Arty Games

[LTK_70]

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.

 

[SnipErlite]

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.

 

[unoleian]

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.

 

[Crimson_Dragoon]

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.

 

[Ninja Dude]

I think Psychonauts is a good candidate.

 

[Krelias]

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.

 

[Break]

People have some weird ideas of what "art" means.

Good luck finding it. Last I heard it was only really available on Gametap or illegal download. Wizards killed any licensing for the 2nd ed campaign settings after they went to third ed, so the chance of this getting released on something like GOG is slim and none.

It's depressing to hear about the rarity of the game itself. Oh well. Good things are hard to find, I suppose.

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.

 

[Fearzone]

People have some weird ideas of what "art" means.

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.

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.

 

[DungeonHamster]

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.

 

[Dramus]

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.

 

[zenoaugustus]

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:

snip

Damnit, ninja'd.

 

[Hithlain]

Can I say that Mario 64 is art? I mean, you are jumping IN to art... well... yes. For me, it was an experience that made me think. And isn't that really what art is?

 

[SH2010]

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.

 

[Flamingpenguin]

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.

 

[Flying Dagger]

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.

 

[tzimize]

Okay, it's not. It's a game. If I could be arsed, I'd write a long, boring passage on why games shouldnt be art, and why I can't understand why we want to compare an enjoyable hobby to a hundered year old form of "reading to much into things". Simply looking nice or being awesome doesn't make something art, and it shouldn't. It's sad that as gamers we can't accept our own medium of good enough without having to slap the lable of "art" over the top of it. Is our collective self-esteem really that low?

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.

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.

 

[PedroFebruar]

No love for Flower? Portal is a very good choice for breaking someone into first-person. Personally, I've used Flower on several different people to show the beauty of games. Simple, intuitive, fun and engaging.

 

[Aptspire]

It's funny, I would've also said 'Portal' and 'Silent Hill 2'
glad to see we both thought that

 

[darkfire613]

For me, Flower and Heavy Rain would be the two that I would show people. They both use fairly simple and intuitive control schemes, and are also moving and powerful, Flower with its environmental message and Heavy Rain with how it really succeeds at making the player feel for the characters.

 

[sturryz]

everyone seems to be sidesteping Another World for some reason... why?


This is Suda 51's favorite game of all time for crying out loud.