I've been dwelling on many ideas regarding unique qualities in games and the developer's goals. I enjoy seeing games developed with an attachment to a purpose ( this could be a particular artistic style, game mechanic, mature and deep story, etc) since it allows a person like me to appreciate it and enjoy its intricacies. While games are a business, in my
mind it's a lot better for a game to have a unique vision that does not end up being scrapped in favor of dull, boring material catering only to greed and larger sales. Obviously, it makes sense to maximize your profit but not at the expense of sacrificing the unique qualities. I'm thinking of Diablo 2 and The Witcher games. Both have particular styles, immersive worlds, and focuses( the latter building on the grey nature of morality and mature themes in the narrative while the former pits a character against demonic hordes in a world that's artistically "gothic" and dark in its approach to Sanctuary.
Ultimately, my thoughts lead me to the conclusion that the most memorable experiences have come from those games that possess a unique framework that becomes their "soul."
I hope my ideas are clear enough for everyone to understand. What are your thoughts everyone? We can also share RPGs and other games for discussion (and for my own entertainment )
"It is not knowledge, but the act of learning, not possession but the act of getting there, which grants the greatest enjoyment" - Carl Friedrich Gauss
Think I agree with that. Stores are very important for me in games. It's like "reading" and interactive book. You're not just an outsider observing what the author has written, but an active party to the story. Given that premise, it's therefore also a great advantage to have somewhat unique worlds, and not just re-hash the universes or game concepts we all know so well. This is why I don't like FPS and those types of games, but can really get into RPGs that are story-driven, especially when they have something unique about them that just sucks you in. Witcher, Baldur's Gate, Planescape Torment and even Mafia and Bioshock are games I've loved to play due to this. All put much emphasis on story and developing a unique(-ish) game world.
Not to touch on yet another controversial topic, but I think this is relevant for the "are games art?" discussion. If it's basically just a mass product, a blueprint of whatever recipe works right now, then I find it harder to justify a game as art. If much creative energy has gone into it in developing an engaging story and game world, however, I'd be much more inclined to agree the game is art, because then the game is unique in some aspect, and gives users an "experience" that other games won't give them.
Obviously, it makes sense to maximize your profit but not at the expense of sacrificing the unique qualities. I'm thinking of Diablo 2 and The Witcher games. ›››
What is CDPRs goal, obviously it's mature non-linear story we always hear. It's weird how CDPR doesn't market it. I rarely hear CDPR bragging about how one chapter can be entirely different from another.
They should market their special C&C more since that's what their game offers than nobody else does. They should also improve on it,BLOPS has pretty good C&C from what I read in the other thread also in the Cyberpunk 2077 Wishlist thread I was talking about how to make C&C unpredictable like in W1.
Pangaea said:
If it's basically just a mass product, a blueprint of whatever recipe works right now, then I find it harder to justify a game as art. ›››
It's funny how something becomes less of an art when a larger number of people are working on it and when money and sales are involved.
I am of the strong conviction that games can be art, of an interactive kind which can also serve real life purposes, like educate or make us think about themes and issues.
I know people here usually tend to dislike games having a social agenda. But I think The witcher's themes are in a lot of ways similar. The overarching theme to both games, imo, is Change in almost all aspects of political, social and cultural life, its positives and negatives, and how people react to it. I think it's an important lesson to have an idea how the modern world came to be and the path we are drawing for ourselves.
It will of course depend on the game, but I believe certain games can create empathy for problems or crises that people wouldn't know about or really feel otherwise. The interactive aspect can make the experience very personal, thus potentially engendering a desire to learn more about the real world problem. No game has ever done that, but it is possible. The biggest question, is there demand for it? I am not an expert of the market to know.
Since games are basically made out of all the other arts and its meaning of existence, wich is gameplay,, even film making if you consider that one as art, any game that focuses properly in one or more aspects can reach amazing artistic results.
For me none of this particular artistic assets with wich the game is built are the most important aspect, for me, the most important aspect is always the gameplay, what makes a game, a game, and i firmly believe everything should be made depending how does it helps the gameplay goal or not.
A horror game surely benefits from outstanding art design like in Silent Hill 2, but an equally outsanding art desing like the one from Call of Duty Black Ops 2 or Assassins Creed 2 would actually "hurt" the horror game, and make it worse.
It seems very common for game developers and publishers of the last 8 years or so to loose focus while they just improve general quality, they make the game better, but they dont think if they are making it better in the right way towards the main goal and identity of the game.
You could argue that this "focus" or "gameplay goal" its only what each player expects from the game, like for example, Resident Evil 6 tried to improve in every aspect that helps an action game, so if you think RE6 is a horror game and you buy it for that you'll be dissapointed and it would be mostly your fault, but on the other hand, the game itself has to fight againts its own features, so the "improvements" themselves actually do make the game worse in general regardless of what each player wants.
The horror guy will be very dissapointed, but so will be the guy that expected RE6 to be exactly like Gears of War or Call of Duty in third person with monsters and finds out leon's campaign has a horror mood and Ada's campaign is filled with puzzles traps etc.
If there were very little games to choose from, games that try to balance things that are opposite to each other, such as suspense and horror against immediate action and super heroe stunts, would actually be great.
But there are a ton of games out there, and because of this, these games that try to be good in all ways actually end up being mediocre in all ways against the competition.
I think the moment we start getting games with a clear goal and identity, we will get the best games of all times
Do people really question whether games can be art? Simply because there's a commercial element? If so, that's a strange notion, since most good art is made with some commercial element.
On the subject of games being art, I believe who heartedly that games can be art but I understand why people don't believe that yet.
70 to 80 years ago, a child was considered lazy if he or she wanted to read anything but the bible among most families.
Today that same case was being made to me and my friends about video games. It's a generational thing, it's not the generation of those who grew up with games that moves the artistic world, it's the generation of those who grew up in the golden age of cinema, hippy music(not sure what to call it), classic rock etc. Hence we have things like the Criterion Collection (I can't wait until they start to incorporate games in this!).
I will bet any sum of money that in a few, let me say five or six decades, games will be fully accepted into the artistic community and that we gamers will be avidly rejecting a newer form of art that will be emerging.
Do people really question whether games can be art? Simply because there's a commercial element? If so, that's a strange notion, since most good art is made with some commercial element. ›››
It is questioned, seriously in some circles. But not because it is commercial. There are, as I see it, three main criticisms of the "computer games are art" thesis, none of which hold water:
1. The criticism from technology. Computer games are too limited in the scope they afford for creativity and artistry. That may have been true in the 8-bit computer days, but those are long gone.
2. The criticism from auteur theory. Because the game is enacted by the player, it is no longer the author's creative vision being communicated. Film critics who really should know better, but never do, such as Roger Ebert, are guilty of this one. By this argument, sheet music is not art.
3. The ludological criticism. Playing games creates an experience in the player, but that experience is something other than that of enjoying a work of art. While this is true of some games, I believe it is narrow-minded and attempts to put the experience of art into some kind of straitjacket.
The amateur tenor, whose vocal villainies
All desire to shirk,
Shall during off hours exhibit his powers
To Madame Tussaud's wax-work.
[G&S, "A more humane Mikado"]
There are two categories for everything we create. Everything we create is either tools or art. Tools have a practical purpose. Games do not. Therefore, games are not tools, they are art. Though games still have a function, however it's primary intention or purpose is to convey a story, make us empathize with the pixelated characters or be competitive within a tournament, not develop a particular skill or teach us how electrical engineering works.
He has a point but I don't know. Is it that simple. Not even he really admits it. I don't for a second doubt that games are art, in fact there's no stronger proprietor of that stance than me, but it does feel like a fucking loosing battle when I look at the Neanderthal industry and at the juvenile, misogynistic consumer base. They don't exactly reflect maturity... But I digress.
The reason why it's so tricky defining what art is and seeing if games fit that category is because games are all about problem solving. Doesn't matter if it's Tetris, Matrix Online, The Sims, Witcher 2 or even fucking FarmVille. Every one of those games involve problem solving in one shape or form. Is art really problem solving? Must art involve you solving some kind of puzzle or figuring out how to defeat a boss. It's merely a part of being a game, I hear you say. Exactly and that's just it.
Because video games are an interactive medium inviting us to solve a problem, that is what we must focus on when designing and evaluating a game. It's completely irrelevant what purpose or setting it has: to convey a story through a narrative or give you a BFG 9000 and go kill as many other players as possible. How well does the game design serve the problem solving aspect within the context of the purpose of each individual game is what's important and what we should pay attention to. Conflict is the height of drama, thus games need to offer us problems in an engaging and fun way while giving us the tools and equipment to solve it in, again, an engaging and compelling way. If you fail here, you've made a shitty game. If you don't have these aspects, you're not a game. Games are art, because they engage you interactively, like an instrument, and ask you to take part in shaping your own experience by extrapolating the the mechanics and dynamics of a game.
Does that qualify? :|
I guess I haven't really answered if games are art or not. Merely explained why games are art. Wait... What did I just write. Bah. My head hurts. Here I am, trying to convince the world that games are the greatest artistic medium out there, dwarfing all others, while the consumers are morons and the industry keeps looking towards film and literature for gameplay design. And at the same time, both of them put more emphasis onto how shiny the graphics are rather than looking at game design, aesthetics and sound. I'm fighting an uphill battle against chimps... Internally, I haven't sorted my own thoughts out. Trying to make sense of a complicated issue while being myself confused about the state of video games is a stupid idea.
I suspected immediately that Roger Ebert saying such a thing would boil down to elitism, and looking up his essay on the subject confirmed my suspicion. Games aren't art because they can't be great art. Now there's a tortured proposition. He also moves the goalposts several times, dodging the fact that games are not always about "winning." Those sorts of games, which would negate his argument, are really just more like novels or plays. Eh what? A movie can be more or less literary, more or less like a stage play, and the visual arts are allowed to have subgenres, but apparently for games that is not allowed- they all are defined by the examples that Ebert deems to be "true" games. And finally, he doesn't like to play them, so they can't be art.
I have for a long time been a proponent of the classical definition of 'art', which includes all craftsmanship. By that definition, games would obviously be art because of the skill that went into making them.
I'm no longer so sure, though. And though I would immediately agree that games can also be art under a stricter definition, I feel that games such as Assassin's Creed or Call of Duty are art as much as the next generic entertainment product. There is little focus on the creation of something original and more on just creating a product that entertains for a couple of hours and sells well. If that's still art, then only barely so, 'low quality' art.
For a game to be art, I think it has to 'step outside' of the ordinary conventions of the gaming industry. Art is creation, you need to create something original. It also needs to move you emotionally - if art doesn't touch you then what's the point (except for perhaps the artist)? Lastly, a game that is art should still be a game, meaning that some form of interaction strongly contributes to the experience.
I think those are the three main points a game would have to fulfil in order to be classified as 'art', or at least to qualify as 'good' art. I also believe that this wouldn't leave many games in the latter category. Although it's certainly not impossible to produce art without losing sight of commercial purposes, the two do often conflict - the original vision of the creators often has to be adapted in order to ensure commercial success. This means the process of original creation is (partially) replaced by clichés and industry conventions, resulting in the next AC/COD/AAA-clone. Arguing that that's art, too, does little to support the cause of video games in general.
well... is architecture art? if yes why a video game can not be? Art is a unique human skill which conveys emotions, and the design of any type requires minimal art in its conception. Video games included.
For this to become a piece of art simply must be difficult to repeat or copy, have a personality.
art1
▶noun
1 the expression or application of creative skill and imagination, especially through a visual medium such as painting or sculpture. ■ works produced in this way.
Intelligence, whether emotional or any otherwise, or is social or is not intelligence Una salus victis nullam sperare salutemPlease, PM me for correct my English mistakes, if you don't mind. TY
One thing that I look for in games now is self respect, sounds strange but if a game does not respect the world and characters it presents and the player character interacting with them, then i'm rather discomforted by it. Bare in mind i'm not talking about being utterly serious all the time, though I think there could be a few more games with a touch more gravitas to their presentation rather the sub par Joss Whedon schoolboy humour.
The best example I can think of with this is the Circle Tower in Dragon Age: Origins. You arrive at this place to find it under siege by abominations, and whether or not this is your first quest after the tutorial areas, you are assumed to be more competent and able than the army of Templars who guard the mages. Despite their training to deal specifically with this threat, and their superior knowledge of the tower itself, your exalted role as protagonist trumps their experience and knowledge.
Thus you are left feeling the templars are weak, cowardly and hardly worthy of allying with. To add insult to injury you are not shown secret paths into the tower or hidden passages known only to its guardians, you simply stride through the halls slaying abominations and blood mages by the score, thus invalidating their fearsome reputation and supposed rarity.
At quests end i'm not left feeling awesome and powerful, i'm left feeling like the only sane man in the asylum, tormenting the less fortunate. No challenge and no respect for my character or the game.
I was once asked by a journalist what my thoughts were on the modern world slipping into ignorance and apathy, I told him, "I don't know and I don't fucking care!" KNEEL BEFORE SOD!
I have for a long time been a proponent of the classical definition of 'art', which includes all craftsmanship. By that definition, games would obviously be art because of the skill that went into making them.
I'm no longer so sure, though. And though I would immediately agree that games can also be art under a stricter definition, I feel that games such as Assassin's Creed or Call of Duty are art as much as the next generic entertainment product. There is little focus on the creation of something original and more on just creating a product that entertains for a couple of hours and sells well. If that's still art, then only barely so, 'low quality' art.
For a game to be art, I think it has to 'step outside' of the ordinary conventions of the gaming industry. Art is creation, you need to create something original. It also needs to move you emotionally - if art doesn't touch you then what's the point (except for perhaps the artist)? Lastly, a game that is art should still be a game, meaning that some form of interaction strongly contributes to the experience.
I think those are the three main points a game would have to fulfil in order to be classified as 'art', or at least to qualify as 'good' art. I also believe that this wouldn't leave many games in the latter category. Although it's certainly not impossible to produce art without losing sight of commercial purposes, the two do often conflict - the original vision of the creators often has to be adapted in order to ensure commercial success. This means the process of original creation is (partially) replaced by clichés and industry conventions, resulting in the next AC/COD/AAA-clone. Arguing that that's art, too, does little to support the cause of video games in general. ›››
For this we have two distinctions: successful art, and art that fails it's purpose. But for the sake of simplicity and to avoid elitism, I generally term any creative endeavor as art.
For a game to be art, I think it has to 'step outside' of the ordinary conventions of the gaming industry. Art is creation, you need to create something original. It also needs to move you emotionally - if art doesn't touch you then what's the point (except for perhaps the artist)? Lastly, a game that is art should still be a game, meaning that some form of interaction strongly contributes to the experience. ›››
You can discuss whether an individual game is a good or bad work of art, but Ebert is saying that games can't be art. I mean, just because velvet Elvis paintings exist doesn't mean that painting is not an art.
You can discuss whether an individual game is a good or bad work of art, but Ebert is saying that games can't be art. I mean, just because velvet Elvis paintings exist doesn't mean that painting is not an art. ›››
To understand Ebert (which is a Good Thing: it allows you to dismiss him as a narrow-minded smellfungus instead of a mere ignorant twit), you have to understand that his background is film criticism. Film is a field of criticism dominated by the "auteur theory", the idea that it is the enactment of the director's vision alone that constitutes the art of the film. A consequence of this is that any way in which an alleged work of art can be made to deviate from the artist's conception alone is sufficient to negate its standing as art.
For Ebert, art is a one-way communication, in which only an artist can enact art, and an audience can receive only what the artist enacts. This negates by definition the possibility that any new insight or feeling arising out of the player's interaction with a game can be an experience of art. It is, of course, the rankest poppycock. You might as well say that Beethoven's "Minuet in G" is not art, because it can be performed by anybody, creating wildly different experiences (not all of them musical) in the player and the audience.
"Where's the band?" (from 2:39)
The amateur tenor, whose vocal villainies
All desire to shirk,
Shall during off hours exhibit his powers
To Madame Tussaud's wax-work.
[G&S, "A more humane Mikado"]
The biggest problem with modern games is that they try to be too many at the same time, they want to appeal to as many people as possible. Im talking here about genres like shooters adventure games, action games and strategy games. For example Bethesda took one of the best story based wargame of all times and said: "No no, this genre is not mainstream enough everyone these days want to play shooter so we make shooter instead! But what's that? This petty little wargame actually have some big fanbase, so let's just plaster some wargame system on top of shooter so everyone will be happy." Another example was already mentioned in this thread with re6, companies want's to appeal to as many people sacrificing their gameplay integrity and creating overall mediocre games that fans of both genres can't consider great.
Some people see a border to art as if the technology is used to its creation. Nowadays the term technology has been referred to the high engineering or the crude mechanical by the world of advertising mutilating its true meaning.
The technique is a way to perform a particular task, especially the implementation of an artistic work or a scientific procedure. The origin of the word comes from the Greek, τέχνη [techne] ( 'art. method. craft '). If the base of a video game is the technology, we are giving the qualification of art to it, intrinsically.
Intelligence, whether emotional or any otherwise, or is social or is not intelligence Una salus victis nullam sperare salutemPlease, PM me for correct my English mistakes, if you don't mind. TY
Sign In »
Register Now!
Help
418549
PM
)
or is social or is not intelligence
