Support NeoGAF

[Monocle]

So what you're saying is let's get rid of the whole narrative approach to games?
I can live with that.
But even then take something as 'simple' as civilisation or Europa Universalis, the narrative of the game IS player driven and there's pretty much a limitless amount of scenarii that can play out.
If anything by displacing the narrative out of the gamer's hand the devs are limiting the outcomes and narrative thus making it completely pointless.
And Alone in the Dark was ALL about mc gyvering your way out of the monsters (yeah it sucked but the design was sound still)

Games' distinguishing characteristic, interactivity, is bound to range between underused asset and ruinous liability as long as developers keep trying to emulate movies. The best result one can hope the filmic narrative approach to yield is a game like Heavy Rain; a hugely entertaining experience which loses almost all of its appeal when the novelty is gone.

I'd like to see more games use interactivity in innovative ways. Whether or not the results move games closer to the realm of art, they're sure to be interesting.

 

[BocoDragon]

do you guys consider the software used to create video games art?

Not really. Neither are paintbrushes, cameras, paper, etc..

... Although they still could be, but that's a whole level deeper

 

[blame space]

Not really. Neither are paintbrushes, cameras, paper, etc..

... Although they still could be, but that's a whole level deeper

well at least you're sure!

 

[Mael]

Games' distinguishing characteristic, interactivity, is bound to range between underused asset and ruinous liability as long as developers keep trying to emulate movies. The best result one can hope the filmic narrative approach to yield is a game like Heavy Rain; a hugely entertaining experience which loses almost all of its appeal when the novelty is gone.

That's the problem right there, though they shouldn't be trying to emulate movies anyway, you could argue that the 'no one' is actually interested in that.
I mean look at the all the cinematic experiences we have now, the only one that are wildly successful are actually for their multiplayer component where the narrative is all player controlled (MW2 online Vs MW2 single player for an extreme example).
Now it could be argued that making a interesting gaming narrative for a single player game is difficult but that's not helping at all.

I'd like to see more games use interactivity in innovative ways. Whether or not the results move games closer to the realm of art, they're sure to be interesting.

We can all agree on this, after all it might bring something new and that's never a bad thing

 

[jdogmoney]

He's aware of most of the things that matter: no video game story has yet stood up to a masterpiece of film or literature, interactivity is usually either at odds with or independent of narrative due to the player's actions and objectives (kill the enemies, keep your combo going, collect items, use the right spells, heal your character, upgrade abilities, avoid damage etc.), games have to use other media as crutches to convey ideas, and so on.

What can video games do better than anything else? Live-action films can more effectively unite moving images and music; among many other things, the director has full control of the frame and pacing. Literature is still the best medium for telling sophisticated stories. In fact, games share one of film's big weaknesses in this area: placing the audience inside a character's head. No FPS has conveyed a character's thoughts better than, say, David Copperfield or Huckleberry Finn.

You realize all of this is your opinion, right? It's hard to tell, since you're stating it like it's all fact.

 

[Mael]

You realize all of this is your opinion, right? It's hard to tell, since you're stating it like it's all fact.

Granted I didn't read David Copperfeld or the other (but I will get around to it soon) but you really know a fps that can convey a character's thought better then theses books :lol ?

 

[jdogmoney]

Granted I didn't read David Copperfeld or the other (but I will get around to it soon) but you really know a fps that can convey a character's thought better then theses books :lol ?

Huckleberry Finn is a great read. I recommend it.

It's incredible insight into Huck's mind? Yeah, that's because of first-person narration. Not that hard to emulate.

 

[Mael]

Huckleberry Finn is a great read. I recommend it.

It's incredible insight into Huck's mind? Yeah, that's because of first-person narration. Not that hard to emulate.

Indeed but still you think that game writers are of that level?
I doubt that there's even live writers that could do as good as that!
Heck I doubt I'd find a recent game story that is as well written and woven as the New York trilogy by Auster!
And that's his claim to fame to boot :/
Seriously I'm not asking games to be monument of story telling at this point, I'd just want them to have stories that doesn't suck or ditch them at all.

edit :
What I mean is that pointing to game stories or narratives to say that they're worthy of being called art is like saying that children books like 'My first time on the pot'(invented name btw) is a good example of books being high art :-/

 

[timetokill]

Huckleberry Finn is a great read. I recommend it.

In my top 5 favorite books. Makes me sad to think there are kids today who haven't read it

 

[Monocle]

You realize all of this is your opinion, right? It's hard to tell, since you're stating it like it's all fact.

As Douglas Adams said, "All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others."

I wouldn't dream of awarding my opinions such distinction, but I don't believe it immodest to echo the conclusions of those much greater than myself in stating that the works of Dostoevsky, Milton, Twain, Dickens, Proust, and others have vastly more to offer the intellect than video games.

By the way, I wouldn't mind if you were to name specific concrete examples to refute my opinions. I intentionally used general terms in hopes of just such a challenge.

 

[Kilrogg]

In my top 5 favorite books. Makes me sad to think there are kids today who haven't read it

The Tom Sawyer cartoon on TV sure made up for it as far as I'm concerned .

 

[Danielsan]

So Mr. Ebert, what's the difference between moving pictures and a picture? If that's your beef with games, why not watch a gamer play Shadow of Colossus while you get stunned and awed by the visual poetry? In fact, hide the gamer all together. Now its just like a movie.

That would completely miss the point.
The reason why SotC (which I consider to be the greatest game ever made) works so well on a emotional level is that it is the player going through the hardships, experiencing the world and bonding with Agro as he progresses. The playing part is essential.
When you take that final stab at the colossus and see the creature tumbling down, your controller communicating the action through vibrations and the music swelling, it is you who did it. You are the one responsible and that is one of the primary reasons why you might feel remorse or triumph. Similarly it is due to you acting out the part of Wander that you build that bond with Agro. I don't think you could replicate that simply by showing the game being played.

 

[blame space]

I agree. The only way games can become more artistic is to strip them of all of the cinematics, voice-acting and extraneous text. Control, graphics, and sound all are more important to the medium.

 

[vodka-bull]

Well, I'm what you would call a gamer, but I wouldn't call Tony Hawk Ride artistic. I mean, there's plenty of crap out there which surely isn't art by any means and games like Shadow of the Colossus is an exception, it's not the norm.

But I guess the same goes with any other medium as well, such as movies or books, so if I have to make a decision if this is art I would say no. One game doesn't represent all games, because we already know there's more than one way to skin a cat.

 

[zoukka]

It's incredible insight into Huck's mind? Yeah, that's because of first-person narration. Not that hard to emulate.

Well you are factually wrong. It would be incredibly hard to achieve what Huckleberry Finn did to readers... in a videogame without resorting to wall of texts. Just creating enough interesting gameplay to support the amount of information, would require huge budgets and developement time. How can you say it's not that hard to emulate?

 

[sonicmj1]

He's aware of most of the things that matter: no video game story has yet stood up to a masterpiece of film or literature, interactivity is usually either at odds with or independent of narrative due to the player's actions and objectives (kill the enemies, keep your combo going, collect items, use the right spells, heal your character, upgrade abilities, avoid damage etc.), games have to use other media as crutches to convey ideas, and so on.

What can video games do better than anything else? Live-action films can more effectively unite moving images and music; among many other things, the director has full control of the frame and pacing. Literature is still the best medium for telling sophisticated stories. In fact, games share one of film's big weaknesses in this area: placing the audience inside a character's head. No FPS has conveyed a character's thoughts better than, say, David Copperfield or Huckleberry Finn.

I don't see how the bolded is necessarily true. It's certainly something that Ebert believes, but it's not a fact.

If you look at the examples that people are citing in this thread (SotC, Braid, Portal, Bioshock), the powerful moments matter because they occur as a product of your actions. Because you are the one advancing the plot of the game, the events are more personal, as you exist in the world through your in-game avatar. Some unknown individual or abstract 'I' is not manipulated in Bioshock - you are manipulated, and that it happened so easily without your awareness is what makes the revelation so powerful.

Film and literature are categorically better at straight characterization, but the possibilities created by interaction (as circumscribed as it may be) shouldn't be so immediately dismissed. I'd suggest that games have a potential advantage over film in that they can inspire the audience to feel emotions similar to their characters, because the character's plight is (sometimes) the players. Certainly, no other media can recreate how accomplished a player feels when they overcome a difficult challenge.

Faith isn't just conviction, it's experiential. Playing a game is also an experience. Both involve feelings, which produce memories, which we classify as knowledge. I'm arguing that knowledge derived from direct experience isn't strictly necessary to judge the artistic value of games.

With an absence of experiential knowledge of religion, one can still examine ideology and scripture on the same level as anyone else. But trying to judge the emotional resonance of a game or a mechanic without having experienced it, or anything else in the medium (as Ebert does) seems more similar to me to judging a movie based off impressions I got from one friend. How can you judge the delivery of lines that you haven't heard, or the power of images you haven't seen?

If you're judging stuff like this without any sort of experience, you're prone to making descriptive mistakes, as Ebert does when he poses that Braid's infinite rewind mechanic is the same as taking back a move in Chess. In the latter, reversing your actions compromises the competitive value of the game. In the former, it's impossible to play the game without the mechanic existing, and the mechanic is vital to the metaphor of memory that runs through everything about the game.

Bingo, you've hit it! What's the point indeed? Multiple endings comprise a limited array of outcomes. Your choices are restricted from the very beginning. In Silent Hill you can't shout at characters you meet, you can't MacGyver traps for the monsters, you can't sit down and wait until you die of thirst. Decisions in video games often have no more meaning, impact or variety than those in a choose-your-own-adventure novel.

Why do choices need to be unlimited for them to have impact or meaning?

A game is not the product of its outcomes, any more than a book is defined by its ending. As in media of any kind, the value is in experiencing, not in completing.

Because you can act, you can make choices. Because there are options that (hopefully!) have consequences, the consequences have meaning. Even if the outcome(s) are fixed, that you brought about their conclusion through your (limited, designer-intended) actions ties those moments to the player.

Both you and blame space have stated throughout the thread that if games cannot provide unlimited choice, then any choice is irrelevant. I just don't see how the two statements are related.

 

[chicken_ramen]

He's aware of most of the things that matter: no video game story has yet stood up to a masterpiece of film or literature, interactivity is usually either at odds with or independent of narrative due to the player's actions and objectives (kill the enemies, keep your combo going, collect items, use the right spells, heal your character, upgrade abilities, avoid damage etc.), games have to use other media as crutches to convey ideas, and so on.

What can video games do better than anything else? Live-action films can more effectively unite moving images and music; among many other things, the director has full control of the frame and pacing. Literature is still the best medium for telling sophisticated stories. In fact, games share one of film's big weaknesses in this area: placing the audience inside a character's head. No FPS has conveyed a character's thoughts better than, say, David Copperfield or Huckleberry Finn.

I don't want to delve into the level of name calling that some others have, but are you being intentionally stupid? Is this some sort of devils advocate thing? What you're asking is, paraphrased, 'Is there a game that's a better movie than a movie? Is there a game thats a better novel than a novel?' Those aren't intelligent questions.

In the first paragraph you, again, write off mechanics from adding anything to the equation. You also basically suggest that narrative is everything. I don't know why you think you can do this. Games as a medium isn't using other media as crutches any more than film is using still image as a crutch. It's a vapid suggestion, lacking any insight.

Let's use a very simple example. 1960: The making of the President is a board game where each player represents one of the two major candidates in the 1960 US Presidential election. On a player's turn they spend points to buy support in various states, issues and media coverage. The game is very highly abstracted and uses a card based system to attempt to include some historical touches to the game.

The gameplay, when added to the theme, makes an argument about political campaigning. It suggests that while being on top of the issues is important, the detail of the individual issues is arbitrary. It suggests that while the politics of a state is important, enough campaigning face time renders this irrelevant. It also makes arguments about debates and about advertising. It does these things through the interplay of theme and mechanics.

Another example, Tokimeki Memorial. This is a Japanese Dating Sim, where the faceless hero attempts to woo one of several anime cliches in the hopes of hooking up forever on graduation. The mechanics involves a bomb system. If you don't hang out with any one girl often enough she will 'explode' spreading bad rumours about you to all the other girls whose opinion of you will drop, perhaps making another bomb. Also girls are seeking specific stats from the player and this is hidden information.

When you add the mechanics to the theme you get a disturbingly sad picture of teenage life. The girls are superficial creatures, easily won over through lying and flattery. They're also very petty, prone to spreading lies simply because they feel lonely. The main character's personality in this world is simply irrelevant, he must be the person his target wants him to be, with little wiggle room. The main character is essentially on a hunt, everything subjugated to the one goal of tricking a girl into liking him. It paints a very dark picture of life.

These arguments, or metaphors, are made when mechanics and themes interact. One is not a crutch for the other. These procedural arguments are the thing that no other medium can recreate as well. Are the games I listed as good a novel as a novel? Of course fucking not, that's not a meaningful question. Are they good games? 1960 is very good, but perhaps not really one of the very best. Tokimeki Memorial is not very good at all, personally speaking. But quality isn't the issue, the medium is clearly capable of expression, and it's inherent properties add significantly to that expression. Arguing otherwise comes across to me as idiocy, or at least willful blindness. Are 'games' as good as Huck Finn? That question makes no sense. Is the medium capable of expression? Of course it is, it even has unique properties that other forms would find hard to emulate. What else matters?

edit: I've been rude here and I apologise. I can't really remove everything insulting, but I have attempted to tone it down. I'm fully aware that you aren't stupid, but I find your argument lacking.

 

[mclem]

Film and literature are categorically better at straight characterization, but the possibilities created by interaction (as circumscribed as it may be) shouldn't be so immediately dismissed. I'd suggest that games have a potential advantage over film in that they can inspire the audience to feel emotions similar to their characters, because the character's plight is (sometimes) the players. Certainly, no other media can recreate how accomplished a player feels when they overcome a difficult challenge.

I think I can make this into a pithy soundbite:

Film and literature are better at characterisation. Games let you *be* a character.

 

[BobsRevenge]

I agree. The only way games can become more artistic is to strip them of all of the cinematics, voice-acting and extraneous text. Control, graphics, and sound all are more important to the medium.

I want to disagree, however the games that do feel most artistic are the ones that do strip away cinematics, voice-acting, and extraneous text. But I'll try to list a couple exceptions.

But, a game like Prince of Persia tries to achieve an artistry akin to a low-tier Disney animated production. It kind of accomplishes it, and the mini-cinematics with voice-acting are pretty important to getting towards that. Although, the gameplay reinforces the connection with the princess, which is probably most important.

I'd say Mafia is Hollywood artistry translated to a game at its current best. The cinematics and voice-acting are essential to what makes Mafia compelling. There is an artistry there, certainly.

But, perhaps cinematics are like those old cards they held up in front of cameras between lines so you knew what the characters were saying in silent movies. There is an artistry, but it isn't optimal to the medium and will eventually become archaic as a design element.

 

[deepbrown]

SOTC is the epitome of video games as art - why? Because it delivers its message/emotion entirely through gameplay . Dialogue is mainly unneeded as is a complex narrative. It doesn't need to resort to filmic conventions to deliver its message - meaning it doesn't rely on films and thus uses the unique features of video games - and is therefore a very good example of video games as art.

End.

 

[Mael]

You first example being about a board game I won't consider it since it's NOT a video game (yes I nitpick here)

Another example, Tokimeki Memorial. This is a Japanese Dating Sim, where the faceless hero attempts to woo one of several anime cliches in the hopes of hooking up forever on graduation. The mechanics involves a bomb system. If you don't hang out with any one girl often enough she will 'explode' spreading bad rumours about you to all the other girls whose opinion of you will drop, perhaps making another bomb. Also girls are seeking specific stats from the player and this is hidden information.

When you add the mechanics to the theme you get a disturbingly sad picture of teenage life. The girls are superficial creatures, easily won over through lying and flattery. They're also very petty, prone to spreading lies simply because they feel lonely. The main character's personality in this world is simply irrelevant, he must be the person his target wants him to be, with little wiggle room. The main character is essentially on a hunt, everything subjugated to the one goal of tricking a girl into liking him. It paints a very dark picture of life.

This is actually a very good example of why the game would be a product or an element of art.
You can make a very good parallel here between this kind of game and the books written by Zola or some others.
It's kinda funny because the point of the game is actually lost on the player 'lost in the fantasy' but it's none the less pretty much at the forefront of the game.
Props to finding an actual better example than the filmwannabe blockbusters.

 

[BobsRevenge]

Games' distinguishing characteristic, interactivity, is bound to range between underused asset and ruinous liability as long as developers keep trying to emulate movies. The best result one can hope the filmic narrative approach to yield is a game like Heavy Rain; a hugely entertaining experience which loses almost all of its appeal when the novelty is gone.

I'd like to see more games use interactivity in innovative ways. Whether or not the results move games closer to the realm of art, they're sure to be interesting.

I think it's about time someone drop this bomb on this thread.

The Sims.

There are rules in that world, but they are pretty loose and easy to understand at the basic level. But anyone who plays the Sims 3 will know that the complexity of the relationships in it is pretty deep. I think that sort of examining of human relationships through an interactive medium is artistic. You aren't bound to a story either. You create one yourself, and it can be pretty powerful. If there is an artistry in recreating honestly a human relationship in a novel or film, why isn't The Sims artistic for attempting to do it in a video game and allowing the player to navigate it themselves?

edit: The dude above me just mentioned Zola. He's actually my favorite author and I was thinking of him when I made this post. I think if Zola designed video games he would be making a game like The Sims, and be making it as honestly to the natural world as possible. With all the elation, happiness, tragedy, and heart-ache that it can bring.

 

[Mael]

I think it's about time someone drop this bomb on this thread.

The Sims.

There are rules in that world, but they are pretty loose and easy to understand at the basic level. But anyone who plays the Sims 3 will know that the complexity of the relationships in it is pretty deep. I think that sort of examining of human relationships through an interactive medium is artistic. You aren't bound to a story either. You create one yourself, and it can be pretty powerful. If there is an artistry in recreating honestly a human relationship in a novel or film, why isn't The Sims artistic for attempting to do it in a video game and allowing the player to navigate it themselves?

Even better you can create a film in the Sims :-/
Then again that just means that playing a game is artistic NOT that the game IS artistic.
I guess we're all artists?

 

[BobsRevenge]

Even better you can create a film in the Sims :-/
Then again that just means that playing a game is artistic NOT that the game IS artistic.
I guess we're all artists?

It doesn't mean that. The act of creating the system that allows the players to do that is artistic. The created system is the art. The player navigating that system is the experiencing of the art. Any art created in that system is a product of the original art, it is not potential art being released from something that isn't.

 

[BobsRevenge]

Well, I'm what you would call a gamer, but I wouldn't call Tony Hawk Ride artistic. I mean, there's plenty of crap out there which surely isn't art by any means and games like Shadow of the Colossus is an exception, it's not the norm.

But I guess the same goes with any other medium as well, such as movies or books, so if I have to make a decision if this is art I would say no. One game doesn't represent all games, because we already know there's more than one way to skin a cat.

Your avatar reminded me that I wanted to post something about World of Goo here. I think that game is pretty artistically minded, especially for a puzzle game. It sort of attacks modern ideals. You can interpret a lot of the elements to it, and there is an appreciable depth to it.

World of Goo was one of the more surprising experiences I've had playing a game recently, even with all the hype. The game is brilliant.

 

[Mael]

It doesn't mean that. The act of creating the system that allows the players to do that is artistic. The created system is the art. The player navigating that system is the experiencing of the art. Any art created in that system is a product of the original art, it is not potential art being released from something that isn't.

I don't think I understand you well but I'll try though.
You mean that the tool is the art because it allows people to appreciate art through its use.
then that means that a cinema where you can go to watch movie pictures is art, since it's essential to experience the art of watching movies!
The way I see it, the game is a mere tool that allow people to experience/create (the sims has enough creation tools now) the art of human life simulation.
I may not be clear though...

 

[BobsRevenge]

I don't think I understand you well but I'll try though.
You mean that the tool is the art because it allows people to appreciate art through its use.
then that means that a cinema where you can go to watch movie pictures is art, since it's essential to experience the art of watching movies!
The way I see it, the game is a mere tool that allow people to experience/create (the sims has enough creation tools now) the art of human life simulation.

I'll try to simplify it.

The video game = movie, painting, song, etc.
The gamer = the viewer, listener, etc.
The product of gaming = something these other arts can't really provide a comparison for

 

[charlequin]

From my perspective - and yes, I'm likely going to get ripped to hell and back for this

Serious question: if you know that what you're saying is unsupportable and essentially foolish... why still say it?

Art, within this perspective, is not created for the sake of or with any inherent desire of selling what one creates.

Do you actually know anyone who makes a living as an artist? If so, do you go around telling them that no, they actually just make a living as a designer because they're creating works for sale?

Yes, charlequin, some might use this distinction to dismiss one or the other; but that's not me. I don't see anything wrong in design or art. They're just different under this viewpoint, and neither is more valuable than the other.

Again, see my "hardcore/casual" analogy. Someone might like "both" "types" of games, but the very act of legitimizing the distinction as something real (rather than as an explanation of a complex dynamic so ultra-simplified as to be completely useless) is innately destructive to any real attempt to discuss or analyze.

Some viewpoints are simply not particularly valuable. The viewpoint that art can be meaningfully identified as separate from "not art" by the intent of its author, the monetary incentive for its creation, or the form and genre it takes is one such viewpoint -- something that's been utterly demolished through repeated demonstrations over the last 100 years and which has almost no value in discussing art as it actually exists and is practiced in the modern world.

What can video games do better than anything else?

Make the player directly accountable for their choices within a limited but expansive decision-making framework. Again, IF is the best place to look for people doing really crazy stuff in this area because the text-only medium frees them to focus purely on the element of interactivity. In a game, the player can be confronted with a finite but representative number of meaningful decision points which alter the events they encounter in play.

I'm arguing that knowledge derived from direct experience isn't strictly necessary to judge the artistic value of games.

Right, and it's still bullshit, sorry.

Second-hand descriptions of an artistic medium innately communicate the elements that can most easily be dismissively compared to another, well-understood medium while failing to communicate the elements of sublime and subtle correspondence that elevate it. By description, a narrative film is a play stripped of depth and unable to respond to the tenor of the crowd; the arts of cinematography and editing that have come to define film as an art form were nebulous and not yet fully-formed at an early stage, and someone who hadn't gained a deep-seated knowledge of film through experiencing their effects would probably disbelieve they were even important.

When it comes down to it, all you really have on offer here is a repeat of precisely the arguments that were used in the early 20th century to explain why film couldn't possibly be an art form...

...Hey, maybe I see where you're going with this now! :lol

 

[Mael]

I'll try to simplify it.

The video game = movie, painting, song, etc.
The gamer = the viewer, listener, etc.
The product of gaming = something these other arts can't really provide a comparison for

my view was more

The video game = the tool (be it the brush or the pen or what have you)
The gamer = the viewer, listener, etc.
The product of gaming = movie, painting, song, etc.

or maybe the video game is the brut product (physical book, painting in a frame or movie in its cellulo or digital form).
gamer doesn't change and the the act of playing is the act of reading/watching

to make some parallel

 

[crazy monkey]

art for me might not be art for you

 

[zoukka]

SOTC is the epitome of video games as art - why? Because it delivers its message/emotion entirely through gameplay . Dialogue is mainly unneeded as is a complex narrative. It doesn't need to resort to filmic conventions to deliver its message - meaning it doesn't rely on films and thus uses the unique features of video games - and is therefore a very good example of video games as art.

End.

Epitome huh? SotC has cinematics. It has dialogue. It's not the best example out there.

 

[Version 3.0]

The problem is we don't have a working definition for art that most people can agree on. Webster's can hardly be claimed to have the last word on the matter.

Clearly, that's true. Everyone involved in the discussion seems to have a different definition. But there's nothing wrong with a broad definition. What's your definition of "food"? I'll bet it's pretty broad.

And, come to think of it, I'm sure there are people out there who would deride McDonalds (for example) as "not really food". And they'd be pompous asses who are factually wrong, just like Ebert is.

 

[Mael]

Clearly, that's true. Everyone involved in the discussion seems to have a different definition. But there's nothing wrong with a broad definition. What's your definition of "food"? I'll bet it's pretty broad.

And, come to think of it, I'm sure there are people out there who would deride McDonalds (for example) as "not really food". And they'd be pompous asses who are factually wrong, just like Ebert is.

yeah it may be food just as VG are entertainment but is MCDo 'cuisine' though?
Is the McDonald chain a restaurant chain or is it just a fast food chain.
It's really different, just labelling everything as food...
I mean if it doesn't make you ill or kill you it's basically food :-/

 

[Version 3.0]

yeah it may be food just as VG are entertainment but is MCDo 'cuisine' though?
Is the McDonald chain a restaurant chain or is it just a fast food chain.
It's really different, just labelling everything as food...
I mean if it doesn't make you ill or kill you it's basically food :-/

I think you've really hit it with that analogy. There's no equivalent word for "cuisine" in this discussion, but people are using "art" to mean exactly that. I guess the closest would be "fine art". That's an opinion, but even so, I'd call anyone willing to dismiss every game ever made offhand a self-righteous jerk.

 

[Mael]

I think you've really hit it with that analogy. There's no equivalent word for "cuisine" in this discussion, but people are using "art" to mean exactly that. I guess the closest would be "fine art". That's an opinion, but even so, I'd call anyone willing to dismiss every game ever made offhand a self-righteous jerk.

Then the debate takes on a whole different take then...
I mean if we make the analogy with food, then there's no such thing as Video Games being 'cuisine' and it's not meant to be either.
I mean is there really anything comparable to Beaudelaire or even Citizen Kane's maker whose name I can't recall right now in video game making? does there need to be?
I think that people trying to legitimize VG as 'fine art' are actually trying to legitimize the game makers more than the games themselves.
In the end the art is ALWAYS more important than the artist.
I mean why are people so hell bent on saying stuffs like SotC is somehow 'fine art' and not something like Tokimeki Memorial or even the Sims or Civilisation that are actually way better examples.
My answer would be that they're actually trying to legitimize the game makers more than the games themselves.
but that's still kinda OT here, there's a word anyway for classifying games :
Pop art.

Heck the instigator of that movement was sure as hell that what he did would NEVER be regarded as art anyway :lol

But yeah games are at best pop art, you can't exactly compare it to books or the finest paintings.

 

[charlequin]

But yeah games are at best pop art, you can't exactly compare it to books or the finest paintings.

Most of the ultimate result of things like dada, postmodernism, and pop art in the 20th century has been to expose how the idea that "pop art" and "the finest paintings" are somehow fundamentally different is ultimately illusory.

 

[gutter_trash]

do you guys consider the software used to create video games art?

software is a tool, just like a paper, pencil, brush, hammer, pick

a tool is a tool,, it's what you do with it that makes art

 

[Mael]

Most of the ultimate result of things like dada, postmodernism, and pop art in the 20th century has been to expose how the idea that "pop art" and "the finest paintings" are somehow fundamentally different is ultimately illusory.

I'm not claiming anything different, I may be under that illusion myself after all :lol
History has a strange way of working, I very much doubt that people will remember the pioneer of VG art as anything to do with the Uncharted and Tomb Raider of the world or even the SotC and other Braid. I mean we sure as hell don't remember all the people that worked on all paintings movements and most have been forgotten.
But yeah that's kinda OT too.

Still VG being highly industrial put it in a special place where we don't want to see art, I mean we certainly don't want to consider cinema as an industry churning out films the same way Ford was churning his T models :-/
The problem may be a problem of perception I believe, still whether illusion or not I can't put on the same level most of what I call 'fine art' and what I've seen on games (most lack soul I'd say).
And even then I was there since the original Gameboy and seen the slow descent into narrative drivel, so maybe I'm letting my bias get the better of me, still I can't exactly put it there (and I very much like games)

 

[blame space]

software is a tool, just like a paper, pencil, brush, hammer, pick

a tool is a tool,, it's what you do with it that makes art

software is a tool

video games are software

video game(r)s are tools

Oh, and I absolutely love that The Sims bomb was just dropped. Anyone read Chuck Klosterman's essay on the subject? Let me see if it's available online anywhere..

EDIT: not legally, but..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex,_Drugs,_and_Cocoa_Puffs:_A_Low_Culture_Manifesto

Billy Sim: Klosterman describes his experience with the reality-mimicking videogame The Sims and how The Sims illustrates that "even eternally free people are enslaved by the process of living."

Great book, well worth buying for that essay alone IMO.

 

[Zachack]

Still VG being highly industrial put it in a special place where we don't want to see art, I mean we certainly don't want to consider cinema as an industry churning out films the same way Ford was churning his T models :-/

But cinema is an industry churning out films, complete with unions, schools, facilities, etc! There are movie studios dedicated to pumping out knockoffs of upcoming movies to DVD as fast and cheap as possible. And all but the most indie of indie directors is tied to the system in some way, either through training at a film school (which likely receives funding from the industry), equipment made possible by companies catering to the industry, or by hiring people who are basically cogs in the process.

Even smaller, "artsy" movies are often funded by studio heads as vanity projects or to bolster the reputation of the studio. The notion that video games and movies are on different planes of art legitimacy is completely false.

And even then I was there since the original Gameboy and seen the slow descent into narrative drivel, so maybe I'm letting my bias get the better of me, still I can't exactly put it there (and I very much like games)

I hate to break this to you but you witnessed nothing. What you're complaining about existed long before the Gameboy, the only difference is that production values increased and changed as possibilities opened up. Your post reminds me of when certain fans of certain consoles pick some random year and complain about how that ruined everything, like the PSX ruining gaming because of FMV, or the Xbox ruining gaming because now the jocks want to play Halo, or the Wii ruining gaming because of "casualization".

Farmville did ruin gaming, though.

 

[Mr. B Natural]

Most of the ultimate result of things like dada, postmodernism, and pop art in the 20th century has been to expose how the idea that "pop art" and "the finest paintings" are somehow fundamentally different is ultimately illusory.

Where to people come up with this crap?

Dadaism and postmodernism is all counter-cultural, anti-art, anti-establishment and generally anarchistic...the exact intentional and many times satirical opposite of pop culture AND art culture. You're saying punk rock proves that Justin Timberlake is actually compatible and comparable to Mozart. Just because the Sex Pistols rejected and satirized both pop culture and art culture sometimes at the same time (Who shot Bambi?) doesn't somehow connect the two dots in any way whatsoever. Sure as hell doesn't make anything illusory. Matter of fact it does the exact opposite because you can now see both extremes in one place and you can literally tastes the juxtaposition the two cultures are so different. Putting googly eyes on the mono lisa doesn't feel right, does it? It's so off it's funny.

Dadaism and punk was a movement. It had a point...something video games and justin timberlake and our generation in general don't have. It's all entertainment for entertainment's sake and the sole purpose is to get your attention, get your money and then get the hell out of their way so they can make more money.

And the ultimate result of postmodernism and dadaism is that people can't take some of the most fundamental of art forms seriously anymore. It's been satirized to death. Thus, most people look into art history, literature, photography and film to get their dose of art. The odd thing about dadaism is that it is now embraced by the culture that it tried to defy and most "pop" people don't even get it.

You want proof that games aren't art (and aren't ready to be art)? Read this thread. Video games are quite possibly the lowest form of art in existence. Ebert came after the smallest guy at the bar, again. It has a lot of work to do just to get to the point of satire like Airplane or the Daily Show....let alone dadaism or real fine art. That's not an accident. It's heartless, meaningless money-making entertainment for the masses. And sadly, it's probably way ahead of its time in that regard. I hope I'm wrong, but looking at my generation and the already oversized one to come, looking at the internet, looking at music, video games, even this year's oscars (Avatar nominated, really!?)...yeah, good luck art.

 

[BobsRevenge]

my view was more

The video game = the tool (be it the brush or the pen or what have you)
The gamer = the viewer, listener, etc.
The product of gaming = movie, painting, song, etc.

or maybe the video game is the brut product (physical book, painting in a frame or movie in its cellulo or digital form).
gamer doesn't change and the the act of playing is the act of reading/watching

to make some parallel

You're describing the process of the player making art with the game.

I'm describing the process of the game creators making art that is the game.

I'm not saying the former doesn't, or can't exist, just that it does not mean that the game itself isn't it's own art and the game creators artists. They are separate pieces, connected by one facilitating the other.

I believe when we are talking about games as art we are talking about the latter here. If you want to talk about games facilitating art, that's a different discussion.

 

[charlequin]

You're saying punk rock proves that Justin Timberlake is actually compatible and comparable to Mozart.

Damn right I'm saying that. Mozart is held up as special because he's old and he created works for rich patrons that were performed as demonstrations of culture, but there's nothing inherent to his works that renders them truly "artistic" in a fashion fundamentally different from the expressive works of modern musicians.

Dadaism and punk was a movement. It had a point...something video games and justin timberlake and our generation in general don't have.

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn

And the ultimate result of postmodernism and dadaism is that people can't take some of the most fundamental of art forms seriously anymore. It's been satirized to death.

"Oh no, someone drew a mustache on the Mona Lisa! Thanks to LHOOQ no one can ever respect it again!"

If the value of a work like the Mona Lisa is so fragile that mockery and repurposing of it can actually reduce that value then it can't have really been valuable in the first place. If a work of art can't be appreciated outside the context of cultural tastemakers encouraging people to view it as a masterpiece, it is ultimately useless.

I hope I'm wrong, but looking at my generation and the already oversized one to come, looking at the internet, looking at music, video games, even this year's oscars (Avatar nominated, really!?)...yeah, good luck art.

Gosh, I bet people your age are the first people to ever gnash their teeth and rend their garments that art was dying at exactly that precise moment in history

 

[Vinci]

Serious question: if you know that what you're saying is unsupportable and essentially foolish... why still say it?

Because it's what I believe? I'm not throwing this out there as some proclamation that all have to follow from this point onward; I internally just see a difference between art and design, and feel this is a distinction that is personally useful. I'm not going to talk to someone who says they're an artist and say, "Actually, no, you're a designer. Too bad." The whole point of this thread, at this juncture, is that everyone has a different idea of what 'art' means - except for those who have basically come to the conclusion that it should be so broad as to include any creative work. And that's cool. I don't personally like that definition, as I find it too inclusive to make the term useful - but that's not up to me anymore than how I define 'art' is up to you.

Do you actually know anyone who makes a living as an artist? If so, do you go around telling them that no, they actually just make a living as a designer because they're creating works for sale?

I do, actually; and he even distinguishes between his works in the way I've suggested. He studied graphic design in college but has always been a painter at heart. Professors at the college he studied at wanted him to switch his major to painting, but they didn't offer any suggestions at his college on how one makes a living as an artist. So he became a designer/artist, and that's where the initial origin of my perspective came from. I saw some of his work one day and said that I was impressed with his art, and he said, "That's not art. That's stuff I do for other people, for money. Art's what I do for myself."

His opinion obviously isn't the same as other artists' - but then, it's hard to really classify where art begins and ends.

Again, see my "hardcore/casual" analogy. Someone might like "both" "types" of games, but the very act of legitimizing the distinction as something real (rather than as an explanation of a complex dynamic so ultra-simplified as to be completely useless) is innately destructive to any real attempt to discuss or analyze.

Some viewpoints are simply not particularly valuable. The viewpoint that art can be meaningfully identified as separate from "not art" by the intent of its author, the monetary incentive for its creation, or the form and genre it takes is one such viewpoint -- something that's been utterly demolished through repeated demonstrations over the last 100 years and which has almost no value in discussing art as it actually exists and is practiced in the modern world.

Fair enough. I just don't see how using 'art' as a catch-all for virtually all creative production is any more valuable. But that's fine. I didn't get into this discussion to argue with people vehemently on what is inherently a self-defined term; I just wanted to present another viewpoint on it.

 

[BobsRevenge]

I mean why are people so hell bent on saying stuffs like SotC is somehow 'fine art' and not something like Tokimeki Memorial or even the Sims or Civilisation that are actually way better examples.
My answer would be that they're actually trying to legitimize the game makers more than the games themselves.

SotC is art in a different way than The Sims or Civilization. I'm not sure Civilization is really even worth mentioning for its artistic worth. At least for me, I'm not interested in anthropological history translated into art in such a way. I don't find that compelling. What the Sims presents is more compelling, and interesting to me.

SotC is outstandingly artful as a game. It is an aesthetic game in many ways, and there is a beauty in the storytelling. For game designers there might be an appreciable beauty in the elegance of the design and how powerful the result is for the player. The game has a power that I feel is artistically significant, and I hold it in high regard.

Looking at the artistry of both of these games shows the breadth of artistic potential in games. You also have a sort of cinematic artistry that is probably best represented by Mafia, which I think is compelling as video game art.

You have games like World of Goo and Braid that use game mechanics as a sort of allegory, or at least can be interpreted as such without stretching too much. Then you have something like Flower that speaks to the player in a poetically conceived progression whose meaning and effect is ambiguous, yet compelling.

I don't think we want to be saying video games should be aiming at any of these specifically as a direction to run towards to achieve some kind of artistic relevance, but we should point out what aspects make them artistically meaningful and displaying the full breadth of how game design can be used to create something as such.

Word life.

edit: This post was created as a sort of assessment of artistic significance, not if it is art. That is assumed as you'll see I have already presented my definition of art and you can look that up from earlier in the thread if you want to see if I would consider something art.

 

[Cipherr]

21 pages? Really?

Who gives a fuck? Why do you guys feed into this bullshit?

Feels like necessity to legitimize your hobby kinda. Which I guess is just an evolution of playing a bunch of violent kick ass games to legitimize your 'manhood' back when we were like 12 years old.

Spoiler

inc 10 more pages

 

[BobsRevenge]

Feels like necessity to legitimize your hobby kinda. Which I guess is just an evolution of playing a bunch of violent kick ass games to legitimize your 'manhood' back when we were like 12 years old.

Spoiler

inc 10 more pages

I think it is more a case of this:

 

[deepbrown]

Epitome huh? SotC has cinematics. It has dialogue. It's not the best example out there.

Having those doesn't disqualify it. I'm saying it uses its other virtues as a video game.

 

[BobsRevenge]

Having those doesn't disqualify it. I'm saying it uses its other virtues as a video game.

I don't see how they detract from the game's artistry either. If anything, they add to it. The dialogue gives you a little understanding of each creature before you go kill it, which sort of lends more significance to them. The cinematic at the end does a good job of tying it up, and also adds to its worth. At least, for me it did.

 

[No6]

Because it's what I believe?

And DrGAKMAN (another ninthing why is it always the ninthings) believes that homosexuals are evil, and would almost certainly vote to strip them of rights. Why is your unsupported belief any better than his? Why the fuck would or should you think that saying "well I believe" somehow immunizes you from criticism or attacks?

Fuck your beliefs. They are wrong. Wrong like Christians who want to ban evolution from being taught (or promote ID). Wrong like Muslims who strap bombs to their chest. Wrong wrong wrong.