When did we go from "games can be art" to "all games must be art?"
- Thread starter Owyn_Merrilin
- Start date
Recommended Videos
To be frank we (the gamers) don't give a damn what label gets pasted onto our games, if it be "art" or whatever else. Unfortunately the courts are rather more particular, and that is something that gamers do give a damn about.
Since when does art need a story?Owyn_Merrilin said:
This thread is a perfect example of how difficult it is to convey exactly what a person intends through a post. It also provides insight into argument, particularly in the realization that making assumptions about even the definition of words such as [a] story can completely negate the persuasive power of one's words.
That being said, I wold define a "story" as something that makes events cohesive. If you will agree with me in what a story's function is, then I ask you to define a story by it's function, and to thus give it definition.
Under this definition, everything has a story because everything can be said to happen for some reason, be it by logical deduction or something as dissident as divine intervention.
For example, the game of checkers has a story because each players assumes a competitive role against an opponent of another color. Every move in the game acts as a reaction to the initial story, or the taking of roles, of the players.
On the other end of the spectrum, let's say you have issues with registration at the airport and miss your flight. The plane crashes. Are these events linked? An issues with registration are completely unrelated to navigation of the airplane, yet someone may argue that you missed your flight for a reason. Therefore, this situation has a "story".
Every game has story, or some cohesiveness, if the person taking part chooses so. By redefining the definition of a story though, this can be negated. This argument is based in opinion, essentially.
My initial "feeling" is that games are always art. I probably feel this because, by making something purposely devoid of art, doesn't it become art because it's saying something about art by not being art (paradox)? Therefore, the only thing that's not art is anything done without purpose. Isn't that what being human is about, though? I don't think we ever "just do" anything, or, if we do "just do" anything, it's probably so insignificant in comparison to the other things done with purpose that we don't care about it.
'Course, we could just be chemical computers with arms and legs...
That being said, I wold define a "story" as something that makes events cohesive. If you will agree with me in what a story's function is, then I ask you to define a story by it's function, and to thus give it definition.
Under this definition, everything has a story because everything can be said to happen for some reason, be it by logical deduction or something as dissident as divine intervention.
For example, the game of checkers has a story because each players assumes a competitive role against an opponent of another color. Every move in the game acts as a reaction to the initial story, or the taking of roles, of the players.
On the other end of the spectrum, let's say you have issues with registration at the airport and miss your flight. The plane crashes. Are these events linked? An issues with registration are completely unrelated to navigation of the airplane, yet someone may argue that you missed your flight for a reason. Therefore, this situation has a "story".
Every game has story, or some cohesiveness, if the person taking part chooses so. By redefining the definition of a story though, this can be negated. This argument is based in opinion, essentially.
My initial "feeling" is that games are always art. I probably feel this because, by making something purposely devoid of art, doesn't it become art because it's saying something about art by not being art (paradox)? Therefore, the only thing that's not art is anything done without purpose. Isn't that what being human is about, though? I don't think we ever "just do" anything, or, if we do "just do" anything, it's probably so insignificant in comparison to the other things done with purpose that we don't care about it.
'Course, we could just be chemical computers with arms and legs...
For your first point, I think you'll find that that sort of artistic merit is a much lower bar than the high art that so many gamers are obsessed with, and all games (with the potential exception, in the eyes of the court, of Rapelay and similar hentai games) meet that requirement. As for your second point, art doesn't need a story. But for some reason, the games as art people keep hammering on story, paying very little attention to things like graphic design or music -- and indeed, most of the discussion of "games as art" centers on how it's a new narrative medium, not a new form of canvas for a painting.Continuity said:
I get that not all games have to be art, but isn't it better when they are?
To quote MovieBob "Isn't a party always better when it's celebrating SOMETHING?"
To quote MovieBob "Isn't a party always better when it's celebrating SOMETHING?"
"When did we go from "games can be art" to "all games must be art?"
Did we? I didn't, did you?
YAY 100th post!
Did we? I didn't, did you?
YAY 100th post!
Ah ok, fair enough. I agree, you don't need aspects like diversity and moral choice within a single game. You definitely do in the medium of video gaming though.KalosCast said:
I don't really know where to stand on the whole 'videogames are toys' issue. On the one hand, we do play with them but, on the other, it kind of feels like calling films, television shows or music 'toys'. It's a toughie all right but, in the end, does it really matter? I mean, toys are cool right?
But then does such a thing not become art when a person instils a purpose onto it, even if it is solely just towards themselves.Watcheroftrends said:
People seriously,
ALL games are art.
If that just blew your mind,
DON'T PANIC.
Art doesn't have to be stuffy and pretentious, it can be whimsical and silly, it can be serious and gritty, it can be anything.
If a big red dot is in a museum as "art", why is Twisted Metal not art?
Edit: The geth choice episode is actually really good. The fact that a videogame can make you pause and think about what your character is doing should be fairly impressive. What would you do? What if this was an actual choice you had to make? Could you exterminate an entire race of people? Could you rationalize brainwashing an entire race? What would you do?
ALL games are art.
If that just blew your mind,
DON'T PANIC.
Art doesn't have to be stuffy and pretentious, it can be whimsical and silly, it can be serious and gritty, it can be anything.
If a big red dot is in a museum as "art", why is Twisted Metal not art?
Edit: The geth choice episode is actually really good. The fact that a videogame can make you pause and think about what your character is doing should be fairly impressive. What would you do? What if this was an actual choice you had to make? Could you exterminate an entire race of people? Could you rationalize brainwashing an entire race? What would you do?
Not all games must be art in the same way that not all movies are art. Sometimes you just want to knock some skulls together in a game. Sometimes you just want to see a moviestar knock some skulls together in a film. Either way, art is not necessary all the time.
Really,there is not much behind this.People like a story,artists like attention,the media loves someone to blame,and we aren't even into our third century.
Its just like B-movies.
People try to rate them like a real movie so they get bad ratings but millions of people still flock to go see it because that is what they want to see,a fun shoot em up,not a depressing story about some abusive mother and the Hollywood spin that makes it even less likely and realistic.
Its just like B-movies.
People try to rate them like a real movie so they get bad ratings but millions of people still flock to go see it because that is what they want to see,a fun shoot em up,not a depressing story about some abusive mother and the Hollywood spin that makes it even less likely and realistic.
am loving the bread and sandwich analogy. long may they continue.
one dude wants just bread, one dude wants bread with cheese. im sure someone else could go a ham sandwich.
i believe the point that was attempted to get across, before you all tried to make me hungry, was that different people like different things and the people that like "pc shooters" (doom, duke, cs, unreal, team fortress, etc) have not had much new to go on for a long time and are happy at their resurgence with games like DNF, bulletstorm, etc.
they are not (or at least should not) be crying for these at the expense of "console shooters" (halo, gears of war, killzone, etc) but instead would like both to flourish so there is a choice in the market.
with regards to the story of above games: some people want run 'n' gun, balls to the wall action with ridiculous guns and enemies. they dont want to be interrupted with trivial things like the story of when the first spaceship landed on earth or how their reallybiggun4000xxx actually works, they just want to point and shoot, hopefully dodging the onslaught flying at them.
for them a story as laid out in games like call of duty or gears of war just gets in the way of the action.
neither is better, they are just different. and each to their own.
OT games are art. art does not have to be good, it just has to be appreciated by anyone. be it the artist or the people experiencing it.
am off to make a ham and cheese sandwich now.
one dude wants just bread, one dude wants bread with cheese. im sure someone else could go a ham sandwich.
i believe the point that was attempted to get across, before you all tried to make me hungry, was that different people like different things and the people that like "pc shooters" (doom, duke, cs, unreal, team fortress, etc) have not had much new to go on for a long time and are happy at their resurgence with games like DNF, bulletstorm, etc.
they are not (or at least should not) be crying for these at the expense of "console shooters" (halo, gears of war, killzone, etc) but instead would like both to flourish so there is a choice in the market.
with regards to the story of above games: some people want run 'n' gun, balls to the wall action with ridiculous guns and enemies. they dont want to be interrupted with trivial things like the story of when the first spaceship landed on earth or how their reallybiggun4000xxx actually works, they just want to point and shoot, hopefully dodging the onslaught flying at them.
for them a story as laid out in games like call of duty or gears of war just gets in the way of the action.
neither is better, they are just different. and each to their own.
OT games are art. art does not have to be good, it just has to be appreciated by anyone. be it the artist or the people experiencing it.
am off to make a ham and cheese sandwich now.
Who said art had to have a "story"?
Where is the story here? Doom has more of a story, and I'm not just talking about the opening text crawl.
When most game critics say "story" seem to mean plot, usually in the narrow terms as you'd find in a book, play or novel. But that's just hegemonic prejudice getting in the way, the same reason Ebert foolishly said games could not be art, because he is a FILM CRITIC and he only knows the way that films can be art.
Narrative can be so broad and subtle, any game that has progression has a narrative, you are exploring and discovering new things about a strange and exciting new world in such a visceral and personal way.
Take Left 4 Dead, a multiplayer zombie shooter, it actually has a deep and dynamic narrative that you may not be the creator of, but you are the auteur. The wild card is your own free will, the gambit is that your will can be manipulated and that has far greater artistic potential than a rigidly controlled.
I think a good analogy of games as art is to Architecture or sculpture. You can enter a building from any angle, you can take any values you like with you to use the building in any way. See a really well designed building takes account of your own free will.
That's the problem with plays, films and book they talk a lot about ideals of free will but very few actually grant that to their audience, they have to passively consume it as per the orders of the auteur. Read the book chapter by chapter, watch the film in order, some very good films know the benefit of ambiguity, this can be so powerful to an audience as it gives them a chance to exercise their free will and make a DECISION on what happened, who was right,who was wrong and not simply be TOLD what is.
Where is the story here? Doom has more of a story, and I'm not just talking about the opening text crawl.
When most game critics say "story" seem to mean plot, usually in the narrow terms as you'd find in a book, play or novel. But that's just hegemonic prejudice getting in the way, the same reason Ebert foolishly said games could not be art, because he is a FILM CRITIC and he only knows the way that films can be art.
Narrative can be so broad and subtle, any game that has progression has a narrative, you are exploring and discovering new things about a strange and exciting new world in such a visceral and personal way.
Take Left 4 Dead, a multiplayer zombie shooter, it actually has a deep and dynamic narrative that you may not be the creator of, but you are the auteur. The wild card is your own free will, the gambit is that your will can be manipulated and that has far greater artistic potential than a rigidly controlled.
I think a good analogy of games as art is to Architecture or sculpture. You can enter a building from any angle, you can take any values you like with you to use the building in any way. See a really well designed building takes account of your own free will.
That's the problem with plays, films and book they talk a lot about ideals of free will but very few actually grant that to their audience, they have to passively consume it as per the orders of the auteur. Read the book chapter by chapter, watch the film in order, some very good films know the benefit of ambiguity, this can be so powerful to an audience as it gives them a chance to exercise their free will and make a DECISION on what happened, who was right,who was wrong and not simply be TOLD what is.
Drawing a black square in the middle of a white canvas is considered art. Keep that in mind. Art is art, no matter how much meaning there is behind it.
Why the hostility? Is it really worth getting that worked up over?Ephraim J. Witchwood said:
I'm still eagerly awaiting the video game equivalent of this. Maybe I missed it somewhat, I don't know...ProfessorLayton said:
Dude, that was pretty well uncalled for. Here we are having a friendly debate, and you come in, drop your opinion down with no backing, and then swear at the first person to call you out on it. Chill out, there's no need to be so hostile.Ephraim J. Witchwood said:
