[General Discussion] Games as Art

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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?

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

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'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.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

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.

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.

Quote:

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

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.

Quote:

The only hurdle is the willingness to interpret a game (the whole package) as art.

Point taken.

Quote:

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

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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."

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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:

Quote:

It is (games are) everything you can and can't do, expressed in some medium (Usually visually)

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.

Quote:

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.

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

I was speaking idiomatically.