That's so funny. I've been thinking about the issue of 'games as art' since yesterday and when I log on here, Yahtzee is talking about it too.
Perhaps "game" is the wrong word for what videogames have become. I've always felt the same thing about the term "moving picture;" it seems rather quaint now that we're not all diving under our seats in fear because we think a train is about to bust through the wall.
That's so true. Games really aren't just about playing a game anymore, and the name feels misleading.
As I see it, there are three essential components of games that make them what they are.
Skill-based Challenges (Gameplay) This is the "game" component of videogames. I came up with the term 'videosports' to describe it, because I think it's accurate: when actually playing Modern Warfare 2 or fighting a battle in Final Fantasy, what you're playing is a challenge with a set of digital rules laid out by the developers. It's not intellectually or emotionally engaging - it's a test of your ability to master the arbitrary set of rules. Button combinations, precision, number-crunching, whatever. It's about as evocative as playing soccer or chess. Retro games like Tetris and Pac-man are 100% Skill-based Challenges. A good example of a predominantly-SBC game is almost anything with competitive multiplayer. When you hear someone say, "I only play games for the actual
gameplay," in that smug, art-hating tone of voice, you know they're only playing for the Skill-based Challenge component. No matter how good a game's SBCs are, they will never make a game 'art' in themselves, because again, it's just a digital sport.
Context (Story) This is the world that the SBC's take place in, to give it some meaning. Usually, it's in the form of cutscenes between the challenges. It's also characters, dialogue, set-pieces, scenery, et cetera. Context is something games share with film, literature, and other media - telling the viewer what's going on in a fictional world. If you see someone defending a superlinear JRPG with the logic "It's just about the story," you know they love their Context. In my opinion, having a good story, no matter how good it is, doesn't make games into "art-games." The stories can be emotional and evocative and touching, just like film, but they make the games into just that - film. A CG film interspersed with Skill-based Challenges, but a film nonetheless. The film can be art, in a way, but typically it's not a very good film, judging by the way most games of this type are written and executed. What
really makes games into 'art-games' iiiissss...
Consequence (Reflection on the Player) This is the most important characteristic, because it's the only one games can call their own. Any medium can invoke emotions, but only games can then turn things around and be influenced by them. Consequence is the player's ability to change the Context of the game with their own reactions, emotions, and beliefs. The best example I can think of right now is the Mass Effect series. The first time I played Zaeed's mission in Mass Effect 2, and came to the big choice moment: I could either save a group of colonists trapped in a burning factory, or chase down Zaeed's escaping nemesis so he could take revenge. Zaeed was even directly responsible for putting the colonists in danger, but I knew I would get tangible benefits later in the game from moving on and letting them die. It was such a grating moral choice (in such a convincing Context) that I sat there for a full minute looking at the dialogue wheel, and ultimately chose to help the colonists. This placement of responsibility on the player makes games a truly unique art form - players react to the game, and then the game reacts to them.
That's my little manifesto on Games as Art. Nowadays, games are more about the 'videosports' aspect than anything else, with little half-polished gems like Heavy Rain and Mass Effect cropping up now and then, still consisting predominantly of SBCs with juicy bits of Consequence squeezed in sporadically. But because that's what makes games
games, hopefully we'll see more of it as time goes on.