Which games do you consider Art?

[tGx Angel]

Also, how many people know the difference between 'art' and 'pretty'?

i dont see a big difference. again, question is what do we (you/i) consider art. not what is art.

also, The Path.

im just remembering games and posting them as they come to me, the blurb replies are mostly just for insight and post padding.

- Ang

 

[Mr Pantomime]

Muramasa: The Demon Blade. That game is pretty much a moving painting. A painting of ninjas

 

[manythings]

Well not ANYTHING. Art, in theory anyway, can serve no other purpose than existing. If it fulfills a secondary role then it can't be art. I kind of agree and kind of disagree with this, some of the things created by science and engineers are marvels of the purest artistry.

Name for me, then, something that cannot be considered art. I challenge you.

That's why I added the addendum that I agree and disagree with the idea that art can have no function... also that urinal that one guy put against a wall, that's not fucking art.

 

[SilverUchiha]

I'd say Portal is a good example of art. It really is an iconic piece you won't see much of in the gaming industry.

But, yes, I would take the argument games are art (if only to support the idea of them getting 1st amendment protection).

 

[savandicus]

Shadow of the Colossus is a classic example of exporation as a core part of a game, just showing off the in game artwork and giving the sense of the vast lanscape and how completely alone you are.

Anything by Team Ico would probably do the trick.

Also i'll throw Guild wars into the hat too purely because the artwork in that game is immense, its freaking massive and everywhere has fantastic scenery and a different feel.

 

[Crimson_Dragoon]

I see no reason games should not be considered an art form.

Because they're entertaining? Well so are movies, plays, and music (that's why they exist in the first place), but that doesn't stop them from being art.

Because they're interactive? How does giving the audience a way of being more connected to the work make something non-art? If anything, non-interactivity is a limitation of other art forms that video games don't have.

Because they can be competitive? What about painting contests, or award ceremonies (the Oscars for god's sake). Yes, those competitions are between the creators, not the audience, but they're competing nonetheless.

OT: All games are art, but they're not all necessarily good art. Ones that are include: Okami, Bioshock, Braid, Heavy Rain, Ico and Shadow of the Colossus (I know their creator likes saying they're not art, but if those games can have such an impact emotionally on its players, I consider it art).

 

[Hateren47]

Like music and movies, they are all art. Just about anything is art to me. Forks, cars, microchip architecture, bridges, etc.. Art is such a loose definition to me.

 

[hurfdurp]

Art is an integral part of making a game, visual or otherwise ..I suppose by extension that makes the finished product 'art'. A successful example for me is something like Street Fighter, where it hinges so much on design and animation, and you can unlock sketches even.

 

[Versago]

None of them. Games are engineering, not art, and there's no problem with that.

Could you put that in the form of an arugument other than "1=1"?
Saying that is why some people consider all painting art - when some are NOT, but high-nosed snobs will make up that it is to fit with the crowd.

--Spolier Ahead--
Similarly some games aren't, in fact many aren't, but some are - i sat and thought for 10 minutes when in Bioshock 2 i got the chance to kill Stanley Poole. I know he was a total douche, but i didn't know if he deserved to die.
I feel Bioshock 2 is art - it compelled me to think about who i am and what i would do. I learned that i couldn't kill for revenge when it served no other purpose.

 

[RowdyRodimus]

"One extra bit is that Art should have no other purpose than itself."

Games have the same purpose that other accepted forms of art such as music, movies and books: Entertainment. There is nothing you can do with the data that a game is made of than to be read by a machine and display something on a screen. Just as the letters on a page or notes of a pieces of music are worthless without being collected and displayed in a certain way.

While I may not consider Dr. Dre or Snoop Dogg artists because their choice of medium doesn't have artistic merit in my eyes (or rather ears) doesn't mean they aren't artists, it's just that I don't consider rap a very artistic pursuit. It's the same with people who just pile trash on a pedastal and call it a sculpture. No two people are going to see art the same way.

The bigger question is why do people care if games are considered art?

 

[gl1koz3]

"Art should have no other purpose than itself"

I think it should be "Primary purpose of art is itself." You can take any piece of art and find some other purpose to it... like... you can smash people with sculptures. But it's quite inefficient. A definition too loose to be taken seriously.

For a game to be art, it should somewhat fail in terms of "gameplay". So that "game" moves to background, thus provoking discussion and thought amongst those who enjoy against those who wanted a game, but got something... "something"... in their hands.

Either way, you can always find purpose to art. So that point is invalid.

OT: Mass Effect 1

 

[WakeTheDead1]

games like Flower on ps3, and okami are really good looking, not sure if id use the word art though

 

[manythings]

Well not ANYTHING. Art, in theory anyway, can serve no other purpose than existing. If it fulfills a secondary role then it can't be art. I kind of agree and kind of disagree with this, some of the things created by science and engineers are marvels of the purest artistry.

Name for me, then, something that cannot be considered art. I challenge you.

That's why I added the addendum that I agree and disagree with the idea that art can have no function... also that urinal that one guy put against a wall, that's not fucking art.

It was to him.

Who are you to say what is and isn't art? Because there is no brush it is not art? Because there is no poetic lyrics it is not art? Are you going to tell the native people's of my country that the carvings they did are not art? How about the children in preschool that did finger-paintings today?

I'm kind of curious why you're viewing this as an attack on you...

 

[tGx Angel]

i dont see a big difference. again, question is what do we (you/i) consider art. not what is art.

also, The Path.

im just remembering games and posting them as they come to me, the blurb replies are mostly just for insight and post padding.

- Ang

There's a massive difference, a waterfall isn't art, neither is a flower or a sunset. Something designed for a purpose and to look pretty isn't art, it's aesthetically pleasing design. Art conveys feelings and is made purely for that purpose. By that definition I would say that only one in a thousand games could even theoretically be art since the looks and feelings evoked exist to keep you completing the challenges. They're not a story for a story's sake, mostly they're justification for linear increases in difficulty.

yeah of course, i agree.

lets work on the assumption that art must first be created, and also on the assumption that natural things aren't 'created', but rather, exist. i made the foolish assumption that this discussion pretained to video games as a created entertainment medium.

oh wait...

ninja edit: also while typing that, the ash from my cigarette fell in my lap. i hope youre happy.

- Angy

 

[Something Amyss]

Anything with deliberate presentation or a real story will rank with me. I don't like the MGS series, but they are are.

I mean real story as opposed to simply "Mario must rescue the princess."

 

[TheSorrow1145]

TGC's flOwer seems like as good an example as any. Art is pretty much all the game runs on.

 

[Jaded Scribe]

Heavy Rain (If the player plays it correctly, i.e. Play each character as you would react in that character's place, not looking for the best solution for the game [metagaming]).

It challenges you with the question "How far would you go to save someone you love?" Through it, you are faced with terrible obstacles. The main character is given trials that are pretty sick and twisted he must complete in order to save his son. Other characters are given difficult choices to make.

Action-sequences are incredibly stressful (in a good way). Rather than a static control system (X for punch, [] for kick, etc) buttons/controls will appear on the screen. You have a limited time to complete the action before the opportunity is lost. You may be dodging out of the way, delivering a punch, or stopping a blow. Just as in life, you don't know when and where these openings are going to be, and you have to react on the fly.

When selecting what to say to other characters, your mental state will affect how well you can see the options, causing you to say something you didn't mean to (just as you do in real life).

It draws you in, makes you question your values. I think it readily meets the first definition.

As for the second, it's a completely one-player game. But, given the vast amount of ethical choices in the game, it is interesting to discuss the game with others and examine what they did/thought.

 

[manythings]

I'm kind of curious why you're viewing this as an attack on you...

I'm not.

I'm pointing out for your future reference that you were wrong.

Enjoy the art

Well to say my view is "wrong" is to say that there is a "right" view of art and I'm pretty sure that's up there with proving/disproving the existence of god. I never presented my view as right I only presented my view.

 

[thublihnk]

All of them. Games are an art form, and from Farmville to Shadow of the Colossus each of them have precisely arranged symbols to convey a message or argument to the audience-or player in this case.

Not all games are great art, but that's entirely subjective.

 

[Versago]

i dont see a big difference. again, question is what do we (you/i) consider art. not what is art.

also, The Path.

im just remembering games and posting them as they come to me, the blurb replies are mostly just for insight and post padding.

- Ang

There's a massive difference, a waterfall isn't art, neither is a flower or a sunset. Something designed for a purpose and to look pretty isn't art, it's aesthetically pleasing design. Art conveys feelings and is made purely for that purpose. By that definition I would say that only one in a thousand games could even theoretically be art since the looks and feelings evoked exist to keep you completing the challenges. They're not a story for a story's sake, mostly they're justification for linear increases in difficulty.

"pretty isn't art, it's aesthetically pleasing" - I'm glad SOMEONE gets it.
Although i think art can be pretty and art - the two are very seperate.
Similarly innovation isn't art in itself, Molyneux is the Mondrain of the Gaming world really, as Conceptual for Conseptual's sake is a crap idea for a concept