The only one that I can see as art would be CoD 4. That was a good one. None of the ones before or after that were any good (IMO).
Is call of duty an art?
- Thread starter luccadeas
- Start date
Recommended Videos
i really think that the definition of art is different from person to person. now CoD as art? maybe.
i personally consider art to be something that i experience that allows me experience things in a new light, so, in that sense, you could consider it art.
i personally consider art to be something that i experience that allows me experience things in a new light, so, in that sense, you could consider it art.
Not every game is art. In the same way, not every game in a certain genre is unable to be art. FPS games can be art but a lot of them aren't. So its a game by game basis.
And as for COD... depends on which. Most aren't but a couple are.
And as for COD... depends on which. Most aren't but a couple are.
I wonder what the responses would be like if the thread about about Battlefield or something instead of gamings pantomime villain.
Exact opposite I reckon. People are fickle.
Exact opposite I reckon. People are fickle.
A three-year old drawing a crude version of Batman beating up the Joker is art, c'mon you guys. How is this even a question?
Then it's still art... it doesn't matter if the Dev thinks so or not. It's a game and art, it's not a case of either or.SinisterGehe said:
Movies, music, paintings, writing, etc. all do fall under that definition, I don't know why you think they wouldn't.
The difference is, you are not, by definition, a woman (I'm assuming, lol), but CoD is.
It doesn't matter what your opinion is, art is a definable term.
It depends on the shooter.
Say Bulletstorm. Bulletstorm was fun and innovative, but it's not art.
Then look at Advent Rising. Its gameplay was flawed, but it's story was EPIC. It was a novel in interactive form. Advent Rising was art.
Then look at Black Ops. Black Ops is a strange beast; absolutely horrendous gameplay that got the game deleted from my computer after beating the campaign, but that's just it: I beat the campaign. The twisted and in-depth plotline was enough to make the game stand for me, at least for a little while. So is Black Ops art purely for its story? Maybe.
But honestly, all in all, the shooter genre isn't the best place to look for games that are truly art. Look at the puzzle genre, in my opinion. Braid. Portal and Portal 2. World of Goo. Cogs. Then examine the experimental genre. The Void. Uplink. Frozen Synapse. Audiosurf. All of these are different and unorthodox, but fun, in-depth, innovative and beautiful; in terms of graphical design, sound design, story, or gameplay. Indie, Puzzle, and Experimental games are where art is being made.
Say Bulletstorm. Bulletstorm was fun and innovative, but it's not art.
Then look at Advent Rising. Its gameplay was flawed, but it's story was EPIC. It was a novel in interactive form. Advent Rising was art.
Then look at Black Ops. Black Ops is a strange beast; absolutely horrendous gameplay that got the game deleted from my computer after beating the campaign, but that's just it: I beat the campaign. The twisted and in-depth plotline was enough to make the game stand for me, at least for a little while. So is Black Ops art purely for its story? Maybe.
But honestly, all in all, the shooter genre isn't the best place to look for games that are truly art. Look at the puzzle genre, in my opinion. Braid. Portal and Portal 2. World of Goo. Cogs. Then examine the experimental genre. The Void. Uplink. Frozen Synapse. Audiosurf. All of these are different and unorthodox, but fun, in-depth, innovative and beautiful; in terms of graphical design, sound design, story, or gameplay. Indie, Puzzle, and Experimental games are where art is being made.
Um, of course they are. Why is this even a question?
Oxford defines art as "the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power." Do you know how much sweat and tears probably go into making games like Call of Duty? It's the result of the creative minds of dozens to hundreds of people working together to create one piece. To be quite honest, if Call of Duty isn't art, then the Sistine Chapel isn't art, and The Hangover 2 CERTAINLY isn't art (which it is, by the way.)
What the hell would make RPGs any more "art" than Call of Duty? What makes a piece of art "art" isn't how dramatic or narrative-driven the product is (I don't even think games are primarily a "narrative" medium), what makes something art is the creative process itself. The skill and imagination used to create the product. To any of you naysayers, I say YOU assemble a team of programmers, visual artists, musicians and designers, learn how to do one of these things, and try to make a game that equals the caliber of Call of Duty. THEN try to tell me Call of Duty isn't art.
Oxford defines art as "the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power." Do you know how much sweat and tears probably go into making games like Call of Duty? It's the result of the creative minds of dozens to hundreds of people working together to create one piece. To be quite honest, if Call of Duty isn't art, then the Sistine Chapel isn't art, and The Hangover 2 CERTAINLY isn't art (which it is, by the way.)
What the hell would make RPGs any more "art" than Call of Duty? What makes a piece of art "art" isn't how dramatic or narrative-driven the product is (I don't even think games are primarily a "narrative" medium), what makes something art is the creative process itself. The skill and imagination used to create the product. To any of you naysayers, I say YOU assemble a team of programmers, visual artists, musicians and designers, learn how to do one of these things, and try to make a game that equals the caliber of Call of Duty. THEN try to tell me Call of Duty isn't art.
All these people saying "no" would HATE Extra Credits. Happens to be my favorite show on the site, though. :3
As a person who only holds a passing occasional interest in shooters, and not a fan of CoD at all, I emphatically say. Yes it is art, in so much as games are artistic endeavors. Any game is basically the art of crafting together multimedia. Narrative, graphics, music, sound of prior media and adding in things like experience, interactivity, morality, choice.
Now I grant you, CoD and honestly shooters in general get pegged with many different negatives, some of which are fully deserved. But to discount something that took countless hours of work and effort and constant refining of work, and concepts into something greater is sort of short sighted in my eyes.
Now I grant you, CoD and honestly shooters in general get pegged with many different negatives, some of which are fully deserved. But to discount something that took countless hours of work and effort and constant refining of work, and concepts into something greater is sort of short sighted in my eyes.
I believe art is (almost) anything that can used to express or represent yourself or something else(an emotion, a feeling, an idea, solely your imagination, etc.) So yes I believe COD is an art. What it can express or represent is the power behind a gun, which itself can represent (as a symbol) freedom, rebellion,the ability to change something, and many more ideas including what can be considered false or unrealistic pretenses, like invincibility or just being made out of pure badassery. One of the episodes from Extra Credit pretty says it all about guns.
COD also represents an idea or more specifically a situation of "this is how we think the world would react from this event from a military view." All this while set up in the concept of their world. Its still an expression of how they think it would happen. I think what the actual problem is with most people is they think its a stupid view. Which is completely valid as there is such a thing as bad art. That macho, testosterone filled, badassery the series makes itself out to be can be understandably off putting to a lot of people. But I really don't think its enough to disqualify it from being art because from a subjective view a person doesn't like it or doesn't care to understand it.
What I'm saying is, it is art. It just can be looked as shit art though. You can look at it the same way you look at modern art. You might not really see it, understand it, or care but its still art to somebody, and that is good enough for it to be art for everyone.
COD also represents an idea or more specifically a situation of "this is how we think the world would react from this event from a military view." All this while set up in the concept of their world. Its still an expression of how they think it would happen. I think what the actual problem is with most people is they think its a stupid view. Which is completely valid as there is such a thing as bad art. That macho, testosterone filled, badassery the series makes itself out to be can be understandably off putting to a lot of people. But I really don't think its enough to disqualify it from being art because from a subjective view a person doesn't like it or doesn't care to understand it.
What I'm saying is, it is art. It just can be looked as shit art though. You can look at it the same way you look at modern art. You might not really see it, understand it, or care but its still art to somebody, and that is good enough for it to be art for everyone.
I think you misenterpret the "games are art" arguement.
To my understanding the arguement (on the gamers behalf) is that games CAN be art.
That does not make all games art. That does not mean every game SHOULD be art.
Sometimes a game is just a mindless shoot 'em up, and sometimes that is how it should be.
To my understanding the arguement (on the gamers behalf) is that games CAN be art.
That does not make all games art. That does not mean every game SHOULD be art.
Sometimes a game is just a mindless shoot 'em up, and sometimes that is how it should be.
Not in response to OP directly or anything. I'm finding this whole concept amusing.
Gamer: Games are art!
Other dude: So like... Call of Duty is art?
Gamer: No, no, not that game. That's not what I meant.
Are you/we so insecure(perhaps not the best word, hush) about it? Is it a good example in the games are art debate? Of course not. It'd be a terrible example and in some ways is the worst poster game to legitimize the... legitimacy of the hobby and puts those-who-game in a bad light. Generally speaking. That being said, should we exclude it just cuz it may be shitty (as high art)? Still no.
So yeah, my two points here are:
1) If you believe/agree that games are art, then that includes Call of Duty.
2) If you believe/agree that games are art, but are embarrassed to include CoD in that, then you don't actually believe they are, which means some growing needs to be done. Perhaps vertically.
Gamer: Games are art!
Other dude: So like... Call of Duty is art?
Gamer: No, no, not that game. That's not what I meant.
Are you/we so insecure(perhaps not the best word, hush) about it? Is it a good example in the games are art debate? Of course not. It'd be a terrible example and in some ways is the worst poster game to legitimize the... legitimacy of the hobby and puts those-who-game in a bad light. Generally speaking. That being said, should we exclude it just cuz it may be shitty (as high art)? Still no.
So yeah, my two points here are:
1) If you believe/agree that games are art, then that includes Call of Duty.
2) If you believe/agree that games are art, but are embarrassed to include CoD in that, then you don't actually believe they are, which means some growing needs to be done. Perhaps vertically.
No, Call of Duty is not art.
I think the term "art" is thrown around too easily. The problem seems to stem from one simple idea that, "anything that is a product of imagination is art". Which I personally think is a pretty broad and ill defined way to decide what is art.
Another popular idea is, "art is a creation that makes you feel any emotion, or at least makes you question something". Again, that is pretty broad and ill defined criteria for "art"
Books are not art.
Paintings, sculptures, and images can be art.
99.9999% of films are not art.
Music can be art.
At this point in time, I would say that video games are not art, however someday if the gaming industry is lucky, I will be able to say that 99.9999% of video games are not art. Which means that I will have seen at least one game, that I could accept as art.
Edit: My current definition of art: A creation which is sensed be physical means, created by a person or persons with exceptional skill and perception, that inspires ideas or emotion. Most notably, beauty, life, and their opposing forces, and emotions which are typically not extended to a physical medium.
I think the term "art" is thrown around too easily. The problem seems to stem from one simple idea that, "anything that is a product of imagination is art". Which I personally think is a pretty broad and ill defined way to decide what is art.
Another popular idea is, "art is a creation that makes you feel any emotion, or at least makes you question something". Again, that is pretty broad and ill defined criteria for "art"
Books are not art.
Paintings, sculptures, and images can be art.
99.9999% of films are not art.
Music can be art.
At this point in time, I would say that video games are not art, however someday if the gaming industry is lucky, I will be able to say that 99.9999% of video games are not art. Which means that I will have seen at least one game, that I could accept as art.
Edit: My current definition of art: A creation which is sensed be physical means, created by a person or persons with exceptional skill and perception, that inspires ideas or emotion. Most notably, beauty, life, and their opposing forces, and emotions which are typically not extended to a physical medium.