videogames: art form or not

[Philip K Dick]

recently video games have been cited in some media and news sources on the same level as movies or even books. i think this is an entirely debatable decision.

however there aren't really many good arguments for either side. roger ebert is a gigantic retard and none of his points are actually valid. and yet, if you think about it, how many videogames actually have a decent narrative that transcends the standards of storytelling? (ala not just a generic scifi or fantasy story that rarely has any depth like halo, gears of war, final fantasy 13, etc, or is too rudimentary to be considered a real plot like mario, zelda, most nintendo games)

there are some few games that aren't as linear (story-wise) as most. those being my opinion metal gear solid, mother 3, some final fantasy games, and fire emblem. although you could argue that metal gear solid is just a typical japanese sci-fi soap opera. you can make similar points about the rest of the games i mentioned, too, but the point is that there are way more games that don't have any artistic merit than not.

IMO graphics and technology don't constitute art. this is the same reason why avatar is terrible. the main focus of what determines art depends on the medium, but i think for video games it should really be plot and innovativeness.

anyway like i said this is a completely debatable thing, there is no right or wrong. so feel free to discuss your opinion of whether videogames are an art form or not here, in the backalleys debate i mean general forum!!!

[Mew_User]

This is my opinion.

[DrRumack]

what defines art exactly

there is art in videogames, but does that make them art

[rtil]

anything can be art

[slantedskarekrow]

I would say yes, i have often times found my self suffering through game play just to get to the next cinematic, some video games display very good story telling, this among the visual art of 3d animation makes video games a valid art form, in my opinion.

[DrRumack]

i dont think its so much about the quality as much as its about it being a creative medium

[emanhattan]

By todays standards anything can be art but in a less bullshitty point of view i think anyone can apreciate the artistic endeavor and collective artistic skills in music, art, programming, character and visual design that is necessary to make a videogame.

but i guess art critics dont look for that in a videogame

if I had to make a list about games that have made me think "wow man this game has so much creative/artistic stuff in it" i would say psychonauts and okami would be on top of my list.

I think what makes the argument harder to defend is that the ones who defend it are, well, gamers, and most gamers are stupid kids who are rabid about gaming and will defend them with their lifes.

for more videogame vs art fun look at this fucken dickeads blog
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.d...ENTARY/70721001

[psi43]

art = creativity, to me at least
so yeah, programmers are artists as well in a way

and videogames are pieces of art

[shura]

yeah definitely. some videogames have beautiful maps, character designs, and general aesthetics. its art you can interact with.
roger ebert is a fucking idiot this is already established

[spite]

I'd call programming an art
from there its all design...
and of course writing

I think the answer is very obvious  

[Egofaptor]

Video games can be art and are slowly becoming art but are not understood well enough to be appropriately considered art on a broad level.

As I've seen already in this thread, many people view video game art as being analogous to forms of linear storytelling such as movies or books. Cutscenes allow people to relate to video gaming in a way that understand and trick people into perceiving gaming as "evolving" but it's clearly not the case as evidenced by how gaming has become so samey.

What makes gaming different from other forms of art is its interactivity. Games stimulate you in way of feeling an instant reaction out of something you've directly experienced or contributed to. In a way, it could be considered the most effective form of making someone feel a true reactive emotion out of something, although that's of course an arguable point.

The idea that video games are becoming more and more cinematic is irrelevant, and it only goes on to support how effective cinema is an artform and not gaming. If anyone asked what was artistic about so and so game, they would probably go on to say "the story" or "the visuals," and that is a purely visual or linear story related experience, it has nothing to do with how you as a player felt interacting with the world. It had nothing to do with the game. Translated into a still image to be hung on a wall, or translated into a movie, the experience would be the same, which clearly shows that the gaming is overlooked in favor of other artforms that trick the player into thinking they're getting something deep.

But there are games that are effective as being art games. It doesn't take artsy fartsy un-fun garbage to make an art game, but a good understanding of how an action-reaction situation in a game affects the player emotionally and how those effects help to make a point or tell a message more effectively than anything else.

I'll use an example that I imagine most of you have experienced. In Metal Gear Solid 2, you start the game by playing as Snake, a character everybody likes and likes playing as. But after a truncated metaphor to all of Metal Gear Solid 1, Snake "dies" and now you're playing as this new "snake" called Raiden. Instantly you don't like him, but you're told to play as him and to essentially be Snake. The whole idea frustrates you, and you don't want to play as this sissy asshole, you want to play as the badass Snake. What you may not realize is that this is all completely on purpose. It's hard to relate to a character who is completely self-loathing, who hates himself and his past and is a whiny asshole. But take a step back and realize... that the game has turned you into Raiden. You are whiny, and annoying, wanting so badly to BE Snake, but you can't, you can only settle for second best, this asshole Raiden who you don't like. And this is exactly how Raiden feels as well. Through a completely interactive experience, you relate to a character more than you possibly could in any movie or book... you ARE that character. The ultimate irony is that Raiden, given the upgrades of the game over the first metal gear solid, is way more fun to play as and is way more agile than snake ever was. And yet you still hate him.

This is the kind of thing that only a game can do in the way it does, and this is why gaming can be an artform, but is severely misunderstood. MGS is not good because of the cutscenes and story, but of the metaphors, immersive elements, and unbelievable understanding of the human condition.

I only use MGS as an example because most everyone's played it. Flower is another great example of simple and effective art design in gaming. Lead a player to be comfortable in a wonderful, beautiful and creative world and yet strip all of what he holds dear away and give him the will to take it back and fight for what he once loved. Super simple and yet infinitely compelling because it's something that you feel firsthand, and is not something you have to stretch your imagination to relate to.

Bamyasi's example of Braid is kind of the textbook answer to games as art, and it's a game that's way ahead of its time. Blow is a little too brilliant and spent 3 years developing this unbelievably interwoven masterpiece, but it's not something most people get or understand even when explained to them. That's the kind of game that will be analyzed in 20 years when everybody finally gets it. Every platform and enemy and level layout and conflict is a symbol of something greater that comes together in this very elaborate tale that you're supposed to feel as a player by solving all of these puzzles, but again, very few understand what it all means. Can you play Braid and understand all of the emotions and feelings it gives you as a player throughout? Or do you simply play it because it's a good, pretty puzzle game and then feel like there's some pretentious message that you don't quite get when you put together the final words on the last level? It's an example of how far we are to understanding gaming down to its core elements.

In visual art we understand how blue is a cool color and red is a warm color and how that affects us emotionally. In storytelling we understand how relating to a character allows us to connect, and giving the villian outrageous traits and making him inhuman allows us to hate him and how that makes us feel. But in gaming we do not yet fully understand how jumping over one platform is different from jumping over a different platform... how jump velocity slightly altered can create a completely different feel for the player and give them all different levels of frustration, joy, anger, or even sadness. How giving the player things to help him in the game and then stripping them away can give him a deep remorse. We don't understand those things to this day and it won't be until we do have these rules and templates that we can then understand gaming as an artform.

[jjjjjjjjjj]

the fuck are you

[mira]

yes they are

This is my opinion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSXofLK5hFQ

[emanhattan]

nice wall of text

[ansel]

if mainstream films that fuck your eyes with exploding robots and megan fox's ass are art then i'd say a lot of video games are already above the bar by comparison alone

[emanhattan]

megafox

[jjjjjjjjjj]

no who is egofaptor you cant avoid the question

[rtil]

egofaptor is egoraptor

egoraptor's account got locked today meaning he probably tried to login and forgot his password so he made a new account

[Philip K Dick]

its good to see you posting here ego

and although i feel like i should arguing some of your points that seem to be a little over analytical, i pretty much agree with what you're saying.

[jjjjjjjjjj]