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.
Arty Games
- Thread starter Shamus Young
- Start date
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.
DungeonHamster said:
You've never seen me play Civilization IV using a graphics tablet and my feet.
Personally, i think people have ideas about art that are too refined. Art can't really be defined. People have tried...
YES, "Today I Die." That game WAS art. No question.
Which ending you get also tells you about yourself-- essentially what art is SUPPOSED to do.
And I can't really have any respect for Ebert here-- I very rarely agree with his movie reviews and criteria for excellence.
Which ending you get also tells you about yourself-- essentially what art is SUPPOSED to do.
And I can't really have any respect for Ebert here-- I very rarely agree with his movie reviews and criteria for excellence.
Hell, I've oncidered games art since I could clearly identify what the hell everything was supposed to be, from Sonic Sprites to static Myst backgrounds.
As for Ebert, I never agreed with him about what movies were good & bad, so why should I expect him to agree with me on anything? I hate modern movies so much that if he were me, he'd have just retired & moved on to something else. But he's not me.
As for Ebert, I never agreed with him about what movies were good & bad, so why should I expect him to agree with me on anything? I hate modern movies so much that if he were me, he'd have just retired & moved on to something else. But he's not me.
The Path is my one choice for games as art. It's moving, it's beautiful, it's dark, it's brilliant. One of my favourite games and definitely a worthy experience.lupis42 said:
Oh yes, and this, Today I Die is possibly the best flash game I've played.Senmurv said:
Oh, The Longest Journey! You've caused me to fall into a pit of nostalgia, shame on you. Luckily I own it on Steam, so I can play it again right now and fall in love with the characters and the story all over again. It's a pity that the series lost a certain something with Dreamfall... ah, c'est la vie, I suppose.
I think people often misunderstand art, and some even go so far as to say that art cannot have any utility aside from being artistic, I believe this is nonsense. Anything can be art as long as it is designed with emotion and caring attention. If you don't believe me, take a look at some of the more modern bridges around the world. Par exemple: http://sabahkamal.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/millau.jpg
I think people often misunderstand art, and some even go so far as to say that art cannot have any utility aside from being artistic, I believe this is nonsense. Anything can be art as long as it is designed with emotion and caring attention. If you don't believe me, take a look at some of the more modern bridges around the world. Par exemple: http://sabahkamal.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/millau.jpg
I think it's fairly obvious that games are not only a medium in which art can exist, but inherently art, atleast by any definition I've heard. Of course, if I were tasked with persuading a newcomer, that is not the argument I would use.
If faced with this insurmountable task, I would start with games that tell great stories, to show that a video game can have a compelling narrative, just like a novel or movie; games such as:
Good storytelling is a recurrent theme in your 5 examples (well, I've only played two of them, but I'll take your word on the rest). By simply playing a game, it could take hours to realize that the plot is more than "badassjamin gunsworth kills bad guys cause they kidnapped the princess / president / his girlfriend". However, if the scenario is a live verbal debate, you need to make your point in well under 5 minutes. If I were in that situation, I would rely on YouTube to show gameplay and cutscenes.
After the story argument, I would show games with beautiful environments, reflecting what's 'artistic' about a painting, sculpture, or movie. For example:
If faced with this insurmountable task, I would start with games that tell great stories, to show that a video game can have a compelling narrative, just like a novel or movie; games such as:
- -God of War
-Golden Sun
-Mass Effect
-Um...
-See, this is why games aren't taken seriously.
Good storytelling is a recurrent theme in your 5 examples (well, I've only played two of them, but I'll take your word on the rest). By simply playing a game, it could take hours to realize that the plot is more than "badassjamin gunsworth kills bad guys cause they kidnapped the princess / president / his girlfriend". However, if the scenario is a live verbal debate, you need to make your point in well under 5 minutes. If I were in that situation, I would rely on YouTube to show gameplay and cutscenes.
After the story argument, I would show games with beautiful environments, reflecting what's 'artistic' about a painting, sculpture, or movie. For example:
- -The three games mentioned above
-BioShock
-Braid
-Crysis
-Donkey Kong Country
-Far Cry
-Halo
-Jak and Daxter
(This is not to say that these are the only beautiful-looking games in existence or even that I've played, just in an 'artistic'-looking way.)
My definition of art: "Something that is created for an audience using creativity"
This was also my first thought when I saw the article's headline. The Path would be my first choice to show people the potential of videogames as media and art. It tells a story in a way that doesn't readily resemble one of the other media, and it doesn't keep a cinematic pace or force the player to "win" in any way. It is simply art. It is a great example on the uniqueness of how games can tell stories, nto necessarrily because it has told the best story, but because it doesn't have a narrator/a lot of text/dialogue like movies or books have, but instead focusses much more on how a game can tell a story.lupis42 said:
The Art of Mario 64 isn't in the visuals, it is as you say in the experience. That makes judging games as a visual art just as informed as doing the same for, say, performance art or music.Hithlain said:
We need a different vocabulary to discuss games as art, just as opera, live painting and abstract photography have very different vocabularies from both each other, and say film.
That's the humanities way of doing it, at least. Note that this wouldn't necessarily be the language of "ganking", "teching" or "camping" -- although I also really think we need to consider that games become art in the hands of the player!
It's when a game is played that it becomes art, not before and I would question if it is art afterwards, just like with the example of live painting.
So absolutely! Playing Mario 64 can both be an art and be art in itself, plus you jump into art as part of the gameplay, so this is really meta-art!
I recently came across trailers for The Whispered World.
It looks incredible
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYrk2t1yoNQ
And to add to the debate. What do movies have that games don't?
If we're being perfectly honest, many games do just what movies do and then some.
-They can tell a story.
-Have a beginning and end (not necessarily a case of winning or losing, you can't lose many adventure games for example)
-Invoke emotions.
-Express an opinion or belief.
The only difference between movies and games is challenge and interactivity, I'm pretty sure there is already such a thing as interactive art (some types of installation or sculpture) so unless people want to argue requiring thought/effort and providing a challenge in doing so can disqualify something as art then they havn't really a leg to stand on.
It looks incredible
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYrk2t1yoNQ
And to add to the debate. What do movies have that games don't?
If we're being perfectly honest, many games do just what movies do and then some.
-They can tell a story.
-Have a beginning and end (not necessarily a case of winning or losing, you can't lose many adventure games for example)
-Invoke emotions.
-Express an opinion or belief.
The only difference between movies and games is challenge and interactivity, I'm pretty sure there is already such a thing as interactive art (some types of installation or sculpture) so unless people want to argue requiring thought/effort and providing a challenge in doing so can disqualify something as art then they havn't really a leg to stand on.
I would define art somewhere along the lines of an item that has been created for form but not (at least primarily) function. So - simple example a statue. Its not there to support anything, cover anything its there to look nice.
So lets extend the logic to computer games. The primary function of a game is to entertain, just like the primary function of a brick is to make a building. If we take the base of a computer game and then use it for more aesthetic purposes than entertainment, then it is art at least by my definition. Imorrtall a great example - I probably wouldn't call it an entertaining game in the tradidional sense...no "win" or "lose" no "high score" but still pleasing. The complete opposite of say pacman or space invaders - entertainment with no form at all.
Along those lines then I could recomend a few games that are more art than others, and some that are clearly less. Left 4 dead and team fortress 2 come to mind as not art. There entirely to be (relatively) mindless fun. On the other hand, a game like Mafia or Fallout where you can get genuinely attached to characters and plot lines....the ending to either...
So lets extend the logic to computer games. The primary function of a game is to entertain, just like the primary function of a brick is to make a building. If we take the base of a computer game and then use it for more aesthetic purposes than entertainment, then it is art at least by my definition. Imorrtall a great example - I probably wouldn't call it an entertaining game in the tradidional sense...no "win" or "lose" no "high score" but still pleasing. The complete opposite of say pacman or space invaders - entertainment with no form at all.
Along those lines then I could recomend a few games that are more art than others, and some that are clearly less. Left 4 dead and team fortress 2 come to mind as not art. There entirely to be (relatively) mindless fun. On the other hand, a game like Mafia or Fallout where you can get genuinely attached to characters and plot lines....the ending to either...