Support NeoGAF

[HK-47]

Re-read my post. I wasn't answering the question about games being art. I was rebuffing the assertion that games have become a respected medium. They haven't. They get no respect whatsoever and until my girlfriend decides to play Chrono Trigger of her own accord, I will not consider that respect to have been earned.

That is the most retarded argument I have ever heard. Artistic snobs are just that, snobs. They wont recognize something until after everyone else has said its cool or someone has beaten them over the head with it.

Way to not be able to make distinctions for yourself.

 

[HK-47]

Yes, I see. And the problem is that it's an argument we shouldn't even be having. That we can't have, semantically.

The way for games to move forward is through increasing the complexity, refinement and depth of their mechanics. That is, by being better games. The games that are usually touted as art are typically the most simple, easy and generally worthless (Ico, Rez, etc.)- so they are defended by their fans on vague and inarguable terms.

And its presentation. Games are also audio visual. And you saying something like Ico is worthless holds as much weight as those saying its art. Your definition is narrow

 

[Red]

Yes, I see. And the problem is that it's an argument we shouldn't even be having. That we can't have, semantically.

The way for games to move forward is through increasing the complexity, refinement and depthof their mechanics. That is, by being better games. The games that are usually touted as art are typically the most simple, easy and generally worthless (Ico, Rez, etc.)- so they are defended by their fans on vague and inarguable terms.

Not arguing art on this one, but how do you mean games need to become more complex to move forward?

 

[Cartman86]

Yes, I see. And the problem is that it's an argument we shouldn't even be having. That we can't have, semantically.

The way for games to move forward is through increasing the complexity, refinement and depth of their mechanics. That is, by being better games. The games that are usually touted as art are typically the most simple, easy and generally worthless (Ico, Rez, etc.)- so they are defended by their fans on vague and inarguable terms.

You are never going to get anyone to agree with you with language like that. To dismiss someone elses experience as worthless because they saw something in those games that you didn't is pretty dickish. Art is subjective and its fine that you don't like those games. But to call them worthless and dis the fans? Art is Art. And every game is art. Some are great art and some are crap art. Some are simple art (Rez) and some are more complex (Bioshock, Braid).

 

[Vinci]

Not arguing art on this one, but how do you mean games need to become more complex to move forward?

The Wii's success basically shits all over that concept, doesn't it?

 

[Musashi Wins!]

Yes, I see. And the problem is that it's an argument we shouldn't even be having. That we can't have, semantically.

The way for games to move forward is through increasing the complexity, refinement and depth of their mechanics. That is, by being better games. The games that are usually touted as art are typically the most simple, easy and generally worthless (Ico, Rez, etc.)- so they are defended by their fans on vague and inarguable terms.

No, man, Ico makes you feel. When I played Flower, I was...I was gushing with feeling. What's this? Oh, this is art.

The Wii's success basically shits all over that concept, doesn't it?

Not unless moving forward means your grandma has a games console.

 

[deepbrown]

Yes, they all FOLLOW the same ruleset! And even that's questionable. You don't create a different ruleset each time you make a film. With every game, however, you do! Games are their rules, nothing more.

And Crunched, I love that Bioshock is art whereas Unreal Tournament isn't. They are fundamentally the same game (as is Wolfenstein 3D)! The reason people are so attached to the idea of games being 'art' is due to their ever-increasing tendency to simulate artistic mediums. That cutscene isn't the game, it's an interruption of it.

And since no one defined games or art for me, well, what are we even arguing about?

Now you're looking at it from the wrong direction. You're "games are rulesets" is looking at it from the gameplay perspective - rather than the creation of the game itself and all the features they comprise of. You can list filmic features, then you can look at the uniqueness of the video game medium.

I've already CLEARLY argued against cutscenes. I've said that games can ONLY be considered art if they use the specific nature of their medium. They are INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT. That's the definition of games. Therefore, you need to look at the potential of delivering a narrative through interaction.

In this manner they have great potential. That an emotion can be created through the connection between a player and a character - something that you are deeply connected to, is a feature very unlike films (passive entertainment). This is the first step to being considered as its own unique art form. Next it's creating an atmosphere around that individual. It's then using the interactive nature of the medium to deliver a message/emotion/narrative. I could go on...

 

[HK-47]

Not arguing art on this one, but how do you mean games need to become more complex to move forward?

He means its his own definition of where games should be going, even though complexity is definitely not a priority, just like artistry or storytelling.

Personally I think most people have a narrow view of gaming, or they concentrate to much on the game part and forget the video part. And no that doesnt mean games need MGS cutscenes.

 

[Vinci]

Not unless moving forward means your grandma has a games console.

Actually it does. Funny how that works.

 

[deepbrown]

Yes, I see. And the problem is that it's an argument we shouldn't even be having. That we can't have, semantically.

The way for games to move forward is through increasing the complexity, refinement and depth of their mechanics. That is, by being better games. The games that are usually touted as art are typically the most simple, easy and generally worthless (Ico, Rez, etc.)- so they are defended by their fans on vague and inarguable terms.

You appear to be looking at this from the wrong direction. Games moving forward is not the same as them becoming art. The argument is to be made now, or never. If you want to talk about the possibility of them being art, you can make that argument now. That's what philosophy is generally - talking about possibility. You just need to conceive the argument and make a list of what a game(s) would need to do to be considered art.

"The games that are usually touted as art are typically the most simple, easy and generally worthless." - Complexity does not equal art. Simplicity can indeed be art (and often is). That someones argument for a certain game being art (eg. ICO) is weak, does not mean it's void from a better argument in the future.

 

[deepbrown]

You are never going to get anyone to agree with you with language like that. To dismiss someone elses experience as worthless because they saw something in those games that you didn't is pretty dickish. Art is subjective and its fine that you don't like those games. But to call them worthless and dis the fans? Art is Art. And every game is art. Some are great art and some are crap art. Some are simple art (Rez) and some are more complex (Bioshock, Braid).

I disagree very strongly with this. First off - we're still trying to argue that games can possibly be considered as art. And two, not all films are art. Only some. You have good films and bad films, not some that are good art and bad art. Doesn't work like that.

 

[sonicmj1]

Yes, I see. And the problem is that it's an argument we shouldn't even be having. That we can't have, semantically.

The way for games to move forward is through increasing the complexity, refinement and depth of their mechanics. That is, by being better games. The games that are usually touted as art are typically the most simple, easy and generally worthless (Ico, Rez, etc.)- so they are defended by their fans on vague and inarguable terms.

Context matters.

You seem to suggest that such things are irrelevant, and that games are no more than their design documents. But for most experiences of play that go beyond the mechanical level, this isn't the case. To reference a 'game' example that doesn't necessarily convey meaning, Cowboys and Indians has an identical ruleset to Cops and Robbers, but to the children who play them, simply by changing the names, the games become different in an appreciable way. Even if you are supposed to take the same sorts of actions, being a cowboy is not the same as being a cop.

Similarly, a video game's presentation can have a great effect on the experience of playing that particular title, for good or ill. Portal is nearly identical mechanically to Narbacular Drop, the college project that got those developers hired by Valve. But the two video games are extremely different to play for a wide number of reasons, only some of which are related to mechanical tweaks.

Presentation, working alongside mechanics, can be used in any number of ways to fundamentally change the experience of play.

 

[clockradiospeakers]

And you saying something like Ico is worthless holds as much weight as those saying its art. Your definition is narrow

Yes, you're right. But it's not narrow so much as meaningless. Ah, well.

Not arguing art on this one, but how do you mean games need to become more complex to move forward?

Mechanically. Look at the evolution of wargames, STGs and 2D fighting-games, for example.

You appear to be looking at this from the wrong direction. Games moving forward is not the same as them becoming art. The argument is to be made now, or never. If you want to talk about the possibility of them being art, you can make that argument now. That's what philosophy is generally - talking about possibility. You just need to conceive the argument and make a list of what a game(s) would need to do to be considered art.

Nothing. And when I said 'moving forward' I meant moving forward as games.

"The games that are usually touted as art are typically the most simple, easy and generally worthless." - Complexity does not equal art. Simplicity can indeed be art (and often is). That someones argument for a certain game being art (eg. ICO) is weak, does not mean it's void from a better argument in the future.

Quite! But games, in order to stay entertaining, need to be complex. Unless you can be entertained by simple games- in which case, more power to you, I guess.

And Musashi Wins! has some of the other points covered, with much more wit, too.

 

[Red]

Quite! But games, in order to stay entertaining, need to be complex. Unless you can be entertained by simple games- in which case, more power to you, I guess.

Are you a fan of more complex genres (strategy-based or memorization-heavy)? I disagree that games have to be complex to be entertaining; Super Mario Bros. is still fun and that's pretty much as simple as you can get. I think it's interesting that you say games need to be complex to be entertaining but are dismissive of them as means of expression. I think I see where you're coming from, and I can't say I really disagree with the ends you're describing. I just see games in a broader sense, I guess.

 

[Peronthious]

Quite! But games, in order to stay entertaining, need to be complex. Unless you can be entertained by simple games- in which case, more power to you, I guess.

And Musashi Wins! has some of the other points covered, with much more wit, too.

I'd point you to Digipen and the games done by their students for an excellent example of engaging, simple games. Most of the games I have seen from that school revolve around a single mechanic and then expand on that to create an awesome experience, often times much better than a more complex commercial release.

 

[Darkpen]

If a game can deliver a message and evoke emotion purely through interactivity, and if that's what it takes to call videogames art, then can we come to agreement that Flower is art?

 

[Red]

If a game can deliver a message and evoke emotion purely through interactivity, and if that's what it takes to call videogames art, then can we come to agreement that Flower is art?

If we can agree that Flower is delivering a message and evoking emotion, then yes.

Spoiler

I disagree.

 

[Narcosis]

The debate I usually see based on whether or not games are art usually doesn't de-evolve into discussion of game mechanics and controls. Where I think most people have trouble saying games are art are more based on the medium's ability to communicate ideas and emotions and the expressions of it's creators. If gaming were to be able to do that alot more consistently than what it currently does I think this debate would be nonexistant. But doing so would require game developers to take more risks, to be unafraid of censors, to deal with subject matter, characters and narratives that are more thought out and mature. And I mean real maturity, not "mature" as in boobs and blood.

 

[clockradiospeakers]

Are you a fan of more complex genres (strategy-based or memorization-heavy)? I disagree that games have to be complex to be entertaining; Super Mario Bros. is still fun and that's pretty much as simple as you can get. I think it's interesting that you say games need to be complex to be entertaining but are dismissive of them as means of expression. I think I see where you're coming from, and I can't say I really disagree with the ends you're describing. I just see games in a broader sense, I guess.

I said "in order to stay entertaining". I would never deny that SMB is fun, but for only about as long as it takes to beat it once or twice. But for a game to remain interesting and worth my time beyond that- it must be complex!

And yes, I am very much a fan of strategy-based and memorization-heavy games.

 

[Red]

I said "in order to stay entertaining". I would never deny that SMB is fun, but for only about as long as it takes to beat it once or twice. But for a game to remain interesting and worth my time beyond that- it must be complex!

And yes, I am very much a fan of strategy-based and memorization-heavy games.

Got it. Your argument makes a lot more sense to me now.

 

[Cartman86]

I disagree very strongly with this. First off - we're still trying to argue that games can possibly be considered as art. And two, not all films are art. Only some. You have good films and bad films, not some that are good art and bad art. Doesn't work like that.

Yep that is the problem. And one that no one is going to answer, because no one is going to agree on it.

I think we all can agree though that there are games that at the very least come close to being art, and that someday maybe there will be a game that comes along that the majority of the community can see as art.

 

[HK-47]

If a game can deliver a message and evoke emotion purely through interactivity, and if that's what it takes to call videogames art, then can we come to agreement that Flower is art?

Once again ignoring the video part of the whole video game thing though.

 

[A Twisty Fluken]

If a game can deliver a message and evoke emotion purely through interactivity, and if that's what it takes to call videogames art

The assumption that this is the accepted "test" is where this deeply, severely fails.

 

[Opiate]

Thats probably a factor, no one likes having their favorite hobby looked down upon and viewed as weird and antisocial.

I think the main reason a lot of us wouldnt mind games being recognized as a viable form of art and as a serious and mainstream form of entertainment, not just crappy and silly minigames or shooters, is that validation would help to expand gaming, both is scope and audience, and make it a more accepted form of serious entertainment, and by doing that we will get more high quality and original games.

The whole Games as art thing is to help advance games so that we can get an even greater variety of games and better quality games all around. Theres nothing wrong with seeking validation and credibility.

I agree with all of this, but we need to be careful not damaging ourselves in the process.

Consider what happens if we keep insisting "Game [X] is art! Art! Art! Art!" when the game itself is intellectually pedestrian, as Bioshock is (it's a great game, that's not my point, it's just not a philosophically sophisticated work). Instead of convincing people that we are connoisseurs, it only convinces people we are children who insist that people take us seriously even when we don't deserve it.

Which is my way of saying: I hope games are taken seriously in the future, but insisting they are taken seriously before they deserve it only slows things down.

 

[BlueTsunami]

Actually it does. Funny how that works.

Unfortunately the quality of games on the respective system has suffered for it. Mass appeal!

 

[proposition]

The bar is my girlfriend, who is a self-admitted snob when it comes to entertainment. When she willingly opens one of her own accord as a medium through which she experiences emotional changes for the sake of doing so, then the bar will have been reached. Same goes for video games.

Books have reached the bar, as have theatre, poetry, music, movies and dance. Comics and video games have yet to be respected in all but the most specific of circles.

This is a very bad indicator. You should find another.

 

[viciouskillersquirrel]

This is a very bad indicator. You should find another.

What is wrong with her as an indicator?

 

[Enduin]

I agree with all of this, but we need to be careful not damaging ourselves in the process.

Consider what happens if we keep insisting "Game [X] is art! Art! Art! Art!" when the game itself is intellectually pedestrian, as Bioshock is (it's a great game, that's not my point, it's just not a philosophically sophisticated work). Instead of convincing people that we are connoisseurs, it only convinces people we are children who insist that people take us seriously even when we don't deserve it.

Which is my way of saying: I hope games are taken seriously in the future, but insisting they are taken seriously before they deserve it only slows things down.

Quite true, we need to go about things carefully and not just force it down peoples throats. For me, and the way I have come to understand art through the various philo & art classes I have taken, I am concerned less with defining game X or Y as "art" since its a rather subjective judgment but rather I am interested in establishing video games in general as a respectable form of art as a whole.

Obviously you need to produce some examples of games as art in order to get that recognition from the greater society, but I dont think that will happen until we the consumers and the developers consciously view the medium as such. For me getting games accepted as a viable form of art is a means to end in order to push the industry forward in creating more compelling experiences that are unique to gaming. Its not something that will occur overnight, it will probably take another whole console generation, but you never know it could just take one outstanding game to burst the bubble.

As well I think people get too caught up in the art aspect of the debate and think people just want some artsy high brow bullshit games that try and talk about meaningless ideas and push for abstract content and direction over competent gameplay. To me artistic games are those games that are created by people passionately pursuing to create a vision and an experience that is compelling and unique to what video games can provide, playing to the medium's strengths, not just trying to parrot movies or books, and complete in scope. This is obviously asking for a lot and is more of an ideal than an expected reality, but we have to have goals.

With that in mind I think Bioshock is a game that represents such an approach, it doesnt always succeed as most of us have experienced with the later parts of the game, but its intent is to play to the strengths of the videogame genre and create an experience unique and compelling within the medium and entertainment as a whole.

 

[proposition]

What is wrong with her as an indicator?

1. a person who imitates, cultivates, or slavishly admires social superiors and is condescending or overbearing to others.
2. a person who believes himself or herself an expert or connoisseur in a given field and is condescending toward or disdainful of those who hold other opinions or have different tastes regarding this field: a musical snob.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/snob?r=75

Does this answer your question?

 

[proposition]

Trying to demarcate art from non-art seems like a fairly useless exercise which results in people arguing past each other.

 

[BlueTsunami]

There's still a large group of "traditional" artists that rain their hatred down on Photography, then build up from there. Good luck with Videogames.

 

[HK-47]

Quite true, we need to go about things carefully and not just force it down peoples throats. For me, and the way I have come to understand art through the various philo & art classes I have taken, I am concerned less with defining game X or Y as "art" since its a rather subjective judgment but rather I am interested in establishing video games in general as a respectable form of art as a whole.

Obviously you need to produce some examples of games as art in order to get that recognition from the greater society, but I dont think that will happen until we the consumers and the developers consciously view the medium as such. For me getting games accepted as a viable form of art is a means to end in order to push the industry forward in creating more compelling experiences that are unique to gaming. Its not something that will occur overnight, it will probably take another whole console generation, but you never know it could just take one outstanding game to burst the bubble.

As well I think people get too caught up in the art aspect of the debate and think people just want some artsy high brow bullshit games that try and talk about meaningless ideas and push for abstract content and direction over competent gameplay. To me artistic games are those games that are created by people passionately pursuing to create a vision and an experience that is compelling and unique to what video games can provide, playing to the medium's strengths, not just trying to parrot movies or books, and complete in scope. This is obviously asking for a lot and is more of an ideal than an expected reality, but we have to have goals.

With that in mind I think Bioshock is a game that represents such an approach, it doesnt always succeed as most of us have experienced with the later parts of the game, but its intent is to play to the strengths of the videogame genre and create an experience unique and compelling within the medium and entertainment as a whole.

I agree. Its not about whether a certain game is good or bad art, but rather that videos games as a whole arent considered art at all.

 

[proposition]

I agree with all of this, but we need to be careful not damaging ourselves in the process.

Consider what happens if we keep insisting "Game [X] is art! Art! Art! Art!" when the game itself is intellectually pedestrian, as Bioshock is (it's a great game, that's not my point, it's just not a philosophically sophisticated work). Instead of convincing people that we are connoisseurs, it only convinces people we are children who insist that people take us seriously even when we don't deserve it.

Which is my way of saying: I hope games are taken seriously in the future, but insisting they are taken seriously before they deserve it only slows things down.

It seems to me that really you're trying to draw a distinction between good art and bad art here, rather than between art and not-art. But it seems rather problematic.

If you draw the line between art and non-art at sophistication, then you're going to be cutting off a lot of things from other media - media generally accepted as art, such as film - out of the equation. If Bioshock isn't art, then nor is Live Free or Die Hard. You might be comfortable with that. But you also seem to be cutting out, say, Ancient Egyptian art and Ancient Greek art, neither of which are especially sophisticated by modern standards.

In fact, by this standard, it seems that humans might not have even started producing art until the Renaissance. Or perhaps they didn't start producing good art until the Renaissance?

 

[viciouskillersquirrel]

1. a person who imitates, cultivates, or slavishly admires social superiors and is condescending or overbearing to others.
2. a person who believes himself or herself an expert or connoisseur in a given field and is condescending toward or disdainful of those who hold other opinions or have different tastes regarding this field: a musical snob.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/snob?r=75

Does this answer your question?

OK. Next example: my mother.

I don't see her picking up Shadow of the Collossus any time soon.

 

[A Twisty Fluken]

Consider what happens if we keep insisting "Game [X] is art! Art! Art! Art!" when the game itself is intellectually pedestrian, as Bioshock is (it's a great game, that's not my point, it's just not a philosophically sophisticated work). Instead of convincing people that we are connoisseurs, it only convinces people we are children who insist that people take us seriously even when we don't deserve it.

Yes. My dad came to me interested in Bioshock after hearing some of that tooting about the deep Randian inspiration and new frontiers of gaming maturity and morality (he is a JD who studied playwriting at Iowa with/under Johns Locke and Irving respectively) and I was embarrassed to show him a fucking above average FPS. It DOESN'T help.

 

[Tellaerin]

I suppose if you don't read or watch movies and only play games, something like Xenosaga or Metal gear might seem fresh and interesting.

I do quite a bit of reading, and games like Xenosaga are still fresh and interesting to me. And entertaining, because they present their concepts through this participatory framework where your skills are called upon to advance the narrative. You may not 'be' the protagonist, but you act as their 'guide', so to speak. You play the game looking over their shoulder, and your victories in gameplay terms translate to their victories in the context of the story. Through the process of playing, I'm making events in the story turn out as they should. That makes me feel connected with the story and characters in a game in a way more passive media can't. That ability to create a sense of emotional investment in the player is one of the big strengths of games as a storytelling medium, IMO.

(Sorry, I couldn't let the 'only people who haven't been exposed to anything better would find games interesting on that level' thing pass unchallenged.)

 

[Zachack]

I agree with all of this, but we need to be careful not damaging ourselves in the process.

Consider what happens if we keep insisting "Game [X] is art! Art! Art! Art!" when the game itself is intellectually pedestrian, as Bioshock is (it's a great game, that's not my point, it's just not a philosophically sophisticated work). Instead of convincing people that we are connoisseurs, it only convinces people we are children who insist that people take us seriously even when we don't deserve it.

Which is my way of saying: I hope games are taken seriously in the future, but insisting they are taken seriously before they deserve it only slows things down.

Who exactly are you trying to convince? Most of the world's population would probably agree that Bioshock is "art" once you explain the use of story to attack conventions of video game plot structure. They would also think that a Thomas Kincaid painting is fucking peachy. Who gives a shit if some (often racist/classist) snobs turn their noses up at something that might compete with the "plebes" for attention, thereby dragging it away from their chosen medium?

Here, you want some fun? Akira Kurosawa's Ikiru is "intellectually pedestrian" (ps you sound like a college student who hasn't learned that big words are often not useful). The message of the story is pretty basic and the structure isn't anything particularly innovative or special. And by-fucking-god it's an incredible work of art.

 

[Red]

Who exactly are you trying to convince? Most of the world's population would probably agree that Bioshock is "art" once you explain the use of story to attack conventions of video game plot structure. They would also think that a Thomas Kincaid painting is fucking peachy. Who gives a shit if some (often racist/classist) snobs turn their noses up at something that might compete with the "plebes" for attention, thereby dragging it away from their chosen medium?

Here, you want some fun? Akira Kurosawa's Ikiru is "intellectually pedestrian" (ps you sound like a college student who hasn't learned that big words are often not useful). The message of the story is pretty basic and the structure isn't anything particularly innovative or special. And by-fucking-god it's an incredible work of art.

The force is strong with this one.

 

[Opiate]

Who exactly are you trying to convince? Most of the world's population would probably agree that Bioshock is "art" once you explain the use of story to attack conventions of video game plot structure. They would also think that a Thomas Kincaid painting is fucking peachy. Who gives a shit if some (often racist/classist) snobs turn their noses up at something that might compete with the "plebes" for attention, thereby dragging it away from their chosen medium?

You realize this was the premise of the conversation I entered, yes? That many of us want video games to be recognized as art so that people view us as conisseurs of a fine art, and not just sophomoric men piddling away our time.

If that view doesn't bother you, that's absolutely fine. It doesn't particularly bother me either, but some people consider the "image" of video games a concern. If outside acceptance is irrelevant, than my post is moot, as it was predicated upon the post it was in reply to.

Here, you want some fun? Akira Kurosawa's Ikiru is "intellectually pedestrian" (ps you sound like a college student who hasn't learned that big words are often not useful). The message of the story is pretty basic and the structure isn't anything particularly innovative or special. And by-fucking-god it's an incredible work of art.

I'm sorry if my vocabulary doesn't suit you. Having made hundreds of posts on GAF, it should be fairly clear that this isn't just a facade to impress or seem bookish or academic -- unless it's a facade I've fastidiously kept for months on end.

As to your point here, having watched Ikiru and played Bioshock, Ikiru is not "intellectually pedestrian", while Bioshock is, and that's precisely the point I'm making: trying to force the moniker on games when they don't deserve it is a bad idea. Ikiru certainly has a simple plot, but "simple" does not mean "intellectually pedestrian." In fact, many of the most intellectually sophisticated films are couched in the simplicity and elegance of their story -- which gets precisely to the heart of my choice of verbiage.

And again, as a disclaimer: I'm not suggesting Bioshock isn't a great game, as it is.

 

[Opiate]

Quite true, we need to go about things carefully and not just force it down peoples throats. For me, and the way I have come to understand art through the various philo & art classes I have taken, I am concerned less with defining game X or Y as "art" since its a rather subjective judgment but rather I am interested in establishing video games in general as a respectable form of art as a whole.

Obviously you need to produce some examples of games as art in order to get that recognition from the greater society, but I dont think that will happen until we the consumers and the developers consciously view the medium as such. For me getting games accepted as a viable form of art is a means to end in order to push the industry forward in creating more compelling experiences that are unique to gaming. Its not something that will occur overnight, it will probably take another whole console generation, but you never know it could just take one outstanding game to burst the bubble.

As well I think people get too caught up in the art aspect of the debate and think people just want some artsy high brow bullshit games that try and talk about meaningless ideas and push for abstract content and direction over competent gameplay. To me artistic games are those games that are created by people passionately pursuing to create a vision and an experience that is compelling and unique to what video games can provide, playing to the medium's strengths, not just trying to parrot movies or books, and complete in scope. This is obviously asking for a lot and is more of an ideal than an expected reality, but we have to have goals.

With that in mind I think Bioshock is a game that represents such an approach, it doesnt always succeed as most of us have experienced with the later parts of the game, but its intent is to play to the strengths of the videogame genre and create an experience unique and compelling within the medium and entertainment as a whole.

Analysis of Bioshock aside, I agree with the general thrust here Enduin. Great post.

 

[spanks]

Gaming is still a young medium. Look at films from the 1890s-1920s. Essentially the same thing: a fledgling art form. Just like film battled with theatrical conventions, games are battling with cinematic ones. Just like film was considered a vulgar form of entertainment in its early goings, so are games.

I pretty much agree with this view. I also think that technology is a major hurdle. In the early film era, movies were based on ideas like 'train goes towards you in 3d' and 'people build a wall, but in reverse.' There were no stories, they were competing on a technological level. Nowadays, videogames compete via ever-improving graphics and ideas such as online multiplayer. Movies never really were considered as art until the technology equalized and everyone had access to the same cameras, special effects, etc. Competition moved to cinematography, writing and real narratives. In the same way, games might need to come to a point where graphics and number of players are not the main concern; where, for example, everyone can use photorealism if they so choose. Then we might see an explosion of new ideas which push the actual narrative and interactivity forward, instead of the flashes in the pan we are seeing today. This might take a while though, games are a complex platform.

Another hurdle is that games are not passive experiences like paintings/film/music- they actually require input, if not skill. In this way, they have more in common with theme park rides and sports. Who knows, maybe this is the place art will be heading in the future. Or maybe the kind of gaming we know today will never be more than a niche (artistically speaking, of course).

 

[Tellaerin]

You realize this was the premise of the conversation I entered, yes? That many of us want video games to be recognized as art so that people view us as conisseurs of a fine art, and not just sophomoric men piddling away our time.

If that view doesn't bother you, that's absolutely fine. It doesn't particularly bother me either, but some people consider the "image" of video games a concern. If outside acceptance is irrelevant, than my post is moot, as it was predicated upon the post it was in reply to.

I think what many of us desire isn't so much that videogames be declared 'high art' as that they not be automatically be relegated to the bottom rung of of the popular entertainment ladder. As things stand now, confessing to being an avid television watcher (the majority of which is more intellectually moribund than the worst-written videogame script) isn't liable to raise any eyebrows, while self-identifying as a 'gamer' will still earn derision from many quarters. I think some people have mistakenly latched onto the notion that if games are authoritatively declared to be art, the stigma some people attach to gaming will promptly disappear as a result, which I doubt would be the case.

 

[Opiate]

I think what many of us desire isn't so much that videogames be declared 'high art' as that they not be automatically be relegated to the bottom rung of of the popular entertainment ladder. As things stand now, confessing to being an avid television watcher (the majority of which is more intellectually moribund than the worst-written videogame script) isn't liable to raise any eyebrows, while self-identifying as a 'gamer' will still earn derision from many quarters. I think some people have mistakenly latched onto the notion that if games are authoritatively declared to be art, the stigma some people attach to gaming will promptly disappear as a result, which I doubt would be the case.

I think this is understandable too, and I think we'll get there. I absolutely agree that TV is as intellectually devoid as games.

 

[Enduin]

Analysis of Bioshock aside, I agree with the general thrust here Enduin. Great post.

Thanks, this is probably a bit rash and definitely not sufficiently informed, but what the hell it might make for a good time. I all too often get the feeling when I play games that the people making them dont take them seriously, this could be for a variety of reason. So for me what I hope for by establishing video games as a respectable form of art is that recognition will carry with it expectations that will push the industry to take their work, the game itself, more seriously.

Now its quite important that I explain what I mean my seriously, cause I know that many already try to, and almost all are quite serious in the normal sense of the word, I fully understand game development is no easy task.

What I mean when I say seriously, is the game itself, as an entity, its core vision, direction and intentions. We already know that great books, plays, movies, and other forms of art all take themselves seriously, they are coherent and consistent in their execution and delivery, things make sense and fit within their world, no matter how unrealistic they may be. So the same should be true for video games.

In Bioshock as in many other games, if not all, there arrives a point or points when we as gamers say WTF? It is these moments where there are gameplay mechanics, design choices and plot devices that just dont make sense, they take away from the experience and do not coexist and compliment the game as a whole. Some of these inconsistency are quite large, others are small. It is at these times that I get the feeling the developers and or publishers dont take their game "seriously", ie the world and experience they are trying to create, and they sacrifice that consistency and cohesion because "its just a game." Though obviously many other factors probably play a part in this; time, money and resources arent infinite.

With that in mind it is my hope that by making games a respectable form of art it will be further pressed upon the industry to make games that stay true to the experience they are trying to create and take the game's world and design seriously, and not to just throw shit in there cause its cool or cause they need to pad the game to add some play time. Rather they make everything consistent with the games overall direction and vision. So once again games as art for me is just a means to an end; and I stress that I know this is not only solution to improving the quality of video games, rathers its just one way, and probably one of a number of necessary steps in advancing this medium we all enjoy so much.

I know people will say "well theyre just games, they have people with super human powers or who carry crazy big swords or who can get shot a ton of times and not die" and thats fine and true. Taking your game seriously doesnt mean making the game itself actually serious and realistic, it means being true to its essence and core vision, whether its highly unrealistic or attempting to be verisimilar(sup N'Gai), though its probably more of an imperative for games trying to actually be serious or attempting to provide a specific experience, but its probably a decent rule to follow for any game. As I said a lot of developers attempt this already, it is by no means an easy task, it is again a goal to strive for, even if it can never be completely reached.

 

[Shake Appeal]

I agree 90% with Enduin, and I'm the guy who wrote that PRETENTIOUS!!! article about Bioshock.

 

[zoukka]

Super Mario Bros is the fucking Mona Lisa of videogames.

So yeah people can shove the progression talk up their ass. Games will win people over eventually and with gameplay.

 

[Shake Appeal]

In Bioshock as in many other games, if not all, there arrives a point or points when we as gamers say WTF? It is these moments where there are gameplay mechanics, design choices and plot devices that just dont make sense, they take away from the experience and do not coexist and compliment the game as a whole. Some of these inconsistency are quite large, others are small. It is at these times that I get the feeling the developers and or publishers dont take their game "seriously", ie the world and experience they are trying to create, and they sacrifice that consistency and cohesion because "its just a game." Though obviously many other factors probably play a part in this; time, money and resources arent infinite.

To be doubly pretentious, what you've hit on here is that most, if not all, games lack proper concinnity.

To be clear: I have no interest in 'defining' what art is (and people who have clear definitions probably need to take Aesthetics 101 at their local community college). If anything, I'm using 'art' as shorthand for games which will use the unique qualities of this new medium in intelligent, internally-consistent ways to provide experiences which are interesting, insightful, or moving in some nebulous kind of way. And I think Bioshock achieved that up to and very much including its twist.

I also don't think all games should go this way. People seem threatened by my even putting time and effort into thinking and writing about a 'game' seriously, as if I am suggesting we need to collectively throw off the shackles of brainless shooters and spiky-haired JRPGs and rise up! Rather, I think some games could, in the future, have real merit, on their own tems, within the forms of their distinctly 'game-y' medium (most of which have probably yet to be discovered)... and that these games could happily coexist with the other, less 'pretentious' titles that now make up 90% or more of the market. Just as we have great literature sold in the same bookshops that sell schlock thrillers, and great films shown in the same cinemas that show summer blockbusters.

 

[Shake Appeal]

So yeah people can shove the progression talk up their ass. Games will win people over eventually and with gameplay.

This is effectively meaningless: you might as well have said that books will win people over eventually and with words! Films will win people over eventually and with moving pictures!

 

[deepbrown]

If we can agree that Flower is delivering a message and evoking emotion, then yes.

Spoiler

I disagree.

It's not about us agreeing as one. It's about someone making a strong argument for it. I believe Flower delivers a strong message and evokes many emotions simply through interactivity etc. So sure. It can make a case for being art.

 

[deepbrown]

The assumption that this is the accepted "test" is where this deeply, severely fails.

Naturally. This is my interpretation and argument. A medium must use it's unique properties to deliever a narrative or some kind of message. Games using filmic tools (solely) won't elevate them to art - so there's no point games copying them OR by us measuring them against films.