Have videogames reached artistic status?

A forum to talk about stuff that doesn't fit in other categories, such as general Kojima games discussion, other games, etc.
Missing
Second Lieutenant
Posts: 393
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 1:09 am

Have videogames reached artistic status?

Post by Missing »

I don't know how many of you go to Roger Ebert's website (rogerebert.com), but apparently he's received quite a lot of flak lately for making some criticisms of games not being up to the standard of other artforms such as literature or film. He's received many responses of all different viewpoints in said argument. Below are several of the comments I found most interesting.

I have been playing video games since I can remember. I have a college education and work in the computer field…. The video game business is a multi-billion dollar industry with many well known and reputable learning institutes offering BA degrees in the video game field. You have NO idea what is involved in actually developing a video game. “Final Fantasy VII” and “Castlevania Symphony of the Night” are just a few games that set standards for all future games to come, and with technology evolving, games will continue to offer great story content, amazing cinematic sequences and quality music.

Movies like “Field of Dreams” and “Glory” have a great story line and presentation. Games like “Metal Gear Solid” have a great story line and presentation, and actually allow you to take the role of a character, which in doing so allows the user to become emotionally attached to game content. This is an experience that a movie cannot offer because a movie allows you to watch a role of a character as events unfold, unlike with a game, where you actually take the role of a character and make decisions which determine how the story unfolds. Games like “Metal Gear Solid” display the amazing talent that is equipped by the game's developers which consist from story to game play to graphics and much, much more.

software developer,
Saul Ortiz


---

I'm an associate producer at one of the larger game companies and I came upon the article by reading some bloggers' responses. I figured I would write directly to you, however, because I believe you're absolutely right.

My favorite film is Kurosawa's “Ran,” and no -- no video game has come anywhere close. Why not? There is the industry: the game industry is adverse to exploration and experimentation (much more so than movie studios); there is no formal system in place for recognizing and developing upcoming talent; and arguably, games cannot capture real truths of the human condition because nobody over 40 makes them.

Then there are the challenges of the medium: games cannot be didactic, because they offer choice and interactivity. Many games have a "story," but this is either a story set in stone, and nothing you actually do changes it (thus rendering player participation mostly pointless), or it allows you to see one of, say, three different endings, each of which has to be as plausible as the other. I don't think a real solution to this has yet been found.

Which is not to say that I don't think games could eventually grow into
their own as a real artistic medium... but no, it has not happened yet.


---

From a column by Joe Keiser at Next Generation, headlined “Why Ebert was Right”:

… I would argue that the issue is based more on the structure of game creation and the overarching belief in genre – that stories currently told in games are not being told for the sake of telling them, and are instead simple tropes that exist as one required piece of an established genre.

It’s important to note that most games, as a result of not actually existing to tell a story, give up some authorial control to the player. This is not structural; this is a choice on the part of the creators to, say, emphasize visceral thrills or strategic thinking. Many movies do this too, though the nature of film forces a greater amount of story upon them….

A storytelling game should give the illusion of control, the idea that you can do anything, while at the same time putting the idea in the player’s mind that they want to do a specific thing. The artful game creator can use the mindset of the player as a tool to make a story progress in an exacting manner. The advantages of telling a story in such a way can be great – many people feel that the interactivity, the mentality of “being there,” can make a story more impactful to them, and I’d go as far to say that this interactivity can help mitigate the tiny structural losses that can occur to player. It can create a close, almost schizophrenic relationship between the player of the game and the protagonist of the story – an extremely interesting relationship that cannot be reproduced in any other medium.

While the results are not up to par at the moment, there is no inherent inferiority here. There are no structural problems, no loss of control. What is there is potential to speak to people who are not spoken to by great drama or great literature – anyone who’s gone to high school knows that there are a great many people like that. Video games are a young medium, and there are people working every day to work out the problems like the one Ebert is concerned with, but to write it off at this point is to not give it a chance.


---

Please don't delete this right away, once you read the first paragraph and think, “Aw no, another badly spelled series of base insults.”

Two quotes, and a few lines, that's all. First quote, a really recent one:

"I did indeed consider videogames inherently inferior to film and literature. There is a structural reason for that: Videogames by their nature require player choices, which is the opposite of the strategy of serious film and literature, which requires authorial control." --Roger Ebert

Second quote, made half a year ago:

"It's bemusing why games are always compared either film or the novel, as if they were the only art-forms worth mentioning. Why aren't games compared to -- say -- dance or architecture, which are equally accepted as art forms and don't operate anything like the silver screen or the printed word?

This form of inferiority complex has always been endemic in any new cultural form. Last year, I finally got around to reading Aristotle's Poetics and was charmed to discover that large sections involve Ari discussing the relative merits between the new-kid Tragedy versus the established form of Epic Verse. He cites other critics who argue that Tragedy, featuring vulgar elements such as singing and creating works of hugely less scale, is a lesser form than the traditional Epic Verse. Aristotle plays it cute, arguing what they've analyzed as weaknesses are in fact strengths, allowing Tragedy to move people in ways Epic Verse simply can't.

I think he missed a trick in his determination to prove one superior to the other, however. Rather than being a competition where one must triumph, the real situation is that Epic Verse succeeds in different things in different ways than does Tragedy. That's all. In other words, things in ancient Greece were exactly as they are now. The new forms are judged according to the standards of the old forms, and found wanting, until someone notes that while the new form may not excel in one area, it far exceeds the old in others." -- Kieron Gillen ( http://www.escapistmagazine.com/issue/1/7 )

Please sir, don't be too focused, and try and look outside your medium. Games might not be so good at being a totally audience-passive thing, but film is not as good at being a cooperative event as games (not just videogames) are. Film might be better at telling a set narrative than sculpture, but film fails totally at being a real, three dimensional, solid, tactile object as sculpture can be. Film might be better at visualizing a world than novels, but fails at allowing the viewer to go inside the character's head as well as prose does. No medium combines space and time as well as sequential art does.

There are merits and limitations to any medium. And art is an abstract concept where no one can totally agree on with anyone else in the same way.

And at the end here, I can't resist this one quote by Douglas Adams:

“Anything that is in the world when you're born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works. Anything that's invented between when you're fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.”

Oh, I'll skip the bit about how most movies these days aren't exactly art by anyone's opinion.

Simon van Alphen


---

All this hullabaloo about video games. I play them. I enjoy them. They have their place as a form of entertainment, more like sport than art.
This is not to say that the people who create the projects are not artists. But the experience of playing a game is more about fast twitch muscles and the speed of your neurons.

One thing of note that must be said. In “Gamers fire flaming posts, e-mails...,“ the point is brought up several times (and I’m paraphrasing here) that “games are a billion dollar industry” or “they make more money than movies” etc. When did we start measuring merit in dollars? To be fair, one could ask the movie industry the same question. But honestly, there is another billion dollar industry in the United States that I wouldn’t consider art: pornography. Although, I guess the case could be made that it is an interactive form of entertainment as well.

Phil Thompson
Fort Collins, Co.


---

I hold a Ph.D. I am a professor of philosophy. I have also played videogames since Pong, and have played most of them on most of the systems over the last 30 years. I still adore them and spend too much time playing them. I am about to play one now. But to call them art along the lines of literature, architecture, dance, theater, movies, sculpture, photography, or any other generally accepted art form is risible.

The level of writing and number of solecisms in the letters of the defenders of videogames (VGs) should serve to as a prima facie vindication of Mr Ebert's view. Moreover, the defenders of VGs doth protest too much, methinks. But we can say more.

Videogames may be difficult to make, requiring great thought, skill, planning, and care, but so is an armoire made of okra. That doesn't make either one art. VGs may be entertaining, escapist, enjoyable, and absorbing, but so is masturbation, and that doesn't make either one art. What art does that VGs do not, and probably never will, is edify and ennoble (even in the form of subversion). Moreover, and as a result, art endures. We are reading Cervantes and Goethe, performing Shakespeare and Moliere, and listening to Mozart and Beethoven hundreds of years after their works were created, with no end in sight. We aren't playing NES games 20 years after their creation. Indeed, they weren't being played 5 years after their creation. My garage is full of old videogame systems that will never be turned on again simply because new and better systems have come along. By contrast, when you buy a Chagall painting, you don't throw away your Van Gogh.

Videogames, as the name vaguely suggests, are GAMES. Games are not art, unless tennis, chess, bridge, and Monopoly are art as well. So why don't we just enjoy the great games out there and not try to make them into something they're not just to assuage the guilt we feel for letting them take up so much of our time, or to aggrandize ourselves for engaging in such a putatively lofty pursuit?

Best regards,

Dr Barton Odom
Adjunct Professor of Philosophy
Tarleton State University
Stephenville, TX


---

Just to chime in late on the gaming/art debate, I should point out that gaming might actually be compared to some forms of contemporary poetry. The L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E poets, for instance, denied that it was necessary for the author to control the semantic exchange that is ostensibly inherent to literature, and developed increasingly challenging ways of undermining the communicability and emotive value of language and literature. In a lot of contemporary poetry, then, it is not a representation of beauty or feeling that is meant to motivate reading, but rather the realization that a reading and a mis-reading are equally possible and equally valid.

Contrary to Roger Ebert's suggestion that real art is predicated on "authorial control" (which can never be complete, and always leaves room for resistance), several of fiction and poetry's most stirring and provocative recent works have denied the possibility of such control altogether (with varying degrees of success, of course). The inability of any medium and any communicator to ever have true authorial control and prevent his/her audience from playing with their meanings as if their art were a video game is, in fact, one of the most basic conclusions that follows from Derrida and deconstruction.

I would also hasten to add that, in a rather humorous inversion of the suggestion that video games need to take inspiration from the art forms of literature or film, several excellent poets write poetry that draws from or is based on video games -- Charles Bernstein, Christian Bok, and Darren Wershler-Henry come to mind immediately.

Neil Shyminsky
Toronto, Ontario


---

I personally have mixed feelings in this discussion. On one hand, games are often much more imaginative than films, simply because they aren't confined to reality. Developers can take any implausible idea, and make it work within a game. You're never going to see Katamari Damacy made into a movie, because it just wouldn't work.

But despite the level of creativity found within the industry, I still don't think games reach the emotional level that both film and literature do. I'm sure games could reach that level, but it would be pointless for them to do so. Games are only about entertainment. That's the sole reason behind their creation. As long as they can keep you entertained with whatever tasks they've given you to accomplish, that's all that matters. Film and literature are passive artforms. They're not necessarily created to entertain, nor are they necessarily made to benefit anyone but the people who created them.

Normally, game developers who desire to make story a more integral part of their games -- such as Kojima -- are still forced to do so using cinematic conventions. Does plot or character development usually occur within the game itself? No. It occurs through cutscenes and other non-interactive methods instead. Half-Life is one of the only games I can think of that completely immerses the player in its world and story in a way that's only possible in games (at least as far as interactivity is concerned).

Another reason I think games fail at being art is because the media is constantly evolving, even moreso than movies have over the years. Developers seem more concerned with the technical possibilities of game creation, rather than artistic possibilities. Developers seem to believe that player-immersion in games comes more from photo-realistic graphics than it does from well-developed characters and storylines. This is largely the reason why games do become so outdated over such a relatively short period of time.

Well, that's my opinion. Now if anyone else has an opinion they'd like to express, let me hear it.
Marc
General
Posts: 3379
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 2:46 am

Post by Marc »

I've considered games art for a long time now. I don't see why people (real gamers) are inclined to see otherwise. If one game can be considered art then that's all it takes. Just give it time and more people will feel the same, I think. When the biggest-selling games are based on orgies of violence, then I guess it's not all that surprising that people don't consider them art, but the ones worthy of artistic merit are out there. But something can be entertaining and artistic at the same time.

At least it's nice to see a serious discussion about the topic. I always wondered what Ebert thought about games. He dropped the occassional comment, but never went into that much detail in the past.

In reponse to the guy who said the industry is adverse to exploration and experimentation -- yes, there is a tendency to stick to a formula if it sells, but there have been great innovations over the years (mostly from Japan), a lot of it in the arcade scene. The force feedback of the original MGS, Samba de Amigo's maracas, Taiko Tatsujin's drums, DDR, and so on.

And the depth of Policenauts's fictional world is at the very least on par with one in any film or novel, if not superior. That's one of the best science fiction works ever.
Missing
Second Lieutenant
Posts: 393
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 1:09 am

Post by Missing »

I think the real question of games' artistic merits is what can they allow you to experience that film and literature cannot. Simply allowing you to control a situation isn't enough. A good movie should make you feel with a character's dilemma, no more or less than a game would. Is playing Call of Duty any more intense than watching Saving Private Ryan? I don't think so. In fact, it's less intense because your overall perspective is limited to a single character at a time, whereas a film can jump around from person to person in any given situation. And let's not forget that games have to be fair towards the player, so your ability to survive is raised which limits the experience as well. These are just some of things that games will need to overcome in the future.
OtakupunkX
Second Lieutenant
Posts: 398
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 7:37 am
Location: N/A
Contact:

Post by OtakupunkX »

Games, along with anything else made by humans that is meant to be relevant, are art. Art has a very vague definition nowadays, so games should be considered art, it's just that gaming is still viewed by most people as something nerds do instead of sleeping or, due to all the crazy political stuff going on, training for mass-murderers.
User avatar
Randam
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 3:25 pm

Post by Randam »

I think that video games are a true artform that has long gone un-noticed. Until now, when their has been more cinematics in the games and the scenes. Now if they can only get those guys from In Living Color to do reviews for video games like.. "Mhm..I gave Metal Gear Solid 4, two snaps and a twist!" or "What'd you think of Fantastic Four for Playstation 1?" "HATED IT!"
Image
User avatar
Rick Deckard
Second Lieutenant
Posts: 367
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 4:43 pm
Location: L.A. 2019

Post by Rick Deckard »

The majority of videogames are not art because they don't aspire to be anything other than either superficial entertainment or a sensible financial investment. Which is why there are more bland franchises and lazy movie cash-ins than games made by people who actually have a passion for the industry and are looking to create something new, original and exciting. Although I suppose that applies to the movie industry as well.

Anyway, yes, some of them are, probably...
User avatar
87th
General
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 3:35 pm
Favorite Game: MetalGear 2: Solid Snake
Kojima games owned: METALGEAR SERIES
MetalGear (MSX2) [European]
MetalGear (NES) [European]
MetalGear (Famicom) [Japanese]
MetalGear 2: Solid Snake (MSX2) [Japanese]
Snake's Revenge (NES) [European]
MetalGear Solid (PlayStation) [European]
MetalGear Solid: Premium Pack (PlayStation) [European]
MetalGear Solid: Integral (PlayStation) [Japanese]
MetalGear: Ghost Babel (Gameboy Color) [European]
MetalGear: Ghost Babel (Gameboy Color) [European]
MetalGear Solid 2: Sons Of Liberty (PlayStation 2) [European]
MetalGear Solid 2: Substance (PlayStation 2) [Japanese]
MetalGear Solid 2: Substance + The Document of MGS2 (PlayStation 2) [European]
MetalGear Solid 2: Substance (Xbox) [European]
MetalGear Solid 2: Substance (PC) [European]
MetalGear AC!D (PSP) [European]
MetalGear Solid 3: Snake Eater (PlayStation 2) [European]
MetalGear Solid 3: Snake Eater - Premium Pack (PlayStation 2) [Japanese]
MetalGear AC!D2 (PSP) [European]
MetalGear Solid 3: Subsistence - 1st Edition (PlayStation 2) [Japanese]
MetalGear Solid 3: Subsistence - Promo copy (PlayStation 2) [European]
MetalGear Solid 3: Subsistence - 1st Edition (PlayStation 2) [European]
MetalGear Solid: Digital Graphic Novel (PSP) [European]
MetalGear Solid: Portable Ops (PSP) [American]
MetalGear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots - Limited Edition (+ Bonus Disc, Soundtrack and 6" Old Snake Action Figure) [European]

SNATCHER SERIES
Snatcher (Mega CD) [European]
Snatcher (Saturn) [Japanese]

POLICENAUTS SERIES
Policenauts Pilot Disk (3DO) [Japanese]
Policenauts (3DO) [Japanese]
Policenauts (PlayStation) [Japanese]
Policenauts (Saturn) [Japanese]
Policenauts (Saturn) [Japanese]

ZONE OF THE ENDERS SERIES
Zone Of the Enders (PlayStation 2) [European]
Zone Of the Enders: The Second Runner - Special Edition (PlayStation 2) [European]

BOKTAI SERIES
boktai: The Sun Is In Your Hand! (Gameboy Advance) [European]
boktai 2: Solar Boy Django (Gameboy Advance) [European]

OTHER SERIES
Penguin Adventure (MSX) [European]
Kabushiki Baibai Trainer Kabutore (DS) [Japanese]

KOJIMA-RELATED GAMES
Konami Krazy Racers (Gameboy Advance) [European]
Super Smash Bros. Brawl (Wii) [American]
PSN: eighty7th
Wii Friend Code: 4890580757769739
Location: Zanzibarland
Contact:

Post by 87th »

I agree. killer7 is art, Pop Idol isn't. Simple as that.
Missing
Second Lieutenant
Posts: 393
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 1:09 am

Post by Missing »

OtakupunkX wrote:Games, along with anything else made by humans that is meant to be relevant, are art.
Yes, but how many games are meant to relevant?
OtakupunkX
Second Lieutenant
Posts: 398
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 7:37 am
Location: N/A
Contact:

Post by OtakupunkX »

Missing wrote:
OtakupunkX wrote:Games, along with anything else made by humans that is meant to be relevant, are art.
Yes, but how many games are meant to relevant?
That's a hard call, but, like most punk rock or literature, one can find relevance in any game if he chooses to seek it out.
User avatar
Billy the Kid
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 3:11 am
Location: internet

Post by Billy the Kid »

The question is: are videogames art, or are they artistic?

Sure, all videogames require some form of artistic creation, and therefore art will always be invovled. Character artists, texture artists, illustrators, music creators, etc. etc. etc... But is the game itself "art"? I don't think so.

Even the most "artsy" game is not truly "art", but rather, an arti-filled experience. Imagine an art gallery, where you get a tour as you play laser tag, and role-play the characters shown in the gallery... is it art, or is it just a fun sport? Somebody has to create, orchestrate, organize, anticipate, regulate and promote this activity, but what is the focus? The paintings, the role-playing, or the laser-tag? One person might come for the art, and simply play laser-tag in order to see more of it, while others come for the laser-tag, and ignore the paintings.

Some would call the "laser-tag art tour" an art form in itself, because it inherently requires so much artistry, but the art-filled activity can never be pure art because as soon as you give the guy a laser-gun, it becomes a sport.


But this does not make it any worse than "art". In fact, I think videogames surpass "art" in many ways, because in one sitting you can hear great pieces of music, see great artistry, hear a great story, and (unlike movies) take on the responsibility of progressing it, in a fun and engrossing way.

Art wishes it could be videogames.



EDIT: Here's a final thought...

Asking "can videogames really be considered 'art'?" is the same as asking "can a week-long ocean liner cruise really be considered 'eating out'?"
I'll make ya famous.
User avatar
Artemio
Site Admin
Posts: 2947
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 11:33 am
Favorite Game: Snatcher! ... no wait, Policenauts...
Kojima games owned: http://junkerhq.net/kojima.html
PSN: Artemio
Wii Friend Code: 6335316353781527
Xbox Live: JunkerHQ
Location: Mexico
Contact:

Post by Artemio »

Very interesting point of view Billy the Kid, I certainly like your way of taking this matter. Never had though about it that way, thanks.
From the mathematical perspective, consciousness might be regarded as a second derivative of sensation.
-- Terrel Miedaner

[Junker HQ]
Missing
Second Lieutenant
Posts: 393
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 1:09 am

Post by Missing »

I agree. That's an interesting way of looking at it, Billy.

There's no question nowadays that movies and literature wish they could be as compelling as videogames, as so much of it is truly awful and not even meriting to be called entertainment let alone "art".
User avatar
Rick Deckard
Second Lieutenant
Posts: 367
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 4:43 pm
Location: L.A. 2019

Post by Rick Deckard »

Oh, come on. It's true that there's plenty of awful literature and movies, but there are so many more awful videogames. To suggest that directors and writers generally aspire to create something as compelling as videogames is ridiculous - it's an artform with very little merit (although to be fair it hasn't been around that long). Even the best videogames are nowhere near the same level as the best films or novels, or even just 'quite good' ones.
User avatar
Billy the Kid
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 3:11 am
Location: internet

Post by Billy the Kid »

Rick Deckard wrote:Oh, come on. It's true that there's plenty of awful literature and movies, but there are so many more awful videogames. To suggest that directors and writers generally aspire to create something as compelling as videogames is ridiculous - it's an artform with very little merit (although to be fair it hasn't been around that long). Even the best videogames are nowhere near the same level as the best films or novels, or even just 'quite good' ones.
We're not talking about the established library of novels or films versus the library of games... it's about the potential for an artist.

Videogame Art Potential Checklist:

Text (books) = Yes (ex: In The Darkness of Shadow Moses)
Video (film) = Yes (ex: Resident Evil for PSX intro)
Audio (music) = Yes (ex: pretty much any game)

Right here, you have the potential for great books, movies, and music -- plus, of course, gameplay!

But there are obstacles in the way of this potential being reached:

1. Respect for the medium. The term "game" itself carries a lot of stigma that will prevent most people from using videogames to their full potential. They think games should be games, and art should be art.

2. Gameplay. Too many people suck at videogames to even give it a look. Games have been getting more and more complex, so the average joe who's never picked up a controller is left out in the cold if he wants to experience the game's other good qualities. MGS3 subsistence is changing this, in a way, with their "existence" disk.

3. Limitation/accessibility. Unlike movies or books, experiencing a videogame means that you have to limit yourself to a certain console with a certain library, and a certain controller, and certain hardware... books and movies can both be picked up and enjoyed by either reading/popping into any DVD player. It's just a matter of taking it off the shelf and enjoying everything it has to offer.

4. Rapid evolution of the medium. Consoles come out every few years, improving and evolving, but also ensuring that it will happen again in the next few years. The 360, PS3, and Revolution will all be surpassed by newer consoles by 2009 or whatever, and although the next oes will be even better, I think it actually takes the threat of stagnation to promote creativity.

Imagine if the PS3, Xbox 360, and Revolution were the only new consoles for the next fifty years... By that time, I'd by 70! And in that time, formulas, tricks, markets, awareness, acceptance, and need for innovation would all have been refined and improved because the medium itself has remained constant. Different controllers, peripherals, and types of games would need to be developed because consumers would demand it, and it would become something you could actually judge properly. Companies would search for new talents, take risks, and award innovation.



But despite all of these obstacles in the way of the potential being met, this in no way can be held against videogames. I maintain the position that "art" < videogames.
I'll make ya famous.
User avatar
Rick Deckard
Second Lieutenant
Posts: 367
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 4:43 pm
Location: L.A. 2019

Post by Rick Deckard »

Billy the Kid wrote:Text (books) = Yes (ex: In The Darkness of Shadow Moses)
Video (film) = Yes (ex: Resident Evil for PSX intro)
Audio (music) = Yes (ex: pretty much any game)
Simply because videogames incorporate several different mediums such as text, video and audio, doesn't mean they put them to particularly good use or are at all innovative with them. It's true that many are, of course, but you can't claim that videogames are fundamentally superior to literature and music because they can 'do more.' What good is a potentially brilliant medium if nobody's doing anything innovative with it? And who's to say anybody ever will, or at least to the extent to which artists have pushed films/literature/music so far?

Also; what are you talking about exactly?
OtakupunkX
Second Lieutenant
Posts: 398
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 7:37 am
Location: N/A
Contact:

Post by OtakupunkX »

The Resident Evil PSX intro had worse acting than most student films, and I know, because I've done a few of those. That's not a good example for a video in a video game at all.
User avatar
Billy the Kid
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 3:11 am
Location: internet

Post by Billy the Kid »

I am talking about the big picture.

The greatness of movies and books is in its rich past and "status". Videogames don't have a rich past, nor status, and therefore they're inferior? Who cares if RE didn't have good acting? The fact is that it could have had it.

As I said before, this isn't about Shakespeare vs Miyamoto, or Spielburg vs Kojima, it's about ink and paper vs computer technology, and a movie vs a videogame.

Pen and paper, though quaint, afforable, and traditional, is FAR inferior to digital technology. You could literally have hundreds of books on a single CD. Same goes for music and images. It's permanent, compact, and even editable.

There's no doubt that the intro to RE was awful, but the fact is that the potential is there. It is about 'doing more'.

You see, what is the purpose of a movie? To entertain, and to tell a story for a few hours... to whisk the viewer into another time and place, whatever it may be. Videogames go a step further, and actually involve you, the player, into the world. MGS is a perfect example of this, and the Existence disk in Subsistence is proof that, with money and demand, videogames can do everything that movies can, and more.
I'll make ya famous.
User avatar
Rick Deckard
Second Lieutenant
Posts: 367
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 4:43 pm
Location: L.A. 2019

Post by Rick Deckard »

Billy the Kid wrote:You see, what is the purpose of a movie? To entertain, and to tell a story for a few hours... to whisk the viewer into another time and place, whatever it may be. Videogames go a step further, and actually involve you, the player, into the world. MGS is a perfect example of this, and the Existence disk in Subsistence is proof that, with money and demand, videogames can do everything that movies can, and more.
Yes, the player is involved in a world - but it's not much fun if the world isn't engaging or exciting and is full of clichés. MGS3 is a really terrible example - you couldn't possibly argue the point that it's anywhere near the same level as a decent film. It's the equivalent of a Steven Segal thriller, really, and perhaps not even that, considering the fact that Under Siege at least had Gary Busey in drag.

Potential is useless if it's never fulfilled. It *is* about what has been done with a medium and not what can be done. If videogames die out in a few years, you can't say that it was a superior medium to film because it could have done more. It's like arguing that TV is fundamentally better than radio because it has pictures. Yes, it's a medium with more potential but that doesn't mean I'd rather watch an average day's British TV over an average day's British radio. And films aren't just about entertaining and telling a story.

Videogames have *some* potential, but they're never going to be as 'good' as the best films/novels, are they? They're not more daring or more innovative than most art, and certainly aren't better by default.
User avatar
Billy the Kid
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 3:11 am
Location: internet

Post by Billy the Kid »

Now, now, no need to be like that. If I've outstayed my welcome, I apologize. Obviously you don't "get" what I meant with my first post, even, or refuse to acknowledge it, since you're still going on about the library, and not the medium.

So... bye.
I'll make ya famous.
User avatar
Rick Deckard
Second Lieutenant
Posts: 367
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 4:43 pm
Location: L.A. 2019

Post by Rick Deckard »

No, I suppose I don't understand what you're trying to say.

'Videogames are *better* than art because it's a medium with more potential' - yes?
ShockleyHaynes
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 6:42 pm
Contact:

Post by ShockleyHaynes »

I responded to Billy the Kid's post on another forum, where he also explained his ideas. Perhaps I can elucidate what he's getting at by my disagreement with him.

This post contains spoilers for Resident Evil 4
Billy the Kid wrote:But this does not make it any worse than "art". In fact, I think videogames surpass "art" in many ways, because in one sitting you can hear great pieces of music, see great artistry, hear a great story, and (unlike movies) take on the responsibility of progressing it, in a fun and engrossing way.
I disagree. I think it’s a mistake to assume that quantity replaces quality as the criteria for a worthwhile experience. For example, Resident Evil 4 incorporates unsettling (and at times exciting) music, derelict environments, and a story about a ancient destructive species. However, the music rarely achieves much that’s memorable, the quality of its environments have been surpassed in painting, and its storyline is like a retarded exercise in H. P. Lovecraft’s horror aesthetic.

Video games must achieve a sort of balance between their parts in order to be successful. In other words, neither the music, visuals, or story ought to exceed the quality of their partner parts. (Unfortunately, quality writing is one of the most alien aspects of composition to the gaming industry.) That means that none of them will possess enough legitimate aesthetic power to really draw the player into the experience of that specific part, because it would topple the whole composition.

For example—Berlioz’s composition “March to the Scaffold” or Rachmaninov’s “Isle of the Dead” both call the audience’s attention to the passions involved with their subjects. The live orchestra isn’t the show, so to speak, but the music is the focus. These artistic compositions require that the audience remove itself from visual stimulation—often by closing the eyes or sitting in a darkened room—in order to engage the full texture of the music. A video game cannot incorporate a player in an intense experience like that, because (a) it must keep everything on an even keel, without allowing any of the parts to possess enough idiosyncrasy to dominate the whole, and (b) the game must keep the player moving in order to live up to the medium’s required element of interactivity. This means that the player has no time to reflect upon the experience, because he must constantly engage himself with the experience.

Art, in other words, requires a degree of aloof participation. The meditative qualities of that experience cannot be replicated in a video game, without the game dispatching with its necessary element of interactivity.
Billy the Kid wrote:Art wishes it could be videogames.
Maybe in Hell. ;-)
Billy the Kid wrote:Sure, all videogames require some form of artistic creation, and therefore art will always be invovled. Character artists, texture artists, illustrators, music creators, etc. etc. etc... But is the game itself "art"? I don't think so.
Well, I’m not entirely sure about this. Bear in mind, I don’t think that video games are art. However, I don’t think they’re not-art for this reason.

Similar aspects of artistic composition factor into stage drama. I ran stage crew for the Juliard Opera Company at NC’s Brevard Music Center for a summer, so I have some professional experience with this. Individual aesthetic decisions are made regarding backgrounds, costumes, props, even the textures and variations of the lights used to present the actors on stage. To quote one of my former crew-buddies’ t-shirt: “Without Crew, theater is nothing but a naked person standing alone on a plank of wood emoting in the dark.”

Good theater requires a good script, good actors, and good direction, but it’s nothing without the other effects. And I think that the total composition can rise to the level of art in certain instances.
OtakupunkX
Second Lieutenant
Posts: 398
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 7:37 am
Location: N/A
Contact:

Post by OtakupunkX »

ShockleyHaynes wrote:
Billy the Kid wrote:But this does not make it any worse than "art". In fact, I think videogames surpass "art" in many ways, because in one sitting you can hear great pieces of music, see great artistry, hear a great story, and (unlike movies) take on the responsibility of progressing it, in a fun and engrossing way.
I disagree. I think it’s a mistake to assume that quantity replaces quality as the criteria for a worthwhile experience. For example, Resident Evil 4 incorporates unsettling (and at times exciting) music, derelict environments, and a story about a ancient destructive species. However, the music rarely achieves much that’s memorable, the quality of its environments have been surpassed in painting, and its storyline is like a retarded exercise in H. P. Lovecraft’s horror aesthetic.

Video games must achieve a sort of balance between their parts in order to be successful. In other words, neither the music, visuals, or story ought to exceed the quality of their partner parts. (Unfortunately, quality writing is one of the most alien aspects of composition to the gaming industry.) That means that none of them will possess enough legitimate aesthetic power to really draw the player into the experience of that specific part, because it would topple the whole composition.

For example—Berlioz’s composition “March to the Scaffold” or Rachmaninov’s “Isle of the Dead” both call the audience’s attention to the passions involved with their subjects. The live orchestra isn’t the show, so to speak, but the music is the focus. These artistic compositions require that the audience remove itself from visual stimulation—often by closing the eyes or sitting in a darkened room—in order to engage the full texture of the music. A video game cannot incorporate a player in an intense experience like that, because (a) it must keep everything on an even keel, without allowing any of the parts to possess enough idiosyncrasy to dominate the whole, and (b) the game must keep the player moving in order to live up to the medium’s required element of interactivity. This means that the player has no time to reflect upon the experience, because he must constantly engage himself with the experience.

Art, in other words, requires a degree of aloof participation. The meditative qualities of that experience cannot be replicated in a video game, without the game dispatching with its necessary element of interactivity.
I don't agree with a lot of this, mainly the section about how video games must "acheive a balance between their parts in order to be successful". Look at the visual novels that are so popular in Japan; There is very little gameplay to speak of. There's also arcade-style indie games with no stories and other games besides visual novels that eschew compelling gameplay in favor of compelling story.

Also, the part about the player having no time to reflect upon the experience - That time comes after the game is turned off. I'm sure I'm not the only person who doesn't just think about a game when I'm playing it.

And besides, art is pretty much anything made by a human being, reguardless of the work's quality. If video games are not art because they consist of various elements such as video, music, etc., then technically films are not art either because they too consist of various wildly different elements.
Missing
Second Lieutenant
Posts: 393
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 1:09 am

Post by Missing »

I have to take issue with some of the things you said, Shockley. While I agree with your opinion that games have not yet reached the levels of "art", I disagree that their collective parts can't exceed to be any greater than one another, because they have to be in constant synchrony. While all the elements must be in tandem for the player to enjoy the game, a skilled game creator -- just like a skilled composer or film director -- is able to make all elements of their game's individual qualities to exceed as well.

The problem is that there are not enough skilled game creators, which is the reason games are not taken seriously among other artforms. Like film and music, games are made to profit. The majority of games being released these days aren't trying to be anything more than what is already on the market. But there will always be those who put extra care and consideration into their work to deliver more than the norm. Those people are the ones who have brought games as far as they have today. So even if they're not "artists", one cannot dispute their genius. People will continually bring new things to games, constantly evolving and reshaping ideas, so who's to say what will become of things down the line.
User avatar
Tao
Posts: 51
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 5:53 pm

Post by Tao »

I think simply speaking, there are artistic qualities in every video game in existence, no matter how fundamentally simple they may be. Even Centipede has some artwork on the cabinet, if nothing else. In that respect, they contain art forms (of sorts), but the sum of the products is limited in it's ultimate goal: a game does nothing more than provide entertainment for it's audience. This is their primary goal. Fun. We look at them as things of play, as do developers, because that's what they are. This is what needs to change if the mainstream wants to consider these games art. But really, is that what we want?
Missing wrote:The problem is that there are not enough skilled game creators
I think what's the real problem is the lack of an audience. I imagine there are lots of creators and people with ideas out there somewhere that know that their artistic game could never be mass-produced because of sales. No one will support a loss.
Missing wrote:...aren't trying to be anything more than what is already on the market.
Once again I think this is the consumer's fault. Companies like things that are already proven.
Missing wrote:People will continually bring new things to games, constantly evolving and reshaping ideas, so who's to say what will become of things down the line.
Absolutely. You never know....

Winker Watson, The Gamer's Quarter wrote:...games are FUN. They are perceived as fun, fun is their purpose. Games are never going to be viewed as anything but fun because they do not attempt to be anything else. The games we have that are not viewed as fun are seen this way because they are failures. If we want games to be viewed as the new artistic medium, then we need to have a game that stands apart from what we currently have.

So.

I propose an unfun game.
...maybe one day. :wink:
ジョン. ♪♪
Missing
Second Lieutenant
Posts: 393
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 1:09 am

Post by Missing »

Tao wrote:I think what's the real problem is the lack of an audience. I imagine there are lots of creators and people with ideas out there somewhere that know that their artistic game could never be mass-produced because of sales. No one will support a loss.
That's true as well. With the production costs of games going up with the rise of technology, you can't profit on releasing a simple game anymore. At least not on home consoles. At least the Internet has a large fanbase for underground games, even if the developers aren't profiting from them.
Post Reply