Which games do you consider 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

 

[thublihnk]

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...

- Angy

Ha ha ha, very good. Sarcasm is a bad way to make a point, it allows you to double back to your original standpoint without considering the other one.

Now let's try again. Would you consider a beautifully curved car to be art? Those curves are there for aerodynamic purposes and secondly to look appealing so that you buy the car.

Why is a game pretty? Why does a game make you feel things? To sell. Games are made with no other purpose than to sell, they're not art because everything that's put in there is decided on with that end goal in mind.

No. That makes them commercial art, which all art is unless done in a complete vacuum. Let's face it, (and this is coming from a painfully self-aware artist) all art is made out of a want for something, be it attention, money, approval or some more specific thing that the artist desires, that doesn't take its expressive merit away. At all. Ever.

 

[RowdyRodimus]

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

You and I both know why.

My theory is it's either they really need the approval of the elite or they need to feed their indie hipster egos and don't want to go out and buy more ironic retro t-shirts and beanie caps.

 

[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.

Person one [pointing to a red apple]: I think the apple is green.

Person two: You're wrong.

That's how it works.

You're wrong

We don't have the same eyes, your green isn't necessrily mine. Hell my red could be your C sharp.

 

[tGx Angel]

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...

- Angy

Ha ha ha, very good. Sarcasm is a bad way to make a point, it allows you to double back to your original standpoint without considering the other one.

Now let's try again. Would you consider a beautifully curved car to be art? Those curves are there for aerodynamic purposes and secondly to look appealing so that you buy the car.

Why is a game pretty? Why does a game make you feel things? To sell. Games are made with no other purpose than to sell, they're not art because everything that's put in there is decided on with that end goal in mind.

you are a worthy adversary indeed.

this essentially brings us to the divide between triple a game developers and big publishers vs. independant games and developers.

why is Modern Warfare 2 so pretty? because if it weren't, it wouldn't sell as well.

why is The Path so pretty? because the art direction drives the entire narritive.

which one of these games is more artful? well i'd say The Path, but does that mean that something that is artful for the sake of selling games ceases to be art just because of the intention? i don't think so. i'll convey my point in another way that may make more sense.

true story: i work as a graphic designer for a large advertising firm where i live, clients approach the firm with projects and the firm hands it off to me, i am given the parameters with which to work in and i design ads, web pages, flyers, etc based on those perameters. once i've finished, i send it to the firm, who sends it to the client and we repeat until the client is happy with the final product. by your logic, what i produce for these companies isn't art because it is made with the intention of selling a product, i design with certain colors, fonts and themes which provoke certain emotions and responses favorable to whatever the design is going to sell.

am i an artist? ask yourself that.

- Ang

 

[Athinira]

Metal Gear Solid:
Because it takes storytelling to a whole new level. Sure, not everyone likes the way it does it, but that doesn't exclude it from being art (most people don't give a crap about Mona Lisa either, but that still doesn't mean the painting isn't art).

Baldur's Gate series:
For beautiful 2D graphics that has aged nicely and still look amazing by 2010 standards, for an amazing world with so much atmosphere and lovely/involving characters.