if that would be true, that says nothing about the potential of the medium.

i've never really understood why this question needs answering... not just on games but on any subject... at uni we spent an entire semester arguing whether psychology was a science or an art, but no one could ever see any practical benefit from deciding one way or another. i highly doubt it'll change anything, a definitive answer won't change the industry or the products it produces, it'll just make one chunk of the consumers overly smug, another chunk overly annoyed, and everyone else just overly confused

not to mention that without strict definitions it's basically a waste of time

I think it is very strange to make such a distinction between art and science. The scientific method requires you to design experiments, which I would very much consider an art. Now, if you were to make the distinction between science and pseudo-science (or hard and soft science), that might be a little more useful. Then if you decide that psychology is generally not scientific enough, you might want to do something about that.

 

[pulse2]

Both, games are both art and entertainment. The same way a movie is art and entertainment and the same way a book, comic or picture are art and entertainment, you create an art to entertain.

It takes a tremendous amount of dedication, creativity and love for what you do to create a great playing and looking game and a game can look as beautiful as art even without telling a story, it can tell a story equal to that of a good book even without looking beautiful. The same emotions that a painting can capture is the same emotions a game can capture, one could say that a game captures more because games are an expression of emotions. The expression of emotions and creativity is the epitome of what art stands for.