Support NeoGAF

[Dangansona]

******Final Edit*******
As I have said above, I was never trying to agree if games are art or not, rather that several recent developments in the industry are overshadowing the artistry.
***********************

This is something that has bothered me for a long time. I think there are several developments in this industry in the last two console generations that are sliding games closer to the product/service side of things rather than pieces of art.

There was a thread not too long ago about the intrusiveness of shop messages in games breaking immersion (if someone can find it for me I will link to it). This is I think the largest problem games face right now in this regard. I'm not advocating the removal of DLC or micro-transactions (although I would be thrilled if we could say goodbye to the latter), but I think all promotion of it should be relegated to a tab on the main menu or better yet handled under the game's page on the hardware's OS (for example, when you scroll down on a game on PS4). There shouldn't be shopping cart images on the products of in-game vendors in single-player games.

The reliance of patches nowadays is another disturbing trend, as we are moving away from the idea of a finished creation. This point will get the most flak, and I understand because a lot of times I love patches (can't wait to get home in a few weeks and play Hockey in Rocket League), but I love how most of the time when Nintendo puts out a game it is a fully functional and complete vision of what they wanted to create. I guess more than anything I think the game should feel complete when it releases, with patches and DLC being minor improvements or wholly new content.

For both of the above points, I think the Mona Lisa.jpg with the piece of art being broken down into DLC or patches is a bit ridiculous, but I absolutely see where it is coming from.

On a personal level, I think that the fever for the "digital future" is also a frightening. Some gamers want to get rid of physical versions of games completely, yet every other type of media can still be sold in some physical form. Other than the fact that I think the physicality of a record and it's cover or a hardback book gives an extra feeling of craftsmanship by an author or group of artists, we as a culture need to preserve our art and I'm sorry but pretty much the only people who seem to give a crap about that is the emulation scene. Games can and have already been pulled from digital stores, and servers shut down. The ideal solution would be for both physical and digital to stick around and for preservation efforts to be stepped up in both areas.

And this is a side note, but it scares me that in a decade or two no one will be able to see the beautiful world crafted in Final Fantasy XIV.

Are there any I missed? These often come to me one at a time when reading other threads on NeoGAF and I felt like now I finally had the time to write down my thoughts even though I don't remember all of the examples that struck me. I wonder how many people on here agree.

I wish I had more time to articulate all of this but I am on vacation and will get bad looks if I stay on this computer right now writing an essay. TLDR; A few business practices like shipping broken games, micro-transactions, and the shift to digital games are diminishing games' position as pieces of art.

The definition of art is subjective, so you won't really get a satisfactory answer. The better question would perhaps be, "Are video games no longer a valid avenue for artistic expression?"

This is more what I was interested in. At some point I wanted to add a disclaimer that I don't want a discussion here if games are art, rather for those who believe they are to express if they feel like developments in the industry are hindering the artists ability to create a work of art.

 

[a very cute dog]

I don't think games can "lose" their status as an art form, even if the mainstream isn't engaging with particularly deep themes or using certain predatory business practices. There's still a thriving indie scene to consider.

edit: Additionally, I don't think it's helpful to compare games to how film or music operate. It's a totally different thing, and I think the culture at large is still grappling with those differences (your cited lack of physicality, inclusion of patches) and as such we should embrace the way that games are different. The first example that comes to mind is the bizarre extra cutscene players will get (if they haven't already) in MGSV for disarming all nukes on a server. Couldn't do anything like that in a book or film.

 

[Auctopus]

Unless you've always seen them as art then yes.

They're becoming either services or sports.

Obviously, there are some games that are still presented as pieces of art but those are the ones that aren't brought to the mainstream.

 

[Warxard]

Never was art.

 

[JordanN]

A few business practices like shipping broken games, micro-transactions, and the shift to digital games are diminishing games' position as pieces of art.

So watching a movie on netflix makes it no longer art?

 

[iMax]

Only in the same way that blockbuster movies are slipping away too.

The medium in itself is an art form. But there are varying degrees of execution within. Just like with any other.

 

[ViolentP]

Never was art.

Kinda my feeling.

 

[WhateverItTakes]

Nah. The mainstream is getting bigger, so the arty games are more niche. Games as art is a neverending debate as is so it can't really be quantified

 

[Transistor]

Look to indies. Transistor, Ori and the Blind Forest, Journey. The art is still there, it's just separate from the summer blockbusters.

 

[gigantor21]

I don't think games can "lose" their status as an art form, even if the mainstream isn't engaging with particularly deep themes or using certain predatory business practices. There's still a thriving indie scene to consider.

This. And really, that's true of all forms of pop culture.

 

[Loxley]

The definition of art is subjective, so you won't really get a satisfactory answer. The better question would perhaps be, "Are video games no longer a valid avenue for artistic expression?" - to which I would say they absolutely are (and always will be). Look at Undertale, Her Story or Life is Strange from this year.

 

[Noray]

Nah. If crass consumerism means something isn't art, then we can discount just about every commercial work. It's not really instructive to compare games to other media. I don't disagree that a lot of AAA conventions are exploitative/bad, but usually that stuff is in the margins. It's not just good storytelling, good game design is also artistic. We just haven't found a great way to talk about a lot of the stuff specific to games yet because the medium is young and constantly evolving.

 

[McDougles]

Look to indies. Transistor, Ori and the Blind Forest, Journey.

Can't forget about that great independently created piece of art published by Microsoft Studios!

Regardless, OP is looking too much into the largest gaming entities because they do cast a large shadow. Just like there are art house films for the increasingly commercial film medium, there has never been a time when video games have been able to be expressed purely for artistic purposes.

 

[JordanN]

The definition of art is subjective, so you won't really get a satisfactory answer. The better question would perhaps be, "Are video games no longer a valid avenue for artistic expression?" - to which I would say they absolutely are (and always will be). Look at Undertale, Her Story or Life is Strange from this year.

I don't think it is.

"1.
the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power."

Ironically, the last part is very applicable to games. People are always talking/praising/criticizing the graphics of games. And it does leave people emotional.

 

[a very cute dog]

This. And really, that's true of all forms of pop culture.

I'm not qualified or interesting in debating what constitutes "art," but a binary ART/NOT ART based on business factors and medium characteristics isn't much of a critical framework... so it definitely helps when you think of other forms of pop culture, I agree. Film and television are inherently commercial enterprises for the most part but that isn't mutually exclusive with their artistic value.

 

[SolVanderlyn]

SUPER TRUNCATED OPINION INCOMING

If anything, they're becoming a more fully realized art form. Look at Okami, Wind Waker, Journey, Flower, Shadow of the Colossus, Slain, Undertale, and - I hesitate to name this next one because of the cult-like followers it has - The Last of Us, which admittedly did have a much heavier focus on storytelling than any other game of its ilk. Indie titles have a huge edge in this regard, but even big name studios are given more tools to experiment with. Games are growing more unique with each generation. I don't think the DLC, cash shop doomsday argument has anything to do with game's artistic value. If anything, the problem seems to affect games from companies like EA more than anyone else, which have never been truly big on the artsy side to begin with.

 

[IvanJ]

If anything, video games are becoming more an art today than ever before. We have games like Journey, Everybody's Gone to the Rapture or Flower that attempt to be artistic as well as tell a story.

But video games as a medium never was an art to start with. They are entertainment, and as with all entertainment (music, film, theater) some of the titles tend to be more valuable and artistic, while most of them are just an expendable product to be used and discarded upon completion.

 

[Always-honest]

Don't care too much about a silly word. You decide what is art and what is not. But why even need that word?

 

[BreezyLimbo]

Only if we discount certain movies as art(We don't) Some movies have advertising in them, whether subliminal or directly. They're still considered art.

 

[Deft Beck]

Not at all. I think the current problems that you outlined will have remedies in the future.

 

[IvorB]

Being 'art' isn't some status that can be awarded and revoked. Games are an expression of human creativity and imagination and are therefore, by definition, art. Even the sh*ttiest manufactured pop music is still art. Whether games can be considered high art is another question.

 

[Robert at Zeboyd Games]

It's like it is with movies - the big budget productions usually play it safe because they've got a lot of money at stake. When they don't and try to be more daring, sometimes you end up with Shadow of the Colossus (beloved art classic that was a big success) and sometimes you end with Breath of Fire: Dragon Quarter (underrated art classic that bombed commercially and pretty much ended the series).

As always, there are a ton of indie games going the art route. No worries there.

 

[Steveo]

Can't forget about that great independently created piece of art published by Microsoft Studios!

Regardless, OP is looking too much into the largest gaming entities because they do cast a large shadow. Just like there are art house films for the increasingly commercial film medium, there has never been a time when video games have been able to be expressed purely for artistic purposes.

Why point out the game published by Microsoft, but not the Sony one?

Seems... weird...

 

[Crayolan]

Does the existence of movies which serve as nothing more than propaganda or advertising discount all movies from being works of art? No.

 

[Joe Shlabotnik]

I don't think it is.

"1.
the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power."

Seems anything that is called art should be no different to games.

A) Dictionary definitions aren't gospel;

B) The question--if it's worth even asking at all*--has always been whether its unique medium of expression (the game) is a separate form of art. No one would argue it doesn't already incorporate existing forms of art (visuals, music, narrative).

*not really

 

[Drencrom]

I don't think games can "lose" their status as an art form, even if the mainstream isn't engaging with particularly deep themes or using certain predatory business practices. There's still a thriving indie scene to consider.

edit: Additionally, I don't think it's helpful to compare games to how film or music operate. It's a totally different thing, and I think the culture at large is still grappling with those differences (your cited lack of physicality, inclusion of patches) and as such we should embrace the way that games are different. The first example that comes to mind is the bizarre extra cutscene players will get (if they haven't already) in MGSV for disarming all nukes on a server. Couldn't do anything like that in a book or film.

Exactly, most big blockbuster films that generates the most money are mostly trash and wouldn't be considered art also. That doesn't disqualify all other films that isn't and so on.

The same goes for video games, where the most sold game might be trash like COD etc each year but we still do get a lot of smaller games that are great and artistic. Even the big budget games that gets the best critique and most awards usually have an artistic quality like Bloodborne, The Witcher 3, Splatoon etc.

People that say that video games can't be art are either ignorant, narrow minded and/or play bad games.

 

[gigantor21]

I'm not qualified or interesting in debating what constitutes "art," but a binary ART/NOT ART based on business factors and medium characteristics isn't much of a critical framework... so it definitely helps when you think of other forms of pop culture, I agree. Film and television are inherently commercial enterprises for the most part but that isn't mutually exclusive with their artistic value.

Exactly. As much as I hate the Transformers and the gag-inducing YA films of recent years, no one would seriously argue that those works getting pushed by the big studios tarnishes the artistic integrity of film as a medium. I feel like the only reason such a claim would be made about games is that it isn't as established as older forms of art.

 

[Lord of Ostia]

Never was art.

You are dead wrong. Video games are art. No doubt in my mind. They are original creations meant to provoke an emotional response, make you consider different perspectives, or immerse you in another world. Many games have a message, complex themes and emotions to convey. They require creativity and skill to produce. What else is art if not those things?

 

[IvorB]

A) Dictionary definitions aren't gospel;

Hmmm... they kind of are actually when it comes to the use of language.

 

[The Orz]

You can't lose something you don't have. The only people who view games as art are those that play and create them. To the masses, they're just silly video games.

Gamers themselves cannot agree on what is and isn't art within the gaming industry. What defines a game as being artistic? Aesthetic appeal? Narrative? Game play? And where do we draw the line? Why is something like Journey considered a work of art but Candy Crush isn't?

 

[McDougles]

Why point out the game published by Microsoft, but not the Sony one?

Seems... weird...

Because the skew for people who think Ori is an Indie game is more pertinent a conversation in 2015 because it's a game from 2015.

People have beat the "Journey as indie" conversation to death, why have it again?

 

[BreezyLimbo]

Hmmm... they kind of are actually when it comes to the use of language.

Technically.

Language is a flowing thing, living almost. A dictionary just provides arbitrary definitions. It doesn't dictate how language is used however.

 

[jesu]

I think of them as being closer to toys than art.
But if someone wants to see games as art, I'm not bothered.

 

[Strangelove77]

Lots of movies and tv shows have advertising in them or some other form of a "give me more money" message in them and theyre still considered art. Its not a big deal. Shit, even if games arent comparable to other forms or art, its not a big deal. If you think its art, then its art. If not, then its not. It doesnt matter.

Digital will overtake physical eventually. Its just inevitable. Get used to it.
That being said, im sure physical will exist for your entire lifetime. Lots of people like you feel the same and want a paper book or a CD. Youll be fine.

Also, the "Nintendo does it right and everyone else does it wrong" statement is an old and tired one. Sorry, but thats a shitty thing to say that deducts points off what you say afterwards. Play more games on different systems, recognize the developers that do it right, which is most. When accounting every game released on every console, handheld and pc, most games dont require patching. I know that people love negativity, but a lot of games ive been playing that have patches usually are made to add things to the game or make them run better than they already did. This forum isnt filled with complaints about games being broken. Its not an issue. I havent bought a broken game since the Silent Hill HD Collection on PS3. THAT is an example of a shit incomplete game that needed patching, which still didnt fix it.

 

[iMax]

Can't forget about that great independently created piece of art published by Microsoft Studios!

Regardless, OP is looking too much into the largest gaming entities because they do cast a large shadow. Just like there are art house films for the increasingly commercial film medium, there has never been a time when video games have been able to be expressed purely for artistic purposes.

lol how you didn't highlight journey

 

[CHC]

We go through this same exact discussion over and over again.

Video games are video games, call them art or don't - it doesn't change what they are. Art is a vague and nebulous word, and 9 times out of 10 it's just being thrown around because someone wants something they like to be recognized as more valid by other people. Games are games, enjoy them for what they are and be secure in your own tastes.

OP, you are clearly fixated on the idea of a game being some perfectly finished, static creation that can be frozen and stripped of its context. This will never be the case - especially in an increasingly connected word. The idea that something like a patch diminished the creative worth of a game is beyond silly. That's like saying that the first production year of an iconic automobile should never be iterated or improved upon.

 

[Dangansona]

The definition of art is subjective, so you won't really get a satisfactory answer. The better question would perhaps be, "Are video games no longer a valid avenue for artistic expression?" - to which I would say they absolutely are (and always will be). Look at Undertale, Her Story or Life is Strange from this year.

Perhaps this is closer to what I meant. Are they losing their purity as an expression from the artist/s that created them thanks to the business side of things?

 

[Drencrom]

You can't lose something you don't have. The only people who view games as art are those that play and create them. To the masses, they're just silly video games.

Gamers themselves cannot agree on what is and isn't art within the gaming industry. What defines a game as being artistic? Aesthetic appeal? Narrative? Game play? And where do we draw the line? Why is something like Journey considered a work of art but Candy Crush isn't?

That's completely irrelevant. Just because people can't "agree" on what is and isn't art when it comes to video games (or any medium on that matter) doesn't disqualify the fact that many games have artistic qualities that people enjoy. "Good art" is basically subjective, but any creation that is made with an artistic vision by an or several creators is considered art in some way or form.

 

[Warxard]

You are dead wrong. Video games are art. No doubt in my mind. They are original creations meant to provoke an emotional response, make you consider different perspectives, or immerse you in another world. Many games have a message, complex themes and emotions to convey. They require creativity and skill to produce. What else is art if not those things?

Cool.

I still don't think it's art.

 

[Solemn_In_Berlin]

The question itself is flawed, almost as flawed as the "But is it literature?" argument. Art can't be ahistorical and/or purely essential.

Perhaps this is closer to what I meant. Are they losing their purity as an expression from the artist/s that created them thanks to the business side of things?

That will depend on whether or not a game is being celebrated as a mode of culture and/or artistic expression. Neil Gaiman's Sandman, for instance, is milked like crazy every time there's an opportunity but thanks to fans and critics, it is (and I emphasize is as a verb) more than just that.

Let me pull this up again:

Art forms are created when people treat them as art forms and come to expect value out of them that transcend feelings of mere enjoyment or diversion.

Novels were once considered trifling, well, novelities, in comparison to poetry, schlock for foolish women who wanted easy stories. Then people started taking them seriously as art forms, writing essays about them, analyzing them through close reading and other literary criticism and now they're as entrenched in the realm of high culture as classical music or classical poetry. All other "high art" has undergone a similar process where it started as entertainment for the average person until people started actually analyzing it intensely with the expectation that it will conform to some sort of artistic standards.

This process isn't inevitable though. It requires a dedicated community of critics and creators that insist on pushing mediums to new levels of human insight, insist that creations hold up to close examination and reward soulful, whole hearted and intense levels of engagement with equal levels of unveiled insight on the human experience and the systems and structures we've created. Of course, just like other mediums regarded as "art," there will always be a place for entertainment in the equation, but enough people have to expect more than entertainment from games until we get the mainstream critical mass capable of reaching a "yeah they're art" consensus.

So, short answer, probably, but games being considered art requires us to consistently regard them as such and demand the same depth of craft, ingenuity, and genius we demand out of our established artistic mediums. It's on us. Art isn't something something either is or isn't. It's something something becomes when we think of it with certain expectations.

 

[ScatheZombie]

Never was art.

Yep.

Video games, as a medium, have never really had a true status as art except by enthusiast gamers looking for validation for their hobby.

Most game creators themselves don't really care.

I've always taken the stance that creating a product in the medium doesn't automatically make it an artistic expression. You developed software. But that doesn't mean that an auteur can't make a piece of art using the medium as his canvas.

I don't believe saying "Video games, as a medium, are not inherently art" precludes or prevents individual games from being, themselves individually, works of art. In fact, by excluding the vast majority of software products you are increasing the value of individual works of art within the gaming medium. Because it puts extra emphasis on the unique individuals that create exceptional works of art using video games as their canvas rather than putting them in the same category as profit-driven products by mega-corporations.

But I do think saying "Video games, as a medium, are inherently art" sets the precedent that games that are clearly products, developed as software, by creators who have no intention or desire to create a work of art, are encapsulated under the umbrella and lower the perception of both idea that games can be art and corrupts the value of the games that actually go the extra mile to be works of art in their own right.

But that's just me...

 

[JordanN]

Video games are video games, call them art or don't - it doesn't change what they are. Art is a vague and nebulous word, and 9 times out of 10 it's just being thrown around because someone wants something they like to be recognized as more valid by other people.

But that's why it's so important it's called art.

If you see art as an expression of humanity, then it's something you also want to protect or put special interest on. Similar to freedom of speech.

 

[Lord of Ostia]

Cool.

I still don't think it's art.

You are entitled to your opinion. Mind if I ask why, though? What do you see as art, and why are games not included your own concept of art?

 

[Timeaisis]

Games as art is always a personal opinion. Even then, some games are viewed that way and some are not. To view every game as a work of art is to view all paintings as the Mona Lisa.

Video games are a medium, same as everything else. Its not art by definition, so it's status as art cannot be diminished.

 

[a very cute dog]

Cool.

I still don't think it's art.

For the sake of discussion can you at least provide some reasoning behind your opinion?

 

[GrotesqueBeauty]

The first popular game was literally a box you shoved quarters into, and the precursor was a game where you pointed a gun at the screen a shot stuff. Seems like a pretty linear evolution to me.

 

[Drencrom]

I really don't understand people that can't consider any video game art.

Do you people don't consider films or music art either? Those things are made by people with an artistic vision too, and games can even have music and film in it.

Shit makes no sense.

 

[Holy Order Sol]

Don't care too much about a silly word. You decide what is art and what is not. But why even need that word?

.

The label has no purpose besides seeking validation (and checking that box for legal reasons, but that doesn't need to extend to general conversation). I consider them products/entertainment and my enjoyment has never been lessened for it.

But that's why it's so important it's called art.

There comes a time where one usually stops sucking the dick that pisses on them.

 

[ViolentP]

You are entitled to your opinion. Mind if I ask why, though? What do you see as art, and why are games not included your own concept of art?

The term "art" is thrown around way to easily in my opinion. Videogames are nothing more than storytelling. In a number of cases, done in an artistic manner. But the medium itself as art? Not even close.

 

[Lord of Ostia]

The term "art" is thrown around way to easily in my opinion. Videogames are nothing more than storytelling. In a number of cases, done in an artistic manner. But the medium itself as art? Not even close.

Ok, so do you consider other storytelling mediums, like literature or film, art? Or are those forms of expression also not art in your opinion?