266: Videogame Myths Debunked

[Yukichin]

A better title for this piece would be:

7 THINGS I AM VERY UPSET ABOUT

In order to call something a "myth debunk" you should have pretty incontrovertible evidence on your side. The author claims several things that are based upon loose definitions, such as the "games as art"-problem, are myths.

Also he repeats piss poor statistics, like those on the gender issue. Not to mention that he thinks hardcore gaming isn't dying because Red Dead Redemption sold well...

All in all an interesting opinion piece but nothing like myth-debunking.

This, unfortunately. What bugged me a lot is that not only did he not compare /what/ sort of games female gamers play (which may be different, or may be similar, when compared to that of male gamers), but for the violence aspect, nothing was actually sourced. It read less like a debunked myth and more of "IT'S COMMON SENSE THAT THEY AREN'T VIOLENT UNLESS THEY'RE VIOLENT IT'S NOT VIDEO GAMES I LOVE THOSE THINGS".


Also, regarding social games:
Games can be social just as easily as they can be solitary. Even single-player games can be fun to play with people; I had a great time playing Silent Hill 3 with a friend just a few days ago, even though it's supposedly a solitary experience. (Sure, it wasn't as scary as it should have been, but it was also broad daylight.)

 

[ReverseEngineered]

Ultimately, Art is just a word, and this whole debate is a silly dispute over word definitions. And regardless of what anyone else thinks, games are art to ME. I suppose you can make your own decisions about that. But I would argue that, at this point, games exhibit so many similarities with other accepted mediums of art that it is up to someone to prove why games are NOT art.

Except that, and this is where Portal falls flat:

The Gameplay itself is still separated from the artistic experience. Cinema manages to make the collective experience of group viewing be an integral part of the artistic experience.

Games as of yet fail to take advantage of their single greatest difference between other media.

How is gameplay separate from the artistic experience? Gameplay IS the artistic experience! If you read the rest of my post above, I establish how playing through Portal gives you an artistic experience. If you're going to refute it, fair enough, but I'm going to need more of an argument than just 'Well, no.'

As another example, look at Braid. The entire theme of the consequences of controlling time tie directly into the core mechanic: controlling time. At first, it's just a mechanic -- you control time because that's how you solve the puzzle. But as the story unfolds, you being to realize that you are controlling time and consider what you would do if you could control time in real life. What would the consequences be? The narrative thread throughout the game, tied together wonderfully in the end, makes the player consider time travel in a way that other arts such as film can't do: the player isn't just watching it and thinking to themselves, they are actually experiencing it as a direct result of their actions. That is art experienced through interaction.

Certainly most games don't take advantage of this ability, the same way many films barely manage to tie together a complete narrative, but games are certainly capable of being artistic and some games do actually graduate from being a toy or entertainment into the realm of art.

 

[Darren-Jaguar]

It's quite funny, but my brother's vision has actually IMPROVED by playing on the Xbox 360.

Seriously, he went to his optician, who told him his vision had gotten a LOT better since last time he'd been there.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Myth: Gaming Is Social

Well, games certainly aren't "anti-social" either.
This isn't so much as "debunking a myth" as it is debunking a broad generalization.

Take a little game called World of Warcraft - a PC & Mac juggernaut pulling in over $100 million per month in revenue.

Actually, I contend that WoW doesn't really have gameplay; just endless grind. So it can't be a game because grind isn't gameplay. If I wanted to do boring menial tasks, I can go work in the shipping industry. Or flip burgers. Or work in retail.
Bragging about having a level 80 with leet gear in WoW is like bragging about your unpaid overtime.

 

[CloggedDonkey]

Although I do agree with the conclusions (not all of it, but most of it), I don't really think it was well written or had many actual facts. One thing is that about ninety percent of the "Myths" aren't myths at all, but matters of opinion. Such as the whole thing about games as art. I believe that, although games can be art, they aren't, as no one has made a game that is "art" quite yet.

Another thing is that an article shouldn't talk down to it's readers, as this one did. I honestly felt that, as the article went on, it was just someone trying to restate the obvious and shove their opinion down our throats. Yes, we know game testing isn't fun, there's something on that every flipping issue, and we know games don't make kids violent. We get it. We discuss this all the time.

I'm not blaming the writer for the myths that where chosen or the fact that they are discussed quite often, I don't blame anyone, I do blame the writer for the condescending tone and the fact that he stated opinion as fact.

 

[Echo136]

Myth: Videogames Make You Smarter - I flunked out of college because of WoW

Myths: Girls Don't Play Games - My girlfriend plays video games.

Myth: Gaming Is Social - Im very confused how this is a myth. Ive been in 3 gaming clans, and am currently apart of one that includes a forum. Im constantly on Ventrilo. When I was on World of Warcraft I talked all the time in between instances. How is it not social?

 

[rddj623]

Every game enthusiast should keep a link to this handy to doll out to any doubters or naysayers Great stuff Mr. Davies.

 

[nmaster64]

Love this article. THANK YOU for not even giving the "games aren't art" myth more than a couple sentences. Because seriously, it's not debatable. Art (graphics) + Art (sound/music) + Art (story/narrative) = 3Art. BASIC MATH.

HOWEVER

I take serious issue with "Games aren't Social". Yeah, maybe you kids today and your Xbox Live crap and fancy "internetz" aren't social, but for me multiplayer gaming is still all about having somebody within punching distance of you. I'm a dying breed, but for me nothing competes with split-screen and LAN play. As far as I'm concerned, the internet killed true multiplayer gaming, with few good exceptions (brb SC2).

I can directly thank gaming for probably more than half of my real-life good friends.

 

[protogenxl]

Since he didn't mention it I can only assume there really is a landfill in new Mexico full of E.T. cartridges.

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

snip

While I do agree with you that just spouting examples without giving them context or further explanation, I also disagree with your idea that something isn't art just because it has utility use and "clams us down" (I can think of tons of calming music).

Music that is calming is not art, by being calming, if that makes sense. If you would create a tune which would invoke a certain feeling, I wouldn't call it art. Neither is music art by definition, and using that, combined with examples of music that can be used as an application, isn't a valid argument in my opinion.

I would argue my self, but since your argument was the same as Roger Ebert's ill fated reasoning, and I don't think I can word this better, I will post the Game Overthinker's (aka moviebob's) respounce to him as my counter argument. http://screwattack.com/videos/TGO-Episode-35-A-Response-to-Roger-Ebert

After watching the video, I can only say that I simply don't think of art the same way. I wouldn't call a movie art, and I am partially to the side where there shouldn't be a collaboration of talents and minds when it comes to art.

Having said that, I do find that, perhaps, one specific idea in a game could be called art. Like a specific model (where it comes down to sculpture), or maybe a specific gameplay mechanic, or soundtrack.

But I will never see an entire movie or a game as art. And frankly, it's not as if I put art above anything. In no sense is it derogatory when I say that I don't think games are art.

Also, if I were to publish a big game, and people referred to it as art, I would feel insulted, as art (for me) implies creativity and vision, more than hard work, careful thought, skills and intelligence.

Would you define indie games developed by one person as art? There are plenty, like Castle Crashers was entirely programmed by one person while another did ALL the art work. If you need examples of stuff done by ONE person, and ONE person alone, check out Newgrounds.com, which has plenty of great works done by a single entity.

How can you lynch to that specific line and disregard the rest? It's not like that was the cornerstone of my message.

But I probably still wouldn't call it art, as it consists of multiple genres of art. And I will never call hard work, intelligence and skills art. You said the code was done by one, and artwork by another? (That's how I understood it, but I wasn't sure). All the artwork, like the models, pictures, soundtrack, or whatever was in it, I would call them, alone, art. I wouldn't call the programming code art, as it was a result of planning and hard work, and I most certainly wouldn't call both of them together art.

Your opinion is just so different from what I have heard, I am just trying to counter your argument. I have heard many justifications for why video games aren't art, but your two part "one, it is an application and two, that parts are art, the whole isn't" is just so different from every argument I have heard. I won't pretend to understand it, I don't, but I will respect it.

 

[ItsAPaul]

You had me until you said Ocarina of Time was art, but I guess the number of people that played it when they were 12 and thought every game was cool means it will infinitely be defended on the internet since you can't undo childhood memories. Yet these same people will admit DBZ was bad when they thought it was the best when they were that age...

 

[Unesh52]

There's a lot of good replies on here, but I'm only half way through the article itself and there are gnats picking at my shins, so I'd rather not read any more of them. Anyway.

Games have no artistic merit. This is something that is up for debate. And mentioning a few games and then claiming your argument to be foolproof is absolutely the worst kind of fallacious argumentation in my honest opinion. It's absolutely ridiculous.

Now, to the actual issue. I don't think of games as art because they are not something you merely gaze at. I don't think art is something you interact with. I would call games a utility or an application of sorts. Even if the point is entertainment. With no practical applications, but maybe mental or psychological applications (we need something to keep our spirits up).

You gaze a pictures, and maybe discuss them. You listen to music. You don't do these kind of things with games.
I would like to stress, however, that this is my opinion on games as art.

I've not been very much a part of the "games as art" debate, and that's because I don't think it matters much. Whether or not games are art does not change how much fun I have slicing dudes up in DMC4, or how awed and charmed I am by SotC, or how much food for thought I find in Bioshock. However, I find your definition of art needlessly restrictive. Why can't you interact with art? Shouldn't "art" be more defined by what it does rather than how you experience it? I mean, before movies, contemporary art was all static (unless there were moving sculptures or something, as there may have been) -- it'd be the same as you crying out at the advent of cinema, "That's not art! I can't hang it in my gallery!"

But, again, I don't find the debate terribly stimulating. Art was so vaguely defined in the first place as to be a useless label, and therefore the implications of games being seen as such or not are insignificant, at least to me.

Also, about the whole social gaming thing -- Fuck that. I've been to several parties where the night was filled with Rock Band, DBZ, and even GTA4. I usually get together with a friend every week to play games, even single player ones (we take turns mostly). My first kiss with my current girlfriend came after a round of Bloody Roar. The largest part of my social interactions throughout High School and even before have involved video games. You just don't know what the fuck you're talking about dude.

I dislike this article so far. Seems like the man is talking out of his ass. Maybe he'll redeem himself in the last page.

EDIT: No, he really didn't.

 

[The Random One]

You're wrong.

Why? This bit.

Braid. Shadow Of The Colossus. Portal. BioShock. Ocarina Of Time. Five titles that destroy this myth completely. Games are art, just as gravity pulls you to Earth and water quenches your thirst. It's not even debateable.

[awesome explanation snip]

But yeah. Imagining you can point to Braid and say "Games are art, I'm going home now" is dumb. Sorry for the random and tangential post. I think I just took what you said as an excuse to spew all my feelings about games as art all over everything.

On the other hand, Scobie is very right. Art is something so subjective that just listing things, without explaining them, is pointless. Some people think something isn't art unless it speaks of the depths of the human condition. Scott McCloud says making balloons out of condoms is art. The fact that you include Portal remembers me of a quote I read here on the Escapist but I can't remember more specifically where, that Portal is considered high art compared to other videogames because it has things that most artistic endeavours take for granted but games generally don't, like themes and subtext. So compared to other games they are the cat's pajamas, but compared to other art they are amateurish endeavours. And Bioshock, in the end, is still about shooting a bunch of people that try to hit you with wrenches. They aren't even metaphors for stuff like in Silent Hill. They're just people with wrenches.

But, you're right.

Especially right with the 'girls don't game' myth. I like how so many people are going 'oh, I bet they play Farmville and Wii Sports and call themselves gamers', as if no man would also be included in that category. That would only come into play if the research showing that was based on self-identifying, is that the case? At any rate, there are four women I met online, and all four of them are gamers (360-having, GameFAQs-posting, cheat-code-memorizing gamers) and at least two are more hardcore in their particular niche than me. Now that is a myth that will be hard to die. As Shamus Young remembered, I recommend explosions.

 

[martin's a madman]

Wow, I've been absolutely murdering the 7.6hour a day average. Summer vacation...


For example, I bought Pokemon Soul Silver last week and have 100 hours on it. Also, bought starcraft the release day and... I'm scared to know how many hours I've logged onto it.

And TF2 and L4D2 have to be close to 8 hours last week by themselves.


Gosh.

You had me until you said Ocarina of Time was art, but I guess the number of people that played it when they were 12 and thought every game was cool means it will infinitely be defended on the internet since you can't undo childhood memories. Yet these same people will admit DBZ was bad when they thought it was the best when they were that age...

What's wrong with Ocarina of Time?

 

[Drexlor]

I agree with every point except that I believe that games are social. This site itself is proof.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

snip

While I do agree with you that just spouting examples without giving them context or further explanation, I also disagree with your idea that something isn't art just because it has utility use and "clams us down" (I can think of tons of calming music).

Music that is calming is not art, by being calming, if that makes sense. If you would create a tune which would invoke a certain feeling, I wouldn't call it art. Neither is music art by definition, and using that, combined with examples of music that can be used as an application, isn't a valid argument in my opinion.

I would argue my self, but since your argument was the same as Roger Ebert's ill fated reasoning, and I don't think I can word this better, I will post the Game Overthinker's (aka moviebob's) respounce to him as my counter argument. http://screwattack.com/videos/TGO-Episode-35-A-Response-to-Roger-Ebert

After watching the video, I can only say that I simply don't think of art the same way. I wouldn't call a movie art, and I am partially to the side where there shouldn't be a collaboration of talents and minds when it comes to art.

Having said that, I do find that, perhaps, one specific idea in a game could be called art. Like a specific model (where it comes down to sculpture), or maybe a specific gameplay mechanic, or soundtrack.

But I will never see an entire movie or a game as art. And frankly, it's not as if I put art above anything. In no sense is it derogatory when I say that I don't think games are art.

Also, if I were to publish a big game, and people referred to it as art, I would feel insulted, as art (for me) implies creativity and vision, more than hard work, careful thought, skills and intelligence.

Would you define indie games developed by one person as art? There are plenty, like Castle Crashers was entirely programmed by one person while another did ALL the art work. If you need examples of stuff done by ONE person, and ONE person alone, check out Newgrounds.com, which has plenty of great works done by a single entity.

How can you lynch to that specific line and disregard the rest? It's not like that was the cornerstone of my message.

But I probably still wouldn't call it art, as it consists of multiple genres of art. And I will never call hard work, intelligence and skills art. You said the code was done by one, and artwork by another? (That's how I understood it, but I wasn't sure). All the artwork, like the models, pictures, soundtrack, or whatever was in it, I would call them, alone, art. I wouldn't call the programming code art, as it was a result of planning and hard work, and I most certainly wouldn't call both of them together art.

So if its planed its not art?

Art is books,literature,comics, film ,TV any audio and or visual or even tactile(is smell tactile or something by itself) experience that a person or group makes for others to enjoy, that IMO is the essence of art trying to make a thing to experience for other(s) to enjoy.

Butt out of this. If you would have followed the discussion, you would have seen that this is my personal opinion.

EDIT: Now you changed it to personal, well, you are welcome to have that opinion. That appears to be what most people think. I just think of art differently.

Ok I think I get what your saying you have media which is a very lite and shallow artistic medium and then you have "Art" which is above and beyond laymens scope and understanding like a force of nature.

Something like that?

It dose sound a bit snobbish but I am the same way with video games, video games should be built around mechanics not visual drool...you are not interfacing with drool dammit!

Maybe, except that art isn't above anything. If anything, I regard art as something less in most cases. 'Art' is f**king overrated. People who dare utter the words "but it's art" should all die a painful death, and have insects eat their carcass. But seriously, I have a bit of a narrow criteria for art, but in no way is it superior to anything, au contraire, in most cases I personally find it ridiculous. Gaming should be happy when I say it's not art <.<.

I guess less is more,more subtle more random and inspired than planed and primed,ect.

IMO art is is in the eye of the beholder and or the pocket book of the patron and or the heart of the snob. It really can be anything thus making censoring or banning it all the more difficult. Of course is freedom of speech in the scope of art or freedom to know facts,truths and misconceptions or all of the of above.. *head starts smoking* I really should stop thinking.....my brain hurts

 

[CAW4]

That article you attributed to The Guardian appears to be from The Telegraph.

Aside from that, I have only one issue with this article: the claim that games aren't social. Online multiplayer is not "social in a very loose sense". You're interacting with other people - therefore it's social. The fact that it's indirect interaction doesn't make it any less social. And I don't agree that singleplayer is necessarily solitary. Try living in a house of game nuts. You'll find that while one person is playing a game, other people are watching him play and everyone's talking, often about the game being played. This seems to me far more social than reading a book (which no-one else can share in) or listening to music or watching a movie (meaning you need people to be quiet).

only 7 percent of conversation is the words themselves, the rest is tone of voice, body language, facial expression and the like. so you see, the seemingly social aspects of mmo's and online gaming is really a tiny snippet of actual socialising. its just not very social.

So when you've got people updating their facebook walls, texting and calling each other almost 24/7 when not in school/at work, they're obviously very antisocial people, right? Even when playing single player, you're still probably communicating with someone else, especially on the 360, where almost everyone is either in a multiplayer match or in a party.

And as for single player being the 'cornerstone' of gaming? No. It's not. It's been a few years since it last was. And this site really needs to get over that. Yes, there still are a few games that are, but they are few, far between, and not is the best shape (Portal was based on a gimmick, and the Half Life series is being ignored in favor of the multiplayer focused L4D series, and I'm being very generous when I say that it was only okay to begin with).

 

[mikespoff]

Great article.

I like your point on "Games aren't social" - particularly the way you tie it to reading books. Single player game experiences can promote real-world interaction the same way that reading the same book as your friend can.

 

[JEBWrench]

How is gameplay separate from the artistic experience? Gameplay IS the artistic experience! If you read the rest of my post above, I establish how playing through Portal gives you an artistic experience. If you're going to refute it, fair enough, but I'm going to need more of an argument than just 'Well, no.'

I'll certainly try. Yes, the game mechanic of the portal gun certainly adds to the experience of the game. And it does a surprisingly good job of incorporating its trick to its narrative. However, the actual gameplay (and I personally think there's a separation between gameplay and game mechanics, it may just be an issue of semantics) itself doesn't add to the experience apart from a way to get from point A to point B.

As another example, look at Braid. The entire theme of the consequences of controlling time tie directly into the core mechanic: controlling time. At first, it's just a mechanic -- you control time because that's how you solve the puzzle. But as the story unfolds, you being to realize that you are controlling time and consider what you would do if you could control time in real life. What would the consequences be? The narrative thread throughout the game, tied together wonderfully in the end, makes the player consider time travel in a way that other arts such as film can't do: the player isn't just watching it and thinking to themselves, they are actually experiencing it as a direct result of their actions. That is art experienced through interaction.

I cannot make a judgement on a game I haven't played; I would love to play Braid.

 

[Verlander]

Just woke up, and that was the perfect article to read. I agree on every point. Cheers!