surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
Halo 3 is probably the last game I would bring up in the "games are art" debate. Stick with Okami, Bioshock, etc.
This writer made me side with video games not being art.
(maybe biased cause im a filmmaker and heavy gamer)
(maybe biased cause im a filmmaker and heavy gamer)
"Killer 7" made me feel more like I was watching an indecipherable foreign film than an indie film, but I'd agree with citing it as "art" in the game industry. I may not have always known what was happening in it, but I couldn't take my eyes off it (or stop playing it).
"Metal Gear Solid" on the other hand...okay, it's been too long since I played the original, PS1 version of it, but my experiences on the Gamecube didn't leave a terribly good memory of it. 30 minutes of gameplay to get a 15 minute video lecture on the evils of North American culture was a bit heavy-handed for me.
But as you say, art is art to whomever sees the art.
"Metal Gear Solid" on the other hand...okay, it's been too long since I played the original, PS1 version of it, but my experiences on the Gamecube didn't leave a terribly good memory of it. 30 minutes of gameplay to get a 15 minute video lecture on the evils of North American culture was a bit heavy-handed for me.
But as you say, art is art to whomever sees the art.
Metal Gear Solid III is the one I cite as the most artistic, Lewzr. Yes there are very long cutscenes, but that game makes me almost cry. That's the emotional affect that many critics claim they wait for in a videogame. It's happened. Games can make people cry, it's just that these aren't the games the critics are playing.
I agree that we're definately not there yet, but we are making strides. Along with the examples Jim gives I would like to add Shadow of the Colossus as a good example of where we're headed. Great use of sound (or lack there of), and the general sense of saddness surrounding the colossi and they slump to the ground in defeat. Damn I need to buy this game again.
It's refreshing to hear an intelligent debate on the subject for once. A couple of random points:
-I think Halo 3 is a completely valid game to bring up in the "games/art" debate. Unlike Transformers, Halo garnered universal acclaim from critics and journalists, and near-universal acclaim from gamers. The mountain of perfect scores that the game has been getting (and the rabid backlash against scores less than a 9) is saying that "This is the best we have to offer." The community has, for better or worse, held the game up as its flagship, making it a valid choice to examine the medium from.
-While I agree that games should fuse different storytelling mediums into one experience, I think that cutscenes are too often used as a crutch (similar to how early movies used theatrical conventions as a crutch). Simply throwing in a cutscene to tell the story, to me, just lazy. Cutscenes need to start utilizing interactivity more, the way MGS3 did.
-And you're totally right about MGS3. That game is incredibly affecting. Much more so than most films out there.
-I think Halo 3 is a completely valid game to bring up in the "games/art" debate. Unlike Transformers, Halo garnered universal acclaim from critics and journalists, and near-universal acclaim from gamers. The mountain of perfect scores that the game has been getting (and the rabid backlash against scores less than a 9) is saying that "This is the best we have to offer." The community has, for better or worse, held the game up as its flagship, making it a valid choice to examine the medium from.
-While I agree that games should fuse different storytelling mediums into one experience, I think that cutscenes are too often used as a crutch (similar to how early movies used theatrical conventions as a crutch). Simply throwing in a cutscene to tell the story, to me, just lazy. Cutscenes need to start utilizing interactivity more, the way MGS3 did.
-And you're totally right about MGS3. That game is incredibly affecting. Much more so than most films out there.
I agree that Halo may not be the best comparison for a games as art argument, though it's nice to see the author avoids the comparisons to other, more mature, media like Ebert does (and as you wrote, Sterling).
I think games treat aesthetics as interchangeable with "shiny and pretty". Much recognized art attempts to use aesthetic qualities to make a meaningful statement about the human condition, and to make it in a way that requires the observer to pull the meaning out, rather than having meaning shoved into their laps.
Games sometimes try to deliver messages, but the message is usually ham-fisted. Like the writer says, "Go and defeat your evil enemies" is not exactly subtle -- unless you're playing Shadow of the Colossus.
Games sometimes try to deliver messages, but the message is usually ham-fisted. Like the writer says, "Go and defeat your evil enemies" is not exactly subtle -- unless you're playing Shadow of the Colossus.
@ Outer Heaven
I am totally with you on these points, well said.
We do split on this, though: "MGS3. That game is incredibly affecting. Much more so than most films out there." I read that and my head almost 'sploded. I think we need to exchange Netflix queues.
I am totally with you on these points, well said.
We do split on this, though: "MGS3. That game is incredibly affecting. Much more so than most films out there." I read that and my head almost 'sploded. I think we need to exchange Netflix queues.
JIm, you have made some fantatstic points in counter-arguement. While I still enojy movies a great deal, i will have to say that videogames are better. You can get angry and personal at a villain in a movie, but only on such a level. Videogames, on the other hand, make you even more so, as it was through your actions that the ending comes. Movies end when they say so, games, you can be satisfied, at what you've succeded.
Once again, this was a great arguemnt to read. Thank You.
Once again, this was a great arguemnt to read. Thank You.
Outer Heaven: I disagree. In movies it seems a common pattern that critics hate a lot of fun "brainless" movies, while fans love them.
With video games fans and reviewers agree much more often. And "brainless" blockbusters get rave reviews from fans and critics alike. The two really cannot be compared and I stand by my comic that Halo isn't art, and probably never aspires to be so it is a bad example. I believe more appropriate games (in addition to the ones I mentioned above) would be:
Silent Hill 2
The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker
Team Fortress 2
System Shock 2 (The game that Bioshock is supposed to be the successor to. System Shock 2 was far better in just about every way in my opinion, though I did still enjoy Bioshock.)
And add to this list pretty most good adventure games in the veins of Myst, Full Throttle, Grim Fandango, etc.
With video games fans and reviewers agree much more often. And "brainless" blockbusters get rave reviews from fans and critics alike. The two really cannot be compared and I stand by my comic that Halo isn't art, and probably never aspires to be so it is a bad example. I believe more appropriate games (in addition to the ones I mentioned above) would be:
Silent Hill 2
The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker
Team Fortress 2
System Shock 2 (The game that Bioshock is supposed to be the successor to. System Shock 2 was far better in just about every way in my opinion, though I did still enjoy Bioshock.)
And add to this list pretty most good adventure games in the veins of Myst, Full Throttle, Grim Fandango, etc.
Halo 3 = amazingly well done. I can't stop thinking about so many different parts and what they mean. Art and then some; to say it's just a shooter is to ignore so much!
More Halo 3 discussion yey!
More Halo 3 discussion yey!
sorry, i forgot to add this in my last post:
I can think of a few games I've felt an emotional connection with:
Ace Combat 5: The mission where Chopper dies, that was the first time i cried during a videogame, and this time not through frustration
Sly Cooper 2: The last mission when Bentley's legs get crushed, that made me personally angry at the Klaww gang
The Darkness: The part when Uncle Paulie kills Jenny, and the darkness won't let ou do anything but helpplessly bang on the glass
Bully: The end of the first boss battle, when the kid who you though was your freind (i forgot his name, but he's the main 'villain) turns out to be out to get you.
GTA San Andreas: too many times to count.
The Jak and Daxter series: once again, countless times
BTW, I've only owned a PS2 and a PS3, and I've never played/owned any MGS games.
I can think of a few games I've felt an emotional connection with:
Ace Combat 5: The mission where Chopper dies, that was the first time i cried during a videogame, and this time not through frustration
Sly Cooper 2: The last mission when Bentley's legs get crushed, that made me personally angry at the Klaww gang
The Darkness: The part when Uncle Paulie kills Jenny, and the darkness won't let ou do anything but helpplessly bang on the glass
Bully: The end of the first boss battle, when the kid who you though was your freind (i forgot his name, but he's the main 'villain) turns out to be out to get you.
GTA San Andreas: too many times to count.
The Jak and Daxter series: once again, countless times
BTW, I've only owned a PS2 and a PS3, and I've never played/owned any MGS games.
Great article Jim. I don't know why none of these guys have played games like Ico, Killer 7, Okami, Shadow of the Colossus, ect. So many games truly show off the industry's artistic prowess. Unfortunately if the games aren't mainstream most journalists (outside of gaming) probably haven't played them. Gaming narrative is getting progressively better, graphic art is somewhat on hold till the realism fad ends, and the money is flowing in rapidly. I'm sure we'll be seeing some really epic games in the coming years.
for my tuppence worth its nice to see a well reasoned argument about games.
For me Ebert does like to reference Auteur Theory when discussing films and games... which I don't think is enough when talking about films. Yes the "shiney and pretty" could be described as the "authors" direction and vision, as can pacing, story and structure. But what's interesting is that Jim mentioned his emotional response to games, and the fact is that we have some method of control over the outcome of the things that we play. For me it would make more sense to view games in terms of post-structualism where 'art' exists somewhere in between the work constructed by the author and the experience of the reader, or gamer in this case.
If Terry Eagleton can argue that a bus ticket is art I think that games have a pretty good case.
sorry, just read that back and its a bit long... to much ale
For me Ebert does like to reference Auteur Theory when discussing films and games... which I don't think is enough when talking about films. Yes the "shiney and pretty" could be described as the "authors" direction and vision, as can pacing, story and structure. But what's interesting is that Jim mentioned his emotional response to games, and the fact is that we have some method of control over the outcome of the things that we play. For me it would make more sense to view games in terms of post-structualism where 'art' exists somewhere in between the work constructed by the author and the experience of the reader, or gamer in this case.
If Terry Eagleton can argue that a bus ticket is art I think that games have a pretty good case.
sorry, just read that back and its a bit long... to much ale
can anyone point out how Halo3 is the best debate as game -> art?
anybody??
sounds like more delicately placed propaganda....
anybody??
sounds like more delicately placed propaganda....
No mention of Ico yet? I love Shadow of the Colossus, but if you want a prime example of a game that isn't about just defeating the next enemy until you get to the end and do a victory dance, then I think Ico takes the cake. Yeah, there's the shadow creatures in that game, but not very many - just enough to make you tense about leaving the girl alone for very long.
I know it's becoming cliche to refer to these two games in particular in the games as art debate, but I defy anyone to play them and not call them art.
I know it's becoming cliche to refer to these two games in particular in the games as art debate, but I defy anyone to play them and not call them art.
It's been said, but I'm saying it again. Halo isn't art, and shouldn't be considered a 'contender' in the debate. It'd be like watching Duce Biggalow and saying that Movies aren't art. BUT, it was still a well written article. I'd like to see him write one about some of the games people have already listed as the 'artsy' games.
@ShadowXOR: I didn't know we had a mounted devision.
@ShadowXOR: I didn't know we had a mounted devision.
@Mono: Heh. Yeah, that was probably hyperbole. I think my comment was influenced by the fact that I've been watching a lot of shitty student films lately (a friend of mine is a film student). Not to bash film students or anything, but some of those flicks will make one question whether or not MOVIES are art.
@ShadowXOR: I totally hear you, but I think that, when an outsider is looking for a game through which to judge the state of the industry, Halo 3's phenomenal success, it's incredible review scores, and the plethora of reviews that call the game "revolutionary" or "incredible" make it a prime candidate. Also, I think that Halo's blockbuster status doesn't necessarily excuse it from being judged as art; even some "brainless" blockbuster movies have artistic merit (Spider-Man 2 comes to mind).
@ShadowXOR: I totally hear you, but I think that, when an outsider is looking for a game through which to judge the state of the industry, Halo 3's phenomenal success, it's incredible review scores, and the plethora of reviews that call the game "revolutionary" or "incredible" make it a prime candidate. Also, I think that Halo's blockbuster status doesn't necessarily excuse it from being judged as art; even some "brainless" blockbuster movies have artistic merit (Spider-Man 2 comes to mind).
I'm pretty down with the fact games are NOT art. I can think of notable examples in either visual mastery or in masterful storytelling.
Games have not evolved their own artistic language. You know the crap you learn for the first 2 years of art school.
You really do need a new language to describe how to get players involved and make it more than a string of pearls design of a game.
Go here do this, advance plot,repeat. We need a way to describe the different ways to engage players that are truly interactive.
Art for all of its millenniums of development has largely been passive. It changes and engages you inside. Performances that have been influenced actively by the crowd have always been dismissed as art.
Few people argue if the Beethoven symphonies are art. The same is not true for the pub performer who engages the crowd.(God I miss pubs with real performers.) Improve comedy also gets no respect. Video games are in this same "folksy" "low brow" space.
Video games seems even schizophrenic, the great story telling moments in FF7, like Areis dying lead into minigames at the golden saucer? WTF! FF7 is an example of games being art and also not being art. FFX did a much better job at it by explaining the importance of blitzball to the world at large so it stuck out less. I think that while it is better balanced and better overall it lost the impact that FF7 had. Games want to be art and they want to be play. To make it in the market they have to be both, but only ever succeed at being one.
Games have not evolved their own artistic language. You know the crap you learn for the first 2 years of art school.
You really do need a new language to describe how to get players involved and make it more than a string of pearls design of a game.
Go here do this, advance plot,repeat. We need a way to describe the different ways to engage players that are truly interactive.
Art for all of its millenniums of development has largely been passive. It changes and engages you inside. Performances that have been influenced actively by the crowd have always been dismissed as art.
Few people argue if the Beethoven symphonies are art. The same is not true for the pub performer who engages the crowd.(God I miss pubs with real performers.) Improve comedy also gets no respect. Video games are in this same "folksy" "low brow" space.
Video games seems even schizophrenic, the great story telling moments in FF7, like Areis dying lead into minigames at the golden saucer? WTF! FF7 is an example of games being art and also not being art. FFX did a much better job at it by explaining the importance of blitzball to the world at large so it stuck out less. I think that while it is better balanced and better overall it lost the impact that FF7 had. Games want to be art and they want to be play. To make it in the market they have to be both, but only ever succeed at being one.
As usual, excellent article mate.
However, why do we as a community seek to pander up for the approval of these self-proclaimed "experts" of something which is essentially an arbitrary designation? Who decides that a certain medium is art or not?
I was under the impression that art was an expression of human creativity, when did the rules change?
I have been gaming since I was a young lad, and have experienced many forms of what you all call "High Art". None of it has illicited more emotion from me than gaming has, certainly more than a moldy old picture sitting in a gallery.
Given its potential contemporaries, I would prefer personally if games WEREN'T classified as art. Especially Dadaism - what the gibbering fuck is that meant to be? :)
I almost choked on my coffee when you referenced MGS3 though. That series has more cheese than France mate. We are all friends here, but I would be careful where you bandy that one about ;)
However, why do we as a community seek to pander up for the approval of these self-proclaimed "experts" of something which is essentially an arbitrary designation? Who decides that a certain medium is art or not?
I was under the impression that art was an expression of human creativity, when did the rules change?
I have been gaming since I was a young lad, and have experienced many forms of what you all call "High Art". None of it has illicited more emotion from me than gaming has, certainly more than a moldy old picture sitting in a gallery.
Given its potential contemporaries, I would prefer personally if games WEREN'T classified as art. Especially Dadaism - what the gibbering fuck is that meant to be? :)
I almost choked on my coffee when you referenced MGS3 though. That series has more cheese than France mate. We are all friends here, but I would be careful where you bandy that one about ;)
I, for the most part, agree with the writer of the article. I'm glad to see a view on the "Games as Art" debate that doesn't belittle video games because the persons opinion is biased and uninformed. I think it's true that games as a whole are not art, but they are certainly very artistic. The few exceptions to the rule, Shadow of the Colossus and Ico, just to name a couple off the top of my head, prove the rule that games aren't art. But with that said games will break beyond the current scope and will eventually become universally considered as art. I personally hope it is sooner rather than later.
^^^Punctuiation FTW!
^^^Punctuiation FTW!
Jim, I'm a little surprised that you found this article worthy of response. While it was fairly well written, its author is still guilty of the worst fault: lack of perspective. You said it yourself multiple times, he needs to play many more games. Would anyone pay attention to a movie critic who has only watched a handful of movies? Of course not. Those of us who have played hundreds of games in our lifetime are the only ones equipped to fairly and accurately judge the artistic merit of the medium as a whole.
Then again, art is completely subjective, so none of this matters anyway. ;)
@liam2015: That scene from The Darkness totally blew me away. I'm glad I'm not the only one.
Then again, art is completely subjective, so none of this matters anyway. ;)
@liam2015: That scene from The Darkness totally blew me away. I'm glad I'm not the only one.
Well, just being able to debate whether or not videogames are art or not, makes it such. Every persons interpretation of videogames, as a whole will vary. However, some games being pointless on their own, just highten the feeling of accomplishment when we achieve goals in a game of higher standards. Take for example Meteos VS somthing with a compelling story-line. Let's say Kingdomhearts because I enjoy it. Meteos has no real goal, save the world sure, and do it by aligning blocks in colour patterns. Pointless fun none the less, but an amazing form of artwork. Whereas Kingdomhearts takes us into films previously made by artists (last i checked animation was a form of art) and envelopes us into a deeper story, that indeed made 2 of my roomies cry. Go figure.
Either way, if it evokes emotion, even hatred or bordem, its reached the realms of art.
Either way, if it evokes emotion, even hatred or bordem, its reached the realms of art.
If anyone could actually define art first, then i'd be happy to exclude anything else from it
people keep forgetting people like duchamp and his toilet, warhol and his cambell soup.
people keep forgetting people like duchamp and his toilet, warhol and his cambell soup.
@ Zarathustra & liam2015 - hehe I missed that The Darkness reference the first time, awesome scene, same where <SPOILER> Jackies tied up and getting tortured, and a darkness tentacle sets the bomb off. "And that was the second time I died". Awesome.
@ drhqnril - exactly my point. If you can call warhol and his campbell soup art, I would rather have the things i consider as actually having merit (video games) to not be associated with that sort of crap.
@ drhqnril - exactly my point. If you can call warhol and his campbell soup art, I would rather have the things i consider as actually having merit (video games) to not be associated with that sort of crap.
He makes good points, but hes using Halo 3 as an example. That game isnt art. Its entertainment. Fantastically awesome entertainment, if you ask me, but not even close to art.
This guy needs to prove that bioshock, and FFVII, and Shadow of the Colossus, arent art. Then id believe him.
This guy needs to prove that bioshock, and FFVII, and Shadow of the Colossus, arent art. Then id believe him.
You know what Jim? You're wrong. The dude DOESN'T need to play more games, he is more or less is right.
Yes there are games that are brilliant and wonderful and so and so. But let's face it, those are few and far between. Sure, you can name me a list, but chances are it's the same list I've been hearing for years.
Fuck, let's just get it out of the way.
Panzer Dragoon Orta, Okami, Bioshock, Shadow of the Collosus, Beyond Good and Evil, Ico, Rez, Guitarooman. MAYBE Jet Set Radio. That's about it in the last seven years or so. It's telling that there are more creative and artfully told stories in a single year at the movies then there are in most decades of gaming.
I know we WANT games to be better (They will be), and when a game that's truly great comes along we hold it on a pedestal, but at the end of the day there just aren't enough good solid artistic games to sate us or sustain our interest and we keep on regurgitating and swallowing the same praise for the same games over and over and fucking over like some disgusting digital cud. How many weeks has it been and we STILL talk about Bioshock?
And you know what? We'll still be talking about it for years because thats all we have. Gaming is not a deep well, and Bioshock will always be there, lingering in our pockets, ready to be name dropped whenever the next naysayer, the next person with a lack of perspective at a cocktail party comes along and bashes our hobby.
Frankly, I'm sick of having to do that.
Yes there are games that are brilliant and wonderful and so and so. But let's face it, those are few and far between. Sure, you can name me a list, but chances are it's the same list I've been hearing for years.
Fuck, let's just get it out of the way.
Panzer Dragoon Orta, Okami, Bioshock, Shadow of the Collosus, Beyond Good and Evil, Ico, Rez, Guitarooman. MAYBE Jet Set Radio. That's about it in the last seven years or so. It's telling that there are more creative and artfully told stories in a single year at the movies then there are in most decades of gaming.
I know we WANT games to be better (They will be), and when a game that's truly great comes along we hold it on a pedestal, but at the end of the day there just aren't enough good solid artistic games to sate us or sustain our interest and we keep on regurgitating and swallowing the same praise for the same games over and over and fucking over like some disgusting digital cud. How many weeks has it been and we STILL talk about Bioshock?
And you know what? We'll still be talking about it for years because thats all we have. Gaming is not a deep well, and Bioshock will always be there, lingering in our pockets, ready to be name dropped whenever the next naysayer, the next person with a lack of perspective at a cocktail party comes along and bashes our hobby.
Frankly, I'm sick of having to do that.
First off, I'd like to get one thing out of the way. Everything that goes into a game can be argued as art independantly. Game design could be considered an art. Programming is sometimes considered an art. 3D modeling, texture creation, animation, voice acting, and so forth are undeniably art. For the purposes of this post, though, I'm going to use "art" as shorthand for either "high art," "a narrative artform," or "a whole wherin there is more artistic value than the sum of its parts," depending on whichever definition you like best.
This is probably the best "Games are not art" article I've ever read. The reason his argument works is most likely because his insistance is not that games CANNOT be art, but that a particular game (and many games in general) are NOT art because the storytelling is basically another medium inserted into a game. I agree. I've been having similar philosophical thoughts recently--about what parts of a game should actually be considered a game--which I've been meaning to elaborate on in writing. But that's a topic for another area.
The one place I disagree with him is his reference of interactive fiction as what game designers need to be looking at. No offense to the man, but it's a horrible suggestion. They may be closer to being art--and I say this as a huge fan of interactive fiction and adventure games--but they tend to be incredibly linear, and have some of the simplest gameplay. Even if the story is incredible, and could be considered a work of art in and of itself, "guess what the protagonist is supposed to do next, then do it" is not artistic gameplay. As long as there's only one right answer, there is a failure to utilize what makes the video game medium a potential artform. On the other hand, at least the storytelling is linked to the gameplay, rather than just rewarding successful gameplay with a movie clip, which is probably worse.
I'm not entirely sure how to make a narrative game that is also art. Nonnarrative games are easier to classify as art, and I'd argue that game design--game balance, game features, level design, character interaction options, and all the other choices that go into a game--are artwork, just as much as the concept artwork, textures, 3D models, voice acting, or Michaelangelo's David or Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa and The Last Supper. (Arguably not on the same level, but still clearly in the same field.)
There have been a few narrative games that I'd argue successfully become works of art. Offhand, I'd say Metal Gear Solid and Shadow of the Colossus are both games that manage to use gameplay elements to tell a story. What's interesting is how both of them use gameplay as a metafictional element to become artwork--Shadow of the Colossus uses your trained "Kill the bosses" instinct, combined with the goal macguffin of "save this girl," as your initiative within the game, and as it continues, adds in the moral question of "Is what I'm doing in this world ethically right?," while Metal Gear Solid 2 takes both storytelling and gameplay expectations from the first game and turns them on their head to create a truly artistic statement and metanarrative. (My simplified explination there isn't doing it justice--read this downright amazing analysis of the game yourself instead, it's definitely worth your time if you've ever played the game or tried to consider a game to be art.) The odd thing about both of them is that they've become art through use of meta-level design elements, rather than through transparent design elements.
Written and verbal storytelling was used for millenia before the first major uses of metafiction as a literary element (Don Quixote), and it was another 500 years before it became a common element. Plays stayed on about the same schedule (Hamlet). Film and television existed for about 80 years before metafiction started to show up in strength, and still isn't common. The reason that all of those fields took a long time to start using metafiction is because they're passive mediums, and metafiction requires active thought and analysis to become a component. Metafiction-heavy storytelling and narrative still largely requires the small subset of the audience that's willing to pay attention, notice things, and detach themselves from the story to look at it as a crafted work. Games, on the other hand, force their audience members to become active participants--you cannot experience a game without consciously interacting with it. As such, it makes the medium rife for metafictional storytelling. To put it another way--some of the highest-level artwork makes its statements by fucking with you. And video games, moreso than any passive medium, have limitless potential with which to fuck with you. (And frankly, more should.)
This is probably the best "Games are not art" article I've ever read. The reason his argument works is most likely because his insistance is not that games CANNOT be art, but that a particular game (and many games in general) are NOT art because the storytelling is basically another medium inserted into a game. I agree. I've been having similar philosophical thoughts recently--about what parts of a game should actually be considered a game--which I've been meaning to elaborate on in writing. But that's a topic for another area.
The one place I disagree with him is his reference of interactive fiction as what game designers need to be looking at. No offense to the man, but it's a horrible suggestion. They may be closer to being art--and I say this as a huge fan of interactive fiction and adventure games--but they tend to be incredibly linear, and have some of the simplest gameplay. Even if the story is incredible, and could be considered a work of art in and of itself, "guess what the protagonist is supposed to do next, then do it" is not artistic gameplay. As long as there's only one right answer, there is a failure to utilize what makes the video game medium a potential artform. On the other hand, at least the storytelling is linked to the gameplay, rather than just rewarding successful gameplay with a movie clip, which is probably worse.
I'm not entirely sure how to make a narrative game that is also art. Nonnarrative games are easier to classify as art, and I'd argue that game design--game balance, game features, level design, character interaction options, and all the other choices that go into a game--are artwork, just as much as the concept artwork, textures, 3D models, voice acting, or Michaelangelo's David or Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa and The Last Supper. (Arguably not on the same level, but still clearly in the same field.)
There have been a few narrative games that I'd argue successfully become works of art. Offhand, I'd say Metal Gear Solid and Shadow of the Colossus are both games that manage to use gameplay elements to tell a story. What's interesting is how both of them use gameplay as a metafictional element to become artwork--Shadow of the Colossus uses your trained "Kill the bosses" instinct, combined with the goal macguffin of "save this girl," as your initiative within the game, and as it continues, adds in the moral question of "Is what I'm doing in this world ethically right?," while Metal Gear Solid 2 takes both storytelling and gameplay expectations from the first game and turns them on their head to create a truly artistic statement and metanarrative. (My simplified explination there isn't doing it justice--read this downright amazing analysis of the game yourself instead, it's definitely worth your time if you've ever played the game or tried to consider a game to be art.) The odd thing about both of them is that they've become art through use of meta-level design elements, rather than through transparent design elements.
Written and verbal storytelling was used for millenia before the first major uses of metafiction as a literary element (Don Quixote), and it was another 500 years before it became a common element. Plays stayed on about the same schedule (Hamlet). Film and television existed for about 80 years before metafiction started to show up in strength, and still isn't common. The reason that all of those fields took a long time to start using metafiction is because they're passive mediums, and metafiction requires active thought and analysis to become a component. Metafiction-heavy storytelling and narrative still largely requires the small subset of the audience that's willing to pay attention, notice things, and detach themselves from the story to look at it as a crafted work. Games, on the other hand, force their audience members to become active participants--you cannot experience a game without consciously interacting with it. As such, it makes the medium rife for metafictional storytelling. To put it another way--some of the highest-level artwork makes its statements by fucking with you. And video games, moreso than any passive medium, have limitless potential with which to fuck with you. (And frankly, more should.)
"I HAVE A GREAT IDEA! BECAUSE IT'S THE MOST ADVERTISED GAME OF THE YEAR, WE WILL EQUATE IT TO BEING THE PHENOMENOM GAME OF THE YEAR AND GAME OF THE YEAR BY PROXY, SO LET'S PUT THIS CONSOLE COUNTERSTRIKE AS THE PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WHAT GAMES ARE TODAY AND START THE DEBATE ON GAMES AS ART!!!!!!!!"
Seriously. The game is just above average at best, and the whole hype because it's finally finishing the 3 arc story is completely irrelevant. I'm being choked by "Sponsored by Halo 3 - ONLY FOR THE XBOX360" pathetic ads before, during every commercial break, and at the end of every television show I watch, because of the Microsoft market share machine that's starting to get on my cock quite a bit.
If we compare Halo's marketing to the marketing other games get, the game is completely undeserving of any mention whatsoever at all. Bioshock could've been a greater contribution to the public were it advertised as vehemotly as this - a game that is an FPS as well, only better by a few revolutions of the genre. Not perfect in any way, but a very expressive combination of several kinds of art rolled into one with added gameplay as the defining feature that kicks your ass and overwhelms the fact that NOTHING out there allows for the distinct emotional and narrative expression as a game can provide (and that's just Bioshock, we have other genre's to be proud of, MGS2, KOTOR, and a few other games taking flags for their respective treatments).
To summarize the rant - don't pin the hopes and dreams of artistic expression on CounterStrike with a mediocre sci-fi story. We had that years ago when it was called Half-Life 1. We've moved on with our "representations".
Here endeth the lesson.
Seriously. The game is just above average at best, and the whole hype because it's finally finishing the 3 arc story is completely irrelevant. I'm being choked by "Sponsored by Halo 3 - ONLY FOR THE XBOX360" pathetic ads before, during every commercial break, and at the end of every television show I watch, because of the Microsoft market share machine that's starting to get on my cock quite a bit.
If we compare Halo's marketing to the marketing other games get, the game is completely undeserving of any mention whatsoever at all. Bioshock could've been a greater contribution to the public were it advertised as vehemotly as this - a game that is an FPS as well, only better by a few revolutions of the genre. Not perfect in any way, but a very expressive combination of several kinds of art rolled into one with added gameplay as the defining feature that kicks your ass and overwhelms the fact that NOTHING out there allows for the distinct emotional and narrative expression as a game can provide (and that's just Bioshock, we have other genre's to be proud of, MGS2, KOTOR, and a few other games taking flags for their respective treatments).
To summarize the rant - don't pin the hopes and dreams of artistic expression on CounterStrike with a mediocre sci-fi story. We had that years ago when it was called Half-Life 1. We've moved on with our "representations".
Here endeth the lesson.
why are we trying to shoehorn games into the "art" category to begin with? To give it some sort of sense of legitamacy? Gaming is an entire new form of entertainment that doesn't necessarily need to push the same buttons that well done movie does. A good game arouses and can simulate very basic human emotions such as anger, pride, empathy and such without having to make some kind of analogy to current events or the human condition in general. In other words people tend to overthink
games and I also beleive theres just a little bit of shame for older players who then feel the need to turn around and justify it as some kind of "art form". Games are what they are. They will evolve at their own pace and in their own way with or without the blessing of pundits and so called critics.
games and I also beleive theres just a little bit of shame for older players who then feel the need to turn around and justify it as some kind of "art form". Games are what they are. They will evolve at their own pace and in their own way with or without the blessing of pundits and so called critics.
I like the comparison to big budget movies. Lets face it, Pirates of the Carribean does nothing for the "Movies are art" arguement, much in the same way Halo 3 doesn't do it for games.
@ BlackDove
It has to be addressed, though. If this is one of the most important, most hyped games of the year, then why, if there are much more artistic games?
It has to be addressed, though. If this is one of the most important, most hyped games of the year, then why, if there are much more artistic games?
I do agree that games are not art, at least not in gneral and at least nt so far. Halo 3 ins specific is a poor example of art. Its visuals were not thought-provoking, its story was juvenile and again did not bring a lot of emotional and intellectual depth to the equation, and its gameplay did nothing at all to advance the genre in an artistic sense. Halo 3 was entertaining, but it was not enlightening in any way.
When i see a video game that truly gets me to reevaluate my life, change my perspective on the world and intellectually and emotionally challenge and move me, then I'll agree it's art. I can see that the genre has the potential to be the greatest art form in existence, because its interactivity makes it a deeply personal and immersive experience. When a game can make me stare at the same image, read the same line, listen to the same bit of harmony and find new things in it every time, then I will agree that it is art. I can't wait until it gets there, and hopefully that happens before i die.
Bioshock was a big step in the right direction, but it isn't close to being there yet. In the end, that was a game, a toy about killing baddies in interesting ways, and not about intellectual and emotional stimulation.
When i see a video game that truly gets me to reevaluate my life, change my perspective on the world and intellectually and emotionally challenge and move me, then I'll agree it's art. I can see that the genre has the potential to be the greatest art form in existence, because its interactivity makes it a deeply personal and immersive experience. When a game can make me stare at the same image, read the same line, listen to the same bit of harmony and find new things in it every time, then I will agree that it is art. I can't wait until it gets there, and hopefully that happens before i die.
Bioshock was a big step in the right direction, but it isn't close to being there yet. In the end, that was a game, a toy about killing baddies in interesting ways, and not about intellectual and emotional stimulation.
I know nobody will read this since it took me 15 minutes to read all the comments.
What the purpouse of a game? Of a good game? The history, that what motivates me to play. Sure, the mechanics, the graphics, sounds... thats the technology behind it that allows me to experience a good history. All of those things serves the history to deliver itself, they are "means", not the end.
When i look into a good videogame i look at the means, the way they deliver the history, but I want that hisotry in the game to move me, just like Jim was moved by the last scene of MGS. If it doesnt, if i dont experience the loose of disbelief, then probably is a fun, ok game, but thats it.
For me games like Dreamfall The Longest Journey were incredible because of the attention to the history (the end of that game is great).
And with movies is the same thing, we like a movies beacuse of the history, the argument, the plot. Special effects, production... thats what delivers the history.
So i think movies and videogame are different? Not really, the idea behind both, the main idea, is the history. Thats it, is not so much about art, is just different ways of telling histories. One is more interactive, the other one more passive.
What the purpouse of a game? Of a good game? The history, that what motivates me to play. Sure, the mechanics, the graphics, sounds... thats the technology behind it that allows me to experience a good history. All of those things serves the history to deliver itself, they are "means", not the end.
When i look into a good videogame i look at the means, the way they deliver the history, but I want that hisotry in the game to move me, just like Jim was moved by the last scene of MGS. If it doesnt, if i dont experience the loose of disbelief, then probably is a fun, ok game, but thats it.
For me games like Dreamfall The Longest Journey were incredible because of the attention to the history (the end of that game is great).
And with movies is the same thing, we like a movies beacuse of the history, the argument, the plot. Special effects, production... thats what delivers the history.
So i think movies and videogame are different? Not really, the idea behind both, the main idea, is the history. Thats it, is not so much about art, is just different ways of telling histories. One is more interactive, the other one more passive.
"How many weeks has it been and we STILL talk about Bioshock?"
As I said, the volume of what you might call 'art' in a traditional sense is not indicative of whether or not a medium can be called art. Art is whatever you want it to be, it is NOT what the majority of people 'talk about'. Your post is very blinkered in that it clings to the old ways, the prehistoric definition of art.
Art can be anything -- from a toilet roll to a painting, from a button to a train. If we created it, it can be art. If it can affect us, it can be art. If one man says it is art, then it is art.
The reason I argue this so strongly isn't so much that I care who sees games as art or not -- it's that I despise ignorance, and saying that ANYTHING isn't art is pure ignorance. To say something is not art is to categorize, to define, and to begin defining art is impossible. Those who claim videogames, or anything, are not art are people who still think of paintings the second the word is uttered.
They are prehistoric.
As I said, the volume of what you might call 'art' in a traditional sense is not indicative of whether or not a medium can be called art. Art is whatever you want it to be, it is NOT what the majority of people 'talk about'. Your post is very blinkered in that it clings to the old ways, the prehistoric definition of art.
Art can be anything -- from a toilet roll to a painting, from a button to a train. If we created it, it can be art. If it can affect us, it can be art. If one man says it is art, then it is art.
The reason I argue this so strongly isn't so much that I care who sees games as art or not -- it's that I despise ignorance, and saying that ANYTHING isn't art is pure ignorance. To say something is not art is to categorize, to define, and to begin defining art is impossible. Those who claim videogames, or anything, are not art are people who still think of paintings the second the word is uttered.
They are prehistoric.
His argument doesn't hold up as well for more non-linear or sandbox type games. Besides, as a cinematic experience, Halo 3 is the equivalent of your average summer blockbuster. I could think of about a dozen better games to use as fodder for the debate
His argument doesn't hold up as well for more non-linear or sandbox type games. Besides, as a cinematic experience, Halo 3 is the equivalent of your average summer blockbuster. I could think of about a dozen better games to use as fodder for the debate
"When i see a video game that truly gets me to reevaluate my life, change my perspective on the world and intellectually and emotionally challenge and move me, then I'll agree it's art."
Has a painting done that? If not, do you call paintings art?
Has a statue done that? If not, do you call statues art?
Same question for books.
For cartoons.
Movies.
TV shows.
Absolutely everything that is traditionally seen as art. This includes paintings of EVERY style, and movies of EVERY genre.
How many of these have fulfilled your objectives, and do those that leave them unfulfilled still get called art by you?
I find such definitions of art to be pretentious.
Has a painting done that? If not, do you call paintings art?
Has a statue done that? If not, do you call statues art?
Same question for books.
For cartoons.
Movies.
TV shows.
Absolutely everything that is traditionally seen as art. This includes paintings of EVERY style, and movies of EVERY genre.
How many of these have fulfilled your objectives, and do those that leave them unfulfilled still get called art by you?
I find such definitions of art to be pretentious.
The beauty of any art, such as any person defines it, is that it doesn't have a clear definition. For a person to assign the label "art" to something obviously means it does something good for them - in an emotional or intellectual sense.
Unfortunately there are people out there pretentious enough to want to put their own exclusive slant on what constitutes art or not. For them, it's a simple matter of defining art so that they can say "That is mine and not yours" so that they, effectively, can corner the market on any artform. It's one of the most distasteful forms of arrogance - elitism.
I honestly liken that attitude to that of religious fanatics. So-called art critics' dogmatic views on art are no different from those who claim religious superiority. "I know the TRUTH about what art is." No, you don't. Everyone has their own ideas. No one person has a right to say that they're exclusively "in the know" about what is art and what is not.
Unfortunately there are people out there pretentious enough to want to put their own exclusive slant on what constitutes art or not. For them, it's a simple matter of defining art so that they can say "That is mine and not yours" so that they, effectively, can corner the market on any artform. It's one of the most distasteful forms of arrogance - elitism.
I honestly liken that attitude to that of religious fanatics. So-called art critics' dogmatic views on art are no different from those who claim religious superiority. "I know the TRUTH about what art is." No, you don't. Everyone has their own ideas. No one person has a right to say that they're exclusively "in the know" about what is art and what is not.
Art is subjective, as is what defines it, so the whole debate is moot, once again. Still, I have to draw parallels between Halo and Star Wars. Essentially, Halo is a summer blockbuster sort of game, much like the Star Wars and Spiderman trilogies. Personally, I'm able to get into the mythos of Halo and there are moments where it does "touch" me in what one might call an "artistic" way. Still, I wouldn't expect to see Halo in a museum or anything. Media like Halo is meant to be epic and fun. Can it be art? Yes. But that's not saying much, because - once again - "art" is subjective. One man's BioShock is another man's Adam Sandler movie.
First off, I'd like to get one thing out of the way. Everything that goes into a game can be argued as art independantly. Game design could be considered an art. Programming is sometimes considered an art. 3D modeling, texture creation, animation, voice acting, and so forth are undeniably art. For the purposes of this post, though, I'm going to use "art" as shorthand for either "high art," "a narrative artform," or "a whole wherin there is more artistic value than the sum of its parts," depending on whichever definition you like best.
This is probably the best "Games are not art" article I've ever read. The reason his argument works is most likely because his insistance is not that games CANNOT be art, but that a particular game (and many games in general) are NOT art because the storytelling is basically another medium inserted into a game. I agree. I've been having similar philosophical thoughts recently--about what parts of a game should actually be considered a game--which I've been meaning to elaborate on in writing. But that's a topic for another area.
The one place I disagree with him is his reference of interactive fiction as what game designers need to be looking at. No offense to the man, but it's a horrible suggestion. They may be closer to being art--and I say this as a huge fan of interactive fiction and adventure games--but they tend to be incredibly linear, and have some of the simplest gameplay. Even if the story is incredible, and could be considered a work of art in and of itself, "guess what the protagonist is supposed to do next, then do it" is not artistic gameplay. As long as there's only one right answer, there is a failure to utilize what makes the video game medium a potential artform. On the other hand, at least the storytelling is linked to the gameplay, rather than just rewarding successful gameplay with a movie clip, which is probably worse.
I'm not entirely sure how to make a narrative game that is also art. Nonnarrative games are easier to classify as art, and I'd argue that game design--game balance, game features, level design, character interaction options, and all the other choices that go into a game--are artwork, just as much as the concept artwork, textures, 3D models, voice acting, or Michaelangelo's David or Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa and The Last Supper. (Arguably not on the same level, but still clearly in the same field.)
There have been a few narrative games that I'd argue successfully become works of art. Offhand, I'd say Metal Gear Solid and Shadow of the Colossus are both games that manage to use gameplay elements to tell a story. What's interesting is how both of them use gameplay as a metafictional element to become artwork--Shadow of the Colossus uses your trained "Kill the bosses" instinct, combined with the goal macguffin of "save this girl," as your initiative within the game, and as it continues, adds in the moral question of "Is what I'm doing in this world ethically right?," while Metal Gear Solid 2 takes both storytelling and gameplay expectations from the first game and turns them on their head to create a truly artistic statement and metanarrative. (My simplified explination there isn't doing it justice--read this downright amazing analysis of the game yourself instead, it's definitely worth your time if you've ever played the game or tried to consider a game to be art.) The odd thing about both of them is that they've become art through use of meta-level design elements, rather than through transparent design elements.
Written and verbal storytelling was used for millenia before the first major uses of metafiction as a literary element (Don Quixote), and it was another 500 years before it became a common element. Plays stayed on about the same schedule (Hamlet). Film and television existed for about 80 years before metafiction started to show up in strength, and still isn't common. The reason that all of those fields took a long time to start using metafiction is because they're passive mediums, and metafiction requires active thought and analysis to become a component. Metafiction-heavy storytelling and narrative still largely requires the small subset of the audience that's willing to pay attention, notice things, and detach themselves from the story to look at it as a crafted work. Games, on the other hand, force their audience members to become active participants--you cannot experience a game without consciously interacting with it. As such, it makes the medium rife for metafictional storytelling. To put it another way--some of the highest-level artwork makes its statements by fucking with you. And video games, moreso than any passive medium, have limitless potential with which to fuck with you. (And frankly, more should.)
This is probably the best "Games are not art" article I've ever read. The reason his argument works is most likely because his insistance is not that games CANNOT be art, but that a particular game (and many games in general) are NOT art because the storytelling is basically another medium inserted into a game. I agree. I've been having similar philosophical thoughts recently--about what parts of a game should actually be considered a game--which I've been meaning to elaborate on in writing. But that's a topic for another area.
The one place I disagree with him is his reference of interactive fiction as what game designers need to be looking at. No offense to the man, but it's a horrible suggestion. They may be closer to being art--and I say this as a huge fan of interactive fiction and adventure games--but they tend to be incredibly linear, and have some of the simplest gameplay. Even if the story is incredible, and could be considered a work of art in and of itself, "guess what the protagonist is supposed to do next, then do it" is not artistic gameplay. As long as there's only one right answer, there is a failure to utilize what makes the video game medium a potential artform. On the other hand, at least the storytelling is linked to the gameplay, rather than just rewarding successful gameplay with a movie clip, which is probably worse.
I'm not entirely sure how to make a narrative game that is also art. Nonnarrative games are easier to classify as art, and I'd argue that game design--game balance, game features, level design, character interaction options, and all the other choices that go into a game--are artwork, just as much as the concept artwork, textures, 3D models, voice acting, or Michaelangelo's David or Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa and The Last Supper. (Arguably not on the same level, but still clearly in the same field.)
There have been a few narrative games that I'd argue successfully become works of art. Offhand, I'd say Metal Gear Solid and Shadow of the Colossus are both games that manage to use gameplay elements to tell a story. What's interesting is how both of them use gameplay as a metafictional element to become artwork--Shadow of the Colossus uses your trained "Kill the bosses" instinct, combined with the goal macguffin of "save this girl," as your initiative within the game, and as it continues, adds in the moral question of "Is what I'm doing in this world ethically right?," while Metal Gear Solid 2 takes both storytelling and gameplay expectations from the first game and turns them on their head to create a truly artistic statement and metanarrative. (My simplified explination there isn't doing it justice--read this downright amazing analysis of the game yourself instead, it's definitely worth your time if you've ever played the game or tried to consider a game to be art.) The odd thing about both of them is that they've become art through use of meta-level design elements, rather than through transparent design elements.
Written and verbal storytelling was used for millenia before the first major uses of metafiction as a literary element (Don Quixote), and it was another 500 years before it became a common element. Plays stayed on about the same schedule (Hamlet). Film and television existed for about 80 years before metafiction started to show up in strength, and still isn't common. The reason that all of those fields took a long time to start using metafiction is because they're passive mediums, and metafiction requires active thought and analysis to become a component. Metafiction-heavy storytelling and narrative still largely requires the small subset of the audience that's willing to pay attention, notice things, and detach themselves from the story to look at it as a crafted work. Games, on the other hand, force their audience members to become active participants--you cannot experience a game without consciously interacting with it. As such, it makes the medium rife for metafictional storytelling. To put it another way--some of the highest-level artwork makes its statements by fucking with you. And video games, moreso than any passive medium, have limitless potential with which to fuck with you. (And frankly, more should.)
You know what, I agree that the article is well written and even entertaining... but Halo is the worst example for the art-discussion IHMO (not because it's a bad game) because it doesn't try to achieve anything in the art department.
A very valid point was, that most of our cinema movies aren't art by the definition the writer uses - it basically boils down to one point: What is the definition of art?
And because there's not real answer to that... I've developed the one and only rule for myself: Art is what I say it is - when I say some video games are truely art masterpieces - then is so. Nobody can discuss this anyway, everybody has her/his own definition.
--
Oh, and one thing about Ebert: I think he's right with his conclusions but has a limited if not completely twisted definition of art - would "Mona Lisa" be art for Ebert? I doubt that he could argue that this is indeed art with his definition.
A very valid point was, that most of our cinema movies aren't art by the definition the writer uses - it basically boils down to one point: What is the definition of art?
And because there's not real answer to that... I've developed the one and only rule for myself: Art is what I say it is - when I say some video games are truely art masterpieces - then is so. Nobody can discuss this anyway, everybody has her/his own definition.
--
Oh, and one thing about Ebert: I think he's right with his conclusions but has a limited if not completely twisted definition of art - would "Mona Lisa" be art for Ebert? I doubt that he could argue that this is indeed art with his definition.
follow
