I got this idea from an earlier post in here, and I thought it would go hand in hand with my other thread. First off, let me explain how I define entertainment and art. Entertainment is pretty self-explanatory. Basically it''s something that provides a thrill or just generally makes you feel good. The important thing is that entertainment is basically a short-term thing. It doesn''t have a lasting impression other than fond memories and a general sense of well-being. IT provides stress relief and gives us something to look forward to. Art on the other hand is something that is more long term and lasting. It tells us something about ourselves, our lives, or our environment. Art is a reflection of life in a package that is easier to understand. Art is inspiration. Art is educational. Now, that''s not to say that something can''t be both entertaining and artistic, but it''s obviously harder to pull off. I''m also not saying one is better than the other. But, now that I''ve defined art and entertainment by my terms, how does everyone see their games as being? Do more people want to create entertainment or art? I think one of the few games out there that is truly artistic is Black and White. I really can''t think of any other game out there that can be represent more than what it seems like on the outside. The Sims comes close as well. Let me ask everyone some questions here. How many people were moved by Braveheart? Has anyone felt anything anywhere near that scale from a game? Think of your most inspiring book, movie, or story. Has any game come close to making you feel that same sense of awe? If not, what''s lacking in games today? I ask these questions, because I wonder how many designers and gamers feel that games are simply a medium for entertainment (mindless and soulless at that...although mindless entertainment has its place of course). It''s like comic books. It''s a medium so mired in the notion that it''s just for kids, that very few people take it seriously as a storytelling medium. I think gamers and designers treat games the same way. I think there''s no reason whatsoever that a game can''t be as artistic and moving as any movie but designers just havent really focused on it.

art and entertainment have far more in common with each other than they do with games. Games are fundamental, the other two aren''t (though some would argue art is). Games are how we satisfy our instinctive desire to use our minds and bodies in ways dictated by evolution, particularly the ones that aren''t as useful. We play FPSs because we no longer need to hunt or fight. We play RTSs and sports because few of us engage in warfare. Each game genre corresponds to a set of instincts that we are born with and need to satisfy for proper mental health.

Hmm, I don''t know about the instinctual thing.

Take a game like checkers, or if you really want to get child-like, chutes and ladders. How about games like Mancala, or Scrabble? One can say that these are mental exercises, but how are they instinctual?

I think something that is instinctual is the need to be entertained. Perhaps another definition of entertainment is the temporary escape from reality. A brief moment where we escape from the confines, burdens and responsibilities that we normally face.

Primitive man was constantly under stress, and since he didn''t have drugs back then, he had to find another way of relieving that stress. Also as was said, we play FPS and strategy games because we can''t do these things in real life. Is it because we all harbor a deep seated desire to shoot people or carry out war? Is it some instinct for violence that attracts us to these games? I tend to think not, I tend to think that it''s the escape to a fantasy world, where we can be something that we are not that has its appeal. As Robert E. Lee once remarked, "it''s a good thing war is so terrible, otherwise we should grow too fond of it". We don''t really know the reality of war, and hence the reality of it would shock us, but in the backs ofour minds, we can appreciate the intellectual capacity and the charisma and leadership it would take to lead men into battle. So, in games, we can play this out in safety.

I think entertainment is basically stress relief or an escape fantasy. They are not "murder trainers", or violence inducers as the mind-numb (and responsibility-challenged) media and parents would think.

I think art on the other hand is something that has "sink-in". It''s something that must be analyzed by the heart, mind or soul to be appreciated and learned from. Entertain CAN be totally passive (though it need not be), whereas art on the other must be actively sifted through to get it''s full measure out of.

Perhaps my definitions are different from others, but thats how I see the difference between art and entertainment. They both have their places, I just think that almost every game made today is entertainment, and not really art.

Games = Entertainment....

Art and Entertainment are just part of the game.

"I''''ve sparred with creatures from the nine hells themselves... I barely plan on breaking a sweat here, today."~Drizzt Do''''Urden

So is it a stretch for everyone to simplay accept that the definistions and appreciations of "Art" and "Entertainment" are subjective? There is only so much you can objectively define when discussing properties of anything that evoke emotional response.

I would state that the most general descriptions apply.

"Entertainment" at its base level is simply that which evokes SOME physical or emotional response. It''s fun, scary, annoying, provoking, sophomoric, etc.

"Art" is most definitely a FORM of entertainment, but most people will argue (and I''m inclined to agree) that where SIMPLE entertainment can fulfill itself as above, "Art" is something that compels you to PHILOSOPHIZE.

A simple metaphor might be: "I go to the Art Museum for Entertainment, I search through the Italian Renaissance wing for Art."

I think it''s no more complicated than that, and again, because it is subjective, you can only make what YOU feel is art. Others may agree, and great ARTISTS have only one thing to speak for them: they cause you to THINK about your entertainment.

---------------
-WarMage
...solving problems in four dimensions...

checkers is a game, it involves conflict. You have to control resources, overmanuver your foe, and eventually beat him to death. Sure it is a bit abstract but it is a military strategy game just the same. Entertainment and games are not the same, though most "games" are actually entertainment products and not really games. Basically hardcore multiplayer games are games, everything else is entertainment.

It''s funny how two words can have such different meanings to everyone.

However, I''m surprised no one answered my questions deeper down in my original post. Who here has had an impression from a game that has come close to their best from a movie, TV, book, or other form of media? If people haven''t, how come?

And that really is the crux of my post. Not the semantics of art and entertainment are really two sides of the same coin, but rather, how come games seem to mainly provide short term entertainment? Has anyone here been truly moved by a game? Has anyone here been truly thought provoked by a game? Has anyone had a flash of inspiration from a game? While I think some may have, I think the majority have not.

And that is why I defined enterainment and art on MY terms. Not so that the terms themselves could be argued over the semantics but to illustrate a point. That point being, entertainment=short term "fun", art=long term "fun".

Can we please not have another thread like:

"Games are art!"
"Games are not art!"
"Games are art!"
"Games are not art!"

If it looks like getting that way, I''ll close it. Or move it to the Lounge. It does nothing to further game design intrinsically. These are incredibly subjective arguments that have very little bearing on anything.

Wether a game can be classified that way or not depends on
the game. You can''t say "games are art" or "games are not."
My answer to your question would be probably Final Fantasy VII.
At least it would be, except for the ending. I''ve seen the
ending 4 times and I still don''t know exactly whats happening
there, but the rest of it was really good.

But no, not quite like Braveheart.

Ok dauntless I''m stepping up to bat ...

NO a game has never made me philosophize as much as the BEST books or movies ... or stories of any kind ...

I''d say that this is because .. by definition .. an interactive ... controllable media ... cannot be so carefully laid to evoke a particular feeling ...

but with that said ... i''m going to take an assumption of yours head on ...

what do most movies do ... yield a powerfull memory that you later want to share with other ... and when thought about or spoken about brings you back to the feeling and / or make you think about interesting things ...

now games ... I''ve played many games that build a community out of their players ... years latter someone mentions xcom and your right back in your childhood ... nostagia ... fear .. fun ... it all floods back ... and details that you''d thought you''d forgotten ... they come to you as you talk ... and it''s a beautiful thing .... this is the SAME way people are with concerts ... tv shows ... movies .. ANYTHING that way significant in the course of their lives ... especially books ... and me and a friend of my can talk for an hour about a scifi book we''ve both loved .. even if we''ve done so a dozen times before ... and the same is true about the great starcraft games we''ve shared ... or the programming problems we''ve solved ... and the women we''ve had crushes on ... it''s LIFE ...

games DO make statements about life ... but they are more general and open that most stories ... black and white explores concepts of learning and the feelings of being responsible for the growth of another (parenthood ... teaching ... etc) ... total anihilation displays a scary future in which we war with our own creations and it really raises questions of the value of arificial life ... and ta kingdoms makes you play a side and then switch side AFTER the battle and continue in the wreakage ... so it poiniently humanizes war ... showing that there are losers that you don''t normally see and really making you question the idea that you just ''win'' a battle ... it displays the fact that it''s a balance .. a strugle between enemies .. none right or wrong ... play 3 dozen games of stars! and you''ll really start to think about things like WHY would we do this? Why wage war over a galaxy when it''s obviously not necessary ... the fact that the game doesn''t let you change the rules of victory .. even though after 6 months of play you always want to ... really brings home the silliness of driving toward preconceived goals .. no matter the cost ... you often decide to just agree with the remaining players that you all survived .. and while there may be a winner .. it doesn''t have to be played out to the complete anihilation the game might decree ... and CHESS .. playing chess in high school and college was brain food and challenging ... but it was tied to brovado / pride / and selfesteem ... now ... at 26 ... me and my friends have learned to share games of chess like good sex ... there are no rules fundamental rules .. nobody to impress ... we can play a game for 20 minutes ... and if we decide we''d rather play the future game out 3 different ways .. we can ... or we can loose .. and back up 6 moves to see what else was there ... we can use our life wisdom to enjoy the game ... and the game to build wisdom ....

i guess that''s enough for now