266: Videogame Myths Debunked

[jamesalbon]

I think, regarding all the debate about "Games as art" that while certainly many games have undeniably artistic qualities, being an art form isn't a YES/NO thing. Picasso, Manet, Rothko, are all fantastic painters, but when someone comes to paint my house that doens't make them an artist. Bioshock is wonderfully artistic, but that doens't mean that The Conduit can siphon a bit of artistic integrity just for being in the same medium.

Whatever the content of games, gaming needs to go a long way to be seen as an established artform. For example, a lot of mainstream newspapers in the UK report on gaming in a very positive way (take the Guardian for example), but they write about them as entertainment, not in their Review section, where they discuss books, theatre, and visual art.

To say that the artistic integrity of games is indisputable is shooting yourself in the foot: just look at Tracy Emin or Grayson Perry- there is not shortage of controversy and debate around mainstream artists and C J Davie's actually gives a less convincing argument for games being art than Ebert did for them not being.

All this debate however, is unconstructive. As many of you have already said, if you, personally, feel something is a work of art, then more power to you, it is! We should stop asking "is this a work of art?" and start saying "this is a work of art, where do we go from here?".

 

[Nincompoop]

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.

Thanks. I guess that means it's wrong, on some point. A word is defined by how it's used, and if more use it as they do, as opposed to how I use it, it's probably wrong. But a loose word like art, that isn't so simple to understand, is hard to change. What I'm saying, as I think of art now, I probably always will, on some point.

 

[Nincompoop]

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!"

I don't find the word art very useful if it involves everything created, be it by many, be it a host of different genres of art, or be it for usage. I mean, then it starts looking like how it was used in the first place, being synonymous with a man made object.

But I feel the same way as you. I don't really care. Well, maybe I don't feel as you... Because I actually care, I would be angry if someone dared call my game (if I had one) art, as it doesn't imply intelligence, hard work, planning and skill. At least on how I think of art.

 

[FruitFusion]

Art = Wiki: "Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way to affect the senses or emotions. It encompasses a diverse range of human activities, creations, and modes of expression, including music, literature, film, photography, sculpture, and paintings"

Games = making profit. (with exeptions ofcource)
Though sometimes a game can be so good or special that it does affect the senses or emotions.
Ocarina of Time did enchant me more then any painting/movie or story ever had, and it is a
experiance that far exceeded any "traditional" artistic creation i have seen/experienced.

So ide say: Some games are art, most arnt.

 

[Unesh52]

I would be angry if someone dared call my game (if I had one) art, as it doesn't imply intelligence, hard work, planning and skill. At least on how I think of art.

...what? Please tell me someone else is reading this with as much confusion and mild indignation as I am.

Games don't imply intelligence? Are you suggesting that games are incapable of stimulating intelligent thought? Ludicrous! Bioshock's major theme is the hubris of the technological/scientific man -- exemplified not only by being set in the ruins of a city who's explicit point was to defy nature by being underwater, but by the drug addled Spilcers and the horrifyingly perverse Little Sisters, turned into monsters by the populace's greed and lack of respect for nature. If that doesn't stir a little thought, it's not the game's fault, it's yours. I could even cite Red Dead: Redemption. It focuses on the moral conflict John Marshton faces in the already morally dubious Old West. He repents and regrets his past, but doesn't blame himself -- all he wants to do is live in peace on a farm with his wife and son, but either by duty or circumstance, he is bidden to murder, steal from, and otherwise destroy scores of people. It's as if his past has become an immutable part of himself, and the longer you traverse the desert, witnessing rampant enmity and sin from even the lowest of creatures, the more it seems like that farm is just a pipe dream, and that evil is just the way of the world. Now that is thought provoking. [small](albeit, I never actually finished RD:R... my PS3 crashed... but it affected me heartily during its stay)[/small]

Hard work and planning? That's like 90% of game development! Before publishers hand over millions of dollars to developers, they have to at least see an outline of the game they're going to make. And just look at one of the numerous articles commenting on game testing here on the escapist. That's only one part of game development, and it's grueling. In fact, there was an "Experienced Points" article [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/experienced-points/7652-Experienced-Points-The-Final-Fantasy-VII-Remake-is-a-Fantasy] that really drove it home for me just how much effort and time goes into making a game, though it's not explicitly about that.

Finally, skill? Making games doesn't require skill? How about you try creating some of the most fundamental parts of a video game. Modeling a 3-dimensional area? Yeah right. Modeling a character? Maybe after a few months in a technical college. Lip-syncing? The list goes on. Even on the creative side, it's no easy business making sure people who all have their own interests and eccentricities just look at what you're trying to show them. Then you have to organize everything so that it will mean something to them. Check out the developers commentary on Valve games. It's not like they just draw some stuff in crayon and throw darts at the fridge to decide what elements to use.

That was quite a rant, wasn't it? But seriously, how thoughtless. Now, the preceding doesn't prove games are art or whatever, it just counters specifically what I quoted you on. And now I get to ask: considering this, what do you mean by your last sentence? How exactly do you think of art that makes all this irrelevant? Do novelists just work harder? Or is a man who paints a landscape less skilled than a men who actually create the 3D space of that landscape, plus the surrounding hillsides while maintaining the important aesthetic and thematic elements of the work as a whole?

 

[Nincompoop]

I would be angry if someone dared call my game (if I had one) art, as it doesn't imply intelligence, hard work, planning and skill. At least on how I think of art.

...what? Please tell me someone else is reading this with as much confusion and mild indignation as I am.

Games don't imply intelligence? Are you suggesting that games are incapable of stimulating intelligent thought? Ludicrous! Bioshock's major theme is the hubris of the technological/scientific man -- exemplified not only by being set in the ruins of a city who's explicit point was to defy nature by being underwater, but by the drug addled Spilcers and the horrifyingly perverse Little Sisters, turned into monsters by the populace's greed and lack of respect for nature. If that doesn't stir a little thought, it's not the game's fault, it's yours. I could even cite Red Dead: Redemption. It focuses on the moral conflict John Marshton faces in the already morally dubious Old West. He repents and regrets his past, but doesn't blame himself -- all he wants to do is live in peace on a farm with his wife and son, but either by duty or circumstance, he is bidden to murder, steal from, and otherwise destroy scores of people. It's as if his past has become an immutable part of himself, and the longer you traverse the desert, witnessing rampant enmity and sin from even the lowest of creatures, the more it seems like that farm is just a pipe dream, and that evil is just the way of the world. Now that is thought provoking. [small](albeit, I never actually finished RD:R... my PS3 crashed... but it affected me heartily during its stay)[/small]

Hard work and planning? That's like 90% of game development! Before publishers hand over millions of dollars to developers, they have to at least see an outline of the game they're going to make. And just look at one of the numerous articles commenting on game testing here on the escapist. That's only one part of game development, and it's grueling. In fact, there was an "Experienced Points" article [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/experienced-points/7652-Experienced-Points-The-Final-Fantasy-VII-Remake-is-a-Fantasy] that really drove it home for me just how much effort and time goes into making a game, though it's not explicitly about that.

Finally, skill? Making games doesn't require skill? How about you try creating some of the most fundamental parts of a video game. Modeling a 3-dimensional area? Yeah right. Modeling a character? Maybe after a few months in a technical college. Lip-syncing? The list goes on. Even on the creative side, it's no easy business making sure people who all have their own interests and eccentricities just look at what you're trying to show them. Then you have to organize everything so that it will mean something to them. Check out the developers commentary on Valve games. It's not like they just draw some stuff in crayon and throw darts at the fridge to decide what elements to use.

That was quite a rant, wasn't it? But seriously, how thoughtless. Now, the preceding doesn't prove games are art or whatever, it just counters specifically what I quoted you on. And now I get to ask: considering this, what do you mean by your last sentence? How exactly do you think of art that makes all this irrelevant? Do novelists just work harder? Or is a man who paints a landscape less skilled than a men who actually create the 3D space of that landscape, plus the surrounding hillsides while maintaining the important aesthetic and thematic elements of the work as a whole?

You have misunderstood this on the most extreme level possible.

It's the exact opposite. I would get angry if anyone dared to call my game art BECAUSE IN MY OPINION ART DOES NOT SUGGEST INTELLIGENCE, HARD WORK, PLANNING AND SKILLS!

Okay??

I would be angry if someone dared call my game (if I had one) art, as it doesn't imply intelligence, hard work, planning and skill. At least on how I think of art.

It is art that doesn't imply what I said. Not games. Games, and other software, is actually beyond art in my opinion, because of all you mentioned.


I've got to hand it to you though, that was one harsh, long and personal attack you made. But, I hope you see now, you just misunderstood.

 

[Nincompoop]

I would be angry if someone dared call my game (if I had one) art, as it doesn't imply intelligence, hard work, planning and skill. At least on how I think of art.

...what? Please tell me someone else is reading this with as much confusion and mild indignation as I am.

Games don't imply intelligence? Are you suggesting that games are incapable of stimulating intelligent thought? Ludicrous! Bioshock's major theme is the hubris of the technological/scientific man -- exemplified not only by being set in the ruins of a city who's explicit point was to defy nature by being underwater, but by the drug addled Spilcers and the horrifyingly perverse Little Sisters, turned into monsters by the populace's greed and lack of respect for nature. If that doesn't stir a little thought, it's not the game's fault, it's yours. I could even cite Red Dead: Redemption. It focuses on the moral conflict John Marshton faces in the already morally dubious Old West. He repents and regrets his past, but doesn't blame himself -- all he wants to do is live in peace on a farm with his wife and son, but either by duty or circumstance, he is bidden to murder, steal from, and otherwise destroy scores of people. It's as if his past has become an immutable part of himself, and the longer you traverse the desert, witnessing rampant enmity and sin from even the lowest of creatures, the more it seems like that farm is just a pipe dream, and that evil is just the way of the world. Now that is thought provoking. [small](albeit, I never actually finished RD:R... my PS3 crashed... but it affected me heartily during its stay)[/small]

Hard work and planning? That's like 90% of game development! Before publishers hand over millions of dollars to developers, they have to at least see an outline of the game they're going to make. And just look at one of the numerous articles commenting on game testing here on the escapist. That's only one part of game development, and it's grueling. In fact, there was an "Experienced Points" article [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/experienced-points/7652-Experienced-Points-The-Final-Fantasy-VII-Remake-is-a-Fantasy] that really drove it home for me just how much effort and time goes into making a game, though it's not explicitly about that.

Finally, skill? Making games doesn't require skill? How about you try creating some of the most fundamental parts of a video game. Modeling a 3-dimensional area? Yeah right. Modeling a character? Maybe after a few months in a technical college. Lip-syncing? The list goes on. Even on the creative side, it's no easy business making sure people who all have their own interests and eccentricities just look at what you're trying to show them. Then you have to organize everything so that it will mean something to them. Check out the developers commentary on Valve games. It's not like they just draw some stuff in crayon and throw darts at the fridge to decide what elements to use.

That was quite a rant, wasn't it? But seriously, how thoughtless. Now, the preceding doesn't prove games are art or whatever, it just counters specifically what I quoted you on. And now I get to ask: considering this, what do you mean by your last sentence? How exactly do you think of art that makes all this irrelevant? Do novelists just work harder? Or is a man who paints a landscape less skilled than a men who actually create the 3D space of that landscape, plus the surrounding hillsides while maintaining the important aesthetic and thematic elements of the work as a whole?

You have misunderstood this on the most extreme level possible.

It's the exact opposite. I would get angry if anyone dared to call my game art BECAUSE IN MY OPINION ART DOES NOT SUGGEST INTELLIGENCE, HARD WORK, PLANNING AND SKILLS!

Okay??

I would be angry if someone dared call my game (if I had one) art, as it doesn't imply intelligence, hard work, planning and skill. At least on how I think of art.

It is art that doesn't imply what I said. Not games. Games, and other software, is actually beyond art in my opinion, because of all you mentioned.


I've got to hand it to you though, that was one harsh, long and personal attack you made. But, I hope you see now, you just misunderstood.

Addendum; I blushed even though I knew it was a misunderstanding. Rofl... I HAVE to remember this comment. Waow. What a comment.

**This was supposed to be an edit. Don't know how I made it as a reply**

 

[Unesh52]

You have misunderstood this on the most extreme level possible.

It's the exact opposite. I would get angry if anyone dared to call my game art BECAUSE IN MY OPINION ART DOES NOT SUGGEST INTELLIGENCE, HARD WORK, PLANNING AND SKILLS!

Okay??

I would be angry if someone dared call my game (if I had one) art, as it doesn't imply intelligence, hard work, planning and skill. At least on how I think of art.

It is art that doesn't imply what I said. Not games. Games, and other software, is actually beyond art in my opinion, because of all you mentioned.


I've got to hand it to you though, that was one harsh, long and personal attack you made. But, I hope you see now, you just misunderstood.

Addendum; I blushed even though I knew it was a misunderstanding. Rofl... I HAVE to remember this comment. Waow. What a comment.

**This was supposed to be an edit. Don't know how I made it as a reply**

...oh....

uh... [small]well, don't you think you could've worded that a liiitle better...?[/small]

[small]Goddammit...[/small]

 

[Nincompoop]

You have misunderstood this on the most extreme level possible.

It's the exact opposite. I would get angry if anyone dared to call my game art BECAUSE IN MY OPINION ART DOES NOT SUGGEST INTELLIGENCE, HARD WORK, PLANNING AND SKILLS!

Okay??

I would be angry if someone dared call my game (if I had one) art, as it doesn't imply intelligence, hard work, planning and skill. At least on how I think of art.

It is art that doesn't imply what I said. Not games. Games, and other software, is actually beyond art in my opinion, because of all you mentioned.


I've got to hand it to you though, that was one harsh, long and personal attack you made. But, I hope you see now, you just misunderstood.

Addendum; I blushed even though I knew it was a misunderstanding. Rofl... I HAVE to remember this comment. Waow. What a comment.

**This was supposed to be an edit. Don't know how I made it as a reply**

...oh....

uh... [small]well, don't you think you could've worded that a liiitle better...?[/small]

[small]Goddammit...[/small]

Yes I could. I really apologize. That was a terrible sentence.

 

[Unesh52]

You have misunderstood this on the most extreme level possible.

It's the exact opposite. I would get angry if anyone dared to call my game art BECAUSE IN MY OPINION ART DOES NOT SUGGEST INTELLIGENCE, HARD WORK, PLANNING AND SKILLS!

Okay??

I would be angry if someone dared call my game (if I had one) art, as it doesn't imply intelligence, hard work, planning and skill. At least on how I think of art.

It is art that doesn't imply what I said. Not games. Games, and other software, is actually beyond art in my opinion, because of all you mentioned.


I've got to hand it to you though, that was one harsh, long and personal attack you made. But, I hope you see now, you just misunderstood.

Addendum; I blushed even though I knew it was a misunderstanding. Rofl... I HAVE to remember this comment. Waow. What a comment.

**This was supposed to be an edit. Don't know how I made it as a reply**

...oh....

uh... [small]well, don't you think you could've worded that a liiitle better...?[/small]

[small]Goddammit...[/small]

Yes I could. I really apologize. That was a terrible sentence.

Well, at least it was pretty damn funny. Still, I rather wish I hadn't burned an entire hour and a half on that response.

 

[Nincompoop]

You have misunderstood this on the most extreme level possible.

It's the exact opposite. I would get angry if anyone dared to call my game art BECAUSE IN MY OPINION ART DOES NOT SUGGEST INTELLIGENCE, HARD WORK, PLANNING AND SKILLS!

Okay??

I would be angry if someone dared call my game (if I had one) art, as it doesn't imply intelligence, hard work, planning and skill. At least on how I think of art.

It is art that doesn't imply what I said. Not games. Games, and other software, is actually beyond art in my opinion, because of all you mentioned.


I've got to hand it to you though, that was one harsh, long and personal attack you made. But, I hope you see now, you just misunderstood.

Addendum; I blushed even though I knew it was a misunderstanding. Rofl... I HAVE to remember this comment. Waow. What a comment.

**This was supposed to be an edit. Don't know how I made it as a reply**

...oh....

uh... [small]well, don't you think you could've worded that a liiitle better...?[/small]

[small]Goddammit...[/small]

Yes I could. I really apologize. That was a terrible sentence.

Well, at least it was pretty damn funny. Still, I rather wish I hadn't burned an entire hour and a half on that response.

I could feel how much you put in that, so, Lol, you don't have to explain.

 

[cobra_ky]

It's the exact opposite. I would get angry if anyone dared to call my game art BECAUSE IN MY OPINION ART DOES NOT SUGGEST INTELLIGENCE, HARD WORK, PLANNING AND SKILLS!

Sounds to me like you have a pretty bizarre definition for 'art'. What exactly does the word "art" suggest to you?

never mind. found it on the top of page 2.

 

[Nincompoop]

It's the exact opposite. I would get angry if anyone dared to call my game art BECAUSE IN MY OPINION ART DOES NOT SUGGEST INTELLIGENCE, HARD WORK, PLANNING AND SKILLS!

Sounds to me like you have a pretty bizarre definition for 'art'. What exactly does the word "art" suggest to you?

never mind. found it on the top of page 2.

Hehe xP. Was about to direct you to the discussion.

 

[=HCFS=Discoman]

good article. but some studies found that surgeons who play some videogames have better reflexes and can work more efficiently (faster) than their peers.
but, with how much time they spend working, they get very little time to play a game. someone who plays games quite often (a 'good' player on up to 'pro') will have the physical attributes of a 60 year old chain smoker. they will be that unfit and unhealthy. but that requires eight to ten hours a day of playing.
playing just a little bit occasionally will have some beneficial effects.

 

[ImpostorZim]

I'm glad someone is standing up and saying something. I don't really care what people say, but it's just absurd to say that videogames aren't art. Just look at games like Ico and Shadow of the Collossus. Fahrenheit and Heavy Rain! Some would consider those better than films! Then again, there's the thing. "Some would", cause it's all a very subjective matter. I think I'm starting to understand this week's subject a little more. /LEVEL UP!

 

[VirusHunter]

Y'know whats funny? This whole "Video games are/aren't art" thing is pretty much the same thing that happened when 2D animation was just starting up.
Now for MY opinion of games as an art. I think not as art, but as a work of art.

I don't know where people got the idea that true art doesn't include planning and hard work because that's pretty much half of what art is. You ever think and wonder why they say "This is a work of art" instead of "This is art"? Because "art" is not the product, "art" is the craft. People have shortened the term "Artwork" to just "Art" and now they're confusing one definition for the other. Art is a talent, a skill, a technique used to suggest something, be it visual or intangible. Programming is as much of an art as painting, as is woodworking, business management, heck we even have martial arts!
Video games themselves are not art. Making video games on the other hand is very much art. The video games they make are works of art.

 

[samwise970]

Is anyone else sick and tired of people insisting that games are art? Why is that so important? Why does it matter?

If everyone who says games aren't art (myself, and Hideo Kojima included) suddenly said that they were wrong and Zelda is now a classical masterpiece, would that somehow make it more fun?

For a magazine that really wants to be intellectual, you guys really are expressing a need to 'fit in' with society here by saying that our form of entertainment is art as well.

I don't want games to be art, and neither should you. As Hideo Kojima once said (and as I slaughter with my paraphrasing), art has no purpose other than being art. His favorite piece of art is a chair that is specially designed to be uncomfortable to sit in. He says that games COULD be art, if the controls were backward and if the game was impossible to play, but why would anyone want a game to be art for art's sake?

Games may coincidentally be so amazing and come together so well that they seem as if a work of art (see Super Mario Bros), but their first and foremost function is to be fun to PLAY. Any game that isn't built around that concept doesn't deserve to be called a game, artistic or not.

To simply blow off anyone who says games aren't art by calling that a 'myth' is a bit offensive. You may not agree with us, but give us more respect than simply listing a few great (but gameplay centered) games and saying that's that.

 

[BrownGaijin]

As for the game testing myth I will say until my last breath: Testing games is the one job you'll enjoy the most, for the least amount of pay.

 

[n00bie51]

There's really good insight in some of the posts I've read here, thank you all for sharing your opinions and defending them so well.