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

[sheah1]

Since when? I can separate an artistic game like Heavy Rain from a plain ol' fun game like Dead Rising.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

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

When we became a bunch of pretentious whiny douchebags.

A few, of which, are posers. Honestly, I think some people take that stance to seem more sophisticated. Both types have a right to, and need to, exist. I love the Twisted Metal series. I also love the Persona series. One is "high" art, the other is blowing people/things up in crazily designed vehicles. When did this community decide they were too good for mindless fun? I think EC accidentally created a monster.

 

[TerranReaper]

As an aside, I bought Serious Sam and tried to play it. Got bored within the first few levels. Mindlessly shooting hundreds of evil minions is exactly that: mindless.

This statement alone can make you sound like some elitist that thinks themselves as superior because they play games that aren't "mindless" and anyone else who don't play games that don't have a good storyline are idiots and mindless sheep. Maybe you yourself don't have this mindset, but other people do.

That's the major problem I have with this community and certain other communities as well, they act like huge snobs and condescend on people who enjoy games that don't have what they enjoy. To these people, playing CoD or even enjoying multiplayer games makes you some sort of idiot that can't appreciate a good story. The way I see it, the push for making all video games art is just an attempt for certain gamers to try to separate themselves from the mainstream so they can make themselves feel superior above other gamers. It's also a problem I personally have with Extra Credits as well.

 

[Zannah]

How can something good hurt? Why would one abandon some aspects without any reason to so, or possible gain, and why is one not allowed to point out that passing good parts up without reason might strike one as stupid?

 

[Sexbad]

It's not that games "aren't art" or "can become art" or "must be art."

Games are art, they are an art form that involves the incorporation of many other art forms, such as film, literature, and music, all wrapped in interactivity. What some people consider "works of art" in games are productions like Amnesia or The Void or Limbo, but really, every game has some creative spark to it (yes, even Call of Duty so don't whine).

If you want every game to be a serious attempt to tell a deep story you're a pretentious, annoying terdfase. I respect the artistic value of a game like Duke Nukem as much as I respect the artistic value of Cryostasis (my favorite game of all time, choc full of atmosphere and brilliant storytelling).

 

[Ace of Spades]

[strong]It's like complaining that your game of Monopoly or Risk doesn't tell a good story.[/strong]

This is always the argument that really grinds my gears. I understand where you're coming from, but this is not a good example. Risk and monopoly are games designed to be played with friends, and as such, they don't need a story; they're just a framework for friendly get-together. Single-player games on the other hand are just that, games for a single player, and a great deal of games would be relatively boring without a narrative to string together the gunfights and vehicle sections, or whatever other gameplay elements are on offer. Playing poker with friends is fun; playing it alone against AI opponents is not.

 

[Something Amyss]

But attempting to certainly doesn't hurt.

I agree it doesn't hurt, but there are so many enjoyable books, films and games which don't advance the medium as art as all.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

How can something good hurt? Why would one abandon some aspects without any reason to so, or possible gain, and why is one not allowed to point out that passing good parts up without reason might strike one as stupid?

Because sometimes the aspects you enjoy can get in the way of the aspects I enjoy -- this thread was actually created in response to your thread, by the way. I mean, Bioshock is a great game, but if every game were Bioshock, the world would be without Serious Sam and TF2, and that would be a very sad world indeed. A true balls to the walls shooter, in the vein of the arcade shooters of old, really can't be done with the inclusion of a story. The story, in this case, detracts from the real point of the game.

It's not that games "aren't art" or "can become art" or "must be art."

Games are art, they are an art form that involves the incorporation of many other art forms, such as film, literature, and music, all wrapped in interactivity. What some people consider "works of art" in games are productions like Amnesia or The Void or Limbo, but really, every game has some creative spark to it (yes, even Call of Duty so don't whine).

If you want every game to be a serious attempt to tell a deep story you're a pretentious, annoying terdfase. I respect the artistic value of a game like Duke Nukem as much as I respect the artistic value of Cryostasis (my favorite game of all time, choc full of atmosphere and brilliant storytelling).

This is pretty much the way I feel about it. All games -- or at least every game I know of -- contains the minimum level of artistic merit to avoid being banned under the obscenity laws of the U.S.. But very few games have, or even need, the level of artistic merit required to be called high art. It's like a wise man once said: gaming still hasn't found it's Citizen Kane, but that's probably a good thing, since Citizen Kane would make a terrible game.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

[strong]It's like complaining that your game of Monopoly or Risk doesn't tell a good story.[/strong]

This is always the argument that really grinds my gears. I understand where you're coming from, but this is not a good example. Risk and monopoly are games designed to be played with friends, and as such, they don't need a story; they're just a framework for friendly get-together. Single-player games on the other hand are just that, games for a single player, and a great deal of games would be relatively boring without a narrative to string together the gunfights and vehicle sections, or whatever other gameplay elements are on offer. Playing poker with friends is fun; playing it alone against AI opponents is not.

You might have a point, if the Civilization series weren't so much fun, even against AI opponents. That series is nothing but an overgrown version of Risk, and yet the storyless singleplayer is infinitely more popular than the identical multiplayer. Let's face it, video games are games, not movies or books.

 

[Ace of Spades]

[strong]It's like complaining that your game of Monopoly or Risk doesn't tell a good story.[/strong]

This is always the argument that really grinds my gears. I understand where you're coming from, but this is not a good example. Risk and monopoly are games designed to be played with friends, and as such, they don't need a story; they're just a framework for friendly get-together. Single-player games on the other hand are just that, games for a single player, and a great deal of games would be relatively boring without a narrative to string together the gunfights and vehicle sections, or whatever other gameplay elements are on offer. Playing poker with friends is fun; playing it alone against AI opponents is not.

You might have a point, if the Civilization series weren't so much fun, even against AI opponents. That series is nothing but an overgrown version of Risk, and yet the storyless singleplayer is infinitely more popular than the identical multiplayer. Let's face it, video games are games, not movies or books.

Storyless singleplayer? That's the reason I enjoy playing Medieval II: Total War, I'm rewriting history as I play. You don't necessarily need cutscenes or dialogue to have a story.

 

[GiantRaven]

When did this community decide they were too good for mindless fun?

Why can't mindless fun be art?

You might have a point, if the Civilization series weren't so much fun, even against AI opponents. That series is nothing but an overgrown version of Risk, and yet the storyless singleplayer is infinitely more popular than the identical multiplayer. Let's face it, video games are games, not movies or books.

It may not be explicitly story based but I wouldn't say Civilization is without story.

 

[Zannah]

How can something good hurt? Why would one abandon some aspects without any reason to so, or possible gain, and why is one not allowed to point out that passing good parts up without reason might strike one as stupid?

Because sometimes the aspects you enjoy can get in the way of the aspects I enjoy -- this thread was actually created in response to your thread, by the way. I mean, Bioshock is a great game, but if every game were Bioshock, the world would be without Serious Sam and TF2, and that would be a very sad world indeed. A true balls to the walls shooter, in the vein of the arcade shooters of old, really can't be done with the inclusion of a story. The story, in this case, detracts from the real point of the game.

See, I don't buy that. You can have gameplay that doesn't get in the way of the story, and a story / framework that doesn't get in the way of the shooty fun. You can have clever moments of comedy without mentioning genitalia, and while telling a good story.
Saying you can't have both, is merely excusing developers lazyness. That few people are competent enough to pull it off, doesn't mean it's impossible, nor that it's never been done.

 

[The Bucket]

I think the debate itself is if the medium itself qualifies as art, rather than a game/activity. Beacuse of the medium its in, Transformers 2 is art. Bad art, but art none the less.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

[strong]It's like complaining that your game of Monopoly or Risk doesn't tell a good story.[/strong]

This is always the argument that really grinds my gears. I understand where you're coming from, but this is not a good example. Risk and monopoly are games designed to be played with friends, and as such, they don't need a story; they're just a framework for friendly get-together. Single-player games on the other hand are just that, games for a single player, and a great deal of games would be relatively boring without a narrative to string together the gunfights and vehicle sections, or whatever other gameplay elements are on offer. Playing poker with friends is fun; playing it alone against AI opponents is not.

You might have a point, if the Civilization series weren't so much fun, even against AI opponents. That series is nothing but an overgrown version of Risk, and yet the storyless singleplayer is infinitely more popular than the identical multiplayer. Let's face it, video games are games, not movies or books.

Storyless singleplayer? That's the reason I enjoy playing Medieval II: Total War, I'm rewriting history as I play. You don't necessarily need cutscenes or dialogue to have a story.

But that story isn't part of the game, it's all in your head. If everyone did what you're suggesting, no game would be storyless, because we could just make one up as we went along. If I write a Doom fan fiction that perfectly explains every event in the game, it doesn't meant that fan fiction was actually the story of the game. By the same token, Civilization has no story, just a bunch of game mechanics cleverly hidden behind some flavor text.

 

[GiantRaven]

But that story isn't part of the game, it's all in your head. If everyone did what you're suggesting, no game would be storyless, because we could just make one up as we went along. If I write a Doom fan fiction that perfectly explains every event in the game, it doesn't meant that fan fiction was actually the story of the game. By the same token, Civilization has no story, just a bunch of game mechanics cleverly hidden behind some flavor text.

And the beautiful thing about that is that it can create different stories within your head each time you play. A game with an explicit story can only play out in a few different ways, and that's in a game which allows that level of story choice, the majority do not.

 

[Ace of Spades]

[strong]It's like complaining that your game of Monopoly or Risk doesn't tell a good story.[/strong]

This is always the argument that really grinds my gears. I understand where you're coming from, but this is not a good example. Risk and monopoly are games designed to be played with friends, and as such, they don't need a story; they're just a framework for friendly get-together. Single-player games on the other hand are just that, games for a single player, and a great deal of games would be relatively boring without a narrative to string together the gunfights and vehicle sections, or whatever other gameplay elements are on offer. Playing poker with friends is fun; playing it alone against AI opponents is not.

You might have a point, if the Civilization series weren't so much fun, even against AI opponents. That series is nothing but an overgrown version of Risk, and yet the storyless singleplayer is infinitely more popular than the identical multiplayer. Let's face it, video games are games, not movies or books.

Storyless singleplayer? That's the reason I enjoy playing Medieval II: Total War, I'm rewriting history as I play. You don't necessarily need cutscenes or dialogue to have a story.

But that story isn't part of the game, it's all in your head. If everyone did what you're suggesting, no game would be storyless, because we could just make one up as we went along. If I write a Doom fan fiction that perfectly explains every event in the game, it doesn't meant that fan fiction was actually the story of the game. By the same token, Civilization has no story, just a bunch of game mechanics cleverly hidden behind some flavor text.

And if everyone did what you're doing, then no game would have a story. Every game is "just a bunch of game mechanics cleverly hidden behind some flavor text". The process of enjoying a game is letting those gameplay elements make an experience, though clearly, you and I differ wildly in our philosophies of enjoying games.

 

[Grospoliner]

When you learn to appreciate art you learn to appreciate the beauty of the world around you, the effort of creation, and the subjectivity of the meaning that can be found therein.

Game's are art whether you like to admit it or not, even when they don't try to portray themselves as such.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

How can something good hurt? Why would one abandon some aspects without any reason to so, or possible gain, and why is one not allowed to point out that passing good parts up without reason might strike one as stupid?

Because sometimes the aspects you enjoy can get in the way of the aspects I enjoy -- this thread was actually created in response to your thread, by the way. I mean, Bioshock is a great game, but if every game were Bioshock, the world would be without Serious Sam and TF2, and that would be a very sad world indeed. A true balls to the walls shooter, in the vein of the arcade shooters of old, really can't be done with the inclusion of a story. The story, in this case, detracts from the real point of the game.

See, I don't buy that. You can have gameplay that doesn't get in the way of the story, and a story / framework that doesn't get in the way of the shooty fun. You can have clever moments of comedy without mentioning genitalia, and while telling a good story.
Saying you can't have both, is merely excusing developers lazyness. That few people are competent enough to pull it off, doesn't mean it's impossible, nor that it's never been done.

What I'm saying is that with some games, any pause in the action -- and story sequences definitely pause the action, whether they're done in the Half Life way or in the Final Fantasy way -- is detrimental to the game as a whole. I can think of exactly one FPS series that told a story without breaking the flow of the gameplay, and that's the Left 4 Dead series. The game has little explicit story, but if you take the time to look at all the little details in the level design, the story of the zombie apocalypse is there. Thing is, if you want to take the time to take in that story, you'd better do it on your own time, playing with bots, because actually stopping to look at all that stuff A, breaks the flow of the game, and B, will get you and your teammates killed. So even with the best example of an FPS telling a story in an manner that is not intrusive, actually paying attention to that story breaks the flow of the game.

As for the whole dick jokes thing, well, what's the problem with a game that has some middle school grade humor? I know that was aimed squarely at Duke Nukem, but then that's one series, the whole point of which is having a good time and laughing your ass off. With the whole Steven Seagal movie argument that you keep bringing up, sometimes the worst movies can make for the best viewing. For evidence, I give you Troll 2 and The Room. For evidence of mindless action movies that are absolutely worth watching, how about Predator and Highlander. If you can't enjoy those four movies, you're probably lacking the funny bone.

 

[ABLb0y]

i think we want to just give a middle finger to Roger Ebert.

 

[GiantRaven]

I can think of exactly one FPS series that told a story without breaking the flow of the gameplay, and that's the Left 4 Dead series.

Oh Left 4 Dead, is there any discussion you can't enhance?