The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

April 10, 2009 -

Have you heard? 

There seems to be some debate as to whether or not video games can be considered art.

All kidding aside, “Are games art?” is a passionate and oft-debated topic; your opinion probably depends on how you’re defining art.  If you define it simply as a work produced using skill, creativity, and imagination then the answer is very likely yes.

However, if, like Devin Faraci of movie news site CHUD, you define art as “something purposefully created or presented with the intention of communicating an idea or feeling” then you may, like Faraci, conclude that games do not fit the bill:

[Games] may be artistic... and they may be used as art objects - an exquisitely hand painted Monopoly board, for instance - but games are not art. The carved chess pieces are art, the actual playing of the game of chess is not...  in the end a game is simply a series of rules... If rules themselves were art, the US Congress would be the most prolific artists of our time.

Now before anyone cracks their knuckles in preparation of a strongly worded email, Faraci offers one final thought.

For the people so hung up on getting video games recognized as art, I have to ask: why? Why does it matter to you that your hobby is validated in that way? If you're having fun, isn't that enough?

-Reporting from San Diego, GamePolitics Correspondent Andrew Eisen met Devin Faraci once and promptly forgot how to pronounce his name...


Comments

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

"[Games] may be artistic... and they may be used as art objects - an exquisitely hand painted Monopoly board, for instance - but games are not art. The carved chess pieces are art, the actual playing of the game of chess is not... in the end a game is simply a series of rules... If rules themselves were art, the US Congress would be the most prolific artists of our time."

He gives the argument away as he begins it. "The carved chess pieces are art." Well, sir, I agree. The rules are not... I agree. I believe this debate is whether the imagery, story, and overall experience the game produces is art, not the rulesets within the game. That is the case in my opinion. Those who produce the games are artists, those who participate in those games are the audience.

The relative nature of art leads itself to this debate often. For instance, I think that those who find the "painting" David as valid artistic impression are retarded. I say this because a solid red line evokes nothing in me. Was it that he called it David? I don't know, but the fact remains that it resides in museums dedicated to displaying art.

To answer the more pointed question as to why we who do defend this medium as a valid form of art would care, I can only say for myself that many of those in the industry deserve the title artist. And as a fan of their work, I find comments by people like you arrogant beyond merit.

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

"The carved chess pieces are art, the actual playing of the game of chess is not"

Written by someone who has never seen a great chess game.  I urge Devin Faraci to get the book "The Immortal Game" by David Shenk.  If a person can read that book and finish it still thinking that chess play is not art, then that person is a complete philistine.

As for whether games rules can be art, of course they can.  Heck, the 'en passant' rule in chess is art in and of itself.  It can't be science - it has no logical reason, yet it works.

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

"If rules themselves were art, the US Congress would be the most prolific artists of our time."

If placing paint on a surface itself was art, housepainters would be the most prolific artists of our time.  Gee, I guess your analogy is pretty terrible.  Of course it's not going to sound artistic if you reduce it down to a boring, flat description of the mechanics behind it.

Even if we accept, for the sake of argument, the premise that a game is nothing more than a set of rules, why can a set of rules not be art?  Whether it's the delicate act of balancing multiplayer, or making a puzzle game with rules that are seemingly simple, but allow for intriguing complexity and nuance, how is coming up with these rules and implementing them in a skillful and entertaining way any less "art" than painting?

"For the people so hung up on getting video games recognized as art, I have to ask: why? Why does it matter to you that your hobby is validated in that way?"

For the people so hung up on preventing video games from being recognized as art, I have to ask: why? Why does it matter to you that our hobby is not validated in that way?

You see what I did there?  For whatever reason, people do care about this issue and want to discuss it, and being dismissive just makes you seem childish and petulant.

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

Art is in the eye of the beholder, a house thats only white is bland a pokadotted one is well.....crazy...

 


Gore,Violence,Sexauilty,Fear,Emotion these are but modes of transportation of story and thought, to take them from society you create a society of children and nannys, since adults are not required.


http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com


Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Let's renegotiate them.

---

http://zippydsm.deviantart.com/

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

If it's art, then it probably gets first ammendment protection, and then the states will stop wasting money on video game legislation that will always, ALWAYS, fail.

---You are likely to be eaten by a Grue.

---You are likely to be eaten by a Grue.

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

Its no less artfelt than TV, modern music and film....

 


Gore,Violence,Sexauilty,Fear,Emotion these are but modes of transportation of story and thought, to take them from society you create a society of children and nannys, since adults are not required.


http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com


Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Let's renegotiate them.

---

http://zippydsm.deviantart.com/

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

Well I don't mind the question myself, the question of what constitutes art is probably one of humanity’s favourite debates. That being the case I really don’t have a problem with Mr. Faraci chewing the fat. After all when the definition of art is so elusive, categorising something as ‘art’ will be a similarly vague process.

However, using the strict definition offered by Mr. Faraci, which in itself is highly debatable, would exclude a good number of things hanging/presented in galleries across the globe.

something purposefully created or presented with the intention of communicating an idea or feeling

What idea or feeling, for example, is Piet Mondrian trying to communicate with his geometric paintings? If there is any message the knowledge required to hear it, is esoteric to say the least.

In comparison, it’s certainly easier to pick up on ideas and feelings conveyed by games (not all games but certainly plenty of them).  For example:

Bioshock- a game that is practically a running commentary on Ayn Rand’s philosophy. You could debate Ken Levine’s interpretation of Ayn Rand’s ideals all day if you wished.

Fallout 3, how can a story told in a post-apocalyptic future not convey feelings, and ideas. It certainly stimulated debate among my friends, the moral choices, the vision of a ruined metropolis all feelings and ideas presented and explorable by you the “viewer”.

I could go on, but for the sake of brevity I won’t. Sure games can have very simple rules, but modern ones come with stories, detailed environments and artistic vision. Chess, while it is a fine game, is something quite different.

Yes, ok video games do focus on a few genres, war etc. but then literature devotes a great deal of time to war as well. Furthermore, I’m pretty confident that as technology improves the scope of video game art will widen, we’re already come a long way from pong…

Just to finish up, why do I care whether people classify games as art? Well I don’t really, I just know they are art to me.

Gift.

 

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

I wonder if, in part, this is not motivated by fear on the part of the movie industry to be honest.

The Game Industry now vastly out-earns the movie industry, if games get labelled as an artistic medium, with the protections that go alongside that definition, then the Movie industry has very little chance of ever fighting back against it, they'll be on a downhill slope as new forms of interaction and entertainment rise, and they can either change or fade.

Maybe this is why certain figures in the Movie Industry would hate to see games recieve art status, because it takes money out of their pockets?

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

I don't know about the Movie industry specifically, but I do suspect there is a resistance to labeling video games as art because of the protection that will afford the medium.

I get the impression that, in the US at least, if games become labeled 'an artform' it would further hamper the activities of people like JT. I don't think Mr. Faraci wants games restricted in any way, but I don't think he fully appreciates the concern caused by those who do want to legislate against video games.

Where gamers do care about the artistic status of games, I suspect it's often because that status will prevent external interference.

Gift.

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

Faraci is wrong for a specific reason.

He assumes that the rules of a game are implemented only to facilitate the playing of the game, and not to create any larger impact, etc. Faraci is demonstratably wrong, many times over. Even simplistic rule changes, like the way Half-Life 2 will periodically restrict the player's movements, are clearly implemented with the intention of creating an effect upon the player. Faraci becomes even more wrong when you consider games like Shadows Of The Colossus or The Path, where the rules themselves are integral to what the game is communicating to the player.

Besides, assuming that there must be intent to create art for something to be art is silly. Ultimately, Faraci has just made another long artistic rant that adds nothing to the arguement about games being art or about what art is in general. As Faraci says, this has been going on for hundreds of years.

The Honest Game - http://www.thehonestgame.org

The Honest Game - http://www.thehonestgame.org

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

Things like F.E.A.R are very story driven as well, for at least the first few chapters of the game, you are driven between cutscenes that define (or at least highlight) the background story.

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

I would argue they are more artistic than any other medium.  Stories like books, continuous visual stimulation like movies, 3D models like sculptures, texures like paintings and all this has to run in real time and have a contiguous look and feel to it.  Not to mention the collection of music that goes into a game.  There is a reason game companies advertise job listings for artists.  I'd even argue that programmers are mathematical artists.  It is a medium that contains every major art form there is and a few new ones.  It seems to be this guy has penis envy.  It's okay, movies are still art.  You just can't interact with them.    

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

"Hanenbow" from Super Smash Bros. Brawl was kinda neat. I wanna see that made into a game.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------



"A Chrono Trigger is anything that unleashes its will or desire to change history!" -Gaspar

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

Actually Hanenbow was a level inspired by the game Electroplankton.

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

 

A Book, after all, is simply a collection of printed letters, there's nothing artistic about letters, therefore books are not art.

A Film is merely a collection of photographs shown quickly, and photographs are just chemical reactions, there's nothing artistic about chemical reactions, therefore movies are not art...

The Mona Lisa does not tell a story or project an idea... ergo, it is not art.

I could keep this up all day...

 

Also, can I just ask, if art is supposed to be presented by an artist, why are things like the Pasquino in Italy consiered artistic when they are wholly based on public interaction? Apparently if it's 400 years old and made of stone, it's automatically interactive art, whereas if it was released last August, it isn't?

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

Man vomiting edible paint onto canvas = art

A large team of developer pouring their heart and soul into a medium for months or years to create an encompassing and interactive experience that lasts for hours upon hours and can convey as much or more emotion than any other medium to date, all while being relivable and rather inexpensive = lol games aren't art lol

 

Yeah, I see this guy's point.</sarcasm>

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

Looking over his editorial, it's clear he's just trying to find an excuse to say video games aren't art.  A justification why one type of media isn't, to him, art, while another is.  In fact, he seems to argue that video games are a "subset" of movies/video productions.

He's trying far too hard to develop an excuse why no one else should see video games as art, to the point where it becomes his own belief and too specific to his own personal tastes.  In general, his argument falls apart because he's defining what is art TO HIM.  Not a general view of what constitutes art.

Again, Art is in the eye of the beholder.

Nightwng2000

NW2K Software

Nightwng2000 has also updated his MySpace page: http://www.myspace.com/nightwing2000 Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

Nightwng2000 NW2K Software http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000 Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

What never ceases to amaze me is this 'Video Games contain art but are not art' malarky.

After all, you could say that, without the 'art', a film is a collection of empty frames, or books are a collection of empty pages. A Book contains art, a film contains art, but without that content, they are not art.

It's one of the most pointless arguments out there.

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

Some "artists" are a little too bent on defining art for everyone.

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

I've only glanced over the other comments as I'm on short time here. I think I echo many other people when I say that his definition fits a game perfectly, however a handpainted Monopoly board does not. As Professor Vu once said, "Where is your logic? You need to go to Kroger and buy one pound Common Sense." See, he thinks of games as a set of rules, however games haven't been "a set of rules" for over a decade now. Can you honestly say that a work of William Shakespeare isn't art? How about a performance of a work of Shakespeare? Funny, both of them fall under art by all legal and common sense definitions. However, as soon as it becomes interactive, you claim it is no longer art?

Basically, it seems to be a person who hasn't played a game since Pong. These guys need to open their eyes and see a few things. People are getting awards for writing in games. Famous authors, actors, and family of famous authors (I'm looking at you Pratchett) are writing and acting in games. It is merely a new form of media.

Just as the printing press didn't make books any less art, putting art into the form of a game, or rather making an artistic game, doesn't make it any less art.

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

 

For the people so hung up on getting video games recognized as art, I have to ask: why? Why does it matter to you that your hobby is validated in that way? If you're having fun, isn't that enough?

Games can be art in many good ways.  somebody should show him Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, Flower, Spore, Linger in Shadows, Bioshock, Metal Gear Solid 4, Final Fantasy 7 (and it's other compilation).  Would somebody show him Final Fantasy 13.  I bet he never seen Okami, Disgaea, and Mirror's Edge.  You sir, I think I should do what the boys at Guanatanamo Bay should do to the terrorist.  Here's one difference though, this doesn't involve pain.  But I want your eyes open at all time, no single blinking.  You will watch all the video game with highly beautiful art and you'll tell me if those are art or not.  This is how I do it. 

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

Mr. Faraci has confused himself, I believe.  Using his own words:

something purposefully created or presented with the intention of communicating an idea or feeling

"[Games] may be artistic... and they may be used as art objects - an exquisitely hand painted Monopoly board, for instance - but games are not art. The carved chess pieces are art, the actual playing of the game of chess is not...  in the end a game is simply a series of rules... If rules themselves were art, the US Congress would be the most prolific artists of our time."

When did anyone claim that playing a videogame was them practicing art?  If a chess piece can be art then so can the design of GTA.  If a painting is art but a person viewing a painting is just appreciating art, then a videogame is art and the playing of that videogame is the appreciation of that art. 

If we are looking for “something purposefully created or presented with the intention of communicating an idea or feeling” then we have just defined an videogame with a story.  If videogames weren't communicating some form of idea or feeling we would quickly get bored.  Sure Pac-Man is as much art as a guy randomly flinging paint at a blank canvas.  Sure, it is there and you can look at it and appreciate it, but the complex "intention of creating an idea or feeling" is missing.  But a very story driven game that makes you rethink your perspective on things or draws you in emotionally is the gaming equivalent of the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. 

 

I have nothing against Mr. Faraci or his thoughts on this, but I do think he fails at debate.  His defense of his opinion does not make sense.  In fact, I just used it all to say the exact opposite of what he was trying to say.  It seems as if he does not understand the debate and is trying to say that I, as a gamer, am calling myself an artist.  Maybe I could argue that with my levels in LittleBigPlanet, but as far as me thinking that my playing a game is me creating art, no.  And I do not think anyone has ever tried to argue that.  I think the game itself is the art and people like Kazunori Yamauchi or Hideo Kojima are artists. 

 

Honestly, I think that if people want to have this debate we need to talk to people like Harmonix employees, musicians who make games about music.  They are artists, without debate, when they aren't at their day job.  Perhaps as undisputed artists (quality may vary) they can give insight into whether they find their game creation to be equal to when they create an original song with their band. 

GameDrunk - Celebrating our two greatest passions.

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

"If rules themselves were art, the US Congress would be the most prolific artists of our time."

Now THERE is some obscene, incompetently done art!

"The carved chess pieces are art, the actual playing of the game of chess is not..."

Again, a matter of interpretation.  Think of "The Art of War".  Many see strategy as an art form.  The very movement of pieces to out think your opponent is much like dance.  And dance, not merely the dancers but the ACT and MOVEMENT of the dance is art.  And not everyone agrees that all types of dance are art.  Many times, we only identify dance such as ballet as being art.  But many other dances, even modern dance forms, can be art in some people's eyes.  And so can the use of strategy in various games.  From Monopoly to Stratego, to Halo and more.  Even checkers, simplistic as it is, CAN be art.  What Devin is defining as art is merely visual.  A painting.  Maybe the visuals of movies.  But art can be beyond that.  Written words.  Music.  Taste (yes, even cooking has been viewed as an art form).  Touch (when someone describes a day and scene as beautiful, would they be doing so even if the weather were nastily sticky?).  And so much more.

He has his view of what is art to him.  That doesn't mean everyone will share the same view of art or what art is.

If I'm enjoying music, isn't that enough without calling it art?

If I'm enjoying reading classical literature, isn't that enough without calling it art?

If I'm enjoying looking at a painting, isn't that enough without calling it art?

As I, and others, have said before, Art Is In The Eye Of The Beholder.  And art can be enjoyable, whether "beautiful", "fun", or any number of other emotions that we may feel along the way.

Nightwng2000

NW2K Software

Nightwng2000 has also updated his MySpace page: http://www.myspace.com/nightwing2000 Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

Nightwng2000 NW2K Software http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000 Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

""If rules themselves were art, the US Congress would be the most prolific artists of our time."

Now THERE is some obscene, incompetently done art!"

The fact that it's bad art doesn't mean it's not art.

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

"For the people so hung up on getting video games recognized as art, I have to ask: why?"

For him being so hung up on getting video games recognized as non-art, I have to ask: why?

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

Mike Chandra: +1 i|\|73R|\|37$

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------



"A Chrono Trigger is anything that unleashes its will or desire to change history!" -Gaspar

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

 

Nice comeback, Michael

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

absolute CLASS reply! nice one!

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

something purposefully created or presented with the intention of communicating an idea or feeling”... hmm...

 

what... ok.. go to the psn store.. download FLOWER. Now turn up your speakers, close the curtains, and come back to me in 6 hours and apologize.

 

 

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

 

Flower is the most beautiful thing I have ever seen along with Linger in Shadows.

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

I'd add Okami to this, never played Flower though, not got a PS3.

 

Also he says Games don't convey feelings or a message. Huh? Play the likes of MSG or the later Ace Combat games which have a heavy anti-war message. Or something like Okami, Ico or Shadow of the Collosus which are just beautiful visually.

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

I agree 100%.  After playing Flower I personally thought this debate was over.

GameDrunk - Celebrating our two greatest passions.

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

"The carved chess pieces are art, the actual playing of the game of chess is not...  in the end a game is simply a series of rules... If rules themselves were art, the US Congress would be the most prolific artists of our time."

A video game, as an artifact, is no more identical to the act of playing it than a chess board or the rules of the game of chess is identical to the act of playing the game.

The comparisons here are not valid. A piece is art, but the rules are not. Why? If chess is a beautiful and elegant game, shaped by its rules, why are the rules not art whereas a piece is? Some chess pieces are beautiful, some are ugly, some are merely utilitarian. However, the existence of some beautiful pieces mean that pieces, in general, can be art, but the rules, however beautiful and elegant they may be, cannot be art?

This seems to make no sense, except as bias towards a traditional form and against a nontraditional one. One might just as well take the tack that chess pieces, as they are utilitarian, are not art, but rather craft, since they are designed for a specific purpose other than just being objects of art.

The comparison between the rules of chess and laws made by congress is also a canard. When you refer to a pretty chess piece being art, you are consciously appealing to the audience's memories of particularly attractive chess pieces or chess sets they may have seen, which many would clearly identify as art. When you refer to Congress, you are consciously appealing to the audience's predictably negative opinion of politicians. However, I see no particular reason why an aesthetically pleasing piece of legislation is any less deserving the title 'art' than any other piece of writing in a different genre-- unless, again, we are excepting items with non-artistic utility as 'craft' in which case chess pieces are still out.

Faraci's arguments are bogus. They don't stand up to rigorous examination and do little, if anything, to cast light on the admittedly interesting topic of what the nature of art is, and how one determines whether particular forms of human expression, like games (video or otherwise) are capable of being considered art.  

The argument that separates purely or primarily utilitarian uses of human faculties-- that separates train schedules from novels-- from primarily or purely aesthetic ones would certainly seem to fall on the side of the argument that games, especially video games, with their audio visual elements, can be art. They are intended primarily to be appreciated for their aesthetic qualities in a way that a chess set is not. The aesthetic qualities of a chess set are secondary to the experience of playing the game because the game experience is essentially unaffected by those aesthetics. The same is not at all true of a video game. There are many games one could essentially describe as "first person shooters" with generally similar gameplay mechanics, but many times what distinguishes one from another, what makes one enjoyable and another not so enjoyable, are the aesthetic-- the artistic-- elements. 

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

Rules are not art in his definition, meaning that rules are not created to communicate. However beautiful or elegant a set of rules can be, what are they trying to communicate? If you really dig into the rules and try to come up with meanings to them, you're attaching meanings to them, rather than engaging in intellectual communication. There are other publications that tries to do the same thing with classic video games, and you know what? They're just funny. So, don't do that.

And to defend my opinion abit more here, I do think playing chess can be art, just like there can be beautiful game of soccer or historic moment of basketball game. But these still fail to be "art" in Faraci's definition (which again, was defined in certain way just for his article and that only).

--

XBL: NekoNari

http://notjustgame.blogspot.com/

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

Chess is so beloved for so long a time because of its rules, which surely can be considered art.  Just because it is something intangible that cannot be touched or heard doesn't make it invalid.

Why do many people consider Martial Arts to be art?  The same reason I (and others) consider games to be art- the intangibles.

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

I agree.  As a chess player, I see art in the rules of chess, in the pieces and the board, and in the play of the game.

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

Chess is definitely a piece of art in the board game world.  It's one of the few things me and my dad really consider an art form together.

I see the art in the many interpretations of moves and possible strategies...he see's the art of kicking my ass every damn time >_>.

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

And him I would ask "And who decides what IS considered art?" Seriously half the stuff I see on display at galleries and museums are (IMO) just pieces of junk which I could make just as good, and I have no artistic skill whatsoever.

I believe that games can be art as well as entertainment. Isn't a game with an great story, beautiful graphics, and/or an orchestral soundtrack just as deserving of being called art?

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

Ah yes this piece is called black line across white canvas see the symbolism ...

And this piece is called white line across white canvas see the symbolism oh I'm sorry thats a place holder its just an empty piece of canvas no wait wait excuse me this is called nothing an exquiste piece that shows to us we are still waiting to be painted.

 

Art is simple its how much BS can I put behind something and actually make you believe that BS is truly behind it.  

I watched one artist basically throw paint at a canvas and because of how it randomly ran it looked somewhat like a human figure so he claimed it was a woman and that it was repsersenting feminism and people bought the BS.

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

"Art, it all comes down to your Bluff Check."
 - Weregeeks

 

"If you really want to enslave people, tell them you are going to give them Total Freedom." - L. Ron Hubbard

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

Anything can be art if the creator or any viewer see it so.  That doesn't mean you have to like it or buy it.

If you dislike something, that means it's not art for you.  But that doesn't mean it's not art for anyone else.

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

Meh, it's hard ot enjoy anything like that when you get slamemd for not "getting it" after five seconds.

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

Got one reply to him:

Stranglehold.

 

Seriously, think of the pigeons!

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

That, and....

Metal Gear Solid

Bioshock

Most RPGs

Fallout

Half Life and Half Life 2

Grim Fandango

Grand Theft Auto

Shadow of the Colossus

Assassin's Creed

 

And we got games that celebrate other forms of art, for isntance Guitar Hero and Rock Band for music and DDR for music AND dance, well, kinda dance.

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

And the Final Fantasy series.

------ Ago. Perceptum. Teneo.

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

No, all of them fall under what he defines as bastards of cinema, games that use movies to tell stories. Most RPGs are the best examples to this as what you do is run around maps to trigger events that progress plots. Whatever you do in between really doesn't matter to the story, the primary reason anyone plays RPG. (Well, Bioware's Mass Effect may be worth noting here, as it does let player to define the tone of the overall plot with its clever but still shallow dialogue system, something books or movies cannot do.)

If you really want to give an example of games that really tries to be something on its own, think The Marriage. However, I bet you that you won't like it. It's simple, boring, and ambiguous. And also it brings up the old, hackneyed quesion, "What is game, exactly?"

 

--

XBL: NekoNari

http://notjustgame.blogspot.com/

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

Obviously, individual games, or movies, or TV shows, and definitely paintings, may not qualify under any of those "definitions." But as a whole, yes.

Cybernatography is defined as "the art of performing a process through use of computers." Yes, games do express feelings and stories, ideals, and even morals. Graphics aside, the storyline of any game qualifies it as art just as much as any book.

Taking Chess as an example. The playing of the game itself is not the art; the RULES, and the strategies of the game, set up by it's creators, is the art. We are not the artists as we play, but as we create.

If that's not enough, cybernatography includes a variety of different art forms in itself: theatre, music, literature, computer graphics, cinematography, etc.

This argument must be applied to every medium, not just games. If games are being scrutinized, then every other medium must be put to this test. 

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

maybe, just MAYBE... gaming is an entirely new fom of art? all those creative elements, all the narrative, all the ideas, the presentation, the interactivity, cause and effect, even the rules, MIXED IN ONE CONSUMABLE PACKAGE??!!! GASP!

something purposefully created or presented with the intention of communicating an idea or feeling”... hmm... i find it hard to understand how this disqualifies games as art, as there are MANY titles that do this. MGS? Bioshock, LBP, Grim FAndango, GTA, Witcher... to name a few?

No, gaming is not a painting, it is not a drawing, it is not a film, it is not a book. It's all these things mixed into one beautifully unique blend. As our industry grows, this debate will become less and less viable. We're still in the early formative days, somehting to consider and be REALLY excited about.

Pardon me, my geek instincts took over.... :)

 

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

"For the people so hung up on getting video games recognized as art, I have to ask: why? Why does it matter to you that your hobby is validated in that way? If you're having fun, isn't that enough?"

Um, because one jagoff saying something isn't art should NOT define that for the rest of us. Hell, when movies first came along I bet this same debate raged on, same for comic books and television. Now if someone claims those mediums have noe artistic value, they get ridiculed.

Art, like many things in life, is subjective(sorry if i get my terms mixed up), just because one person doesn't consider something art does NOT mean others should follow suit. If one considers it art, that's their opinion.

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

me having fun isn't enough.

just like I don't just see movies to have fun, I also want challenging (as in morally, socially, ideologically) games, ones that present unique viewpoints and all the other things that are good but not necessarily fun.

Let me ask him, there has been a lot of fuss latley about Six Days in Fallujah, why would there be fuss if it is just a series of rules? could it be that there is more to games just like a movie isn't just a series of still images.

saying games are not art prevents people from creating artistic games, also the question is not that simple, movies themselves are not art, however some movies are.

counterstrike is not art however I would say some games like braid or the path are.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Who's responsible for crappy Netflix performance on Verizon?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Sleaker@MW - I still think Cogent/Level3 hookups were lacking prior to the comcast switch, but I do think verizon is being dumb here.07/23/2014 - 12:06am
Andrew EisenOf course it's a question. It's got a question mark and everything!07/22/2014 - 6:43pm
Matthew WilsonHate to say it, but that poll is not even a question. there is too much evidence that points to Verizon. http://www.extremetech.com/computing/186576-verizon-caught-throttling-netflix-traffic-even-after-its-pays-for-more-bandwidth07/22/2014 - 6:23pm
Andrew EisenHuh. The new Battlefield has been delayed to early next year. Are you feeling okay, EA? http://blogs.battlefield.com/2014/07/bfh-will-launch-2015/07/22/2014 - 6:11pm
SleakerWest End Games - Areal developers just got their Kickstarter suspended. Might want to dump that 'fully funded' status.07/22/2014 - 12:08pm
MaskedPixelanteHas anyone who bought it gotten their Sims 2 Ultimate Edition upgrade yet? Still waiting on mine, especially since they're supposed to be out by today.07/22/2014 - 10:45am
IanCDynasty Warriors 8 for the PS4 finally has the option to turn off the OTT depth of field that made the game look like a blurry mess. Only a few months behind the JP version patch...07/22/2014 - 10:17am
NeenekoI see nothing in Section 111 that would exclude IP transmission. It even explicitly includes 'other transmission methods'07/22/2014 - 9:28am
ZippyDSMleehttp://www.afterdawn.com/news/article.cfm/2014/07/19/ruling_aereo_is_not_a_cable_company07/22/2014 - 8:13am
ZippyDSMleelul what?07/22/2014 - 7:53am
ZippyDSMleehttp://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/07/bungie-cross-generation-destiny-wouldnt-be-fair-to-low-res-players/07/22/2014 - 7:53am
MaskedPixelantehttp://www.joystiq.com/2014/07/22/wii-u-update-adds-system-to-system-transfers/ The latest Wii U update allows you to do the system transfer between two Wii Us. Still not true accounts, but getting there.07/22/2014 - 7:39am
Papa MidnightSpeculation from PC Gamer. Don't hold your breath. http://www.pcgamer.com/2014/07/21/microsoft-job-listing-says-nice-things-about-pc-gaming-isnt-clear-if-it-means-them/07/21/2014 - 5:58pm
MaskedPixelanteI dunno, it's probably Vevo powertripping.07/21/2014 - 5:52pm
Andrew EisenMP - Makes you wonder what the intention behind the removal was. Stop the RickRolls? Yeah, like removing that one video is going to make a difference.07/21/2014 - 3:27pm
MaskedPixelantehttp://www.billboard.com/articles/business/digital-and-mobile/6165313/youtube-blocks-original-rickroll-video Moment of silence, the original Rickroll video has been blocked in many regions.07/20/2014 - 3:53pm
PHX CorpUseless DLC news: Killzone Fart Pack http://ps4daily.com/2014/07/killzone-fart-dlc/07/20/2014 - 12:56pm
MaskedPixelantehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uU1mK2ig_GU They did their research beforehand.07/19/2014 - 4:41pm
Sleaker@james_fudge - are you sure the FCC can pick and choose? the general rules I read as passed in the act don't really indicate that, but I didn't read through the entirety.07/19/2014 - 4:19pm
MaskedPixelanteOf course, Saban's entire point hinges on them not knowing what the tokusatsu genre is.07/19/2014 - 1:57pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician