When did we go from "games can be art" to "all games must be art?"
- Thread starter Owyn_Merrilin
- Start date
Recommended Videos
This is true, but my point was that throughout all of that muddiness, the human element has remained at the core of every definition of art, or at least every definition of art that still fits in with the rest of them. I wasn't saying that the language hadn't changed since the archaic definition was current, but that the modern definition grew out of that archaic definition in a fairly logical manner, and to this day retains the core idea that it has to be guided by human (or at least sentient) hands. [sub]Don't get me started on intelligence. Try, just for one day, being an education major who ascribes to the G concept, and considers Howard Gardner's "Multiple Intelligences" idea to be a load of bull.[/sub]RedEyesBlackGamer said:
Edit: For any future employers who might be reading this, I know that the multiple intelligences theory is a useful tool, but I see it as an indicator of personality traits, interests, and aptitudes, not any meaningful measure of intelligence. A multiple intelligences quiz can help a teacher get a general feel for the students in the classroom, but it has absolutely nothing to do with how smart the students are.
I'd say this. The moment someone brought the negative extreme of the subject into public light, we needed to go to the positive extreme. Which can be just as bad.The_root_of_all_evil said:
The main problem is that art hasn't been defined, and I am of the opinion that art actually can't be defined, so until someone in a non-gaming authority says that all games are art we are going to have a tonne of gamers claiming that all games must be art
Being a psych major, I personally believe anything other than a eclectic approach to be folly. I rather like the theory of multiple intelligences. I don't believe in an inherent factor to indicate overall intelligence. [sub]See what I mean? I had no intention of doing this, but I may have started a new debate in your topic. I'm sorry.[/sub]Owyn_Merrilin said:
Your conflating art and quality. People want games to have more. They expect more, and that is perfectly reasonable. Games have evolved beyond the days of the NES or the PS1 and moved on to have new standards. People today expect games to have stories because that is a minimal mark of quality. Back in the day it wasn't necessary because games could get away without it, the expectations and resources were lower so we expected less. Now-a-days not having any story is just lazy because the money and time that goes into these things is insane. You say that they can't afford to have some guy come along write a story and crowbar it in somehow? nonsense! Gamers today expect more and with the variety of tools developers have they deserve it. Now art is a subjective thing and something that all games, even crappy ones, fall into but nobody is explicatively saying that games must be good art. That's like being an asshole and saying only books on par with Romeo and Juliet are real books and all others are garbage. If someone acts like that, you call them an asshole and kick them in the nads if possible. What we want is games to become better and more advanced, and thus better art by extension. We want to build up not tear down and stunt for lack of quality.
You say that a crowbarred-in, superfluous story is better than none at all? I call that nonsense. The presence or absence of a given element isn't an indicator of quality; the quality of all of the elements present combined determines the quality.Twilight_guy said:
Wrong. Art is= beautiful. The multilayered progressions of color and geometry and meaning over the canvas of a Dali, for example, can be equally matched by the same phenomena applied to the primitive brain's energy fluctuations. The pixel-gut wrench must flow into cycles and have a course of splattering action unaffected by the STORY, or the "I KNOW WHAT'S HERE" element; because if it's only telling story, the second time is meaningless.Owyn_Merrilin said:
Action for action's sake, a primitive struggle, can not become derivative of some stupid story that gets consumed, or even worse, failed as an art form, because Edgar Allan Poe's reborn soul skipped on the development cycle. Action needs to be designed like a game of football (or soccer), it must be always the same, but always different. Failing to make action always different fails action itself. And then the critics shout "mindless", faced with the wooden plank painted red. Instead they should shout, simply: "not enough violence, speed and ambiguity".
Constructive games are stupid and not a match for learning an actual sport or a real job, or art. Games are about violence and colors and SF and speed, but, most of all, about change. If it doesn't move, it's failed. And then I definitely don't want any more story on it. It's sold to the highest payer, the 12 year old, I DEFINITELY don't want more of that kind of story in it.
The so called artistic games are nothing more but good action going slow-mo here and there with a hint of dreamy, sexual or violent melancholy. All those poor little repressed magical dangerous girls and oblivious mean people and orcs, oh, the sadness! Let me drink my cup of poisoned wine near the fire.... Fuck "art" story, man; there's no such thing in a million dollar development cycle targeting idiots. The artistic stories in movies and games are told subtly, woven secretly under the shitty stories for kids, presents from the developers to those sharing the pain.
The good "artistic games" that do it all-in-one, like Max Payne. It's a "well done action game". A good action game is not devoid of story; hidden like in Half-Life, or up front like Max Payne. Action is a wide division. It's fucking WIDE. No need to do extra effort and strip it to it's bones. With all the story strips, M.P. is just action. I never distinguish between the sit in the corner time and shoot time, there aren't any. It's all action. When Max Payne 2 made "story", it ripped the action in half and took a special part of it and made it cancerous. It extended, with a nice sleepy story, and died. Again: story is good when it's good. If you're gonna make it to sell it to stupid kids, don't do "story-action", do "action-story"; meaning: no "story", but "action".
Well, when did it turn from a painting, or a picture, into art? Why is it that a painting of some flowers that looks really blurry be called "art", but a painting of a house is just a painting? Same thing with games, because "art" is so arbitrarily defined that any attempt to apply it to a genre is going to get weird.
I didnt realise we were at that point. I'm not at that point.
Some games can count as art, not all do. Same as any other medium (imo).
Games does not have to be art to be good. The recent Die Hard movie was certainly not art, but I laughed and had a good time all the way through. Mindless action, but good fun.
The main purpose of any game is (or should be) entertainment. If it fails to entertain it ultimately fails as a game. Some games are artistic and dull, others are simple and ugly, but still fun. Some games are both beautiful AND fun.
In short, not all games are art, not all games are good. Games have to be good to be art. Imo.
Some games can count as art, not all do. Same as any other medium (imo).
Games does not have to be art to be good. The recent Die Hard movie was certainly not art, but I laughed and had a good time all the way through. Mindless action, but good fun.
The main purpose of any game is (or should be) entertainment. If it fails to entertain it ultimately fails as a game. Some games are artistic and dull, others are simple and ugly, but still fun. Some games are both beautiful AND fun.
In short, not all games are art, not all games are good. Games have to be good to be art. Imo.
Care to point at one thread here where everyone unanimously blames L4D or Serious Sam or Duke Nukem for not having a proper storyline, or for not trying to be 'art'? Might I point at games like Flowers which are considered 'art' purely for their gameplay value even though they've no story to tell whatsoever?Owyn_Merrilin said:
What a load of nonsense. Who is saying all games must be art? 99% of current games are made with no consideration for artistic value. We need to push for quality games because currently it's overwhelmingly games that are only "fun" and not culturally engaging. We have far too many games that are just stupid childish killing sprees. Look at how everyone goes on about just cause and saints row, and forgets about GTAIV when it was a million times as good as a piece of entertainment. But gamers are a pathetic bunch of kids who just want to go around killing things and don't appreciate good writing or world development.
Personally, I am one of those pompous games-are-art enthusiasts, but I agree with what you are saying. Certainly, not all games are art. When arguing that films are art, we do not look at Jackass 3D, but at Black Swan, or The Fighter (picking the last two good movies I saw, because usually I'd say Citizen Kane but I didn't like that movie >_> Okay, I'm off on a tangent now, so
However, I think the problem with games is that people expect a story in games for them to be art, and they expect that story to be in the same form as it is in books.
People, we need to respect the fact that games are their own medium. They shall express art in different ways. You can't look for great narrative in games the same as you would find in a book, because games don't necessarily work the same books. You don't look for a good narration in a film because that's what makes a good book, or good cinematography in a book because that makes a good film.
Games can show artistic expression using their own kind of narrative. Anyone who watched the Extra Credits episode on Missile Command will know what I mean.
But to use my own example, take bulletstorm for a second. Not a whiff of a good story or original character in there. And yet, the unique gameplay provides something different. It forces you to think on your feet, think creatively, and utilize new and colourful ways of killing large numbers of sapient life forms all whilst pressure is mounting from many different sides. Now, normally a book or film that has "Dicktits" in it's "Pre-order now" advertisement would be tossed in the same box as The Expendables, but as a game Bulletstorm shows how you can disregard story, disregard clever dialogue, but still have something intelligent in there. Bulletstorm is actually designed pretty smart.
But there's a million examples of games that make you think using GAMEPLAY, not something arbitrary such as Story or Plot. A good plot can no doubt enhance a game, but it is not the best tool at a games disposal.
Look at Mass Effect, widely credited for it's Character development. Being able to actually fight with those characters at your side and find out for yourself who is reliable and who suits your playing style, plus forging your own conversations and friendships with each member and forming a relationship with one who you admire or like, are all experiences you simply cannot get from reading a book.
Does that make them superior? Not necessarily, but they are unique to games.
We need to embrace that a game that would be dumb by literary standards, or great by film standards, can be something else if we judge it as it's own brand of art.
(Also:
Now you are correct in that the difference is negligible if not nonexistent, and thus neither is superior. But we need terms just to define certain aspects, not necessarily to define greater significance in them. It's just how language works. )
However, I think the problem with games is that people expect a story in games for them to be art, and they expect that story to be in the same form as it is in books.
People, we need to respect the fact that games are their own medium. They shall express art in different ways. You can't look for great narrative in games the same as you would find in a book, because games don't necessarily work the same books. You don't look for a good narration in a film because that's what makes a good book, or good cinematography in a book because that makes a good film.
Games can show artistic expression using their own kind of narrative. Anyone who watched the Extra Credits episode on Missile Command will know what I mean.
But to use my own example, take bulletstorm for a second. Not a whiff of a good story or original character in there. And yet, the unique gameplay provides something different. It forces you to think on your feet, think creatively, and utilize new and colourful ways of killing large numbers of sapient life forms all whilst pressure is mounting from many different sides. Now, normally a book or film that has "Dicktits" in it's "Pre-order now" advertisement would be tossed in the same box as The Expendables, but as a game Bulletstorm shows how you can disregard story, disregard clever dialogue, but still have something intelligent in there. Bulletstorm is actually designed pretty smart.
But there's a million examples of games that make you think using GAMEPLAY, not something arbitrary such as Story or Plot. A good plot can no doubt enhance a game, but it is not the best tool at a games disposal.
Look at Mass Effect, widely credited for it's Character development. Being able to actually fight with those characters at your side and find out for yourself who is reliable and who suits your playing style, plus forging your own conversations and friendships with each member and forming a relationship with one who you admire or like, are all experiences you simply cannot get from reading a book.
Does that make them superior? Not necessarily, but they are unique to games.
We need to embrace that a game that would be dumb by literary standards, or great by film standards, can be something else if we judge it as it's own brand of art.
(Also:
I really appreciate what you are saying, and I agree that the definition of Art has been wrangled and manipulated by certain people to include what they like and exclude what they don't. But Art is something made without a practical purpose in mind. I believe imprecise, unintended art such as in Nature would be called "Beauty" and photography, to use your example, is the art that captures that beauty.GiantRaven said:
Now you are correct in that the difference is negligible if not nonexistent, and thus neither is superior. But we need terms just to define certain aspects, not necessarily to define greater significance in them. It's just how language works. )
I think you guys are kind of missing the point, the all games are art argument is because otherwise games won't have the same rights as other mediums such as books or film.
I mean we can get a terrible film that is nothing more than an excuse for blood and guts (SAW for instance) and people don't bat an eyelid at it but when a game does similar suddenly it's corrupting our children and making rapists.
Personally I prefer games with a storyline to them and some of you guys seem to not remember that old games like Duke Nukem did in fact have its own storylines though it was more of a Parody of action films than anything serious, which is absolutely fine. And on the point of Doom it did have it's storyline if you bothered to read the instruction manual, it's just that the technology at the time wasn't really up to telling the story in-game.
I mean we can get a terrible film that is nothing more than an excuse for blood and guts (SAW for instance) and people don't bat an eyelid at it but when a game does similar suddenly it's corrupting our children and making rapists.
Personally I prefer games with a storyline to them and some of you guys seem to not remember that old games like Duke Nukem did in fact have its own storylines though it was more of a Parody of action films than anything serious, which is absolutely fine. And on the point of Doom it did have it's storyline if you bothered to read the instruction manual, it's just that the technology at the time wasn't really up to telling the story in-game.
Art is usually paintings or music. People define these as beautiful, and beauty is in the eye of the beholder. In which case, video games are only art if you want them to be.