Support NeoGAF

[Kintaro]

The more gamers flail around looking for validation for their hobby, the more I'll agree with him. Also, timetokill, that was a very good post.

 

[smurfx]

having read this thread i'll just say that i agree with blame space 100%. plus his avatar is truly a work of art. can't get enough of it.

 

[blame space]

TF2 as a whole is art. Half-Life 2 is art, too, but for a totally different reason.


You're dissecting the example, which is just distracting from my point, but I get the feeling that yeah, it would matter. Would the Creation of Adam have as much impact on the public consciousness if it weren't God, but some old guy?

it is "just an old guy". regardless of the artist's intent, it's a controlled painting that was created, viewed, and interpretted by non-participatory objectors.

 

[linsivvi]

I wonder what Ebert would say about Heavy Rain.

Never played it but since it's more like a movie than a game, wonder what he'll think about it?

Heavy Rain's writing and plot makes Uwe Boll movies look like Oscar material. What do you think he would say about it?

Only people who never persuade any serious form of arts would rave about Heavy Rain in videogame forums.

Not that I agree with Ebert narrow-minded point of view, it's just that Heavy Rain is not helping against his case, but reinforcing it.

 

[jdogmoney]

They didn't have to do anything for the sake of the game, but by creating an engaging cast of characters to use, the game becomes more enjoyable to play, for a number of reasons. Besides gameplay (character classes are easily identifiable at a distance), amusing quotes and taunts provide small rewards for playing, and character personalities allow the multiplayer match to develop a small sort of narrative that can be related easily to others when play is over.

In most cases, narrative and design choices exist for the sake of entertaining the player, and increasing their attachment to the game. Rarely do they create much "Art" (at least as it exists in this conversation). There's nothing inherently wrong with that, as video games are still games. But to continue your Sistene Chapel example, it isn't the existence of the biblical backstory that makes that painted ceiling into respected art.

What is, then? The fact that the figures are recognizably human...looking? The hidden stuff, like how the background shape God flies in on is totally a brain? Or is it the overall composition of figures?

It's a combination of the above, just like how TF2 is art by merit of how well each aspect of its design works.

The characters are memorable. The game design is phenomenal. The community support is incredible. The levels are clearly designed, but with a definite style to them. The balance of these elements, and all of the elements that make up the intricacies of what I've listed here, that makes art.

Spoiler

Haha, I'm using TF2 as my example for games as art. My go-to would be Majora's Mask, but until someone asks, I'll not completely win the debate for all time.

 

[BocoDragon]

And then prose was considered worthless as poetry became the dominant artform. Not to mention many of the "greats" were not considered such during their time. The value of an artform or artist is entirely subjective, and usually filtered through whatever the cultural elites happen to value at that time.

It makes me wonder if this whole concept of "high art"/"low art"/"not art" is something that elite critics tend to promote because it makes their opinions seem Objectively Valid.

Ah it all seems clear to me now.. that's exactly what it is!

"I don't just like this human work... it's actual High Art!" It has some sort of secret aura about it which, if you cannot perceive it, then you are simply not refined enough to discern!

It's bullshit. Some people like certain works, some people don't like certain works. Call it what you want... but they're just made up definitions. Thinking you can label a work with some sort of name that gives it a secret power reminds me of the work of priests.

It's all art as long as it serves some emotional, rather than functional, human need.

 

[Jtrizzy]

I'm guessing that it bothers him that the game industry is becoming more and more relevant. Maybe this is a simplistic view, but if a product is largely comprised of art, drawn by artists, I'd say it's art.

You'd think stuff like Shattered Memories or Heavy Rain would at least be interesting to him.

 

[jdogmoney]

BocoDragon, I'm tempted to post the relevant Calvin & Hobbes strip...

 

[DisenLedZep]

Wait, let's start with this, shall we...?

Does this... Ebert guy, ever played the games she mentioned: Waco Resurrection, Braid and Flower? Cause the article showed pretty much that he didn't, so... What's the point dude? I mean talking about a thing you don't know about.

Anywho, this guy must be Icycalm's dad...

 

[BocoDragon]

BocoDragon, I'm tempted to post the relevant Calvin & Hobbes strip...

Please..

 

[Sixfortyfive]

The more gamers flail around looking for validation for their hobby, the more I'll agree with him.

Pretty much this.

 

[trk_rkd]

I agree with him that currently games aren't art, maybe someday though.

I'm inclined to agree with this (i said as much in the peacewalker thread). I also agree that the artistic merits of braid and flower are both massively overrated by gamers (flower was fucking fun and original but it was aesthetically pretty junevile... and braid was straight up
pretentious). the thing that pisses me off about ebert's statement is that is so unqualified and the reasons are patently ridiculous. Art can't be created by a team of people? this is an absurd statement, and trying to justify it by alluding do architects and choreographers as being uniquely decisive to the creation of other collective artistic undertakings is just dumb: on one hand, games have directors, and on the other hand, is a film director solely responsible for the artistic merits of his film? last time i endured a televised oscars ceremony it seemed like they were handing out awards for a bunch of different categories.

Then the claim that games can't be art because (if) they're objective driven: as others have pointed out, this is a very, very strange reason to disqualify something from having artistic content - I honestly can't see any obvious connection here. For a film critic to object to linearity just doesn't make sense given the nature of the cinema experience; similarly for him to say that videogames don't give you an opportunity to observe and contemplate the work at their own pace spectacularly misses the point that for a lot of gamers the ability to pace the experience for themselves is a huge part of the appeal (in rpgs and open world games especially). Is this what he objects to then? The fact the pace *isn't* defined in videogames? So is there an appropriate period of time it takes to view a painting? And aren't narrative arcs typically based on plot or character objectives of some kind? And then for him to turn around and say that games that eschew objective driven gameplay or character death are "akin to playing chess and taking moves back" just seems bizarre. What they're doing is completely removing the idea of challenge from (or at least death, or defined objectives, as a source of challenge). it's not chess-with-taking-the-moves-back; it's painting on a new kind of canvas & allowing others to participate in art - in the creation of it, even - in a way previously unavailable to other kinds of mediums.

once again, i'm still not convinced that there have been too many games to warrant the mantle of art. but to say it's cateogrically impossble - particularly for the ridiculous reasons ebert gives - is just arrogant and stupid.

(also: would ebert deny chess has artistic content? kasparov has described chess as an art, and i'd be inclined to regard kasparov as a vastly more intelligent man than ebert - not because he is (or at least was) the world's greatest chess player, but because he's a dissident and a genuine intellectual. i don't know what kasparov would say about videogames, but i think he'd take issue with the idea that something "objective based" couldn't be art)

People interested in a more intelligent (but in many ways no less sceptical) piece on videogames as art should look up john lanchester's piece on videogames in the london review of books (it's on their website: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n01/john-lanchester/is-it-art

 

[jdogmoney]

Please..

 

[BocoDragon]

Pretty much this.

Again.. I don't see many people needing to pump up or validate games.

Quite the contrary, I see many people content to leave games as low brow amusements. I think most of them are pretty low brow myself.

It's just that when there is this concept called "Art", which seemingly applies to films.. it's quite difficult for many of us to see how it wouldn't apply to games as well. It seems logically incongruous.

Pretty much :lol

 

[Tain]

Man. I love the shit out of the last three paragraphs he wrote. He knows games better than most internet game forum warriors.

I'm not concerned with the art/not art bullshit at all, though. That's such an obvious waste of time.

 

[Quadrangulum]

I agree with Ebert. Calling any game made to date "art" (including the holy cows that are routinely upheld around these parts) reeks of insecurity.

 

[BocoDragon]

I'm not concerned with the art/not art bullshit at all, though. That's such an obvious waste of time.

I kind of agree. They're just definitions, invented words, with subjective meanings.. Fighting over it is not necessary. And yet I can't help myself. :lol

 

[sonicmj1]

The reason I make this distinction is because I think the argument about games as art needs to be specific to what makes a game a game.

Indeed, if Braid or Flower are going to be the games we put forward and say, "Look at these, they are Art," then I would agree with Ebert in that they are pathetic. Furthermore, I would say they even damage the cause of expressing things in a way that only interactive mediums can. I feel on this case Ebert's reaction is apt... Braid's story IS "on the level of a wordy fortune cookie."

Maybe with Flower I can make my point clearer: one might argue that the visuals are Art (though I would disagree). One might argue the music is Art (I would actually agree here, I find Diamante's compositions are extremely expressive and evocative). But is the game itself, the way that you manipulate or trigger those individual pieces art in of itself? Absolutely not. On a game level Flower is mundane and says little of interest.

If we want to argue that games are Art, I would more readily accept that a game such as Shadow of the Colossus has merit, or Legend of Zelda. Super Mario Bros. would fit the bill. Perhaps Shattered Memories. Why? Because the gameplay says something, because the act of playing the game is crucial to the experience. It evokes a response that you cannot get unless you play the game yourself.

In the end, I would agree that even if games are Art, we don't have our Great Art. We have our Great Games, though. Santiago mentions that the works of art of the gaming world "are being rewarded by audiences by high sales figures." Then perhaps it would be best to look at the most successful artists, people such as Miyamoto, who quickly say that games are not art (much to the chagrin of many, I'm sure). There is of course a huge discussion to be had regarding "art" and whether a product can be art, as games undoubtedly are in most cases.

By the way, Ebert nails the whole point of this discussion when he asks: "Do they require validation?" The answer is without a doubt "yes."

I agree with this post, and this point especially.

That's part of why I was a little annoyed in my post above with the way Ebert dismisses the possibility of aspects of Braid's gameplay being capable of conveying ideas. This was almost certainly the fault of the presentation (and after watching that segment, I am a little more forgiving of Ebert's critique), but if he dismisses Braid's gameplay, then there's no way he can be convinced that the game has artistic value. The impact of the game's message has little to do with the "fortune cookie" writing in the books before each level.

I think about why Braid seemed emotionally powerful to me after I completed it, and I realize that even if I could explain it, the best response I could hope for would be, "That might be interesting, but it's trite." If there is power to the message in Braid (or Shadow of the Colossus, or any other game), it can only be properly understood through the experience of play.

 

[Jtrizzy]

I think game stories and the writing is consistently terrible in video games. But the idea that games aren't an art form is silly. ARTISTS, writers, and animators are integral parts of any game...Hello? Maybe it's not good art in comparison to The Godfather or even to some mediocre painting, but it's still art.

 

[wolfmat]

His thing is that games, with the inherent win-lose-concept, are already doomed because of that. All you're seeing and experiencing are isolated pieces of art, but the game as a whole is anything but that in each and every case.

He is of course right. It's really not hard to agree with that if you think about it. Our games, as intricate as they may be, form a set of rules that determine a win-lose outcome under the circumstances of some actions. It's really just a simplistic machinery that expresses nothing through its rules and outcomes.

Sure, you have a story retrofitted over it, dialogue and sweet textures, nice piano jazz in the background, all that. Pieces of art, yes. Doesn't make the ruleset, the player's action per se, the game, art.

You can LABEL it art though. It's not really like anyone gives a shit who's got half a brain.

Edit: Note that I say that after bloating about "Games as art" a year or so ago. The difference of course is that I got the other half of my brain back.
Back then, I cited the very immersive and thought-provoking experience of walking through Fallout 3's wasteland to get somewhere.
Point being that now, I can clearly see the difference between the experience and the ruleset. The game isn't the experience, the game is the ruleset.

 

[jdogmoney]

I agree with Ebert. Calling any game made to date "art" (including the holy cows that are routinely upheld around these parts) reeks of insecurity.

And what, to you, makes something worthy of the "art" label?

EDIT:

His thing is that games, with the inherent win-lose-concept, are already doomed because of that. All you're seeing and experiencing are isolated pieces of art, but the game as a whole is anything but that in each and every case.

He is of course right. It's really not hard to agree with that if you think about it. Our games, as intricate as they may be, form a set of rules that determine a win-lose outcome under the circumstances of some actions. It's really just a simplistic machinery that expresses nothing through its rules and outcomes.

Sure, you have a story retrofitted over it, dialogue and sweet textures, nice piano jazz in the background, all that. Pieces of art, yes. Doesn't make the ruleset, the player's action per se, the game, art.

You can LABEL it art though. It's not really like anyone gives a shit who's got half a brain.

I don't understand. Games don't have an inherent win/lose concept. Not all of them, anyway. It's not an inherent part of the definition. Electoplankton was a good counterexample to that.

You say it expresses nothing, and then you say there's a story retrofitted over it. For one, not every game is designed the same way. For another, story is a pretty big part of the design process most of the time nowadays.

Why do you judge how a story is told?

 

[DR2K]

Snobs in the art world, how can this be?!

 

[BocoDragon]

Let's not leave the word unqualified. Many of us clearly have different connotations to the word "art".

Games are an art form, of course they are.

Games have until now rarely been high art (such a subjective, personal definition though that may be.. ).

 

[Freezie KO]

First, I believe that an understanding of auteur theory and the original movement coming from the Cahiers du Cinema is necessary to understand where Ebert is coming from. It's an unfortunate barrier that Ebert has constructed because not everyone that is game-literate is cineliterate.

Film is judged differently as an artform than architecture. Architecture is judged differently than painting.

Why don't video games get their own criteria?

Much of the problem is on game developers themselves. They so badly want to be filmmakers that they hurt the legitimacy of their own craft. It's laughable to judge a game on factors such as story, writing, character, thematic resonance, or even "immersion." A game will inevitably fall short, particularly in the areas that Ebert cites (i.e. authorship).

Sure, there are people that will think story-driven content such as MGS or Final Fantasy are well-told from a narrative basis. But there are even more moviegoers who lap up populist tripe like Avatar, Dark Knight, and Lord of the Rings and declare those as high art. If we are to truly consider the great auteurs from Cinema (Bergman, Renoir, Cocteau, Mizoguchi, Kubrick, etc etc), then we need an equal pantheon in Games.

In order to understand who are our great designers, we need to understand that games speak in a different language. Values such as control, level design, environmental physics, as well as aesthetics and sound are all very important to games. Each one gives a game its "feeling," but only the latter (audiovisual) means anything to cinema.

Super Mario Bros. is the highest form of auteurist game design we have thus seen. Imagery, sound, gameplay, level design, and a je ne sais quoi of "feel." Large development teams, too, can make art, but the developer/publisher relationship is muddled. For many games, we're only seeing auteurism on the level that was able to sneak out under the iron fist of the original Hollywood studio system.

 

[SonOfABeep]

The more gamers flail around looking for validation for their hobby, the more I'll agree with him. Also, timetokill, that was a very good post.

Oh man, gamers! those guys! NEEEERRRDS.

Good thing you aren't one of them, posting on those forums and such.

Seriously guys, what's the big deal. If games aren't art and they're just for fun, does that mean we all have to now be ashamed of this hobby we have and instead start watching french films all the time? Who gives a shit. Do what you like. If those who make these decisions, from their lofty positions somewhere decide to one day say to all "GAMES, YOU'RE ART NOW" will it make any difference? Will people prattling on about this or that change that? Nope.

Just play, watch, listen, view, and read what you like. Don't let people use big bad scary words like art to make you feel inferior.

 

[DisenLedZep]

I forgot... this should apply here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jdG2LHair0

PS: This too http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFywW99Uvwc

 

[BocoDragon]

....


Film is judged differently as an artform than architecture. Architecture is judged differently than painting.

.....

In order to understand who are our great designers, we need to understand that games speak in a different language. Values such as control, level design, environmental physics, as well as aesthetics and sound are all very important to games. Each one gives a game its "feeling," but only the latter (audiovisual) mean anything to cinema.

Very interesting.

 

[RustyNails]

Heavy Rain's writing and plot makes Uwe Boll movies look like Oscar material. What do you think he would say about it?

Only people who never persuade any serious form of arts would rave about Heavy Rain in videogame forums.

Not that I agree with Ebert narrow-minded point of view, it's just that Heavy Rain is not helping against his case, but reinforcing it.

I respectfully disagree and direct some insults in your general direction.

 

[wolfmat]

First, I believe that an understanding of auteur theory and the original movement coming from the Cahiers du Cinema is necessary to understand where Ebert is coming from. It's an unfortunate barrier that Ebert has constructed because not everyone that is game-literate is cineliterate.

Film is judged differently as an artform than architecture. Architecture is judged differently than painting.

Why don't video games get their own criteria?

Much of the problem is on game developers themselves. They so badly want to be filmmakers that they hurt the legitimacy of their own craft. It's laughable to judge a game on factors such as story, writing, character, thematic resonance, or even "immersion." A game will inevitably fall short, particularly in the areas that Ebert cites (i.e. authorship).

Sure, there are people that will think story-driven content such as MGS or Final Fantasy are well-told from a narrative basis. But there are even more moviegoers who lap up populist tripe like Avatar, Dark Knight, and Lord of the Rings and declare those as high art. If we are to truly consider the great auteurs from Cinema (Bergman, Renoir, Cocteau, Mizoguchi, Kubrick, etc etc), then we need an equal pantheon in Games.

In order to understand who are our great designers, we need to understand that games speak in a different language. Values such as control, level design, environmental physics, as well as aesthetics and sound are all very important to games. Each one gives a game its "feeling," but only the latter (audiovisual) mean anything to cinema.

Super Mario Bros. is the highest form of auteurist game design we have thus seen. Imagery, sound, gameplay, level design, and a je ne seis quoi of "feel." Large development teams, too, can make art, but the developer/publisher relationship is muddled. For many games, we're only seeing auteurism on the level that was able to sneak out under the iron fist of the original Hollywood studio system.

sais

 

[nyong]

Then the claim that games can't be art because (if) they're objective driven: as others have pointed out, this is a very, very strange reason to disqualify something from having artistic content - I honestly can't see any obvious connection here.

A film's objective is to entertain, just like a videogame. The only difference is that you must repeatedly push buttons to reach a predetermined conclusion while gaming, whereas in film you just push 'play' and kick back. Like film, everything you see and hear in a game was designed by artists and planned by a director. Granted, the more linear the experience the closer to the developer's vision you're going to get...film giving the director the most control over the viewer's experience.

 

[Jtrizzy]

I was under the impression that video games are essentially animated art drawn by artists in a studio.

 

[Sixfortyfive]

Oh man, gamers! those guys! NEEEERRRDS.

Good thing you aren't one of them, posting on those forums and such.

Seriously guys, what's the big deal. If games aren't art and they're just for fun, does that mean we all have to now be ashamed of this hobby we have and instead start watching french films all the time? Who gives a shit. Do what you like.

Some people, I'm told, even like Insane Clown Posse. It could be worse.

I just have the same gut reaction to these kinds of threads as I do to threads about how the latest shitty top 10 list from Screw Attack is so shitty. The OP and a bunch of like-minded forumers are basically arguing with a party that is not even present in the discussion. I cannot imagine what motivates people to put as much into their arguments as they do. It comes off as some kind of insecurity.

 

[BocoDragon]

I was under the impression that video games are essentially animated art drawn by artists in a studio.

I think Ebert would allow that there are art aspects within a game:

-3d modelling is art
-pixel art is art
-music is art
-voicework is art
-the scene direction and writing is art

But he's debating the 'game itself' as art.

I just have the same gut reaction to these kinds of threads as I do to threads about how the latest shitty top 10 list from Screw Attack is so shitty. The OP and a bunch of like-minded forumers are basically arguing with a party that is not even present in the discussion. I cannot imagine what motivates people to put as much into their arguments as they do. It comes off as some kind of insecurity.

You made the mistake of thinking this was about "changing Ebert's opinion" rather than being about "games as art".

 

[jdogmoney]

I just have the same gut reaction to these kinds of threads as I do to threads about how the latest shitty top 10 list from Screw Attack is so shitty. The OP and a bunch of like-minded forumers are basically arguing with a party that is not even present in the discussion. I cannot imagine what motivates people to put as much into their arguments as they do. It comes off as some kind of insecurity.

We aren't arguing with Ebert. He's old.

We're arguing with the concept of games not being considered for art.

 

[subversus]

I wonder who gives a shit basically? Except for movie studio executives worrying about the "xbox factor" and some art critics who care because it's their job to care about such things. I bet the same things were said about movies at the beggining of the 20th century.

 

[nyong]

But he's debating the 'game itself' as art.

If a film's relative success as mass entertainment is only incidental to its value as art, a similar argument could be made with the gameplay of a game. Given his comparison to basketball, I think he mostly takes issue with the word "game" in the context of art. He seems ignorant to what videogames are beyond this.

 

[forrest]

art is made by an artist. video games are played by players. is this seriously still contested?

you're manipulating an image in a predetermined scenario that a group of developers created. it's like people believing in god and saying: "my life is art!"

Art is made by artists. People experience said art.

Video games are also made by artists. People experience said video games.

There have been many interactive installations done over the years created by artists on exhibit in art galleries. Hell I wouldn't be surprised if some of those installation pieces had rules applied to them so that said viewers would experience the art as intended by the artist.

I do agree with your question however. Is this seriously contested? Ebert seems to think so.

*edit - Was there ever a point in history when movies were not considered art? Books? Plays? I know where I would put my bet.

 

[Unknown One]

I don't think it matters either way.

 

[wolfmat]

I don't understand. Games don't have an inherent win/lose concept. Not all of them, anyway. It's not an inherent part of the definition. Electoplankton was a good counterexample to that.

I don't want to be rude, but just because something is labeled as a game doesn't mean it's a game. Consequently, just because something isn't a game doesn't mean it's art.
The first and foremost aspect of games is the struggle of the player under the burden of some ruleset. He can succeed in something, like achieving some crazy goal, under these circumstances, or he can fail. Or nothing can happen because he pressed pause or something.

Really, you can look this up.

You say it expresses nothing, and then you say there's a story retrofitted over it. For one, not every game is designed the same way. For another, story is a pretty big part of the design process most of the time nowadays.

Why do you judge how a story is told?

I don't judge anything. The story isn't told via game rules. The story is told with traditional means. Even the craziest games throw text at you, shine a light at some artwork, make a dude speak etc. The means of telling a story don't become art just because the story is art. So how should it become art?

Art art art. Art art art art art. Art art.

 

[cornontheCoD]

I think about why Braid seemed emotionally powerful to me after I completed it, and I realize that even if I could explain it, the best response I could hope for would be, "That might be interesting, but it's trite." If there is power to the message in Braid (or Shadow of the Colossus, or any other game), it can only be properly understood through the experience of play.

Thank you. I was going to post this exact sentence. This is why games can be art.

 

[Micius]

The best thing about the definition of art is that it is completely subjective. Whether you think a video game is art or not, you are right.

Exactly, it's all in the eye of the beholder. I mean, there are people who regard a room with blinking lights to be art (Martin Creed's The Lights Going On and Off, which won the Turner Award in 2001), and there was also the notorious rape tunnel thing a while back, so venues for artistic expression are really as varied as they come.

That being said though, some of the examples people quote as video games with artistic merit I just don't agree with. Hideo Kojima's works for example, is something that some people seem to assume critics would find impressive, when in fact it's a pretty good example of why people find video games to have low artistic merit due to the significant amount of gratuitous content, with sexualization of the female characters being one example of this (see Katrina Gibson from Snatcher, Chris Goldwin from Policenauts, Meryl Silverburgh from Metal Gear Solid, EVA from Metal Gear Solid 3 etc.) As for his convoluted narratives that touch upon complex themes, the execution of a lot of his ideas are in fact flawed (FOXDIE virus as a plot device in the Metal Gear Solid games, Tony Redwood as an antagonist in Policenauts) and games like Metal Gear Solid 1 and 2 suffer from crammed last minute expositions.

My point is, since art is highly subjective, it goes both ways. While some people will equate an enjoyable gaming experience with art, don't expect that to be something universal. Just as some people find The Lights Going On and Off to be minimalistic and insignificant, others will find Metal Gear Solid commercial and pretentious. Just settle for being clear on what gives you an epiphany, and forget about imposing your views on anyone else... and Ebert? He's entitled to his opinion just like you and me.

 

[Salsa]

They are art for me. Anything i want can be art for me, art is subjective (IMO). I dont need other people`s approval.

 

[SapientWolf]

ICO is the closest to art from a videogame in my opinion. It evokes emotion through gameplay by centering it around guiding and holding Yorda's hand. I find it hard to consider games art based on their narrative, or sound or cutscenes. These are not elements that make games into games. What a game needs is all visual, aural and gameplay elements to work in cohesion to evoke an emotion, to make you think and so on.

But the problem is, it's the cinematic and sometimes aural qualities that are far outweighing the gameplay in what makes them artistic. Perhaps games with choices would be the best argument for games as art, but I've yet to experience one that approaches it like that. When your actions have emotional resonance is when you start to see the potential. Something that stays with me here is shooting the Boss at the conclusion of MGS3. But in the end all that is being evoked are simple emotions

I don't think games have really become art yet

See, I disagree.

ICO is an interesting fusion of cinematic and video game specific devices. It cleverly uses gameplay as part of the narrative, with the big emotional payoff coming in the ending. I don't think it's the only example of this practice but it is one of the most obvious. I think that is why it is often used as an example of "games as art."

However, none of this would have mattered if the game was crap. The reasons why you think it is a good game could also qualify as the reasons why you think it is art.

 

[SonOfABeep]

I just have the same gut reaction to these kinds of threads as I do to threads about how the latest shitty top 10 list from Screw Attack is so shitty. The OP and a bunch of like-minded forumers are basically arguing with a party that is not even present in the discussion. I cannot imagine what motivates people to put as much into their arguments as they do. It comes off as some kind of insecurity.

Yeah, it's all silly anyway. They're just videogames. They'll either be culturally legitimate or not, but I'll still enjoy playing them.

I'll reiterate my point. Who gives a shit what people think?

I was more speaking to his condescending tone towards "gamers" which is always a hilarious thing to see. The alpha nerd looking down on all the nerds he's discussing on a forum with.

 

[BocoDragon]

If a film's relative success as mass entertainment is only incidental to its value as art, a similar argument could be made with the gameplay of a game. Given his comparison to basketball, I think he mostly takes issue with the word "game" in the context of art. He seems ignorant to what videogames are beyond this.

I agree.

If we were only debating FPS deathmatch, RTS multiplayer... that kind of thing... perhaps they wouldn't be art. Perhaps they would be just games. But many games are not like these "sports".. they are more like "interactive experiences". The word games completely whitewashes this.

I believe in some other languages.. video games are not "games", but I can't remember off the top of my head and I may be wrong. If so, I think this discussion would not be as difficult to have with gaming outsiders.

"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world." -Wittgenstein

Spoiler

fucking games as art convo has me quoting Wittgenstein on GAF!! :lol :lol

 

[Annoying Old Party Man]

Bioshock is the only game i can remember (of recent times) that manages to retain a narrative quality close to a cinematic experience. Even games such as Heavy Rain have failed to be this consistent, and i won't even go to products such as God of War, who narrative - wise are more ridiculous than your most immature, insignificant blockbuster.


I can attest to whether Bioshock is Art or not, but i think Ebert has put a barricade in front of him, seemingly without having any experience at all in videogames, something that kind of invalidates his opinion (Miyamoto for example is a more qualified judge to the matter imo, with his experience on industrial design and his "affair" with videogames.


Someone should ask if Ebert is an advocate of modern and/or interactive art. You can find countless interactive installations that are residing in museums all over the world, that are extremely similar to what constitues a videogame. Is he opposite to interactive art as well? Because i can't find any piece of interactive art that can challenge our "great poets and writers". And on the same idea, instead of Braid, they should have tried presenting him with Electroplangton ;-)

 

[BocoDragon]

They are art for me. Anything i want can be art for me, art is subjective (IMO). I dont need other people`s approval.

 

[wolfmat]

They are art for me. Anything i want can be art for me, art is subjective (IMO). I dont need other people`s approval.

There you go. More people should follow your example. Form a decision, act upon it, be happy that it works out for you.

Tomorrow, aliens come from منكب الجوزاء and try to tell us that paintings aren't art because the pictures aren't pink. Fuck the aliens.

 

[jdogmoney]

I don't want to be rude, but just because something is labeled as a game doesn't mean it's a game. Consequently, just because something isn't a game doesn't mean it's art.
The first and foremost aspect of games is the struggle of the player under the burden of some ruleset. He can succeed in something, like achieving some crazy goal, under these circumstances, or he can fail. Or nothing can happen because he pressed pause or something.

Really, you can look this up.

I don't judge anything. The story isn't told via game rules. The story is told with traditional means. Even the craziest games throw text at you, shine a light at some artwork, make a dude speak etc. The means of telling a story doesn't become art because the story is art. So how should it become art?

Art art art. Art art art art art. Art art.

Not to be rude, but :lol .

What do you mean, "The story is told with traditional means."? Are you saying a book can't be a work of art because it has dialogue?

 

[sonicmj1]

What is, then? The fact that the figures are recognizably human...looking? The hidden stuff, like how the background shape God flies in on is totally a brain? Or is it the overall composition of figures?

It's a combination of the above, just like how TF2 is art by merit of how well each aspect of its design works.

The characters are memorable. The game design is phenomenal. The community support is incredible. The levels are clearly designed, but with a definite style to them. The balance of these elements, and all of the elements that make up the intricacies of what I've listed here, that makes art.

Spoiler

Haha, I'm using TF2 as my example for games as art. My go-to would be Majora's Mask, but until someone asks, I'll not completely win the debate for all time.

I don't know, exactly.

I don't really like debating about what is or is not "art", because it's impossible to define. I entered myself into this discussion though. The metric I tend to use (which I won't pretend is authoritative) is whether the object in question contains any sort of message, and how effectively that message is conveyed.

In this context, I'd say what separates the Sistine Chapel from TF2 is that the former is a grand, eloquent statement about God's relationship to mankind (for a number of reasons, ranging from subject matter to composition to other stuff), and Team Fortress 2 is a very fun multiplayer game that says nothing. That's my view, and I could be seeing things incorrectly. I'm no art critic, after all.

In this context, any work is judged as a whole. The chapel ceiling has artistic value not solely due to any one part of it, but due to every part of it working together to say something. Team Fortress 2 has a lot of parts working together very effectively, and they come together to form a beautiful whole, but that beautiful whole says nothing more than, "Have fun!" There's nothing wrong with that, and Team Fortress 2 doesn't need to be any different than what it is. But, since TF2 is a game that exists for the sake of entertainment, and nothing more, I think we do a disservice to ourselves if we mistake some of its elements, like backstory and character design as things that exist for "art", and nothing else.