Poll: Games are art?

[Cpt_Oblivious]

With some games. Dreamfall, Max Payne, Bishock and Beyond Good & Evil could be considered arty and special, whereas Generic Shooter 12 clearly isn't.

 

[Uncompetative]

Is a movie art? Is a song art? If that answer is yes, then it must be so for games aswell.

The real question I should have asked is how gamers feel about this as a spectacle. Do you see games as a simple entertainment thing, or as an artistic statement?

The same can be asked of graffiti. When does it stop being about infamy and into the realms of street art? Usually when it gains a purpose, or it has a point to it. Something games are made to just entertain. Others could make you think WHILE entertaining you.

I consider this game to be art. http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/495076

The creator said:

Our intentions with this game were to present a mirror to the player through some basic hard-n-fast rules focused on that original statement: "A person is smart but people are stupid." We did that by casting "fun" and stuff like that aside in favor of highlighting the intentions of the game's message. For instance, an early prototype utilized a rhythm mini-game that could have been more DDRish that would have been more entertaining, but that didn't push forward the idea of opposites and meeting in the middle ground enough so it was scrapped for what you see in the game now. Sure, the game may have been more entertaining had we explored more stuff like that, but we just wanted to see what would happen if we went about developing the game with this strict focus on message over entertainment.

See: http://aeiowu.newgrounds.com/news/post/316496

So even he admits that entertainment is forced out by the need for a clear artistic statement. Doing this reduces "engagement". If this work was meant to elicit an emotional response it has only succeeded to 'bore me to tears' and frustrate me with no commensurate payoff to the apparent pseudo-challenge.

If it is anything it is bad art, which communicates poorly. It is not a game, because it does nothing to encourage true replayability. Yes, you may need to re-play the previously posted "Kraken" game to experience all of its five possible endings, yet this hyperfiction could have been conveyed just as well as a website, or a 'Tracker book':

http://www.gamebooks.org/show_item.php?id=2652

Sure, there is some game-like interactivity to the Kraken software, but this is so underdeveloped to not constitute the richness of what we can reasonably expect from interactive software that claims to be a replayable game:


Now... on to another point...

The idea of games as art is just silly to me.

Without explanation that just sounds stupid

I agree, and I will also provide a counter argument as to why it shouldn't sound stupid even with an argument.
Contention 1: Paintings and other graphics are considered art, all video games are graphics given movement.
Contention 2: Many movies are considered art and are simply graphics given movement, in fact many are nothing more than shoddily put together videotapes made with a camcorder in a forest or city point [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloverfield] and case [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blair_Witch_Project]
Contention 3: Video games are movies which incorporate a new aspect (interactivity), meaning that they are art by virtue of them being movies with additional capabilities. {my emphasis}

This constructive argument would work if Contention 3 was correct. Yes, Paintings are Art (Fine Art), Illustration/Graphics are Art too, Movies are art (though art with a small 'a' as they are often more about entertainment and art-house cinema tends to be entertainment with a small 'e' with Entertainment with a big 'E' tending to overshadow, but not exclude, the art). Unfortunately, current technology has not found a way to finesse this spectrum to allow the addition of interactivity (which is both entertaining and replayable and therefore qualify as a game) without breaking away from the focus needed to convey an artistic statement. There is hope for the future of videogames to convey themes that one would normally expect to get from a narrative, without the prison of having to follow a predetermined linear path which is totally at odds with player freedom and their self-expression within the world of the game.

As I have already outlined I think that players of these next generation games would have to strike a compromise whereby they would play a game not as themselves, but closely conforming to their avatar's role even if that meant a heroic death. We have already had games like PGR3 with Kudos (rather than who comes 1st in the race), and the many in-game Achievements in Halo 3 Multiplayer (like Banshee Skyjacking). As games try to be art and represent the drama and closure apparent in life game designers should start thinking about downplaying the importance of you, or your side, "winning" as life is not that clear cut and to make it so is to throw out all the subtleties and moral shades of gray that make stories and character development 'arcs' interesting.

I think we may be 10-15 years away from games that are sufficiently revolutionary to be critiqued as art - even art with a small 'a'.

 

[NeonZombie]

Okami is art

 

[Halo Fanboy]

Notice that I mentioned "people who enjoy videogames", not "gamers". That's because "gamer" is a stupid, wretched word coined by people who apparently want to be seen as special because they play videogames.

You don't call a guy who sometimes watches television a "watcher" or an office worker who sometimes visits the gym an athlete. Gamer is just a word that sends the signal that games are your "thing". Your ONLY thing. And you don't care for people or other forms of entertainment or sunlight or excercise or personal hygiene. Stop using that word. It annoys the pants off of me. If you aren't paid to play videogames as your profession, you are not a "gamer".

You know, you're right - it's a bit of a misnomer unless it's a professional pursuit, but it's something I'd recommend trying to make peace with, because otherwise you're doomed to a future of annoyance and bare legs. Has anyone ever successfully shut down the usage of a term in pop culture, ever? My own, parallel, personal grievance is with the use of the term 'next gen', still being applied to games that are out NOW. I hope I hope its just a fad, but you can see why sometimes it's a lot easier just to let these sorts of things go...

On topic, why do people ask this question? It is of no significance to the quality of the game's functionality or "fun" and the answer is intuitively obvious if you consider:

1) Writing = Art
2) Concept Art = Art
3) Sound Design = Art
4) Music = Art
5) 3d Modeling = Art
6) Animation = Art
7) Texture Art = Art
8) Motion Capture Performance = Art
9) Voice Acting = Art
10) Level Design = Art
11) Cover Art = Art

That's far from a complete list of the positions people fulfill in a game development studio, but lets just run with that:

Art + Art + Art + Art + Art + Art + Art + Art + Art + Art + Art = Not Art?

For Christ sake...

PS. Yes, I realize not every game has all those positions, but more and more games these days have production teams the size of feature films. The quality of the product may be poor, but the nature of the endeavor is not changed by that.

Why can't we consider the actual gameplay as art? Saying that main part of a game is vestigal to art just proves that the art critics right about their interpretation of games not being art.

 

[Uncompetative]

Why can't we consider the actual gameplay as art? Saying that main part of a game is vestigal to art just proves that the art critics right about their interpretation of games not being art.

I would say that the harmoniously balanced, nuanced gameplay of Halo: Combat Evolved was craft not art. Art has a theme.

So, the first Halo is a masterpiece, but only in the same sense as fine piece of furniture.

 

[Haro]

well, arguing whether or not games are art touches upon a serious discussion in art itself, as to what art actually is. Something that is considered artsy by todays standards is usually implied to have a deeper meaning, but if you really think about it, this is really only a fairly recent development in art, originating in the more modern periods. Art is, in its purest form, something that is created to be admired and enjoyed, be it for its sheer physical beauty, its deeper connotations, or other qualities. If you really think about it then, the fact that we try to convey games as realistically and beautifully as possible is not so different from how realist painters would try to capture a real image. Even if you look to more abstract forms of art, like impressionism, you will see that likewise games have gone for same abstractions. A great example would be Okami, a game that threw out conventional graphics to go for a highly stylized look that mirrored its content.

Another argument that games aren't art considers the commercial aspect of it, but this is a load. the vast majority of music and movies are designed for commercial purposes, and yet they are considered art. And if someone tries to distinguish between normal music ant "artsy" music, the only real difference is that normal music is usually popular, while often times "artsy" music isn't. Even paintings have commercial aspects, both in older and more recent times.

If someone looks at a game like okami or crysis and marvels at the physical beauty of it, or looks to the story of a game, like bioshock, and see it as a really good story, then whats the difference between that and a book, a movie, a piece of music, or a painting? apart from pretentiousness that is. I mean come on, if people can consider a skinned dog or a crucifix submerged in piss art, and not games, then someone takes themselves a bit too seriously.

Though I consider games an art form, in a sense, I don't think we should get too into it. I play games primarily for enjoyment, and I would rather not have games go along an "artsy" route that sometimes plagues other forms of media and entertainment. If that means that most people won't consider it an art, than so be it. I just think that its important that us, or at least game developers, hold games at a higher standard, rather than just mass producing them solely for the sake of profit. Gaming is a business through and through, but it shouldn't just be a business, or the games will only get crappier.

 

[K.I.N.G]

Not really.

 

[K.I.N.G]

Why can't we consider the actual gameplay as art? Saying that main part of a game is vestigal to art just proves that the art critics right about their interpretation of games not being art.

I would say that the harmoniously balanced, nuanced gameplay of Halo: Combat Evolved was craft not art. Art has a theme.

So, the first Halo is a masterpiece, but only in the same sense as fine piece of furniture.

I like Halo online better than the actual game itself.

 

[Uncompetative]

...If someone looks at a game like okami or crysis and marvels at the physical beauty of it, or looks to the story of a game, like bioshock, and see it as a really good story, then whats the difference between that and a book, a movie, a piece of music, or a painting? apart from pretentiousness that is. I mean come on, if people can consider a skinned dog or a crucifix submerged in piss art, and not games, then someone takes themselves a bit too seriously...

The act of playing a game prevents the player from engaging with it as an artwork. Replayability, freedom, improvisation are at odds with the reliable communication of a focused artistic statement. Stories inhibit gameplay. Aesthetic experiences wrought through interactive software are just plain boring. I'm not saying games can never be art, they have the potential to develop as a medium, just as Cinema did from the days of the Kinetograph:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetograph

Which was basically just a side-show amusement.

 

[Julianking93]

Why wouldn't a game be considered art?
Yes some games people can quickly consider artistic but its the same way with movies, sculptures, paintings, books, and music. Some of it is great and some of it sucks, but its still considered art

 

[Shycte]

Just like ANY OTHER form of media. Yes.

http://kotaku.com/391937/execution-tests-your-conscience-not-your-reflexes

That if something

 

[JFenlon]

More so art than modern art.

 

[hopeneverdies]

Visual arts are obviously art. Drama and movies are art. Literature is art. Don't jump all over me for this one, most[/] music is art. Why can't games be art?
A good story is a work of art, literature proves that. Graphics affect the quality of visuals, just like movies and visual art. Soudndtracks improve their artistic value, music. Gameplay that is immersive such as that of Indigo Prophecy/Fahrenheit can be considered art. Video games are just an interactive medium of art that are a combination of other forms of art.

 

[ShadeOfRed]

Using the same logic I apply to books, it's not art. My definition of art is the main cause of this, that being that "Art is paintings made by people who think that they're cultured and talented, sold to people who think they're cultured and feel the need to act like they're upper-class." I don't see a lot of beauty in art, whether it be ancient or modern.
However, with books, movies and music, if it tells a story that I can relate to, or escape reality into for a few hours, it would be what normal people consider art. If I don't find myself hating it the moment I jump in, it would be what normal people consider art. If it can create a new way of thinking about the world in the process, it would be what normal people consider art. If I loved it, you should get the picture by now.
Still, I chose no. "Art" is apparently a very serious area, and I really think that video games should not be taken seriously. They're games. That's all they are to me.

tl;dr
No, they're just games meant for enjoyment and escape from reality. Art has the opposite effect on me.

 

[Clashero]

With that said, I think most games (99,9%) are not art. Some may be artistic or artsy (Okami, Prince of Persia) but aren't really art because the focus is on the gameplay, which is essentially computer code, and programming isn't an art. What you create with programming, however, can be.

Who's to say gameplay isn't art, what sets games apart from other mediums is the fact that you can interact with it, games as a whole are art even the bad ones, a bad painting is still art.

Again, this was only my opinion.
Art is, as Ayn Rand puts it, "a selective recreation of reality based on the artist?s metaphysical value judgments.". This means, in short, that art is a reflection of reality as viewed through the creator's eyes, and so it conveys, in a way, his sense of life. A good example is Michalangelo's David. If you think the male form is beautiful, then you will love David. If you think the male figure is disgusting, or regard humans in general as unpleasant, you won't. But you can't argue that David is great art. It conveyed Michalengelo's view of reality: The human form is beautiful.

With that in mind, the gameplay of a game is not art, unless it is meant to be art. For example, in Today I Die, you drag words into a poem to alter reality (if you change the word "painful" for "dark", the world turns dark. But if you change the word "die" for "shine", the character comes alive and literally shines in the darkness.) So, the gameplay of TID is the art, since the game is about poetry in motion, and the way in which you can put the "motion" part in it is by playing.

In most games, the gameplay is a way to gain access to the actual "art" parts of the game: a new architectural design, a different background song, more plot exposition, etc.

All gameplay is art. When you walk in a game and interact with objects you are experiencing a world the artist imagined, much as you would by looking at a painting or reading a book except, the world responds to you and you are a part of it.

The gameplay itself doesn't provoke any feelings in me in many many games. Art needs to make me feel something, some sort of bond with the author, a new level of suspension of disbelief in which I enter the creator's mind and see through his eyes, per se. Gameplay doesn't do that.
As I said before: you can't make art "accidentally". You need to create something with the purpose of it being art. If an artist flicks his brush at his canvas because he wants to portray chaos (or whatever), that's art. If a child accidentally knocks over an ink pot and thinks it looks pretty and hangs it on the fridge, that's not art.
Games are more like a gallery of art, in which the gameplay is the bridge between different aspects of art. It's the framing of a painting, or the texture of its canvas, to make an analogy.
Now, if I try to make a contrast by painting something geometrical and using a frame that has whimsical organic lines, that's part of the art.

Your definition of art is to narrow.

Are you going to keep on trying to defend your point with misspelled one-sentence posts?

How is my definition narrow? My definition includes everything that is universally considered art and then some.
Is it narrow because it excludes something that you consider to be art?
As Uncompetative perfectly put it, art needs to be without boundaries. What you can create with art should only be limited by your supplies and your technical ability, NOT by your target audience and other boundaries imposed on you. The good guys almost invariably win, because you HAVE to win in order to finish the game. Nearly everything a developer does is done with being able to sell the game in mind. The moment you make art in order to make a profit, you're missing the whole point of art.

Oh, and to Uncompetative: not all games end well. In the ending of Dreamfall, while the good guys don't exactly lose, they've certainly got pretty much EVERYTHING going against them.

Using the same logic I apply to books, it's not art. My definition of art is the main cause of this, that being that "Art is paintings made by people who think that they're cultured and talented, sold to people who think they're cultured and feel the need to act like they're upper-class."

That's awfully uninformed and closed-minded. Why is art limited to only paintings? Is a sculpture not art? Is a drawing not art? Is a photograph not art? Is a play not art? Is an opera not art?
Also saying that it's made by people who think they're cultured and talented shows there's something terribly wrong with the way you think. Do you think the person who drew (yes. Drew. It's a pencil drawing) this: http://genni.deviantart.com/art/Hold-Yourself-Together-12217672 simply THINKS she's talented? No sir, she definitely and objectively is talented.
And why do you say it is "sold to people who think they're cultured and feel the need to act like they're upper-class.". Art isn't always made with the thought of someday selling it. Also, some people truly appreciate art. Obviously, you're not one of them, but that doesn't keep others from enjoying art.
Hell, I make art and I don't think I'm talented. It's good art because it transmits the message I want it to, but it may not be technically very impressive. Here's one of my short poems for instance:

I will be going quite far
Before the night turns to morning
Leave all my things where they are
I won't need them where I'm going

Please, do try to stop me
It'll make me feel needed
Please, shed no tears for me
That alluring call must be heeded

It's good art because it transmits my constant feeling of wanderlust exactly, even if the metric is off and the rhyme is absurdly simple (ABAB is quite boring). Is it a painting? No. Is it made by someone who thinks he's talented? No. Is it sold to pretentions people who like to think themselves upper-class and cultured? Definitely not.

 

[Zedzero]

I see art in Prince of Perisa: Sand of Time. Great story, fluid combat movements, and amazing acrobatics. Others would be Mirror's Edge, and Assassin's Creed. But I don't feeling like going over what mak them art at the moment.