266: Videogame Myths Debunked

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

You had me until you said Ocarina of Time was art, but I guess the number of people that played it when they were 12 and thought every game was cool means it will infinitely be defended on the internet since you can't undo childhood memories. Yet these same people will admit DBZ was bad when they thought it was the best when they were that age...

There's a lot of good replies on here, but I'm only half way through the article itself and there are gnats picking at my shins, so I'd rather not read any more of them. Anyway.

Nincompoop:

Games have no artistic merit. This is something that is up for debate. And mentioning a few games and then claiming your argument to be foolproof is absolutely the worst kind of fallacious argumentation in my honest opinion. It's absolutely ridiculous.

Now, to the actual issue. I don't think of games as art because they are not something you merely gaze at. I don't think art is something you interact with. I would call games a utility or an application of sorts. Even if the point is entertainment. With no practical applications, but maybe mental or psychological applications (we need something to keep our spirits up).

You gaze a pictures, and maybe discuss them. You listen to music. You don't do these kind of things with games.
I would like to stress, however, that this is my opinion on games as art.

I've not been very much a part of the "games as art" debate, and that's because I don't think it matters much. Whether or not games are art does not change how much fun I have slicing dudes up in DMC4, or how awed and charmed I am by SotC, or how much food for thought I find in Bioshock. However, I find your definition of art needlessly restrictive. Why can't you interact with art? Shouldn't "art" be more defined by what it does rather than how you experience it? I mean, before movies, contemporary art was all static (unless there were moving sculptures or something, as there may have been) -- it'd be the same as you crying out at the advent of cinema, "That's not art! I can't hang it in my gallery!"

But, again, I don't find the debate terribly stimulating. Art was so vaguely defined in the first place as to be a useless label, and therefore the implications of games being seen as such or not are insignificant, at least to me.

Also, about the whole social gaming thing -- Fuck that. I've been to several parties where the night was filled with Rock Band, DBZ, and even GTA4. I usually get together with a friend every week to play games, even single player ones (we take turns mostly). My first kiss with my current girlfriend came after a round of Bloody Roar. The largest part of my social interactions throughout High School and even before have involved video games. You just don't know what the fuck you're talking about dude.

I dislike this article so far. Seems like the man is talking out of his ass. Maybe he'll redeem himself in the last page.

EDIT: No, he really didn't.

You're wrong.

Why? This bit.

Scobie:

C J Davies:

Braid. Shadow Of The Colossus. Portal. BioShock. Ocarina Of Time. Five titles that destroy this myth completely. Games are art, just as gravity pulls you to Earth and water quenches your thirst. It's not even debateable.

[awesome explanation snip]

But yeah. Imagining you can point to Braid and say "Games are art, I'm going home now" is dumb. Sorry for the random and tangential post. I think I just took what you said as an excuse to spew all my feelings about games as art all over everything.

On the other hand, Scobie is very right. Art is something so subjective that just listing things, without explaining them, is pointless. Some people think something isn't art unless it speaks of the depths of the human condition. Scott McCloud says making balloons out of condoms is art. The fact that you include Portal remembers me of a quote I read here on the Escapist but I can't remember more specifically where, that Portal is considered high art compared to other videogames because it has things that most artistic endeavours take for granted but games generally don't, like themes and subtext. So compared to other games they are the cat's pajamas, but compared to other art they are amateurish endeavours. And Bioshock, in the end, is still about shooting a bunch of people that try to hit you with wrenches. They aren't even metaphors for stuff like in Silent Hill. They're just people with wrenches.

But, you're right.

Especially right with the 'girls don't game' myth. I like how so many people are going 'oh, I bet they play Farmville and Wii Sports and call themselves gamers', as if no man would also be included in that category. That would only come into play if the research showing that was based on self-identifying, is that the case? At any rate, there are four women I met online, and all four of them are gamers (360-having, GameFAQs-posting, cheat-code-memorizing gamers) and at least two are more hardcore in their particular niche than me. Now that is a myth that will be hard to die. As Shamus Young remembered, I recommend explosions.

Wow, I've been absolutely murdering the 7.6hour a day average. Summer vacation...

For example, I bought Pokemon Soul Silver last week and have 100 hours on it. Also, bought starcraft the release day and... I'm scared to know how many hours I've logged onto it.

And TF2 and L4D2 have to be close to 8 hours last week by themselves.

Gosh.

ItsAPaul:
You had me until you said Ocarina of Time was art, but I guess the number of people that played it when they were 12 and thought every game was cool means it will infinitely be defended on the internet since you can't undo childhood memories. Yet these same people will admit DBZ was bad when they thought it was the best when they were that age...

What's wrong with Ocarina of Time?

I agree with every point except that I believe that games are social. This site itself is proof.

Nincompoop:

ZippyDSMlee:

Nincompoop:

ZippyDSMlee:

Nincompoop:

Not G. Ivingname:

Nincompoop:

Not G. Ivingname:

Nincompoop:
snip

While I do agree with you that just spouting examples without giving them context or further explanation, I also disagree with your idea that something isn't art just because it has utility use and "clams us down" (I can think of tons of calming music).

Music that is calming is not art, by being calming, if that makes sense. If you would create a tune which would invoke a certain feeling, I wouldn't call it art. Neither is music art by definition, and using that, combined with examples of music that can be used as an application, isn't a valid argument in my opinion.

I would argue my self, but since your argument was the same as Roger Ebert's ill fated reasoning, and I don't think I can word this better, I will post the Game Overthinker's (aka moviebob's) respounce to him as my counter argument. http://screwattack.com/videos/TGO-Episode-35-A-Response-to-Roger-Ebert

After watching the video, I can only say that I simply don't think of art the same way. I wouldn't call a movie art, and I am partially to the side where there shouldn't be a collaboration of talents and minds when it comes to art.

Having said that, I do find that, perhaps, one specific idea in a game could be called art. Like a specific model (where it comes down to sculpture), or maybe a specific gameplay mechanic, or soundtrack.

But I will never see an entire movie or a game as art. And frankly, it's not as if I put art above anything. In no sense is it derogatory when I say that I don't think games are art.

Also, if I were to publish a big game, and people referred to it as art, I would feel insulted, as art (for me) implies creativity and vision, more than hard work, careful thought, skills and intelligence.

Would you define indie games developed by one person as art? There are plenty, like Castle Crashers was entirely programmed by one person while another did ALL the art work. If you need examples of stuff done by ONE person, and ONE person alone, check out Newgrounds.com, which has plenty of great works done by a single entity.

How can you lynch to that specific line and disregard the rest? It's not like that was the cornerstone of my message.

But I probably still wouldn't call it art, as it consists of multiple genres of art. And I will never call hard work, intelligence and skills art. You said the code was done by one, and artwork by another? (That's how I understood it, but I wasn't sure). All the artwork, like the models, pictures, soundtrack, or whatever was in it, I would call them, alone, art. I wouldn't call the programming code art, as it was a result of planning and hard work, and I most certainly wouldn't call both of them together art.

So if its planed its not art?

Art is books,literature,comics, film ,TV any audio and or visual or even tactile(is smell tactile or something by itself) experience that a person or group makes for others to enjoy, that IMO is the essence of art trying to make a thing to experience for other(s) to enjoy.

Butt out of this. If you would have followed the discussion, you would have seen that this is my personal opinion.

EDIT: Now you changed it to personal, well, you are welcome to have that opinion. That appears to be what most people think. I just think of art differently.

Ok I think I get what your saying you have media which is a very lite and shallow artistic medium and then you have "Art" which is above and beyond laymens scope and understanding like a force of nature.

Something like that?

It dose sound a bit snobbish but I am the same way with video games, video games should be built around mechanics not visual drool...you are not interfacing with drool dammit!

Maybe, except that art isn't above anything. If anything, I regard art as something less in most cases. 'Art' is f**king overrated. People who dare utter the words "but it's art" should all die a painful death, and have insects eat their carcass. But seriously, I have a bit of a narrow criteria for art, but in no way is it superior to anything, au contraire, in most cases I personally find it ridiculous. Gaming should be happy when I say it's not art <.<.

I guess less is more,more subtle more random and inspired than planed and primed,ect.

IMO art is is in the eye of the beholder and or the pocket book of the patron and or the heart of the snob. It really can be anything thus making censoring or banning it all the more difficult. Of course is freedom of speech in the scope of art or freedom to know facts,truths and misconceptions or all of the of above.. *head starts smoking* I really should stop thinking.....my brain hurts :P

Kellerb:

Scobie:
That article you attributed to The Guardian appears to be from The Telegraph.

Aside from that, I have only one issue with this article: the claim that games aren't social. Online multiplayer is not "social in a very loose sense". You're interacting with other people - therefore it's social. The fact that it's indirect interaction doesn't make it any less social. And I don't agree that singleplayer is necessarily solitary. Try living in a house of game nuts. You'll find that while one person is playing a game, other people are watching him play and everyone's talking, often about the game being played. This seems to me far more social than reading a book (which no-one else can share in) or listening to music or watching a movie (meaning you need people to be quiet).

only 7 percent of conversation is the words themselves, the rest is tone of voice, body language, facial expression and the like. so you see, the seemingly social aspects of mmo's and online gaming is really a tiny snippet of actual socialising. its just not very social.

So when you've got people updating their facebook walls, texting and calling each other almost 24/7 when not in school/at work, they're obviously very antisocial people, right? Even when playing single player, you're still probably communicating with someone else, especially on the 360, where almost everyone is either in a multiplayer match or in a party.

And as for single player being the 'cornerstone' of gaming? No. It's not. It's been a few years since it last was. And this site really needs to get over that. Yes, there still are a few games that are, but they are few, far between, and not is the best shape (Portal was based on a gimmick, and the Half Life series is being ignored in favor of the multiplayer focused L4D series, and I'm being very generous when I say that it was only okay to begin with).

Great article.

I like your point on "Games aren't social" - particularly the way you tie it to reading books. Single player game experiences can promote real-world interaction the same way that reading the same book as your friend can.

Helmutye:

How is gameplay separate from the artistic experience? Gameplay IS the artistic experience! If you read the rest of my post above, I establish how playing through Portal gives you an artistic experience. If you're going to refute it, fair enough, but I'm going to need more of an argument than just 'Well, no.'

I'll certainly try. Yes, the game mechanic of the portal gun certainly adds to the experience of the game. And it does a surprisingly good job of incorporating its trick to its narrative. However, the actual gameplay (and I personally think there's a separation between gameplay and game mechanics, it may just be an issue of semantics) itself doesn't add to the experience apart from a way to get from point A to point B.

ReverseEngineered:

As another example, look at Braid. The entire theme of the consequences of controlling time tie directly into the core mechanic: controlling time. At first, it's just a mechanic -- you control time because that's how you solve the puzzle. But as the story unfolds, you being to realize that you are controlling time and consider what you would do if you could control time in real life. What would the consequences be? The narrative thread throughout the game, tied together wonderfully in the end, makes the player consider time travel in a way that other arts such as film can't do: the player isn't just watching it and thinking to themselves, they are actually experiencing it as a direct result of their actions. That is art experienced through interaction.

I cannot make a judgement on a game I haven't played; I would love to play Braid.

Just woke up, and that was the perfect article to read. I agree on every point. Cheers!

I think, regarding all the debate about "Games as art" that while certainly many games have undeniably artistic qualities, being an art form isn't a YES/NO thing. Picasso, Manet, Rothko, are all fantastic painters, but when someone comes to paint my house that doens't make them an artist. Bioshock is wonderfully artistic, but that doens't mean that The Conduit can siphon a bit of artistic integrity just for being in the same medium.

Whatever the content of games, gaming needs to go a long way to be seen as an established artform. For example, a lot of mainstream newspapers in the UK report on gaming in a very positive way (take the Guardian for example), but they write about them as entertainment, not in their Review section, where they discuss books, theatre, and visual art.

To say that the artistic integrity of games is indisputable is shooting yourself in the foot: just look at Tracy Emin or Grayson Perry- there is not shortage of controversy and debate around mainstream artists and C J Davie's actually gives a less convincing argument for games being art than Ebert did for them not being.

All this debate however, is unconstructive. As many of you have already said, if you, personally, feel something is a work of art, then more power to you, it is! We should stop asking "is this a work of art?" and start saying "this is a work of art, where do we go from here?".

Not G. Ivingname:

Nincompoop:

Not G. Ivingname:

Nincompoop:

Not G. Ivingname:

Nincompoop:
snip

While I do agree with you that just spouting examples without giving them context or further explanation, I also disagree with your idea that something isn't art just because it has utility use and "clams us down" (I can think of tons of calming music).

Music that is calming is not art, by being calming, if that makes sense. If you would create a tune which would invoke a certain feeling, I wouldn't call it art. Neither is music art by definition, and using that, combined with examples of music that can be used as an application, isn't a valid argument in my opinion.

I would argue my self, but since your argument was the same as Roger Ebert's ill fated reasoning, and I don't think I can word this better, I will post the Game Overthinker's (aka moviebob's) respounce to him as my counter argument. http://screwattack.com/videos/TGO-Episode-35-A-Response-to-Roger-Ebert

After watching the video, I can only say that I simply don't think of art the same way. I wouldn't call a movie art, and I am partially to the side where there shouldn't be a collaboration of talents and minds when it comes to art.

Having said that, I do find that, perhaps, one specific idea in a game could be called art. Like a specific model (where it comes down to sculpture), or maybe a specific gameplay mechanic, or soundtrack.

But I will never see an entire movie or a game as art. And frankly, it's not as if I put art above anything. In no sense is it derogatory when I say that I don't think games are art.

Also, if I were to publish a big game, and people referred to it as art, I would feel insulted, as art (for me) implies creativity and vision, more than hard work, careful thought, skills and intelligence.

Would you define indie games developed by one person as art? There are plenty, like Castle Crashers was entirely programmed by one person while another did ALL the art work. If you need examples of stuff done by ONE person, and ONE person alone, check out Newgrounds.com, which has plenty of great works done by a single entity.

How can you lynch to that specific line and disregard the rest? It's not like that was the cornerstone of my message.

But I probably still wouldn't call it art, as it consists of multiple genres of art. And I will never call hard work, intelligence and skills art. You said the code was done by one, and artwork by another? (That's how I understood it, but I wasn't sure). All the artwork, like the models, pictures, soundtrack, or whatever was in it, I would call them, alone, art. I wouldn't call the programming code art, as it was a result of planning and hard work, and I most certainly wouldn't call both of them together art.

Your opinion is just so different from what I have heard, I am just trying to counter your argument. I have heard many justifications for why video games aren't art, but your two part "one, it is an application and two, that parts are art, the whole isn't" is just so different from every argument I have heard. I won't pretend to understand it, I don't, but I will respect it.

Thanks. I guess that means it's wrong, on some point. A word is defined by how it's used, and if more use it as they do, as opposed to how I use it, it's probably wrong. But a loose word like art, that isn't so simple to understand, is hard to change. What I'm saying, as I think of art now, I probably always will, on some point.

summerof2010:
There's a lot of good replies on here, but I'm only half way through the article itself and there are gnats picking at my shins, so I'd rather not read any more of them. Anyway.

Nincompoop:

Games have no artistic merit. This is something that is up for debate. And mentioning a few games and then claiming your argument to be foolproof is absolutely the worst kind of fallacious argumentation in my honest opinion. It's absolutely ridiculous.

Now, to the actual issue. I don't think of games as art because they are not something you merely gaze at. I don't think art is something you interact with. I would call games a utility or an application of sorts. Even if the point is entertainment. With no practical applications, but maybe mental or psychological applications (we need something to keep our spirits up).

You gaze a pictures, and maybe discuss them. You listen to music. You don't do these kind of things with games.
I would like to stress, however, that this is my opinion on games as art.

I've not been very much a part of the "games as art" debate, and that's because I don't think it matters much. Whether or not games are art does not change how much fun I have slicing dudes up in DMC4, or how awed and charmed I am by SotC, or how much food for thought I find in Bioshock. However, I find your definition of art needlessly restrictive. Why can't you interact with art? Shouldn't "art" be more defined by what it does rather than how you experience it? I mean, before movies, contemporary art was all static (unless there were moving sculptures or something, as there may have been) -- it'd be the same as you crying out at the advent of cinema, "That's not art! I can't hang it in my gallery!"

I don't find the word art very useful if it involves everything created, be it by many, be it a host of different genres of art, or be it for usage. I mean, then it starts looking like how it was used in the first place, being synonymous with a man made object.

But I feel the same way as you. I don't really care. Well, maybe I don't feel as you... Because I actually care, I would be angry if someone dared call my game (if I had one) art, as it doesn't imply intelligence, hard work, planning and skill. At least on how I think of art.

Art = Wiki: "Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way to affect the senses or emotions. It encompasses a diverse range of human activities, creations, and modes of expression, including music, literature, film, photography, sculpture, and paintings"

Games = making profit. (with exeptions ofcource)
Though sometimes a game can be so good or special that it does affect the senses or emotions.
Ocarina of Time did enchant me more then any painting/movie or story ever had, and it is a
experiance that far exceeded any "traditional" artistic creation i have seen/experienced.

So ide say: Some games are art, most arnt.

Nincompoop:
I would be angry if someone dared call my game (if I had one) art, as it doesn't imply intelligence, hard work, planning and skill. At least on how I think of art.

...what? Please tell me someone else is reading this with as much confusion and mild indignation as I am.

Games don't imply intelligence? Are you suggesting that games are incapable of stimulating intelligent thought? Ludicrous! Bioshock's major theme is the hubris of the technological/scientific man -- exemplified not only by being set in the ruins of a city who's explicit point was to defy nature by being underwater, but by the drug addled Spilcers and the horrifyingly perverse Little Sisters, turned into monsters by the populace's greed and lack of respect for nature. If that doesn't stir a little thought, it's not the game's fault, it's yours. I could even cite Red Dead: Redemption. It focuses on the moral conflict John Marshton faces in the already morally dubious Old West. He repents and regrets his past, but doesn't blame himself -- all he wants to do is live in peace on a farm with his wife and son, but either by duty or circumstance, he is bidden to murder, steal from, and otherwise destroy scores of people. It's as if his past has become an immutable part of himself, and the longer you traverse the desert, witnessing rampant enmity and sin from even the lowest of creatures, the more it seems like that farm is just a pipe dream, and that evil is just the way of the world. Now that is thought provoking. (albeit, I never actually finished RD:R... my PS3 crashed... but it affected me heartily during its stay)

Hard work and planning? That's like 90% of game development! Before publishers hand over millions of dollars to developers, they have to at least see an outline of the game they're going to make. And just look at one of the numerous articles commenting on game testing here on the escapist. That's only one part of game development, and it's grueling. In fact, there was an "Experienced Points" article that really drove it home for me just how much effort and time goes into making a game, though it's not explicitly about that.

Finally, skill? Making games doesn't require skill? How about you try creating some of the most fundamental parts of a video game. Modeling a 3-dimensional area? Yeah right. Modeling a character? Maybe after a few months in a technical college. Lip-syncing? The list goes on. Even on the creative side, it's no easy business making sure people who all have their own interests and eccentricities just look at what you're trying to show them. Then you have to organize everything so that it will mean something to them. Check out the developers commentary on Valve games. It's not like they just draw some stuff in crayon and throw darts at the fridge to decide what elements to use.

That was quite a rant, wasn't it? But seriously, how thoughtless. Now, the preceding doesn't prove games are art or whatever, it just counters specifically what I quoted you on. And now I get to ask: considering this, what do you mean by your last sentence? How exactly do you think of art that makes all this irrelevant? Do novelists just work harder? Or is a man who paints a landscape less skilled than a men who actually create the 3D space of that landscape, plus the surrounding hillsides while maintaining the important aesthetic and thematic elements of the work as a whole?

summerof2010:

Nincompoop:
I would be angry if someone dared call my game (if I had one) art, as it doesn't imply intelligence, hard work, planning and skill. At least on how I think of art.

...what? Please tell me someone else is reading this with as much confusion and mild indignation as I am.

Games don't imply intelligence? Are you suggesting that games are incapable of stimulating intelligent thought? Ludicrous! Bioshock's major theme is the hubris of the technological/scientific man -- exemplified not only by being set in the ruins of a city who's explicit point was to defy nature by being underwater, but by the drug addled Spilcers and the horrifyingly perverse Little Sisters, turned into monsters by the populace's greed and lack of respect for nature. If that doesn't stir a little thought, it's not the game's fault, it's yours. I could even cite Red Dead: Redemption. It focuses on the moral conflict John Marshton faces in the already morally dubious Old West. He repents and regrets his past, but doesn't blame himself -- all he wants to do is live in peace on a farm with his wife and son, but either by duty or circumstance, he is bidden to murder, steal from, and otherwise destroy scores of people. It's as if his past has become an immutable part of himself, and the longer you traverse the desert, witnessing rampant enmity and sin from even the lowest of creatures, the more it seems like that farm is just a pipe dream, and that evil is just the way of the world. Now that is thought provoking. (albeit, I never actually finished RD:R... my PS3 crashed... but it affected me heartily during its stay)

Hard work and planning? That's like 90% of game development! Before publishers hand over millions of dollars to developers, they have to at least see an outline of the game they're going to make. And just look at one of the numerous articles commenting on game testing here on the escapist. That's only one part of game development, and it's grueling. In fact, there was an "Experienced Points" article that really drove it home for me just how much effort and time goes into making a game, though it's not explicitly about that.

Finally, skill? Making games doesn't require skill? How about you try creating some of the most fundamental parts of a video game. Modeling a 3-dimensional area? Yeah right. Modeling a character? Maybe after a few months in a technical college. Lip-syncing? The list goes on. Even on the creative side, it's no easy business making sure people who all have their own interests and eccentricities just look at what you're trying to show them. Then you have to organize everything so that it will mean something to them. Check out the developers commentary on Valve games. It's not like they just draw some stuff in crayon and throw darts at the fridge to decide what elements to use.

That was quite a rant, wasn't it? But seriously, how thoughtless. Now, the preceding doesn't prove games are art or whatever, it just counters specifically what I quoted you on. And now I get to ask: considering this, what do you mean by your last sentence? How exactly do you think of art that makes all this irrelevant? Do novelists just work harder? Or is a man who paints a landscape less skilled than a men who actually create the 3D space of that landscape, plus the surrounding hillsides while maintaining the important aesthetic and thematic elements of the work as a whole?

You have misunderstood this on the most extreme level possible.

It's the exact opposite. I would get angry if anyone dared to call my game art BECAUSE IN MY OPINION ART DOES NOT SUGGEST INTELLIGENCE, HARD WORK, PLANNING AND SKILLS!

Okay??

I would be angry if someone dared call my game (if I had one) art, as it doesn't imply intelligence, hard work, planning and skill. At least on how I think of art.

It is art that doesn't imply what I said. Not games. Games, and other software, is actually beyond art in my opinion, because of all you mentioned.

I've got to hand it to you though, that was one harsh, long and personal attack you made. But, I hope you see now, you just misunderstood.

Nincompoop:

summerof2010:

Nincompoop:
I would be angry if someone dared call my game (if I had one) art, as it doesn't imply intelligence, hard work, planning and skill. At least on how I think of art.

...what? Please tell me someone else is reading this with as much confusion and mild indignation as I am.

Games don't imply intelligence? Are you suggesting that games are incapable of stimulating intelligent thought? Ludicrous! Bioshock's major theme is the hubris of the technological/scientific man -- exemplified not only by being set in the ruins of a city who's explicit point was to defy nature by being underwater, but by the drug addled Spilcers and the horrifyingly perverse Little Sisters, turned into monsters by the populace's greed and lack of respect for nature. If that doesn't stir a little thought, it's not the game's fault, it's yours. I could even cite Red Dead: Redemption. It focuses on the moral conflict John Marshton faces in the already morally dubious Old West. He repents and regrets his past, but doesn't blame himself -- all he wants to do is live in peace on a farm with his wife and son, but either by duty or circumstance, he is bidden to murder, steal from, and otherwise destroy scores of people. It's as if his past has become an immutable part of himself, and the longer you traverse the desert, witnessing rampant enmity and sin from even the lowest of creatures, the more it seems like that farm is just a pipe dream, and that evil is just the way of the world. Now that is thought provoking. (albeit, I never actually finished RD:R... my PS3 crashed... but it affected me heartily during its stay)

Hard work and planning? That's like 90% of game development! Before publishers hand over millions of dollars to developers, they have to at least see an outline of the game they're going to make. And just look at one of the numerous articles commenting on game testing here on the escapist. That's only one part of game development, and it's grueling. In fact, there was an "Experienced Points" article that really drove it home for me just how much effort and time goes into making a game, though it's not explicitly about that.

Finally, skill? Making games doesn't require skill? How about you try creating some of the most fundamental parts of a video game. Modeling a 3-dimensional area? Yeah right. Modeling a character? Maybe after a few months in a technical college. Lip-syncing? The list goes on. Even on the creative side, it's no easy business making sure people who all have their own interests and eccentricities just look at what you're trying to show them. Then you have to organize everything so that it will mean something to them. Check out the developers commentary on Valve games. It's not like they just draw some stuff in crayon and throw darts at the fridge to decide what elements to use.

That was quite a rant, wasn't it? But seriously, how thoughtless. Now, the preceding doesn't prove games are art or whatever, it just counters specifically what I quoted you on. And now I get to ask: considering this, what do you mean by your last sentence? How exactly do you think of art that makes all this irrelevant? Do novelists just work harder? Or is a man who paints a landscape less skilled than a men who actually create the 3D space of that landscape, plus the surrounding hillsides while maintaining the important aesthetic and thematic elements of the work as a whole?

You have misunderstood this on the most extreme level possible.

It's the exact opposite. I would get angry if anyone dared to call my game art BECAUSE IN MY OPINION ART DOES NOT SUGGEST INTELLIGENCE, HARD WORK, PLANNING AND SKILLS!

Okay??

I would be angry if someone dared call my game (if I had one) art, as it doesn't imply intelligence, hard work, planning and skill. At least on how I think of art.

It is art that doesn't imply what I said. Not games. Games, and other software, is actually beyond art in my opinion, because of all you mentioned.

I've got to hand it to you though, that was one harsh, long and personal attack you made. But, I hope you see now, you just misunderstood.

Addendum; I blushed even though I knew it was a misunderstanding. Rofl... I HAVE to remember this comment. Waow. What a comment.

**This was supposed to be an edit. Don't know how I made it as a reply**

Nincompoop:

You have misunderstood this on the most extreme level possible.

It's the exact opposite. I would get angry if anyone dared to call my game art BECAUSE IN MY OPINION ART DOES NOT SUGGEST INTELLIGENCE, HARD WORK, PLANNING AND SKILLS!

Okay??

I would be angry if someone dared call my game (if I had one) art, as it doesn't imply intelligence, hard work, planning and skill. At least on how I think of art.

It is art that doesn't imply what I said. Not games. Games, and other software, is actually beyond art in my opinion, because of all you mentioned.

I've got to hand it to you though, that was one harsh, long and personal attack you made. But, I hope you see now, you just misunderstood.

Addendum; I blushed even though I knew it was a misunderstanding. Rofl... I HAVE to remember this comment. Waow. What a comment.

**This was supposed to be an edit. Don't know how I made it as a reply**

...oh....

uh... well, don't you think you could've worded that a liiitle better...?

Goddammit...

summerof2010:

Nincompoop:

You have misunderstood this on the most extreme level possible.

It's the exact opposite. I would get angry if anyone dared to call my game art BECAUSE IN MY OPINION ART DOES NOT SUGGEST INTELLIGENCE, HARD WORK, PLANNING AND SKILLS!

Okay??

I would be angry if someone dared call my game (if I had one) art, as it doesn't imply intelligence, hard work, planning and skill. At least on how I think of art.

It is art that doesn't imply what I said. Not games. Games, and other software, is actually beyond art in my opinion, because of all you mentioned.

I've got to hand it to you though, that was one harsh, long and personal attack you made. But, I hope you see now, you just misunderstood.

Addendum; I blushed even though I knew it was a misunderstanding. Rofl... I HAVE to remember this comment. Waow. What a comment.

**This was supposed to be an edit. Don't know how I made it as a reply**

...oh....

uh... well, don't you think you could've worded that a liiitle better...?

Goddammit...

Yes I could. I really apologize. That was a terrible sentence.

Nincompoop:

summerof2010:

Nincompoop:

You have misunderstood this on the most extreme level possible.

It's the exact opposite. I would get angry if anyone dared to call my game art BECAUSE IN MY OPINION ART DOES NOT SUGGEST INTELLIGENCE, HARD WORK, PLANNING AND SKILLS!

Okay??

I would be angry if someone dared call my game (if I had one) art, as it doesn't imply intelligence, hard work, planning and skill. At least on how I think of art.

It is art that doesn't imply what I said. Not games. Games, and other software, is actually beyond art in my opinion, because of all you mentioned.

I've got to hand it to you though, that was one harsh, long and personal attack you made. But, I hope you see now, you just misunderstood.

Addendum; I blushed even though I knew it was a misunderstanding. Rofl... I HAVE to remember this comment. Waow. What a comment.

**This was supposed to be an edit. Don't know how I made it as a reply**

...oh....

uh... well, don't you think you could've worded that a liiitle better...?

Goddammit...

Yes I could. I really apologize. That was a terrible sentence.

Well, at least it was pretty damn funny. Still, I rather wish I hadn't burned an entire hour and a half on that response.

summerof2010:

Nincompoop:

summerof2010:

Nincompoop:

You have misunderstood this on the most extreme level possible.

It's the exact opposite. I would get angry if anyone dared to call my game art BECAUSE IN MY OPINION ART DOES NOT SUGGEST INTELLIGENCE, HARD WORK, PLANNING AND SKILLS!

Okay??

I would be angry if someone dared call my game (if I had one) art, as it doesn't imply intelligence, hard work, planning and skill. At least on how I think of art.

It is art that doesn't imply what I said. Not games. Games, and other software, is actually beyond art in my opinion, because of all you mentioned.

I've got to hand it to you though, that was one harsh, long and personal attack you made. But, I hope you see now, you just misunderstood.

Addendum; I blushed even though I knew it was a misunderstanding. Rofl... I HAVE to remember this comment. Waow. What a comment.

**This was supposed to be an edit. Don't know how I made it as a reply**

...oh....

uh... well, don't you think you could've worded that a liiitle better...?

Goddammit...

Yes I could. I really apologize. That was a terrible sentence.

Well, at least it was pretty damn funny. Still, I rather wish I hadn't burned an entire hour and a half on that response.

I could feel how much you put in that, so, Lol, you don't have to explain.

Nincompoop:

It's the exact opposite. I would get angry if anyone dared to call my game art BECAUSE IN MY OPINION ART DOES NOT SUGGEST INTELLIGENCE, HARD WORK, PLANNING AND SKILLS!

Sounds to me like you have a pretty bizarre definition for 'art'. What exactly does the word "art" suggest to you?

never mind. found it on the top of page 2.

cobra_ky:

Nincompoop:

It's the exact opposite. I would get angry if anyone dared to call my game art BECAUSE IN MY OPINION ART DOES NOT SUGGEST INTELLIGENCE, HARD WORK, PLANNING AND SKILLS!

Sounds to me like you have a pretty bizarre definition for 'art'. What exactly does the word "art" suggest to you?

never mind. found it on the top of page 2.

Hehe xP. Was about to direct you to the discussion.

Being a game tester still doesn't sound all that bad. Hell, I had to play that first South American mission in Modern Warfair2 for about that long just to pass it. Maybe that was just because I suck at first person. I can easily find flaws in a game, especially when I'm losing :P. I've been playing Saints Row 2 through-out my summer vacation and it's still pretty fun.

good article. but some studies found that surgeons who play some videogames have better reflexes and can work more efficiently (faster) than their peers.
but, with how much time they spend working, they get very little time to play a game. someone who plays games quite often (a 'good' player on up to 'pro') will have the physical attributes of a 60 year old chain smoker. they will be that unfit and unhealthy. but that requires eight to ten hours a day of playing.
playing just a little bit occasionally will have some beneficial effects.

I'm glad someone is standing up and saying something. I don't really care what people say, but it's just absurd to say that videogames aren't art. Just look at games like Ico and Shadow of the Collossus. Fahrenheit and Heavy Rain! Some would consider those better than films! Then again, there's the thing. "Some would", cause it's all a very subjective matter. I think I'm starting to understand this week's subject a little more. /LEVEL UP!

Y'know whats funny? This whole "Video games are/aren't art" thing is pretty much the same thing that happened when 2D animation was just starting up.
Now for MY opinion of games as an art. I think not as art, but as a work of art.

I don't know where people got the idea that true art doesn't include planning and hard work because that's pretty much half of what art is. You ever think and wonder why they say "This is a work of art" instead of "This is art"? Because "art" is not the product, "art" is the craft. People have shortened the term "Artwork" to just "Art" and now they're confusing one definition for the other. Art is a talent, a skill, a technique used to suggest something, be it visual or intangible. Programming is as much of an art as painting, as is woodworking, business management, heck we even have martial arts!
Video games themselves are not art. Making video games on the other hand is very much art. The video games they make are works of art.

Is anyone else sick and tired of people insisting that games are art? Why is that so important? Why does it matter?

If everyone who says games aren't art (myself, and Hideo Kojima included) suddenly said that they were wrong and Zelda is now a classical masterpiece, would that somehow make it more fun?

For a magazine that really wants to be intellectual, you guys really are expressing a need to 'fit in' with society here by saying that our form of entertainment is art as well.

I don't want games to be art, and neither should you. As Hideo Kojima once said (and as I slaughter with my paraphrasing), art has no purpose other than being art. His favorite piece of art is a chair that is specially designed to be uncomfortable to sit in. He says that games COULD be art, if the controls were backward and if the game was impossible to play, but why would anyone want a game to be art for art's sake?

Games may coincidentally be so amazing and come together so well that they seem as if a work of art (see Super Mario Bros), but their first and foremost function is to be fun to PLAY. Any game that isn't built around that concept doesn't deserve to be called a game, artistic or not.

To simply blow off anyone who says games aren't art by calling that a 'myth' is a bit offensive. You may not agree with us, but give us more respect than simply listing a few great (but gameplay centered) games and saying that's that.

As for the game testing myth I will say until my last breath: Testing games is the one job you'll enjoy the most, for the least amount of pay.

There's really good insight in some of the posts I've read here, thank you all for sharing your opinions and defending them so well.

I think that the social aspect of online gaming is much overstated. When I was at university, for a while all I did was work during the day and talk to friends via instant messengers and through videogames the rest of the time. While I was having lots of "social" interaction with them, I found I soon became depressed and irritable, started eating a lot less and avoided talking to people in real life.

It was only after I decided to kick this habit (which had probably started purely out of convenience) and get out and meeting up with people in the real world that I started feeling much better. I think social interaction through games etc. is simply a pale imitation of the real thing. We're social animals, and most of us need a degree of social interaction to function normally. "Social" gaming simply doesn't provide this.

Scobie:
That article you attributed to The Guardian appears to be from The Telegraph.

Aside from that, I have only one issue with this article: the claim that games aren't social. Online multiplayer is not "social in a very loose sense". You're interacting with other people - therefore it's social. The fact that it's indirect interaction doesn't make it any less social. And I don't agree that singleplayer is necessarily solitary. Try living in a house of game nuts. You'll find that while one person is playing a game, other people are watching him play and everyone's talking, often about the game being played. This seems to me far more social than reading a book (which no-one else can share in) or listening to music or watching a movie (meaning you need people to be quiet).

Ya you got a strange definition of social. Playing most online games is no more social then playing a game full of AI computers. Its rare in games like sc2 or others rts for people to actually talk while playing. Most of the time they tell you to shut up and stop trying to distract them. FPS games like mw2 arnt much better, half the people dont talk and the other half say nothing intelligent. It mostly consists of people with high pitched voices screaming noob, camper, and little bitch, or shut the fuck up to anybody who is trying to you know use teamwork. Face it most online games are still extremely solitary. Calling gaming online social is kind of like calling drinking by yourself in a bar social. Sure you talk to the bartender once in awhile but your not really socializing.

As for your single player arguement thats not exactly what he was talking about and is still in the extreme minority. Most people do in fact play single player games by themselves.

Myth: Games Have No Artistic Merit

Braid. Shadow Of The Colossus. Portal. BioShock. Ocarina Of Time. Five titles that destroy this myth completely. Games are art, just as gravity pulls you to Earth and water quenches your thirst. It's not even debateable.

This just made me laugh. Because nothing proves and arguement better then listing some random games with no proof and saying haha you loose. I dont even understand what your trying to say with that arguement. I admit bioshock and sotc supposedly took the atmospheric approach but thats not art. They didnt even do it very well, bioshock was never about the atmosphere unless your talking about it in the same way as they do horror films. It was supposed to make you jumpy and think that you can be ambushed from anywhere, not artsy. Braid I havnt played but oot and portal are as close to art as monopoly is.

Captain Booyah:

More OT: That thing about around 40% of the gaming market are girls. Is that entirely accurate? Because I'd imagine that for some girls, qualifying as a 'gamer' would be mostly playing games like FarmVille, Wii Fit, etc.

That umm seems alittle sexist and insulting.

I agree with most except the ones with no hard evidence. Game as art...yeah im gonna new more than 3 lines of text saying it is. Subjectivity has no place in an article about debunking myths.

yeh 40% women in gaming, i demand they come out of the wood works cause I don't see any playing the games i play. (To be fair I'm not considering social games every girl i know on FB plays some sort of flash game.)

tons of women play games, from the first mmo i played there was a decent amount of women that played, the new social gaming scene makes people gamers all over the age range and across sexes, but especially appeals to women since guys traditionally have been more heavily gamers.

i lest have no problem believing that 40% of gamers from all over the range of games out there are women, yea you will not see tons on your halos and call of duties, tho i had one girl where i worked that was incredibly evil in quake 3, so even they out there.

games as art they are art period artist work on games level designers, texture people, animators, i find it mind boggling that film is given a pass as art medium and is just as collaberative. But games are still looked down upon because of their interactive scapegoat.

but i am really shocked at the things this article omitted.

Gaming makes your sexual organs bigger, in online play.

Gaming and the internet in general gives everyone an inate knowledge of martial arts.

Gaming and the internet makes everyone loose weight get taller and better looking.

And gaming makes your real life job better.

Didn't agree with a fair amount of this article. Sorry, not an enjoyable read.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here