Forum / Video Games as a Story Medium: Discuss

• 
  Oliver Hunt

  Jan 30, 03:31am

  I'm not really much of a gamer at all, but it's been a long running debate as to whether video games could ever be 'art'.

  I've been looking into basic design engines, and some are for narrative, text based games.

  I'd also read a book called Rise of the Video Game Zinesters, who pushes for people to design individualistic, personal games.

  Has anyone explored/experimented with this?

• 
  Chris Okum

  Jan 30, 04:57am

  I've always wondered if something that isn't fixed in content can ever be considered art because so far we've never had an art that is interactive. Paintings, music, literature, movies, music aren't interactive. The content is fixed. Maybe it's because I'm not under 35 years old, but I've always considered video games to be just that - games. Some of them are beautiful to look at, and some of them are intellectually stimulating and abstract, but I just don't know if they could ever be qualified as art. I'm sure there are people, really smart people, who could convince me that they are art, that they are currently the most important art, but I've never met these people. I read Tom Bissell's book on video games and while the book convinced me that video games are important it did not convince me that they are art. There's one guy - I think his name is Jon Blow - who created Braid and whenever people talk about video games as art his name is always brought up.

• 
  Oliver Hunt

  Jan 31, 04:45pm

  Huh...the only counterargument I can come up with is that performing arts, or arts with a performative aspect, aren't fixed so much. A play may be written and published, but it's production and performance is a matter of interaction via interpretation. The same could be said of scored music, or probably any music- or probably anything, really, meant to be performed before an audience.

• 
  Smiley McGrouchpants, Jr-Esq-III

  Feb 02, 10:08pm

  "Music videos are art!" people like those in "RES" magazine proclaimed, but, sadly, it's impossible this could be true: you don't CHOOSE the running time of the film; it's already tied to the 3:15 (or whatever-it-is) that's the length of the song. Art, a priori, is when you start from scratch -- the blank canvas, the blank screen, whatever.

  I've been inclined to think of videos like 'zines: you can get ideas out, sure, and play with them ... but, if the willfullness isn't there, starting from ground zero, I think they don't fully qualify.

  (One of the closest examples I can think of -- and a sign of nascent talent later borne out by the director's short films -- is Brett Vapnek's video for Cat Power's "Nude as the News," viewable here: vimeo.com/795266)

  I think this discussion's relevant to the above; video games are nice, and all -- the '80s ones are strangely evocative in their archetypal imagery, before graphics became TOO good, and after "Pong" was surpassed -- but, again, like with "RES" magazine's enthusiasm for the "medium" of video games (something I think diluted their focus on short filmmaking and, perhaps, led to their cultural irrelevancy and untimely demise) the "debate" about whether one got "points" for making videos (moreso what the discussion seemed to serve to advance, rather than a REAL merit-based contemplation), the answer seems to be: "No, sorry, but that's o.k. ... isn't it?"

• 
  Gary Hardaway

  Feb 03, 01:32am

  Both ballet and movies weren't any more than entertainment once. Why not artful video games? I do see something of Chris's complaint about interactivity as a conceptual obstacle but then architecture has always been somewhat kinesthetically interactive. I despise video games, however, and resist saying anything remotely nice about them.

• 
  Smiley McGrouchpants, Jr-Esq-III

  Feb 20, 09:25pm

  Video games are great if you've got a lot of quarters. Otherwise, they suck.

• 
  H-M Brown

  Mar 14, 01:24am

  I'll bite.

  Saying, Video Games is not art is not the way people should go about this, because what is art? It's a subjective term. People who say "This is not art.", either do not know what art is, or think they are an expert or authoritative enough to declare what is and is not art, and their say is final and we should we just accept it. I don't like that sentiment, because I believe art is inclusive NOT exclusive of all works in all shapes and forms.

  No one person can stand up on a soapbox, declare something is not art, and exclude it from the public en masse because they do not like the medium or don't see the art in it. Saying something is not 'art' is an opinion not a fact.

  The question should not be, "Are Video Games art?", but the question really should be "How can we make Video Games artistically better than what it already is?"

  Does that latter question not sound better and more inclusive, plus fun to answer?

  Because I can assure you, my writings have been influenced more by Video Games than any other art form. If that is not how art in its basic form works, than I do not know what art is anymore.

• 
  Chris Okum

  Mar 14, 05:34am

  If I can play the Devil's Advocate here for a minute:

  So you're saying that since art is so subjective, and the definitions of what is and what's not art fluctuates depending on the personal tastes and opinions of the individual throwing the term around, that no one gets to declare what is and what isn't art. But by the end of your post you declare that video games are an art. So, in essence, what you are saying is that no one gets to say that video games are NOT an art (because that's just their opinion), but you get to say that they ARE an art (because, well, that's your opinion). I guess what I don't understand is where is the subjectivity in that? You're making an objective statement (VIDEO GAMES ARE AN ART FORM), just as I made an objective statement (VIDEO GAMES ARE NOT AN ART FORM). But what you're really saying is, Hey, you don't get to make one about video games (because you don't understand them), only I do (because I do). That doesn't seem very inclusive to me at all.

• 
  H-M Brown

  Mar 14, 03:56pm

  You are one individual sharing one singular perspective of what is and is not art and can engage in a debate. You are not, say, a person like Roger Ebert who tried to convince the public at large in his blogs that "Video Games are not art" because he says so, because he thinks he is an authority in art. (As I said in my previous about people they have authority over Art). He even went so far as to define 'art' as a means to exclude video games as an art. That is wrong. That is what I am referring to in my statements.

  The term 'art' is very abstract in nature because one man's trash is another man's art. That's why it's highly subjective. But to do what Roger Ebert tried to do, define Art in totality on behalf of the public specifically so to exclude an entire medium, is wrong.

  THAT is what I'm talking about.

  As I said in my previous comment;

  The question should not be, "Are Video Games art?", but the question really should be "How can we make Video Games artistically better than what it already is?"

  To define 'art' as a mean to exclude any creative work from the term 'art', diminishes all works of art because it casts doubt on the creator's hard work and merit of doing such a work.

• 
  Veronica Purcell

  Mar 18, 02:37am

  My view, video games contains art (i.e., if you define art as drawing, coloring and toning). The more commercial and complex the game, you'll notice a lot more art is captured. The Elderscrolls series is such a game. Hitman is another that also attempts fine facial expressions.

  Concepts and game flow are draw out in many storyboards/diagrams in order to translate it to digital.

  It's, especially, beneficial to be skilled in fine art techniques in order to capture human reality to a fantasy world. FX studios like Weta Works utilises a lot of fine art graduates for their design concepts.

  Having the latest design software only makes it slightly easier.

  Just my experience.

• You must log in to reply to this thread.