208 réponses à ce sujet

[FatalX7.0]

saga56 wrote...

games are not art- they are a mass produced product, they dont make games for the ' love of it' if games dont sell well they wont make another.

Did you not read anything else in the thread?

[quethefux]

moneycashgeorge wrote...

Here's my take on this, I think many of you are missing the point.

Modern video games are really a package of several different kinds of media. Some are art, and some are not. Take Mass Effect for example;

The cut scenes are art. Its an animated video, like any other. The environments and models are a kind of digital sculpting, also art. The skyboxes are a painting, that is art. Characters, conflicts, plots, all of these are part of narrative art. The music is art.

Third person shooting? Not art. Inventory management, upgrading, and other game mechanics are not art. These are just...games. Designing them is not art, or else the person who created basketball is an artist.

So, I think that ultimately the only correct answer is that games in it of themselves are not art, but a game may contain art in it.

A story is always art, but a game doesn't need a story to be a game. It does however need gameplay. So Mass Effect, Half-Life, etc., games that focus on the story, are perhaps in most part art. Pac Man is not art, Mario is not art, Call of Duty is not art. These are just.....amusements.

The amount of time it takes to design and consider all possibilities with how something interfaces with a person belongs to the artistic process. You're looking at art in a very basic and limited way.

There are artists that are interested with interfaces (these people are useful when designing interfaces in, say, videogames) and how humans interact with objects in space. This goes into art and spatial theory. When you say "designing them is not an art", that's actually incredibly contradictory. Design is, by definition, an art. It's NOT, however, fine art because it has a purpose.

And, yeah, I'd argue that designing a game like basketball or Monopoly or whatever requires an artistic mind. Have you ever heard of game board designers?

Oh my damn, people. If you're not an artist/lack respect or knowledge of contemporary arts, please stop questioning a respectable and genius trade.

[TomY90]

I think it truly depends on the game itself if it can be considered art - is it visuals/story/sound over gameplay and having fun.

If i recall the art world says something can only be art when it has no function (i.e. can be nothing else but look at it) but most games that is just not the case because its art with gameplay which is very much contradicting the notion the art must have no function to be so.

(this is the same reason that a car can never be considered art even though they have visual merits but they form a function and that is to be driven and go A to

The only game I can think of from the top of my head I would say yes that is art not a game is Heavy Rain because that game is very much more about the story and the visuals over anything else (yes there is gameplay but it rather takes a secondary role in the game)

If you do use this logic it makes it that Mass Effect can not be considered art (in fact virtually all games) because of the fact there primarily goal is gameplay and fun rather than visuals etc.

[Giltspur]

I think Ebert's problem here is he has an overly limited interpretation of what kind of "game" a video game can be.  And he sort of concedes his limited definition of 'game' here:

One obvious difference between art and games is that you can win a game.
It has rules, points, objectives, and an outcome. Santiago might cite a
immersive game without points or rules, but I would say then it ceases
to be a game and becomes a representation of a story, a novel, a play,
dance, a film. Those are things you cannot win; you can only experience
them.

He's basically starting with chess as an example of a game.  And if video games become importantly different from chess, they no longer count as games on his definition.

Here's an argument for games as art:

The telling of a story is an artform.
Video games are a way of telling a story.
Video games are an art form.

Okay, next topic.

Oh hold on, let's consider this idea of a video game not being a game at that stage.  Is it just a novel?  No.  Video games have player input, making them distinct from novels.  Still, the player takes part in the telling of a story.  So, art.  There are of course good ones and there are bad ones.  And some are targeted for mass appeal while others are targeted for a kind of critical appeal with no concern for profits.  But the latter is not the only one that's art.  There we reserve 'art' to reflect our taste in what's good art.  It's all art though.

Now, there has not yet been a Dostoyevsky of video gaming.  And there probably won't be for a long time.  But we shouldn't say this will never happen.  As Ebert himself admits, never is a long time.

[CroGamer002]

saga56 wrote...

games are not art- they are a mass produced product, they dont make games for the ' love of it' if games dont sell well they wont make another.

You can say exact thing for movies and books.

[JudasMesiah]

Vez04 wrote...

Sees thread title.

*Puts on Facepalm*

This is a question I ask due to the fact that Take Back ME movement has apparently succeded in bullying Bioware into changing the ending and thus compromising Biowares artistic integrity and the artistic integrity of videogames in general.

[FatalX7.0]

JudasMesiah wrote...

Vez04 wrote...

Sees thread title.

*Puts on Facepalm*

This is a question I ask due to the fact that Take Back ME movement has apparently succeded in bullying Bioware into changing the ending and thus compromising Biowares artistic integrity and the artistic integrity of videogames in general.

What?

Bioware has called us, the fans, co-creators. They say that we have shaped their games over the years.

They've had feedback threads where we can give suggestions on things that can be changed. There is one right now, on the Story and Campaign board.

I'm getting so tired of saying this to people who are so surprised to see Bioware change something because of the fans.

[quethefux]

TomY90 wrote...

I think it truly depends on the game itself if it can be considered art - is it visuals/story/sound over gameplay and having fun.

If i recall the art world says something can only be art when it has no function (i.e. can be nothing else but look at it) but most games that is just not the case because its art with gameplay which is very much contradicting the notion the art must have no function to be so.

(this is the same reason that a car can never be considered art even though they have visual merits but they form a function and that is to be driven and go A to

The only game I can think of from the top of my head I would say yes that is art not a game is Heavy Rain because that game is very much more about the story and the visuals over anything else (yes there is gameplay but it rather takes a secondary role in the game)

If you do use this logic it makes it that Mass Effect can not be considered art (in fact virtually all games) because of the fact there primarily goal is gameplay and fun rather than visuals etc.

Art with function = design.

Games are visual, auditory, and experiential. These are all hallmarks of the artistic process. Artists and designers are needed to create a certain mood in the gameplay in order for the player to truly understand intent.
If you are playing a game and feel scared, a designer/artist is making you feel that way with their choice in music, set, character, dialogue, gesture, etc.

Non-artists defining art. Cool.

PS Transportation design is art becase design is an art. It's not, however, a fine art. Fine art is art for art's sake. Design is art for the sake of utility. Intent is closer to an artistic defintion. Note the many prestigious transportation design programs across the country.

[FatalX7.0]

JulyAyon wrote...

Art is like beauty, it comes in many shades and no one should hide behind it or take it as an excuse. Art is there to provoke a reaction and that you have to be prepared to take on the chin and react back to it accordingly.

I for myself think of video games as dream machines. Some work, others not. Bioware has a rare gift indeed to inspire people with their games (and an even greater gift to destroy these dreams...but there you go).

This is a good point.

Early access movie screenings, to get a feel of how people like it, and things can be changed accordingly.

Art shows, critics/critique..

Why would you ask people to critique your work if you don't want to change or improve?

*EDIT*

Reading all of this again, I don't seem to make a whole lot of sense. Like I just randomly chimed in and posted something loosely related to the actual post I quoted.

I've never been one to be direct or specific, or heavy on details.

Modifié par FatalX7.0, 25 mars 2012 - 11:45 .

[moneycashgeorge]

quethefux wrote...


The amount of time it takes to design and consider all possibilities with how something interfaces with a person belongs to the artistic process. You're looking at art in a very basic and limited way.

There are artists that are interested with interfaces (these people are useful when designing interfaces in, say, videogames) and how humans interact with objects in space. This goes into art and spatial theory. When you say "designing them is not an art", that's actually incredibly contradictory. Design is, by definition, an art. It's NOT, however, fine art because it has a purpose.

And, yeah, I'd argue that designing a game like basketball or Monopoly or whatever requires an artistic mind. Have you ever heard of game board designers?

Oh my damn, people. If you're not an artist/lack respect or knowledge of contemporary arts, please stop questioning a respectable and genius trade.

lol by your definiton practically any profession could be defined as art. a banker is an artist if he "designs" an efficient banking system. that's ridiculous. I think that what you call fine art is what most people here are calling art.

I maintain that a combat level in Mass Effect, where you can win or lose, where you need skill or strategy, and where you are given an objective, is not art. That is a game. A sport.

The visuals, audio, and narrative are of course all art. So, games IN IT OF THEMSELVES are not NECESSARILLY art, but gaming can be used as a MEDIUM to convey art to the player.

Yes, that seems correct to me.

[Andromidius]

Video games contain art.

Video games themselves are not.

The graphics, the music, the voice acting... That's art.

Bad writing is not art. Its bad writing.

Modifié par Andromidius, 25 mars 2012 - 11:48 .

[FatalX7.0]

Andromidius wrote...

Video games contain art.

Video games themselves are not.

The graphics, the music, the voice acting... That's art.

Bad writing is not art. Its bad writing.

How are they not?

[Khaz]

Andromidius wrote...

Video games contain art.

Video games themselves are not.

The graphics, the music, the voice acting... That's art.

Bad writing is not art. Its bad writing.

[Tirigon]

Tazzmission wrote...

Who knows? Art is so subjective: This exhibit is a boon to the "video games are art" cheerleaders, says Darren Franich at Entertainment Weekly, but "I've always thought it was pointless to argue" about this. After all, "art" may be the most loosely-defined word we have. A skilled athlete is described as an artist on the field. Virginia Woolf wrote about women who planned parties as a form of art. "Really, everyone could be called an 'artist.'"
"The Smithsonian will convince you that video games are art"

This is true.

Obviously that also means that you are right if you say that video games are NOT art.

[philippe willaume]

Of course video games are an art form.
This is a creative from for the public at large like movies, comics or book.

Now as you are probably aware most of the masterpieces were commissioned, i.e. done the people who pays liking.
For example even "history” like the Froissart chronicle were in fact commissioned and did portray the patron or his family in a favourable light.

However those were single piece for a single patron.
In the art for the masses the author has the right and the duty top retain his creative direction.
Did you want Rob or Eddard to die in the game of throne?
Did you want the mist of Avalon end up as it ended up especially after how MZB makes you believe it would have turned out?


No of course, not. We may like it or not like it.

So when a game is telling us a story, we have to respect where the author takes it.
Starcraft would not be the same without Shara Kerrigan story nor would silent storm without the Thor project
The same as in a book, the story of a game is part of what’s defines it.

But (and this is a big booty), games are a product and possibly a service as well hence you do reasonably expect a certain technical quality though out the product.
If you buy a book and the page at the end are missing or out of order you are going to complain.
If you sell me a sawing machine and I get a needle and thread, which is technically the simplest expression of machine designed for sawing, I will be seriously miffed.


So there is defiantly a case where you creative decision need to be supported by the technical aspect of how it is done.
You can’t really have so many unexplained threads in an ending and expect us to make the story up. This is really what creative direction is for.

phil

[Tirigon]

philippe willaume wrote...

Of course video games are an art form.
This is a creative from for the public at large like movies, comics or book.

Of course one might argue that books, movies, comics and music are NOT art either.

I would seriously be offended if someone called Twilight, every Michael Bay movie ever, or Justin Bieber "art".

[Shinobu]

Whether games are art is ultimately irrelevant.
The first question is: is it any good?
The second question is: does the creator want to sell any more of it?

If the answers are "No, it's not good, and yes, the creators DO want to sell more" then the answer is "make it better so it will sell." Whether you call it art or a product, the logic is the same.

Bioware can follow this advice or not, but there is a reason "starving artist" is a cliche.

[orangesonic]

For me a game becomes art, when the story is build to the small details, the universe and the scenarios designs are breath-taking, the clothes, the armour, everything is made on paper before it becomes a 3d model... so i think it is art, one that you can atually interact with...

But no... not every game is art, Bioware games are in my humble opinion (not Dragon Age 2, as it is not art though, just the same scenario over and over again lol)

[orangesonic]

think of it as a car... don`t you think a Ferrari desing or an american muscle car design is not art just because it is mass procuced??

[XqctaX]

this is just so stupid.
videogames are entertainment.
its a massproduct made to please customers with a few hours of passtime entertaintment.
people on the dev team get paid to do a job. make a product.

not some artsy "i think im sooo cool with this peice of crap" why does everyone hate it.
every frikkin time someone tries that sheit its bad BAD BAD BAD.

[XqctaX]

orangesonic wrote...

think of it as a car... don`t you think a Ferrari desing or an american muscle car design is not art just because it is mass procuced??

think of it like this. i glue a (2m in diameter) elephant head on the hood of you car and call it artsy design. vt

[Dav3VsTh3World]

Let me bring up a few video games that can be considered art

MINECRAFT

The routementary law of minecraft is that all matter in this world is a perfect semetrical block that is used to create landmasses and continents that hands cannot create themselves. it offers serenity in the concept of creativity shadowed by the inner demons that are the zombies/skeletons/creeper/Giant Spiders, the stuff that one would feel would bring them nightmares from simplistic design yet complex to finer detail.

Katawa Shoujo

Made for passion rather than profit this artistic tale pushes the boundries of hollywood and storytelling norm that no about of money would ever dare touch and show that storytelling for videogames is not very straightforward as something you would hear in a synopsis, by using disability as curiosity yet showing humanity with the characters each of the writers may touch a bit of their own psychie in these tales. You may never know.

Portal

By using trajectory and simplistic creativity to create complexity with draws upon the inner psychie of ones own mind for thinking, we see artistic geometry in with carefully set primary colours to set the mood of environments and the further addition of emotionless humour to create determination.

Except the turrets ... those guys were just added in there to make it feel more video gamey by adding guns.

See a similar link with all these games?

[abaris]

Han Shot First wrote...

In short, the argument that players are anti-art in criticizing the ending or asking for it to be changed, simply does not hold any water.

Exactly.

Video games are different from any other genre of the entertainment industry. Movies take audiences for a ride. The audience expects to take the passenger seat. Same with book, although I wouldn't even call them part of the entertainment industry.

Games are intended to be interactive and whilst their creation process and the kind of people involved may be vaguely similiar to movies or tv productions, the expectations are vastly different. Taking the passenger seat simply won't do. As a player you demand influence, you demand to be a larger than life figure. You are the hero or villain, depending on you playstyle.

And games are only produced with the expectation to make money. Now that may be the same with movies, but it certainly isn't the case with books - with the exemption of well established authors.

That's the main difference between art and the gaming industry. Games are rarely the brainchild of one individual but a concerted effort of many and unlike art, they wouldn't see the light of day without their mother company expecting more than a return on investment.

[Vulcan101]

There is no clear definition from art and no art. There is no way of defining high art from low art and good art from bad.

It is all relative.

A good book that explores this in detail is John Carey What Good are the Arts? See first two chapters on why arguments over art v non art are pointless.