Now I'm not going to act like I'm a revolutionary for seeing games this way so let me clear the air by saying I realize this is a wide-held belief, if that is in fact a word.

I've been playing games all my life and to be honest the ones I enjoy most are those with a good story. Games such as Bioshock, Mass Effect, etc. are nearer to the top of my favorite list than a good game with a terrible story. (See MGS 3) Okay, Bioshock's ending was lackluster but at least it took the FPS genre in a different direction than space marines and world wars.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that although awesome games that make less sense than Beck's lyrics will always be awesome because of the sheer fun of playing them, games with something deeper to offer, something to reflect on as you witness the development of the story and characters will always be better to me.

Games are the highest form of entertainment to me and others like me, and I feel that the jump to a good narrative while still focusing on good gameplay is the direction that games should be moving, in fact they already are. (OMG! BEST IDEA EVER! I ARE AWESOME!) All sarcasm aside, I applaud the developers that are doing this.

Oh, and Ninjabread man is a masterpiece.

theres more to "art" then narrative

well i think part of the problem is that is a comercial art, for say it someway, and is really risky try something diferent.

also is dificult find a game that mix a good plot like the ones of a rpg, with a good or adictive gameplay, but there is some than another exception but sometimes pieces of art like psyconauts, oni (it was good for me) and Grim Fandango, end.. being ignored

While solid narrative is nice, gameplay always takes precedence in my opinion.

Cousin_IT:
theres more to "art" then narrative

Well, yes. I did neglect to mention that. There's also scenery,graphics,script,and so on. All of those combine to make a perfect game. In my opinion, a game is really worth my time if there's something deeper. To me that comes down to the story and its different elements. But then again that is only my opinion.

I'm not accusing the OP of being narrow-minded, but I would argue that the idea that "games in general should tend towards having x" is a bit constrictive to the industry in general. The thing that makes games good is that there is choice. If there is a game out there that appeals to someone who wants to just do a certain thing with no real backstory, it's there. If there is a game that is deep in story elements and makes you think, it's out there.

The quality of games is not devalued by the fact that some games lack a certain element and others don't. In fact I would argue that the ability to choose a genre of games to play is much more important than having a set of stock elements that it should have in order to succeed.

Shadowed Thief:

I've been playing games all my life and to be honest the ones I enjoy most are those with a good story. Games such as Bioshock, Mass Effect, etc. are nearer to the top of my favorite list than a good game with a terrible story. (See MGS 3)

What the hell is wrong with MGS 3's story?

Indigo_Dingo:

Shadowed Thief:

I've been playing games all my life and to be honest the ones I enjoy most are those with a good story. Games such as Bioshock, Mass Effect, etc. are nearer to the top of my favorite list than a good game with a terrible story. (See MGS 3)

What the hell is wrong with MGS 3's story?

for one MGS is just notorious for taking trips to crazy town but I found the story good

and its the audience that creates the art, a famous composer of whom I cant remember at the moment once had his entire orchestra play nothing for 4 minutes while the audience listened to themselves (the CD wasn't that good)

NOTE: these aren't my words but I agree with them entirely

Yeah, I do feel that games have taken the plunge and become a true art form. With all of the skill of making them, the great narratives, and the excellent production values of most games, it is becoming harder and harder for critics of the games-as-art movement to effectively argue otherwise. And BTW, MGS has a great story, all of them do. Never hate on MGS around me again or I'll find you, strap you down in front of a TV, and force you to watch every MGS cutscene in the whole series in order until you finally take back your hate of the series! LOL. Yes, I'm a Kojima fanboy.

I think that one day games might be considered a true art form. Perhaps someday when I'm an old man I'll hear critics talk about the style and the gameplay of Super Mario.
However it takes a real long time for a medium to become an art form. People have only really started to consider movies to be an art form the past 30 years or so. And I don't think I've heard anyone claim TV as art and its more respected then video games

Sure theres the gamer niche that considers things like bioshock and portal to be art.But the rest of the world just laughs at the idea of it

the monopoly guy:

Indigo_Dingo:

Shadowed Thief:

I've been playing games all my life and to be honest the ones I enjoy most are those with a good story. Games such as Bioshock, Mass Effect, etc. are nearer to the top of my favorite list than a good game with a terrible story. (See MGS 3)

What the hell is wrong with MGS 3's story?

for one MGS is just notorious for taking trips to crazy town but I found the story good

and its the audience that creates the art, a famous composer of whom I cant remember at the moment once had his entire orchestra play nothing for 4 minutes while the audience listened to themselves (the CD wasn't that good)

NOTE: these aren't my words but I agree with them entirely

You're thinking of 4'33".

I don't think games are manufactured with "being art" in mind. They might be art but they are not created as artworks.

Ok lets take a look at a (admittedly very abridged) definition of art...

Art - the products of human creativity;
- the creation of beautiful or significant things;
- a superior skill that you can learn by study and practice and observation
- a particular type of creative production generated by human beings, and the term usually implies some degree of aesthetic value. An artist makes a work of art for various purposes, such as creating an experience for others or as part of a ritual
- The formal expression of a conceived image or imagined conception in terms of a given medium

Now games fit under a number of these and I find it hard to believe there is any argument about their validity as an art form, after all shitting in a fish tank can be art so why not games? Because it is done for commercial gain? Well so is art really, just look at the prices pieces sell for, maybe some people still do art for arts sake but to dealers particularly it has become just another big business.

I believe Drong has just made the most valid point I have ever heard.

I don't think I want to live in a world where rotting animal parts and Good Charlotte can be considered as art but Bioshock can't.

It really depends on the game. I mean, no one would argue that Halo 3 is art...I hope. But the Mass Effect cutscenes and the entire game for Shadow of the Colossus...how are those not art?

Wait did i get the right message from this thread. You think that becks lyrics are not art and are just senseless weird shit like games such as katamari. Well i disagree.

Seriously, not just about the Beck thing, narrative nor does the visual appeal are neccecary for art and in fact an abstract game such as katamari an be seen as an art form in the way it hs this nonsense which can be seen as just a little kids game but the idea of us just being toys of the king of cosmos and that we are the parts to building stars can be something quite complicated.

See Alice in Wonderland.

Sure a movie with a deep story can be art and i love a nice story in a game in fact it is what keeps me playing, the incentive that drives me and the reason i do not do many extra things because i am just given a little acknowledgment i want a side story, a backstory or another view discovered.

Art is in essence creation and no one can judge what is or is not art. Mary Kate and Ashlee's Sweet 16 can be art, i would not see it as so but no one can argue against somethings artistic merit. (See: Andy Warhol, Da Daism ect)

Sure game is art. My art teacher says that you're an artist if your work (your art) make other people feel any kind of emotion, and tell me which game that doesn't make you feel any kind of emotion, but in the other hand my art teacher is kind of weird.

I don't think all games are "art" but I do think some games are art.

Bioshock mixes a stunning, carefully constructed visual design, an interesting and subtle narrative and an underlying philosophy. In this case I feel that it IS art, mostly because of the careful creativity you can fell practically oozing from the game.

Okami attempts to present a visual design that looks like a japanese painting as well as telling an interesting story that conveys japanese mythology quite well.

Shadow of the Collossus is a striking look at lonliness, loss, redemtion, isolation, violence and love, conveying the whole plethora of emotions with remarkable skill.

I believe all of these count as "art" because of how they mix the elements of Narrative, Visual Design and Gameplay to present an interactive world and an experience most movies and novels cannot hope to display, and while both of those mediums offer their own pros and cons, I feel that certain games definately hold up in this field.

thebobmaster:
It really depends on the game. I mean, no one would argue that Halo 3 is art...I hope. But the Mass Effect cutscenes and the entire game for Shadow of the Colossus...how are those not art?

This mistakenly requires that art be appealing to be considered art, but that's not necessarily true at all. Also, I believe at this point none could argue that the many components of a video game can be art, but I don't think I could really say whether the game itself is art or not. I mean, philosophers are still arguing over whether *films* should be considered art.

I say we start doing Waaaaaay more cartoon games like Team Fortress 2 or Ratchet & Clank because:
A) People love how they look, realism panders to no one.
B) They portray less realism, therefore significantly less [what can be described as] hardcore violence.
C) From a technical standpoint, cartoony characters are typically lower-poly, easier to shade & render and Cel-shaders are very easy for computers to process, giving more processing power to other more complex tasks, such as physics, lighting, blur or other special effects.
D) And again, Yay! Cartoony Graphics!

[quote=Anarchemitis]I say we start doing Waaaaaay more cartoon games like Team Fortress 2 or Ratchet & Clank because:
quote]

I love cel-shaded graphics, I mean XIII looks bloody beautiful and that was a brilliant game. Sly Racoon looked pretty too, less of a good game though. However if developers focus on just making games an art-form then how could we ever expect decent game play, I mean a game is meant to be extremley interactive. If we played something which was restricted by immense graphics we wouldn't have many decent games tbh.

PS. Ratchet & Clank is one of the best series ever

Games CAN be art. I would agree with that statement. But I cannot agree with the statement that games ARE art. There are plenty of games out there which are no more artistic than a printout of an Access database with doodles all over it.

Story telling, music, visual design. Games are a combination of many art forms and thus have amazingly good potential to be valid art.

Lvl 64 Klutz:

thebobmaster:
It really depends on the game. I mean, no one would argue that Halo 3 is art...I hope. But the Mass Effect cutscenes and the entire game for Shadow of the Colossus...how are those not art?

This mistakenly requires that art be appealing to be considered art, but that's not necessarily true at all. Also, I believe at this point none could argue that the many components of a video game can be art, but I don't think I could really say whether the game itself is art or not. I mean, philosophers are still arguing over whether *films* should be considered art.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that art must be appealing. I just meant that games have the potential to be art, but aren't automatically art. Perhaps using Halo 3 as an example was a bad idea.

Let me get something straight. I like Beck and the MGS series, but let's be honest not everyone understands. I played the hell out of MSG3, i didn't understand it, but it was awesome. What I meant when i started this thread was that some people don't see games as art, and see them as childish games. I believe thats complete BS. Most games can be considered art, and it really all comes down to personal opinion. I'm just saying that some games are more artful than others. I don't think anyone would say that Elmo's ABCs is the reincarnation of the Mona Lisa in videogames, but some might, and everyone has their own definition of art. What it comes down to is that games are not things that people outgrow after 3rd grade, but they're expanding into many different niches and forms.

I've also noticed that a lot of people are defending certain games or bashing me for insulting Beck or MGS3 (bad ideas, I admit) which was not my intention. But that goes to show that games are becoming so diverse that you can't group them together into a general term anymore!

I think that the big problem with MGS in general is the major contradiction it brings to the table. It makes the claim that war is not something to be glamorized and fascinated over, yet at the same time the game itself appears to be glamorizing warfare.

But getting back to the issue at hand, I would not say that Video games are the "highest form of entertainment", because that sets a dangerous precedent. It leads to the question of "what does a good form of entertainment do?" We can say that every medium is equal to every other medium in that they all allow for artisitic and intellectual expression. as far as quality goes, the culture decides what is "high art" and what is not. As we see the "nintendo" generation of the 80's and 90's move from adolesence to adulthood, we are beginning to see them take on a broader cultural role because video games are what the nintendo Generation values. they grew up with the medium and are now focused on expanding it.

PedroSteckecilo:
I don't think all games are "art" but I do think some games are art.

Bioshock mixes a stunning, carefully constructed visual design, an interesting and subtle narrative and an underlying philosophy. In this case I feel that it IS art, mostly because of the careful creativity you can fell practically oozing from the game.

Okami attempts to present a visual design that looks like a japanese painting as well as telling an interesting story that conveys japanese mythology quite well.

Shadow of the Collossus is a striking look at lonliness, loss, redemtion, isolation, violence and love, conveying the whole plethora of emotions with remarkable skill.

I believe all of these count as "art" because of how they mix the elements of Narrative, Visual Design and Gameplay to present an interactive world and an experience most movies and novels cannot hope to display, and while both of those mediums offer their own pros and cons, I feel that certain games definately hold up in this field.

I loved your comment, because:
1) you mentioned how videogames need to create an experience, which is what emerges from the interweaving of all the elements you listed; as I feel that art is something more than a sum of cool features, I really think that games have to take a step in that direction.
2) the titles you cited manage to call the gamer for attention mentally, indirectly asking for them to give a personal meaning for what they make happen on the screen, while keeping them emotionally and sensorially absorbed, making them feel they're in front of something beautiful in its own peculiar way. They leave something for you to interpretate with your whole being, and in this sense I believe they are a perfect example of artistry.

Red Alert 2 was art in a way that cool buildings can unfold out of the ground and everybody is colour-coded on a battlefield.

Drong:
Ok lets take a look at a (admittedly very abridged) definition of art...

Art - the products of human creativity;
- the creation of beautiful or significant things;
- a superior skill that you can learn by study and practice and observation
- a particular type of creative production generated by human beings, and the term usually implies some degree of aesthetic value. An artist makes a work of art for various purposes, such as creating an experience for others or as part of a ritual
- The formal expression of a conceived image or imagined conception in terms of a given medium

Now games fit under a number of these and I find it hard to believe there is any argument about their validity as an art form, after all shitting in a fish tank can be art so why not games? Because it is done for commercial gain? Well so is art really, just look at the prices pieces sell for, maybe some people still do art for arts sake but to dealers particularly it has become just another big business.

Drong makes a KEY point to this argument, and jezz8me also puts in a good point with -

"Art is in essence creation and no one can judge what is or is not art. Mary Kate and Ashlee's Sweet 16 can be art, i would not see it as so but no one can argue against somethings artistic merit. (See: Andy Warhol, Da Daism ect"

- and yet ppl like thebobmaster say that Halo3 isnt art...was not, EACH AND EVERY piece of EVERY GAME, created for the experience of others? and created after much practice of the creator? - and therefor i submit that PLAYING the games is also an art... as Drong has said "a superior skill that you can learn by study and practice and observation" is not being able to play a game well something that is learnt through the study, observation and practice of the game and others?

- Koopmans

I'd say that, in this respect, video games, as a medium, are a lot like film; some games are made to be nothing more than entertainment (any EA sports game, most licenced games), while others (anything by team ICO) are unarguably artistic. At this point, I think that most games tend to the former category, but video games are a perfectly valid medium for the latter.

I play video games for fun. For the life of me, games like ICO bore me to death. It has nothing to do with them being breath taking (because it was). The gameplay has to be something worth playing.

Currently, there are about 7 games that have been made in the past 3 or so years that are actively worth my time playing. All of the other games in my collection are from past this point. In fact, there is a large void (from about 2003 to 2000) that I didn't buy a single game simply because they weren't very good.

Nintendo 64 games excluded of course.

Edit: I can't regard video games as art. Video games offer much more than your typical art piece. A good game will have the following elements of art inside of it:

Music
Visual
Narrative

Movies also fit this bill.

I think that gaming is definitely a form of art.
In the early days of film, it was seen as a novelty, a little interesting light show.
The progress of video games to an art form is a little slower than film's, but there's so much potential there. I can't wait to see what will become of the industry 20 years from now.