Which games do you consider to be art?

[end_boss]

Okami, yeah, it's pretty, and you could say the graphics design is closer to being art as most other games, but does "looking pretty" make it art? Is "Muramasa: The Demon Blade" art because it is pretty?

First off, I fully understand and agree that art is subjective, so I'm in no way trying to tell you that you have to consider Okami art. However, in defense of my opinion, there are plenty of beautifully visual games out there that I do not consider to be art. I mentioned Okami not simply because of the graphics looking good, but because of the way the game made me FEEL. I truly FELT like I was bringing and restoring life to an overtly fictitious world.

It was the same effect but opposite side of the spectrum from Shadow of the Colossus. I've played a lot of games that take place in a dying world, but never have I experienced the feeling of existing in a world of death as I did in Colossus, even though it is never said or overtly implied that the world was dying. The world was not destroyed, there was no strife, no natural disaster had taken place, but the pure emotion of urgently fighting to bring the girl back to life by hunting down and killing these monstrous beings in an otherwise uninhabited world (except lizards, I guess) really inspired a feeling in me that was never told to me in words.

In both examples, though, the overall experience was a result of but also greater than the sum of their visual style, design, sound scape, musical score, story, and the emotions they express by being directly affected by my actions. By this definition we find an experience that cannot be expressed through any other medium, and I think that that gives a fairly good argument as to why games can be considered art.

 

[end_boss]

Even bad art is art, same goes for games that don't really mean or accomplish anything, same as the label on your soup. They're just there, the scribbles on your notebook won't land anywhere in a museum but they're still art. Don't easily dismiss the majority of games as art just because they're not accomplished. Simply embrace the fact that they're "bad" art, or meaningless

Games tend to focus more on the entertainment of the individual or individuals interacting with them over a period of time, where as most other recognized art forms can be interacted with in the span of a few seconds and then move on. That leaves a very big distinction and makes it much harder to compare games to more traditional forms of art.

That is a very interesting argument, and one that comes down to how we view art as individuals, but it is valid, even if I do not share the same views. Thank you for expressing it, though.

 

[end_boss]

De we REALLY need to focus our attention on something as meaningless as a "classification"? Stop listening to Roger Ebert. Who cares?!

For the hell of it, My Dragon Age: Origins experience. My god, what a game, truly a work of art, a masterpeice.

I'm not listening to Roger Ebert. I never mentioned him once in my initial post, and nobody mentioned him in the thread before you. I intentionally waited for long after the Ebert article lost its attention so that this thread wouldn't be connected to it.

I'm asking for what games people choose to define as art. What art in video games means to THEM. I'm asking for their opinion, giving them a chance to express their views.

So, in fact, you're the one that's dwelling on Ebert. Get over it.

 

[SyphonX]

It's okay to call a lot of games art. You don't have to pick "the most beautifully rendered", that is not what art is supposed to be.

Many games do feature a wonderful narrative, plus beautiful visuals. Nearly all games today, if developed with heart, do appeal to your emotions. That is all art is, really. In it's most basic form, a petition to your emotions, to make you feel something. As a painting of a single scene can overwhelm you with emotions or thoughts, or a song. Video games do this as well.

I'm not going to say games are a professional and mature art, but they are art nonetheless.

Oh, and fuck Ebert.

 

[end_boss]

I guess it depends how you define art. Some people consider stories as a work of art. Which then I'd have to put Silent Hill 2 down as an example of art, just because of how well done the story and environment is done.

It does depend on how you define art. This thread is asking which games are art to YOU. So, how do YOU define games as art, and which games do you consider successful at it?

 

[socialmenace42]

Mass Effect 1 and 2 (Yeah, I know I can't stop harping on about it)

Other than that, Ninja Gaiden 2, PoP sands of time trillogy and Gears, though they could have made it more colourfull.

 

[Riobux]

I guess it depends how you define art. Some people consider stories as a work of art. Which then I'd have to put Silent Hill 2 down as an example of art, just because of how well done the story and environment is done.

It does depend on how you define art. This thread is asking which games are art to YOU. So, how do YOU define games as art, and which games do you consider successful at it?

But why does it matter what art is to me? Art is all about interpretation. To me, art is anything and everything. Even a pair of speakers can be considered art in how they were created through the sweat of minorities in LEDCs so rich kids who live in the suburbs and hate their life can listen to "up-lifting" music.

 

[Enigma6667]

Shadow of the Colossus. Words simply can't describe the experience.

 

[end_boss]

I guess it depends how you define art. Some people consider stories as a work of art. Which then I'd have to put Silent Hill 2 down as an example of art, just because of how well done the story and environment is done.

It does depend on how you define art. This thread is asking which games are art to YOU. So, how do YOU define games as art, and which games do you consider successful at it?

But why does it matter what art is to me? Art is all about interpretation. To me, art is anything and everything. Even a pair of speakers can be considered art in how they were created through the sweat of minorities in LEDCs so rich kids who live in the suburbs and hate their life can listen to "up-lifting" music.

Right, but I'm not asking what things in existence are art, I'm asking which video games you consider art. If your answer is "all of them," then that's fine. In my view, art is a bit more exclusive. I started this thread to see how people's opinions of games as art vary, so that's why it matters.

 

[Thaius]

Even bad art is art, same goes for games that don't really mean or accomplish anything, same as the label on your soup. They're just there, the scribbles on your notebook won't land anywhere in a museum but they're still art. Don't easily dismiss the majority of games as art just because they're not accomplished. Simply embrace the fact that they're "bad" art, or meaningless

Games tend to focus more on the entertainment of the individual or individuals interacting with them over a period of time, where as most other recognized art forms can be interacted with in the span of a few seconds and then move on. That leaves a very big distinction and makes it much harder to compare games to more traditional forms of art.

I love you.

You are absolutely right: I find it irritating when people say, "Well only some games are art." I mean, literature is considered an art form; that is inclusive, meaning that any novel written is art. It may be good art, or it may suck, but it's art. If a book is written and it sucks, it's still art: bad art, but art nonetheless.

I would also argue that the thing that separates video games from most forms of art (I include film as an art form, by the way) is interactivity. Roger Ebert had the most well thought-out argument I've seen when he said that video games are not art because they are interactive, and the artist does not have full control over the experience. It was an ignorant argument that displayed his staggering lack of understanding about how video games work and what they are (don't even get me started on his second statement), but it was more well thought-out than most I've heard. But it is true that such smooth and integrated interactivity has never before been seen in the artistic world: that doesn't mean it's inherently not art (to say "it hasn't been, so it can't be" is a terrible way to look at anything in the artistic world), so it's understandable that we would have trouble trying to adapt video games into our conception of what art is. But if games are art, they are art: it is possible that a distinction could be made between competitive gaming and artistic games, but if games are art, they are art, even if they suck.

 

[Riobux]

Right, but I'm not asking what things in existence are art, I'm asking which video games you consider art. If your answer is "all of them," then that's fine. In my view, art is a bit more exclusive. I started this thread to see how people's opinions of games as art vary, so that's why it matters.

Ah, sorry then. I find all games potentially being works of art, it's all about interpretation. Sure some may be more of a Da Vinci or a Raphael than a scribbles by a hobo, but even those scribbles can be seen as art to some.

 

[Sniper Team 4]

None. I think along the lines of "There's art in videogames", but I just don't see videogames as a whole a work of art. When I think art, paintings, music, and writing come to mind. Something set. If anyone knows about Naruto, I think of art the same way Sasori does.

 

[end_boss]

Oh, upon further thought, I would also add The Neverhood Chronicles to the list. It was a work of art in its design and its self-awareness of the player and its own role as a video game. It would be hard for me to describe it without spoilers. You've either played it already and hopefully understand what I mean, or else you should find and play it now!

 

[Jurianras]

Earthbound and Mother 3.

 

[AMMO Kid]

If you mean graphics then Red Dead Redemption and Oblivion
If you mean gameplay/story then Bioshock and Mass Effect

 

[end_boss]

If you mean graphics then Red Dead Redemption and Oblivion
If you mean gameplay/story then Bioshock and Mass Effect

I'm asking what your idea of video game art is, and what you would consider to be a prime example.

 

[rabidmidget]

Personally I don't think that arty graphics = arty game as that seems to be a pretty shallow way to classify something as art.

I think the main reason why games aren't accepted as art is due to the fact that most games switch between story and gameplay with an almost audible clunk. What I mean by this is that the two are never fully integrated (well except for point and click adventure games) as the story is used to fill in gaps between gameplay or vice versa, cutscenes are a good example of this.

I'm not saying that there aren't any games that could be considered art, but most of those are small indie games that don't really representing gaming as a whole.

 

[AMMO Kid]

If you mean graphics then Red Dead Redemption and Oblivion
If you mean gameplay/story then Bioshock and Mass Effect

I'm asking what your idea of video game art is, and what you would consider to be a prime example.

My idea of Video Game Art is when you are so immersed in the game that you totally forget about the story and go and do whatever you want without many limitations, so Fallout 3 and Red Dead Redemption hit the nail right on the head with me

 

[Sojaus]

Don't understand the hype about Bioware being 'Art" .. Understandable a lot of people found it to be a great game (The games look good, but wouldn't consider them anything special) and have a great story, including my room mate .. But personally I really can't stand the way they tell their stories. I've tried my attempt at Mass Effect, Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Ages, even purchased all 3 and I've yet to beat a single one because I just can't get past the vantage point of their drabble. Each to their own.

 

[Velvo]

Braid, Small Worlds, Red Dead Redemption.