You've pretty much hit the nail on the head, here.him over there said:
I don't understand why the public feel the need to intervene on games being made around certain topics without even bothering to do the research on how those topics are handled.
Games as art - why do we even care?!?
- Thread starter AD-Stu
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I don't understand why the public feel the need to intervene on games being made around certain topics without even bothering to do the research on how those topics are handled.
For a lot of people I think it's been about proving something to the world about games or convincing themselves that their own pastime was worthwhile, but I don't think that's what the games as art debate has to mean. The debate over whether games are at can be an interesting topic in itself, can give us an idea of what games are capable of and can better help us understand the medium as a whole.
On my side, I don't see why is there all this "art bashing" going around in the gaming community, that is as rampant as the "games are art" community. I especially cringe when I hear people, may it be here or some other forums, spitting on works that went through centuries of human history and thrived despite dark ages and the ignorance of man until today, just so they can be belittled again here by people's who main culture come from video games.
The art label will never hurt this media. It's just that. You don't need to get pissy about it. Games like Dear Esther and Limbo won't become the norm. Heck, the people who worked on Dear Esther are gonna assist the guys from Amnesia to make a new game. I'd say that is a pretty nice step forward, because we get a mix of two teams with each their own specialty.
And the whole Bioware thing is one case, one game amidst tons of other products who will be either good or bad, and ME3's ending will mostly not define some kind of arbitrary artist integrity. I'm pretty sure a big majority of the development world agrees with the players on that case (that they should just focus on making stuff player wants and not what they think is best).
What should change is how video games are viewed as art. Still now, devs and the public try to compare art in video games as they see art in paintings and in movies. It's not the same type of expression: it mixes visual expression, interactivity with a plethora of mechanics and player-driven narrative (as in it goes by the player's pace not only during cutscenes but during gameplay, not necessarily that the player chooses how the story goes). Devs and the public have to learn new ways to create, learn and enjoy the form of art that are video games.
But denying that games are art is just silly. It brings nothing and makes it just lose it's credibility to push it back as just "kids toys", or so what I think.
Let the artists try to be artists, and make their experiments, it's not gonna harm the industry. You are free to not like the recent games that came out, but eventually these new artsy devs will learn to perfect themselves and adapt to the industry they're in.
Also, please stop seeing art as some kind of pretentious type of expression. Art has always been there to try to enlighten the common man and bring the better part of him out. It is an "elite" type of thing, but in the good sense: it tries to push our comprehension of things beyond it's normal boundaries, and to provoke different emotions and feelings. It's not just here to be pretty. But it's also not here to be patronizing (although excuse me if I come across as such, it's not my intention).
The art label will never hurt this media. It's just that. You don't need to get pissy about it. Games like Dear Esther and Limbo won't become the norm. Heck, the people who worked on Dear Esther are gonna assist the guys from Amnesia to make a new game. I'd say that is a pretty nice step forward, because we get a mix of two teams with each their own specialty.
And the whole Bioware thing is one case, one game amidst tons of other products who will be either good or bad, and ME3's ending will mostly not define some kind of arbitrary artist integrity. I'm pretty sure a big majority of the development world agrees with the players on that case (that they should just focus on making stuff player wants and not what they think is best).
What should change is how video games are viewed as art. Still now, devs and the public try to compare art in video games as they see art in paintings and in movies. It's not the same type of expression: it mixes visual expression, interactivity with a plethora of mechanics and player-driven narrative (as in it goes by the player's pace not only during cutscenes but during gameplay, not necessarily that the player chooses how the story goes). Devs and the public have to learn new ways to create, learn and enjoy the form of art that are video games.
But denying that games are art is just silly. It brings nothing and makes it just lose it's credibility to push it back as just "kids toys", or so what I think.
Let the artists try to be artists, and make their experiments, it's not gonna harm the industry. You are free to not like the recent games that came out, but eventually these new artsy devs will learn to perfect themselves and adapt to the industry they're in.
Also, please stop seeing art as some kind of pretentious type of expression. Art has always been there to try to enlighten the common man and bring the better part of him out. It is an "elite" type of thing, but in the good sense: it tries to push our comprehension of things beyond it's normal boundaries, and to provoke different emotions and feelings. It's not just here to be pretty. But it's also not here to be patronizing (although excuse me if I come across as such, it's not my intention).
The problem is there are different kinds of art. There are those pieces that are meant to be enjoyed by those with vision and a deep understanding. This is stuff generally made by the artist for the artist and a select few others. This is art that, to most people, is bad, offensive, or cannot be understood.
The other kind of art, which video games fall into, is for the masses. This art can be just as good as the above mentioned art, but it must be made on a level that the masses can understand and appreciate. This presents a unique challenge. Maintaining the depth and creativity of the art while making it understandable by the masses is quite a difficult problem, especially when video games are a conglomerate of many different traditional art forms. Every piece, from the pictures and videos to the music and story, have to be made in a way that the masses can appreciate.
This is where ME3 fails. It was designed as a deep, thought provoking, piece of art. It was made to be like the first type of art I mentioned. That is fine at face value. The problem is it was then marketed to the masses. It was designed as art for the few but sold as art for everyone. This is somewhat similar to marketing music by Mozart for the masses. Sure everyone can listen to it but most people will not understand the deep meaning of it.
The people defending Bioware are correct, it is their art and they don't have to change it for the masses. The problem is it shouldn't be marketed for the masses if it isn't intended for them.
The other kind of art, which video games fall into, is for the masses. This art can be just as good as the above mentioned art, but it must be made on a level that the masses can understand and appreciate. This presents a unique challenge. Maintaining the depth and creativity of the art while making it understandable by the masses is quite a difficult problem, especially when video games are a conglomerate of many different traditional art forms. Every piece, from the pictures and videos to the music and story, have to be made in a way that the masses can appreciate.
This is where ME3 fails. It was designed as a deep, thought provoking, piece of art. It was made to be like the first type of art I mentioned. That is fine at face value. The problem is it was then marketed to the masses. It was designed as art for the few but sold as art for everyone. This is somewhat similar to marketing music by Mozart for the masses. Sure everyone can listen to it but most people will not understand the deep meaning of it.
The people defending Bioware are correct, it is their art and they don't have to change it for the masses. The problem is it shouldn't be marketed for the masses if it isn't intended for them.
Provide some examples. No, first, define "art" because in my opinion (and from my perspective the people who claim to create art), art is little more than enduring history unchanged. Art is tales, images and music that have become historical symbols of a culture or era, or are themselves timeless and therefore are easy to interpret and enjoy.DrVornoff said:
If you agree this is an accurate definition of art, then the argument that video games can be art is refuted. No video game carries any significant context for our culture to embrace. When historians look back, they will say "humans played video games in the 21st century," not "humans played Super Mario Bros. in the 21st century." This is only confounded by saturation: 25 Mario games is has made the series bland. If Leonardo painted 25 Mona Lisas it would not be enjoying its fame. You know what game we're most likely to remember? Pong. Because it was the first to have mainstream popularity. Everything else after that is just so much noise, the way people remember Casablanca, and no one will give two squirts about what's on TV today.
On the other hand if you believe that art is merely what someone creates, either as drawings, music, writing, etc., then the argument that "the artist's work should not be changed" is completely ridiculous: with very few and rare exceptions, no drawing, music, or writing reaches the public eye without extensive adjustments, editing, and corrections. Artists that draw and paint, etc. tend to get the most leeway in this because of the permanence of a drawing or painting: once it's done, it's very difficult to change and often the only option is to start over. And if it sucks, well, here comes the whining, and the artist usually whines loudest: better to insist we all "missed the point" than to admit you sneezed and accidentally drew a little Hitler 'stach on your portrait of an apple, and you didn't want to start over.
This is most certainly NOT the case with a video game, with teams of programmers and months of development.
Bioware fussed (and continues to fuss) about fan backlash, which tells me they believe their work to be above reproach (I refer you to the example of the man who drew the Hitler 'stach on his apple, above). Instead of admitting they might have chosen the wrong way to end ME3, they have only escalated their denial and given people fuel for the fire.
Yes. The internet tells me you're trying to goad me into a pointless argument that itself has nothing to do with the topic in question.
My point is measure twice, cut once. Their work is not art. Bioware (or any other game developer) has had time and manpower to do their research. They regularly take in fan feedback. There is no excuse for them not foreseeing this kind of backlash and yet remaining so indignant.
You are aware this topic was only brought up because of Mass Effect 3 and the debate around it, correct?
I've made several points. I just used Bioware as the most recent and familiar example. Video games are not art, they're entertainment. Entertainment can be popular, it can survive the centuries, but it will never be art. You cannot claim entertainment as art to defend it against detractors.
When you're done blindly reacting to the word "Bioware" in my post, feel free to make some examples of how video games can be art, instead of just criticizing the side that says otherwise.
And you think that a superficial art label given to us by people who don't care about games, people that the public themselves don't care much about is going to stop that? That's a very innocent and idealistic view you've got there.Headsprouter said:
That's absurd. Mass Effect was made first and foremost to be fun, and the story serves as a way to bring people into the experience so they have more fun. There is nothing deep or special about any video game story. If you think that the stories we see in games are anywhere close to even the worst examples of real literature, then you need to reshuffle your reading list. Read War and Peace, As I Lay Dying, Naked Lunch, Lolita, Cortazar's Hopscotch, or the Metamorphosis and then tell me that Mass Effect is a "deep, thought provoking piece of art." You're shooting aliens in the face for enjoyment. There's a routine science fiction setup to keep you from getting bored while you shoot aliens in the face. That's about it.Jodah said:
The difference is that a documentary or essay is not for enjoyment. The reason that Six Days in Fallujah sold is because people enjoyed playing it, or to put it another way, it made the experience of that terrible event fun. A documentary does not exist for entertainment but enrichment; a video game must first and foremost provide a fun experience. That's why people find war games like that disrespectful, because they necessarily trivialize the subject matter by making it inherently fun instead of tragic and heart-wrenching. Games can have a lot to say, but they must also be played, and people will always(rightfully) react negatively to someone getting enjoyment by pretending to do something terrible.Lucem712 said:
Yeah - but to be blunt, that's because there's absolutely nothing offensive about the Mona Lisa. The reality is that people have been getting up in arms over all forms of art for as long as there's been art - the "art" label has never protected it from that, and it never will.Aprilgold said:
So... you're saying we should care because it's good manners to care?axlryder said:
This is true - when and if games ever do get classified as "art" by the majority, I don't see any downside.Busard said:
I just don't see a whole lot of upside either, and in the meantime what I do see is people getting themselves into all kinds of a tizzy over the issue, expending all this energy into an issue whose time, frankly, I don't think has come yet. The mainstream simply isn't ready to acknowledge games as art yet, and (personally) I don't think any amount of gamers beating their head against that wall will change the situation. Which is what first made me think: what is all that effort actually gaining us?
I don't think I really care either way...
But in regards to the MovieBob comment about how demanding that a creator change their art for to suit us makes it a product...
Well, define things any way you want, but I'd rather have a product I like than art I don't.
But in regards to the MovieBob comment about how demanding that a creator change their art for to suit us makes it a product...
Well, define things any way you want, but I'd rather have a product I like than art I don't.
Well, one of the reasons would be that those stupid radicall idiots, who are always going on about banning games and such will finally have to shut the fuck up. And, it's not so much that our egos don't find it worthwile to play games, if they're not art - it's actually because we feel cheated in a way, when cinema is considered art, but games aren't. It's just not fair. That's my take on it.
I wouldn't say every single game is made just for 'enjoyment'. I can assure you that no one playing Heavy Rain was enjoying the pain and suffering of a father searching for his child. (Well, maybe some are)peruvianskys said:
That kind of view point really limits the medium.
-EDIT-
Oops, wrong topic.
As for the whole art thing, it's really a matter of whether or not games merit academic analysis.
I would certainly say yes on many different levels. There's the obvious technical level but also on the level of design and immersion. Of course not all games tell good stories but there are plenty that do. They are also worthy of study based on how well they integrate many elements just like movies.
I also have to say that the label of "art" is pretty much just arbitrary. It's kind of like how figure skating is an Olympic sport but ballet is not.
Oops, wrong topic.
As for the whole art thing, it's really a matter of whether or not games merit academic analysis.
I would certainly say yes on many different levels. There's the obvious technical level but also on the level of design and immersion. Of course not all games tell good stories but there are plenty that do. They are also worthy of study based on how well they integrate many elements just like movies.
I also have to say that the label of "art" is pretty much just arbitrary. It's kind of like how figure skating is an Olympic sport but ballet is not.
I just don't worry about it. To me they're an art-form, and if so and so refuses to acknowledge them as such for whatever reason, that's their schtick.
I was merely stating that this might be what gives people the drive to campaign for an art label simply as a means of defending their hobby. Maybe people would rather have a political opinion to support their own.him over there said:
oh I see, sorry for the snarkiness. Though I still think that we should merely man up and force out the exclusion of people who don't matter anyway instead of clambering for acceptance from people who don't care as a way of finding security for our interests.Headsprouter said:
What part of "categorically wrong" don't you understand? if I say a duck isn't part of the family Anatidae, it may not make it less tasty, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth pointing out that I'm wrong. Also, it's not just "good manners", it's about giving someone credit that they deserve. Essentially you're just saying "but you haven't given me a good reason to care because it would require effort". Being lazy isn't magically a good excuse to not give a damn. It just means you're lazy.AD-Stu said: