127 réponses à ce sujet

[AdmiralCheez]

Saphra Deden wrote...

No, films as an art form do much more than that. They are about the way a shot is put together, the way a scene transitions. Look at Stanely Kubrick's work.

I have yet to see a game that uses gameplay as art.

The gameplay is what is important. If that isn't used as art then games aren't art.

My argument is that games are basically movies in which the player controls the action, therefore adding a level of aduience involvement not present in any other medium, at least not to this degree.  You can releate to the main character of a novel or film, but in videogames you are the main character.  Every decision you make, you are forced to own.  Every action you take immediately affects your environment, whether it be shooting a bad guy or altering the destiny of an entire civilization.

I provided a link to The Escapist at the beginning of this thread.  Check 'em out; they present their arguments far better than I could, especially in my current state (yay, stomach flu).

[LiquidGrape]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Gyroscopic_Trout wrote...

...are you really willing to say that anyone who's ever been emotionally invested in the story of a video game is wrong?

Yes.

If the storyline of a game engrosses you, then you are engrossed by the art of writing.

You keep throwing red herrings around.

If "art" is what defines the inherent potential of any given format, the interactive arts have already proven themselves.
Like I said, my desire to interact is expressed through the gameplay. No matter how basic or limited, it is, in and of itself, as artful a construct as any snippet of writing or cinema.

Modifié par LiquidGrape, 28 février 2011 - 12:31 .

[AdmiralCheez]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Inferior ones.

You say that as if the Oscar-winners were the only movies to ever exist.

Is Pac Man art? Pong? Those are games, just very old games.

Yes.  They combined a simple visual/audio interface with audience interaction.  If player does X, Y happens.  There is no purpose to it other than watching these interactions between player and interface unfold.  The ease of which the player can interact with each, plus the entertainment he or she can derive from such an ultimately pointless exercise, make each game a succesful piece of design and, therefore, art.

Of course, I'm one of those horrible people who considers logos, t-shirts, toasters, and buildings works of art, too.  Anything that requires effort on part of the creator in order to present an abstract concept to the audience through means of something that can be directly experienced is art, in my opinion.

Graphic design major, lulz.

Modifié par AdmiralCheez, 28 février 2011 - 12:44 .

[LiquidGrape]

Saphra Deden wrote...

For a game to be art the gameplay must be artful. I have yet to hear of a game where the game play is art. Where the game play expresses anything.

I keep telling you; the very idea of gameplay expresses all that is necessary to satisfy your definition.

[Gyroscopic_Trout]

How about survival horror? The best of the genre (Silent Hill, the original Resident Evil games) create a tense, paranoia fueled atmosphere that affects and is affected by the game play. Story doesn't even enter into it. I remember one time playing Silent Hill 1, I suddenly heard what sounded like someone walking on broken glass and nearly soiled myself. I was looking all over the room, trying to figure out where the noise was coming from. This is a mechanic that only works in an interactive environment; it elicited an emotional response from the player; that seems like art to me.

[Nebuyl]

I think the problem with trying to decide if video games are an art is we seem to have different definitions of what art actually is.

Art = Anything that stirs something in the heart/soul. A beautiful picture. A lovely melody. An engrossing story. Video games can have all of that.

Art can also be anything that that is perfect/is close to perfect. Killing can be an art (obvious Thane Krios reference is obvious). It must be quick, efficient, and painless. Same can be said for gameplay in video games. The gameplay needs to grab interest, keep that inerest, introduce things throughout the gameplay to make it feel fresh, make it feel like your actually doing something, etc.

All those things come together to make videogames an art. And, in my humble opinion, ME2 accomplishes those things.

[AdmiralCheez]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Well if an Oscar-level game is ever made (in which the gameplay part is the defining aspect of it and is expressed artistically) then I'll eat my own words.

Write it down. I'll do it.

I'll take that bet, because a few titles have come damn close.  Only a matter of time, now.

So is a seesaw art?

Is graffiti on a stop-sign art?  Is a two-second YouTube clip of some fat guy falling art?

The answer relies entirely on where you draw the time.  How much does presentation matter?  Effort on part of the creator?  Reaction on part of the audience?  Intent of the creator?  Et cetera.

Modifié par AdmiralCheez, 28 février 2011 - 12:59 .

[Iakus]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Inferior movies.

Once again.

The music is artful. The story telling can be artful. The graphics/scenery can be artful. However none of those things are essential components of the game.

For a game to be art the gameplay must be artful. I have yet to hear of a game where the game play is art. Where the game play expresses anything.

Is Pac Man art? Pong? Those are games, just very old games.

Even the oldest films, entirely silent, were capable of being art (and often were).

I'm a little confused here as to what hypothetically speaking, would constitute artful gameplay?  Would this be how something was executed?  How controls react?  How dialogue choices impact events? 

Let's take an example.  One of the most emitional moments for me in ME 1 is the sidequest "I Remember Me" the colonist-specific mission where you have to talk Talitha, a fellow Mindoir survivor, out of suicide.  I truly enjoyed how Shepard coaxed her into talking about her experiences as a slave, witnessing the murder of her parents, and reassuring her that she'sd safe now.  In the end, you convince her to take the sedative and tell ehr that the nightmare has ended.

Now, as Shepard, I could control the dialogue (within limits) the pace at which I approach her, and ultimately decide whether she lived or died.  I would argue that while the writing and dialogue were enjoyable, simply watching it happen isn't what I liked.  It was the fact that I could affect it (gameplay) that made it truly enjoyable,

[jeweledleah]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Inferior ones.

You say that as if the Oscar-winners were the only movies to ever exist.

Is Pac Man art? Pong? Those are games, just very old games.

Yes.  They combined a simple visual/audio interface with audience interaction.  If player does X, Y happens.  There is no purpose to it other than watching these interactions between player and interface unfold.  The ease of which the player can interact with each, plus the entertainment he or she can derive from such an ultimately pointless exercise, make each game a succesful piece of design and, therefore, art.

Of course, I'm one of those horrible people who considers logos, t-shirts, toasters, and buildings works of art, too.  Anything that requires effort on part of the creator in order to present an abstract concept to the audience through means of something that can be directly experienced is art, in my opinion.

Graphic design major, lulz.

you are my hero.  that is all

[AdmiralCheez]

Saphra Deden wrote...

So if anything can be art then nothing can be art.

Discuss.

[AdmiralCheez]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Imagine I've just posted an image of human feces.

Discuss it. How does it make you feel? Is it art?

If you want to use such a broad definition of art then be my guest. However your version of art has no meaning since it can be anything.

Paintings, musical compositions, story-tellers, and film directors have stricter definitions. Their descriptions of art are useful. Yours are not. Their version of art has criteria that can be weighed. Yours does not.

You just completely missed the reference.

Google "Duchamp" and "Dadaism."  You might learn something.

ABRIDGED VERSION: The Dadaist movement was an exploration of what is and is not art.  It expressed a desire to strip the very concept down to its most basic componets in an effort to define the word and spit in the face of modern conceptions of it.

The urinal was both a practical joke and a political point being made by the artist Duchamp, who attempted to get it entered into a gallery show that was a touch snooty about what they accepted as "art."

Modifié par AdmiralCheez, 28 février 2011 - 01:17 .

[Nebuyl]

Saphra Deden, I love how you pick and chose which parts of our arguments to respond to. You completely ignored my "Art can also be anything that that is perfect/is close to perfect," argument. Similar to how art needs to have some effort/skill put into it (somebody else mentioned that, but I'm so lazy to remember who). The very same argument  that counters your counter-argument to my original arguement.

Nodscouter wrote...

 You sir, is most likely a troll.

Indeed.

Modifié par Nebuyl, 28 février 2011 - 01:17 .

[AdmiralCheez]

Saphra Deden wrote...

No, if you want to prove a point using those as examples then the onus is on you.

If anything can be art then everything is art, including video games. However art then has no meaning. Making this argument pointless.

Please see above--post was edited.

In respose to this point, I repeat what I said about graffiti and goofy YouTube clips, which are in effect far purer than a painting or an Oscar-nominated film in their execution and intent.  Are they "better" art?

[jeweledleah]

just a quick question - you say paintings have a stricter definition. really? technically throwing cans of paint at random velocity at a piece of canvas results in in a painting. but is it art? you decide.

I'm going to stick with Nebuyl and AwesomName's definition of art, which boils down to art being a very subjective thing and which also means that yes, video games can not only showcase art, but can BE art.