When did we go from "games can be art" to "all games must be art?"

[Owyn_Merrilin]

The current thread on the upcoming revival of 90's style shooters really drove home something that is fairly prevalent here on the Escapist, something that gets on my nerves; the idea that any game that fails to be art fails as a game. It seems like at some point gamers went from thinking "hey, maybe games have the potential to be art, when the medium is used in the proper manner" to "if a game isn't artistic enough, it fails as a game." Think of how many posts we get where games like Serious Sam, Duke Nukem, and Doom are brought up, and someone inevitably complains about the lack of story. Since when did a good game even need a story? It's like complaining that your game of Monopoly or Risk doesn't tell a good story. We see the same mentality, to an extent, with some of the common complaints against multiplayer focused games, specifically that they don't have a story, and they do nothing to advance gaming as an art form. That mentality strikes me as snobbish, and forgetting that these things are called video games for a reason -- but then there's that great wall banger that occasionally pops up, where someone says "you know what, we need a new term, sort of like comic books became graphic novels."

Now, I'm not saying that games can't be artistic, or that they can't have a story and still be good. Far from it, since I grew up on titles like Final Fantasy VII and Metal Gear Solid. But I also grew up on titles like Doom, Rise of the Triad, Descent, and to break out of the FPS list, Sonic the Hedgehog. Every one of these games is a milestone in gaming, even if RotT is mostly forgotten today. Every one of them is an excellent game, which holds up as a great experience even today. Yet none of them would be considered so much as acceptable if all games had to be art. Why is that? And more to the point, why do we forget how much fun a game with absolutely no story outside of the blurb in the manual can be?

 

[Harlemura]

I noticed this too and it constantly bugs me.
It's why I don't like the idea of games being art instead of, y'know, games. Developers get hold of this idea and we get games that are trying too hard to be arty instead of fun.

Does Marvel Vs Capcom have a deep meaning? No, it's about superheros beating up other superheroes, with no reasoning behind it. Does that make it bad? No, it makes it a good time because it can do whatever the hell it needs to make it fun without being bound to a storyline.
If games becoming art stops me watching a little knight beat the snot of Doctor Doom, I'm officially fighting against the art argument.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

Graphic novel is such a pseudy marketing term. If I learned that anyone involved in comic books that I like loved the term then I would lose respect for them. Don't feel the need to say any more.

 

[GiantRaven]

Personally, I've just moved from 'all games are art' to, well, 'all games are still art'.

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

No, a lot of people on the Escapist have begun to think that all games must be art, this is not carried over in gamers as a whole.

I don't think I've seen anywhere else on the internet or IRL where people seem to insist that everything must have artistic merit.

 

[SammiYin]

The primary focus for all games should be on the gameplay and enjoyment factor. If anybody is really desperate for it to be artistic then just impose that title on yourself. It's all art is anyway...

 

[GiantRaven]

I don't think I've seen anywhere else on the internet or IRL where people seem to insist that everything must have artistic merit.

I really dislike the idea that all art has to have artistic merit. It infers that all art must be good (and/or 'matter') to be considered art, which is unbelievably subjective.

 

[TerranReaper]

It mainly stems from this forum, although I do see it in other places such as the kotaku comments for anything that does not remotely have a decent story.

Personally, I blame all of the videos we have that concerns video games, I'm looking at you Extra Credits.

 

[Radeonx]

No, a lot of people on the Escapist have begun to think that all games must be art, this is not carried over in gamers as a whole.

I don't think I've seen anywhere else on the internet or IRL where people seem to insist that everything must have artistic merit.

This coincides with the Escapist's user base having the idea that we are superior and more classy compared to everyone else, and must show that by yelling about how all games are art.
For some reason we think that other people's (Mainly critics of video games) opinions on "what games are and aren't" matter, which, in my opinion, is dumb.

 

[Heart of Darkness]

When did we go from "games can be art" to "all games must be art?"

When we became a bunch of pretentious whiny douchebags.

As much as I hate to say it, pretty much this. You want a more exact time for this site? Once when Roger Ebert posted that games couldn't be art, and then again when people started putting a ton of weight into Extra Credits. There might also be a point in gamers as a whole with Tale of Tales coming into prominence (but, even then, only their fans--all three of them), and probably something with a lot of auteurs developing artistic indie games [http://www.destructoid.com/indie-games-don-t-have-to-act-like-indie-games-162789.phtml], like no other kind of independent game exists.

 

[Flishiz]

*disclaimer: The following is an opinion on art and while it doesn't need to be agreed with, the author wishes that the reader at least give it consideration for what it's worth*

Art is all about expression, not about how it comes across. Personally, I see art everywhere I go, and I'm not talking about things from photography to architecture, I mean even business or science or sex can be an art, because it's all about expression, in one degree of another. The same can be applied for games, and thus, all games are art whether they want to be or not.

Here are some examples:

Super Mario Brothers 3: Now here I see the art coming alive in the form of it's incredibly smooth gameplay. I don't necessarily need a great story, unique visuals, and original soundtracks to make a game excel at some degree of art, just so long as what it does is done well. It's hard to argue that the gameplay of SMB3 wasn't intuitive and fun, and as a result, it shows the expression of making a successful user interface.

Fallout 3: It was on one of my first playthroughs when I caught myself looking at the vast landscape of decay and destruction before me while my radio chirped ballads of joy and whimsy that I realized the beauty of the contrasting themes. The story in Fallout 3 (in vaccum) wasn't very good, and much of the gameplay was flawed (eventually I could stock up a zillion nukes and missiles and suddenly become the walking robocop of the Capitol Wasteland), yet the atmosphere was surprisingly deep.

Now all I'm trying to say is that not everything has to have a "meaning" behind it. What I am trying to argue is that whatever a game does well to the point that it shines for at least that quality alone can be seen as the game's artistic expression. Therefore, all games *are* art, and if the game has no redeeming features, then it's equivalent to art drawn by a child who can hardly hold a crayon.

 

[Realitycrash]

Who is claiming all games must be art?

 

[Mallefunction]

I think the reason for this is because people want games to be taken more seriously now. I mean, this is an age that still thinks that anyone who plays video games has the mentality of a 13 year old boy. Games that are strictly entertainment don't do anything to counter this argument and I think that's why people get upset about it. They want gaming to be taken more seriously...which is perfectly understandable.

Personally, I very much enjoy stupid fun games...but I do wish there were more games that had good stories out there. There are plenty that TRY, but most fall on their face before they can reach the territory of a true epic.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Since Ebert said they weren't.

We're a very defensive lot, by nature of still having the social stigma of being "gamers".

 

[TwistednMean]

That pretty much depends on your definition of the word "art". If it means that all games must be done with a fair bit of creativity to them and that they must entertain the player and not bore the hell out of him then the answer would be "hell yeah!"

If, on the other hand, one defines art as something that carries aesthetic pleasure, i.e. makes the player think about something more philosophical than a logic puzzle, then the answer would be "not nessesarily". When I want to blow out some steam I'd rather go and punch in some heads in Arkham Asylum instead of playing something emotionally involving like Heavy Rain or Planescape.

 

[Something Amyss]

I actually haven't noticed this yet. I'll say right now, it's dumb to mandate that all games (or any other media) be required to expand the genre artistically.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

The problem I have with your argument is that all the examples you hold up of fun games with no story are, to be blunt, old. Back in the early days of gaming, memory space was so limited that there literally wasn't room for lines of exposition or cutscenes. When you're dealing with megabytes of ram, not gigabytes, it's all a developer can do to fit more than a few levels on a cartridge. Old games didn't lack story due to some choice made by the developers to emphasise fun over storytelling. They lacked story because there wasn't room for it.

Not true. This was a golden age for adventure games.

 

[YuheJi]

Like a few others mentioned, it depends entirely on your view on art. I think saying that games are art means that games have artistic merit. That doesn't mean all games have to have a deeper meaning, just like not all artworks or movies have a deeper meaning. I mean, kitsch exists and it's still art, isn't it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitsch

 

[GiantRaven]

*disclaimer: The following is an opinion on art and while it doesn't need to be agreed with, the author wishes that the reader at least give it consideration for what it's worth*

Damn you. You express my own opinions far better than I ever could.

I actually haven't noticed this yet. I'll say right now, it's dumb to mandate that all games (or any other media) be required to expand the genre artistically.

But attempting to certainly doesn't hurt.