Are games art? Do you care?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jasong

Azimuth - all you're doing is condemning videogaming to a ghetto of frivolous, childish pastime. And what of games that do aspire to more? Or adults who actually want something higher than just to be distracted for a couple of hours in a bit of meaningless escapism?

---

This is exactly my problem with the whole, stupid debate. I'll quote my NAG article:

"Besides, what’s with this queer perception that something suddenly being “art” somehow legitimises or elevates its status in some esoteric and otherwise unrealisable way? What, is everything else just completely meaningless, or simply having no significance, relevance, or real value? What’s wrong with games just being games for, you know, the games’ sake, and that being enough?"

So if games aren't art, they're obviously nothing more than a "frivolous, childish pastime"? What a ludicrous inference. This, see, is an attitude that speaks more of your own possible inadequacy than anything else - perhaps you need games to be art to justify playing them. Which I'm not stating as fact, mind you, but perhaps something to consider.

Similarly, I don't need to argue that Shakespeare's work is art to appreciate its inherent quality. I don't need games to be art before I can say that one is better than another. It's like saying models have to be wearing hats before anyone can determine their attractiveness. Basically, it's entirely irrelevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Azimuth

This is exactly my problem with the whole, stupid debate. I'll quote my NAG article:

"Besides, what’s with this queer perception that something suddenly being “art” somehow legitimises or elevates its status in some esoteric and otherwise unrealisable way? What, is everything else just completely meaningless, or simply having no significance, relevance, or real value? What’s wrong with games just being games for, you know, the games’ sake, and that being enough?"

So if games aren't art, they're obviously nothing more than a "frivolous, childish pastime"? What a ludicrous inference. This, see, is an attitude that speaks more of your own possible inadequacy than anything else - perhaps you need games to be art to justify playing them. Which I'm not stating as fact, mind you, but perhaps something to consider.

Similarly, I don't need to argue that Shakespeare's work is art to appreciate its inherent quality. I don't need games to be art before I can say that one is better than another. It's like saying models have to be wearing hats before anyone can determine their attractiveness. Basically, it's entirely irrelevant.

---

It seems to be the appellation of 'art' that you take exception to - then what else should we call it? I actually don't have any baggage or preconceptions with the terminology we use, and I'm happy to revise it if necessary. Whatever we mean by art, whatever common elements can be attributed to the great works of humanity - that's what I'm referring to, and forgive my clumsiness. But for the sake of convenience we call it art, and we recognize it when we see it.

I have no particular desire for legitimization. I play whatever I feel like. What I desire is to see videogaming achieve its potential as a creative medium. And when it does, if we call that art, I don't have a problem with it. I want to play something that actually elevates me in the same way as a novel.

I think you're still missing my point. I don't see the use in categorising games any further than, well, games. The problem is, we become so caught up in debating whether or not a game is art, that we don't bother discussing it on its own merits. You've suggested that I - and others - are essentially refusing to engage in the whole games-as-art debate, while you're perhaps failing, ironically enough, to engage in discussing whether or not a game is any good.

It's not the designation of "art" that I object to, nor yet the proliferation of vague, conflicting, and frequently fatuous definitions, but rather that the entire debate is an exercise in tedious pointlessness. We might as well argue whether games are a shade of red. You keep talking about games "reaching potential" - the subtext being that, if they're not art, they're somehow inherently inferior in nature - yet seem unwilling to admit to somehow legitimising them this way.

I suspect that a massive part of the problem is that many people have this misconception that anything labeled art must be good/nice/pretty/acceptable/likeable/enjoyable or whatever. In my opinion art is merely a word describing something that somebody has created/painted/drawn/coded/written from their own imagination with their own hands. I may be wrong, but that is the feeling I have.

Not all art is great, but not all art is kak either and I still maintain that THAT is what makes art great. The fact that we can both play the same game and one person thinks it's awesome and the other doesn't, but that does not automatically mean he/she dismisses it as a bad piece of art. Variety is the spice of life after all...

I'm perfectly happy to discuss a game on its own merits. Where did you get the impression that I wasn't? I really don't care to spend all day fatuously back and forthing over yes-they-are-no-they-aren't bickering.

The point is, and someone above acknowledged (laziness excused), that there are precious few games that have the ability to move him in the same way as a certain piece of music. That is a sentiment I agree with, and a dilemma that I feel merits investigation. Is there some inherent technical limitation with videogames that inhibits them from serving as vehicles of artistic expression? It has nothing to do with legitimization, and everything to do with the thing itself.

Or IOW if you want to discuss games on their own merits, please conceptualize a critical framework in which we could discuss them as such without lapsing into the egregious error of mistakenly daring to call them art? Videogames have unique characteristics, tropes, limitations, strengths - they require a vocabulary that can analyse them on their own terms.

Very few games a sense of emotional WOW from me anymore. The problem to me being that too many games are extremely similar. Now this might be because I tend to lean far more towards a certain genre or two, because that's what I enjoy. For instance, I don't play Bad Company 2 for it's artistic value in terms of emotions etc. I play it because it great fun, especially because it's online and I get to blow my friends up and we have a laugh. The single player is interesting for the storyline, to a degree, but overall so many if not all shooters all have a very similar sequence of events.

Two games that completely stood out for me for not only their gaming value, but also the intellectual and emotional value, are the first Deus Ex and more recently Heavy Rain. Two games that were/are extremely unique now and then. They maybe had some technical glitches, but the overall experience when playing them was simply brilliant. Never before have I based my decisions ingame on my own personality. Deus Ex with all it's nano upgrades and what do I wish to become. Heavy Rain for its, if it was my boy, would I cut off my own finger or kill some stranger to save my kid?

There are many ways in which games are rated and many debates as to what should be used etc and what shouldn't, but maybe a factor to consider is also a games emotional effect of you. Graphics, sound, controls all have their place, but somehow simply rating it's storyline or gameplay doesn't always give you the full picture.

Please note when I say these or any other games affect me emotionally, I don't necessarily mean just tears! I also mean when you have finished playing it leaves you with a profound feeling of, "Damn, would I really be able to do that or not do it? Would I want to bio-mechanically want to alter/better myself? Would I really be able to sacrifice myself to save someone I loved?"

So, to maybe avoid going back and forth here, I pose this question, What is the game that most affected you emotionally? Doesn't have to be your best game ever, simply which game had the biggest impact on your life outside of the actual game?

TBH I never got to play either Deus Ex or Heavy Rain. One of these days I'll d/l Deus Ex and play it with graphical mods and all the rest of it. Recently I enjoyed Braid a lot though. I ended up trying to control time with my mind. I wouldn't say it particularly moved me emotionally, but it was certainly unique.

Dude, if you own a PS3, you must play Heavy Rain. It is really, in my opinion, that good.

no PS3 = no Heavy Rain :(. I'd also love to play LBP 1 and 2. Maybe one of these days I'll get a PS3 just to experience those games (and The Last Guardian when it arrives), just like I have a Wii temporarily so I can play Mario Galaxy 1 and 2 heh.

Flog the Wii, tell it's owner someone stole it and you are very sorry, then go buy PS3.

I've heard that Alan Wake on Xbox 360 is comparable to Heavy Rain in terms of the experience. Can someone who has played both please comment?