Personally, when I am creating an application I consider myself to be in the process of building something. Therefore I consider myself along the lines of a tradesman.

I would suggest that a game is as much art as a building that is considered to be a fine work of architecture A building might have scupltures embedded into the walls or follow a particular style and be considered a beautiful piece of heritage. Something to be apreciated and an important element of culture.

Quote:

Wikipedia Architecture is the art and science of designing buildings and structures. A modern-day definition sees architecture as addressing aesthetic, structural, and functional consideration

Hmm... imagine writing a game that is considered bug free, has good gameplay, and has an aesthetic appeal. Sounds like it's a similar sort of discipline to me.

Can games be considered art?

Yes, and I will tell you how it will come about.

First of all, up to now, there is not one game that can be considered a legitimate work of art - on par with the masterpieces of other artforms. The reason for this is that developers do not understand yet what is unique about the medium, and if they do, they do not understand yet how to use its uniqueness.

The uniqueness of interactive art (video games), as opposed to all the other artforms, is the possibility of choice or freewill. In modern games, there is choice, but it is mostly superficial, "Which gun do I carry?" or "Which corridor do I go down?" Moral and existential choices, the most important choices we make in life, are neglected in modern games, and if they are there, they are mostly black and white and so do not resemble real life, and consequently they do not affect us in any meaningful way. When existential choice and moral choice becomes the FOCUS of a work of interactive art, instead of an ancillary feature, then you will have works that will resonate with people on a level they will call "Art" with a capital "A."

Quote:

Original post by JimDaniel Can games be considered art? Yes, and I will tell you how it will come about. First of all, up to now, there is not one game that can be considered a legitimate work of art - on par with the masterpieces of other artforms. The reason for this is that developers do not understand yet what is unique about the medium, and if they do, they do not understand yet how to use its uniqueness. The uniqueness of interactive art (video games), as opposed to all the other artforms, is the possibility of choice or freewill. In modern games, there is choice, but it is mostly superficial, "Which gun do I carry?" or "Which corridor do I go down?" Moral and existential choices, the most important choices we make in life, are neglected in modern games, and if they are there, they are mostly black and white and so do not resemble real life, and consequently they do not affect us in any meaningful way. When existential choice and moral choice becomes the FOCUS of a work of interactive art, instead of an ancillary feature, then you will have works that will resonate with people on a level they will call "Art" with a capital "A."

I disagree because other art forms have shown that real art can have black and white morality or no morality at all. Also, I believe this has already been acheived by the first few missions of Deus Ex.

I do agree, however, that the choices need to become "deeper", but, by that, I don't mean that they need to be about deeper issues. I mean that they need to have more meaning with respect to the game. Choices in chess aren't deep because they illuminate existential questions, they're deep because of depth of the interaction each choice has with the game world. Even the choices in Sorry! are appropriate to the depth of the game. "Which gun do I carry?" lacks depth in that it's usually either an obvious choice or a choice that doesn't really matter.

Quote:

Original post by Oluseyi Quote: Original post by azeime another word for arts is athetics... Uh, no. They are related concepts, but not an identity. Quote: ...art is for pleasure it doesnt change anything (in most cases) its just for the plesure or invoking of emotions in the person looking or playing or watching... In your opinion. In many cultures, works of art are also fully functional. Your opinions, therefore, are probably a function of your culture, which places an inherent premium on items of zero functional value. (I find that puzzling.) Quote: and i dont think movies are art AT ALL And legions of people disagree with you. What are we to do now?

OK here is what i personaly got IN MY OPINION.
Games are art but in my opionion a lesser art because they are not good enough to be considered a true artform.

In order for me to say games are art i will ask this and IF YES ,games are art.


1)Are games created to envoke feeling ?

2)Does the average man consider his copy of Halo, or Zelda or whatever art?

3)Is the general public ready to consider the art and challenge of creating games an art?

(if yes explain why)

regardless of what we think doesnt matter becuase as gamedesigners we will think that games are art because its what we do?

Posted by Way Walker:

I disagree because other art forms have shown that real art can have black and white morality or no morality at all. Also, I believe this has already been acheived by the first few missions of Deus Ex.

What is your disagreement exactly? I said that for a game to be considered a work of art on par with the great masterpieces of the world, the choices in the game must be built around the most important choices in our life - moral and existential choices, and not superficial choices. Why? Because "choice" is a unique and mandatory quality of interactive art. To argue that my position is wrong because other art forms have produced masterpieces without morality is moot. Those forms of art do not depend on choice and freewill for their effect.

This is like saying Bach's The Passion of St. Matthew is a masterpiece because the libretto is very poetic. The truth is that even if the words in the music were replaced with gibberish it would still have the power it has now. Why? Because music does not depend on words for its effect. This is why you can listen to something like Bach's Passion in a language you don't understand and still enjoy it. The effect of any art depends on the quality that is unique to its form.

I've played Deus Ex. And I stand by what I said, that up to this day there is no game that is a work of art on par with the masterpieces of other art forms. The moral choices in this game are not the focus - they are ancillary to the real focus - telling a dystopian adventure story, where most of the choices are "how do I defeat the bad guys most effectively." At heart, Deus Ex is just like every other shooter under the sun, and Bioshock will turn out the same in the end. Trust me.


I do agree, however, that the choices need to become "deeper", but, by that, I don't mean that they need to be about deeper issues. I mean that they need to have more meaning with respect to the game. Choices in chess aren't deep because they illuminate existential questions, they're deep because of depth of the interaction each choice has with the game world. Even the choices in Sorry! are appropriate to the depth of the game. "Which gun do I carry?" lacks depth in that it's usually either an obvious choice or a choice that doesn't really matter.

I'm not sure what your point here is. Are you saying that something like a first person shooter would become a work of art if the choices of "what gun to carry" had more relevance in the context of the game? And that what prevents current FPSs from becoming art is not the nature of the choices, as I have said, but the depth and relevance of these choices?

If that is what you're saying then I whole-heartedly disagree. No matter how much relevance and depth the choice "what gun to carry" has within a game, it will never put that game on par with something like Michealangelo's Pieta.

I say again, interactive art must be built on a foundation of moral and existential choice. Not because every art must contain these things, but because that is the unique nature of interactive art, that it be centered around choice and freewill. Not superficial choice, but the most important choices to a human being. How do I live in this world? How do I conduct myself among others? ...Etc.

Quote:

Original post by JimDaniel Posted by Way Walker: I disagree because other art forms have shown that real art can have black and white morality or no morality at all. Also, I believe this has already been acheived by the first few missions of Deus Ex. What is your disagreement exactly? I said that for a game to be considered a work of art on par with the great masterpieces of the world, the choices in the game must be built around the most important choices in our life - moral and existential choices, and not superficial choices. Why? Because "choice" is a unique and mandatory quality of interactive art. To argue that my position is wrong because other art forms have produced masterpieces without morality is moot. Those forms of art do not depend on choice and freewill for their effect.

I have no problem saying that "choice" is integral to the art of game design. My disagreement is that those choices necessarily have to be about morality to elevate games to "Art with a capital 'A'".

Quote:

This is like saying Bach's The Passion of St. Matthew is a masterpiece because the libretto is very poetic. The truth is that even if the words in the music were replaced with gibberish it would still have the power it has now. Why? Because music does not depend on words for its effect. This is why you can listen to something like Bach's Passion in a language you don't understand and still enjoy it. The effect of any art depends on the quality that is unique to its form.

No, it's like saying that Bach's The Passion According to St. Matthew wouldn't be art if its subject weren't about something as grand as Christ's passion.

Quote:

I've played Deus Ex. And I stand by what I said, that up to this day there is no game that is a work of art on par with the masterpieces of other art forms. The moral choices in this game are not the focus - they are ancillary to the real focus - telling a dystopian adventure story, where most of the choices are "how do I defeat the bad guys most effectively." At heart, Deus Ex is just like every other shooter under the sun, and Bioshock will turn out the same in the end. Trust me.

I don't trust you because you are wrong. [smile] Deus Ex brings depth to the choices by making them moral, as you require. As I've discussed in other threads, if you additionally tried to make the morality part of the gameplay, you'd cheapen morality to the point that it's something to be gamed. The choices are, "How do I defeat the bad guys and still be able to look myself in the mirror?". Morality, like you asked for.

Quote:

I do agree, however, that the choices need to become "deeper", but, by that, I don't mean that they need to be about deeper issues. I mean that they need to have more meaning with respect to the game. Choices in chess aren't deep because they illuminate existential questions, they're deep because of depth of the interaction each choice has with the game world. Even the choices in Sorry! are appropriate to the depth of the game. "Which gun do I carry?" lacks depth in that it's usually either an obvious choice or a choice that doesn't really matter. I'm not sure what your point here is. Are you saying that something like a first person shooter would become a work of art if the choices of "what gun to carry" had more relevance in the context of the game? And that what prevents current FPSs from becoming art is not the nature of the choices, as I have said, but the depth and relevance of these choices?

That's exactly my point.

Quote:

If that is what you're saying then I whole-heartedly disagree. No matter how much relevance and depth the choice "what gun to carry" has within a game, it will never put that game on par with something like Michealangelo's Pieta.

But how about to Seurat's Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte which isn't about something as grand as the Pieta? Or Jan Van Eyck's portrait of the Arnolfini wedding? Or Pollock's No. 32?

Quote:

I say again, interactive art must be built on a foundation of moral and existential choice. Not because every art must contain these things, but because that is the unique nature of interactive art, that it be centered around choice and freewill. Not superficial choice, but the most important choices to a human being. How do I live in this world? How do I conduct myself among others? ...Etc.

I'd say the unique nature of interactive art is choice. The very fact that it's possible to make an interactive work without moral choices involved shows it to not be part of its nature. It's like saying a novel must be an exploration of the interaction among archetypes to be considered art.

Quote:

Original post by azeime In order for me to say games are art i will ask this and IF YES ,games are art. 1)Are games created to envoke feeling ?

Games like Resident Evil and Doom 3 are created to evoke fear. And, no I'm not cheating by depending on purely aesthetic phenomena like spooky lights and shadows, blood on the walls, pentagrams, creepy music, etc. Especially in the case of RE it's also baked into the rules, what with your lack of mobility (I call it piss poor controls, but hey :p), the scarcity of supplies, the constant struggle for survival, etc. It would fall flat if the gameplay didn't correspond to the aesthetic level of the game. Heck, play System Shock 2 and tell me you don't crap yourself if you're cornered by some cyborgs and your damn gun breaks midfight. Hell, read a Will Wright interview sometime. All his games are his attempt to model the complexity of the universe.

Quote:

2)Does the average man consider his copy of Halo, or Zelda or whatever art?

Well, you pulled some of the most mainstream games out here as examples, and you're talking about "the common person." However, I will say that many times the beauty of something isn't in what is said but in how it is said. Take Blizzard for instance. It seems like their designers don't have an original idea in their head, but all their games are massive critical and commercial successes. Why? The have a way with rules. Their voice speaks old words, but with a profound eloquence, balance and clarity that cuts the crap and makes a lasting impression. The only game that can make a Blizzard game outdated is... its sequel. Look at Bungie. Halo may be a generic FPS with a nice story, but they polished the hell out of it until it was a marvel to play.

Quote:

3)Is the general public ready to consider the art and challenge of creating games an art? (if yes explain why)

I'm not overly concerned with what Joe Q. Public thinks, quite honestly. He doesn't know jack about "the art and challenge of creating games", and many still view the job as nothing more than playing games all day.
The public at large has historically (at least in the last century) viewed every new creative and scientific development with terror instead of joy, from jazz to heavy metal to the internet. Even after these years, (speculative) a crapload of people still view, say, rock and metal as nothing more than noise or at best something fun for the kids to rebel to and to eventually grow out of, much like games. But, there's System of a Down and then there's Nevermore or Emperor. Historically people who derided new cultural developments haven't had sudden changes of heart and turned pioneer, and this abstract public at large isn't fit to determine what games are or need to be. Designers are. Once the medium is mainstream enough and evolved enough, and enough designers grow up with an understanding of the strengths of the medium and a desire to celebrate them, all the pieces will click into place.

Quote:

regardless of what we think doesnt matter becuase as gamedesigners we will think that games are art because its what we do?

Or we have an understanding that people who view the subject as a children's plaything don't-- or refuse to have? Wright, Levine, Meir, Spector-- they all have these ideas about what makes games special. Judging by the acclaim of gamers, they're onto something. You can choose to call it "not art" if you choose... but that doesn't eliminate the thought and artistry present in the best games.

[Edited by - Al Gorithm on December 31, 2006 6:22:30 AM]

Posted by Way Walker:
...you are wrong.

If I am wrong and you are right, then why all these debates? Long ago it would have been reasoned that chess was the masterpiece of interactive art, the goal all makers of interactive art should aspire to - if art is to be judged by pure formalism, as you have argued.

But that is not the reality. The very fact of this thread existing, and all the endless debates that have sprung up increasingly over the last few years illustrates that people want "more" than mere formalism. They want what I have been talking about and what all the genuine masterpieces of art have provided - "meaning" for lack of a better word.

Happy New Year!

Quote:

Original post by azeime I agree that games are art for that very reason but I also want to say that a game is the same a movie in the sense that the cutscenes and the overall picture is trying to portray something. Where would gaming be without cutscenes.... a whole bunch of Half-Life 2's where the guy is blabbering on and your looking for a way to get into the room he's in. Games would also be mindless and would invoke no other feelings other than beat your enemy. Think about old NES games without cutscenes and think of how the story gives way to the mindless gameplay. Cutscenes have changed the world of gaming altogether and make the story more "solid" than anything else.

"Portray something", "mindless gameplay", "solid story": what a narrow idea of what videogames are about!
It shouldn't be controversial that videogames are, by definition, interactive entertainment, and storytelling is
1) only one of countless, equally worthy, types of entertainment.
2) intrinsically not interactive and therefore not playing to the strengths of the videogame medium.

A game like Super Mario Bros is not about telling a story, except in the most abstract, formal and contrived sense of the word; saying it lacks cutscenes is like saying that dogs lack fins and fish lack legs.

I believe that videogames are art like painting and sculpture, architecture, literature, cinema, theatre, etc. and that all doubts to the contrary are due to the fact that they are a new, immature and often unappreciated art form and that many games (i.e. many authors) don't have much to say.

Quote:

Original post by JimDaniel Posted by Way Walker: ...you are wrong. If I am wrong and you are right, then why all these debates?

You missed the point of my tongue-in-cheek (that's why I put the smiley there) bluntness. You said, "trust me" which is the same as saying, "I am right". If you are right and I am wrong, then why all these debates? [wink] (In other words, my statement was my way of pointing out the same error you're accusing me of.)

Also, the rest of your response is irrelevant to the part of my post where I said, "you are wrong". You go on about how people want "meaning" from their art, and the "you are wrong" part of my post was me arguing that Deus Ex does give more after you asserted that it does not.

As more of an aside, we debate to find out which of us (if either or both) is right, but I do not believe the debate at any point affects which of us (if either or both) is right. So, if you are right/wrong and I am wrong/right, then why all these debates? To find which is the case. Even more tangential, I don't find debates to be very reliable in determining who is right/wrong. The "winner" of a debate, in my experience, is more strongly correlated with the skill of the arguers and their experience thinking about the topic. Being right is probably similar to going first in chess/go; it gives an advantage, but that advantage is usually insignificant with respect to other factors.

Quote:

Long ago it would have been reasoned that chess was the masterpiece of interactive art, the goal all makers of interactive art should aspire to - if art is to be judged by pure formalism, as you have argued.

Argued by whom? I would argue that it is a masterpiece, but not the masterpiece. I'd also argue that anyone claiming it to be the masterpiece is myopic.

Quote:

But that is not the reality. The very fact of this thread existing, and all the endless debates that have sprung up increasingly over the last few years illustrates that people want "more" than mere formalism. They want what I have been talking about and what all the genuine masterpieces of art have provided - "meaning" for lack of a better word.

But you claimed that Bach's The Passion According to St. Matthew would still be "Art" with a capital "A" even if the words were replaced with gibberish by which I take you to mean that it would still be "High Art" even if it was without meaning. Even more, you say that, "The effect of any art depends on the quality that is unique to its form," which seems to say that formalism is what makes art effective.

Then again, you say that moral/existential choice is the unique nature of interactive art, so perhaps you are saying that moral/existential choice is the formalism by which games should be judged. However, I claim that the existence of games (note that games aren't the only sort of interactive art) without moral/existential choices shows that such choices aren't part of their nature.

Also, I mentioned three paintings, two of which are generally considered masterpieces and a third that I really enjoy. Do you deny that Seurat's painting is Art (note the capital 'A') or a masterpiece because it lacks "meaning"? Do you deny that Jan Van Eyck's is Art or a masterpiece because it has only superficial meaning (its meaning is found in blunt symbolism)? And what do you make of Pollock's works? I can add even more: pretty much anything by Monet. None of them can be compared to the Pieta in terms of meaning, but does that make them any less masterpieces? Any less Art?