(03-19-2013, 07:42 AM)Gors Wrote: I don't believe that games are art. I know this goes against many people here, but the game's main essence (players lose/win, rules) is not art-like. If games were to be considered as art, then trivial things such as throwing dices or coins should also be art.

The difference is that games involve more than one type of art. There is story, both in text and movies, there is music, there is visual art. So while games per se aren't art, it can be used to convey art. People can learn and earn culture with games the same way a movie or music would.

You wouldn't deny that a film or a theater production can be a form of art would you?
I don't see why you'd think of a game any different. These forms of art are similar in that they have many contributors and a director, working to create a unique and entertaining experience.
The final product is a work of art because that's what the audience experiences, and what leaves a lasting impression.
Interactivity is no different than the principles and elements of design in a piece of traditional art- just one more component to strengthen the experience for the audience.

Of course there is kitsch in the gaming market ,namely shovelware games and bad movie licensed games, but that's a reality in every medium.

(03-19-2013, 08:24 PM)Zaliphone Wrote: I think a game can be considered art, such as Journey or Dear Esther, but something like Call of Duty...I think not.

How comes? It's a just as a valid as game as any others.

(03-20-2013, 09:11 AM)BumblebeeCody Wrote:

(03-19-2013, 08:24 PM)Zaliphone Wrote: I think a game can be considered art, such as Journey or Dear Esther, but something like Call of Duty...I think not.

How comes? It's a just as a valid as game as any others.

Well, you got a point there, I can tell what you mean.
But still Call of Duty is another FPS game where you pew pew a lot and things go BOOM which I like a lot I won't lie! Now when it comes to Journey or Dear Esther, these are games that are making you ponder in thoughts if you get my meaning.

To me, Video games are art. However, each one has different shades of that meaning. Call of Duty is just shoot to win and with BLOPS 2 some decision making which really doesn't do too much. They convey types of emotion and ideas. (Which to some is little to none.) The Telltale game, The Walking Dead does exactly like ''Blaquaza'' said.

(03-19-2013, 04:09 PM)Blaquaza Wrote: I think that games that can really capture your feelings and make you feel how the characters feel are art.

Morality, Connections built to believable characters, Suspense, and such are ways that make games art. If it makes a connection to you or starts to invoke thoughts or emotions, then that's art. To me at least. END RANT.

(03-20-2013, 09:11 AM)BumblebeeCody Wrote:

(03-19-2013, 08:24 PM)Zaliphone Wrote: I think a game can be considered art, such as Journey or Dear Esther, but something like Call of Duty...I think not.

How comes? It's a just as a valid as game as any others.

Fair point, but I just personally think that CoD lacks the depth to really be considered art. But hey, I'm no genius, it very may well be art.

(03-21-2013, 02:53 PM)Mr.Katana Wrote: To me, Video games are art. However, each one has different shades of that meaning. Call of Duty is just shoot to win and with BLOPS 2 some decision making which really doesn't do too much. They convey types of emotion and ideas. (Which to a lot can be little to none.) The Telltale game, The Walking Dead does exactly like ''Blaquaza'' said.

Morality, Connections built to believable characters, Suspense, and such are ways that make games art. If it makes a connection to you or starts to invoke thoughts or emotions, then that's art. To me at least. END RANT.

This is my point exactly.

(03-19-2013, 11:32 PM)Zac Wrote: You wouldn't deny that a film or a theater production can be a form of art would you?
I don't see why you'd think of a game any different. These forms of art are similar in that they have many contributors and a director, working to create a unique and entertaining experience.
The final product is a work of art because that's what the audience experiences, and what leaves a lasting impression.
Interactivity is no different than the principles and elements of design in a piece of traditional art- just one more component to strengthen the experience for the audience.

Of course there is kitsch in the gaming market ,namely shovelware games and bad movie licensed games, but that's a reality in every medium.

Kitsch exists in any imaginable thing, though what is in check here is not quality of culture, but rather the essence of a game. There is no art, as we know it (sculpture, music, drawing, acting etc.), in making choices and taking risks. This is not to make it unimportant, though: just because something is not art it doesn't mean it can be discarded. Those are just basic things every person needs to deal with. Of course, with poetic license (or dadaist anti-art), you can elevate anything into art status. For example, I wouldn't classify soccer as art. But someone who loves the sport will certainly consider it as so.

And to reinforce what I said, even though I don't consider game as art, it doesn't mean they are empty or lacking. A quick analogy would be considering people as 'art' and putting them in cars. Cars aren't people (therefore not art), but they are used to transport them (a way to propagate art). Similarly, while the game in its quintessential form is not an art, every other thing that it carries is art, and it can be used to spread artistic knowledge. In the end, it causes the same effect and it doesn't matter to the final consumers. I'm just pointing out that cars are not human beings.

Finally, I'd like to add that none that I said is strictly correct and is just my point of view. Art itself is a very subjective thing and varies between people, so it's obvious that discussing whether something is art or not will not have a consensus. The only thing that I can agree is that I love playing games.

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned minecraft. There's lots of things you can do that's considered art, such as. . . .

Building things



Making music



Or creating mechanisms

(03-24-2013, 10:44 AM)pyoro64 Wrote: I'm surprised nobody has mentioned minecraft. There's lots of things you can do that's considered art, such as. . . .

Building things

Spoiler

Making music



Or creating mechanisms

Yeah but then there is also those people that don't know sh!t about art and tell us to "get a life"

(03-24-2013, 10:44 AM)pyoro64 Wrote: I'm surprised nobody has mentioned minecraft. There's lots of things you can do that's considered art, such as. . . .

Building things



Making music



Or creating mechanisms

Though in this aspect, Minecraft is less of a game and more of a 'creative software'. Of course, I am aware that games are software, but Minecraft especially is less about 'gameplay' as we know it, and more about utilizing its resources in a creative way. In this sense, Minecraft is no different than say, music trackers or 3D rendering programs. A real life equivalent of this would be playing with legos. There is no rules in lego other than building whatever you want and making up your own rules. That's what makes both lego and minecraft fun. It's a way to play and entertain yourself; it's a toy. But toys aren't games. Get what I'm saying?

If you strip Minecraft from its creative roots and focus only in the raw gameplay (that is, fishing, farming, killing monsters and maintaining yourself alive), the 'art' starts to vanish, leaving only the essential game part (programming, rules, probabilites, luck, streategy). This essential part is what defines a game properly said, and therefore cannot be considered art. Unless someone strictly defines that the technical parts of a game is also an art (programming, rules and its applications, etc), games themselves cannot be art, imo.

But again, using the same analogy from before, games are 'art containers' and as long it entertains and influences us, it's carrying art properly, and in the end, it doesn't matter much.

And then there's the people who can't build.

The one thing that annoys me about this argument, is that I don't really know what art is defined as.

Art to me is a paining, or portrait. I understand it can be more than that, but I don't really know what to argue when it comes to this topic.

From what I can tell, a good video game is art. Metal Gear Solid, Super Mario 64, Legend of Zelda, and more can be considered art, but that's just me.

(03-24-2013, 06:06 PM)retrolinkx Wrote: The one thing that annoys me about this argument, is that I don't really know what art is defined as.

Art to me is a paining, or portrait. I understand it can be more than that, but I don't really know what to argue when it comes to this topic.

From what I can tell, a good video game is art. Metal Gear Solid, Super Mario 64, Legend of Zelda, and more can be considered art, but that's just me.

Trick is, its one of those things that no one can agree one, and that leads to a lot of stupidity. You get a lot of those who are in the artistic merit who shoot down anything that isn't already established. For the longest time, photography was not considered art. It really just narrows down to opinion and no one likes that.

(03-24-2013, 06:06 PM)retrolinkx Wrote: The one thing that annoys me about this argument, is that I don't really know what art is defined as.

Art to me is a paining, or portrait. I understand it can be more than that, but I don't really know what to argue when it comes to this topic.

That's the point. Art is subjective.

Jackson Pollack's art work is basically dribbles of paint in random patterns. Andy Warhol painted a can of tomato soup and it's art.

So if these can be considered art, why not video games.

That's my opinion. I could be wrong.

(03-24-2013, 07:09 PM)Shinitenshi Wrote:

(03-24-2013, 06:06 PM)retrolinkx Wrote: The one thing that annoys me about this argument, is that I don't really know what art is defined as.

Art to me is a paining, or portrait. I understand it can be more than that, but I don't really know what to argue when it comes to this topic.

That's the point. Art is subjective.

Jackson Pollack's art work is basically dribbles of paint in random patterns. Andy Warhol painted a can of tomato soup and it's art.

So if these can be considered art, why not video games.

That's my opinion. I could be wrong.

That is subjective.