Support NeoGAF

[Angry_Megalodon]

In any small or medium sized videogame there are more artists than programmers so that should settle the matter. I mean, there is no question that videogames is another form of art. There is music , graphic design, narrative... you cannot get any more artistic than that. Interaction, if any, is another layer of art.

However, I think the controversy has been caused by labeling as "artsy" only a certain type of videogames, such as Journey, Abzu, Ico, Flower or Gris. There has been lot of snobism among journos who suddenly believed themselves on a superior sphere by saying that those obscure indies were art in opposition to "mainstream" games not being art. To me, all of them are. Some abstract, others explicit. Art just the same.


If this is not artistic...

 

[Ogbert]

I personally don't consider Video Games to be art. I think they are a 'craft'.

Much like a perfectly designed chair, you can, of course, simply look at it and think it looks very pleasing on the eye, but the real litmus test is in how comfortable it is.

Likewise, it is the gameplay that has to shine. That kinetic and visceral sensation; the satisfying feedback of controlling an object. It's why I tend to find a lot of feted games like Journey a bit shit - the lack the magic of what makes games unique - the *play*.

 

[molasar]

I personally don't consider Video Games to be art. I think they are a 'craft'.

Much like a perfectly designed chair, you can, of course, simply look at it and think it looks very pleasing on the eye, but the real litmus test is in how comfortable it is.

Likewise, it is the gameplay that has to shine. That kinetic and visceral sensation; the satisfying feedback of controlling an object. It's why I tend to find a lot of feted games like Journey a bit shit - the lack the magic of what makes games unique - the *play*.

You almost talk my language. The fine gameplay keeps me playing games and I consider it art as it is not easy to imitate or properly make no matter how good developers are trained. Though audiovisual elements have huge impact on it. It would not be possible to enjoy it the same way for instance in Street Fighter 3 if all backgrounds were white with black animated stick man playable characters and Nintendo's Game & Watch sound effects.

 

[Ogbert]

Though audiovisual elements have huge impact on it.

Agreed. They certainly do. They can augment the core gameplay into something more than the sum of its parts.

But, to your example, I'd suggest that if the stick man game had the full range of gameplay that SF2 allows, it *would* have been very popular, without the graphics. And, in contrast, if it had looked beautiful but played like ass, the game would have been consigned to the rubbish tip.

You're right that it would not have been *as* enjoyable, but you'd still have played it.

That's why the most common refrain you hear when people review older games is 'it still plays well!'.

 

[Orenji Neko]

I personally don't consider Video Games to be art. I think they are a 'craft'.

Much like a perfectly designed chair, you can, of course, simply look at it and think it looks very pleasing on the eye, but the real litmus test is in how comfortable it is.

Likewise, it is the gameplay that has to shine. That kinetic and visceral sensation; the satisfying feedback of controlling an object. It's why I tend to find a lot of feted games like Journey a bit shit - the lack the magic of what makes games unique - the *play*.

Pretty much where I sit. I feel games have art in them (visuals, audio, and sometimes writing), but the most important thing to me, that makes them games, is the interactive element. If that portion is lacking in favor of the first three, then I don't find myself very engaged. I also find a lot of games that try so hard to be "art" don't usually qualify as very good games by my standards, either because they are very shallow, are lacking in interactivity, or the game design is terrible; with the obvious emphasis being placed on trying to sell what I usually find to be a pretentious idea. Almost like the creators make those kinds of games as "artistic" as possible as if they expect to get blown, eaten out, or declared a prodigy and genius just for making them.

I mean, obviously I would like my games to look good, sound good, and if story is an element, for it to be interesting, but I want none of those things at the expense of the game being actually engaging or fun to play. I love it when all of those elements come together or compliment each other very well, and I'd argue that for the most part they have until we got an influx of....hmmmm, I don't know what you call them (I've seen the term 'walking simulators' thrown about), but a lot of games that want to be movies, or something you kind of witness more than experience or engage with. They usually have one foot on the side of being totally passive (like a movie), and the other foot is squarely on the line.

Actually you know what? I can recall something that sort of acts as the predecessor for those types of games. As an owner of the Sega CD, I'd say those FMV things that swamped the machine are very similar in interactivity to some of the "art" games that exist today. The idea was the same: movie like, this visual experience, blah, blah......and shit, brain dead gameplay. On the other hand, you had games that used that additional technology to serve the overall package while still being engaging video games: Better sound, cool graphic tricks, cutscenes in RPGS...stuff like that.

 

[molasar]

You're right that it would not have been *as* enjoyable, but you'd still have played it.
That's why the most common refrain you hear when people review older games is 'it still plays well!'.

Not sure if I'd still have played it but definitely trying it out. I am a gamer since 80s and I have noticed if games have not enough graphical details or too many of them the gameplay is getting worse for me personally. It has something to do how objects contrast with each other and the way human eyes perceive them (proper sound feedback is/can be helpful here). Too many details, realistic graphics, fast moving objects and shaky-movable point of view causing loss of focus and blending. The same when there is not enough details, low color palette and low resolution. Similar thing with sound effects(including music). Too realistic ones or too simplified causing blending and lack of proper feedback (distinguishable ones are/can be helpful). There has to be the golden mean somewhere here regarding the gameplay. It can be an answer to the refrain 'it still plays well!'. The most of my favourite games are from 90s.

 

[A Rifter in Space]

I wonder if a better way to measure videogames as "art" would be to instead think on whether they're "beautiful" or something like that. I totally agree that it's better to think of them as a craft, where the craft's output can be measure in utilitarian and aesthetic ways.

Games journos look way too much at the visual aspect of games, though. There are a ton of games that are objectively good or beautiful that wouldn't be considered art because they don't have a style that appeals to the small group of zipcodes that are consulted when people wonder if something is "art" or not. Journey is probably something most people would agree is art, but what about VNs that tell a great story? Or games like Earthbound, Chrono Trigger, and other titles where we all could say that the artstyle is appealing but not compared to stuff like Gris or Journey? I'd say games like Chrono Trigger are "art" in the sense that everything it expresses comes together into something beautiful, but I'm sure others wouldn't agree because they only think of the aesthetics of a game rather than its whole as a craft. I don't really know the best way to measure it, but the best part is the discussion and discovery that goes into it because it forces people to think about their opinions and that's what I like to hear about the most.

It's still an interesting discussion to have because games have such mass appeal that it allows normal people to express opinions or have experiences that are just as or more valid than the self-crowned tastemakers who only reside in their self made bubbles and don't dare venture outside of them. I never would have experienced the awesome stuff I have in videogames if I had only been exposed to media that certain cliques wanted me to be exposed to. Instead I got to hear from people who weren't like me at all and had a different perspective to share that introduced me to entirely new genres or series that blew me away.

 

[Ogbert]

There has to be the golden mean somewhere here regarding the gameplay.

It's an interesting suggestion.

I'm tempted to suggest that the SNES, 16-bit aesthetic is close to that mean. There's a reason the style remains so popular, and it can't simply be nostalgia. What that style does imply though is that regardless of the art direction and charm at hand, there will be a focus on gameplay. The game has to sing.

Of course, that doesn't work for 3D.

 

[Superkewl]

Don't think I will ever regard games as art. More like digital distractions to fill my time