Shigeru Miyamoto views games as products, not art

[Rochnan]

Sounds like Miyamoto alright.
He's a product designer, and as such, he makes games that are to be played by people, and he wants to give them as good an experience as he can.
and he's not in it to make something to say something about society, about innovation, or about artistic statements.
People's enjoyment seem to be on his mind -and he develops a product that he hopes will have people enjoyed.

 

[Sudenak]

I agree with everything you just said. I wasn't arguing with your point, I was just expanding on it

The nature of art is that it's open to interpretation.

True that. xP I hope I didn't come off as sounding aggressive. Way too used to people misinterpreting me and then running off like a cat that just stole a bra.

 

[Gilgamesh00]

I see nothing wrong here.

Yes, games can be art. They don't need to be art.

If Nintendo wants to do it that way, that's their business.

This ^ and not much else.

Whatever your opinion of video games as being art or not, you can't disagree that not every company wants to make games as art.

PS: I'm all for video games being an artistic medium.

 

[Simeon Ivanov]

What IS art?

 

[Staskala]

It's also important to mention that the "games are art" movement has next to no momentum in Japan, with people like Atsushi Inaba explicitly stating that they do not considered their work art, but are still happy for the praise.
So no, it's not just Nintendo but even prime examples of the argument like Okami.

I prefer that mindset to be honest.
Who cares if a game is considered to have artistic merit as long as it plays fine?
And if it just so happens to overlap with your idea of art, then all the better, right?
Making artistic merit the priority, however, is a terrible idea for you can't carry a game on that alone.

Besides, no matter how many councils and groups make games art, talking about your latest killing spree in CoD will never ever be appropriate table talk.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Barring potential protection by the government and eligibility for projects/grants, there is no real need to officially classify games as "art".
"Art" is a personal interpretation or analysis of a work. If someone can derive some form of deeper meaning from something, then it might as well be art to them.
This doesn't mean they have to force this meaning down everyone's throats; there's famous "art" which I don't consider to be anything beyond words, images, or sound.

That said, the "Games are Art" movement seems to desire social acceptance for their hobby more than anything.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Well, games are all art by definition.

I heavily disagree. I think something should have some sort of heart and soul, be beautiful, have some way to change you and make you think and teach you new ways of viewing the world in order to be considered art. M&M's Racing and Imagine: Babyz and Carnival Games and a ton of other such games fall nowhere near that category.

Art, by the formal definition, is deliberately arranging something in the world so that it affects or can be observed by an outside observer. So all games are by definition, art. Whether a particular game is good art, on the other hand, is up to debate.

 

[Xanadu84]

First of all, there is quite likely some nuances of language that get lost in transation.

Second of all, 9 times out of 10, when 2 people are arguing about whether video games are art, they both have different definitions of art. That 10th time, the disagreement is less about what video games are, and more about what the perceived average person who says video games are art or not wants to do with the medium.

 

[TheyTookOurJobs]

Jim Sterling's opinion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyEcA127dWM&feature=related

 

[almostgold]

"Most importat things is the customer"

I agree with Mr. Miyamoto

 

[TheDooD]

I just saw someone mention this article:

http://gamez.itmedia.co.jp/games/articles/0910/27/news082_3.html

Since it's in Japanese I can't tell for sure, but the guy who brought it up pointed out one quote from the article:

"What we have created are not an art but products. For us, the most important are the customers and not games themselves. I always tell staff to call Nintendo games products, not an art."

Anyone who can read Japanese want to double-check?

If he doesn't consider his work art, why should anyone else?

Is this why nintendo won't enter new ideas? Not because they can't or it would hurt them but because of mad management? If so, he holds back the entire industry.

I remember somewhere Miyamoto's ideas for Zelda and Mario were once a fantasy of beauty that he wanted to share with everybody. Yet now it seems he lost track and is just in it to make for money from more people. I'm not knocking that ideal but at the same time Miyamoto shouldn't forget what got here were artistic fantasies of kid that just wanted to share those ideas with others. Not making money off what works and not expanding the vision to new plateaus.

 

[valleyshrew]

Not all games are art, but some are. Nintendo games are not. They're toys. And that's fine, some of the best games are toys. But there's also room for more meaningful games too. It's like in tv you have your sports and quiz shows, but you also have serious drama and documentaries.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Jim Sterling's opinion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyEcA127dWM&feature=related

Video games shouldn't be seen as art, because all you get when you set out to create an artistic video game is a pretentious, poorly designed video game.

Hey, I just stated the opinion this guy took 5 minutes to present in 1 sentence, and I didn't even have to put on make-up or make unfunny jokes to do it! Jim Sterling really needs to find something interesting to say if he wants people to want to hear what he's saying.

EDIT: Hey, it looks like he did present this opinion articulately and intelligently [http://www.destructoid.com/indie-games-don-t-have-to-act-like-indie-games-162789.phtml]. Jim Sterling the vlogger should take some pointers from Jim Sterling the writer.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Not all games are art, but some are. Nintendo games are not. They're toys. And that's fine, some of the best games are toys. But there's also room for more meaningful games too. It's like in tv you have your sports and quiz shows, but you also have serious drama and documentaries.

Toys are art. As are sports programs, quiz shows, and so on. The formal definition of art is really broad, as it should be. Now good art vs. bad art is an entirely different question

 

[Chemical Alia]

I agree with his position, and I'm an artist myself. There's of course art that goes into the making of the game, and some aspects of games are artistic, but ultimately they're a product.

Of course, this confuses things when you consider that most art is a product as well. The intent of the piece might be shifted differently, but even fine artists are trying to market their work and make a living from it.

 

[Kahunaburger]

this confuses things when you consider that most art is a product as well

I think this cuts to the core of the issue. Most of the things we consider to be the great works of art were either A) religious/civic in nature, or B) a product of some sort. I think a problem with what Miyamoto is saying is that it assumes that art and consumerism are mutually exclusive.

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

This is the guy who made Mario, Zelda and Metroid right? Yeah, I'm not surprised he sees his games as products rather than art, they never aspire to bring about anything but fun. That's okay, but there is no denying that games can be art, whether he says it or not. Believe it or not, game designers and publishers are never going to have the end all view on this argument.

To be blunt, I really don't give a fuck that he thinks that.

 

[Evaheist666]

So he had to say it himself for you to believe that statement? I think his view on video games was pretty clear since the SNES.