Support NeoGAF

[zeitgeist]

I think artistry goes into making games but a final product is never something I would call a piece of art.

That being said, the way the industry is going, it is absolutely getting farther away from being considered art.

The fact that everyone relentlessly compares games to legitimate forms of art like cinema or literature (or modern art which has been dismissed here which just digs everything into a deeper hole) proves that it doesn't stand on it's own as an art form.

Honestly, the gaming community will always be it's own biggest enemy in this discussion because way too many people shout their petulant opinions (like what I'm doing right now) in order to legitimize their hobby.

 

[Durante]

If anything, I would ague that the freedom from the traditional packaged goods model is finally allowing games to mature and diversify as a medium.

People are finally, slowly, coming to terms with the fact that not every game needs to appeal to everyone equally, or at all, or that not every game needs to be built purely as a diversion, or purely as a challenge, or purely as a storytelling medium. That can only be a good thing.

 

[Balb]

I think artistry goes into making games but a final product is never something I would call a piece of art.

That being said, the way the industry is going, it is absolutely getting farther away from being considered art.

The fact that everyone relentlessly compares games to legitimate forms of art like cinema or literature (or modern art which has been dismissed here which just digs everything into a deeper hole) proves that it doesn't stand on it's own as an art form.

Honestly, the gaming community will always be it's own biggest enemy in this discussion because way too many people shout their petulant opinions (like what I'm doing right now) in order to legitimize their hobby.

The conversations around gaming definitely has to change. 70% of the conversation is basically "Game costs X amount of money and takes Y amount of time to complete, therefore having Z value per dollar." Imagine that being the focal point of literary or film discussion.

 

[Northeastmonk]

Why are job listings for video games always for creative design, graphic artists, 3D artists, and creative designers? Do artist come together to not make art?

An artist makes art to use in non-art related content. A creative designer creates, but they make no art.

Is a comic book artist artistic or he is just drawing because he can? Art is such a universal word and I think it's like being "normal", you define what normal is and you define what art is.

I'm taking a sociological perspective and I'm applying my own thoughts, so I don't expect everyone to agree.

 

[Neff]

Games can never 'not' be art. By definition, they're art and always will be.

I do feel though that the e-sports boom, and the way it's promoted, is distancing gaming from the enjoyment of the game itself, like a food critic being more interested in how a meal is digested and how many calories are in it rather than how it looks and tastes.

 

[Northeastmonk]

The idea behind what a video game is may not be art, but how they are created is art or an artform.

 

[FoxSpirit]

That's why I see multiplayer only games as the lowest form of art regarding videogames.

That is solely based on your taste and not on any form of solid foundation.

Multplayer games like DotA2 and League of Legends were not made simply for widest possible audience appeal. They are made to get the most interesting possible game experience in their respective genres. And especially League is also the most alive game out there with Riot constantly testing the waters because the knowledge on "how to create a good Moba" is by no means finished.

I don't know if you can even name a single genre as " the lowest form of art regarding videogames" since you can find minimal effort projects in any genre and on any platform. And games that play like garbage are the true bottom of the barrel.

Spoiler

Sonic 2006 forever

 

[rpg_fan]

Art is worth preserving, However, the people who publish games don't feel like they're worth preserving. We may disagree, but when the creators of the media doesn't even feel like it's art, it's probably not art.

 

[Feep]

Always was art, and always will be.

Anyone who disagrees want to explain how game making can not be art when its multi-disciplinary requirements incorporate multiple classical art-forms?

This.

Maybe I'm biased, because I'm a game developer, but literally almost all everyone on a game development team is doing is art all the time.

Concept art and illustration, modeling, painting, posing, animating, writing, directing, acting, designing, composing, sound design, editing, scene composition...

How is this even still a question? It's utterly absurd. Make a game and tell me it isn't art. Go on. Have fun.

 

[Henkka]

This.

Maybe I'm biased, because I'm a game developer, but literally almost all everyone on a game development team is doing is art all the time.

Concept art and illustration, modeling, painting, posing, animating, writing, directing, acting, designing, composing, sound design, editing, scene composition...

How is this even still a question? It's utterly absurd. Make a game and tell me it isn't art. Go on. Have fun.

All those things are art. But when you put them together, it becomes not-art because reasons

 

[darkistheway]

Why are job listings for video games always for creative design, graphic artists, 3D artists, and creative designers? Do artist come together to not make art?

An artist makes art to use in non-art related content. A creative designer creates, but they make no art.

Is a comic book artist artistic or he is just drawing because he can? Art is such a universal word and I think it's like being "normal", you define what normal is and you define what art is.

I'm taking a sociological perspective and I'm applying my own thoughts, so I don't expect everyone to agree.

A group of artists come together and create a chess set. All who see it agree that it is the most significant piece of art ever created. The sublimely sculpted pieces, the meticulously handpainted board...

My son and I play a game of chess using the set. Is our game art?

That is the problem with calling games art. They are composed of art but not a separate art.

Unless you want to talk about the players creating a art with their 'performance' akin to dance or theater. That is a more interesting take, in my opinion, than the blanket definition of 'videogames are art.'

 

[John Kowalski]

eh, i think the indie scene is doing some pretty interesting stuff especially concerning social landscape play

even sweden of all places has a pretty interesting scene, maybe that's how they keep warm

 

[Feep]

A group of artists come together and create a chess set. All who see it agree that it is the most significant piece of art ever created. The sublimely sculpted pieces, the meticulously handpainted board...

My son and I play a game of chess using the set. Is our game art?

That is the problem with calling games art. They are composed of art but not a separate art.

Unless you want to talk about the players creating a art with their 'performance' akin to dance or theater. That is a more interesting take, in my opinion, than the blanket definition of 'videogames are art.'

Yes, the game itself is art. Next question.

*Even* if you completely separate the abstract rules of the game from *any* of the implementation details...which you can't, no video game can do that...it's *still* art, as evidenced by beautiful design.

 

[Eggbok]

#teamART

 

[Henkka]

A group of artists come together and create a chess set. All who see it agree that it is the most significant piece of art ever created. The sublimely sculpted pieces, the meticulously handpainted board...

My son and I play a game of chess using the set. Is our game art?

That is the problem with calling games art. They are composed of art but not a separate art.

Unless you want to talk about the players creating a art with their 'performance' akin to dance or theater. That is a more interesting take, in my opinion, than the blanket definition of 'videogames are art.'

Uh no, you and your son playing isn't art. You're playing, not creating. You looking at a painting isn't art, but the painting itself is.

 

[Speely]

I feel like indie devs are exploring games as art in really creative and inspired ways these days. Games are art in general, of course, but it seems to me that smaller studios are getting more adventurous about the ways in which they approach creating said art. It's a nice juxtaposition to the AAA pubs who are becoming more and more predictable.

 

[John Kowalski]

lmao and we guys have it good, people have been arguing whether photography is art for at least 150 years now

 

[Northeastmonk]

A group of artists come together and create a chess set. All who see it agree that it is the most significant piece of art ever created. The sublimely sculpted pieces, the meticulously handpainted board...

My son and I play a game of chess using the set. Is our game art?

That is the problem with calling games art. They are composed of art but not a separate art.

Unless you want to talk about the players creating a art with their 'performance' akin to dance or theater. That is a more interesting take, in my opinion, than the blanket definition of 'videogames are art.'

There are many different portraits hanging up in galleries, but the only thing you can do is stare at them, draw over them, burn them, or destroy them. That chess piece could be locked away in a cabinet somewhere and I could call it art simply because I have no other chess set in my glass case. All art is brought to the attention of the person it astonishes. If I pull a game out of the loud arcade and watch as its moving by itself then I discover how unique it is. The child no longer talks over the noise nor do they hit it with their fist or kick it with their teeth.

You define the value of its artistic worth. You define it by your values and what you do with it. I can call wit a brand new SNES box in a glass case and call it art. It's art to me because the game has never left its box and the game is something no one else has ever created.

Anything can be used, created, and destroyed. Our value and the available ability of the piece itself allows it to stand out. If you add their looks or how it is played then you can see its original design. One game isn't the same as all the others. Rarity or not, there is a creator to any piece of art regardless of what it is. It's how you feel about that changes everything.

 

[darkistheway]

Uh no, you and your son playing isn't art. You're playing, not creating. You looking at a painting isn't art, but the painting itself is.

There is no need for videogames to be art. All of the elements already are art. If you watch a cutscene, you are looking at the art of animation. If you admire the character design, you are looking at the art of drawing. If you like the story, then you are experiencing the art of writing, etc.

The only thing that differentiates videogames from their parts is playing. And as you said, it is not art.

 

[IISANDERII]

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.



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.

I said something like that. Games are less art and more like visiting a flea market. BUY THIS BUY THAT 15% DISCOUNT LIMITED TIME OFFER HOW WILL YOU BE PAYING SIR etc
Absolutely monetization informs game design. There's no point in designing and offering time savers if the game doesn't have grind.

 

[SwolBro]

wait, when was video games ever considered art?

 

[Henkka]

There is no need for videogames to be art. All of the elements already are art. If you watch a cutscene, you are looking at the art of animation. If you admire the character design, you are looking at the art of drawing. If you like the story, then you are experiencing the art of writing, etc.

The only thing that differentiates videogames from their parts is playing. And as you said, it is not art.

Through playing, you are experiencing a piece of art created by another person. Just like by watching an animation. You and your son playing chess isn't art, it's experiencing a work of art through play.

I think the disconnect happens because unlike movies, books and paintings, there are elements to games that are very similar to sports. We use the word 'game' to refer to League of Legends and The Beginner's Guide, which have almost nothing in common with each other. I think both are art, but they have different priorities.

 

[darkistheway]

There are many different portraits hanging up in galleries, but the only thing you can do is stare at them, draw over them, burn them, or destroy them. That chess piece could be locked away in a cabinet somewhere and I could call it art simply because I have no other chess set in my glass case. All art is brought to the attention of the person it astonishes. If I pull a game out of the loud arcade and watch as its moving by itself then I discover how unique it is. The child no longer talks over the noise nor do they hit it with their fist or kick it with their teeth.

You define the value of its artistic worth. You define it by your values and what you do with it. I can call wit a brand new SNES box in a glass case and call it art. It's art to me because the game has never left its box and the game is something no one else has ever created.

Anything can be used, created, and destroyed. Our value and the available ability of the piece itself allows it to stand out. If you add their looks or how it is played then you can see its original design. One game isn't the same as all the others. Rarity or not, there is a creator to any piece of art regardless of what it is. It's how you feel about that changes everything.

Much of what you saying says to me that the 'viewing' of art is a passive experience of feeling. I make the distinction that the experience of gameplay is not passive. It is play, or sport.

Through playing, you are experiencing a piece of art created by another person. Just like by watching an animation. You and your son playing chess isn't art, it's experiencing a work of art through play.

It still, to me, is the experience of animation or film, not a separate art form. Again, unless you want to talk about gameplay as a performance.

 

[Krabboss]

What came before the design? The Mona Lisa can be considered pretty by people of that era. It's a creation and what you see is that we have X amount of games and all those games look different, but we focus on how they play.

So the very premise of a video game is controlling an object on a dark screen with nothing else. That's it. The art is 2nd to everything else.

That was then and this is now. Now you have these entire universes that are defined by their looks. If Chrono Trigger was Ultima or Centipede then maybe it would not be art, but nothing else has created that same world or that same feeling. Games have a certain feeling to them and we are drawn in or mesmerized by their aesthetics. The game has art that has not been outdone. You can take any well known video game franchise and use its art to make people feel the magic about video games. Even if they might not have played the game.

I do see your point, but I feel that we would have called paintings something different years before they started painting.

A video game isn't like a movie, it's running in the background, it's a world built to run off objects and I think you can look at it as a 2D or 3D object, but it's still definitive.

*Centipede and Ultima are still definitive and I am not implying anything else.

Edit: Games were definitive in the 70's and 80's by how they looked. There's just been a huge jump in technology, but they still are defined by their looks.

I'm not even sure what you're trying to say. Games having art in them says nothing about whether games are art. It doesn't really make any sense to call a game art because it contains visuals you think look good. Not only is that a pretty simplistic way to think of art, it also says nothing about what makes games unique.

If you're going to talk about games being art, you need to talk about the ways we interact with them.

You can take any well known video game franchise and use its art to make people feel the magic about video games.

I don't think that's true at all. I mean I'm sure somebody would look at Journey and think it looks pretty, but that would have nothing to do with the "magic" of video games.

 

[Hahs]

Highly subjective topic indeed.


...there's so much gray area it's hard to make a pure valid point on this subject.

Do the teams involved in making linear puzzle games have less compassion about their work than those working for Naughty Dog? Is a school play art compared to play on broadway?

Is candy crush art compared to Uncharted? Personally, I'd like to think that coders, artists, modelers, etc., take some form of pride in their work, regardless the genre, or final outcome - otherwise why do it?

The WANT to get into the gaming industry had to come from somewhere right - the need to express what we've learned after we've learned it - for me that in itself is art.

So my biased conclusion: No, as long as there are people, it is impossible for art and games to be separately associated.

 

[Franchuzas87]

I think films, as a medium, are art regardless of the quality of each individual product.

The same with videogames.

They are instruments to express and connect.

 

[Henkka]

Much of what you saying says to me that the 'viewing' of art is a passive experience of feeling. I make the distinction that the experience of gameplay is not passive. It is play, or sport.


It still, to me, is the experience of animation or film, not a separate art form. Again, unless you want to talk about gameplay as a performance.

Alright... Let's try a thought experiment. Let's say I set out to create an interactive work of art. My intention is to create art that, say, deals with the experience of depression. The finished work looks and functions much like an old-school 2D platformer, except the character can't jump, so you keep falling in pits and can't progress. (I know this is pretty lame, just came up with something haha) I put this work on a screen in a museum, and anyone can play it.

Is it art? Is it a game?

 

[jhmtehgamr20xx]

They've been art ever since Pac-Man, and legitimized art since Virtua Fighter was placed in the Smithsonian museum.

Sometimes the whole "games as art" debate is just pretentious drivel to me; a game that uses the strengths of the medium exceptionally is already art, trying to slap a fantastic story over poor game mechanics is the opposite of an artistic game.

There is no need for videogames to be art. All of the elements already are art. If you watch a cutscene, you are looking at the art of animation. If you admire the character design, you are looking at the art of drawing. If you like the story, then you are experiencing the art of writing, etc.

The only thing that differentiates videogames from their parts is playing. And as you said, it is not art.

Not really. Games offer a capacity for interactivity that other mediums do not. Which is why game is art, b/c a game that goes by the merits of the medium's strengths to present that interactivity, shows an understanding for what defines the basic structure of a video game, just like a film that is designed w/ the merits of strengths of its medium show an understanding for the basic structure of a movie; by utilizing the advantages of their respective medium to elevate user engagement, they become art.

Since a game has the capacity for enabling that level of user engagement, it is therefore art.

 

[Zen_Arcade]

Much of what you saying says to me that the 'viewing' of art is a passive experience of feeling. I make the distinction that the experience of gameplay is not passive. It is play, or sport.


It still, to me, is the experience of animation or film, not a separate art form. Again, unless you want to talk about gameplay as a performance.

What you're describing is interactive art. It is art that needs some form of interaction from a user to display what the artist is intending for the viewer (And in this case participant) to see.

There is no rule of art that says that the person experiencing the art has to be passive in the art itself while experiencing it.

 

[Northeastmonk]

I'm not even sure what you're trying to say. Games having art in them says nothing about whether games are art. It doesn't really make any sense to call a game art because it contains visuals you think look good. Not only is that a pretty simplistic way to think of art, it also says nothing about what makes games unique.

If you're going to talk about games being art, you need to talk about the ways we interact with them.



I don't think that's true at all. I mean I'm sure somebody would look at Journey and think it looks pretty, but that would have nothing to do with the "magic" of video games.

We can not always interact with art, so art has to interact with us before we see it as art. What I see and what I do are personal, they are not always the same. I see a video game run while I am the user, I take part into what's goin on on screen, so a video game is interacting with me.

I do not have to always be a certain user for a video game. I can be a bystander or I can simply be an observer who makes a decision inside what I am viewing.

It can have a superficial form. It can be on both sides. It is designed to be interacted with, but our eyes see and our hands perform based on the object or whatever the game does. What sits on a rom, a cart, or a cd is an expression of that art- played or not. It also comes down to the importance of video games in society, which no one really discusses at all.

 

[Hahs]

They are instruments to express and connect.

...and that, I think, is what is so highly subjective about this topic, because not everyone knows how to express, and not everyone feels connected, yet the medium itself contains so many genres for many people.

 

[darkistheway]

Alright... Let's try a thought experiment. Let's say I set out to create an interactive work of art. My intention is to create art that, say, deals with the experience of depression. The finished work looks and functions much like an old-school 2D platformer, except the character can't jump, so you keep falling in pits and can't progress. (I know this is pretty lame, just came up with something haha) I put this work on a screen in a museum, and anyone can play it.

Is it art? Is it a game?

Interesting. I'll try to filter your idea through my perspective.

It is both. The art is the animation of the man falling into the pit. An over-simplification but just trying to get to my point.

The fact that you cannot alter the character's fate through jumping does bias the player to a more passive experience - where they are forced to align with your intended effect. In the same way you might choose a shade of color for effect.

The game would be the pushing of the buttons.

Now where it gets really interesting is if you could jump. The intent of the artist is to show depression but by allowing the viewer some measure of control, they can deviate from your intended effect. And then it becomes more akin to a videogame.

And then the player becomes the artist and your animation/code/graphics becomes the player's tools of creation. His performance may be art.

 

[Nickle]

Art isn't a static object devoid of human interaction.

 

[Speely]

The cool thing about art is that no one can convince you that something isn't art unless you let them. Therefore, everything is potentially art insofar as individual perspective lets it be. Since art is not just about the creation of it, but about the subjective experience of those interfacing with it in any way, I don't think it's reasonable to try to define what art is or isn't in an objective sense.

To me, games are art. Someone telling me they aren't is like someone telling me that red isn't my favorite color. It's sort of a non-issue.

 

[RipperGrim]

There are still many many games that do their best to be viewed as a legitimate art form and honestly nothing can take that away, if you view movies, books and music as art then I have no idea how you can't see videogames as art. Just look the through the wide variety of indie games and you will see ideas and views brought to you in ways you can barely imagine, even big budget games still strive for that creativity, the

Spoiler

Giraffe

scene in The Last of Us for example shows us an attempt to elevate itself from mindless shooting, it's thought provoking and you can't ask for more in terms of art. Games can make us feel emotions, can make us question morality, they can make us think about ideologies and they can make us appreciate aesthetics and music being combined together in ways only games can do. All you need to do is widen your own horizon and find them.

On another note I always feel this Nostalgia Critic video on the subject of videogame as art is always relevant https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK-HYNXdIJI If you haven't watched it yet I highly suggest you do, it's very well done.

 

[JetSetRadio]

Art?

 

[AcademicSaucer]

Yes.

The Room is art and The Last of Us isn't, because reasons

The Last of Us is a

Spoiler

b-tier summer flick

movie tho .

 

[Krabboss]

There are still many many games that do their best to be viewed as a legitimate art form and honestly nothing can take that away, if you view movies, books and music as art then I have no idea how you can't see videogames as art. Just look the through the wide variety of indie games and you will see ideas and views brought to you in ways you can barely imagine, even big budget games still strive for that creativity, the

Spoiler

Giraffe

scene in The Last of Us for example shows us an attempt to elevate itself from mindless shooting, it's thought provoking and you can't ask for more in terms of art. Games can make us feel emotions, can make us question morality, they can make us think about ideologies and they can make us appreciate aesthetics and music being combined together in ways only games can do. All you need to do is widen your own horizon and find them.

On another note I always feel this Nostalgia Critic video on the subject of videogame as art is always relevant https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK-HYNXdIJI If you haven't watched it yet I highly suggest you do, it's very well done.

When I think of what makes games artful, I probably don't think of a game that tries very hard to be a movie.

Like, I don't think the artful things in Metal Gear Solid are the cutscenes.

 

[Worldshaker]

Of course games are art.

Chrono Trigger proves that. The music, Akira Toriyamas art work, the story/immersion of the world. C'mon son. The industry is moving towards making gaming a service, and games like League of Legends are successfully making gaming into a sport. I think video games are great because of this.

 

[Jeremy]

No, they're not art.

Key components of games are goals, rules, challenge, and interaction.

It's at the very core of gaming with you competing against the obstacles placed by another human. If you take that away, you are not playing a game. Video games are simply surrounded by art.

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

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.
.

Patches have been a part of PC gaming for decades, so the idea that the creation looses creative or artistic integrity because of patches feels like a straight up ignorant knee-jerk reaction. Nobody says that any art is ever done. Video game is already inherently unique in it's interactive nature. I don't see why computational improvements make it less. It seems like a needless obstruction poised by someone coming down with a lot of baggage of what art is.

Your argument about DLC and micro transactions seems to be based on the idea that there is no commercialization in art. Not true. If you look at how most exhibits, museums and gallaries are run around the world, you will see that it has a strong sense of capitalism and desire to generate value by various processes. The idea that The Ballad of Gay Tony or Witcher 3 Seasonpass goes against their products and make them less art is just straight up wrong.
Is there fuckery in the land of DLC and microtransactions? yes- But don't mistake the corporate half assed monetization strategies used by some, as a indicator of the delivery method in its entirety.
I disagree about your comment about physical and digital media, and the idea that digital games are a scary prospect "because servers shut down" is just a a slippery slope. I don't think 10 cent thin transparent plastic DVD boxes with a ps4 logo on a paper game cover somehow signalizes its position as more "true" art. These are just arbitrary definitions.

 

[Cyrano]

A group of artists come together and create a chess set. All who see it agree that it is the most significant piece of art ever created. The sublimely sculpted pieces, the meticulously handpainted board...

My son and I play a game of chess using the set. Is our game art?

That is the problem with calling games art. They are composed of art but not a separate art.

Unless you want to talk about the players creating a art with their 'performance' akin to dance or theater. That is a more interesting take, in my opinion, than the blanket definition of 'videogames are art.'

If a piece of art was made to be interacted with then yes, absolutely, interaction is key to the art functioning. Art is not static. It is a living, breathing creature and evolves with us and through us. Performance art is a form of art unto itself, though I would say performance art has a greater deal of intentionality (i.e. performing for an intended purpose rather than the performance evolving with the experience) than most videogames require.

No, they're not art.

It's at the very core of gaming with you competing against the obstacles placed by another human. If you take that away, you are not playing a game. Video games are simply surrounded by art.

Pretty narrow definition of a game, even by standards of traditional games.

 

[Animal]

Music alone is art. Screen writing alone is art. Drawing alone is art. Designing alone is art. Modelling alone is art. I even consider engineering art.
But I digress.

My opinion on the topic is the following:
If a game contains elements who's creators intended artistic expression then it is art. If a person sees artistic expression (whether intended or not by the creators) then it is art.

 

[Skux]

Of course video games are art, it's just that some games aren't made with artistry in mind and that's where OP's concern comes from.

 

[Enigmatic Rainbow]

No, they're not art.



It's at the very core of gaming with you competing against the obstacles placed by another human. If you take that away, you are not playing a game. Video games are simply surrounded by art.

You should probably look up the definition for art.

 

[Jeremy]

Pretty narrow definition of a game, even by standards of traditional games.

I agree, I'm not good at articulating well. Other people in this thread have put it more eloquently.

 

[Jeremy]

You should probably look up the definition for art.

What are the defined goals, rules, challenges and interaction of this?

 

[Dangansona]

I disagree about your comment about physical and digital media, and the idea that digital games are a scary prospect "because servers shut down" is just a a slippery slope. I don't think 10 cent thin transparent plastic DVD boxes with a ps4 logo on a paper game cover somehow signalizes its position as more "true" art. These are just arbitrary definitions.

I won't address the other points because I can't really argue against them, but for the preservation side of things I was saying that keeping both digital and physical versions of games is important, even if a consumer only cares for digital games. As for the last thing you said, it's perhaps just an imo situation but I do value the feeling of what I hold in my hands being the result of the hard work developers undergo to create the piece of art I'm about to experience. I feel like it's easier to forget that when burning through digital games.

Also for the last time before I put it at the top of the OP, I never wanted this thread to be a "are games art?" thread.

 

[Cyrano]

What are the defined goals, rules, challenges and interaction of this?

I'd say pursuing this line of inquiry weakens your argument greatly. It's quite easy to define all of those with visual media. Individual art pieces have all of these regardless of their intent.

 

[SugarDave]

When will discussions about "muh art" end? Your personal experience and interpretation is gospel. It doesn't even mean anything in the context it's always bandied about.