This is a pretty deep thread. The same question came to me a while back, and here is what I concluded. As a musician, the very nature of art and what makes good art is a constant subject of conversation, but computer games are quite a different subject matter.

My concept is that art, at its most basic level, is any conscious form of expression. Meaning, that while a cat can paint a beautiful picture, it will be entirely by accident, with no intention to express anything. The same with other earthly things such as mountains, unless you attribute it to god.

Most games only have one or two areas of emotion. Usually action / killing, and then laughter. Consider Half-Life. Quake 3 only had the former. Games can certainly be beautifully crafted, but it is surely what they are intended to express that validates them as an art form. I realized that RPG's such as Baldur's Gate, with such a linear yet varied experience, came closest to my idea. You come away from the game with so much more emotions and 'moments'. For some reason, HomeWorld also qualifies to me. Just my thoughts!!

[edited by - squirrel_of_death on December 3, 2003 10:43:51 AM]

Lots of games could qualify. I'd nominate Starcraft and Diodor's Pax Solaris as expressions of the beauty inherent in balanced simplicity, Halo for its portrayal of a universe realized in toto, Deus Ex as an expression of the power of choice, Tetris for absolute minimalism. Are they actually art? Despite the authors' best intentions, I doubt they'd call these creations art. Yet I perceive artistry in them, so I would call them art.

ld
[edit: grammar]

[edited by - liquiddark on December 3, 2003 11:10:57 AM]

With how much some video games cheat, how can one say that a player really is a participant?

In all seriousness though, I think games and their creation is art. It''s true that games can just be reduced to mindless entertainment, but cannot the same thing be done with music and any art?

For example, as an untrained viewer, I look at things like paintings, and I say, "That''s a pretty picture," or, "that looks terrible." Not knowing art technique, symbols used etc., I''m completely ignorant of what could make a fantastic painting just that. On the same token, someone not familiar with music theory could hear some of the greatest works in history and just think, "Oh, that''s a pretty song." There''s not much emotional involvement there, so if video games aren''t art because they''re just mindless entertainment, then by that same notion neither visual arts nor music are art.

On the other hand, video games reflect the personality of the author(s) and can certainly cause one to reflect on things. With all the cinematics in games nowadays, they''re practically movies themselves, no? Also, when one has a little understanding of the techniques used in video game creation, one can look at a particular game and be like, "Wow, that was done really well." Coding may be dry and technical, but there certainly is a difference between crappy code and good code / crappy algorithms and good algorithms. Couldn''t that be considered art? It may not be as appealing and anything computer related may be considered too dork to be art, but someone who judges like that is just ignorant. In computer development we often even have the same snobbish/elitist attitudes that exist in other art forms!

Part of the problem is that we lack a uniform definition of ''game.'' Put Solitare and Half-Life 2 side by side; they''re so incredibly different, that it''s hard to believe they''re both considered to be games.

Any definition of ''game'' would have to take both ends of the spectrum into account, and that''s why I feel "Are games art?" is a pointless question. When you''re covering such a wide range of things, could you really expect any other answer than ''Sometimes...?''

I think a better question would be ''Can gameplay be an art?'' We already acknowledge that textures, models, music, and sound are all arts (if they''re not part of a game they are, so why should them being part of a game be any different?) Gameplay, though, is what differentiates games from movies, radio shows, or concerts.

So, can gameplay be an art?

I think it can. Tweaking and balancing the rules of a system is a fairly close parallel to getting the right balance of colors while painting, or the right mix of timbres in a piece of music. At the same time, as with real art and music, you can''t just computer-generate gameplay; it has that element of creativeness that defies algorithms.

Richard "Superpig" Fine
- saving pigs from untimely fates, and when he''s not doing that, runs The Binary Refinery.
Enginuity1 | Enginuity2 | Enginuity3 | Enginuity4 | Enginuity5
ry. .ibu cy. .y''ybu. .abu ry. dy. "sy. .ubu py. .ebu ry. py. .ibu gy." fy. .ibu ny. .ebu
"Don''t document your code; code your documentation." -me
"I''m not a complete idiot; parts of me are missing." -}}i{{

I was talking with the lead prog. on a game project I'm involved with. We were debating the inclusion of a particularly atmospheric piece of music/soundscape.

The problem was that the game is action oriented, fast paced, and makes use of a mostly distant bird's-eye view. The aim for the game-play experience is to make you sweat, calling on reflexes and fast decision making. The game is not heavily atmospheric, nor was it intended to be. So, this piece of music may serve as punctuation of the fact that the game is not particularly immersive. That, in turn, could make the game even less immersive by contrast.

So, we face a descision: do we extend portions of the game into a more atmospheric mode, to carry the story and involve the player, or do we keep going with our original themes and style (the game is in early enough stages that there would be no backtracking).

Other issues, do we want tight complex controls that require the player to pay attention to what they're doing physically, or do we want to use simple context-based controls to allow the player to concentrate on the strategic elements of play?

I spent months conceptualizing the GUI, so as to convey salient information in an easy to reference format, and still maintain the happy shizophrenic-paranoia direction of the game world. it wasn't easy, and I think i did it.

Our sound/music guy is into experimental music. He likes to make stuff just to capture the twisted soundscape of his brain. i told him of a music mixing effect that i wanted to try and his imagination immediately latched onto it and took it in a new direction.

What is our goal for the game? Fun. Interesting. Laughter. we want people to walk away feeling like they didn't waste seferal hours in front of the screen. We want people to become intrigued by the story line (which I am writing), and keep playing just to see what happens. We want people to have a great time playing and keep going just because the game is nifty.

We are stretching every artistic muscle we have to pull this thing together. Not as a piecmeal showcase for different talents, but as a whole, integrated, complex work. If the parts are not melded well, it won't be anything, and we will have failed.

How is this not art? We are crafting something from nothing. We are making something for others to expereince -- enjoy.

But, its really as simple as this: have you ever played a game and thought about what you would do personally in a presented situation? That is self-exploration (shallow as it can be at sometimes). What more could you ask from in art?

[edited by - Hammurabi on December 3, 2003 3:01:56 PM]

quote:

---

Original post by liquiddark

I''d nominate Starcraft and Diodor''s Pax Solaris as expressions of the beauty inherent in balanced simplicity

---

I like that so much I just had to quote it Thanks!

quote:

---

Despite the authors'' best intentions, I doubt they''d call these creations art.

---

I think that''s very close to the core of the problem. What are the authors intentions? I wanted to make a fun game - I guess this puts my game in the entertainment category (which may actually be a subcategory of art).

But are all games made with this purpose in mind? Balance of Power was made with the purpose of demonstrating the madness of the cold war. It is art because it was intended as art - it has a message.

quote:

---

Original post by superpig

So, can gameplay be an art?

---

This is a fundamental question. If gameplay isn''t at the heart of what makes games art we are simply stuck with rehashing the other art forms (paintings, film, story telling).

I too think gameplay can be an art all by itself. Gameplay requires thinking, and creating a whole new system of thinking is a powerful way of expression. Think of chess - it''s 100% shear gameplay. Yet its creators must have wanted to express a whole philosophy on life. The very rules of chess tell stories of betrayals, intrigues, battles, victories and defeats. It has a message.

i''m in art school so i''m an art student
as far as i can see with the problem with art is that artist as acheive the goal they aim for and their ego get wounded by the result (art is everything aroud us)
the seek of the truth (the truth lie in the direct reality)

what is art?? art is tie to craftery, yes, but it''s not the craftery itsel, art is about the subjective value (meaning) put in it, if you made something and did not pay attention to it then the thing would express this careless this is art!!
then art is everywhere in every mouvement we do, but the diference between an artist and someone else is that artist is aware of this fact, if you look for ex in comptempory art you will strange things made, all art from a artist is the expression of this awareness of this quality of art,

ex: there a piece, i forget the name and the artist (sorry), where there is a painting whith letter and letter where scale and bold in order to draw a picture, yes it''s nice but it''s not the problem, actually the image was an image of an vietnam woman and the text was the constitution of human right >>> meaning, the art question our perception of reality, here the differnece with ideal (word) and reality (picture) and our inner contradiction between thought and act

then is game are art??? OF COURSE but we are not aware of that, that''s all!

about definition of game, we would end up with great problem if we don''t do analysis on the way we define things to avoid common trap (subjectivity)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
be good
be evil
but do it WELL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

How do you know that chess was made to "express a whole philosophy on life"? They could have developed it to teach people pattern recgonition.

If you start hinging wheater something is art or not art on the creaters intentions, how will you ever know if something is a piece of art unless you can directly ask the creater? What if it is a team of people working on the same project and half this it is art and the other half don''t?

generally speaking, art is meant to express an experience or idea of the creator. A painting, a symphony, it is this communication of experience. On that basis, then games are also art. The transmit a unique experience to the user, created by the programmer.

quote:

---

Original post by Anonymous Poster
How do you know that chess was made to "express a whole philosophy on life"? They could have developed it to teach people pattern recgonition.

If you start hinging wheater something is art or not art on the creaters intentions, how will you ever know if something is a piece of art unless you can directly ask the creater? What if it is a team of people working on the same project and half this it is art and the other half don't?

---

because this doesnot matter any more to say that something is art, it is, about the meaning the artist want to convey it's a matter of communication not about art then the creator intention is interresting but it's not make a thing art and othen the artist has not a clue about what he did because the art could express inner obscure part of his mind (there is a lot of artist which use the practive of art as self exploration, a COMMUNICATION with themselves)
and a part of art is the viewer, when the "piece" question his relation with the world (mean the chess can say a lot to someone but it's always related with his own subjectivity shape by experiance) but artist are only the people which is aware and produce ON PURPOSE art

arguing if something is art is useless, because it is (art is the spiritual layer of relation of the world, the subjetive value of it, don't take spiritual with mistic value, spiritual mean related to spirit >> brain property)


edit>>> got to see here as well creation, art, game and criticism .<

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
be good
be evil
but do it WELL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

[edited by - Neoshaman on December 3, 2003 10:29:44 PM]

[edited by - Neoshaman on December 3, 2003 11:11:10 PM]