Games are not art. The one thing that art has is that it stands the test of time - you look at Sistine Chapel and no matter who you are, you must admit it's a masterpiece. It is impressive to this day. Now find a game that is not outdated even from 8 years ago. You can appritiate a game for a moment, but after years, you will find that it is ugly/outdated. I love this definition of art that got brought up in this thread, because it means even Pepsi can is art. When you are feeling thrist, it has emotional power to overcome it and enjoy it.
You can defend the point that "but games are art" with "but it's deep" or "it is artistic" or whatever, but games are only made to have fun with them, that's the main point of the game. If that's still the case, than Bay is the greatest artist there is.
A lot of old paintings that are considered art use outdated techniques that could easily be considered outdated today, and don't look as good by today's standards. Besides, something can only be considered art after hundreds of years according to your definition, so we don't really know what is or isn't art if was made in the last 300 hundred years. Plus, people still play old games and enjoy them, so that puts a damper in your point too. I wish Bankai was here for this one, he would make sure nothing was left after he's done.
I think videogames are not art per se. They contain art. They contain pictures. Films. Sound. Music. Stories. All art forms.
The videogame combines different forms of art into one product whose goal is to entertain you, and to engage you interactively.
Video games in general are not an art form, but it depends, because a specific video game can be a work of art. I would call a game like Journey or Shadow of the Colossus a work of art, but then there are many examples of games I wouldn't call art.
Same with movies. There are hundreds of movies out there that could be called art but there's just as many that couldn't.
But seriously, it's a complicated topic. What is it exactly that makes a game artful? Should we give credit only to the visuals/music/story as art, with the game itself only compiling these things? If a game was stripped of the separate artistic elements surrounding it and only the gameplay was preserved, would it still clearly present themes? If a game is only meant to be credited for the actual playable content in the game and nothing else, then how should theater and movies be evaluated?
I'll state my thoughts. I think that games can be art, but not all games are. I think that games that come from indie developers tend to be more artful simply because they are the product of a small group of people or even a single person. Games such as The Swapper and Papo & Yo have gameplay that portray and expand upon themes within the story. Video games are only artful when the developer intends for them to be though. Games such as Smash Bros, Call of Duty, and arguably some RPGs are simply designed to provide entertainment, not presenting any kind of message.
Now find a game that is not outdated even from 8 years ago. You can appritiate a game for a moment, but after years, you will find that it is ugly/outdated.
Wind Waker.
Pikmin
The original Pikmin (Pikmin 2 as well), despite how much I like it, looks like a N64 game. Especially the textures, every Pikmin game so far had trouble with the textures.
Maybe I'm weird, but the only games I've ever found to be "ugly" were some N64 and PSOne games. And honestly? I've encountered plenty who thought those games (FF7, OoT [especially town areas], RE1, Tomb Raider) were ugly at the time. And again, this happens with movies all the time.
I think what really brings artistic value out of a game is a good storyline. It shows that games are not just mindless entertainment with sometimes outstanding visuals. Unfortunately, I feel like good storylines in games are kind of declining. Please, someone prove me wrong with some good recommendations!
Zizzy
3DS Friend Code: 4425-1585-6021 | Nintendo Network ID: Zizzy147
WALL OF TEXT. Sorry if my thoughts are everywhere.
Depends on the game, and how you personally define art.
There are films out there that are considered art. Video quality and sound production may have improved dramatically since a film was released, but it can still be hailed as a masterpiece. I know people who don't think films are art. So it's a personal opinion at the end of the day.
What is art? Is it always visual? No. There are musical pieces that are considered art and their are pieces of literature that are also considered art. A musician paints on silence and a writer paints with words.... if that makes sense.
So when all of these things come together you could have a film or a play/musical. Of course there are a lot of crappy films and plays out there. And there are just as many crappy video games. So at what point does a film become a masterpiece? What makes the Wizard of Oz, Gladiator, ET, Alien, Vertigo and many others masterpieces? Was it some combination of all three? Or perhaps it's a timelessness. If so, how can that translate to an interactive media like a video game?
Heavy Rain looked amazing and had a great story and soundtrack, but it can be scrutinized for it's gameplay, which is mostly quick-time events. So not only do you need music, visuals and story... you need good gameplay.
But you could also argue that games with too much story are just cumbersome and that the story gets in the way. So if a developer goes for a "less is more" approach on the story (ie. Journey), does that help? Journey is a beautiful game because everything mixes so well together. I would consider that a type of art.
Back to masterpiece films being timeless, are there any games like that? Mario Bros. on NES for example is a simple game, but it got the job done and it's fun every time. You could play something more current and decent like Wolfenstein: The New Order, but Mario on NES is still plenty fun. Similar to how you could go and watch Gravity, or you could watch Alien. Both experiences are good, but it's the fact that Mario and Alien were released so many years ago, but yet you can still enjoy them. Despite film and game development improving over time and many things in Alien and Mario are outdated, they are still good.
Many pieces of visual art, you could say the same thing. People don't use X technique any more or Y type of paint or Z type of brush. But does that make a painting any less enjoyable?
So basically it can be a mixture of a lot of different things and how someone feels about it. Thirty years from now people probably aren't going to play Madden 06 or Titanfall. Much like how people now aren't usually going to go out of their way to watch the Manster.
I think what really brings artistic value out of a game is a good storyline. It shows that games are not just mindless entertainment with sometimes outstanding visuals. Unfortunately, I feel like good storylines in games are kind of declining. Please, someone prove me wrong with some good recommendations!
To The Moon. Bastion. Bioshock.
But I don't think it's just story that makes a game artistic. Storylines help a lot because a strong story lets the developers focus the other elements of the game around it.
always thought I'd change to Gyarados after I turned 20 but hey, this is more fitting I guess. (also somebody registered under the original Magikarp name and I can't get back to it anymore orz)
The original Pikmin (Pikmin 2 as well), despite how much I like it, looks like a N64 game. Especially the textures, every Pikmin game so far had trouble with the textures.
The original Pikmin (Pikmin 2 as well), despite how much I like it, looks like a N64 game. Especially the textures, every Pikmin game so far had trouble with the textures.
What??
John 8:7 He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone.
MERG said:
If I was only ever able to have Monster Hunter and EO games in the future, I would be a happy man.
The original Pikmin (Pikmin 2 as well), despite how much I like it, looks like a N64 game. Especially the textures, every Pikmin game so far had trouble with the textures.
Has never played a N64 game.^
The GameCube is capable of a lot more, Pikmin just isn't a pretty game. Luigi's Mansion, a launch title, looked absolutely amazing, and I don't have to mention Wind Waker. Pikmin is one of my favourite GC games, but I just don't think it'll ever win a beauty prize.
Even so, N64? I can't think of a single N64 game that's even close to Pikmin's level.
That's because there isn't! Take Goldenyesore for example. I remember getting to the jungle level and all of a sudden out of no where I start getting migraine headaches from playing it for more then 15 mins. I never beat that game because of this. I think Perfect Dark probably had the best graphics on the system and still Pikmin blows it away. As mush as I liked the N64 era I like the fact we are getting better remakes of those almost awful looking games.
Pikmin (both) we're tranquil and beautiful looking games. Both of them made me feel at ease while playing them. Wonderful landscapes and lots of different and fun things to do. My only complaint was the first was far too short!
Even so, N64? I can't think of a single N64 game that's even close to Pikmin's level.
Perhaps it was a little exaggerated. Although I do think that Kirby 64, for example, looks better than Pikmin.
Once again WHAT??
Kirby looked bland and had no detail. Everything was a circle shape. I think the polygon count had to be 10 per character. One Pikmin Had a higher count then most of the characters in that game. Are we talking about the same pikmin?
John 8:7 He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone.
MERG said:
If I was only ever able to have Monster Hunter and EO games in the future, I would be a happy man.
Even so, N64? I can't think of a single N64 game that's even close to Pikmin's level.
Perhaps it was a little exaggerated. Although I do think that Kirby 64, for example, looks better than Pikmin.
Except Kirby 64 has a simplistic style to it. There not as much detail, the textures are lower res, and it's models are blockier, with fairly tight environments. The game makes it work and its a fine looking game for its time, but I honestly think there's more beauty to Pikmin's style. The textures are still pretty fuzzy IIRC, but for the most part there a lot of detail in its large environments. Its actually pretty marvelous how good it looks when you realize how little close-in pop-in and loading there is.
Even so, N64? I can't think of a single N64 game that's even close to Pikmin's level.
Perhaps it was a little exaggerated. Although I do think that Kirby 64, for example, looks better than Pikmin.
Yeah I don't agree Kirby 64 is rather simplistic and bland and is locked at a 2d viewing angle Pikmin has dynamic environments, has loads of enemies and Pikmin on screen at a time and a good art direction.
Forums
Topic: Do you consider video games as art?
Posts 41 to 60 of 61
This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.