Games as Art
 

So, there's this article on IGN listing the top 10 games that would best hold the phrase "games are a form of art" in a argument.

I considered making a thread about it just to get general GFF opinions regarding the issue, but I wasn't until I read some of the posts from IGN-goers on the bottom of the second page. "Games have art in them but are not art", "Art implies an earnest connection between the work and its audience, and it relies on the emotional and interpretive energy of its audience to perpetuate its power," and so forth.

That first quote is simple but kinda true. Games do have a ton of art in them -- hell, character art is sometimes a factor for me when I go buy a game. I was first drawn to Ar Tonelico simply because the character art was well done and attention-grabbing. Well-drawn cover art is something that draws a person's attention, whereas it otherwise might have been overlooked completely.

On the other hand, the second quote, taken from a different poster, can be construed in both manners. The poster had said in that same statement he agreed with Roger Ebert, whose stance was "games are not art." However, there are countless titles where an "earnest connection between the work and its audience" exists, and almost every RPG to at least some degree "relies on the emotional and interpretive energy of its audience to perpetuate its power."

I would argue that yes, games are art, a different kind of art. To some, the word "art" implies paintings and sculptures, and that is a very limited view of what art is. In a broad sense, art an expression of creativity and imagination enhanced with inherent meaning; art doesn't exist simply to exist. The creator has some reason for creating art, and that reason is poured into the design., thus art exists for a purpose -- to convey meaning.

I don't think it's a point even worth arguing that games convey meaning and emotions. Games inspire all sorts of emotions; fear, anxiety, suspense, sadness, admiration, joy, etc. Games also produce meaning, especially in open-ended, free-roaming ones like the Elder Scrolls series, Jade Empire, and even the Grand Theft Auto series. So if games are able to express meaning and inspire emotion just as, say, the Statue of David or the Mona Lisa, shouldn't games be considered art?

For those who don't care to read IGN's list, I'll list it for you. Top 10 Games As Art:

10: Out of this World
9: Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time
8: Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty
7: Grim Fandango
6: Shadow of the Colossus
5: Half-Life 2
4: Resident Evil 4
3: Okami
2: Electroplankton
1: Final Fantasy VII

Yes, some of the posters griped about Final Fantasy VII's top spot. And yes, ICO was something of a "honorable mention" among posters.

Anyway, I'd like to hear the thoughts of GFFers regarding games as an art form. I realize the opinion might be slightly biased, but oh well. We'll see in the pending discussion.

Number one deserves a great big hahahahahahahaaha, even if already mentioned to be completely bullshit. That's absolute bull, even for IGN.

Hell, most of the games are bullshit. Art has always been about creativity, not about who has the most money to fling around and make things look pretty. Just about every game on their had a rather large budget for its time.

Yeah, Out of this World, Grim Fandango, Okami, Shadow of the Colossus and elektroplankton. What ties those together sure is budget.

Don't give me that hair-splitting shit because I chose to say "almost all" instead of "the majority". Shadow of the Colossus and Okami are a mite bit of a stretch for that list of yours. Out of this World I have no numbers to back up, but you're automatically counting because of how aged it looks today. IGN seems to think it was quite stunning for its time, so one has to wonder how not-well-funded you'd have me believe:


Anyway, I happen to like a good few of those games. Creative? Sure. But do I consider them art? No.

the only games I could consider as art and probably are the first that really made me think about it was ICO and Shadow of the colossus.

Okami could enter in that category graphic wise only.

as for everything on that list, I call bullshit, even if those game were good (some really good) I don't consider them "arts"

I knew posting that list was a bad idea. Takes too much attention away from the actual topic at hand, which is not to discuss why those games are on the list, but games in general.

In any case, not to call you out GB, but something you said struck me. You'd call games creative, and I'd venture that you'd say the same about art. So if games are creative and art is creative, what's the difference?

That's part of defining what "art" is, and where this distinction between games and art lies. Both are creative outlets of expression, both require a degree of imagination and both evoke emotions in their viewers.

Now see, this is where I am torn on the subject. Video games as art I see as a few different things altogether. One, you have storytelling, two, you have actually visual standpoints, and three, music. When one views art, they are suppose to be moved, whether it's from a story, a painting, or music. That's what I consider art...not what the fuck looks good, or made the most money.

Now mind you, art can also provoke emtions, not commonly referred when most people think art. A HUUUUUGE reason why I consider H.P. Lovecraft, and Edgar Allen Poe as artists, is because their words invoked fear and chaos to those that read it. That's an art on it's own.

In terms of that list, except for a few (Out of this world which I only saw in pictures and videos) most of those games did bring out some emotional standpoint when I played them.

A big one for me was Shadow of the Colossous. It wasn't tear jerking by any means when I first saw the giant, it was breathtaking. I was in awe.

Any one of those games on that list could have been at the top spot, in my opinion, because they all seemed to successfully portray what they were ultimately getting across. Everyone remembers MGS:2 because of it's "What are we fighting for?" type of storyline, everyone remembers FFVII because of that certain scene, (Aerith dies, get over it).

I think FFVII is in that top spot for the same reason everyone hates on the FFVII fanboys. At that time that game, really, was the first one of it's kind to actually, in my opinion, evoke emotions and awe better than any game out there at that time. But of course I could be wrong.

I think games can certainly exist as art. There's no reason for them not to. I think that, like films, the medium needs time to grow for it to become an artform.

I think Shadow of the Colossus is the first huge breakthrough for games as an artform. For me, art is all about the subtext. Shadow of the Colossus is pretty much ALL subtext. You're barely given any narrative at all in the game. It's left for audience interpretation. I think the connection that is made through the subtext is what makes SotC a milestone for games as art.

I think as the medium continues to grow and flourish, we will see more games like SotC. The problem is, unlike other mediums, games are much riskier because of cost, developers, and audience. I think as it becomes more mainstream, though, we'll see more artful games come through the pipeline.

Not all art is creative, and not all that is creative is art. For example, I think Jackson Pollock was a complete hack. And I also happen to think the slinky is creative.

There's art, and then there's mediums. That's what Ebert was trying to explain.

Link to a decent article printed a couple years ago regarding Ebert's claim to games never being considered art. Here it is.

However, he fails to consider RPGs*, where players are led on to the next part of the game by no one other than the script writer, aka the author. Seems like kind of a close-minded thing to say for a critic of his standing.

*Of course, Elder Scrolls is omitted from that phrase, being that is in the genre-definition of "player choice" among RPGs.

GB: Point taken regarding creativity. But even video games can act as a medium for artistic creation and imagination. They're just a different medium for expressing the definition of art than we're conceptually used to.

Take Okami, for example. One look at Okami and the first thing I think of is "art". Okami happens to be a form of moving art, not terribly different from the very same "serious film" Ebert talks about. And Okami is a video game that I believe successfully acts as an artistic medium, in the same manner Shadow of the Colossus and even Final Fantasy VII.

A general rule for art is that it evokes emotion, going back to a point I made earlier. Quite frankly, any good game is capable of evoking emotions. Anything form a sports sim to an RPG and even puzzle games are capable of creating emotion, but I wouldn't consider Madden '08 art. I would, however, consider FF7 art because it's the type of emotion involved -- the connection you build with the characters, the story, and your personal desire to see it through to the end. That kind of emotion is powerful, no less than staring down the Mona Lisa in some respects.

Last Minute Thought: After reading a bit more of that article I linked, there's one thing that really bothers me. A quote from Ebert, "But I believe the nature of the medium prevents it from moving beyond craftsmanship to the stature of art." To me, it sounds like he's limiting the type of people who can respect something as art to those who don't play video games. A dichotomy between 1.) those who are capable of viewing art (non-gamers) and 2.) those who play video games. That statement of his comes off as a little pompous; his declaration of the nature of video games being the root of why games could never be considered art. Those that play them aren't sophisticated enough to understand, view, and appreciate art. Maybe I read too much into it, but that was first impression.

You haven't played enough RPGs.

When I think of art, I think of consistency. To me, the games which embody art possess consistent themes concerning aesthetics, storytelling, and interactivity.

SotC, for instance, had a lot of mystery and subtext surrounding its events. Its gameworld, then, is equally mysterious with the ruins of long-dead inhabitants scattered throughout a manless wilderness. Interactively, there wasn't much about the game's design that would interrupt the aesthetic. Actions followed their own logic, and executed naturally. Compare that to games which routinely throw minigames at the player and detract from the experience by forcing the player to re-learn rules of interactivity.

To me the one game which fully encompasses "art," is Planescape: Torment. Aesthetically, thematically, and interactively, the game never contradicts itself, while simultaneously allowing the player to interact with the story, instead of having the story dictated to the player. There are plenty of RPGs that do the same thing like Fallout and Ultima, but none of them do so on the scale which Torment accomplished.

That's not to say that the game was large, it's to say that it's the only RPG in the video game market to approach narrativism. While progression is linear, the player's choices throughout the experience determine the character of The Nameless One, eventually forcing the player to determine the nature of man, and what can change it.

It also enhances the player's connection to the game. Constantly interacting and using characters creates a much more significant link between the player and characters in gaming than in passive media. The connection does not simply exist because of likability, it's personal. Through interacting with the characters, both in action and in conversation, the player develops relationships with them. Something which many games have tried and done successfully, but none as masterfully as Torment.

Then in the end, the story itself kicks the cliches of its medium to the curb, and establishes itself as something wholly unique.

That to me is art. Something which connects to the viewer or consumer on a personal level.

From there, though, you start getting into issues of what is "good" art, and most of the games on IGN's list are shit.

Ultimately I don't think the problem is whether games can be defined as art, but how ever increasing budgets necessitate the expansion of an increasingly homogenous consumer base. The problem is taste.

Unless the cost of game development goes down significantly, we're going to be faced with very little of what can be considered "good art."

When game making was a hobbyist's pursuit instead of big business, there was a lot more soul. Maybe now that the graphical capabilities of 7 years ago are well within the reach of hobbyists, we'll be looking at a mini revolution of independent games.

I'm not sure I ever bought the explanation that because the gamer has a direct choice over how the game is played that it necessarily can't be art.

It implies a "correct" interpretation of something like Michaelangelo's David, or the cubist movement. We make a decision to interpret for ourselves when it comes to art, and one opinion, though it might me more informed by historical evidence, isn't always right.

Fluidity is part and parcel of what we see in art. What you might appreciate one day for a certain reason won't always be why you appreciate the piece.

Course, I'm taking more of a liberal definition of art, mostly as it comes out of literature.

I'm of the mindset that while games feature things like writing, musical composition, artwork... the game itself is hardly something I would call art. Games bring interaction to art, I'll say that... but the idea of games as art is something that I used to be on the fence about and now downright disagree with.

I don't want to dance around it all day, it just seems pretentious. Gamer music, gamer clothes, gamer food, games as art, games as movies, games as novels...

Personally... just, no to all that. No.

I just play games, lol.

To me, art is a product that offers something more than just mere functionality.

Of course, the main functionality of games is to offer fun and entertainment, but in my opinion, games also offer more than just that. Every single game is the result of people's creative work and thus carries emotion and meaning.

When I play a game, I tend to look behind its raw functionality, or mechanism. I'm having fun discovering the more subtle aspects and creative decisions involved in creating it as part of the experience. If you enjoy games like I do, it's really hard to not recognize every single one of them as being a work of art in some way or another.

As with all forms of art, there is generic "Hey it's a painting" and "Wow, that's a masterpiece!" I don't think of art in the scope that everything must be the equivalent of the Statue of David or Mona Lisa, and the same concept applies to games. There will be games that stand out as masterpieces among a collection of generic games.

But you're right. Rising development costs will cause developers to create a final product that may be slightly shy of a masterpiece in favor of low cost. That's a shame.:(

They're not even comparable. One product takes one person 50 bucks worth of supplies and maybe 2 weeks of time to complete, while the other takes 50-100 people, millions of dollars, and 2-4 years to complete.

So which medium sounds like a better outlet for creativity?

Games as art will always be the rarity, because publishers are simply not going to want to take the risks. When they do occur, it's almost always as a fluke.

I'm not even talking about masterpieces, here. Every other artform has a much larger portion of what can be considered good to all tastes, precisely because of the costs involved in their creation and the amount of personal vision which impacts the creation of the product.

The best games for consoles tend to be released late in their development cycles because publishers are willing to take more risks in order to gain market share. The crap selection among launch titles occur precisely because all parties involved want titles that are guaranteed to sell, not titles that may actually be good.

PC Games in a lot of ways are even worse due to the constant hardware crawl, but PC Gaming has the advantage of independent development, since you don't have to acquire a license just to make a game.

I think that, by the point that a video game can be defined as a work of art, it would be so far removed from the concept of a game that the term would no longer really apply. An artwork of computer interactivity, perhaps.

You know, I doubt it would be even fun to play after the first impression was over. Maybe I'm thinking too avant garde though.

Also, lollin' at #1.

http://colonelskills.belkanairforce....ages/ace/1.gif

Considering games feature rather than are the forms of art that comprise them, I'm actually willing to challenge the notion they could ever be (the game) art. Yes, I want to debate this with civility.

Gamer victim complex (OH MY GOD, EBERT R HACK) aside, guess I want to start with defining some terms. Here's the point, I guess:

If the game portion of a, well... game, involves the goals and objectives therein, how is it that we come to the conclusion that puzzle/problem solving are suddenly themselves art? Someone care to explain to me how the "game" portion of a game, such as slaying beasts and saving the world, bouncing a ball from one side of a screen to another, or hitting someone enough times to get their life gauge empty are all by themselves art.

I say that it's a logical falsehood to give credit to the "game" for things such as brilliant writing, art design (pretty drawings, backgrounds, character design), cinematography (FMV/Cutscenes). Those things by themselves would classify as art, yet why is it the game usurps the credit for those things? Does the act of flying from left to right shooting things without dying in Gradius V have anything to do with the "EPIC" time paradox story presentation that that act is built around? I say, again, no.

Any takers?

If you view a game as the sum of its parts, rather than simply the embodiment of its interactivity, then yes I don't think it's a logical falsehood in any way to give the game credit for possessing good art. That's because when people are referring to the game, they are referring to the finished product, and not simply the gameplay.

What if, however, the interactivity involves elements which are traditionally defined as art, as per Planescape: Torment? Does the writing or story stop becoming art by virtue of the player interacting with it? Does it have to be experienced passively in order to be deemed art?

I think one way of looking at this is to look at the most recent media form that has, in some way, been regarded as art.

What makes a movie art? I'm quite positive that not every single movie is ever considered art, as will many who argue that certain movies are art. What criteria do people have to consider a certain movie art?

For example, The Simpsons Movie may not be considered art by some people, but some would agree movies such as Citizen Kane or (possibly) Forrest Gump would be considered art. In my experience, most of this is simply because of hidden messages (that the viewer assigns to certain elements of the movie), so is that the criteria for in-motion media to be considered art? Then, does that mean we can apply the same criteria to games, and if so, does that mean only certain games would be considered art, whereas others would not?

Also, if we were to look at games as the sum of its parts, I'd think that certain games could be considered art. For instance, Odin Sphere by itself includes art - this shouldn't be an arguement. However, holistically the entire game also gives it a different feel that the parts alone couldn't do. If I were to simply listen to the music, I wouldn't feel like I were experiencing a story of sorts. Likewise, if I simply read the script of the story, I fear I wouldn't feel like the game had life in it. The whole adds more than what the individual parts would do, so I agree that you couldn't simply look at the elements and pull out gameplay and call that the game.

5 out of the 10 games are recent. Fuck that!

Every game is Art by in a sense that every game starts from CONCEPTART, designers/ARTISTS draw something on paper first then on graphic building softwares, then gameplay comes later.

So fundamentally every game is being DRAWN by Artists and there fore is an ART.

When it comes to question of whether Artist integrity is there, since they are taking orders/input from heads and directors of game, then i would say that artist integrity is nowhere , even in old days the painters and big artists used to draw for their patrons.
And in films too , once you get any input from unit , the artist integrity is lost, and most of the time the budget concerns also hinders the full portrayal of your work.

Art is wihtout any sacrifice, without any input of others, totally your own expression wihtout any censor, this is real defination of art.

This is what davidduchovony ^^said^^ in BBC Talkingmovies, and i agree to this.

So how does that view of art as an individual work mesh with murals and other collaborative works?

I'm reminded of what we were taught in my University's literature program--namely that anything can be considered art, since art is ultimately the products of a society whether intentionally designed as such or not. One of the professors conducted a literary analysis on a bicycle to prove the point.

I wouldn't endorse such an extreme view (one of the reasons I'm no longer in the program), but I've certainly invested as much time in some games as I have a fine novel, and the experience has often been just as rewarding and richly symbolic. That and what others were mentioning above--the fact that art is created in droves for games--makes me inclined to think of them as art, if not high art.

As for Ebert, I always got the impression that he was hopelessly out of touch with modern gaming and thinking of Pong or Pac-Man when he derided the medium. Then again, "Ms. Pac-Man: A Study in Gendered Normalizations and Transgressive Politics" might be the next big thing.

How many games this ebert guy played to post comments on the medium?
There was interview of clivebarker few days back , and he was praising games as most creative medium to express art, a nextgen form of art.
Different people different views , but atleast one should go in depths of sea rather than speculating depth by standing on shores.

So his idea of art has to be non interactive?

So I guess the "choose your own adventure" books are not art all.

And alot of post modern art as well. Alot of them have encourage audience interaction at galleries. Better avoid those too Ebert!

Fact is, untill Ebert shows he actually knows all about games TODAY, his words means jackshit. At least GFF people are well aknowledged on most modern gaming genres before debating on this, so at least their opinion and view on this whole matter has better crediblity.

I personally believe games are art. They got story telling, music, visual arts. Every game have those factors save maybe the story part. But since games invoke thought and feelings, as do art, I believe games are an artform.

Whether it is a piece of good art or HIGH art however, its all opinion... I think Ebert should have used the term High Art as oppose to "art". Art is such a general term that it doesn't work in the argument. If he's trying to compare Mario with Mona Lisa, well then at least we get it. But saying games are NOT art and never will be? Not true in my opinion.

Games as art? Indeed!

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y13...mariopain4.png

:cmb:

I'd say that games can be art, but most games don't even manage to reach the level where they could even be called bad art. Extremely few games indeed reach the level of being fine art, and even then the judgement is extremely subjective. I'd class almost any game designed by Mizuguchi as art, and I would also consider the Katamari games to be art. Okami definitely fits on that list, and Zelda games manage to achieve art for brief periods. I've never played a whole Zelda game which remained artistic to the end though.

That list is, of course, a non-exhaustive one, even in my own opinion. I'm just throwing out recent games that impressed me with their level of artistry. There are many more, but I'd need to think about it to be able to give a proper account of why exactly I think they are artistic. I do think that we now have the video game equivalent of the "art house movie". There are games which really aren't for general consumption, they only appeal to the gamer willing to dig deeper and work harder for a more subtle kind of entertainment.

Well, according to the generally agreed upon definition of "art", all video games should be recognized as such. With the basic criteria at hand, there isn't even much room for discussion.

Of course, this doesn't mean you can't value a particular work of art more than others. But categorizing some games as art and others not is just plain stupid.

The Choose Your Own Adventure books are a really bad example, considering they contain pulp writing worse than any Hardy Boys concoction.

I'll consider this a discussion/discourse between you and myself Brady, at least for now. Let me know if you want to use orion person guy's definition of art, though. I think that'd halt me in my tracks.

So, uh, the writing/drawing/movies within the game itself wouldn't stop being art. I think those elements stand for themselves is all. I'm saying that the game itself is not art. I think it's perfect to say "The game possesses good art." This makes sense. "The game IS art" is what I have an issue with.

Stop me if I'm this too literally.

How does the game take credit for these pieces? Even as those pieces of design and writing come together, the game merely hinges these things together. If everything suddenly became stick figures and dots, you would lose the aesthetic that was there... yet the core game ideas would still exist. When you remove the shell, where's the art? If you strip a human being of his skin, he's... well, skinless. He doesn't cease to be a human being. If you strip him of the clothes he might be wearing... he's quite naked. Yet, are the clothes human?

I'm trying to see why Ebert too the stance he did, and I'm of the mind that he viewed "games" as a vessel. Something that helps enrich the experience of the things contained within. It seems many people are willing to paint broad strokes with the term "interactivity." Your coffee maker is interactive, your soda can, and backpack are interactive. Are they games? Are they art? Are all games RPGs?

No.

I do feel the game that threads together those things doesn't stand as art. Interesting point with Planescape, as the game element helps the player experience the established story... that doesn't mean that the game is the literature or writing. The game is the interaction of that, it is a tool. Is a hammer art? Are the stereo speakers that play your music, art?

As I try to view a "game" as a sum of its parts, I don't see where the game becomes the writing, becomes the drawing, or are the movies that comprise it. I see a very distinct separation between the "game" and these things. Again, why should I stop this.

Then I imagine you think that all films are art. A definition of art that I have often heard is that it is made to stimulate the mind as well as the senses. I reject the notion that most games stimulate my mind. I play many games which don't require the intervention of my mind from beginning to end, merely my reflexes.

You have to admit, though, that the naked person is going to give off a much different impression despite still being the same person.

If you strip away all of those elements from a game, you still have a game, but it lacks context. It lacks something which the player can identify with. In the end games are made to provide an experience, and discounting the elements which comprise that experience seems incredibly naive. Color isn't art, but if you remove all color from a painting, is it still a painting? The piece still conveys an image. The viewer can still interpret it, but a lot of what elicits reactions from the viewer is no longer there. The piece is the worse for it.

If that were the case, and a game was just a vessel for the art (which is really the other way around), then I could also make the argument that film is merely a vessel for the screenplay and acting performances. That wouldn't fly, though, since the film itself is popularly considered to be the piece, not the individual elements which comprise it.

Again, why does this standard not also apply to the interpretation of a game?

On their own? No. But if you can give them context within a piece then they can become art. If you can interpret a game as an art piece, then the gameplay is given that same context. The only hurdle is the willingness to interpret a game (the whole package) as art.

For the same reason that writing, acting, and cinematography become the film.

Electroplankton isn't artistic at all. All it does is demonstrate the different ways of using the DS' touchscreen.

Things like Odin Sphere, 3rd Strike, Yoshi's Island.. that's what I consider art.

But why is it naive? I don't want to steal your thunder, everything before this cut was very well put. I really don't disagree with what I cut out, but I have issue with this section because while the game does provide an experience... it's still not the drawings, it's not the writing, it's not the FMV/CG work... it's a game. Games don't need a story to be a game, I've seen that very well established. Games don't need music to be a game. Movies don't need dialogue to be movies, yet they would still be considered a movie.

I find it a bit too simple that most players are willing to say "It features writing and stuff, it is art." I'm pretty certain it doesn't work that way. I feel that people who consider themselves gamers are too willing to try and qualify for special labels and treatment based off their interest.

The argument you present would not be false... yet the movie would still be a movie. Even with that interpretation. A movie is a vessel for those things. There's no other term for it. Art has several things to define it, I do find issue with the game trying to slip in on things that are already established as such.

Point taken.

The film needs those things to be a film. The game doesn't need writing or acting or cinematography to continue to have goals and gameplay. I am playing with interpretation though, and I'm not going to force someone to try and conform to that... I will say that collectively I do see your point. I do find it better that someone is willing to indulge in this rather than just agree half-heartedly.

Hmm. I think I've probably misrepresented myself here.

You're right that if you remove those elements from a game, then the game is not art. Tic-tac-toe is not art to be sure, but I still believe that many games can be interpreted as pieces of art by virtue of the experiences they provide. At its base, a game only requires mental function (sans meatspace sport u no), but then roleplaying games allowed players to engage their person as an active part of the gameplay, becoming a type of performance art that is mutually enjoyed. Now games have multimedia presentations which require a range of sensory function, and elicit a much wider range of emotions when done right.

What I take issue with is that games are categorically denied art status, even though some games, I feel, can be fairly interpreted as collaborative works of art.

If somebody tried to claim, though, that Pong is a work of art, then I'd laugh in their face.

Some games are art, others aren't, much in the same way I wouldn't call Friends art by virtue of it being a tv show.

You're right that "It features writing and stuff, it is art," doesn't work and I wouldn't dare make that claim. The point I'm trying to get across, though, is that individual games should be interpreted as a piece rather than simply as a game (from an art perspective). Though that's admittedly impossible if you're not willing to entertain the possibility of a game being art.

That depends, I think, on what the stated goals of the game are. Let's replace acting and cinematography in films with storytelling and aesthetics for a game. If the goal is to make a martial arts game, then the piece doesn't need either storytelling or aesthetics, since what is represented in Virtua Fighter is just as easily represented with stick figures. Yet, if the goal is to create a game that forces the player to negotiate the political intrigue of a Renaissance-era Italian court (there was a game like this believe me, but I forget its name) then it does require those elements to accomplish its goal.

Lastly:
I don't think it's so much that, as it is a desire to have their hobby recognized as a potential medium for art, like film and music hobbyists. If they feel that it's art, then why shouldn't it be? It needs to be seriously debated instead of presented one-sidedly as was the case with Ebert's speech and his dissenters. In light of all the games I've played, I think it can definitely be done.

If people start going off into the realm of rentseeking, and demanding Federal grants (which I already disagree with in principle ;)) for independent developers, then you're talkin' crazy talk.

I think when I strip these additions to the bare bones game, that's when I find myself asking the question again. I wouldn't relegate that status you mention (RPGs) to just one genre, because several different varieties of games offer you choices. If I strip the choices of the enrichment they receive from cinematics or rich and deep writing, we'd still see the player choosing a different path that dialogue trees usually represent with different emotionless options available to them. We dress them up with things such as alignment and other little quirks... yet the game element is still there.

It's true you can illicit those emotions, but I think we need to agree on what we define a game as. Which I see is still up in the air. My definition, I want to say, is a dry and heavy handed one.

I can agree that an individual game has the potential to be art off this. A friend of mine did mention that games are created usually to make money. Games do offer experiences, but it's funny that a lot of references on IGNs list were big name releases that sold a lot of copies. What does this have to do with anything? I don't know... I think I had a point and then realized I had no clue where I was going or what I was talking about. Commercialization, or something.

Uh, anyway, back to the thing I agreed on. I think games have evolved to a point where we expect certain things to be there, where we want certain traits to be there in order to be entertained now. Yet the mindless games are still capable of entertaining us as well. Because of this, I don't see "Games are art" being an accepted notion anytime soon. But I would say you're correct on the individual interpretation of certain pieces. The reason I say that is because of one of the examples you provide.

And that's when taste and a lack of it gets to shine through. I know I suck, so we're already in for some fun there.

The stance I take is my best attempt at playing Devil's Advocate to a gaming journalist's stance which happens to be "I hate gamers." I respect the guy a great deal, and I want to pursue it because of the nature he had in a similar topic on games and art.

He wasn't willing to see a game as art, because of how he defined his terms, his argument was pretty tight. He is definitely a person who wasn't going to entertain the possibility of a game being art because of things I've pointed out earlier. Stripping a game down for instance. Something I hadn't even thought of doing. Sad thing is that it makes sense to me, though I feel a greater appreciation for games outside of some label such as "Art."


This seems a bit narrow to me, though I would like to play this game you mention. Not sure where I would place my chips on this one.

I am of the mindset that those who seek validation this particular way, will never have it. I think the uniqueness of games goes beyond just "art." I've seen nerds do it with art, because they aren't comfortable to put down a comic on their "favorite books" list. I digress, I do agree with you now that there is individual potential for art. I wouldn't say "Games are Art", but I am willing to concede that games can be. A friend and I were discussing this and he said this:

I then remembered the feelings I had when I played games I enjoy. I don't want to get into self-affirmation here, but being that I love games and all... something just clicked there. It was something unique, something I only feel when I play games. If I have to call that feeling art, then that's not a problem. There are so many things I've done in games that I won't ever experience in the same way.

Games enrich art, even if that isn't enough to some people, I would say it's something to be proud about.

Government abuse is the right of all sentient beings, Brady. How dare you.

Well, I could only really think of RPGs before video gaming, because miniatures gaming doesn't exactly constitute anything that could be considered art, even though everything about Games Workshop properties certainly are.

It'd be a real feat if you could play it. It was an old text-based game, so the aesthetics were admittedly interpretive. It probably won't be Vista compatible. ;)

While I would personally go with Bradylama's idea that games are like an experience and that its delivery can be considered art, I do realize that I'm kind of skirting the problem of how you would define a videogame.

So, I would argue this: You can't have a videogame without having an established art medium. Otherwise, the game simply wouldn't be able to communicate with you. Unlike sports and such, there is more to a game than just limitations. You don't have boundaries and infinite action within them - you have very specific actions that a game allows you to take. In other words, the game designers are still mostly in complete control of what you can or cannot experience (Save for mods and emergent gameplay of course) because they are in control of what actions you can take and what consequences those actions can invite.

I suppose the main thing comes down to whether you would consider a choose your own adventure book to be capable of being art, because games are essentially an expansion on that. There are key differences though, like how not every choice would necessarily bring you forward as in a choose your own adventure book (You could choose to, say, stand there and punch at the air without progressing), but I think for this argument the concept can be seen as the same. What do you guys think about that?

I don't think of doing nothing as a choice, to be frank. I mean, you could argue it as such from a semantical perspective, but if somebody started to think of it as a legitimate choice, then they're retarded.

I think it's a shame that most games aren't like a Choose Your Own Adventure, since they have such a tendency to put everything on rails. That's fine for your Halos and Quakes, but if you're gonna call a game an RPG I'm going to expect some sort of appreciable consequences for my actions. (The Witcher seems to be doing this)

This is also a big part of my love/hate relationship with adventure games. In the end, I love the experience and absolutely hate the game. The mechanics always demand overturning every single nook and cranny for the sake of pixel hunting, and despite being purely story there is no gaming aspect to it. Adventure games could make a serious comeback if the player was given control over how the protagonist behaves, where it wants to go, and what it does. The convention is that there's always a "right" way to do things that the developer has pushed on the player.

Something like story interaction as opposed to story absorption was admittedly harder to do back in the days when art resources were poured into creating 3D models to import as bitmaps, or further back when everything was driven by pixels, but tradition is the bane of the genre. Indigo Prophecy accomplished a lot of what I'm talking about, but was destroyed by scheduling constraints and ended up with a non-sensical climax.

The problem with Indigo Prophecy is that its director seemed to be in love with the "illusion of choice," something that I do enjoy ("Yeah, I sliced and diced 'em") but can't get behind as the driving methodology behind a game.

I'm not exactly tooting Fahrenheit's horn for having three different endings you can choose during the climax, regardless of how you did things throughout the rest of the game. That was essentially the biggest problem with Deus Ex.

Since its ENDing, the choices to select them, should be concentrated to End chapter,epilogue or climax scenario, it works better.

If you want game with real choices and in which choices in beginning can affect endings, play Rawdanger, excellent game.

I don't know if its new
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/...NTARY/70721001

Roger wants attention, read his comments, he sounds like shit.

I've played Raw Danger and it's a great game. It does more or less do the same thing as Indigo Prophecy, though (The difference being it doesn't go to shit at the end). Your choices for the different endings tend to happen right AT the ending, and this is true for the first guy you play as as well as the scientist.

And Sexninja, the point is not that Indigo Prophecy allows you choices at the end just that it allows choices all through the game, none of which really make a difference. Plus, the choices that you get at the end tend to come in what order you do things. It's not really "Will you do this? Or this?" so much as it is "Since you did this, this happens." And again, unlike Raw Danger this is the only time you get choices at all. Hence, the "illusion of choice." Raw Danger does it, but the choices are actually made by you and the consequences make sense, too, so it's forgivable.

I think it's a bit misleading to say choices you make at the beginning affect the ending, though. Your choices usually DO have some kind of effect, but they tend to be immediate (At least, for that point in time, not necessarily for you the player).

I think there's two solutions to the endgame disconnect between your choice of endings and what you've done during the rest of the game:

1. Choices are limited in accordance with character alignment or story-related variables.

2. Games have individual endings for factions, communities, individuals, etc. This validates the player's choices throughout the game while not limiting endgame options.

No shit, does he own a farm? I don't think I've ever seen so many strawmen.

Want to make some corrections since you used capitals AT

1. RD is game about life and suvival of characters, so the whole scenario and ending of city doesn't matter, the end of the particualar character matters, whether he/she survived or not. I don't know how many paths you have explored, but you can certainly end the game in the begiining like in Amber case and the Isaac case, the story will not even START if you will leave the customer(isaac) and will give yourslef(amber) in.

2. and the first guy josh you mentioned.
If you will leave with/without in chopper stepahanie, you will get different ending of the whole game(the tower scene will not come, so will the fate of disc will e unknown), since his actions trigger later scenarios and events so IT does matter the end and the whole game.

3. Further more his actions can only unlock Keith in the END.


4. As far as city goes, i agree that fate of city is dependant only on one guy(doc) but again before that all the survivors leaves, so they survive. To hell with city , it already got ruined. And it was just his purpose to save city. Take notice of how every character has differnt purposes and role.
If you think the city fate is important and the hallmark of whole game i would say the disc and its exposue to public is the meat of whole game, which again depends upon initial actions of Josh and isaac , as it will make the disc situation different in the repoters(keith and isaac love interest) scenarios.

RD is complex game since action of one guy can alter scenario of other even in later stages.
i hope to have such comlpexity in Masseffect.


In case of RD , as i said things are way comlpex and both of your rules apply yet they not.
But RD achieves the perfect execution, how it connects and all.



"Since its ENDing, the choices to select them, should be concentrated to End chapter,epilogue or climax scenario, it works better."

I said 'works better' because every game with complexity of choices msierably fails to achieve to do so. I am amazed how budget title RD came from nowhere acheives the complexity so smartly.
How many games we have played like this?
In order to make every choice connected to later parts and endgame, developers screw the whole game like fahrenheit, and thats why its etter be avoided.
Execute it perfectly or don't bother.

I know this, and this is exactly what I was referring to. Your actions do have an effect, and it's great. I'm just saying that your ending choice does occur right before the ending like in Indigo Prophecy, Raw Danger just does it better. You choose to go on the helicopter, thus you chose to end the game that way. You choose to keep going, and thus have locked yourself on the path to getting on the girl's father's helicopter. It's not necessarily a bad thing, it's just that in Indigo Prophecy your choices weren't that clear cut (And in some cases it wasn't clear that you were making a choice by doing something), so it sucked.

I brought up its similarity to Fahrenheit because you claimed that choices in the beginning of RD affect the ending, where usually this is not actually the case. If the game ends early because you chose to do something, that's still making a choice right before the end. It's all just semantics really, but I wanted to make sure you understood what I was referring to.

I think you're confused here. Fahrenheit didn't even try to connect choices to the endgame. There essentially WEREN'T choices, you were just fooled into thinking there were. The only choices you got were near/at the end, and most of them weren't even clear on what kind of effect they would have. And I'm not talking Fallout Junktown style, I mean "Do you kill these soldiers first or the AI?" It just felt sloppily put together. There was a choice before that that DID have an effect, but even then it was easily overwritten.

If anything I think Raw Danger did try to do this in some ways, though small. For example, treating Stephanie badly will have her not refer to you as her boyfriend later, and whatever you call the doctor in the school girl's scenario will carry over to his. It's nothing major, but it can be done and Fahrenheit certainly didn't even try. Raw Danger's choices that affected the ending came when you were facing that potential ending, but they did so in a way that made sense. That's why I liked it.

Guess i'm reviving a dead thread, Regardless I'm suprised no one's mentioned Killer 7. I felt that game was one of the most artistic titles I had ever played, It had a lot of "mind fucks" story wise and was one of the few games I had to spend a lot of time thinking about to understand the story line. It also had a weird sound track that went a long perfectly with the game. I'm suprised no one mentioned this yet.

You didn't understand the story(well almost evryone didn't), because the story is incomplete.
Mikami said this, due to budget they had to cut many things.