Poll: Do You Really want Games to be art?

[Abedeus]

I would like it, if it would be acknowledged that games can be art. Of course, not every game should be considered as art.
But right now games that touch sensitive themes are immediately criticized just because they are games (for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Days_In_Fallujah ). If games are seen as art, this could change.

I pay you to make me a sculpture of a finger, you sculpt the finger beautifully then add a wart. I ask you to take the wart off and you say "No I must defend my artistic integrity". If I have paid you good money to do me a service and I am unhappy with it, so you should put it right. Then if all my friends come round and say "great sculpture but I dont like the wart", isnt it obvious the art should be changed?
On the other hand if you sculpt a warty finger because you want to, and I come along and start harassing you to change it, then it is your right to not change it and to tell me to shut up.

If you compare this with the ME3 ending, the fans are those who come to an artist and harass him because of his work since the game wasn't commissioned by the fans.
I don't like it that bioware wants to defend the artistic vision (and I won't hesitate to tell anyone my opinion on the ending if asked), but I respect that they stick to their vision.

Except they aren't sticking to their vision. Original plot and purpose of Reapers destroying organic life (not harvesting it) was because it was a genetic mutation, and the technology of Mass Relays released too much Dark Energy that would eventually destroy the galaxy.

There's not one single lead storywriter from the first game left in ME3. The ending of ME3 is as detached from ME1 as possible. I especially love how the reason to destroy synthetics was "they will try to kill organics". Weird. Because Geth never attacked anything until Sovereign mind-controlled them into serving him... Before that, they were simply defending themselves. All it took for Geth and Quarians to stop fighting was Shepard stopping the Reaper code inside of the mainframe, and Legion uploading Reaper intelligence to the Geth as a race. It was that simple.

NOPE. God AI Child introduced in the last 5 minutes, that is apparently millions of years old and has seen countless cycles, is too blind to see the picture of perfect cooperation right there on Rannoch.

 

[Agayek]

Sorry, but I will not support that approach. One of the first things you learn in real life working for clients is that the maxim of "Client is always right" is FALSE.

While that's generally true, acting in such a manner isn't usually a smart call from a business perspective. After all, you need the people paying you to want to continue paying you.

 

[liquidsolid]

Whelp I think that games ARE art. I don't feel as if I need to convince anyone else or try to campaign to prove it to anyone else. Whether I think they are art or not is irrelevant to whether or not they will be made.

Keep making games with artistic merit and I'll keep calling them art and still not care if anyone agrees with me.

 

[Innegativeion]

Well, games ARE art, as a large number of people consider them to be, so they are. "Art" is a subjective term. That said, I'm just going to vote yes to see the results.

If more people acknowledged that they are art, there'd be less incentive for those unfamiliar with the medium to shout out for censorship, and while full creative control for the artist isn't the case for all mediums all the time(blockbuster movies, for example), it would set a precedent that would place more value on creativity than peaking the profits.

 

[Neonsilver]

Except they aren't sticking to their vision. Original plot and purpose of Reapers destroying organic life (not harvesting it) was because it was a genetic mutation, and the technology of Mass Relays released too much Dark Energy that would eventually destroy the galaxy.

There's not one single lead storywriter from the first game left in ME3. The ending of ME3 is as detached from ME1 as possible. I especially love how the reason to destroy synthetics was "they will try to kill organics". Weird. Because Geth never attacked anything until Sovereign mind-controlled them into serving him... Before that, they were simply defending themselves. All it took for Geth and Quarians to stop fighting was Shepard stopping the Reaper code inside of the mainframe, and Legion uploading Reaper intelligence to the Geth as a race. It was that simple.

NOPE. God AI Child introduced in the last 5 minutes, that is apparently millions of years old and has seen countless cycles, is too blind to see the picture of perfect cooperation right there on Rannoch.

I know what writing errors they did.
I know that their "artistic vision" is retarded.

What I wanted to say is that it's Biowares decision to change it or not, I didn't want to start a new ME3 ending discussion (if you are interested in my opinion about it check the forum, I already wrote enough about it).

 

[SeeIn2D]

At face value games being art is not such a bad thing, but when you start creating games purely as art, you attract the type of people that will both critique them like are and also create them to be "artsy" rather than fun and enjoyable and that is always what games have been about. Art was never really creative for people to gather around it and have a roaring good time with a few exceptions, most of them being movies.

 

[The Harkinator]

Some games should be seen as art, but to elevate all to that level shouldn't be done. Some games are more straightforward so don't need to be art.

A diverse and well made range of games is what the industry needs, not everything striving to be the same thing.

 

[gigastrike]

Since when does what we want change anything?

 

[Loki J]

I think a video game can be art, but not all video games can be art. I also think that movies can be art, but not all movies are art.

A video game's purpose is typically;
Entertainment in a variably-interactive format, with the amount of interaction (gameplay features) dependent on the designer's intent for how it should be played (often defined by game type).

There's a lot of room for interpretation in that definition; some games (Phantasmagoria, Rebel Assault, recent Final Fantasy games [bracing for hatemail...]) had very limited gameplay and were more like interactive movies than what most consider a video game. Are these art? Most of this type would find it difficult to score even as a B-movie, so where do draw you the line?

At the other end you have fighting or racing games, which focus greatly on gameplay & features, requiring very little or no story at all(most multiplayer modes of any game fall into this category, particularly vs modes). There are movies like this, too, with very little story and a heavy focus on action (whatever the type).

If someone wants to make an 'artsy' or beautiful game (Journey? Myst? Eden?), then so be it. I'm more worried that the 'games as art' label will be applied to undeserving games (Mortal Kombat? Kane and Lynch?) and tarnish the rest of the industry.

Z

 

[AyreonMaiden]

I dunno if I really care.

It hasn't changed anything yet and I doubt it will. The games industry has become like movies: Popular entertainment reigns because it reaches everyone's base instincts and desires, while on the fringe you find the niche stuff that explores and experiments and "says something" about stuff in life, and in the oh-so-happy middle, you get the really rare Dark Knights and Inceptions that manage to (successfully in my mind) combine the two into perfection.

That's the natural order in every medium. It's so with music and comic books and novels, etc. Games being "known as art" by people won't suddenly make them more intelligent, any more than having more women devs will make more "strong female characters."

That said, there's room for everything, so "games being art" would threaten nothing, either.

 

[EboMan7x]

I don't WANT games to be art. It isn't a matter of wanting, games are inherently art. Anything made with the intention to inspire emotion, even if it is just "entertained", it is still art.

 

[Danoloto]

Easy answer for me. I did vote "other", because I think the following should be true:
Movies can be art, but not all of them are art.
Some books are art, some are one time read novels.
Some pieces of music are instant classics, some grow on you over time, some are destined for the bargain bin even before release.
So it should be with games too. Some games are downright classics. Some are designed to be 'artsy', and some are shooter number 14159.

However, I would like to see more games try a bit harder on the story aspect. A good story is what seperates good books from great books etc., So I think the games industry could befefit from working closer with some proper writers, to see if they can take narrative to new hights.

 

[Squidbulb]

A crappy novel is still art, even though it's crappy.

Actually, it isn't. Many people don't consider novels as art. Obviously something like the Iliad is, but not something like Henry. Heck, even Discworld, which is in my opinion among the best book series ever created, isn't really art. It's just a good book.

tl;dr: Games are not only indisputably art, they are in fact the most complex art known to man.

You can't be serious... every video game I've ever played has the complexity of a carrot. Just because it's a combination of other art forms (even calling these art is arguable) doesn't make it complex. Everything you described also applies to films, so I don't see how games are any more complex than films, which are considered art but no sane person would say all of them are art.

For a medium that combines the skills of sculpting, film, writing, and musical composition - four major realms of artistic expression - how can games not be viewed as art?

Because it's not the good parts of that media. The fact is that nobody considers the worst of any of these media to be art. Nobody.

 

[GamerAddict7796]

I picked no because once something is classed as art that seems to be an excuse to be as lazy as possible. Take the Fountain. You say "It's just a bloody water fountain" and they say "It's more than that. It's art." or "You just don't get it."

This is already being used to defend 'art games'

For more points see
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/5462-Lazy-Boring-Ordinary-Art-Games

 

[Hectix777]

I want games to be art, just not art. You know, where every slight pixel and polygon in a game is supposed to have some type of deep and significant meaning, like the reason the lady seer in this RPG is dressed in red is supposed to mean something like the Boston Massacre or stuff where it gets really weird and obscure. If I was held at gunpoint, I'd say that I wanted games to be taken seriouslym not seriously because its art. Half the movies out there today rarely pass or make attempts to be art, yet we love them and take them seriously. That's what I want. And I'm not against games being seen as art, I'm all for it. It just burns me up that in order for the stories told in Mass Effect or Halo to be taken seriously or validated by others is through a crusade to make games seem like art.

My personal philosophy is that for every 2 or 3 serious games(Mass Effect, GTA4, Dragon Age, etc.) there should be one stupid fun game that does not require thought or conscience (Bulletstorm, Saints Row: The Third, etc.).

I'd just settle for video games to be taken seriously, and I'll be happy if they are seen as art, as long as it's taken seriously.

 

[Kahunaburger]

I picked no because once something is classed as art that seems to be an excuse to be as lazy as possible. Take the Fountain. You say "It's just a bloody water fountain" and they say "It's more than that. It's art." or "You just don't get it."

Although to be fair that was arguably the entire point of The Fountain.

 

[jklinders]

I'm not really fussed either way. It will be art or not whether I want it to be or not. That's actually kind of how this stuff works. It can't be forced either way, it will just happen or not as a side effect of culture.

 

[Seanfall]

As a gamer of around 30 years this is one of those subjects I really can't bring myself to care about.

For me, I buy a game to play and entertain myself. I care very little about what anyone else thinks of my pass time or if it is "art".

As long as i'm having fun they can call it whatever the feth they like it changes nothing for me.

Someone once said to me "but people would stop looking down on you as a gamer if they were art" to which I can only reply .... i'm in my 30's. I stopped giving a toss about what people thought about me oooooh around 30 years ago.

I'm not that old...but yeah I feel the same way. And if games being 'art' means we're not allowed to complain and ask for better? Then no I don't want them to be 'art' I want them to be games. I like games...I don't give a, as you put it, toss about art.

And I mean no disrespect with the 'i'm not that old' line.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

Actually, it isn't. Many people don't consider novels as art.

People who don't understand the meaning of the word art, perhaps. Since that is more than 50% of the population in the USA, I can sort of understand your confusion, but it doesn't make what you say correct.

Again, you are confusing good art with art. A crappy novel is bad art. Just like a crying clown painting is bad art.

Art is made by ARTISTS. A writer is a type of artist.

You can't be serious... every video game I've ever played has the complexity of a carrot.

Your carrots have dialogue, 3D art, motion capture, and musical scores, do they?

I didn't say the plot or theme of all games were complex - I said that they combine most (almost all) artistic disciplines.

Those disciplines, as defined by any college of Liberal Arts. Writing, Drawing/Painting, Sculpture, Interactive Installation, and Music being the FINE Arts.

Note that Games are made up of digital versions of the five major Fine Arts.

Hence Games are a Fine art.

They might be a shitty fine art, but like I said, so are crying clown paintings (since painting is a fine art).

Bad art =/= not art.

Take it from someone who works in the Liberal Arts (me). There's a lot of crap out there. Being crap doesn't make it not art, though. Just crappy art.

Everything you described also applies to films, so I don't see how games are any more complex than films, which are considered art but no sane person would say all of them are art.

Actually, all films are art. Some are good, some are bad, but they are all art.

Art is a classification of media, not a rating of the quality of that media.

The issue here is that people (like you) typically only apply the word art to mean "a good example of a fine art" - which is incorrect from a purely grammatical viewpoint. It would be like saying that hamburgers aren't food because they aren't steaks.

Because it's not the good parts of that media. The fact is that nobody considers the worst of any of these media to be art. Nobody.

Except... artists. All artists. And people who study art. And the people who teach art. And the people who are involved with the arts. And that of course includes those involved with game design and programming.

So basically everyone who matters to this debate.

Saying that games aren't art is telling game designers that what they do doesn't matter. It's offensive to the people who make games. Just stop it.

Edited for spelling error and clarity.

 

[Lugbzurg]

Someone who says that videogames are not art, is probably not worth listening to.

Someone, somewhere, put a lot of time into building all those visuals, into composing all that music, into writing all of that story.

To say you don't like videogames is fine, but, to say they are not art is just foolish.

If something as trivial and simple as the Mona Lisa can be considered art, then, something like Portal 2, Red Dead Redemption, Shadow of the Colossus, The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask and Metal Gear Solid completely rip it to shreds.

I can't vote if I "want" videogames to be art. They are art. There is no point in even debating this.