So what videogames do you consider to be GOOD art?

[TriGGeR_HaPPy]

That's like asking "Which paintings are art?"
If you consider games as a medium a form of art, then you consider all games as art. I'm not saying that most of them can't be terribly done pieces of art (in the same way that a few lines of different coloured paint on a canvas is still art, even though it's probably not that great), but nonetheless they are still art.

EDIT: If it's just "good" examples of games as art you're looking for, though, then I have to agree with the many people who beat me to the punch suggesting Okami.

 

[gamepopper101]

It's mainly Indie and Independant games that are art, but not just all those games. If we are referring to the modern gaming industry then games such as Scott Pilgrim vs The World The Game by Ubisoft has a decent artstyle...even if it is more of a homage to classic 8-bit games.

JRPGs could also be considered art since there are a lot with impressive visuals, although the character design could be more sensible.

 

[the rye]

Debates over "what is art?" aside, be careful to not get too caught up in aesthetics. Movies and books, for example, are art too. Any content that creates emotion is art.

while this maybe true aren't you forgetting that a lot of art, literature and film convey some sort of message or truth.

 

[RowdyRodimus]

One that never gets mentioned that IMO would be considered art in how it took something that is considered art (in this case Comic Art and writing) and made it into a playable comic book and that's Ultimate Spider-Man. It's not as fun as Spider-Man 2, but it's the closest I've seen a game feel like a living comic book that you control.

 

[The Last Nomad]

Every single one of them... to say otherwise doesn't really make sense... People who say games are not art do not know the general meaning of art.

 

[LC Wynter]

Okami, Beyond Good and Evil; probably Grim Fandango too.
I'd include Mass Effect, but there's a nag in the back of my head telling me not to.

 

[illas]

Debates over "what is art?" aside, be careful to not get too caught up in aesthetics. Movies and books, for example, are art too. Any content that creates emotion is art.

while this maybe true aren't you forgetting that a lot of art, literature and film convey some sort of message or truth.

Well said.

I would suggest that the truth is largely irrelevant if there is no emotion behind it.
Truth without an emotional connection = fact. Which, while interesting, isn't engaging, and IMO, not *good* art.

I consider emotion to be the "core", from which truth, beauty, etc. all grow.
With that said, if the central emotion *is* truth (or the discovery thereof)... we're both right

 

[Benjamin Zeledon]

If I can say one. The World Ends With You. Playing that made me feel as if I was staring at a piece of art. Art is defined by bringing out an emotion, and no other game had done that to me...beyond the usual Half-Life, BioShock, and Half Life.

 

[Benjamin Zeledon]

*Heavy Rain

 

[Staticous]

Everytime I hear this question/discussion/argument or whatever you want to call it I always first think of Bioshock. Yes its just a video game, which is what seems to be a popular argument against the are video games discussion, The shooting aspect is not the central focus in my opinion.

As you go through a self destructive "Utopian" society, your drive as a character is not to go around killing every thing that comes across, you're just trying to find out where you are and end up getting caught in a power struggle to control what's left of Rapture. (Slightly Ironic name too, there's your literary symbolism as well)

The entire time, if you explore rather than plow straight through, you can discover more about the history of Rapture and what really happened.All of the main characters are well developed with unique personalities and quirks. Much like a play or movie.

Again, I will admit this is my own biased opinion. I went into Bioshock not with the mindset of "I'm gonna kill stuff with a big gun." I went in looking to explore a city that should have been Utopia until things went horribly wrong. Much as I would a film or playn

 

[AgentBJ09]

Let's see.

1. Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem - Survival Horror

As a fan of Lovecraft's work, I really liked this game's take on enormous entities that control the very fabric of the universe, and how someone would react to discovering such horrific things. The Sanity meter has been done before, but when it starts running low, some of the best parts of the game shine through. The walls bleed, you'll take hits from monsters that don't exist, and every so often, the game toys with you beyond the forth wall by turning the volume down or pretending to switch your controller port.

The story jumps around with each character discovering the Tome of Eternal Darkness at some point, and from there it shows what happens to them once the book is in their possession. It often leads to a gruesome end, but seeing how each person fits into the overall story is satisfying to discover.

2. Red Faction: Guerrilla - Action/Destruction

The Geo-Mod 2.0 Engine and the gravity mechanics that allow you to topple buildings into expensive debris is one of the most awesome parts of the game, and even now I keep popping it in just to knock down an EDF building that's bugging me. Take a sledgehammer to the building's supports and apply some explosives to finish the rest, then sit back and try not to get squished as you flee from your handiwork.

The story is paper-thin and silly, but if you had access to all the toys and explosives that Alec did, I'm quite sure you would do exactly the same thing.

 

[joshuaayt]

Good art? In the mind of the right person, Torchwood is, because of it's aesthetic sense. In the mind of another, Pokemon is, maybe because of the statements made within (I 'unno, gambling is bad, or something. Stick with me)
So, I guess my answer is any videogame that has something, anything, in it that can make any one person think, is good art.

 

[EatPieYes]

All video games are art, in my humble opinion. But I don't play a game for the "artiness" of it, and you probably don't either. I play them as they have entertainment value for me or stimulates my mind or simply engages me. That same way of approaching art can be applied to basically every art form. You don't look at a painting and decide you like it because it's art. It's because it says something to you. Someone has communicated something to you. That is art.

Agreed, very much agreed. But that's what I consider the effectiveness of a piece of art (eg a game), how much it stimulates you mentally and emotionally.

You've really gotten right to the essence of this. The question isn't "is this art?". It's not important or relevant to anyone at all, really. It's much more important, at least interesting, to ask oneself "what does this say to me?" and "how does this relate to me?". Or just simply "is this fun?" if you're a little more neanderthalic in your thinking.

 

[CheckD3]

Indeed I agree that all games are art. But a game that makes you enraged because it's a bad game is not an effective piece of art, unless the dev team wanted to make it infuriatingly bad, in which case they succeeded but still created something with little lasting value. This does happen in the 'fine art' world however. Just look at Tracey Emin and that abomination 'bed'. The piece was made deliberately to wind people up, and as a consequence people now expect that of her, her reputation has suffered and people are going itno her exhibitions having previously decided they're going to hate it. What I mean by an effective piece of art is one that succeeds very well in engaging you in the intended emotions. A horror movie that provokes fear has succeeded by the creator's own standards. One that is unintentionally hilarious is provoking a response, but not the intended one and as such is inneffective fromt he creators perspective, but possible of value on it's own merit (it's hilarious!). Sorry that's quite convoluted, but basically I agree with you, however I would make a distinction between art that succeeds at conjuring the emotions it was intended to and art that has misseed the mark somewhat.


EDIT: THe purpose of playing a game and submitting it to an in-depth artistic critique as one would a painting or sculpture, (this is the point of this discussion) is to not just say that games are art, but to prove it, by showing that you can go into just as much depth analysing a game from an artistic viewpoint as you could any other accepted artistic medium (for instance film).

A bad game would still be art. Because it still evoked emotion, even though it's not the intended response the creators meant for it to give off. However, art is subjective, and there are games out there that people like and hate. Bioshock is a game that I very much disliked after the opening, but there are many people out there who love it. While the atmosphere held them in, for me the later of the atmosphere of the world fell apart and what was a sense of adventure and awe turned to boredom and disgust. I actually posted in a topic where the person didn't like Kotor 1, but did Kotor 2, and there were people there who felt the opposite of that.

Bad games and good games are labels that are unique to the individual, and while there are people who like certain arts, there are others who don't, making it subjective, and games fall under that subjective category, thus the only Bad game you can play is one you've deemed to be bad youself, thus making games are by the merit that they are subjective to the individual and you can't make an honest assesment of a game without playing it, the same you can't say a movie is good or bad without watching it, or a painting bad without viewing it

 

[Bellerophone]

It's already been said, but--definitely Shadow of the Colossus. And its predecessor/sequel Ico.

What really blew my mind about SotC was that there's really just two cutscenes in the entire game--the beginning, and the end. The player's whole journey is told through the actual experience of trying to fight the Colossi--your own frustration, their mannerisms, your horse's mannerisms, the music. It's so simple, yet so striking on so many levels--the game merged emotional involvement with actual gameplay difficulty in a really flawless way. Ico felt like that, too--none of the tasks in the games were 'chores.' I really honestly wanted to do them because the character's goals had become my own. So the games really managed to bring their primary protagonists to life, but also gave me as a player a few lingering doubts about the morality of my actions, or dread about where the plot or my actions were taking me.

I can't wait for The Last Guardian!

 

[theSovietConnection]

Of games I own, I think Bioshock is what I'd call the best representation of good art. I\ve always had a soft spot for art deco.

 

[Spark Ignition]

Haha loads of good points being made.
I'm gonna concentrate on two:

Okami, Beyond Good and Evil; probably Grim Fandango too.
I'd include Mass Effect, but there's a nag in the back of my head telling me not to.

Interesting, why not? Because it was a lot more successful and therefore considered more 'mainstream' than the other two you suggested? Because it's a lot more action orientated? Personally I freakin love the Mass Effect series (including webcomics and all other mediums it's been produced in). It's an in-depth, atmospheric world that parallels our own, giving the player a significant sense of agency by showing that their choices directly affect outcomes in the game. It's populated with believable, iconic and entertaining NPCs with advanced AI that simulates a real relationship between them and the player's Shepard, and visually it's just beautiful. As far as immersion's concerned I've probabaly spent over 1000 hours on both ME games, and loved very second of it (well excluding some mako grinding, but as Yahtzee agreed those sections helped to convince the player there was a massive universe out there). I fortmed a genuine emotional connection with the game, shouting and screaming my triumph like a lunatic when I saved my entire team in ME2's suicide mission, hating myself whenI ahd to choose between Kaidan and Ashley, wondering if I did something wrong, all the hallmarks of a successful piece of art.

Everytime I hear this question/discussion/argument or whatever you want to call it I always first think of Bioshock. Yes its just a video game, which is what seems to be a popular argument against the are video games discussion, The shooting aspect is not the central focus in my opinion.

As you go through a self destructive "Utopian" society, your drive as a character is not to go around killing every thing that comes across, you're just trying to find out where you are and end up getting caught in a power struggle to control what's left of Rapture. (Slightly Ironic name too, there's your literary symbolism as well)

The entire time, if you explore rather than plow straight through, you can discover more about the history of Rapture and what really happened.All of the main characters are well developed with unique personalities and quirks. Much like a play or movie.

Again, I will admit this is my own biased opinion. I went into Bioshock not with the mindset of "I'm gonna kill stuff with a big gun." I went in looking to explore a city that should have been Utopia until things went horribly wrong. Much as I would a film or playn

And yes, Bioshock. *deep breath*. Amazing game, and the one I'm considering using as my dissertation example. That the game is fairly linear doesn't bother me, it's involving enough that I'm drawn in without having the game give me meaningful choices. I would say you have to aim for the brass balls achievement to get the full experience however, as so much of the atmosphere relies on being afraid/unnerved that the vita-chambers are kind of crappy. Other than that the game is beautiful to look at design-wise (I've never seen art deco look so appropriate) and graphically (oh my dear lord the water), dramatic and involving (look at the big reveal of Rapture) and very much intellectually stimulating philosophically, ethically and logistically. FOr me it hits all the bases of good art, as well as being freakishly entertaining and fun to play. ALl these efforts work together like an orchestra to create an amzing, otherworldly experience.

er... 5 stars?

 

[repeating integers]

Homeworld. Once again, my fanboy soul refuses to let me ignore this game.

Ignoring the gameplay (which is very good, but I'm not sure whether gameplay can be considered art) the game has beautiful backgrounds that could be considered aesthetic art in themselves, a hauntingly brilliant soundtrack, and a beautifully told (if simple in itself) story.

 

[wastedyouth89]

I'm going to say the Legend of Zelda games on the Wii and Gamecube (Twilight Princess and Wind Waker respectively). The story and gameplay are basically the same as a bunch of other games. But I think the art style really sets them apart. From the creative and wild characters to the freaky enemies all the designs of creatures and people you interact with are great. Every character has it's own look. Wind Waker I especially loved because you could fill the Nintendo Gallery with statues of every character to see how awesome and different each one really was. Also I loved how WW had beautiful effects caused by the cell-shading: wispy smoke, rolling waves, grass swaying in the breeze. The game is beautiful looking. TP is also quite a lovely game that really sets things in tons of different settings from the arctic mountains to the watery temples to the worlds of twilight. I love how these games look. And how they play too.

 

[eternalphear]

The Elder Scrolls has an immense back story & an excellent game.