Braid was an overhyped, overpriced piece of shit. It took Mario and made it into a flash game, added a rewind feature and topped it off with a hipsters dream journal for a story. It was artistic only in the sense that we were told it was artistic, it was good only because we were told it was good. If Braid is a shining example of games as art, I'll go back to Q*bert, thanks.Pirate Kitty said:
286: Videogame Myths Debunked
- Thread starter C J Davies
- Start date
I dislike the argument that video games or film is art. In my opinion there are only examples of these things being art. Porn films are a type of film so does that mean porn is art because film is art, I don't think that. If film is art than everything from Citizen Kane to Michael Bay films to porn is art because they are film. there are may examples of art in video games such as the aforementioned Shadow of the Colossus.
Yeah that's sort of my point I don't really think an entire medium can be called art but examples of this medium can be seen as art. I also think a lot of it has to do with your own personal preference an example I guess is the fermented shark by Damian Hurst, I don't think that is art but loads of people do.mirasiel said:
I'm inclined to agree with you. Not every drawing, sculpture, song, poem, movie, play, or video game is art.KuwaSanjuro said:
Also you ever notice how no one mentions sitcoms as art? Why is that? Is it because sitcoms don't have a bill attacking their very existence or is it because sitcoms are in general dumb. I'm leaning towards the bill one. I mean lets think about it, movie stars have been in sitcoms. Writers have been known to do both sitcoms and movies. Danny Elfman makes music for both, yet movies and film are art, while sitcoms are sitcoms. And sitcoms aren't all dumb, there have been some very critically acclaimed sitcoms. I mean you can't go on the internet without hearing how genius Arrest Development was and I challenge you to find a more sentimental story about a boy and his dog than Futurama's Jurassic Bark.
Hell sitcoms have all the pros that video games to for potentially being art, and none of that nudity or mindless violence.
As a gamer I am of course sympathetic to efforts to correct misconceptions about gaming. However, I can't support countering one flawed argument or misconception, with another flawed argument or misconception. Nearly all arguments in favor of games being "art" fail to make a distinction between something that is art, and something that merely contains artistic elements. A magazine is not an artistic work. It is a creative work, in that it can be copyrighted, but there is nothing particularly artistic about it. Even if the magazine is about art, and features a work of art on every page, the magazine itself is still not art. While it contains art, the way that those components are put together is deliberate and pragmatic (intended to achieve practical objectives like increasing circulation, attracting advertisers, motivating donations or support, etc.), not artistic, in nature. Anyone that has worked in publishing knows this. It is more engineering than art. When you make a distinction between something that is art, and something that merely incorporates artistic elements, it becomes far less clear that games are, or even can be, art themselves. No one disputes that video games contain artistic elements, so the entire debate is really centered on the flawed conclusion that if something contains artistic elements, then it is art. No one in the art world is ever going to agree with that, because frankly it is just wrong by definition.
A video game is, at the most fundamental level, a piece of software. Creating a piece of software is not considered an artistic activity, for any other type of software. Software, like a magazine, is considered a creative work, but not an artistic one. Software has function, and the function must on some level take priority over form, otherwise the software is useless. That is what makes it not art. Art can exist for its own sake, as nothing more than an expression of the artist's thoughts and personality. Software, including games, cannot. Software has to do certain things at a certain level of competence, otherwise it is objectively worthless. Art is never objectively worthless, because art isn't supposed to serve any objective purpose. You may think it has no worth, but there is always room for others to disagree, because appreciation of art is entirely subjective. You can create objective criteria by which to judge art, but art remains art no matter how poorly it is executed. Game software that crashes at the start screen isn't a game at all. It is just a useless piece of broken software.
What makes a video game art when all other forms of software are not? The fact that it has a script and voice actors? Instructional software often has a script and voice actors. That doesn't make instructional software art. A script is art, and so is acting, but that just makes games (and instructional software) a construct that contains art. Not a piece of art itself. The same goes for the graphics, sound, and everything else that the artists on the development team create. They are artistic elements incorporated into the game. No amount of that will make the game as a whole art, just like the art magazine. Games are judged by certain criteria, and it isn't the criteria by which art is judged. Certainly the quality of artistic elements such as graphics, sound (including voice acting), and writing are considered; but so are things like controls, level design, game-play balance, replay-value, and stability. Those things are engineering, not art. Video games, like all software, are an engineered product. Not an artistic one. Art doesn't need a QA team. If even one person thinks that it works, then it does.
Even if some games were art, five examples (BioShock, Ocarina of Time, etc.) do not prove that video games in general are art. Twenty examples would not prove it either. No number of examples proves a generalization. Generalizations have to be proved logically based on established facts. Games-as-art advocates haven't even made a credible attempt at that. Cirque du Soleil, and Ringling Brothers, Barnum and Bailey Circus; are both circuses. I could make a case that Cirque du Soleil's performances are art. Ringling Brothers? Not so much. Are circuses art? At best, the answer is; they can be, but to be successful they only need to be entertainment, and most of them aren't intended to be anything more than entertainment. The same is true of video games at this point, and that may always be the case.
A video game is, at the most fundamental level, a piece of software. Creating a piece of software is not considered an artistic activity, for any other type of software. Software, like a magazine, is considered a creative work, but not an artistic one. Software has function, and the function must on some level take priority over form, otherwise the software is useless. That is what makes it not art. Art can exist for its own sake, as nothing more than an expression of the artist's thoughts and personality. Software, including games, cannot. Software has to do certain things at a certain level of competence, otherwise it is objectively worthless. Art is never objectively worthless, because art isn't supposed to serve any objective purpose. You may think it has no worth, but there is always room for others to disagree, because appreciation of art is entirely subjective. You can create objective criteria by which to judge art, but art remains art no matter how poorly it is executed. Game software that crashes at the start screen isn't a game at all. It is just a useless piece of broken software.
What makes a video game art when all other forms of software are not? The fact that it has a script and voice actors? Instructional software often has a script and voice actors. That doesn't make instructional software art. A script is art, and so is acting, but that just makes games (and instructional software) a construct that contains art. Not a piece of art itself. The same goes for the graphics, sound, and everything else that the artists on the development team create. They are artistic elements incorporated into the game. No amount of that will make the game as a whole art, just like the art magazine. Games are judged by certain criteria, and it isn't the criteria by which art is judged. Certainly the quality of artistic elements such as graphics, sound (including voice acting), and writing are considered; but so are things like controls, level design, game-play balance, replay-value, and stability. Those things are engineering, not art. Video games, like all software, are an engineered product. Not an artistic one. Art doesn't need a QA team. If even one person thinks that it works, then it does.
Even if some games were art, five examples (BioShock, Ocarina of Time, etc.) do not prove that video games in general are art. Twenty examples would not prove it either. No number of examples proves a generalization. Generalizations have to be proved logically based on established facts. Games-as-art advocates haven't even made a credible attempt at that. Cirque du Soleil, and Ringling Brothers, Barnum and Bailey Circus; are both circuses. I could make a case that Cirque du Soleil's performances are art. Ringling Brothers? Not so much. Are circuses art? At best, the answer is; they can be, but to be successful they only need to be entertainment, and most of them aren't intended to be anything more than entertainment. The same is true of video games at this point, and that may always be the case.
Some weird myths I didn't think existed anymore here. Still a fun read. Again.
Anybody up for cracking the Games Workshop vs Blizzard nut?
I'd love to see that one cleared up.
Because that's what's getting mixed up, your use of the word 'promote'.
Dig the avatar btw. Never played the game (Persona right?) but I'm a sucker for the tomboy type.
Anybody up for cracking the Games Workshop vs Blizzard nut?
I'd love to see that one cleared up.
You could have shot this whole thing down on page 1 by simply saying that when you say that a piece of entertainment promotes violence does not mean you're saying that piece of entertainment also encourages violence in the real world.Pirate Kitty said:
Because that's what's getting mixed up, your use of the word 'promote'.
Dig the avatar btw. Never played the game (Persona right?) but I'm a sucker for the tomboy type.
Pirate Kitty is correct if "promote" implies that some games contain violence and may encourage gamers to play more games like them.
About encouraging people to become violent, though, there are studies that argue that they may for some gamers and not for others:
http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2010/06/violent-video-games.aspx
There are also the effects of violent scenes on gamers. This is probably why, like movies and television shows, games have ratings.
About encouraging people to become violent, though, there are studies that argue that they may for some gamers and not for others:
http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2010/06/violent-video-games.aspx
There are also the effects of violent scenes on gamers. This is probably why, like movies and television shows, games have ratings.
Miscommunication, it's everywhere, has nothing to do with being liberal or not.Pirate Kitty said:
Oh, looked up some Persona artwork, thought it was Naoto from P4 but she has a different hat and hair and eyes and... well basically everything really. I'd hate not knowing where my avatar is from. To me that picture always has to have some meaning to it other than it just looks nice.
Straw Man...or Red Herring. I forgot which one it is where you knowingly misinterpret a point to sound smart.Pirate Kitty said:
Perhaps it is neither of those things. That would be kinda funny.
At any rate, it's blatantly obvious that the point is "Video Games of X Persuasion don't cause you to act in X Persuasion in real life."
Violent Games don't make you kill people.
Brain Games don't make you a genius.
Mario Games don't make you a drug addled Italian Plumber who fights turtles.
Edit: I see you make this same point later. So your original post just confuses me. You apparently aren't part of "that" crowd. Which is good, we need more sensible people floating around. (Though to be fair it's likely there are many, they just aren't talkative).
Casual gaming _is_ killing real gaming. Look at what happened to Nintendo, and look at what kind of games are sucking up the resources that went into things like Kinect. Nintendo doesn't give a crap about its actual fans anymore.
Also, gaming _is_ social. The article conveniently ignored the most social form of gaming: having all your friends and you pile into a room and play a game together. There's nothing more social than solving puzzles or getting into a plot together.
Also, gaming _is_ social. The article conveniently ignored the most social form of gaming: having all your friends and you pile into a room and play a game together. There's nothing more social than solving puzzles or getting into a plot together.
I don't know about anyone else, but I get the feeling that the confusion with the whole 'promotes violence' statement has nothing to do with the word promote but more with the word violence.
I am not getting into names or quotes because that would make this post a page on its own, but a recap says that games promote violence because you have to use it to progress and get the game rewards, with the counter argument saying that the violence isn't real so how can you promote something that doesn't exist.
I say that games promote aggression; the violence in games is outlet for said aggression, the same as punishing time limits in racing games or the increase in difficulty in puzzle games like Tetris; and there is nothing wrong with promoting aggression in a controlled environment. Better to smash a controller than someone's face.
As a final point I would like to put my own spin on this discussion and ask: Are we as the audience/consumer guilty of promoting violence in games by making the violent ones the most profitable ones?
I am not getting into names or quotes because that would make this post a page on its own, but a recap says that games promote violence because you have to use it to progress and get the game rewards, with the counter argument saying that the violence isn't real so how can you promote something that doesn't exist.
I say that games promote aggression; the violence in games is outlet for said aggression, the same as punishing time limits in racing games or the increase in difficulty in puzzle games like Tetris; and there is nothing wrong with promoting aggression in a controlled environment. Better to smash a controller than someone's face.
As a final point I would like to put my own spin on this discussion and ask: Are we as the audience/consumer guilty of promoting violence in games by making the violent ones the most profitable ones?
Video games don't make you smarter, this is true, being smart and being knowledgeable are two different things.
A game might teach you what C4 is (ty MGS1) or that robotic arms are awesome and all Nazis should die, but any idiot can read the back of a cereal box and learn something new, just not something useful.
And dat's my input.
A game might teach you what C4 is (ty MGS1) or that robotic arms are awesome and all Nazis should die, but any idiot can read the back of a cereal box and learn something new, just not something useful.
And dat's my input.
gkpama00 said:
I generally have to agree.
Regarding such, I've only ever encountered a handful of titles that would actually classify as "art," and as such, these arent' titles that the everyday player would be willing to pick up, either.
"Art" games tend to take a drastically different approach, and as such, usually have a gamestyle or interface that's is hard to comprehend for the average player - or, the gameplay is so difficult that a user can become easily frustrated. At the very least, the plot and/or story tend to be extremelly vague, usually relying more on artistic concept than anything substantial.
A perfect examplary title would be The Void [http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/the-void-review]. Beautiful . . . Brilliant . . . truly artistic with a lot of symbolism and conjecture abounding, really focusing the player on the meaning and theory of life, death and afterlife . . . But, it's inherent vagueness, asking the player to be able to form their own conjecture, will lose MANY players. Many others will be easily frustrated by how hard the game itself is - it asks of you to focus on the game-world's macrocosm instead of only paying attention to the microcosm. One must be willing to pay attention to the big picture, while carefully acknowledging the details.