Poll: Do You Really want Games to be art?

[HardkorSB]

Art is great and can be used to put across complicated thoughts and ideas, but artists have artistic licencing do what ever they want with their art. Now I am not saying that is a bad thing.
Games could be considered a strange kind of art, because they are not like a paintings or mosaics, because they are essentially made to be an entertaining INTERACTIVE experience, which will result in a large profit, although I am aware the first example is generally the more general purpose (for the developer anyway). I understand Games take ages to make and a lot of time, thought and effort goes into them. So they should merit praise and recognition. That is great but......
As I said Artists can do anything with their work even f*ck it up horribly if they want to . Now take Bioware for example (I know I am a bitter ME3 fanboy but I wont rant I promise) Their justification for not changing that ending. Is that they want to defend their teams artistic integrity, wtf seriously? It seems to me like one enjoying the smell of ones own fart (write that down), no one gives a shit about their integrity just them.
Take this scenario for an example
I pay you to make me a sculpture of a finger, you sculpt the finger beautifully then add a wart. I ask you to take the wart off and you say "No I must defend my artistic integrity". If I have paid you good money to do me a service and I am unhappy with it, so you should put it right. Then if all my friends come round and say "great sculpture but I dont like the wart", isnt it obvious the art should be changed?
On the other hand if you sculpt a warty finger because you want to, and I come along and start harassing you to change it, then it is your right to not change it and to tell me to shut up.

My point is games may be considered art but they are also a consumer item and people have a right to ask for a product they paid for to be altered. Also wouldn't it be so much better if Games were just made to be entertaining, and didn't come with any of the BS associated with art.
In short is it good for GAMERS that games should be considered art? I dont think so I think it is just away of taking yet more power away from us, the consumers who fund the bloody things in the first place.
(this is not another Mass Effect rant I am talking about gaming in general)
(apologies for poor punctuation)
(Oh yes and if you have seen a similar thread before, PLEASE do not hesitate to post a picture of team rocket, saying "oh this thread again". Everyone finds them hilarious, and people will love you for doing it)

So anyway what do you guys think?

You seem to think that a piece of art, once the artist is done with it, cannot be altered without losing the integrity.
A wise artist listens to the feedback and, if the flaws that others point out make sense and fixing them will in fact improve the piece, he will change it.

The way I see art, there is no such thing as a complete work. Everything can always be changed and improved.
I'll give you an example of the type of art I'm familiar with the most - dance.
Let's say I created a new move. Now, I could just leave it at that and be done with it but if I'll play around with it, I can expand it (make the movement bigger and wider, add smaller movements within that move, add facial expressions to portray emotions) or I can alter it (instead of taking a step forward, I can take a step backward, ending up with 2 different variations of that move or even 2 different moves).
If you finish a piece of art and say "Well, it's all done", you're limiting yourself.
And I don't buy the whole "It's so good it shouldn't be changed". You can always make something better than it already is.

 

[Kungfu_Teddybear]

I don't really care. I don't need a game to be art. A game being well done, enjoyable and immersive is enough for me.

 

[sage42]

Why can't it just be both, Hell everything from songs and paintings to movies and books have been made not because people felt inspired to make them and because someone else payed for them to be made to their exact specifications.

 

[Agayek]

I've never been an artistic person, at all. So I really don't give a shit about this whole "Is game Art?" Debate. I play games to have an enjoyable experience, I really couldn't give less of a shit if it was branded art or not. Nor do I see why anyone else should.

Echoing this sentiment.

Why does anyone care if games are called art or not? It's an arbitrary label that has nothing to do with anything. For example, being called art won't suddenly make Call of Duty the equivalent of Citizen Kane, nor will the reverse make Bioshock any less poignant. Just shut up about it and get on with your life.

 

[jollybarracuda]

I think the problem with the "games are art" thing is that it's been used, recently, to justify design flaws in a game. I think the most important thing that should be noted about games is that above anything, they are a product. Just like a painting is a product. It's art, yes, but unless it's just being given away, it's a product designed to supply the creator with money to survive.

I honestly believe that the situation can't be just "is it art? yes or no!". Because a game is many things, like i said. It's a product, its art, and it's a form of entertainment. Making it so black and white will just be an endless debate.

 

[Abedeus]

I would like it, if it would be acknowledged that games can be art. Of course, not every game should be considered as art.
But right now games that touch sensitive themes are immediately criticized just because they are games (for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Days_In_Fallujah ). If games are seen as art, this could change.

I pay you to make me a sculpture of a finger, you sculpt the finger beautifully then add a wart. I ask you to take the wart off and you say "No I must defend my artistic integrity". If I have paid you good money to do me a service and I am unhappy with it, so you should put it right. Then if all my friends come round and say "great sculpture but I dont like the wart", isnt it obvious the art should be changed?
On the other hand if you sculpt a warty finger because you want to, and I come along and start harassing you to change it, then it is your right to not change it and to tell me to shut up.

If you compare this with the ME3 ending, the fans are those who come to an artist and harass him because of his work since the game wasn't commissioned by the fans.
I don't like it that bioware wants to defend the artistic vision (and I won't hesitate to tell anyone my opinion on the ending if asked), but I respect that they stick to their vision.

Except they aren't sticking to their vision. Original plot and purpose of Reapers destroying organic life (not harvesting it) was because it was a genetic mutation, and the technology of Mass Relays released too much Dark Energy that would eventually destroy the galaxy.

There's not one single lead storywriter from the first game left in ME3. The ending of ME3 is as detached from ME1 as possible. I especially love how the reason to destroy synthetics was "they will try to kill organics". Weird. Because Geth never attacked anything until Sovereign mind-controlled them into serving him... Before that, they were simply defending themselves. All it took for Geth and Quarians to stop fighting was Shepard stopping the Reaper code inside of the mainframe, and Legion uploading Reaper intelligence to the Geth as a race. It was that simple.

NOPE. God AI Child introduced in the last 5 minutes, that is apparently millions of years old and has seen countless cycles, is too blind to see the picture of perfect cooperation right there on Rannoch.

 

[Agayek]

Sorry, but I will not support that approach. One of the first things you learn in real life working for clients is that the maxim of "Client is always right" is FALSE.

While that's generally true, acting in such a manner isn't usually a smart call from a business perspective. After all, you need the people paying you to want to continue paying you.

 

[liquidsolid]

Whelp I think that games ARE art. I don't feel as if I need to convince anyone else or try to campaign to prove it to anyone else. Whether I think they are art or not is irrelevant to whether or not they will be made.

Keep making games with artistic merit and I'll keep calling them art and still not care if anyone agrees with me.

 

[Innegativeion]

Well, games ARE art, as a large number of people consider them to be, so they are. "Art" is a subjective term. That said, I'm just going to vote yes to see the results.

If more people acknowledged that they are art, there'd be less incentive for those unfamiliar with the medium to shout out for censorship, and while full creative control for the artist isn't the case for all mediums all the time(blockbuster movies, for example), it would set a precedent that would place more value on creativity than peaking the profits.

 

[Neonsilver]

Except they aren't sticking to their vision. Original plot and purpose of Reapers destroying organic life (not harvesting it) was because it was a genetic mutation, and the technology of Mass Relays released too much Dark Energy that would eventually destroy the galaxy.

There's not one single lead storywriter from the first game left in ME3. The ending of ME3 is as detached from ME1 as possible. I especially love how the reason to destroy synthetics was "they will try to kill organics". Weird. Because Geth never attacked anything until Sovereign mind-controlled them into serving him... Before that, they were simply defending themselves. All it took for Geth and Quarians to stop fighting was Shepard stopping the Reaper code inside of the mainframe, and Legion uploading Reaper intelligence to the Geth as a race. It was that simple.

NOPE. God AI Child introduced in the last 5 minutes, that is apparently millions of years old and has seen countless cycles, is too blind to see the picture of perfect cooperation right there on Rannoch.

I know what writing errors they did.
I know that their "artistic vision" is retarded.

What I wanted to say is that it's Biowares decision to change it or not, I didn't want to start a new ME3 ending discussion (if you are interested in my opinion about it check the forum, I already wrote enough about it).

 

[SeeIn2D]

At face value games being art is not such a bad thing, but when you start creating games purely as art, you attract the type of people that will both critique them like are and also create them to be "artsy" rather than fun and enjoyable and that is always what games have been about. Art was never really creative for people to gather around it and have a roaring good time with a few exceptions, most of them being movies.

 

[The Harkinator]

Some games should be seen as art, but to elevate all to that level shouldn't be done. Some games are more straightforward so don't need to be art.

A diverse and well made range of games is what the industry needs, not everything striving to be the same thing.

 

[gigastrike]

Since when does what we want change anything?

 

[Loki J]

I think a video game can be art, but not all video games can be art. I also think that movies can be art, but not all movies are art.

A video game's purpose is typically;
Entertainment in a variably-interactive format, with the amount of interaction (gameplay features) dependent on the designer's intent for how it should be played (often defined by game type).

There's a lot of room for interpretation in that definition; some games (Phantasmagoria, Rebel Assault, recent Final Fantasy games [bracing for hatemail...]) had very limited gameplay and were more like interactive movies than what most consider a video game. Are these art? Most of this type would find it difficult to score even as a B-movie, so where do draw you the line?

At the other end you have fighting or racing games, which focus greatly on gameplay & features, requiring very little or no story at all(most multiplayer modes of any game fall into this category, particularly vs modes). There are movies like this, too, with very little story and a heavy focus on action (whatever the type).

If someone wants to make an 'artsy' or beautiful game (Journey? Myst? Eden?), then so be it. I'm more worried that the 'games as art' label will be applied to undeserving games (Mortal Kombat? Kane and Lynch?) and tarnish the rest of the industry.

Z

 

[AyreonMaiden]

I dunno if I really care.

It hasn't changed anything yet and I doubt it will. The games industry has become like movies: Popular entertainment reigns because it reaches everyone's base instincts and desires, while on the fringe you find the niche stuff that explores and experiments and "says something" about stuff in life, and in the oh-so-happy middle, you get the really rare Dark Knights and Inceptions that manage to (successfully in my mind) combine the two into perfection.

That's the natural order in every medium. It's so with music and comic books and novels, etc. Games being "known as art" by people won't suddenly make them more intelligent, any more than having more women devs will make more "strong female characters."

That said, there's room for everything, so "games being art" would threaten nothing, either.

 

[EboMan7x]

I don't WANT games to be art. It isn't a matter of wanting, games are inherently art. Anything made with the intention to inspire emotion, even if it is just "entertained", it is still art.

 

[Danoloto]

Easy answer for me. I did vote "other", because I think the following should be true:
Movies can be art, but not all of them are art.
Some books are art, some are one time read novels.
Some pieces of music are instant classics, some grow on you over time, some are destined for the bargain bin even before release.
So it should be with games too. Some games are downright classics. Some are designed to be 'artsy', and some are shooter number 14159.

However, I would like to see more games try a bit harder on the story aspect. A good story is what seperates good books from great books etc., So I think the games industry could befefit from working closer with some proper writers, to see if they can take narrative to new hights.

 

[Squidbulb]

A crappy novel is still art, even though it's crappy.

Actually, it isn't. Many people don't consider novels as art. Obviously something like the Iliad is, but not something like Henry. Heck, even Discworld, which is in my opinion among the best book series ever created, isn't really art. It's just a good book.

tl;dr: Games are not only indisputably art, they are in fact the most complex art known to man.

You can't be serious... every video game I've ever played has the complexity of a carrot. Just because it's a combination of other art forms (even calling these art is arguable) doesn't make it complex. Everything you described also applies to films, so I don't see how games are any more complex than films, which are considered art but no sane person would say all of them are art.

For a medium that combines the skills of sculpting, film, writing, and musical composition - four major realms of artistic expression - how can games not be viewed as art?

Because it's not the good parts of that media. The fact is that nobody considers the worst of any of these media to be art. Nobody.

 

[GamerAddict7796]

I picked no because once something is classed as art that seems to be an excuse to be as lazy as possible. Take the Fountain. You say "It's just a bloody water fountain" and they say "It's more than that. It's art." or "You just don't get it."

This is already being used to defend 'art games'

For more points see
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/5462-Lazy-Boring-Ordinary-Art-Games

 

[Hectix777]

I want games to be art, just not art. You know, where every slight pixel and polygon in a game is supposed to have some type of deep and significant meaning, like the reason the lady seer in this RPG is dressed in red is supposed to mean something like the Boston Massacre or stuff where it gets really weird and obscure. If I was held at gunpoint, I'd say that I wanted games to be taken seriouslym not seriously because its art. Half the movies out there today rarely pass or make attempts to be art, yet we love them and take them seriously. That's what I want. And I'm not against games being seen as art, I'm all for it. It just burns me up that in order for the stories told in Mass Effect or Halo to be taken seriously or validated by others is through a crusade to make games seem like art.

My personal philosophy is that for every 2 or 3 serious games(Mass Effect, GTA4, Dragon Age, etc.) there should be one stupid fun game that does not require thought or conscience (Bulletstorm, Saints Row: The Third, etc.).

I'd just settle for video games to be taken seriously, and I'll be happy if they are seen as art, as long as it's taken seriously.