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

[Halo Fanboy]

Nobody has ever, ever, ever, EVER said that "all games must be art"

Micheal Samyn and his crew.

...and? I give a shit about what they say...why? Within the context of this forum, anyway, does what they say matter? And are they not entitled to their opinions?

He's a featured writer on this site and makes a ton of art games. I thought your statement that nobody EVER claimed that games should be art wasn't limited to this forum only.

I don't think said that games are being held back by not "aspiring" to be art or whatever. Just that games need to overcome certain hurdles, like the whole "Games are supposed to be fun, man!" close-minded thinking, so that better, more grandiose games can be made.

It's not "art" I want. It's complexity, it's depth that I, and I'm sure many people, want. This can be in gameplay, in story, in interaction, in whatever the game sees fit. Whether it achieves it by providing a selection of customization online ala Black Ops, or in a dark, damp, silent world with big headed children in Limbo is all fine in my book.

You think of them as degenerative trash. Fine, go ahead, that's your opinion and whatnot. But I, for one, appreciate that games like, say, ICO or Heavy Rain are being made by risk-taking developers who have the balls to go do something unique in a time now when it's easier to go the safe route and pump out a military FPS with tacked-on multiplayer. Whether or not the games are good is up for personal debate, but I'm just glad that they exist.

I guess I misunderstood when you when assumed that enjoying "arty" games had something to do with wanting art. What you really think games are really being held back by are the idea of "fun" and lacking complexity and depth. But wouldn't you agree that games like Heavy Rain are completely shallow compared to a game like Civilization or Guilty Gear XX?

And why are you sick of hearing Games shouldn't have story ect" if viewing such movements as degenerative is a valid opinion? Not that I don't find my self sick of some of the offensive ways I feel you and others generally diminish what games can be so I guess we're even.

 

[Penguinness]

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?

When you refer to something as art, do you mean as in it looks good? Or that it's something fun? I'm not too sure what you mean.

It doesn't need to have a story to be good, but it needs to bring something to the table if they want me to put down £40 for the game. Take Duke Nukem Forever for example, if there was no story to it, then what are they doing that I'd find fun? Has it got the same shooting and gameplay mechanics I've played to death? If so then why bother? I'm not saying something doesn't need to be fresh and largly innovative, or it needs a story (because it depends on the catagory of game), but I'm not going to play something that has nothing for me. Doom may have been fun as one of your first FPS games, but if a doom clone was released today then I have no reason to buy it.

tl;dr No game must be art, whatever that means. No game needs any one particular thing, but it does need something if it's going to cost money.

 

[Watchmacallit]

Yeah, people go on about games like Duke and Doom being great 10-15 years ago and now that the game comes out again they hate it because of a lack of storyline. THEY NEVER HAD A GOOD ONE! I played Doom and I just figured, I'm in hell, there are monsters...I should kill the monsters, I don't care why.

Gamers have become snobs and its just stupid. If a game has a great story line I'll appreciate it but if the game is just for fun then who cares if there is one?

 

[Jumplion]

He's a featured writer on this site and makes a ton of art games. I thought your statement that nobody EVER claimed that games should be art wasn't limited to this forum only.

Oh please, hyperbole is a hyperbole, you know damn well what I mean.

I guess I misunderstood when you when assumed that enjoying "arty" games had something to do with wanting art. What you really think games are really being held back by are the idea of "fun" and lacking complexity and depth. But wouldn't you agree that games like Heavy Rain are completely shallow compared to a game like Civilization or Guilty Gear XX?

No, I wouldn't agree, and I know you know it, because I'd say that Heavy Rain has it's own depth to it.

And why are you sick of hearing "Games shouldn't have story ect" if viewing such movements as degenerative is a valid opinion?

It's an opinion, sure, just one that I disagree with.

What I'm sick of always hearing (which is ironic in this topic) is that "Games are only about fun, and who cares about a story when they're video games, dude!" when they can clearly deliver more than that.

Do all games need stories? No, of course not. Do all games need deep, complex stories? I don't really think so. Is there anything wrong with having a pure fun game with a laughably bad story? Not at all, I'm sure. Doesn't mean we can't demand more in certain areas.

Not that I don't find my self sick of some of the offensive ways I feel you and others generally diminish what games can be so I guess we're even.

Offensive now, am I? Diminishing what games can be, I am? Even, ahhuuuuuum? Really now, you have, and have very often, deliberately tried to paint me as an elitist, artsy snob. I'd like to think that I give everyone's opinion/argument an equal footing, though I feel that whenever we end up doing verbal fisty-cuffs we miss each other's points through the walls of words and fancier words.

 

[BioHazardMan]

Not sure. My criteria for art is that it has to support or critique society or something else. To be art, it must make a statement (in my opinions). Therefore SOME games are art, just like SOME movies, music, etc. are art.

Might sound cliche but that's how I see it.

 

[Jelly ^.^]

Meh. So far as I can see, art is what an artist does for the sake of art.

 

[Evil Alpaca]

Part of the problem is that there are a million definitions of art and in threads like these, there is a posting for each one. I prefer to settle for the definition of art as

"Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way to affect the senses or emotions beyond the immediate. It encompasses a diverse range of human activities, creations, and modes of expression"

For my definition many video games fall under art because they require active emotional involvement between myself and what is happening on screen. I don't consider games like Halo or CoD art because their appeal lies in the immediate response- you or your opponent is dead - but there is little emotional connection once the situation has passed.

 

[MAUSZX]

First of all, what is art? I mean seriously what does it take to be art?
And second of all why do we care if we are art or not? If games are fun I don't care if people call them toys, diabolic or whatever.

Second of all, All movies, bad movies, good movies, GARBAGE movies and all kind of movie it's art. So I guess if games will become art then all games in general will be

 

[GiantRaven]

"Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way to affect the senses or emotions beyond the immediate. It encompasses a diverse range of human activities, creations, and modes of expression"

Just to be cruel and throw in a curve ball; why does art have to be deliberately arranged? Could aspects of nature not be seen as art? What about the many ideas of randomness?

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

"Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way to affect the senses or emotions beyond the immediate. It encompasses a diverse range of human activities, creations, and modes of expression"

Just to be cruel and throw in a curve ball; why does art have to be deliberately arranged? Could aspects of nature not be seen as art? What about the many ideas of randomness?

Considering that the original definition of art was "any human endeavor that isn't a science," I'd say assigning artistic merit to nature is going a bit too far. A landscape painting? That's art. The landscape itself? Not unless it was heavily altered to look that way by human hands.

 

[GiantRaven]

Considering that the original definition of art was "any human endeavor that isn't a science," I'd say assigning artistic merit to nature is going a bit too far. A landscape painting? That's art. The landscape itself? Not unless it was heavily altered to look that way by human hands.

Can I not look at a landscape and be emotionally affected in the same I would looking at a painting? What about the structures and shapes of snowflakes or other incredible parts of nature? Why can these not be perceived as art when they can be just as emotionally powerful as any painting?

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Considering that the original definition of art was "any human endeavor that isn't a science," I'd say assigning artistic merit to nature is going a bit too far. A landscape painting? That's art. The landscape itself? Not unless it was heavily altered to look that way by human hands.

Can I not look at a landscape and be emotionally affected in the same I would looking at a painting? What about the structures and shapes of snowflakes or other incredible parts of nature? Why can these not be perceived as art when they can be just as emotionally powerful as any painting?

Because that's completely outside the definition of art, which in every definition, down to the archaic renaissance usage, requires that it involve human input? But this is really a case of thread derailment. Read every instance of the word "art" in the OP as "high art" or "recognized by the cultural elite as art/containing the elements that the cultural elite usually recognize as art."

 

[GiantRaven]

Because that's completely outside the definition of art, which in every definition, down to the archaic renaissance usage, requires that it involve human input? But this is really a case of thread derailment. Read every instance of the word "art" in the OP as "high art" or "recognized by the cultural elite as art/containing the elements that the cultural elite usually recognize as art."

The idea of 'high art' can go die in a hole.

Are photographs art? If photography can be considered an artform, in which the image itself is the art, then surely the actual subject of the photo itself can be considered art. If I was out and I saw something that would make a great artistic photo, why is it not considered art until I take that picture? Human input has still been used via the perceived artist notion of nature, only the step of taking a photo has been removed.

 

[Halo Fanboy]

Offensive now, am I? Diminishing what games can be, I am? Even, ahhuuuuuum? Really now, you have, and have very often, deliberately tried to paint me as an elitist, artsy snob. I'd like to think that I give everyone's opinion/argument an equal footing, though I feel that whenever we end up doing verbal fisty-cuffs we miss each other's points through the walls of words and fancier words.

If anything I'm the elitest and snob. Just because I don't respect your offensive view points doesn't we can't be friendly.

If you feel that I missed any important points that you've made I would be glad to know what I missed. I don't feel like I've ever done more than take some things you say more literally then you intend.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Because that's completely outside the definition of art, which in every definition, down to the archaic renaissance usage, requires that it involve human input? But this is really a case of thread derailment. Read every instance of the word "art" in the OP as "high art" or "recognized by the cultural elite as art/containing the elements that the cultural elite usually recognize as art."

The idea of 'high art' can go die in a hole.

Are photographs art? If photography can be considered an artform, in which the image itself is the art, then surely the actual subject of the photo itself can be considered art. If I was out and I saw something that would make a great artistic photo, why is it not considered art until I take that picture? Human input has still been used via the perceived artist notion of nature, only the step of taking a photo has been removed.

First of all, I agree with you about how high art is a stupid concept. That's kind of why I made the thread to begin with. Second, the reason a landscape can't be art but a picture of that landscape can goes back several hundred years to the time the word "art" first showed up. If you look at old books, even as recently as Jane Austen the word "art" meant a human endeavor that was not a science, which is why we get terms like "martial arts" and phrases like "game design is more art than science." The idea that art has to involve some sort of emotional element, not to mention the entire notion of "high art" is a much more recent development. Isn't etymology fun?

 

[mjc0961]

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?

Yeah, I agree. Some people take the whole "games are art and they can be like movies" thing too seriously. What they don't realize is that games already are like movies and pretty much every other medium in that there's room for everything. In movies, there are movies that are all about telling some kind of fantastic story, and then there are movies where it's 90 minutes or so of gunfights and explosions with a little plot here or there. I don't see people whining about the latter kinds of movies that much, so what's the big deal when some games are more about over the top fun and excitement without trying to tell the super best story ever. Hell, I even had some fool on YouTube tell me once that video games shouldn't be fun. What?! If a game isn't fun, why the hell would you (as just a player, not a dev or reviewer or any other specialized job in the industry) play it? When I'm watching a TV show or a movie, if it's boring me, I change the channel. If I happen to pick up a book to read and it's not entertaining, I put it back down again. And if I put in a game that's not fun, I stop playing it.

But anyway, yeah, people are taking it too far. Games already are art like movies and whatever else they want to compare to, and trying to get rid of all the silly, over the top games because they don't have "teh awesome storiez FTW!11!!" would only make gaming worse, not better. It's the same as with any other medium: if you'd rather have a grand story than just some mindless action, go pick out the offerings from the medium that give you what you want and enjoy them, and let the other people enjoy their mindless action if they want. Your PS3s, 360s, and so on aren't going to magically stop working if the ratio of awesome story to not awesome story gets too high on the not awesome story side.

 

[GiantRaven]

Isn't etymology fun?

No. No it is not. The idea and meaning of art should not be restricted to a definition made hundreds of years ago by people who probably didn't understand the full extent of what they were saying.

Spoiler

Good lord how pretentious I must sound right now...

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

Isn't etymology fun?

No. No it is not. The idea and meaning of art should not be restricted to a definition made hundreds of years ago by people who probably didn't understand the full extent of what they were saying.

Spoiler

Good lord how pretentious I must sound right now...

You don't. Words like "art" and "intelligence" are...muddled. Neither has a universal definition that is widely accepted. Both also encompass a plethora of things. That makes debate on something regarding them unclear and a little confusing.