[General Discussion] 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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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

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

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:

Quote:

Out of This World boasted some of the most realistic character animations ever witnessed.

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

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

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 was speaking idiomatically.

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

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.

Most amazing jew boots

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.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by SouthJag

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?

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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

Quote:

There is a structural reason for that: Video games by their nature require player choices, which is the opposite of the strategy of serious film and literature, which requires authorial control.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Quote:

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

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.

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

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 am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

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 was speaking idiomatically.

I just play games, lol.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

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.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Bradylama

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."

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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.



There's nowhere I can't reach.

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?

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

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?

How ya doing, buddy?

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

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

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

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.

FELIPE NO

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

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.