Jimquisition: The Definition of Art Games

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Trishbot:
Let me clear this up for everyone.

Definition of an Art Game: Mario Paint, UDraw, and Colors 3D.

You all are welcome.

You forgot the seminal work Color a Dinosaur. Philistine.

man, I have a very weak definition. "Art" is something created or crafted with intent which elicits and emotional or cognitive response from another.

so according to that, all video games are "art" in that they may cause the player joy, rage, anger, sadness.

Then you get to a sticky point in which they are divided into "high art" and "low art"

"high art" is that which an elite group consider "art" and "low art" is what any other subsect of society consider "art".

Timbaland and Mozart are both involved in the creation of music. Mozart is considered an artist and the things he created musically are considered art by societal elite. Timbaland is considered an artist by people who listen to hip-hop/R&B. Other people would consider that which Timbaland creates to be just noise.

The problem with this division is that the social elite should not be able to consider what they enjoy to be high art, because those people are downright crazy.
http://www.lacma.org/art/exhibition/levitated-mass/

The Los Angeles County Museum of Art has a big rock on exhibit...

The only way I can see to fairly judge whether something is to be considered "art" is to let time see. Some movies were considered garbage in their era, but have now become classics.

But in order to do that, you lost the temporal aspect of the "moment". Some things only have significance for that time, and some would argue that those moments are also art, but to that I say they are not. they are inspiring and beautiful and can elicit all sorts of emotions, but I cannot say they are art for the simple fact that they were not crafted.

If I were to eat a burger on a bench in a park, it would elicit an emotion from me and it would be a joyous occasion. That doesn't make it art... or does it? that gives me an idea... If the elite enjoy that rock thing, then just maybe...

My only issue with the art game discussion has little to do with what Jim is saying, as I mostly agree with him. No, my issue is simplier, the assertion that all games are art. No, that's like saying all films or books are art. We all know this to be untrue. All games have the CAPACITY to be art, but are not inherently.

Nobody would classify trash romance novels as art, or generic blockbusters like Battleship. Those aren't art, they're just media. And most games are the same way. There are tons of games that have artists merit without being implicity art, like Bioshock or Jet Set Radio. This is where the distinction of art games comes in. Art games were made from the get go to be art, like Journey or Limbo. Games like Bioshock were made to be storytelling devices and entertainment, and just happen to have artistic merit to them due to great atmosphere and art direction.

I agree Jim. All games are art, but not all games are "good art" or "high art". However, most games are first and foremost a product, while others are first and foremost art. Those are art games.

Omnicide:
I read a quote online that went like this:

"The other word I really hate seeing around is "art" and if games are that. That discussion gets very ugly very fast, and no one wins after having it."

I decided to test this claim. I started a thread at another forum and the second reply to the thread, among other things, had this in it:

"And of course all Final Fantasy series. I mean, look at Ultimecias castle. There is an Art Gallery."

Ugh, I can totally see why Jim would have never wanted to do such an episode. People just dont get it.

I see what you mean.

My point is just the aesthetic value qualifies games as a form of art in general.

A (possibly psychopathic) example of the point Jim drives at would be radiation. Everything has a certain amount of background radiation, but in nuclear materials, the radiation is a more major point to be considered. Just like that, Gears of War, Final Fantasy, etc have a degree of background artistry to them. That doesn't mean the artistic sense or value can't play a more prominent role in a game's value.

Hell, while they're not all necessarily "art games", I think any game that prioritizes story equally to or above gameplay by default has more artistic design than something like Call of Duty. Call of Duty still counts as art due to its background art elements like its level design, aesthetic, music score and what story it does have.

You cant prove a point by using a double negative. Nice try though.

If you really want to find a proper definition of art-game you could just reword the wiki for art-film for your own designs and it will hold up just as well. The whole debate of whether video games are art is moot considering if you compare video games to movies people will say the same thing. You wouldn't call Transformers 2 an art-film the same way you wouldn't call Call Of Duty an art-game.

So to summarise: Everyone is stupid?

Oh and I had the same dilemma with Portal as well. I don't generally like puzzle games, but if someone had just told me Portal was a puzzle game, I would have stayed away from it, and having played it and loved it, I'm glad I did give it a try.

Totally take the point. All drawings are art but there's a difference between something admittedly well drawn and something arty. Gears of War may have been created in an artistic medium but that doesn't make it art.

Furthermore, everyone knows what "art game" means so fuck off. Oh wait, you agree? FUCK OFF ANYWAY!

People were making that argument? Really? Are people that argumentative? I hate the internet sometimes.

Did anyone else think he was gonna do this at the beginning?

Azuaron:
Huge Snip

There are a ton of games I know that sold by the bucket load and are art games. I also just asked all of my friends on Skype if they are turned off by an art game, a surprising 18/19 said "No", while one said "I don't care."

AKA I think everything you said is wrong.

Art: The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination.
Therefore, games are art, but games can specialise in art, just as they can specialise in Shooting, or Platforming and therefore can be "art games". Art games is a legit term.
Thank god for me. Oh wait, that's Jim's line... Uhhh... Thank... Reproduction for me? Oh, stuff it... Thank god for Jim.

Nothing is more annoying than an argument about semantics.

"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that."

Potter Stewart gave the above statement with regards to pornography, but I think the "I know it when I see it" rule applies equally well to art games. Just because it is difficult to express a concise and accurate definition for something doesn't mean there isn't a consensus on what that something is.

Not that I've watched the video - I can't stand Jim's affectedly histrionic whiny voice. But Art game is not a genre. If that's the only thing that can be said about it then it's going to be a pretentious load of shite. Ok, maybe "pretentious load of shite" is a genre as there are games that meet that - limbo for instance.

Isn't Braid a platformer puzzle game with time manipulation mechanics? When Braid first came out it was loved solely on its game play and puzzle accomplishments. Jonathan Blow was angry at this perception and went on a personal crusade to redefine the perception of his own game. If he hadn't, I believe our definition of the game would be quite different.

Thus enters linguistics (which I stated in a prior post). Words are simply to tools to communicate concepts to one another. "Art" is a word, and a very broad word. Similar to words such as "God" "Love" and "Life". These words are so broad that their context can be completely different from one statement to the next.

You are arguing the contextualization of a subject based on the words used to define it. And since "art" is one of the broadest words in the English language. The contextualization possibilities are so broad that you have almost limitless interpretations to each statement surrounding said word. Therefore this entire debate is subject to limitless interpretations and arguments for either side. Thus you will always get stuck in a unending debate that simply cannot be won.

So this is in short, a waste of time.

Tenmar:
Honestly this was a dumb episode to me. It was more or less constantly enforcing your opinion and what you write in your career as the legitimacy to define the terminology you use in your work as well legitimate.

Also I didn't like the negative tone and honestly damning of people who would disagree with you just because you are using a definition that you use in your work. Cause I'll be honest, most of the "art games" never actually gave me that experience that you define an art game to be compared to the emotional experiences I have had with the games I have grown up with and today from The Last Remnant, Secret of Mana and Final Fantasy III(JP)/VI(US).

I mean I played Flow and Flower and really didn't feel anything or thought what a novel experience. Sure Braid worked but that was due to the narrative and the ability as a player to interpret the meaning that drew out the reaction and the big "Oh wait what?" to which I wouldn't of understood if it wasn't for the classes I took in college about the history of science.

no different from someone who watches an art house film and isnt moved by it and who watches something else from a different genre and is emotionally moved by it.

im not moved by every art house game, very few actually make me stop and think but they still fit into that weird different genre regardless

Lawnmooer:
The fact that "Art Film" is a widely excepted term yet "Art Game" is questionned is mind boggling...

I think you mean "accepted" rather than "excepted."

Anyway, back in reality; "Art Film" is a highly contested term. It's mostly rejected. Film scholars and critics almost universally reject the term. The average movie-going public typically reject films that are categorized this way.

Basically, the "art film" is dead. There was a bit of a fetish for it in the 80s and 90s, and films that weren't made to be "art films" have later been re-labeled as such. If you want to see the way society considers "art films," just look to Seinfeld's depiction of "Rochelle, Rochelle" or Arrested Development's "Les Cousins Dangereux."

Nobody takes "art films" less seriously than people who make great art. Jean-Luc Godard, Fritz Lang, Alfred Hitchcock and Orson Welles weren't trying to make "art films" - they just made films.

Wow. Jim "Art games are pretentious twaddle" Sterling talks about art games-- and I agree with him completely. And I'm a guy who thinks The Path was the most emotionally moving thing I've ever seen done with videogame technology (Amnesia is a close second, for the record).

That said, I'm reminded of Supreme Court Justice Stewart's quote about the definition of pornography:

I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it

But here's the trouble with our term "Art Game". Gamers may know it when we see it, but does the general public? Unlike typical videogames which (amazingly enough) tend to appeal to people who like videogames, art games appeal to a different demographic. You don't have to like game play in order to like an art game. But right now, the only people who hear about art game releases are gamers. It's a bit like chicken at a steakhouse: steak lovers might not like it, but some people who hate red meat might enjoy the chicken. But as long as we call art games "games", that potential market will never be realized.

Trishbot:
Let me clear this up for everyone.

Definition of an Art Game: Mario Paint, UDraw, and Colors 3D.

You all are welcome.

Best reply in the thread.

But seriously, as for the argument "You know what an art game is, because you say that Gears of war isn't an art game"

That doesn't really work, the only reason people "know" what an art game is, is because of context. When you say a game like Braid is an "art game", you know that when you are talking about Braid, and therefore an "art game" must be like Braid. Then the definition of "art games" doesn't really distinctly define anything (which is the purpose of a definition).

Now imagine this conversation:

"Tetris is a Gazorninplat game."
"What the hell is a Gazorninplat game?"
"A Gazorninplat game is a game that highlights the use of pixels."
"But all games use pixels, what do you really mean here? Are you talking about pixel art, pixel hunting mechanics, the use of pixels in such a way that their edges are seamlessly integrated and indistinguishable from the object they represent?"
"Well, yes. All of the above in varying degrees, it depends on the intent of the creators."
"But that doesn't really tell me anything useful, like if I will enjoy playing it."
Man, you just hate Gazorninplat games."

This is what people mean when they say that the word is broken.

"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it..."
--Justice Potter Stewart, United States Supreme Court, concurring opinion in Jacobellis v. Ohio 378 U.S. 184 (1964).

He was talking about Porn vs Art in film....but I think it's a quote that equally applies to this debate. You'll never get a 100% accurate definition of the term art film, but as Jim sad, we understand the concept.

This may be the first Jimquisition with which I am 100% in agreement.

God I love me some semantics.

The definition of art, according to Brittanica...

"the use of skill and imagination in the creation of aesthetic objects, environments, or experiences that can be shared with others".

Now if that doesn't include videogames then nothing qualifies as art - that definition kinda puts all videogames into the art bracket.

I think though, the term should be reserved for games that are designed to affect emotion, not just look pretty. A lot of these 'art' games are simply pretty, and that's not enough. I mean, what games sparked the most emotion in you?

Braid? - give me a break, that game is so bloody full of itself. It's a decent platform puzzler, it didn't make me think, or react - I played it and tried to complete it (and failed), but for the challenge, not because I felt any sort of sympathy or empathy towards the little geography teacher dude. Now, Harvest Moon - Wonderful Life, that game made me react emotionally more than anything else, but does that make it an art game?... probably not, going by the general trend of art games. If Harvest Moon had, say the same aesthetic as Alice, or Journey, then it would be a different story - which just cheapens the whole term 'Art game'.

So all videogames are art by definition, but if we're strict with that, and we say that emotional response must be the main goal, then a lot of art games aren't art at all, they're just pretty. Personally I'm glad that indi developers are making games like Journey in the same way as I'm glad there are games like Binding of Isaac, too many indi developers are trying to make the next Angry Birds, trying to make something unique enough to make money... I'm glad there are still indi's out there taking a risk, and making a statement, before they necesserily make money.

Theminimanx:
...there certainly are words that are in dire need of changing, such as metroidvania.

I don't understand how that ever became a thing. They're action adventure games, which yeah, is a rubbish title too, but thats what they are. The only difference is that they have an ability-gated rather than level-based progression (invididual links within quest chains and stars/coin prerequisites are levels too) or a hybrid.

It is worth noting that this distinction can apply to other genres too. I'm presently trying to rack my brain to come up with a completely subversive example of an ability-gated game. They do exist, but the most subversive all end up in the hybrid category because there just isn't the breadth of common gameplay elements available in other genres. Ok, here goes: Diddy Kong Racing on the N64. Your different vehicles act as an ability-gate. Ok?

Perhaps this is indicitive of which other genres still have a lot more room for originality left in them. Then again, ability-gating tends to mesh poorly with strong storylines. Regardless, cnce all genres have an ability-gated game in their ranks, the "Metroidvania" title will more than likely evaporate rather naturally.

Pretty much, "art Games" seem to be games where the creators intend it to be "art-like". It's like how one can choose to make their painting a regular portrait, or they could spruce it up with all manner of symbolism like snakes coming out of the portrait's eyes... or something.

It's pretty much saying it's highly "experimental" though when it all comes down to it.

Well if Bastion isn't considered an 'Art Game', then I don't know if I can take the definition seriously :/

I think the tern woudl be better defined if it was called "Artsy games" and wouldn't clash with the fact that games are art.

P.S. capcha: what for. capcha is glados i tell you.

This...

surg3n:
The definition of art, according to Brittanica...

"the use of skill and imagination in the creation of aesthetic objects, environments, or experiences that can be shared with others".

Now if that doesn't include videogames then nothing qualifies as art - that definition kinda puts all videogames into the art bracket.

I think though, the term should be reserved for games that are designed to affect emotion, not just look pretty. A lot of these 'art' games are simply pretty, and that's not enough. I mean, what games sparked the most emotion in you?

Case closed...

Games like Morrowind or Final Fantasy IX leave 99.999% of movies in the dust when it comes to artistic design in the whole. Such games combine graphics with music and story to provide emotions and experiences that go far beyond what other mediums are capable of. Most games have become more artistic than most movies and critics need to face that.

Of course there is ONE big difference. In all other art mediums, you simply have to sit back and enjoy the ride. Your interaction level is zero. In a game, the developers need to provide multiple choices and figure out all of the angles. Thus, games that achieve an artistic level, such as Skyrim, have to be praised even more. In the last few years, "Art games" have generally reduced this interaction to the point of being movies. I don't subscribe to the notion that Passage is better than say... Thief. Sure, it's nice that a small team, or even just one person can make a game nowadays. And of course, the limited resources do promote creativity.

But if games can be an art themselves, let's not forget that the act of gaming can be an art too. One quick browse of Minecraft movies on Youtube is enough to figure out that part.

Any form of expression can be art, it's up to the individuals to think of something as artistic or not. Any definition of art isn't sufficient to embrace art as a whole, and a world-wide agreement on what is art and what is not is simply impossible (2 people with similar taste might not come to an agreement, let alone people at large).

"Art games" is a very generic definition, only used to define what was the "perceived" purpose of a game (trying to be "artistic" by the author's intention. As in, not planned as a game, but to use the structure of a game to convey a message, or something similar... As I said, it's very generic, and not specific at all).

It's as valid as any other definition in existance. It's not derogatory of the game it referst to, simply because it tells you very little of it (almost nothing, some would argue).

It's futile to argue semantics, unless you believe that languages are some sort of superior entities. They are not, they are just sounds to which we give an arbitrary meaning. Every word used to define something need more words to be defined, that in turn need to be defined themselves, and so on, and so on, and so on. One has to accept that there is a general understanding of the meaning of some words, even if it isn't perfectly defined, and arguing about the clarity of a statement for the sake of arguing is ridiculous, you need to have a very rigid mind to be unable to grasp that the same word can have subtle differences in meaning, that become apparent once context is given to them (if you can't do as much, you are probably unable to grasp language in any contest outside of the acadamic one).

"Art games" simply does its job to convey a very rough message, and it's useful for that alone.

malestrithe:

XDravond:
Who cares?
Movies are art. But there's "art movies"
Paintings/visual static creations are art. But not all are done for art.
Books are in a way art. but there's boring books....
All games are art. But not all games are "artsy games"...

And everyone is happiest in believing they are right....

In a small, you care because of how dismissive you are of the argument and the people that make it.

Yes, but it's always good to never claim you are logical, or sane for that matter, witch I never have... :)

Oh gosh, one of the rare episodes where Jim is not just rephrasing a popular opinion but actually puts in arguments that weren't heard a thousand times before.

Do it more often, this shows a more appealing side than the one you described in the beginning!

LostintheWick:

brazuca:
Any developer reading me, how do you feel about this? Art film was embraced by film producers (makers), but game developers in this media feels like an entity that goes to work and home. They barely discuss their work with their consumer.

Many games are more of a product to be sold than a piece of art meant to communicate an idea, feeling, concept, etc...

With that being said. Not all games are art, in my opinion. Many are. Just not all.

I like that art is a pretty broad term that many things fall under, but I do feel like it could use a little more definition. Art is really another way of communicating one thing from one person (or a group) to another.

That's how I feel about gaming. Just finished Spec Ops The Line, interesting game. The Apocalypse Now of the XXI century. Yet I went to look for featurette about the making of... Pft! There are barely any to wacht.

Itsthefuzz:

Azuaron:
Huge Snip

There are a ton of games I know that sold by the bucket load and are art games. I also just asked all of my friends on Skype if they are turned off by an art game, a surprising 18/19 said "No", while one said "I don't care."

AKA I think everything you said is wrong.

Right. Anecdotes trump actual data. Keep believing that.

Show me sales data (oh wait, I already did in the above post--and it says I'm right) or, at the very least, some reliable survey data (random selection of participants, 1,000 participants or more, proper demographic data, breakdown of games bought vs. opinions on "art games", etc.) or you haven't got a leg to stand on.

Azuaron:

Itsthefuzz:

Azuaron:
Huge Snip

There are a ton of games I know that sold by the bucket load and are art games. I also just asked all of my friends on Skype if they are turned off by an art game, a surprising 18/19 said "No", while one said "I don't care."

AKA I think everything you said is wrong.

Right. Anecdotes trump actual data. Keep believing that.

Show me sales data (oh wait, I already did in the above post--and it says I'm right) or, at the very least, some reliable survey data (random selection of participants, 1,000 participants or more, proper demographic data, breakdown of games bought vs. opinions on "art games", etc.) or you haven't got a leg to stand on.

You're still wrong. Just because a game doesn't sell millions doesn't meed it sold less because it was an art game. LIMBO wouldn't have been a COD seller if no matter what it called itself.

upgray3dd:
(I'm going to make a lot of film examples, because that's what I know. Sorry)

mfeff:

malestrithe:

-snips for brevity-

You're assuming that calling one thing "artsy" and not calling another thing "artsy" means that it is not art. The word art has several definitions, and calling a film an "art film" isn't calling other films "not art." Furthermore, you are assuming that an expansive genre definition makes that genre definition broken is incorrect. Imagine I came up and told you something was a "horror movie" and nothing else? I could show you Dracula or Jacob's Ladder or the remake of Prom Night and they would all be correct. There are massive differences in style, editing, story and visuals in these movies. Maybe it's the fault of the person who described the movie if you have no idea what it's about, rather than one single descriptive term.

I am not assuming that as a position, though it may of come off that way in this discussion.

As an example I feel strongly that the film Bladerunner is art. Though I do not describe it as "being" artistic or an art film on the front end. I may describe the writing, the design, and the camera work and how they come together to make a cohesive work that is viscerally, auditory, and narrative-ally inter-playing with each other gives it a composition that goes beyond the film itself.

Then I will make the case as to how it's aesthetic and themes have pervaded the culture and become a part of a western conceptualization of the cyperpunk genre. That it has had many of it's elements copied without direct "tip's of the hat" towards it as a work, and people consciously or subconsciously associate the themes from it to a completely different work, to me, is significant and defines it as art.

I like the "horror movie" note, then again The Thing is demonstrably a horror movie, that I find is also a work of art... for all the reasons I mentioned above. Feel the same way about Event Horizon and The Fountain.

To tie this back to video games, Dead Space couldn't exist without The Thing and Event Horizon arguably without Alien and it's Truckers in Space or sexual themes to borrow from in it's visual narrative.

It is this copying of the mediums which define not Dead Space as art, but the things it copies as art. This loosely borrows concepts of Plato's aesthetic. What we know as "imitation, is the greatest form of flattery".

Further: If you can call all art games "surrealist," that implies the definition of "art game" works pretty well, doesn't it? That's actually a pretty fair definition of the term "arty," as far as I can tell.

Nope, cause I am not attempting to define anything outside of it's cultural significance. Surrealist themes are interesting, again I could talk about both versions of Solaris discussing its surrealist and existential themes, but these alone do not make it "art". They make it entertainment and a film utilizing surrealist and existential themes. As a composition I go so far as to state that it took a great deal of talent to get it where it is at, the skill of the artist and it's direction, it's art by it's craftsmanship; very well done artifice is also art.

I don't have a problem with this. Keeping in mind, I think that games such as Masters of Orion, and X-Com are also works of art. I think ICO is art.

I think Dear Ester is an audio book that you run around in. I do not think it is art, and to call it an "art game" is derogatory (to me).

That's assuming that all art games are beyond reproach. There are bad art games and good art games. In the movie world, there are horror movies that are good movies but aren't scary in the least (something like Nightmare on Elm Street 3.), and there are bad horror MOVIES that succeed because they manage to scare you. In ther "art game" genre, there are bad art GAMES (The path and several others) and bad ART games (I can't think of a specific example. I don't play many art games, honestly)

Again, I am not assuming anything. I am offering my opinion. I find that the term used a priori of an objects creation with the term "I make art games, or I make art" is a categorization in and of itself. Whats so wrong with saying "I am a game designer", or "I am a film maker"; I have an idea about this but I think we are actually quite in agreement on the subject. So let's move forward shall we?

The word "nigger" is in the dictionary. That does not mean I feel obliged to use it however I see fit, then argue "it's in the dictionary" as supporting "why" I said it. It requires context, and that context and it's understanding falls onto the speaker, NOT THE AUDIENCE.

I'm not touching this one.

I don't mind the term that much, then again I have plenty of black friends and co-workers and it is a term that is slung around and has many many many different meanings and connotations.

Here's a pro tip... if your a white guy and you can say this to a bunch of black co-workers and get laughs and have a fun time; don't get sued or slapped with issues... then your using this very dicey term correctly, in context, and with permission.

On the other hand, and like the phrase "Art -> Game" if you get forum post and people calling bullshit on it... then it's application and discussion have failed.

Semantically the reason I brought it up is that "art game" in many of my own personal circles is considered BY AND LARGE to be a derogatory term not of the game itself, but of the creator(s) themselves. It quickly cuts through a lot of talk and establishes that the perception of the works creator is that of a pretentious twat "with a vision".

And the term is not about giving one game an advantage over another, like you magic card thing implies. It's about tailoring the game to correct audience.

Then you may have missed the point. I am talking about it's semantic usage in conversation, not games that are art, or created with a meta theme in mind. There are plenty of Japanese RPG's and even a couple western ones that have themes that stay with the audience long after the game is over. Many of these games become quite valuable in the after market and are constantly refereed simply because of their significance.

Their artistic quality is emergent, not explicit in the creation. "Art Game" is an explicit term which defines itself as "it's own genre" simply because it does not allow the process of appreciation to have an effect and comment on the work.

It's a game that is presumptuously eliminating critical analysis.

Don't blame the victim, Blame all the people raising the "art" banner to defend their crap.

See, we are in fact quite in agreement. Now I thought you where going to talk about some films and make some examples... but you never really did... I think film and games make great analogues for each other, if for any reason film has had a lot of time to marinate in the culture cooking pot for far longer than the video game.

Circle of protection isn't banned in any format of magic. And "his argument is cheap and unfair" doesn't prove yours.

Been some time since I played MTG, and to my limited and senile knowledge I recall it's usage (while not banned) was several limited to maybe 2 cards in the deck? Then again I don't recall if cops and rapes where in every series... again many years ago... I just wanted to use something that others could associate with in an argument... if it worked great, if it didn't and I didn't make the case I'll figure something else out to communicate my personal stance on this entire subject.

"art game" works as a term.

FFS... but that is just a statement, and you have not made a case; which may in fact be true... but simply saying "it works as a term" is no better than this video saying the exact same thing without making much more of a case than "it's being used so it goes".

It doesn't address "WHY" people are saying it is broken in the first place, it's making rhetorical and fallacious arguments as to why it works. Ignoring the detractors is not a debate, it's ignoring the detractors; which is not communication... ONE OF THE PURPOSES OF ART.

It's why this ain't about Art. In that we agree.

In Conclusion I have defined art through my expository dialog as:

Theme consistent -> consistency gives rise to artistic integrity ->

Cultural significance -> the work is worthy of imitation

Artifice done well -> the artistry of the craftsman is art in and of itself

I have NOT defined art as:

A categorical imperative in an of itself, the art does that for it's own sake

A term that separates the creator from his skill at working with his medium... MANY MANY of these "so-called" art game creators are extremely poor programmers, graphic artist, writers... they tend to be very novice at their craft. They have "visions" and that's fine, but it's what is on the page not what is in the head that counts.

If it's a shitty game, it's a shitty game.

To define art as simply employing a theme such as surrealist or existential is not necessarily sufficient to call something ART, but ART may have those themes contained within it.

To say that artistic integrity comes before theme consistency is to use theme as a prop; that makes it imitation and only elevates what it copies, but copying does not make the copy ART, nor the creator an artist.

To go right back to Prometheus, I said that it is being called an "Art Film", I feel it is called this because it's consistency is a joke and people are having a hard time grasping at what the film is. A mess.

In this sense then as an "Art Film" it is a very polite derogatory term.

Itsthefuzz:

Azuaron:

Itsthefuzz:

There are a ton of games I know that sold by the bucket load and are art games. I also just asked all of my friends on Skype if they are turned off by an art game, a surprising 18/19 said "No", while one said "I don't care."

AKA I think everything you said is wrong.

Right. Anecdotes trump actual data. Keep believing that.

Show me sales data (oh wait, I already did in the above post--and it says I'm right) or, at the very least, some reliable survey data (random selection of participants, 1,000 participants or more, proper demographic data, breakdown of games bought vs. opinions on "art games", etc.) or you haven't got a leg to stand on.

You're still wrong. Just because a game doesn't sell millions doesn't meed it sold less because it was an art game. LIMBO wouldn't have been a COD seller if no matter what it called itself.

You apparently didn't read my giant post very carefully. The best selling indie games (Angry Birds, Minecraft, Castle Crashers, etc.) aren't art games, and the art games that do well do well because they're good games on top of being art games, and even then they don't do better than (or, often, as well as) other, similar indie titles that aren't art games.

Talk to me again when you have some actual data to back up your claims.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 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
Registered for a free account here