Support NeoGAF

[DryvBy]

Video games are not art. They never were, never will be, and never should be considered as such. The only reason the topic is so frequently brought up, and why the comparison was even started in the first place, was due to a very costly mistake that the hobby is still paying for to this very day.

That mistake was the use of politics to save the hobby from an outside threat. Confused? Let me start at the beginning:

The same can be said about where we are now in the gaming hobby and why it’s under attack from angry, ultra-progressive mobs demanding certain games be banned, threatening developers until their projects get killed, or writing hit pieces about popular games due to their supposedly “problematic”nature. How is that so, you ask?

Let’s go back to the early 2000’s, when a lawyer by the name of Jack Thompson was on a full scale crusade against violent video games and blamed several acts of violence on the supposedly corrupting influence they had on the minds of the children involved.

To combat Thompson, gaming media changed significantly. As a shut-in nerd that spent all his free time online in various “geek” communities and worked for a gaming webzine at the time, I noticed that a new style of game website began to arise in response to Thompson’s prodding of the industry; websites written by “professionals” who were “highly educated” and “well-versed in law”. Websites where gaming was approached in a serious way with a format geared towards older, supposedly more sophisticated gamers.

Sites like GamePolitics, Gamasutra, and Ars Technica were either created to fight the anti-gaming rhetoric (GamePolitics was created in 2005 specifically for that end), or became popular and well-known for fighting it after years of existing in relative obscurity (Like Gamasutra and Ars Technica).

(few paragraphs later)

It was a subtle little slide, but I couldn’t help but notice it as it took place around 2009 or so, with websites slowly drifting further to that style of games writing, all pushing the same ridiculous notion that gaming wasn’t about the visuals, technical aspects, challenge, or mathematical underpinnings that made them the digital equivalent of chess that they in fact were, but instead deep pieces of art that examined humanity and existed solely to make us think critically about real world issues and concerns.

(and a few more)

It was these websites – staffed and created by these casual “gamers” who cared more about the societal impact of games than whether or not the game was buggy and ran well on low spec hardware – that were now the new gatekeepers of the hobby.

The article goes into a bit more detail of the evolution of gaming from Ultima to Fallout and within a series. Then:

This problem all stems from game developers desperately wanting to make their games “art” instead of a game. A good example is the cinematic focus Bethesda emphasized in Fallout 4.

The insertion of your character’s name in dialog, the voiced protagonist, the limited conversation options, the lack of any real non-linearity or faction play; it was all a side effect of them focusing more on making a playable movie than a true CRPG.

Yet you are told by “fans” that if you don’t like the “new direction” your series is taking, you either aren’t a fan, or you need to just get over it and adapt.

Just don’t buy it if you don’t like it, you are urged. Of course, this thinking is ludicrous, since if we all do this, it emboldens developers to continue attempting it since they would receive no resistance.

So what does this dumbing down of games have to do with the adoption of the “Games are Art” mentality?

Though a large part of the great dumbing down (Or “Great Decline”) was due to gaming suddenly growing very large and profitable in the previous decade and developers smelling fresh money ready to be coerced out of willing pockets, it’s my assertion that none of the mainstream attention that helped gaming surpass movies and music as the number one form of consumed media would have materialized were it not for the response to the Jack Thompson/Government Censorship/Joe Lieberman/Political attacks that we used to defeat them.

Had we not gone running with tears streaming down our eyes to a bunch of university-educated, trust-fund-having, hipster and casual gamers to fight our battle by playing the “Games are art, art is protected by law” narrative, we wouldn’t have attracted the influx of dyed-haired, johnny-come-latelies that now speak as if they are a majority in the hobby.

You wouldn’t see articles calling George Kamitani a sexist, or praising Dead or Alive 6 (pictured above) for removing boob physics, or arguing that Samus has always been transgender.

But this is what happens when you play the “Games are art” card. You attract hipster casuals looking for a megaphone.

Nearly every malady that afflicts modern gaming is a direct result of how easily and with such staggering aplomb we latched onto it as a defense against outward attacks.

Now, coming back to bite us in the rear, are the same people we attracted with that talk who are now demanding we go one step further by making gaming *truly* an artform by removing combat or completely sanitizing all of a game’s content.

This is the future that “Games are art” talk has created. A reality where nearly every geek hobby, from gaming to comics to sci-fi, are all getting filled with loud-mouthed casual “art loving” fans that don’t or can’t financially support the industry.

They hold sway despite not buying said games, due to their powerful gatekeeper position within the media, and are able to magnify their own minority concerns and force them upon the majority who does financially support the hobby.

Source: https://nichegamer.com/2018/08/29/o...thinking-they-are-has-dragged-down-the-hobby/

This article is pretty long and purely an opinion piece, but I enjoyed it because I've never held the idea that "games are art". If they are art, why would anyone on the art side try to ban certain games or tell a director what they should/shouldn't put in their art?

 

[Hayfield]

Sounds like a snowflake crying that all games are not made to suit his taste. The attempt to blame it on politics too is laughable. Gaming grew, so the the types of people who play, leading to a more diverse selection. Fallout 4 chasing this mainstream has nothing to do with art and everything to do with money.

I swear the outrage is coming from the side that claim to hate outrage more so than the so called perpetually offended SJWs (I once thought i was of this side but I can't stand the crybabies anymore).

 

[goldenpp72]

Videogames can be anything the creator aspires them to be.

 

[AlexxKidd]

If this can be considered art, so too can videogames.

 

[DryvBy]

If this can be considered art, so too can videogames.

This made me laugh but the article goes in details as to the problem with calling games art is the people it attracts.

Also, I'll never will understand why people get so offended when you simply say "gaming isn't an art". I'm not offended when someone says it is; I just think it's as dumb as calling the MLB or NFL "art".

 

[Battlechili]

What I'm getting from this is that Nichegamer is now as bad as Kotaku

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Only a Sith deals in absolutes, so while I won't say "games are not art", I definitely think we have overstated their role as art and it has definitely dragged down the hobby. A few consequences of this push, as far as I can see it:

- narrative matters far more, so you have reviewers who are either woefully unqualified to comment on said narrative, or they dwell on it too much. This pulls attention away from things like examining a game's glitches, controls, overall pace, player volition, etc. which is a common oversight in modern reviews.

- emphasizing art emphasizes production value (not always, but often). Gaming budgets have ballooned largely due to licensed music, voice acting, high-fidelity texture assets, etc. Games don't cost $75 million because they spent too much time fine-tuning the controls.

- a focus on narrative conflicts with challenge. When you buy a game, you "deserve" to see the ending of our wonderful story. Can't make it too hard.

- a focus on narrative conflicts with mechanics. Cinematic camera doesn't always jive with gameplay, and of course we need our 10-minute cutscenes because when there's no challenge to overcome, you have to satisfy players somehow. QTEs are in service of "art", not gameplay.

- art and narrative can hinder a game's replayability. Ideally, great art assets should be layered on top of an enjoyable framework of mechanics. But when the point of the game is to play tourist and experience all the various art assets, it guts any notion of replayability and longevity.

- emphasizing audiovisual assets in gaming has been a delight to marketers and PR departments, but we have created a monster of overhyping games during pre-release based on those assets alone.

Lastly -- and most-bigly -- art is not the essence of game design. Mechanics are. The feel of a game will supersede nearly any shortfall of the art assets.

Instead of claiming "games are not art", a more comprehensive statement would be "games are entertainment products, and we have overemphasized the audio-visual aspect of these entertainment products at the dire cost of their fun-value and their excellence of mechanical design". I'm all for artsy games. They have a place. But we should be celebrating what makes videogames a unique form of art (the intersection of art-assets with mechanical control). Copying Hollywood has taken us in the wrong direction.

 

[iconmaster]

Well, maybe. Given modern trends, categorizing games as art should render them less susceptible to criticism -- social, political or otherwise. Take the Duchamp example above. You can't criticize it. It's art.

If every game was put out by an individual auteur, this might even hold. Most games are produced by large teams with massive commercial backing, however; and people are happy to criticize anything and everything commercial or corporate.

It's really insofar as we recognize games aren't "art" (even if we claim they are!) that we make these debates possible.

Copying Hollywood has taken us in the wrong direction.

This I certainly agree with. Pursuing linear cinematic narrative is a disservice to the unique qualities of the medium.

 

[NahaNago]

I kinda feel like calling video games art is a bit limiting for games. I tend to think of games as the canvas , gamers as the artist , and the controller as the paint brush simply because you make so many choices when playing a game unlike regular art where you only choice is to see, hear, or taste it.

 

[DryvBy]

I kinda feel like calling video games art is a bit limiting for games. I tend to think of games as the canvas , gamers as the artist , and the controller as the paint brush simply because you make so many choices when playing a game unlike regular art where you only choice is to see, hear, or taste it.

This is how I feel too. I create the art because I'm controlling it.

 

[LukeSkywater]

Anyone who says games are not art, clearly hasn't played Deadliest Catch: Alaskan Storm on the 360.

 

[AV]

"I get to decide what art objectively is, also all games are the same thing"

Nah, sorry, not how it works on any level. It's entirely subjective and arguing otherwise is futile. Not to mention it's really fucking short-sighted and arrogant to dismiss the work of writers, graphical and sound artists, concept artists etc.

 

[AV]

Double post, please nuke.

 

[MP!]

starts out Great kind of fizzles. Good read though.

All of his points in the beginning are spot on... though I'm not sure games have been dumbed down because of "games are art" ... games were dumbed down because they need to appeal to a broader audience more so then ever before.

He's absolutely spot on about the gatekeepers and the affect of journalism and well... i'd say the internet in general and how that relates to games and how they are developed now. Theres a problem when "demands must be met" form a vocal crowd ... I don't think creators have the freedom they once had and that limits the result... add to that the complexities of publishers and the demands they make ... the games we get now are less a vision of a director and his developers... and more a hobbled together "gotta please everyone" group of demands coming from fans, critics, publishers, and screamers.

Back when no one cared what was in a game, developers were free to make ... games... however they wanted.

 

[Fbh]

Eh, I personally like modern games more than most older stuff so whatever change they made, I'm fine with it.
Devs should be free to make the games they want, if they feel like the major focus they want to give it is it's message and story then let them. The market will decide if there's an audience for it.

Meanwhile in this dystopian future where everything is apparently aimed at hipsters I'm really hyped for stuff like RDR2, DMC5, Bayonetta 3, Cyberpunk and Sekiro. I'm playing through Hollow Knight and still have stuff like Monster Hunter World and Original Sin 2 in my backlog.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Honestly, both extremes of the current gaming argument are annoying.

On one side you have the SJW getting offended about everything and demanding all games to align with their view.
Then you have the other end of the spectrum like Niche gamer which claim that they think it should all be about the gameplay and mechanics..... but instead of making real journalistic pieces about those things 90% of what they do is bitch and moan about SJW's.

It's the same whiny clickbait crap but for different audiences.
Say what you want about Kotaku, at least on rare instances they have Interesting Artilces. What has Niche gamer publishes aside from "OMG these SJW's are so bad!!!"?

 

[Ordinaryundone]

Games absolutely are/can be art. The problem is that people's current definition of art is way too narrow. The gaming industry has spent way too much time and effort chasing cinema as its leading influence, but the problem is that games aren't movies. The very nature of an interactive medium sets them apart from a passive one on a fundamental level. And I feel that the constant pursuit of the "cinematic experience" is incredibly limiting to the potential of gaming as a whole. Not to say there isn't a place for games like Uncharted but the real artistry of those games are the environments, the detail of the animations, and most importantly how they merge and work with gameplay to make the world both immersive AND interesting to live in and explore. Not in their writing or cinematography, which usually at the very best passable. And on the flip side a lot of the actual art of making films is lost in video games. We should be focusing on iterating and improving on techniques that focus on the interactive elements of gaming, not its passive ones, because that is where its unique art lies. Not everyone is going to get it, and that's fine. Not everyone gets poetry either. Or interpretive dance. Or jazz. But you can still tell the good stuff from the derivative.

 

[jshackles]

One of the most prevalent positions in the gaming industry is that of digital artist though, and I feel like saying "Videogames aren't art" kinda undermines what those individuals do.

 

[klosos]

Good read i enjoyed it , One thing i will stress is that Games have something that no other medium has that's interactivity and i enjoy it for that , it one of the reason just walking around a house in a game just to be told your'e a lesbian at the end doesn't entertain me , i can play La Noire and get a completely different type enjoyment outta that then i do outta the witcher 3. Gaming is so big these days there is somthing for everyone.

Also games as ART , i couldn't care less if they are or are not it changes nothing to the way i perceive them.

also a great game is a great game whenever it was made, great games stand the test of time and all ways will , mediocre games will be forgot

 

[Battlechili]

Okay now that I've taken the time to read this some:

the visuals, technical aspects, challenge, or mathematical underpinnings

These are all partially what make games art. You might say the shift of referring to games as deep critical thinking pieces was a mistake, (and it indeed it can be, if only because that's not all games are or can be or even have to be), but that doesn't mean these other aspects you referred to aren't artistic in their own right.

whether or not the game was buggy and ran well on low spec hardware

This is setting a rather low bar isn't it? I haven't run into too many bugs nor have I had problems running Tokyo Xanadu but that doesn't mean I haven't had an enjoyable time playing it whilst having opinions on how it could be a better game.

This problem all stems from game developers desperately wanting to make their games “art” instead of a game.

Making a game for the sake of making art could be considered a mistake, but this is still a fundamental misunderstanding of video games themselves. When you make a game, you are creating art. There is creativity and time and thought and effort and theory put into making something like Mega Man 2 a fun game. It may not be cinematic or have a deep or compelling story but there was artistic creativity put into creating and making sure Mega Man was a fun and compelling game.

Just don’t buy it if you don’t like it, you are urged. Of course, this thinking is ludicrous, since if we all do this, it emboldens developers to continue attempting it since they would receive no resistance.

If enough people don't buy something, that tells developers people don't want it and generally developers aren't going to spend a large sum of money on something that won't sell.

Had we not gone running with tears streaming down our eyes to a bunch of university-educated, trust-fund-having, hipster and casual gamers to fight our battle by playing the “Games are art, art is protected by law” narrative, we wouldn’t have attracted the influx of dyed-haired, johnny-come-latelies that now speak as if they are a majority in the hobby.

This made me laugh but the article goes in details as to the problem with calling games art is the people it attracts.

Saying gaming isn't art and that gaming is now bad because of the people involved in it is as bad as having an opinion about a game because of the fans. No, Undertale is not a bad game because of its rabid fanbase. Nor is Sonic. To form an opinion about something based on the people who consume it is poor form. It says nothing about the games themselves or the games developed.

 

[Battlechili]

Also I'd just like to add that efforts to censor games and change a game developer's vision of a game is partially detrimental to "games as art" argument. The people who would want games to be censored are working against art because, if games are considered art, then that means that to censor a game is to censor art and thus damper and compromise a creator's vision. So it doesn't make much sense to me to criticize calling games as art based on people working to censor them.

I feel like Nichegamer completely misunderstood what it means for games to be considered art, why games are considered art, and what makes games fun.

 

[jshackles]

I would challenge anyone that defiantly declares "Games are not art" to play this game and see if that stance changes by the end of it

https://www.ubisoft.com/en-us/game/valiant-hearts

 

[ruvikx]

Instead of claiming "games are not art", a more comprehensive statement would be "games are entertainment products, and we have overemphasized the audio-visual aspect of these entertainment products at the dire cost of their fun-value and their excellence of mechanical design". I'm all for artsy games. They have a place. But we should be celebrating what makes videogames a unique form of art (the intersection of art-assets with mechanical control). Copying Hollywood has taken us in the wrong direction.

Good post. There's a lot to say on the topic, but one of the very first issues with the push towards games emulating (pun unintended) Hollywood & its cinematic style is just how quickly (& pathetically) games with shallow mechanics & a focus on cutscenes & narrative age very badly. One small glance at the 'cinematic' moments in popular games over the past tens years & we see cutscenes blighted with tech issues (stiff animation, dead eyes, bad lip sync etc. which get worse as we go further back in time) which destroy its replayability on the basis of its narrative alone.

Movies can be rewatched/watched (even by newcomers) many decades later, whereas a video game? Someone might pick it up for nostalgia reasons (or because they enjoy the gameplay), but the narrative/cutscene combo usually are laughably bad in terms of tech within a few years. Even the much praised Last of Us has aged by today's standards & it's just not something which happens in such an accelerated state in movies (2013 for a movie is like 5 minutes ago in terms of digital graphics & the tech used).

That's one of the (many) reasons why cinematics feelz in gaming must never supersede gameplay, IMO.

 

[LukeSkywater]

I would challenge anyone that defiantly declares "Games are not art" to play this game and see if that stance changes by the end of it

https://www.ubisoft.com/en-us/game/valiant-hearts

That's not a link to BMX XXX

 

[SLoWMoTIoN]

Remember its the editors opinion not everybody that posts there.


With that being said he is wrong.

CAUSE ART IS SUBJECTIVE

 

[DryvBy]

Also I'd just like to add that efforts to censor games and change a game developer's vision of a game is partially detrimental to "games as art" argument. The people who would want games to be censored are working against art because, if games are considered art, then that means that to censor a game is to censor art and thus damper and compromise a creator's vision.

I feel like Nichegamer completely misunderstood what it means for games to be considered art, why games are considered art, and what makes games fun.

My take on the "games are art" argument and why I argue against it is not that they aren't in some way or another "art" (as I agreed with someone earlier, I'm the artist though, they just gave me the brush). It's that it attracts really bad people, sterotypical hipsters, that don't even like gaming. I thought that was the best part of the article.

Either way, this article—and the argument for/against—is all opinion based.

 

[jshackles]

That's not a link to BMX XXX

 

[CatCouch]

Good post. There's a lot to say on the topic, but one of the very first issues with the push towards games emulating (pun unintended) Hollywood & its cinematic style is just how quickly (& pathetically) games with shallow mechanics & a focus on cutscenes & narrative age very badly. One small glance at the 'cinematic' moments in popular games over the past tens years & we see cutscenes blighted with tech issues (stiff animation, dead eyes, bad lip sync etc. which get worse as we go further back in time) which destroy its replayability on the basis of its narrative alone.

Movies can be rewatched/watched (even by newcomers) many decades later, whereas a video game? Someone might pick it up for nostalgia reasons (or because they enjoy the gameplay), but the narrative/cutscene combo usually are laughably bad in terms of tech within a few years. Even the much praised Last of Us has aged by today's standards & it's just not something which happens in such an accelerated state in movies (2013 for a movie is like 5 minutes ago in terms of digital graphics & the tech used).

That's one of the (many) reasons why cinematics feelz in gaming must never supersede gameplay, IMO.

That's a good point. Great gameplay can age well but technology ages fast. Cinematic games don't hold up as well, I find.

It reminds me of this tweet I had fun reading recently:



It seems game journalism has always had this idea that presentation supersedes gameplay and sometimes it lead to laughable things like this in hindsight.

 

[autoduelist]

This made me laugh but the article goes in details as to the problem with calling games art is the people it attracts.

Also, I'll never will understand why people get so offended when you simply say "gaming isn't an art". I'm not offended when someone says it is; I just think it's as dumb as calling the MLB or NFL "art".

I'm not sure I get you. The MLB or NFL are a set of people playing a game by a specific set of rules. You say "gaming", so perhaps that's what you mean... but I can't ever remember seeing someone say gaming is an art, the argument is usually that games are an art.

When people discuss games as art, they aren't talking generally talking about the players, they're talking about the developers vision. Games often bridge the gap between interactivity and books and or film. Clearly artistic creativity is involved.

If you're saying baseball as a concept isn't art, I would again disagree with you. It might be a bit simplistic of an example, but game design is art. It's far easier to see in modern gaming, where stories are prevalent. When you reduce it to its core rule set, like something like baseball, becomes harder to see and easier to debate. But once you add all of the modern niceties, and end up with something like rocket League, the art side becomes more evident.

That said, it becomes difficult even with just gaming. While I agree in general athletes performing are not artists, it is arguable that extremely high level players create art with their movement. That is, your average MLB players not an artist, but footage of particularly beautiful plays in a game have all the skilled ad hoc choreography of something like a ballet. That is, it's art after the fact.

 

[GermanZepp]

the wiki says: Art is a diverse range of human activities in creating visual, auditory or performing artifacts (artworks), expressing the author's imaginative, conceptual idea, or technical skill, intended to be appreciated for their beauty or emotional power.[1][2]

yeah, prety much anything we can sense could be art. Subjetive topic as fuck EDIT: Can something that is NOT art, include art whitin ? Cause games have music, graphics and audio desing, acting, writing, etc. is like all arts diciplines combined.

 

[LukeSkywater]

Can something that is NOT art, include art whitin ? .

Star Wars: The Last Jedi

 

[PSlayer]

I don't agree with the idea that games are not art but i do agree that this push for "evolve the medium as an art form" that i first started to see around 2011 is doing more harm than good.

 

[Cunth]

I think games are art, but what they have to do with politics I have no idea

 

[Danjin44]

People are free to disagree with me but Video Games are definitely can be considered as art. It collaboration of different artist coming together to create a project.

 

[DryvBy]

I'm not sure I get you. The MLB or NFL are a set of people playing a game by a specific set of rules. You say "gaming", so perhaps that's what you mean... but I can't ever remember seeing someone say gaming is an art, the argument is usually that games are an art.

When people discuss games as art, they aren't talking generally talking about the players, they're talking about the developers vision. Games often bridge the gap between interactivity and books and or film. Clearly artistic creativity is involved.

If you're saying baseball as a concept isn't art, I would again disagree with you. It might be a bit simplistic of an example, but game design is art. It's far easier to see in modern gaming, where stories are prevalent. When you reduce it to its core rule set, like something like baseball, becomes harder to see and easier to debate. But once you add all of the modern niceties, and end up with something like rocket League, the art side becomes more evident.

That said, it becomes difficult even with just gaming. While I agree in general athletes performing are not artists, it is arguable that extremely high level players create art with their movement. That is, your average MLB players not an artist, but footage of particularly beautiful plays in a game have all the skilled ad hoc choreography of something like a ballet. That is, it's art after the fact.

Everything that has skill can be defined as art, but people don't always see everything as art. I brought up the MLB/NFL as an example of something that could be considered art but no one calls it art: it's a sport.

It's like this with movies too. There's a genre in film called "art". If all movies are art, why have the genre at all? Just call it a movie. They don't do that because a movie goer is just there for the show, the story and whatnot. When they see what is called an art film, most people don't like it. I hope that makes a bit more sense.

Art has a stigma behind it that everyone in it is very pretentious and a lot of the "art lovers" are just hipsters that like something to boost their own depressing ego about themselves. I'm not saying this is fact, but perception is sometimes the reality.

Going back to gaming, people like myself don't want to to be art because then the art crowd, the vastly more self-proclaimed intelligent and enlightened people, they show up and crap on everything until they turn it into what they want. They want all cinematic, less gameplay, more walking and exploring. Walking simulators are absolutely art to me and I don't like them. Gaming for some is just like playing with virtual toys. Would you consider GI Joes or Barbie art even with the definition of art, or just consider them toys?

 

[iconmaster]

There's a long tradition of the philosophy of art dealing with what art is. If we have to solve that here, we might as well lock the thread now.

 

[DarthBuzzer]

Video games are objectively art. Anyone who argues this is simply trying to start an argument.

 

[Ascend]

I'm going to admit I didn't read the whole thing, because I'm at work... But let's break it down to simple terms...

Are movies art?
Is music art?
Are paintings art?

If you agree all three of those are art, how are games not art?

Rendering of games basically uses math and coding to draw digital paintings.
Those paintings are put in sequence to form a movie.
Music is used to enforce the above experience.

More importantly, all those three are directly influenced by and dependent on user input, making it actually the most advanced art form that we have.

Sorry but, anyone who doesn't think video games are art simply didn't think it through.

 

[off duty ninja]

Everything that has skill can be defined as art, but people don't always see everything as art. I brought up the MLB/NFL as an example of something that could be considered art but no one calls it art: it's a sport.

It's like this with movies too. There's a genre in film called "art". If all movies are art, why have the genre at all? Just call it a movie. They don't do that because a movie goer is just there for the show, the story and whatnot. When they see what is called an art film, most people don't like it. I hope that makes a bit more sense.

Art has a stigma behind it that everyone in it is very pretentious and a lot of the "art lovers" are just hipsters that like something to boost their own depressing ego about themselves. I'm not saying this is fact, but perception is sometimes the reality.

Going back to gaming, people like myself don't want to to be art because then the art crowd, the vastly more self-proclaimed intelligent and enlightened people, they show up and crap on everything until they turn it into what they want. They want all cinematic, less gameplay, more walking and exploring. Walking simulators are absolutely art to me and I don't like them. Gaming for some is just like playing with virtual toys. Would you consider GI Joes or Barbie art even with the definition of art, or just consider them toys?

I am sorry that you're so turned off by "Art Culture" that you don't want to think of something you love as "Art" but at the end of the day creating a game is a form of art. It is a creation born from one or more person's mind and brought to fruition through their creation. I agree that "Art Culture" can be pretentious but that doesn't mean we just redefine art to eliminate it.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

There's a long tradition of the philosophy of art dealing with what art is. If we have to solve that here, we might as well lock the thread now.

Cowaaaard!

*John Ruskin shaking his fist in the air*

 

[Domisto]

The article is using a ridiculous narrow minded premise to kneejerk in the current cultural war. A game can be whatever it's creator wants. Exactly the same as films. Is Barely Legal 48 art? I guess films aren't art either, never will be. Shall we do books next?

 

[Redshirt]

As this article highlights, the biggest problem with the art/not-art discussion is that it's so politically motivated.

Also, this is the third "Niche Gamer" article I've read because people keep posting them.

The nicest thing I can say about them is that they play to a specific crowd and aren't particularly persuasive.

 

[iconmaster]

Also, this is the third "Niche Gamer" article I've read because people keep posting them.

Yes, a bit weakly-argued for an opinion piece IMO.

To combat Thompson, gaming media changed significantly.

That could well be true, but it's a big claim that requires some citations. Pointing to GamePolitics.com -- a site I'd never heard of -- doesn't cut it.

The points are all over the place too. What does Mass Effect 3's ending have to do with the game being art or not? Is the ending we got the "artsy" ending? How would a less artsy ending have been different? Should it not have had an ending? I'm very unclear on how some of the sidetracks support the thesis. (Boob physics, what?)

 

[gioGAF]

At first I thought the article was going to be some inane rant that dismissed gaming, but I must say that after reading the entire article, not only do I agree with the author, but I think I will check that site out on a more regular basis.

The following quote is very telling (speaking about all the political actors who have invaded the medium):
"They hold sway despite not buying said games, due to their powerful gatekeeper position within the media, and are able to magnify their own minority concerns and force them upon the majority who does financially support the hobby."

THIS is what happened in comic books, and why I completely dumped that medium (I only really pick up classic stuff that I might have originally missed or want to read again, currently re-reading some Walt Simonson Thor).

These clowns are the gatekeepers, they are the ones that bitch about their agendas not being properly represented in gaming. They are responsible for shit like Kingdom Come: Deliverance getting shit for non-inclusivity and for Fallout 4 being a hollow corpse. Even Dragon Quest gets shit.

Luckily for me, I can still find developers who make good games, who stick to their vision. Unfortunately, most of them seem to be from countries outside of the US (especially Japan, please don't change Japan).

 

[RubxQub]

I mean, Streets of Rage 4 features 2 white people, they removed the black character, and seems to have no problem exploiting the sexy woman protagonist.

The industry of gaming itself is getting more diverse...we have more art-style games and more traditional games, games that go against the grain of modern shock culture and go with it. We've got it all.

 

[DryvBy]

As this article highlights, the biggest problem with the art/not-art discussion is that it's so politically motivated.

Also, this is the third "Niche Gamer" article I've read because people keep posting them.

The nicest thing I can say about them is that they play to a specific crowd and aren't particularly persuasive.

I posted two of them because I read Niche Gamer. It's a game website with articles and reviews. Is there a problem posting them rather than the IGN or GameSpot?

 

[Redshirt]

I posted two of them because I read Niche Gamer. It's a game website with articles and reviews. Is there a problem posting them rather than the IGN or GameSpot?

Nah. Post what you like. Just making an observation about a site I'd never heard of.

 

[goldenpp72]

This made me laugh but the article goes in details as to the problem with calling games art is the people it attracts.

Also, I'll never will understand why people get so offended when you simply say "gaming isn't an art". I'm not offended when someone says it is; I just think it's as dumb as calling the MLB or NFL "art".

Sports are a fixed set of strict rules which is the total opposite of artistic license. Games are uniquely crafted each time based on the imagination of its creator(s). Sound familiar? I'm not a fan of artsy games usually but you really can't deny there is a difference between ICO and Pac-man. Games can be purely gameplay driven, story driven, artistically driven or a mixture of those elements. It's what makes the medium unique.

 

[brian0057]

When puerile trash like The Last of Us is considered "the Citizen Kane of gaming" you know this whole "Games are art" pablum has gone overboard.

If anything ever made by humans is considered art just because it produces "an emotional response", then, what isn't art?

Is Pong art? Is Tennis art? They both are played following roughly the same rules. What makes one art and not the other?

You can have the most beautiful art style ever devised, a score that would make John Williams blush with envy, or a story worthy of the genius of Hemingway. But if your game is boring AF to play then how "artistic" your game is, is irrelevant.

Is the game fun to play from a purely mechanical standpoint? Awesome. Those previously mentioned attributes are a plus to an already amazing gameplay. Otherwise, I don't care for your "sublime artistic endeavor".

 

[30yearsofhurt]

Sounds like a snowflake crying that all games are not made to suit his taste. The attempt to blame it on politics too is laughable. Gaming grew, so the the types of people who play, leading to a more diverse selection. Fallout 4 chasing this mainstream has nothing to do with art and everything to do with money.

I swear the outrage is coming from the side that claim to hate outrage more so than the so called perpetually offended SJWs (I once thought i was of this side but I can't stand the crybabies anymore).

Pretty much.
Ask yourself this: Would anyone say movies are not art?
Some aren't but many are and movies have more format constraints than video games.

 

[TheGreatYosh]

If this can be considered art, so too can videogames.

That is definitely not art. That is post modernist trash.