There can be no official art, only fixation points of complexity that will erase from the awe of the people given enough time.
Poll: What Makes a Game Art?
- Thread starter Sagacious Zhu
- Start date
Recommended Videos
To me, there has always only been one definition of art. And that is the delivery of feelings of emotion and passion. So, when I look at this poll, I see one option that is severely lacking that I think makes games art. All of the above.
Story telling, in fact the other 3 options are part of story telling if you do not believe me it become blatantly obvious once you read... well just about an fiction and even non-fiction in some cases.
Level design for us older gamers honestly does co all they way back to the level of text we had games entirely comprised of text and the simple fact they they have evolved into the realm of painting/drawing only make it more in depth but regardless it is the exact same concept the setting in a book, the set in a movie, the back ground in a painting, the pixels on a monitor they are all a part of the story and they are all in their own seance level design.
Charter interactions, same goes for the aforementioned level design only this applies to charters.
Game play mechanics by far the most abstract of the ideas but this is how you develop tone, if you charter is slow they should feel slow, if they can shoot from range they should feel as if they can shoot from range, if they are blood thirsty they should feel blood thirsty. It is also one of the things that is more or less exclusive to games it is that odd ethereal power they if done well enough give that sense of who a charter is and this has become woefully lacking in films likely because it is so hard to do with no direct control or even real insight to an actors mind or actions as a consumer o the product.
Level design for us older gamers honestly does co all they way back to the level of text we had games entirely comprised of text and the simple fact they they have evolved into the realm of painting/drawing only make it more in depth but regardless it is the exact same concept the setting in a book, the set in a movie, the back ground in a painting, the pixels on a monitor they are all a part of the story and they are all in their own seance level design.
Charter interactions, same goes for the aforementioned level design only this applies to charters.
Game play mechanics by far the most abstract of the ideas but this is how you develop tone, if you charter is slow they should feel slow, if they can shoot from range they should feel as if they can shoot from range, if they are blood thirsty they should feel blood thirsty. It is also one of the things that is more or less exclusive to games it is that odd ethereal power they if done well enough give that sense of who a charter is and this has become woefully lacking in films likely because it is so hard to do with no direct control or even real insight to an actors mind or actions as a consumer o the product.
This poll is in desperate need of an 'all of the above' option since each game should be judged individually and obviously some games are more artistic in design (Tetris) than they could ever be in terms of plot (Bioshock) or, gameplay mechanics (Super Mario Sunshine?). Also character interaction and story-telling should be classified under the same heading I think since they kind of go hand-in-hand.
Short answer though: take it on a case-by-case basis for each game since all games are diverse blah-blah-blah.
Short answer though: take it on a case-by-case basis for each game since all games are diverse blah-blah-blah.
haha agreed on all parts, i swear..."artistic integrity" is the trump card of all trumps to pull out when your too damn stubborn/stupid.Hero in a half shell said:
OT: any of those can make or break art, as most art is quite subjective. (hell i find 90% of most art to be complete poop and i would never want it in my house or on my property. Ugly ass shit.)
For me, it's when I become emotionally involved. Ocarina Of Time, Persona 4, and Psychonauts were the only games that have ever gotten me emotionally involved. And I know, I don't get how that happened with Psychonauts either.
An artistic game is one that leaves a strong impression on you emotionally. It can utilize any of the classic art techniques, such as Okami makes it feel like you're inside a painting with it's aesthetics. Persona 3 and 4 have a story that made me cry like a ***** so I put them at the top of the list of artistic games. Art is subjective so some may disagree and agree on titles.
I don't know. Perhaps a mix of all of those?
I would consider Ico and Shadow of the Colossus art games. And yet, they are not anything like games that try to be art. Those games are interesting and fun to play. The controls aren't designed by a lunatic, and everything works nicely.
I would consider Ico and Shadow of the Colossus art games. And yet, they are not anything like games that try to be art. Those games are interesting and fun to play. The controls aren't designed by a lunatic, and everything works nicely.
The way the term has been used, Art tends to mean some independent game that you would have ignored otherwise. Games like Dear Ester, Braid, Flower, Amnesia, or even Imaedagam3w!thz0mbiesin1t!!! get the art label because it draws attention to it. Otherwise, they would be ignored by the gaming community at first. I'm fairly certain that every game on the list would have been discovered eventually, because most of them were good in their own right, but they got even more notice because someone labeled them art.
There's a lot of debate to be had over the difference between "low" and "high" art in any medium, regardless of what that medium is. Broadly speaking, I think the difference is conceptualised as "low art aims to entertain, not challenge; high art aims to challenge, not entertain". Or to put it another way "it can't be art if it's fun". (Here I'm using 'entertain' and 'fun' very broadly and loosely, though) It's this attitude that I think operates behind most of the "games can't be art" movement.
But the problem with the poll is that I don't think it's any of those things. Those are all components of a game, sure, but it's like asking which vowels you should use to make a novel literature as opposed to pulp. It's not what components you use; I'd argue that even the technical skill of the creator is a secondary factor. It's why you use it that's primary.
I think art has to do with the creator's intent in making the product, whatever that product is. There's also what I consider the fact that art-dom isn't really something you achieve yourself by the mere act of creation; it's something that has to be conferred on you by other people. Others must point at you and say "yes, that is art. You have done an art." But I'm digressing...
If the creator has a philosophy in mind, a point they're trying to make, a goal they feel that can only be achieved through this particular expression, a emotion or a concept they're exploring because they feel it's important - then what comes out is more likely to be art, because what they'll create is something they have thought through, invested in, taken chances on and really believe in.
If the creator is making something because market figures show that this is the sort of thing people buy nowadays, the result is less likely to be art. Because it's going to be the same thing as everything else - by design - and no matter how shiny you make it, that wont make it art.
For example, which would you say is more artistic a game: Limbo or Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare?
Limbo was designed with a clear emotional 'goal', that of loneliness and dread. Call of Duty was designed because first person shooters mean the publisher can buy out more indie studios. I have no doubt that CoD is more competent and complex in terms of graphical design, mechanics, programming etc - and you could probably even argue it's more 'fun'. But it's not art.
But the problem with the poll is that I don't think it's any of those things. Those are all components of a game, sure, but it's like asking which vowels you should use to make a novel literature as opposed to pulp. It's not what components you use; I'd argue that even the technical skill of the creator is a secondary factor. It's why you use it that's primary.
I think art has to do with the creator's intent in making the product, whatever that product is. There's also what I consider the fact that art-dom isn't really something you achieve yourself by the mere act of creation; it's something that has to be conferred on you by other people. Others must point at you and say "yes, that is art. You have done an art." But I'm digressing...
If the creator has a philosophy in mind, a point they're trying to make, a goal they feel that can only be achieved through this particular expression, a emotion or a concept they're exploring because they feel it's important - then what comes out is more likely to be art, because what they'll create is something they have thought through, invested in, taken chances on and really believe in.
If the creator is making something because market figures show that this is the sort of thing people buy nowadays, the result is less likely to be art. Because it's going to be the same thing as everything else - by design - and no matter how shiny you make it, that wont make it art.
For example, which would you say is more artistic a game: Limbo or Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare?
Limbo was designed with a clear emotional 'goal', that of loneliness and dread. Call of Duty was designed because first person shooters mean the publisher can buy out more indie studios. I have no doubt that CoD is more competent and complex in terms of graphical design, mechanics, programming etc - and you could probably even argue it's more 'fun'. But it's not art.
I suppose it depends on how you view "art".
If the purpose of art is to convey a message or intent some sort through creative (possibly interpretative) means, then it's impossible for games to not at least be capable* of behaving like art in its most important function.
This is what I haven't understood thus far...why I see so many arguments against games being art that rely on purely-arbitrary definitions that seem to dance around the actual point of art for the sake of exclusion.
Perhaps I'm guilty of the same thing here, but at I'm attempting to define it IMPLICITLY rather than by just pulling shit out of my ass and claiming it as fact.
I've seen people who assumed others could not have a legitimately fulfilling or polarizing experience through games because they see them as nothing more than an elaborate logical toy rather than a form of (potential*) expression solely because of the interactive elements.
Why? Because those elements could evoke unreliable responses from the audience; it can vary.
However, those elements are always confined by logical limits, and within those limits one can define and create their message as with the limits of any other medium.
(and this is ignoring the entire branch of "interpretative art" where the intent is to evoke personal inspiration. I find it kind of flaky since I can find inspiration from all manner of mundane things too. I dunno. Maybe I'm nuts.)
*[sub]I say "capable" and "potential" because I do not believe all works in their respective mediums are done for the sake of art, or have some sort of artistic intent. There's a difference between attempting to convey an artistic message/intent, failing at it horribly, and not having a message at all.[/sub]
If the purpose of art is to convey a message or intent some sort through creative (possibly interpretative) means, then it's impossible for games to not at least be capable* of behaving like art in its most important function.
This is what I haven't understood thus far...why I see so many arguments against games being art that rely on purely-arbitrary definitions that seem to dance around the actual point of art for the sake of exclusion.
Perhaps I'm guilty of the same thing here, but at I'm attempting to define it IMPLICITLY rather than by just pulling shit out of my ass and claiming it as fact.
I've seen people who assumed others could not have a legitimately fulfilling or polarizing experience through games because they see them as nothing more than an elaborate logical toy rather than a form of (potential*) expression solely because of the interactive elements.
Why? Because those elements could evoke unreliable responses from the audience; it can vary.
However, those elements are always confined by logical limits, and within those limits one can define and create their message as with the limits of any other medium.
(and this is ignoring the entire branch of "interpretative art" where the intent is to evoke personal inspiration. I find it kind of flaky since I can find inspiration from all manner of mundane things too. I dunno. Maybe I'm nuts.)
*[sub]I say "capable" and "potential" because I do not believe all works in their respective mediums are done for the sake of art, or have some sort of artistic intent. There's a difference between attempting to convey an artistic message/intent, failing at it horribly, and not having a message at all.[/sub]
