Even if you argue that software doesn't count as an object (though that's quite the stretch in this context... what matters is the human effort that went into creating it), the physical game disc or cartridge is art. If a child writes his name in the snow with pee, that too is art.The definition of art in this context said:the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/art?show=1&t=1306978827]
Why do we want games to be more mainstream? I know more money for the industry and everything but I don't think the money is going to the right places. There were some really great games back before FPSs made games mainstream and I don't think getting everyones moms to play Farmville will make better games just more Farmville games, just like the FPS boom did not make better games just more FPSs.Mad1Cow said:Well really we shouldn't be fighting for Video Games to be Art in my opinion. No, first we tackle the small problem of making it mainstream, so that everyone and their mum is playing games and don't care if it has any risks. Instead of making Video Games even more niche, we should be focusing on making them widely accepted in society. The problem with this is, FPS's don't do this job, sure they're fun for you and me, but for the casual observer, it ain't half off-putting. This is why I'm always hesitant to support CoD clones and the like, because they're just not helping ¬_¬Warforger said:What's art isn't an inherent thing,it's just an opinion. You could argue the story part in CoD4 is art while the multiplayer isn't, but the term for art is so broad, the commonly accepted term is something that effects our emotions, but this makes genocide art as well.luccadeas said:Like all of you, I try to preach about how games are an art as much as I can and am willing to debate it with the naysayers. But I always get a frequently asked question: what about all of duty or other first person shooters? people understand other games like RPG's because of the story or the innovation but what about FPS's? yes some games are mindless shooting but... those are still fun, and I will defend them. but how can I explain that first person shooter's are an art as well?
Really I wouldn't care, video games being art isn't going to change anything about them and IMO it's an argument that would get you nowhere in anything.
Exactly.Ragnellus said:Film is art, yet would you call The Expendables art? Same principle.
In order to have some games classed as art we do not need to classify all games as art. You might as well say all movies are artworks. They're not. Some artists may be involved in the production of say... the Expendables, i.e. I'd say directorship or cinematography are "arts" however the sum of the parts is not equal to the whole.believer258 said:If we were to get prickish and hypocritical about it - no.
If we were to judge it as the whole "games as art" argument should be judged - yes.
Call of Duty 4 is. Halo 1 is. Singularity is. These are art, and if we want to say that games are art then we need to include all of them, or we will just make our medium more confusing to people who are just trying to look into it. Do we really want to look even more like anti social nerds?
Also, for anyone that says shooters can't be art:
![]()
I won't pretend that I don't have several problems with it as a game, such as bad level design and having to take pictures of enemies to be able to even have a chance at beating them, but as art it's up there.
Question. You are saying "An art" and not "Art" which do you mean?luccadeas said:Like all of you, I try to preach about how games are an art as much as I can and am willing to debate it with the naysayers. But I always get a frequently asked question: what about all of duty or other first person shooters? people understand other games like RPG's because of the story or the innovation but what about FPS's? yes some games are mindless shooting but... those are still fun, and I will defend them. but how can I explain that first person shooter's are an art as well?
Call of Duty... is art. Horribly made art with a bad premise together with something that is ostensibly just a game for playing with friends. I think for games to qualify as art, they really, really need either some new, impressive, and different presentation (and I'm not just talking the graphics. Shit made with amazing realism is still shit) or an immersive and innovative experience with a gripping narrative presented within the experience. This is where Call of Duty falls short. The first ones in the series were basically a cross of a history book with 24 children playing war. The more recent ones seem like Tom Clancy novels, if someone first replaced Tom Clancy's crack supply with ammonium nitrate. What I mean to say is, Call of Duty is bad art. The only thing keeping it from being children's art is the lack of evidence that children can write a physics engine.luccadeas said:what about call of duty or other first person shooters?