Arguments to classify Games as Art.

[BloodSquirrel]

So... My first own thread here. I want to write down an idea of mine, about how to classify games as art. I am fully aware that this topic has been discussed a lot on this board, but I faced the problem that people weren't making real points, just said "Yeah, they are".

I'm studying german literature, so I will try to link games and literature:

When it comes to narrative texts, say novels, non-lyric-tales some scientists cut a text in "histoire" (french for story) and "discours" (french for talking). That means simply that there is the stuff, that you are told, the story, the histoire, and the way it is told, the discours.

When it comes to games you face the porblem that there is basically the same histoire as in books, and accordingly the same rules and mechanismns. To explain that: Things that belong to histoire are things like character motivation (are they acting acording to their feelings or their reason, or because of their faith, or unontrolled?) and story structure (exposition, conflict, climax, solution).

But the discours, the way it is presented, is kind of laking in games these days. Barely a game uses complex symbolysm or metaphors. Beeing a mainly visual medium gaming faces the same problem as movies, metaphors and images are easy on paper but kind of hard to put on a screen.

May be one could see gameplay or athmosphere as a games way of presentation. But moste games are lacky in this area due to homogenized controlls. Let's say rightclick for alternate fire, wasd to move. It would make for a much better artistic statement when you had to move with a and o in game whose message is about life and death. But it would suck as a gameplaymechanic. So we kind of have the problem of a homogenized medium, which I personally can't solve. May be one of you has an idea.

And of course there is the ongoing killer-argument of "Well, anything is art." People see pictures of toiletts and cans, believe toiletts are Art. I am no expert on this, but I know that no constructive discussion can be made with the premisse: Well, it doesn't matter at all.

Popart is about quoting things. That's why it is funny, when the Simpsons rip on the godfather for the onethousandth time. Games don't quote anything, expect themselves. I'm not sure weather every Halo-clone out there can be seen as pop-art or weather it's just a mass-product.

Now... Wall of Text ends. What are your arguments (still not sure about the use of that word in english, always thout it meant a discussion as a whole, but I looked it up), when you want to declare Games as Art.

Your post seems to have been written in the world where games haven't evolved beyond pacman, and movies haven't advanced beyond The Great Train Robbery. You aren't really addressing any coherent definition of art, and your viewpoint is very myopic.

For starters, Halo is chocked full of Biblical symbolism. The Covenant. The Flood. The Ark.

Second, if you actually think that visual mediums can't do metaphor, then you need to do a lot more studying. All that is required for something to be a metaphor is for it to represent something else. In The Matrix, Neo is a metaphor for Jesus (mind you, this isn't always a good thing. The second two Matrix moves were kind of up their own asses). Do you know what allegory is? Do you really not think that movies and games can be allegory?

Third, you realize that there are different kinds and levels of art, don't you? Not all art requires symbolism and metaphor. Not all art is deep and thought-provoking, or even good. What is the Mona Lisa symbolic of? If the story in a game makes you feel sad, angry or happy, then it's art. Hell, not even the story. If the visual design alone evokes an emotion, then it's art.

Art=Result of creative thinking

That's my definition.

That one has some problems- if I laugh to myself because I thought of a creative joke, is the laugh art?

My definition of art is anything that attempts to communicate an emotion. It's not perfect, but it's broad enough to include everything that needs to be included but leaves room to disqualify meaningless garbage like toilet seats.

Also, is English your first language?

 

[crypt-creature]

*snip*

You just described anyone in any profession that has let fame, money, snobbery, or their attitude go to their head.
You also possibly just insulted and alienated half the staff who has worked on any video game ever, and made the gaming community look no better than the art community.

Up until the last 'paragraph', it was funny though.

 

[Cabisco]

You just described anyone in any profession that has let fame, money, snobbery, or their attitude go to their head.
You also possibly just insulted and alienated half the staff who has worked on any video game ever, and made the gaming community look no better than the art community.

Up until the last 'paragraph', it was funny though.

I know, i didn't actually like the last paragraph once i had posted it as i did realise how similar the gaming community is. At least the main body you found funny as thats what i was aiming for

I would of edited it but I don't like editing much, and now the damage is done anyway damnit.

 

[crypt-creature]

I know, i didn't actually like the last paragraph once i had posted it as i did realise how similar the gaming community is. At least the main body you found funny as thats what i was aiming for

I would of edited it but I don't like editing much, and now the damage is done anyway damnit.

It's sometimes creepy how similar the two communities can be, but both are insanely fun when you find the right people.

The damage is negligible anyway

 

[veloper]

A triple-A title requires a team of skilled designers, illustrators, animators, etc. for a year or more to make. The end result will be criticized over any flaw and if the metacritic score is lower than 8 it prolly didn't sell.

For about 50 bucks or less, if that isn't high standards, nothing is.

A bunch of talentless hacks can never make a succesful game. Art is the exact opposite.

Because every single game ever made has been a triple-a title, or has been successful.
It also takes real 'talent' to rip off other games and substitute the main character for a generic replacement, because such a thing has never happened in the gaming industry (which, it has) and since it takes a whole team instead of one person the quality is automatically 'higher'?
'Talentless hacks' can make 'successful' games.

Do it then, show the world how easy it is to rip off other games.

I know I could buy a toilet or a spade and fix it on a pedestal, or take a canvas and paint it in one color. Artists have made millions with these. Making another average doom clone however is not so easy.
The production values and talent required to make even a modest flash game are much higher than what goes on for Art these days.

Art critics do not consider the work of talented illustrators art, but if looks like something a 3yr old can produce, it may be considered art, depending on WHO made it.

And games don't go through the same problems with companies and publishers?
[/quote]
No.
A big name can make an *average* game seem great to the gaming masses, but no developer or publisher can make absolute crap appear good.

Which would get noticed more? Which would get better/worse reviews?
A bad game made by a big-named company with a good reputation, or a bad game made by a company few have heard of?

The bad game by the big company will sell poorly. The nobody bad game will simply be ignored.

The real art in art is selling rubbish for much. How much it sells for is how good the art is. Examples of this are everywhere. I suppose that takes skill too, a different kind of skill.
Me, I value the illustrators and 3d modelers, those people who are not "artists", but who practice a real craft.

Again, and games aren't guilty of selling rubbish to consumers? Just because it looks pretty and you can interact with it, doesn't make it 'good' or 'art'.
Absolutely no one can rip off a 3D design and pass it off as their own? Rubbish.

Even taking existing 3d models and altering them takes actual skill. This happens all the time and it doesn't make games bad.
Supposed you steal the resources of a popular shooter, it will take much effort and skill to turn it into a generic shooter, call it your own and get away with it.

Art is just as much of a 'real craft' as those modelers and illustrators, or can you draw things from your head or something that you see and make them perfect and/or put your own style to it?
All of those things take talent, how that talent is used and how people might rip it off is not the fault of the craft, and none of them are protected against thieves and hacks who want to make $$.
Most those 3D modelers and illustrators have some background in traditional art, they don't have to be good at traditional art but if they are it helps.

Craft is still craft. The problem is "art" and that it nolonger requires craft, or imagination even.
If the work of a penciller, colorist, pixelmonkey, is good, I call it "good". There's no point in calling anything art anymore, unless it's very expensive.

 

[TheSeventhLoneWolf]

Snip

This thread is overdone.
[sub]Ahem, my avatar thread is "new"...[/sub]

Team fortress 2. Borderlands. These things strike me as art. And art is different with every single person. It has no spiritual definition, only a physical, solid definition of what it is in general, which explains nothing.

This thread is overdone. But hey. It's a post.

 

[SonicKoala]

Sure video games are art. However, I think an important aspect of good art is the ability to communicate ideas beyond what is apparent; sure, these atmospheres are well designed, but what do they mean? Granted, there are some games like that (very, VERY few, mind you), but for the most part video games are only "art" in the sense that someone drew them. The thing with video games is that when designers make them, they have to keep a number of things in mind - things like gameplay, difficulty, controls, etc. Novels and movies, on the other hand, do not have these issues; these are things which can be used to solely as a means of communicating ideas and concepts without having to think of these other trivialities which often drive-down either the quality of a video game, or the impact of the game's overall message.

I'm not saying all video games need to have this, nor am I saying all "art" needs to have these characteristics. I suppose what I'm getting at is that Video Games are a form of art, but we need to look at them as a medium unto themselves. Considering the level of interactivity involved in video games (after all, the interactivity is what makes it a video game), we will never really be able to look at video games the same way we look at movies, or novels. When one thinks of a video game which is a "work of art", they aren't only going to consider the graphics, or the storyline, or the overlying messages - one thinks of how fun it was, or how enjoyable it was to play with friends, or how how fluid the controls were. In other words, video games have far too many unique characteristics, and we need to look at video games in a different way than we do other forms of art when judging their merits as art.

However, because of these characteristics, I think it will be a very long time (if ever) before video games are accepted as art on the same level of paintings, novels, or films, and the appreciation of video games will probably continue to be limited to small groups of hardcore video game fans (such as everyone here).

 

[Jazzyluv2]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4ipBj1sO3M

that is art, its pure its simple.

Talent is not necessary for art. Art is not some high pedestal bullshit. Art is whatever the fuck you want it to be. I read R. Crumb and find that to be the most fantastic example of Americana, brutal and raw views of a very very odd person. The whole snobbishness people start to show when the word "art" hits the argument and everyone has a different view. Its you choice or not. Some art is just more important than others, no matter how good you think it is.

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

So... My first own thread here. I want to write down an idea of mine, about how to classify games as art. I am fully aware that this topic has been discussed a lot on this board, but I faced the problem that people weren't making real points, just said "Yeah, they are".

I'm studying german literature, so I will try to link games and literature:

When it comes to narrative texts, say novels, non-lyric-tales some scientists cut a text in "histoire" (french for story) and "discours" (french for talking). That means simply that there is the stuff, that you are told, the story, the histoire, and the way it is told, the discours.

When it comes to games you face the porblem that there is basically the same histoire as in books, and accordingly the same rules and mechanismns. To explain that: Things that belong to histoire are things like character motivation (are they acting acording to their feelings or their reason, or because of their faith, or unontrolled?) and story structure (exposition, conflict, climax, solution).

But the discours, the way it is presented, is kind of laking in games these days. Barely a game uses complex symbolysm or metaphors. Beeing a mainly visual medium gaming faces the same problem as movies, metaphors and images are easy on paper but kind of hard to put on a screen.

May be one could see gameplay or athmosphere as a games way of presentation. But moste games are lacky in this area due to homogenized controlls. Let's say rightclick for alternate fire, wasd to move. It would make for a much better artistic statement when you had to move with a and o in game whose message is about life and death. But it would suck as a gameplaymechanic. So we kind of have the problem of a homogenized medium, which I personally can't solve. May be one of you has an idea.

And of course there is the ongoing killer-argument of "Well, anything is art." People see pictures of toiletts and cans, believe toiletts are Art. I am no expert on this, but I know that no constructive discussion can be made with the premisse: Well, it doesn't matter at all.

Popart is about quoting things. That's why it is funny, when the Simpsons rip on the godfather for the onethousandth time. Games don't quote anything, expect themselves. I'm not sure weather every Halo-clone out there can be seen as pop-art or weather it's just a mass-product.

Now... Wall of Text ends. What are your arguments (still not sure about the use of that word in english, always thout it meant a discussion as a whole, but I looked it up), when you want to declare Games as Art.

Sorry dude but Histoire means History not story
Discours means a discussion point in speech from a one sided arguement.

French, what a beautiful language.

I assume English and French are not your first language's? good thread by the way considering its not in your own language.

Books are not art, books are culture.

Art by its own definition is something that is utterly useless other than to look at and think about. So games cannot be Art until they become useless.

Are you unaware that in French, as in English, words can have more than one meaning? Also individual books are art - it is their collective influence that forms culture; and dropping that Wilde quote out of its original context in the preface to The Picture of Dorian Gray robs it of the irony.

 

[DigitalSushi]

Are you unaware that in French, as in English, words can have more than one meaning? Also individual books are art - it is their collective influence that forms culture; and dropping that Wilde quote out of its original context in the preface to The Picture of Dorian Gray robs it of the irony.

Discours is a very peculiar word, its very specific in its meaning to the point that its not used in actually speaking to people. its used in lectures, such as the OP's thread.

Good point regarding books, after reading your comment I feel short sighted!.

Who the hell is Dorian Gray?

 

[Vrex360]

I am once again forced to point to titles like Otogi: Myth of Demons in which there really is nothing but fabulous art design from beginning to end as an example of games as art.

Other then that though, I do agree with Clive Barker when he said that essentially anything can be made into art, as long as it's crafted with care and polished down to the tiniest detail then I will call it a work of art.

 

[crypt-creature]

Do it then, show the world how easy it is to rip off other games.

I know I could buy a toilet or a spade and fix it on a pedestal, or take a canvas and paint it in one color. Artists have made millions with these. Making another average doom clone however is not so easy.
The production values and talent required to make even a modest flash game are much higher than what goes on for Art these days.

I've done it. In flash. We had to for our college course. We had two people on one separate team, three on another separate team. It wasn't that difficult. The most annoying part was figuring out the programming and what variables need to be what. We made Duck Hunt and a Chuck Norris fighting game.
'Easy' is dependent on availability. Any twat with a Wacom Tablet is capable of ripping off anything hand-drawn, depending on their talent and the complexity of the image.
3D rendering is new, but the people who take the time to learn how to do it can render images and copy something just like Wacom Tablet people. There are tutorials online for any beginner to download and start making games and models, in flash or in a 3D rendering program.

You do realize the kind of art you're attacking is aimed at a different group of artists?
What about the millions of games out there that gamers seem to hate and despise?
Hanna Montana, the Imagine titles, things not marketed at the typical male gamer?
Those games are the one-color-canvas-paintings and toilet-pedestal works of the game world.

Find a beginner or hack who can reproduce passable classic paintings.
Better yet, go fix a toilet to a pedestal and sell it for millions, or repaint a complicated classic oil-painting and sell it for millions.

People go after what is easy, video games are no different.

No.
A big name can make an *average* game seem great to the gaming masses, but no developer or publisher can make absolute crap appear good.

Bull, since 'crap' is subjective in any media form. Art is no different, what you think is crap another part of the masses thinks is brilliant.
Same with games.

The bad game by the big company will sell poorly.

There is your 'it may be considered art depending on who made it' complaint.
With a big name, the 'bad' game still sells. How much doesn't matter. You also have to take into consideration the type of audience the game is marketing to, which might make the game look 'bad' depending on the other audiences or even what continent the game is on.
Monster Hunter doesn't sell that much in the U.S. when compared to other countries, but that doesn't make the game 'bad'.

What classifies a game as bad? Your taste? A critic? The graphics? The sales number? Does everyone think the 'bad' game in question is really 'bad'?
A 'bad' game to you might still become wildly popular and be 'good' to many others.

And here's the fun part, a 'bad' game with good graphics! It might still sell poorly or not at all, but in your mind is it still a work of art, even if it wasn't successful?
What about a simpler game that doesn't have all the flashy bells and whistles and is still popular? Okami, for instance?

Even taking existing 3d models and altering them takes actual skill. This happens all the time and it doesn't make games bad.
Supposed you steal the resources of a popular shooter, it will take much effort and skill to turn it into a generic shooter, call it your own and get away with it.

Sadly, the same goes for art thieves. It takes skill to copy a work of art, alter it enough to pass it off as their own and get away with it. Guess what? That also happens all the time and it doesn't make the work of art 'bad' (morally, yes. Aesthetically, not always).
How good they are at ripping off someone's work varies, and the people who are bad at it or copy it too closely and leave it unchanged will get popped if they are found.
Unfortunately, mimicking a style is not usually enough of a reason to be stopped. With video games or art.

Craft is still craft. The problem is "art" and that it nolonger requires craft, or imagination even.
If the work of a penciller, colorist, pixelmonkey, is good, I call it "good".

Art still requires 'craft' and imagination.
You think that because tards can go around and copy other people, or those that make abstract or simple things and showcase them or make a lot of money from them, means that every single person who does 'art' doesn't ever have to study or do things on their own? Or even try to do 'original' ideas?
Take a look at games, they reuse the same ideas and dress them up a little differently. That is the exact thing you're attacking 'artists' for doing.

By the way, people who create 3D images professionally almost always use 2D artwork done by them or by a penciler/illustrator. They are copying... it doesn't matter that they are making it into a 3D image, they are not being 'creative' or 'imaginative' in copying a pre-drawn image.

If a video game does something 'unique' and it sells well, other companies are going to try ripping it off and change it enough to get away with it and use it in their games.
Art is the same thing, if something sells well an artist may copy certain elements and use it in their own work.

There's no point in calling anything art anymore, unless it's very expensive.

Then guess what, a video game, by your logic, isn't art either.
The process is the art, not the final product (that disk you pay for and play).

 

[veloper]

Do it then, show the world how easy it is to rip off other games.

I know I could buy a toilet or a spade and fix it on a pedestal, or take a canvas and paint it in one color. Artists have made millions with these. Making another average doom clone however is not so easy.
The production values and talent required to make even a modest flash game are much higher than what goes on for Art these days.

I've done it. In flash. We had to for our college course. We had two people on one separate team, three on another separate team. It wasn't that difficult. The most annoying part was figuring out the programming and what variables need to be what. We made Duck Hunt and a Chuck Norris fighting game.

More effort then, than me putting a spade on a pedestal, which requires no effort at all.
Your game won't sell, even if Blizzard was behind it, while my crap would've been worth a fortune, if I were a certain famous artist.

'Easy' is dependent on availability. Any twat with a Wacom Tablet is capable of ripping off anything hand-drawn, depending on their talent and the complexity of the image.
3D rendering is new, but the people who take the time to learn how to do it can render images and copy something just like Wacom Tablet people. There are tutorials online for any beginner to download and start making games and models, in flash or in a 3D rendering program.

You do realize the kind of art you're attacking is aimed at a different group of artists?
What about the millions of games out there that gamers seem to hate and despise?
Hanna Montana, the Imagine titles, things not marketed at the typical male gamer?
Those games are the one-color-canvas-paintings and toilet-pedestal works of the game world.

Except for that fact that unlike those artworks, the games don't sell for a fortune and are not considered great.

Find a beginner or hack who can reproduce passable classic paintings.
Better yet, go fix a toilet to a pedestal and sell it for millions, or repaint a complicated classic oil-painting and sell it for millions.

People go after what is easy, video games are no different.

Making a video game isn't easy, even one with an average metacritic score.

No.
A big name can make an *average* game seem great to the gaming masses, but no developer or publisher can make absolute crap appear good.

Bull, since 'crap' is subjective in any media form. Art is no different, what you think is crap another part of the masses thinks is brilliant.
Same with games.

The gaming masses do not think crap is brilliant. The majority of gamers ignore the mediocre, the average and even good games. Only the top titles become succesful.

The bad game by the big company will sell poorly.

There is your 'it may be considered art depending on who made it' complaint.
With a big name, the 'bad' game still sells. How much doesn't matter.

Sure it does, it matters money.
More to the point: there's a huge difference between name being *everything* in the art world, while it makes only a slight difference in the game industry.

You also have to take into consideration the type of audience the game is marketing to, which might make the game look 'bad' depending on the other audiences or even what continent the game is on.
Monster Hunter doesn't sell that much in the U.S. when compared to other countries, but that doesn't make the game 'bad'.

What classifies a game as bad? Your taste? A critic? The graphics? The sales number? Does everyone think the 'bad' game in question is really 'bad'?
A 'bad' game to you might still become wildly popular and be 'good' to many others.

The audience decides. Picking out the really bad games is easy. Know the audience.

And here's the fun part, a 'bad' game with good graphics! It might still sell poorly or not at all, but in your mind is it still a work of art, even if it wasn't successful?
What about a simpler game that doesn't have all the flashy bells and whistles and is still popular? Okami, for instance?

The answer is simple: none of these games art art.
There is great and there is awful and everything between and there is also this thing called art, which is seperate.

Even taking existing 3d models and altering them takes actual skill. This happens all the time and it doesn't make games bad.
Supposed you steal the resources of a popular shooter, it will take much effort and skill to turn it into a generic shooter, call it your own and get away with it.

Sadly, the same goes for art thieves. It takes skill to copy a work of art, alter it enough to pass it off as their own and get away with it. Guess what? That also happens all the time and it doesn't make the work of art 'bad' (morally, yes. Aesthetically, not always).

That's not how it works at all! You do NOT as pass the work off as your own, but as someone else's, someone both famous and dead.
The trick here ofcourse is painting something the dead guy could've made, but didn't.

What you just described isn't a problem at all. Big deal if I did a painting like Picasso and signed it with my own name.
This is because NAMES is what's important in art.

Games now, games are about the content instead. You see a popular game and jump on the bandwagon with something very similar.

Craft is still craft. The problem is "art" and that it nolonger requires craft, or imagination even.
If the work of a penciller, colorist, pixelmonkey, is good, I call it "good".

Art still requires 'craft' and imagination.
You think that because tards can go around and copy other people, or those that make abstract or simple things and showcase them or make a lot of money from them, means that every single person who does 'art' doesn't ever have to study or do things on their own? Or even try to do 'original' ideas?

Well that's unfortunate for those other people, because it's only the influential people in art community get to decide what is art and put a value on it.
The toilet, the spade and the blue canvas are art. Alot of interesting, original and pretty work is not.

Then guess what, a video game, by your logic, isn't art either.

That's my whole point from the start.

Video games aren't art, lucky for us gamers. We get to argue about which games are GOOD instead, which is far more important.

 

[Fraught]

They are not art. They are a form of entertainment. Or communication, but it's more like Internet is that communication...

I'd like to know your definition of art, other than "well-drawn pictures".
And I don't see how entertainment and artistic value are mutually exclusive.

 

[Abedeus]

They are not art. They are a form of entertainment. Or communication, but it's more like Internet is that communication...

I'd like to know your definition of art, other than "well-drawn pictures".
And I don't see how entertainment and artistic value are mutually exclusive.

I have no definition of art, as I find art pointless. You can't measure it or compare it, so there's no point in discussing it. One person will think that Michael Angelo's "David" is an art, and other people will think that a pile of manure on a Chinese vase is art.

 

[bigolbear]

Britannica Online defines art as "the use of skill and imagination in the creation of aesthetic objects, environments, or experiences that can be shared with others."

sounds like games to me, infact it sounds like a really nice description of mmo's or multiplayer games.

i would argue that not only is a game art - but further more the act of playing a game is art provided it can be witnessed by others according to this definition.

 

[crypt-creature]

More effort then, than me putting a spade on a pedestal, which requires no effort at all.
Your game won't sell, even if Blizzard was behind it, while my crap would've been worth a fortune, if I were a certain famous artist.

Which is a lie. Your market is what makes you a fortune, simple flash games sell quite a bit and Blizzard would know who to market to.
Your name wouldn't do you a bit of good unless you aimed your piece at a specific market, which is what good artists and agents for artists do and what the marketing department of every video game company does.
The difference is you're looking at an instant 'fortune' while a simple flash game might build up that 'fortune' over time.

You wouldn't sell a thing if you didn't target the right market.

Except for that fact that unlike those artworks, the games don't sell for a fortune and are not considered great.

By who? Every professional out there? Again, that's a lie.
Mass copies do not sell for fortunes, rare copies do and originals do.

Making a video game isn't easy, even one with an average metacritic score.

Neither is making quality art.

The gaming masses do not think crap is brilliant. The majority of gamers ignore the mediocre, the average and even good games. Only the top titles become succesful.

Yes, and people who are into art do the same things according to taste.
If a brilliant JRPG comes out, you will not convince someone who hates JRPG's that it is a brilliant game.
What you might not think is crap, I might think it is crap. Just because it is popular does not mean it can't be crap.
Being a top title doesn't always make a game 'brilliant' either, it makes it popular.

Sure it does, it matters money.
More to the point: there's a huge difference between name being *everything* in the art world, while it makes only a slight difference in the game industry.

Money also matter with artists.
A name isn't everything in the art world. It gets you more attention, but it isn't everything.

The audience decides. Picking out the really bad games is easy. Know the audience.

Same with art. Why do you think art trends come and go and there are galleries catering to certain types of art?

The answer is simple: none of these games art art.
There is great and there is awful and everything between and there is also this thing called art, which is seperate.

That makes no sense.
A games is 'art', a 'work of art' or an 'art form' no matter how good or bad it is.

That's not how it works at all! You do NOT as pass the work off as your own, but as someone else's, someone both famous and dead.
The trick here ofcourse is painting something the dead guy could've made, but didn't.

What you just described isn't a problem at all. Big deal if I did a painting like Picasso and signed it with my own name.
This is because NAMES is what's important in art.

Games now, games are about the content instead. You see a popular game and jump on the bandwagon with something very similar.

I know how it works.
You are talking about forgeries, which take a lot of skill to do and are very rare these days because people track these things and have ways of testing paint and materials to see if they are the same type used by the original artist.
Art thieves are a different sort, they take an image or idea of whatever sort not belonging to them and literally copy it and claim it as their own original work. Taking it from a living or dead person doesn't matter to them.

It is a problem, it would be like a third part person stealing Sony or Microsofts identity and ripping off and making forgeries of their games. A persons name is their identity, names are just as important in the game industry.

Games are still heavily based on names, otherwise you wouldn't have all these Sony, Microsoft, Blizzard, Valve, etc. fanboys and admirers everywhere. Name is still a big part of business and sways people.
Otherwise 'Clive Barkers JERICHO' would just be 'JERICHO' without the name drop. Otherwise, no game ever would have the name of their developers or studio on the box, or their system.

Well that's unfortunate for those other people, because it's only the influential people in art community get to decide what is art and put a value on it.
The toilet, the spade and the blue canvas are art. Alot of interesting, original and pretty work is not.

You also realize that different forms of art also take time to be recognized as such. Many types of styles that were not considered art 100 years ago, are now embraced by the art community.
Things change, people who aren't patient enough or are to jaded to let people catch up with the times are only digging a hole for the 3D artists and people who work on video games.
In other words, you're not helping the cause.

That's my whole point from the start.

Video games aren't art, lucky for us gamers. We get to argue about which games are GOOD instead, which is far more important.

They aren't considered art and yet you seem annoyed by that current trend, as do other gamers.
In some of your posts you seem to be arguing that games should be considered art, or are more 'artistic' than art but yet aren't 'art' or looked upon very highly by the fine art community (which is the community you're attacking, other parts of the art community view games as an art form and accept them openly).
Of which, you're wrong.

Artists get to argue about which art forms are GOOD and why, which CHANGES over the years.
It's just as important as arguing which video games are better since both are doing the same thing, as art styles and video games are influencing each other more often these days.

You don't seem to have that much of a grasp on the art community, just the bad parts of it. Just like most the art community doesn't have much of a grasp on the gaming community and focus on the bad.
In short, both sides are blind to one another and neither one wants to admit that they have much in common.

 

[veloper]

More effort then, than me putting a spade on a pedestal, which requires no effort at all.
Your game won't sell, even if Blizzard was behind it, while my crap would've been worth a fortune, if I were a certain famous artist.

Which is a lie. Your market is what makes you a fortune, simple flash games sell quite a bit and Blizzard would know who to market to.

You're kidding yourself if you think you could get your flash game published.

Ever clicked Alt+Escape on this site? Links to new free internet games every week. These games are free to play and already come with basic cutscenes, VOs, extra's, the lot.
The only revenue comes from ads on the websites.

The games featured on Alt+Escape are just the bottom-feeders of the game industry and yet these games are getting more and more advanced already. Just have a look for yourself.


So there we have it, a situation opposite from the art world, with it's spades, toilets and blue canvases:
on the one end of the spectrum you got the likes of Blizzard who can sell their new polished products for 50, while on the other hand you see the crap and sometimes even decent stuff, for FREE.

Except for that fact that unlike those artworks, the games don't sell for a fortune and are not considered great.

By who? Every professional out there? Again, that's a lie.
Mass copies do not sell for fortunes, rare copies do and originals do.

We simply don't do unique copies in the gaming world; yet another difference with the art world.
As for your question: the price difference shows how the gamers value AAA titles opposed to simpler games.

Making a video game isn't easy, even one with an average metacritic score.

Neither is making quality art.

No, the toilet, the spade and the blue canvas ARE quality art. Not to me, but to the art community and that's all matters here. They value this stuff and therefore it has high value.

The gaming masses do not think crap is brilliant. The majority of gamers ignore the mediocre, the average and even good games. Only the top titles become succesful.

Yes, and people who are into art do the same things according to taste.
If a brilliant JRPG comes out, you will not convince someone who hates JRPG's that it is a brilliant game.

Precisely.
This is why a good reviewer considers the audience for the genre. A brilliant JRPG IS a brilliant JRPG, but you can only make that distinction if you know the standards of the weeaboos.

Likewise, ART should be held to different standards than our games, comics and fantasy lit.
Different audience, more dispensible income, different standards.

The audience decides. Picking out the really bad games is easy. Know the audience.

Same with art. Why do you think art trends come and go and there are galleries catering to certain types of art?

Different audiences. Different from eachother and very different from the gamers.

The answer is simple: none of these games art art.
There is great and there is awful and everything between and there is also this thing called art, which is seperate.

That makes no sense.
A games is 'art', a 'work of art' or an 'art form' no matter how good or bad it is.

Games are games. "Art" doesn't cover the meaning at all. "Entertainment" comes closer, but with "games", everyone will know what you mean.

That's my whole point from the start.

Video games aren't art, lucky for us gamers. We get to argue about which games are GOOD instead, which is far more important.

They aren't considered art and yet you seem annoyed by that current trend, as do other gamers.
In some of your posts you seem to be arguing that games should be considered art,

I should've been more clearer then: I don't want to muddle the gaming discussion with talk of art, but rather I prefer to keep gaming discussion to the point: is game X,Y original, challenging, fair, balanced, polished? That sort of thing.

 

[ZenTaurus]

I always found this particular question pointless.
Music, film making, writing. It's all considered an art form.

Yet people feel the need to question if games are too. Even tho they combine all of the above (music, visuals, story) with a very complex idea of interactivity or influencing the story direction.

What is "art" (as in "quality art) and what games would qualify is a completely different issue. What would be game equivalent of movie blockbusters (or Britney Spears) that make huge profit and provide trashy fun but have low art value is also another topic.

The point is - games are an art form. And like with most things - there is gradation.

 

[AgentNein]

Do games have the potential to be art? Of course they do. Have they lived up to that potential yet, and been more than mere lowbrow entertainment? Are they going to 'grow up' and put out more than pulp? It's all very debatable. The mediums still young, so I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

We probably won't see it come from the big budget 'made or broke by their sales' games though. Those really don't have the creative-room to breath. I'm looking at the small time upstarts.