266: Videogame Myths Debunked

[nik3daz]

I agree with you.

I'd really like to see someone back up these stats. Go to a library and ask each person if they play games. Go to mall and ask. Go to a college and ask. Go to a bus stop and ask. I seriously doubt you'll find the number of girls that play even close to the number of guys.

Otherwise, everyone I know must live in some alternate reality because in my world, about 1 out of 20 women play games and about 1 out of 4 men play them. Every time I'm introduced to a new group of people I don't find those stats change at all.

I'd like every study made to reveal what their unique interpretation of "plays games" is. Do we count the casual gamers or the facebook gamers? What about the kids that play snake on their dad's phone?

Also, gaming might not make you smarter but playing games does require certain skills. Since people are more likely to be better at games they like and vice versa, playing games can reveal what kind of person you are.

For example, someone who can't get enough of JRPGs is likely to be a meticulous person whereas an adventure gamer would be someone that enjoys solving (obscure and often infuriating) puzzles. (I'd be very interested in a study on this sort of thing, especially if it screened for people who consider themselves "real gamers")

While gaming might not have a direct effect on intelligence, I know that my love of puzzle solving started with Ocarina of Time.

Oh and games as art, as the consensus now seems to be, is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[SonicWaffle]

A single player game can be played entirely alone, certainly, and a multiplayer game offers at least a measure of social interaction. Of course, the problem is that one can often choose to experience either type of game in a fundamentally different way.

...

Of course, this implies something telling I'd say: that the medium is not intrinsically social.

The key word there is choose. If video games were not intrinsically social then there would not be a choice - there would merely be solo play. You can play them alone or with others, or play alone while surrounded by others, but that is your choice.

One cannot play a team sport without partaking in social interaction or attend a party without at least engaging in some manner of human engagement. These are activities that are by their very nature social experiences.

Some sports are played as teams, some sports are played alone - you don't need anyone around to play darts, or squash, or golf for fun. Equally, some games are played alone while some - Team Fortress 2, Left 4 Dead, WoW - can be seen as equivalent to team sports. Going on raids or getting together to murder a ton of zombies is just as social as getting some friends together for a game of football. These games are designed as social experiences, and I don't think it's fair to say that just because some games aren't that the medium as a whole is not a social one.

The problem we have is not that gaming is a solitary experience but rather the simple perception that this is somehow a negative factor. The trouble I suspect lies in the simple fact that some visible portion of the population engages in gaming at the expense of any number of social endeavors. Such behavior would be considered suspect no matter what activity one was engaging in. A parent might be concerned if their child never left their room because they were constantly reading books in much the same way that they might be concerned that people never leave their room because they have to play Fallout 3 for another two dozen hours.

I half agree with this, but I think the level of concern would differ, largely based on media perception of gamers. If a child spends hours alone reading they are a little odd, yes, but what parent complains of a child reading too much? Reading improves the mind and vocabulary, and frequent reading for pleasure is still seen as the domain of intelligent people. Gaming, on the other hand, is viewed as something problematic and unhealthy for the child; the (frankly idiotic) idea seems to be that seeing blood and gore on a screen is obviously much worse for a child than reading about it in a book.

If a child reads a lot, this is a positive thing. Their parents may be concerned that they are not outside playing with the other kids, but there is still the positive association of 'books = good'. If a child spends the exact same amount of time playing video games, even if they are playing socially with other children, the parents would be far more concerned. They'd start to use words like "addiction", and attempting to restrict the child's gaming time. Have you ever read a news story about a kid who lashed out at a parent when the parent took away the source of their reading addiction? Seen a book rehabilitation centre? The problem remains in the perception: video games are bad, books are good.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

The key word there is choose. If video games were not intrinsically social then there would not be a choice - there would merely be solo play. You can play them alone or with others, or play alone while surrounded by others, but that is your choice.

I fundamentally disagree. If one can choose to not play a game in a social setting then it is not intrinsically social given that the word intrinsic implies something fundamental to the very nature of the thing. I can play a game with other people certainly and choosing not to ever once communicate with others does not fundamentally alter what it is I am doing. By contrast, if I choose to play an organized team sport without participating in the social aspect, the very nature of the game is altered.

Some sports are played as teams, some sports are played alone - you don't need anyone around to play darts, or squash, or golf for fun. Equally, some games are played alone while some - Team Fortress 2, Left 4 Dead, WoW - can be seen as equivalent to team sports. Going on raids or getting together to murder a ton of zombies is just as social as getting some friends together for a game of football. These games are designed as social experiences, and I don't think it's fair to say that just because some games aren't that the medium as a whole is not a social one.

That is why I specified team sports. Fencing, for example, is fundamentally an individual sport. While I certainly fence with a team, once I'm on the strip there are but three parties involved in the outcome: myself, my opponent and the judge. Such a sport is social in the same way that a game is social: I can choose to talk with the parties present between matches for example. Communication will happen even if I do my best to ignore it as much of what I am going to do is based upon what I can learn about my opponents habits.

That a given experience can be made more entertaining with a friend is not terribly relevant as this just goes back to the fact that one has a choice in the matter. I might have more fun watching a bad movie with a group of friends than if I suffered through it alone, but that does not mean that the act of watching a movie is intrinsically social.

I half agree with this, but I think the level of concern would differ, largely based on media perception of gamers. If a child spends hours alone reading they are a little odd, yes, but what parent complains of a child reading too much? Reading improves the mind and vocabulary, and frequent reading for pleasure is still seen as the domain of intelligent people. Gaming, on the other hand, is viewed as something problematic and unhealthy for the child; the (frankly idiotic) idea seems to be that seeing blood and gore on a screen is obviously much worse for a child than reading about it in a book.

If a child reads a lot, this is a positive thing. Their parents may be concerned that they are not outside playing with the other kids, but there is still the positive association of 'books = good'. If a child spends the exact same amount of time playing video games, even if they are playing socially with other children, the parents would be far more concerned. They'd start to use words like "addiction", and attempting to restrict the child's gaming time. Have you ever read a news story about a kid who lashed out at a parent when the parent took away the source of their reading addiction? Seen a book rehabilitation centre? The problem remains in the perception: video games are bad, books are good.

I'd say you nailed the point that I failed to make: that the problem is simply one of perception. People don't see a value in a game thus they are less willing to accept a person playing a game at every opportunity than they are to accept the same person reading books instead.

 

[SonicWaffle]

I fundamentally disagree. If one can choose to not play a game in a social setting then it is not intrinsically social given that the word intrinsic implies something fundamental to the very nature of the thing.

Football is intrinsically social, however one can spend a while kicking a ball against a wall. You are still playing football, just in a way that is less social. A party is intrinsically social, but if nobody turns up and you're all alone, you can still get drunk, eat the food and dance like a twat. I'm over-simplifying, I know, but many activites we see as intrinsically social can still be performed solo.

That is why I specified team sports. Fencing, for example, is fundamentally an individual sport. While I certainly fence with a team, once I'm on the strip there are but three parties involved in the outcome: myself, my opponent and the judge. Such a sport is social in the same way that a game is social: I can choose to talk with the parties present between matches for example. Communication will happen even if I do my best to ignore it as much of what I am going to do is based upon what I can learn about my opponents habits.

And this is why I specified certain games. Let's take Team Fortress - AFAIK, it has no single-player mode, and is entirely based around multiplayer. This is fundamentally social, as the game cannot be played without interacting with other people. Maybe the interaction is limited to shooting them in the head, but you will not be as good at the game as someone who communicates and works with his team. Apply the same to football; a player can ignore the rest of his team and keep attempting to do everything himself, but as long as other people are playing with him it's still a social experience.

That a given experience can be made more entertaining with a friend is not terribly relevant as this just goes back to the fact that one has a choice in the matter. I might have more fun watching a bad movie with a group of friends than if I suffered through it alone, but that does not mean that the act of watching a movie is intrinsically social.

My point is that some games are intrinsically social. Not all of them - many are designed for single player only - but there are other games designed purely for multiplayer. A movie is different, it does not have a mode that is explicitly designed to encourage you to interact with other people. You can choose to watch with others or not, but if you want to play an explicitly multiplayer game you are going to have to be social whether you want to or not.

I'd say you nailed the point that I failed to make: that the problem is simply one of perception. People don't see a value in a game thus they are less willing to accept a person playing a game at every opportunity than they are to accept the same person reading books instead.

I shall now snigger, because you said 'nailed'. Hurhurhur.

 

[domicius]

This just in - gamers are better than software at solving science problems, based on a University of Washington study to compare the results of videogamers and software algorithms when it comes to the complex protein folding puzzles.

So much for videogames not making us smarter!

*smug*

http://fidgit.com/archives/2010/08/when_it_comes_to_science_video.php
(follow through to The Times for full article:http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/10/science/10gamers.html)

 

[UnSub]

only 7 percent of conversation is the words themselves, the rest is tone of voice, body language, facial expression and the like.

Some people asked where this came from and I didn't see it answered. So:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Mehrabian

"[W]ords account for 7%, tone of voice accounts for 38%, and body language accounts for 55%" when it comes to liking / disliking the source. There has been some criticism of that ratio, but overall the research generally indicates that non-verbal and verbal cues are a lot more powerful than the information that might be communicated.

 

[Tarrker]

I've had the privelage (or perhaps not so privelage) of working in retail for most of my adult life. First Wal-Mart and now Target. So I hear the back and forth quite a lot and it really makes me sick. Maybe it's because this reminds me of similar arguments I had with teachers and cousilors as a child. Trying to desperately validate my very existence as a human being simply because I loved Dungeons & Dragons and the thought of killing a Cyberdeamon made me cringe with anticipation. I don't know. But too often I hear stupid people (usually biased parents) bring up an issue like the Colombine Shootings and comparing that to gaming. Then an equally idiodic "gamer" will jive in about "hand-eye coordination" or the social values of playing on X-Box live. ARG! Should I really bother explaining to these people that the LONG trouble youths in that incident had been making pipe bombs in their rooms and their parents just had NO idea. DURR. How about telling them that, without access to the ten computers in our house, my three little, adopted, Haitian sisters would never have been able to learn how to read and write our language, let alone stay in contact with their friends from Haiti. Anyone who talks about the social quality of gaming is probably that same person in WoW you see at 3am hovering over the well in Dalaran or trying to get into the alliance section without being teleported. I hear these same types of guys at work claim their 24/7 addiction to Medal of Warfare X is "healthy" because they play online together. PLEASE! You see each other for maybe five seconds in the midst of a hectic firefight and barely have time to talk between shouting obsenities at enemy players.

All these people on both sides have come together to manufacture a minority of people within the American sub-cultures that, by rights, never should have existed in the first place and both sides on strive harder and harder to make us actual game lovers look worse in the eyes of the public. As an honest-to-god game lover, not just of the video kind, I think I feel even more stereotyped and misunderstood now than I did as that scared, lonely, little boy almost 20 years ago....

 

[Alphalpha]

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.

So in your opinion, something is art if it is creative and possessed of 'vision', as long as you can't interact with it, it isn't combined with any other work of art (or, heaven forbid, something that isn't artistic), and didn't require hard work, careful thought, skills and intelligence to craft.

That definition is fucking atrocious. I seriously think, without a hint of hyperbole, that that is the worst definition of art I have ever heard from any source in my entire life. It is so horribly arbitrary and restrictive, so useless and inapplicable, that I have difficulty understanding how you could possibly defend it.

What is art under that definition? It couldn't be the Pietà, as though I'm sure there was creativity and vision behind that, but I'm afraid Michelangelo simply put too much hard work, careful though, skills and intelligence into it for it to fall under your definition. Notre Dame Cathedral isn't art, as although it is a beautifully, magnificently and intricately crafted spectacle, it was done so by more than one person, and it also includes things that are not art, such as doorknobs and shelves, so it's disqualified. All of the performing arts are exempt, of course, as even if they're done solo, they remain entirely too interactive. You've already explicitly excluded movies, so we'll skip that. Books require way too much hard work, careful planning, skill and intelligence so they've got to go.

Wait! I can think of something! You know in grade school art class, where they gave you coloured pencils, crayons, pastels and such? And then you drew whatever was in your young, inexperienced, creative mind? Some pretty creative stuff came out of those years, and it was almost entirely devoid of hard work, careful thought, skill and intelligence! So, your definition seems to include grade school level doodles and nothing else. Congrats.

Creativity and vision are cheap. They're really really really cheap. The skill, the talent, the devotion, the care required to take an idea and craft it into its fullest potential is what separates the serious artist from your three-year-old doodling on your cabinetry.

 

[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.

So in your opinion, something is art if it is creative and possessed of 'vision', as long as you can't interact with it, it isn't combined with any other work of art (or, heaven forbid, something that isn't artistic), and didn't require hard work, careful thought, skills and intelligence to craft.

That definition is fucking atrocious. I seriously think, without a hint of hyperbole, that that is the worst definition of art I have ever heard from any source in my entire life. It is so horribly arbitrary and restrictive, so useless and inapplicable, that I have difficulty understanding how you could possibly defend it.

What is art under that definition? It couldn't be the Pietà, as though I'm sure there was creativity and vision behind that, but I'm afraid Michelangelo simply put too much hard work, careful though, skills and intelligence into it for it to fall under your definition. Notre Dame Cathedral isn't art, as although it is a beautifully, magnificently and intricately crafted spectacle, it was done so by more than one person, and it also includes things that are not art, such as doorknobs and shelves, so it's disqualified. All of the performing arts are exempt, of course, as even if they're done solo, they remain entirely too interactive. You've already explicitly excluded movies, so we'll skip that. Books require way too much hard work, careful planning, skill and intelligence so they've got to go.

Wait! I can think of something! You know in grade school art class, where they gave you coloured pencils, crayons, pastels and such? And then you drew whatever was in your young, inexperienced, creative mind? Some pretty creative stuff came out of those years, and it was almost entirely devoid of hard work, careful thought, skill and intelligence! So, your definition seems to include grade school level doodles and nothing else. Congrats.

Creativity and vision are cheap. They're really really really cheap. The skill, the talent, the devotion, the care required to take an idea and craft it into its fullest potential is what separates the serious artist from your three-year-old doodling on your cabinetry.

Listen a**hole, take your f**king attitude and shove it somewhere else. First of, this is my personal definition of art, which means it's what comes to mind when I think of art you got that? Okay??
Secondly, how f**king dare you take one bit of a discussion and think you know my position. I DON'T LIKE ART! That's the whole f**king point! I take intelligence, hard work, talent and ingenuity as something above what I think of when I think art. This is why I don't want games to be called art, as I find it distasteful and lacks respect.

And you are absolutely right when you say it's narrow as sh*t. When I think of art, I think abstract paintings and weird shapes and such.

By the way. By the definition everyone uses, which you probably like, makes EVERYTHING CRAFTED BY MAN 'ART'!, why, by all that is holy, do we have such a word then? It can't be used to describe sh*t! Well it can actually, because sh*t is made by man, sort of.

Again, this is a personal definition of a word that is tossed around, and few agree really what it means. And I don't think art is really a good thing, not compared to something else! Don't. F**king. Ever. Forget that.

D*ck.

 

[Alphalpha]

Listen a**hole, take your f**king attitude and shove it somewhere else.

No.

First of, this is my personal definition of art, which means it's what comes to mind when I think of art you got that? Okay??

That's not a definition, it's an impression. When I think of Egypt, I think of pyramids, pharoahs, and the Sphinx, but that is not a good definition of Egypt.

Secondly, how f**king dare you take one bit of a discussion and think you know my position.

What the hell are you talking about? I quoted your first post; I read the whole damn thread; if you think there wasn't enough information in there for me to know your position, maybe you should have posted it. You are on a public forum. Everything you post here is open for discussion. I will comment on what you write whether you like it or not; especially if you do not.

I DON'T LIKE ART! That's the whole f**king point!

OF COURSE YOU DON'T LIKE ART! Your definition of art is art that you do not like!

I take intelligence, hard work, talent and ingenuity as something above what I think of when I think art.

Do you really believe these things to be mutually exclusive? Art and hard work, talent, and ingenuity are not in the same class: art is something you create, something you work towards; hard work, talent, and ingenuity are the tools you use in the pursuit of something, whether it is a work art, a construction, a business deal, whatever. You are trying to compare a table to woodworking, a guilty verdict to law schooling, or an Olympic gold medal to rigorous training. They are not the same type of thing, it's not either or, the former necessitates the latter.

This is why I don't want games to be called art, as I find it distasteful and lacks respect.

And you are absolutely right when you say it's narrow as sh*t. When I think of art, I think abstract paintings and weird shapes and such.

Lacks respect!? Are you for real!? Nobody I have ever conversed with on the subject would consider their work being called art an insult. This is exactly why I'm giving you so much grief over your definition. It's so out of line with everyone else's it seems almost designed to generate ire. It's as if I was talking about pruning and you somehow define that as clear-cutting: obviously that's going to cause confusion!

Everybody has their own definition of art, but at least they tend to be vaguely related. Your definition sounds like one formed second-hand of something you've never actually seen.

By the way. By the definition everyone uses, which you probably like, makes EVERYTHING CRAFTED BY MAN 'ART'!, why, by all that is holy, do we have such a word then? It can't be used to describe sh*t! Well it can actually, because sh*t is made by man, sort of.

What use is your definition, then, when it seems to be merely a concatenation of the definitions of sculpture and painting? Why is everyone always trying to say whether something is or is not art? Why are we drawing lines in the sand? Art is not a physical thing, it is not a law of nature, it is not a mathematical theorem, it is not something that can be rigorously defined. Providing an all-encompassing definition of art is fucking impossible; it's so damn impossible; it's enforcing prohibition impossible; it's discovering the meaning of life impossible; it's (dis)proving the existence of god impossible. Instead of trying to say this isn't art because you can twiddle it, or this is art because it hangs on a wall, or this is art because it's in a museum, or this isn't art because too many people worked on it, why don't we just accept that everything is arguably art and shift our focus to the discussion of these various 'works of art's' artistic merits? What is good art and what is bad art? That discussion alone warrants the existence of the word art.

Again, this is a personal definition of a word that is tossed around, and few agree really what it means. And I don't think art is really a good thing, not compared to something else! Don't. F**king. Ever. Forget that.

D*ck.

Well, I think art is what defines humanity, and I think it's the best thing we have going for us. Don't. Fucking. Ever. Forget that.

Dick.

 

[Nincompoop]

Listen a**hole, take your f**king attitude and shove it somewhere else.

No.

First of, this is my personal definition of art, which means it's what comes to mind when I think of art you got that? Okay??

That's not a definition, it's an impression. When I think of Egypt, I think of pyramids, pharoahs, and the Sphinx, but that is not a good definition of Egypt.

Secondly, how f**king dare you take one bit of a discussion and think you know my position.

What the hell are you talking about? I quoted your first post; I read the whole damn thread; if you think there wasn't enough information in there for me to know your position, maybe you should have posted it. You are on a public forum. Everything you post here is open for discussion. I will comment on what you write whether you like it or not; especially if you do not.

I DON'T LIKE ART! That's the whole f**king point!

OF COURSE YOU DON'T LIKE ART! Your definition of art is art that you do not like!

I take intelligence, hard work, talent and ingenuity as something above what I think of when I think art.

Do you really believe these things to be mutually exclusive? Art and hard work, talent, and ingenuity are not in the same class: art is something you create, something you work towards; hard work, talent, and ingenuity are the tools you use in the pursuit of something, whether it is a work art, a construction, a business deal, whatever. You are trying to compare a table to woodworking, a guilty verdict to law schooling, or an Olympic gold medal to rigorous training. They are not the same type of thing, it's not either or, the former necessitates the latter.

This is why I don't want games to be called art, as I find it distasteful and lacks respect.

And you are absolutely right when you say it's narrow as sh*t. When I think of art, I think abstract paintings and weird shapes and such.

Lacks respect!? Are you for real!? Nobody I have ever conversed with on the subject would consider their work being called art an insult. This is exactly why I'm giving you so much grief over your definition. It's so out of line with everyone else's it seems almost designed to generate ire. It's as if I was talking about pruning and you somehow define that as clear-cutting: obviously that's going to cause confusion!

Everybody has their own definition of art, but at least they tend to be vaguely related. Your definition sounds like one formed second-hand of something you've never actually seen.

By the way. By the definition everyone uses, which you probably like, makes EVERYTHING CRAFTED BY MAN 'ART'!, why, by all that is holy, do we have such a word then? It can't be used to describe sh*t! Well it can actually, because sh*t is made by man, sort of.

What use is your definition, then, when it seems to be merely a concatenation of the definitions of sculpture and painting? Why is everyone always trying to say whether something is or is not art? Why are we drawing lines in the sand? Art is not a physical thing, it is not a law of nature, it is not a mathematical theorem, it is not something that can be rigorously defined. Providing an all-encompassing definition of art is fucking impossible; it's so damn impossible; it's enforcing prohibition impossible; it's discovering the meaning of life impossible; it's (dis)proving the existence of god impossible. Instead of trying to say this isn't art because you can twiddle it, or this is art because it hangs on a wall, or this is art because it's in a museum, or this isn't art because too many people worked on it, why don't we just accept that everything is arguably art and shift our focus to the discussion of these various 'works of art's' artistic merits? What is good art and what is bad art? That discussion alone warrants the existence of the word art.

Again, this is a personal definition of a word that is tossed around, and few agree really what it means. And I don't think art is really a good thing, not compared to something else! Don't. F**king. Ever. Forget that.

D*ck.

Well, I think art is what defines humanity, and I think it's the best thing we have going for us. Don't. Fucking. Ever. Forget that.

Dick.

You are absolutely right that it's an impression then. But you treat my posts as if I somehow claim that that is the sole definition of art. There was evidence of objectivity through my entire posts. You can't possibly think otherwise.

Again, the word art doesn't mean sh*t by what you said. You mention good art, or bad art, which is something that actually can be used as something, but good craft, or bad craft (and many other words) can be used just as well. Art doesn't define anything. If you say something is art, it can be anything in the world. Then why f**king rage about games being art and not? If it's already firmly established that art can be everything possible crafted by man?

It's a stupid, utterly vast and f**king redundant word. Please, give me an example of using 'art' where it actually defines what we're talking about, and not just 'art' and the rest.

 

[Alphalpha]

You are absolutely right that it's an impression then. But you treat my posts as if I somehow claim that that is the sole definition of art. There was evidence of objectivity through my entire posts. You can't possibly think otherwise.

Again, the word art doesn't mean sh*t by what you said. You mention good art, or bad art, which is something that actually can be used as something, but good craft, or bad craft (and many other words) can be used just as well. Art doesn't define anything. If you say something is art, it can be anything in the world. Then why f**king rage about games being art and not? If it's already firmly established that art can be everything possible crafted by man?

It's a stupid, utterly vast and f**king redundant word. Please, give me an example of using 'art' where it actually defines what we're talking about, and not just 'art' and the rest.

First of all, in retrospect, I realize my first post was overly confrontational, I probably understood your perspective more than I allowed myself to realize, and for that I apologize.

In your initial post -

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.

- you took issue with the writer's argument on 'games as art' on the basis of his poor reasoning (with which I concur) and your own definition of art (with which, you may have noticed, I do not concur), or at least so I thought. It now seems more likely that your main problem with the writer's stance was his poor defense of it and you merely contributed your own view on art to add to the discussion (need to learn to pay more attention to things in bold).

My problem is not so much in the 'games are art' debate so much as the 'art is this but not this' debates. It's exactly because I feel art is such an all-encompassing concept that it irks me so much when people try to pin it down, so I was more irritated at yet another restrictive definition of art than yours personally (though I still think yours is really weird). We've been arguing over your definition of art, so I feel it is only fair to provide mine:

Art is when man crafts or performs not solely for practicality, but also or exclusively to evoke emotion and contemplation in those that experience the work.

Perhaps not as complete as I would like, but it's what I could come up with on the spot. So yes, I agree that it is a very open definition of art. I consider dance art; I consider theatre art; I consider movies, paintings, books, and sculptures to be art; I consider buildings crafted with aesthetic appeal in mind (whether they are sleek modernistic lines or intricate gothic carvings) to be art.

As an example, consider, say, a desk. If the carpenter just takes some wood he has lying around and slaps together something functional, I wouldn't consider that a work of art. However, if he took the time to carve little details here and there, and constructed it with an overall aesthetic in mind, I would call that a work of art. It's up to the individual to decide what merits the piece has as art, but that is where I would lay the separation.

I usually try to be level-headed and respectful on forums, but when I get worked up I quickly descend into confrontation and sarcasm (it actually took me a couple hours to get to sleep last night, I was so irritated).

 

[Nincompoop]

snip

snip

snip

snip
..

Art is when man crafts or performs not solely for practicality, but also or exclusively to evoke emotion and contemplation in those that experience the work.

[insert great writer] is rolling in his grave to hide the boner you just gave him.
I respect that definition, and it was well put together (however short time it took).

snip
..

As an example, consider, say, a desk. If the carpenter just takes some wood he has lying around and slaps together something functional, I wouldn't consider that a work of art. However, if he took the time to carve little details here and there, and constructed it with an overall aesthetic in mind, I would call that a work of art. It's up to the individual to decide what merits the piece has as art, but that is where I would lay the separation.

Interesting.

Let's take a software example.
So, you wouldn't consider Microsoft Word as art? But games or other software, that have something more than practical aspects? (not writing this in a descending tone, I am genuinely interested)

I usually try to be level-headed and respectful on forums, but when I get worked up I quickly descend into confrontation and sarcasm (it actually took me a couple hours to get to sleep last night, I was so irritated).

Lol. I do apologize then. As much as you 'misunderstood' or 'overreacted' or whatever, another feller here on the escapist takes the cake. He actually misunderstood a comment of mine to the exact opposite of my opinion. Partly my fault, though. Bad grammar. But anyways, I hope it helps a bit. He even used several hours to write his insanely long reply filled with hatred.

But bro honest? I don't give a sh*t if someone is writing with a bit more spice than needed. It just makes it a more interested read. It's quite fascinating what people can conjure up with grammar. And you, sir, know how to use yours.

 

[Alphalpha]

snip

snip

snip

snip
..

Art is when man crafts or performs not solely for practicality, but also or exclusively to evoke emotion and contemplation in those that experience the work.

[insert great writer] is rolling in his grave to hide the boner you just gave him.
I respect that definition, and it was well put together (however short time it took).

Thanks for the compliment, I appreciate it. I've gone over your posts again a couple of times and I think I'm starting to develop a better understanding of as well as some respect for your definition.

It seems that you think of art as more granular, in that a particular work may contain many examples of art (images, music, et cetera) without itself being art. I have the exact opposite interpretation, where such a work becomes art by default.

What I still don't understand, however, is how you decide whether a work within these media (painting, music, sculpture, what have you) is a work of art.

snip
..

As an example, consider, say, a desk. If the carpenter just takes some wood he has lying around and slaps together something functional, I wouldn't consider that a work of art. However, if he took the time to carve little details here and there, and constructed it with an overall aesthetic in mind, I would call that a work of art. It's up to the individual to decide what merits the piece has as art, but that is where I would lay the separation.

Interesting.

Let's take a software example.
So, you wouldn't consider Microsoft Word as art? But games or other software, that have something more than practical aspects? (not writing this in a descending tone, I am genuinely interested)

Exactly. Following from what I wrote above, games, being a synthesis of images, sounds, music, and virtual sculpture within a framework of code is as much art as its component parts.

A less obvious example would be Microsoft Windows. Before Windows there was DOS, which was text-based and solely functional; then came Windows 3.1 (or whatever), which also pretty much solely functional, simply designed to provide an easier to use interface. Since then, Windows has expanded its functionality, but has also put considerable effort to improving its visuals, its audio cues, and streamlining its overall aesthetic. These changes are not only to make the OS easier to use, but also to make it more pleasant to use. Having formed a solid foundation in its user interface, Windows has since attempted to add artistry to its product to attract more clients. It's certainly not impressive as a work of art, and it is extremely far down on the practicality end of the spectrum, but I would consider it as, to a mild degree, art. (I'm not sure I like this example, I'll have to think about it. I don't want to erase it, though, so here you go)

Allow me one more example, simply to highlight the possibilities of code as art. There is a game called kkrieger(http://www.theprodukkt.com/), which is constructed completely out procedural algorithms with hard-coded inputs. All the music, models, sounds, and textures are generated on the spot based on the algorithms the developers wrote and the inputs they decided on. So basically, they wrote code that could generate something similar to what they wanted, then they tried various inputs until they got something they liked. I believe the finished product is less than a megabyte {swoon}.

I usually try to be level-headed and respectful on forums, but when I get worked up I quickly descend into confrontation and sarcasm (it actually took me a couple hours to get to sleep last night, I was so irritated).

Lol. I do apologize then. As much as you 'misunderstood' or 'overreacted' or whatever, another feller here on the escapist takes the cake. He actually misunderstood a comment of mine to the exact opposite of my opinion. Partly my fault, though. Bad grammar. But anyways, I hope it helps a bit. He even used several hours to write his insanely long reply filled with hatred.

But bro honest? I don't give a sh*t if someone is writing with a bit more spice than needed. It just makes it a more interested read. It's quite fascinating what people can conjure up with grammar. And you, sir, know how to use yours.

Oh, I certainly enjoy the occasional 'nasty' post, but I never do so simply to piss someone off (unless they're just trolling, which I never thought you were, and rarely even then), so my response to your... exuberant response was somewhere between mean-spirited glee that I had affected you so and worry that I had actually been enough of a jerk to deserve it.

This discussion has certainly turned out to be much more interesting than I would have initially thought.

 

[Nincompoop]

snip

snip

snip

snip
..

Art is when man crafts or performs not solely for practicality, but also or exclusively to evoke emotion and contemplation in those that experience the work.

[insert great writer] is rolling in his grave to hide the boner you just gave him.
I respect that definition, and it was well put together (however short time it took).

Thanks for the compliment, I appreciate it. I've gone over your posts again a couple of times and I think I'm starting to develop a better understanding of as well as some respect for your definition.

It seems that you think of art as more granular, in that a particular work may contain many examples of art (images, music, et cetera) without itself being art. I have the exact opposite interpretation, where such a work becomes art by default.

What I still don't understand, however, is how you decide whether a work within these media (painting, music, sculpture, what have you) is a work of art.

Well. I think I just mean more spontaneous and creative, if that makes sense. Like, some people just sit down, and start drawing odd shapes, and they never really planned it. It was more improvised than thought through. On the same level, if people draw a weird picture, or sculpt an odd shape (which again, isn't thought through), I would call it art. Well I don't know really how to explain it fairly. But I do know that the impression of a word that isn't firmly defined stays with you. I will always, unless I actually try to rid it off me, think of improvised odd shapes or paintings. When I say odd, I just mean non-conventional shapes (as opposed to simple circles or squares), not saying one has to turn ones head when one sees the shape. The reason I probably won't get rid of the impression of the word, is because what I mean when I say 'art' is something that often resides in creative people. One can be creative and smart, sure, but some just automatically draw beautiful shapes, without carefully planning to. Some even draw a simple circle with enough character to make it look good. Typically it's those who have amazing hand writings. Anyways, as 'creative' isn't a good enough word in my opinion, I have sort of used 'art' to fill in the gap.

snip
..

As an example, consider, say, a desk. If the carpenter just takes some wood he has lying around and slaps together something functional, I wouldn't consider that a work of art. However, if he took the time to carve little details here and there, and constructed it with an overall aesthetic in mind, I would call that a work of art. It's up to the individual to decide what merits the piece has as art, but that is where I would lay the separation.

Interesting.

Let's take a software example.
So, you wouldn't consider Microsoft Word as art? But games or other software, that have something more than practical aspects? (not writing this in a descending tone, I am genuinely interested)

Exactly. Following from what I wrote above, games, being a synthesis of images, sounds, music, and virtual sculpture within a framework of code is as much art as its component parts.

A less obvious example would be Microsoft Windows. Before Windows there was DOS, which was text-based and solely functional; then came Windows 3.1 (or whatever), which also pretty much solely functional, simply designed to provide an easier to use interface. Since then, Windows has expanded its functionality, but has also put considerable effort to improving its visuals, its audio cues, and streamlining its overall aesthetic. These changes are not only to make the OS easier to use, but also to make it more pleasant to use. Having formed a solid foundation in its user interface, Windows has since attempted to add artistry to its product to attract more clients. It's certainly not impressive as a work of art, and it is extremely far down on the practicality end of the spectrum, but I would consider it as, to a mild degree, art. (I'm not sure I like this example, I'll have to think about it. I don't want to erase it, though, so here you go)

Allow me one more example, simply to highlight the possibilities of code as art. There is a game called kkrieger(http://www.theprodukkt.com/), which is constructed completely out procedural algorithms with hard-coded inputs. All the music, models, sounds, and textures are generated on the spot based on the algorithms the developers wrote and the inputs they decided on. So basically, they wrote code that could generate something similar to what they wanted, then they tried various inputs until they got something they liked. I believe the finished product is less than a megabyte {swoon}.

I have actually tried kkriger, but I didn't know how they managed to make it happen. But I think I guessed something like that though. It's extremely impressive.

Anyways, I think I understand your view.

I usually try to be level-headed and respectful on forums, but when I get worked up I quickly descend into confrontation and sarcasm (it actually took me a couple hours to get to sleep last night, I was so irritated).

Lol. I do apologize then. As much as you 'misunderstood' or 'overreacted' or whatever, another feller here on the escapist takes the cake. He actually misunderstood a comment of mine to the exact opposite of my opinion. Partly my fault, though. Bad grammar. But anyways, I hope it helps a bit. He even used several hours to write his insanely long reply filled with hatred.

But bro honest? I don't give a sh*t if someone is writing with a bit more spice than needed. It just makes it a more interested read. It's quite fascinating what people can conjure up with grammar. And you, sir, know how to use yours.

Oh, I certainly enjoy the occasional 'nasty' post, but I never do so simply to piss someone off (unless they're just trolling, which I never thought you were, and rarely even then), so my response to your... exuberant response was somewhere between mean-spirited glee that I had affected you so and worry that I had actually been enough of a jerk to deserve it.

This discussion has certainly turned out to be much more interesting than I would have initially thought.

Hehe. Some just automatically take offense if something is written in a offensive manner, and some who are offended never get over it. Unfortunately, there is an abundant of people on the internet who share both of these traits.

But I have enjoyed this discussion we've/re had/having, so... No hard feelings I guess. At least on my part.

 

[Alphalpha]

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

Well. I think I just mean more spontaneous and creative, if that makes sense. Like, some people just sit down, and start drawing odd shapes, and they never really planned it. It was more improvised than thought through. On the same level, if people draw a weird picture, or sculpt an odd shape (which again, isn't thought through), I would call it art. Well I don't know really how to explain it fairly. But I do know that the impression of a word that isn't firmly defined stays with you. I will always, unless I actually try to rid it off me, think of improvised odd shapes or paintings. When I say odd, I just mean non-conventional shapes (as opposed to simple circles or squares), not saying one has to turn ones head when one sees the shape. The reason I probably won't get rid of the impression of the word, is because what I mean when I say 'art' is something that often resides in creative people. One can be creative and smart, sure, but some just automatically draw beautiful shapes, without carefully planning to. Some even draw a simple circle with enough character to make it look good. Typically it's those who have amazing hand writings. Anyways, as 'creative' isn't a good enough word in my opinion, I have sort of used 'art' to fill in the gap.

That definition is as unusual as the works it describes, but it certainly explains your opinion of 'art'. How about music, then? If a work fell outside the usual structural conventions (chorus, bridge, constant time, repetitive melody, et cetera) and was created more spontaneously would you consider that art?

snip

snip

snip

I have actually tried kkriger, but I didn't know how they managed to make it happen. But I think I guessed something like that though. It's extremely impressive.

Anyways, I think I understand your view.

snip

snip

snip

Hehe. Some just automatically take offense if something is written in a offensive manner, and some who are offended never get over it. Unfortunately, there is an abundant of people on the internet who share both of these traits.

But I have enjoyed this discussion we've/re had/having, so... No hard feelings I guess. At least on my part.

There once were two chaps on a forum,
Who showed a great lack of decorum.
They bandied about,
and worked it all out.
(I still say a new one I tore 'im.)

Quick to anger, quick to forget; that describes me on the in-tor-net. No hard feelings.

 

[Nincompoop]

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

Well. I think I just mean more spontaneous and creative, if that makes sense. Like, some people just sit down, and start drawing odd shapes, and they never really planned it. It was more improvised than thought through. On the same level, if people draw a weird picture, or sculpt an odd shape (which again, isn't thought through), I would call it art. Well I don't know really how to explain it fairly. But I do know that the impression of a word that isn't firmly defined stays with you. I will always, unless I actually try to rid it off me, think of improvised odd shapes or paintings. When I say odd, I just mean non-conventional shapes (as opposed to simple circles or squares), not saying one has to turn ones head when one sees the shape. The reason I probably won't get rid of the impression of the word, is because what I mean when I say 'art' is something that often resides in creative people. One can be creative and smart, sure, but some just automatically draw beautiful shapes, without carefully planning to. Some even draw a simple circle with enough character to make it look good. Typically it's those who have amazing hand writings. Anyways, as 'creative' isn't a good enough word in my opinion, I have sort of used 'art' to fill in the gap.

That definition is as unusual as the works it describes, but it certainly explains your opinion of 'art'. How about music, then? If a work fell outside the usual structural conventions (chorus, bridge, constant time, repetitive melody, et cetera) and was created more spontaneously would you consider that art?

I don't know really. I am a musician (sort of, don't perform but I play by myself) and I actually have a hard time classifying music in comparison to the rest. For me, music is above conventional 'art' or the like. It's more magical and universal than entertainment and other forms of art. Oh boy, another definition/impression of something... WHAT EVER! I am a character, and so be it.

snip

snip

snip

I have actually tried kkriger, but I didn't know how they managed to make it happen. But I think I guessed something like that though. It's extremely impressive.

Anyways, I think I understand your view.

snip

snip

snip

Hehe. Some just automatically take offense if something is written in a offensive manner, and some who are offended never get over it. Unfortunately, there is an abundant of people on the internet who share both of these traits.

But I have enjoyed this discussion we've/re had/having, so... No hard feelings I guess. At least on my part.

There once were two chaps on a forum,
Who showed a great lack of decorum.
They bandied about,
and worked it all out.
(I still say a new one I tore 'im.)

Quick to anger, quick to forget; that describes me on the in-tor-net. No hard feelings.

D'awww, a poem?

But seriously that was good.

 

[Alphalpha]

I don't know really. I am a musician (sort of, don't perform but I play by myself) and I actually have a hard time classifying music in comparison to the rest. For me, music is above conventional 'art' or the like. It's more magical and universal than entertainment and other forms of art. Oh boy, another definition/impression of something... WHAT EVER! I am a character, and so be it.

I play a bit of bass guitar myself, and I dare say music is the most universal medium. I'll have to remember to tread carefully around you when the discussion revolves around definitions.

D'awww, a poem?

But seriously that was good.

It just came to me (except for the last line; I had to stretch a bit for that one). Limericks are fun to write.

We seem to be done here, so good day to you.

 

[Piecewise]

Ah, allow me to summarize this article.

MY LARGELY UNEXPLAINED AND OFTEN MINIMALISTIC OPINIONS ARE FAAAAAAACT!

 

[firegazer]

To the various people who have played skeptical regarding the percentage of female gamers: you are the reason I don't use voice-chat over XBox. Screw off.

As far as these various myths go, there is something I would like to point out as an ACTUAL issue: games DO ruin relationships at times, and trying to place the blame entirely on the people involved is ignoring some of the important psychology just because you can't abide any insult to your favourite hobby.

I have noticed a severe difference in the way women approach games versus the way men approach them, and that is the MAIN problem that games introduce into a relationship. For whatever reason, I hear the same story over and over: men use games as escapism in a more hard-core and more avoidance-driven way than women do, even when the real problem is elsewhere in their life, and is completely solvable with a bit of effort. The difference between the way I use video games and the way my S.O. uses them is big-- I play games to reward myself for having gotten things done. He plays games when he feels a need to *avoid* getting things done.

The game industry does not get off entirely scot-free for this: they've been doing studies for years to figure out how best to addict their audiences for extended periods, and it's now down to an art. XBox 'achievements' were one of the biggest results of these studies, as well as the pleasant noises and sudden colorful motion you get whenever you unlock one of these useless achievements. Modern games give a very good simulation of the 'useful' achievement-driven stuff we do in real life, except that once the screen is finally off, the reality of having done nothing sets in and things feel even worse than before. It's useless to argue that 'people will only find some other way to avoid life'-- games are now being *intentionally designed* to encourage endless playing for useless achievements to replace the feel of real-life achievement. The TV episode eventually ends and you're left to handle that chore you've been putting off. The game you're playing instead suggests the next weekend achievement, which you're *just so close* to getting... so another game wouldn't hurt.

I'm a gamer, and I love it. But jesus christ on a pogo stick, I feel like gaming companies are insulting me by intentionally looking for ways to uselessly addict me. Take my money once, give me a game, but please do not try to subliminally influence WTF I do with it once I buy it, or how long I play it.