Nice first post godbrain. I pretty much agree with you, and for that reason I'd add Heavy Rain to your list. I played through it last weekend, and even with all its bugs I was fairly moved. The game presents you with not just a lot of quick-timey action (that can be turned down for beginners I think) but also a lot of actual choices with some moral depth. I found myself pausing the game more than once to contemplate important decisions, and the nice thing is that no matter what you choose the story continues and it's difficult to go back to change things (unlike a standard choose your own adventure story). So the short of it is that I think Heavy Rain would fit your view of an artistic game.godbrain said:
Arty Games
- Thread starter Shamus Young
- Start date
Full Pipe
It is an indy title by Ivan Maximov, who is famous for leading a new wave of Russian animated films. The game plays like an interactive version of one of his surrealist shorts: the charmingly depressed characters, the minimalist backdrops, the lack of speech. The concept, story and gameplay are as simplified as possible.
It is an indy title by Ivan Maximov, who is famous for leading a new wave of Russian animated films. The game plays like an interactive version of one of his surrealist shorts: the charmingly depressed characters, the minimalist backdrops, the lack of speech. The concept, story and gameplay are as simplified as possible.
Okami looks, sounds and innovates the part to fit as an artsy game, but the controls are quite hard to master for someone not used to modern-day-gazillion-button-controllers.
I'd probably sucker someone in with Prince of Persia. While its stages are a lot alike qua visuals, it's actually very nice on the eye. Level design and camera angles combined show you all the possibilities and where to go upon entering a new area.
Enemies and areas they control are visually dark and smudged, giving one the natural feeling that there's a stain that needs to be wiped off the land. After cleansing, everything turns pretty, green and colorful. Inviting you to go discover the secrets of the world.
While playing the game, it feels very natural, sliding, climbing, jumping, falling. It's directed enough to keep you going, but free enough to make you feel like you're in complete control of all that happens.
And of course, the game is extremely forgiving, fall down and you'll be pulled back up ad infinitum, trial and error gameplay with no form of punishment, just encouragement to try again.
Personally, I think PoP was an enjoyable timekiller, but I don't care much for it. Nor do I believe games can be considered 'art' just by themselves.
Games are interactive; decisions made by the player, and whatever input is received affects the way a game plays and is displayed.
The God of War example in the article can be applied here. Where one player can make GoW feel like a game of running around smashing things and buttonmashing through fights, another can turn it into a perfectly orchestrated masterpiece of massacre.
You can beat the game by spamming one attack over and over again, but you could also chain together endless combos, combining the flashiest moves in perfect harmony and feel like you're actually playing the game rather than exploiting it.
That may be a vague example to some, but I'll believe that my point is pretty clear. Games aren't art, and no matter how hard anyone tries, they'll never be.
Canvas and paint aren't art, it's what the painter does with them that makes it art.
I'd probably sucker someone in with Prince of Persia. While its stages are a lot alike qua visuals, it's actually very nice on the eye. Level design and camera angles combined show you all the possibilities and where to go upon entering a new area.
Enemies and areas they control are visually dark and smudged, giving one the natural feeling that there's a stain that needs to be wiped off the land. After cleansing, everything turns pretty, green and colorful. Inviting you to go discover the secrets of the world.
While playing the game, it feels very natural, sliding, climbing, jumping, falling. It's directed enough to keep you going, but free enough to make you feel like you're in complete control of all that happens.
And of course, the game is extremely forgiving, fall down and you'll be pulled back up ad infinitum, trial and error gameplay with no form of punishment, just encouragement to try again.
Personally, I think PoP was an enjoyable timekiller, but I don't care much for it. Nor do I believe games can be considered 'art' just by themselves.
Games are interactive; decisions made by the player, and whatever input is received affects the way a game plays and is displayed.
The God of War example in the article can be applied here. Where one player can make GoW feel like a game of running around smashing things and buttonmashing through fights, another can turn it into a perfectly orchestrated masterpiece of massacre.
You can beat the game by spamming one attack over and over again, but you could also chain together endless combos, combining the flashiest moves in perfect harmony and feel like you're actually playing the game rather than exploiting it.
That may be a vague example to some, but I'll believe that my point is pretty clear. Games aren't art, and no matter how hard anyone tries, they'll never be.
Canvas and paint aren't art, it's what the painter does with them that makes it art.
Come on, kids always have a better time adapting to new technology. Adults tend to lag behind. Teenagers always end up having to set up their parents DVD players, or fixing the email/facebook page up etc. The whole appeal of the Wii is its simplicity, making it easy to pick up by adults. Having a grand total of two buttons simplifies things a great deal. Hence why Point and click adventure games are also easier for people to get into.Woodsey said:
Naturally every game has a beginning and an end, and getting to the end can often be considered 'winning' the game. But if you break down a game to its core elements, that which it distinguishes it from other forms of entertainment, you are left with two things: Content and action. Content is everything there is in a game, and action is everything you do in a game. Both of these are limited: The only actions you can do in the game are the ones it allows you to, and there is not more content in the game than the developers put in it. When you compare this to movies, for example, the only way in which they differ is that they lack influence. 'Movies' being used in the broadest sense of the word, because you can compare Star Wars to Mass Effect in that they are rich in content, but you can also compare Tetris to a stop-motion video made with post-it notes on youtube, which are low in content. Both are entertainment. Then if you take another dimension out of the movie, namely, time, you are left with a picture. And you can only fit a finite amount of content in a picture. Then you can create a game with the picture by adding an action, which gives you, say, a game of spot the differences!
So there you have the main genres in which art is made, deconstructed. What I'm trying to say is that adding a dimension to a form of entertainment has nothing to do with whether or not it gets to be art. A game like Zeno Clash - my all-time favorite, obviously - is brimming with imagination and wonder, so this game qualifies as art in my book. It's not about being able to win or finish something, it's about getting engaged with it. The longer, the more, the better.
So there you have the main genres in which art is made, deconstructed. What I'm trying to say is that adding a dimension to a form of entertainment has nothing to do with whether or not it gets to be art. A game like Zeno Clash - my all-time favorite, obviously - is brimming with imagination and wonder, so this game qualifies as art in my book. It's not about being able to win or finish something, it's about getting engaged with it. The longer, the more, the better.
No Ico or Shador of the Colossus?
It's true though, lots of the lore and history from games do swing right over many people's heads since they're distracted by the violence and shiny things.
It's true though, lots of the lore and history from games do swing right over many people's heads since they're distracted by the violence and shiny things.
What makes a videogame "arty?" Is it a gameplay concept? A visual style? A hidden metaphor of our greater collective society? The menu? Can it quite simply be "all of the above?"
The question, as always, boils down to the eternal question, what IS art?
No matter the laundry list of answers that can be applied to the question, the biggest component of the puzzle is the very EXPERIENCE it provides. There is no art that can truly provide a non-experience. It simply does not exist. Even the very act of attempting to embrace the concept of a non-experience and make it the focus of the work becomes in itself an experience.
Video games are something born of inspiration, are birthed from imagination and conceptualization, are developed and executed into a medium, and their entire drive is to provide an experience. Just like pratically all 'art' ever. You do not need to "win" a game to enjoy the simple act of experiencing it, and to be affected by that experience.
The question, as always, boils down to the eternal question, what IS art?
No matter the laundry list of answers that can be applied to the question, the biggest component of the puzzle is the very EXPERIENCE it provides. There is no art that can truly provide a non-experience. It simply does not exist. Even the very act of attempting to embrace the concept of a non-experience and make it the focus of the work becomes in itself an experience.
Video games are something born of inspiration, are birthed from imagination and conceptualization, are developed and executed into a medium, and their entire drive is to provide an experience. Just like pratically all 'art' ever. You do not need to "win" a game to enjoy the simple act of experiencing it, and to be affected by that experience.
I am a little disappointed with the lack of Flower on this list. Its poetry in video game form and its simple enough that anyone can play it, no matter their experience with video games. On the other hand, I would not hand Portal or Jade Empire to a non-gamer, even though I consider both great examples of art.
Well, in terms of art engaging thought and emotions, i would have to say Fallout tree i remember pausing the game to think about the moral implications of my choices several times and getting so immersed in it that i actually got a bit depressed while i played it and got to thinking of the hopless and destructive nature of human behaviour. Since i hadn't done that for a long time while reading a book or after watching a movie, I have to say that in my book that was the turning point when i really felt a video-game as a powerful medium to convey emotions. And the really cool thing was that it wasn't the content of the story or dialogues per se that made me feel that way, i had seen all that before in coutles works of fiction but the way in witch they were presented to, me really making interactivity feel like an active element in delivering the drama instead of just some gimmick to give you something to do betwwen cuscenes that really shines hope upon the video games potential to become art. I think someone like Egbert would really enjoy Fallout even if he would have major dificulties with the unconfortable and buggy gameplay at least he would be hooked in by Ron Pearlman's Liam Neeson's voices at the beegining.
On a side note, i wonder if Martin Sheen or Liam Neeson or Patrick Stuart see the work they've done in video game voice acting as wothy of their trade or just a way to make a quick buck. And if any of them or other big screen actors that have crossed over to voice-acting for games view games as a proper artform.
On a side note, i wonder if Martin Sheen or Liam Neeson or Patrick Stuart see the work they've done in video game voice acting as wothy of their trade or just a way to make a quick buck. And if any of them or other big screen actors that have crossed over to voice-acting for games view games as a proper artform.
People have some weird ideas of what "art" means.
Jhereg42 said:
Well, you say that, but... [http://www.amazon.co.uk/Plane-Scape-Torment-PC-DVD/dp/B002TOKQIG/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top] I mean, I ordered and recieved the game a few days ago, from that page, all shrink-wrapped and shiny. Interesting that I just searched for the same edition on the .com version and couldn't actually find it.scifidownbeat said:
I'm not sure picking 5 games is the right approach to the discussion. If you take those 5 games to Ebert I bet you go around and around in circles. The first salvo in this discussion is asking your local devil's advocate to define art.Break said:
If videogames are not art, then they must have a definition of what art is. If they have a definition of art which somehow excludes the entirety of videogaming--then if it isn't manifestly and snobbishly exclusive then I bet it is still faulty enough to chip away at it.
Something I confess myself curious about. Most gamers seem to accept that games are, or at least can be, art. How many people think that playing games can be an art? Consider that we call the dancer at least as much an artist as the choreographer, the musician as the composer, the actor as the director or scriptwriter. I haven't given the matter much thought yet, so I'm open to varying opinions. Just occurred to me a couple days ago.
I think 'Every Day the Same Dream' (a flash title, I think Alt-Escape featured it) fits pretty well. It's a critique on modern work-life, down to earth (serving as a good counter to the 'games can only be fantasy' stereotype) and very easy to pick up and play.
I'll stand by the fact that Fallout 3 is an experience beyond that of a usual game. It is captivating and immersive. And thought provoking and emotional as it shows the possibilities of human technology.
It's fun to play, but the setting and storyline (yeah the main quest isn't great, that isn't what I mean. I just mean the story of the world around you) are wonderful.
EDIT:
It's fun to play, but the setting and storyline (yeah the main quest isn't great, that isn't what I mean. I just mean the story of the world around you) are wonderful.
EDIT:
Damnit, ninja'd.Krelias said:
Obviously art is a subjective and indefinable term, however (I hate now saying however, sorry)the use of aesthetic elements like sound, cinematics or story is not what defines games as art. Maybe define is not the best word. Intent, that's better. Okami is not intending itself as artistic expression, it is conveying the artistic style of Japanese woodcut prints. Gravitation, The Marriage, Passage, Braid, Today I Die and even Shadow of the Colossus, on the other hand, convey expressive ideas through the use of gameplay mechanics and THIS is what i feel makes games art.
As a lame excuse, this is my subjective opinion and I understand that art is indefinable and that this only represents my view of how it is represented in games. Thankyou.
As a lame excuse, this is my subjective opinion and I understand that art is indefinable and that this only represents my view of how it is represented in games. Thankyou.
I would heartily agree on World of Goo.
Portal... yeah I guess it counts as artsy, but I think it's more just plain and total puzzle joy. Even though I found it a bit easy.
[The 1st] Bioshock would be a good choice if shooters were acceptable. It's incredibly dark, the gore isn't excessive like I imagine God of War is, the characters are wonderfully crafted, the setting is perfect, and the feeling of being manipulated is wonderfully used. I was honestly pretty mad when I found out about that part of the plot, and I felt stupid as well, but not in a bad way. As in like "Oh man, I shoulda seen that coming. Seriously." It just worked.
That's the best I can come up with.
Portal... yeah I guess it counts as artsy, but I think it's more just plain and total puzzle joy. Even though I found it a bit easy.
[The 1st] Bioshock would be a good choice if shooters were acceptable. It's incredibly dark, the gore isn't excessive like I imagine God of War is, the characters are wonderfully crafted, the setting is perfect, and the feeling of being manipulated is wonderfully used. I was honestly pretty mad when I found out about that part of the plot, and I felt stupid as well, but not in a bad way. As in like "Oh man, I shoulda seen that coming. Seriously." It just worked.
That's the best I can come up with.
I think there is a big difference between something made of art and something that is art.
I'd say Bioshock's story plays off the mechanics of games and makes you question them. Combined with an amazing setting and unbelievable atmosphere, I think it's the only game I've played that comes close to qualifying as art.
Braid was good, but the art in that game was just pretty pictures, and a rather abstract storyline, but I did not feel it was connected enough to the story to encompass it. (apart from that end section, the story isn't really that coherent. And if you say "but that's the point" then it only makes it a self defeating one. something being open to inerpretation does not make it omni-relevent)
The void was quite artsy. But it got annoying with the fact you could die on the level select screen. Didn't give it much time.
The path was much the same. not enough happened to hold my interest.
Edit: god dammit 3 pages without bioshock being mentioned, and whilst I spend 5 minutes writing it I get ninja'd.
I'd say Bioshock's story plays off the mechanics of games and makes you question them. Combined with an amazing setting and unbelievable atmosphere, I think it's the only game I've played that comes close to qualifying as art.
Braid was good, but the art in that game was just pretty pictures, and a rather abstract storyline, but I did not feel it was connected enough to the story to encompass it. (apart from that end section, the story isn't really that coherent. And if you say "but that's the point" then it only makes it a self defeating one. something being open to inerpretation does not make it omni-relevent)
The void was quite artsy. But it got annoying with the fact you could die on the level select screen. Didn't give it much time.
The path was much the same. not enough happened to hold my interest.
Edit: god dammit 3 pages without bioshock being mentioned, and whilst I spend 5 minutes writing it I get ninja'd.
It all depends how you define art. To me art is simply the more or less perfect example of anything. An incredible piece of music, a stunning painting, a fantastic game. Any object/something that demonstrates a fantastic piece of work in a specific genre.teh_pwning_dude said:
Not all games are art, and not all paintings are either. Art is something that makes you feel something and preferably something that is above the regular stuff. Something that has evolved, moved on. Something...better...something...special, and beautiful.
Art is, has been and always will be subjective. And as such it is rather silly to point out anything at all as "universal art". Art is subjective, always. And on that note, games are art, and not.