video games as art

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLKVg-2d54c

I love me some extra credits, and this video is one I always come back to whenever I hear people saying games shouldn't be anything other than pure entertainment. If you can watch it, go ahead and watch it before commenting. If you can't, the basic idea is this: if novels, film, and music can try and explore deeper themes within their constraints, why can't video games? And also, why are people so against the idea in the first place? I'm not trying to push anybody's thinking here, but I do wanna open a discussion.

Extra Credits is what happens when liberal kids have to much time on their hands and think they actually have the right answer.

Video Games are not Art, its entertainment and despite what "extra" says when some indie developers start to get artistic ideas we get to see horrible books like Gone Home, Dear Esther, Everybody's Gone to the Rapture and to a certain part Flower, Journey.

So no its not art and hopefully never will be.

@Jacanuk: Well if that's how you feel, that's okay. However, I feel that some form of exploration is needed in games. Otherwise, games will always be demonized and treated as a child's pastime when clearly, more adults than kids play games nowadays.

I loved Journey as an interesting take on the Hero's Journey storytelling technique. And I get that some people only play games for the sake of gameplay. Those games are not gonna go away just because "art" games exists. And remember, film was once considered entertainment, and is now widely accepted as an art form due to their ability to tackle subject matter that speaks to people. I believe video games have that same opportunity, only more so due to the interactive nature of the medium. Hell, there might come a day when they won't even be called "video games" but something else.

The games meant to only be games won't go away just because some others that want to tackle deeper subject matter exist. League of Legends (as an example) will always stick around, even if another Shadow of the Colossus type of game gets made.

Yes they are, and they don't even have to be something like Gone Home or Dear Esther to be called art. Is storytelling not an art? What about the visual look of the game? the voice acting? the directing? the soundtrack? Just as a movie, when playing a game, those elements causes you to feel emotion, and that's basically art.

I hate the ideal and the push for games to be art. It is hurting gaming. They never talk about their game play. All of the "art" they talk about is from other parts.

When people talk about the depth of art then they talk about internal conflict or social issues. The problem is games in their purest form can not talk about those. If a game does look at them then it is the movie being place onto of the game and not the game part.

Games at their cores are about practical problem solving and art does not care about that.

@wiouds: I don't think that's what's hurting gaming. Because some games are all about problem solving, but other games are about evoking an emotional response through interactivity. You might not like those games, but there are plenty of games that fit your needs. Why not let other people like a different kind of experience?

@mastermetal777: Games certainly can be art, like anything can be seen as art. Art is highly contextual and in the eye of the beholder

BUT. gamers want to enjoy them in ways more than just 'high art'. We see award season on TV celebrating chosen, culturally profound films as just showbiz, pay raises and expensive self-flagellation in our generation. The Comedy Central roast of James Franco could be just as culturally relevant to a viewer, but back on topic...

I think the perspective of gamers is that games aspirations are different and wider than the aspirations of film and literature. People talk about games being in this adolescent stage where they have to grow up, but last I checked the South Park kids haven't left 4th grade. We're now realizing that they were in their mechanical zenith, when they weren't chasing Hollywood but instead were trying to be engaging in unique ways, and weren't trying to facetiously live up to the image of successful metagames like WoW. Halo, GTA etc but pursued their own identity. Knowing what they are and what they aren't. They foster heavy competition and teach about winning, losing and perseverance and critical thinking in ways film and literature frankly can't.

The self indulgent and educational aspects serve gamers in ways that non gaming folks with self-proclaimed "refined" tastes (*bleccch...snooty old fogies*) in entertainment will never understand. When you look at the first printed books and earliest theatre, and how acting changed at the turn of the 20th century. They were chiefly about exploring the humanities, and recording knowledge for humanity.

Games do explore that to great extent as well and can do that in many new ways, but what was technically the first video game in 1961? Spacewar!

See the shifting priorities here? Though we have an idea what kind of period interests went into that game, not all that Aristotleian or Alice walker if you catch my drift.

DOOM wouldn't have made sense to a lot of screenwriters and directors in its birth. Neither did Mario and look at the results. It borrowed a lot of abstract ideas the creators were just into, and made em work in an interesting kitschy way.

And besides, can't video games introduce problem-solving and be considered art? As an example that I know I use a lot, Shadow of the Colossus is considered by many to be a work of gaming art due to its compelling world and minimalistic storytelling. And what is the main gameplay mechanic? Getting on top of gigantic beings in order to find their weak spots and slay them, all while trying to avoid getting thrown off. If that's not problem solving, I don't know what is.

Games can be art, the interactivity of the medium has insane potential; the problem is, most games are structured like bad movies, especially the indies. Walking simulators are just mood pieces, they'll never be art and on top of everything they're all inherently bad games, excluding perhaps The Stanley Parable

Spec Ops: The Line could be considered art as far as I'm concerned, for its sheer depth, symbolism and the interactivity aspect

Now I wonder: for those who see games as art, what games do you consider to be an example of a gaming work of art? Aside from the aforementioned Spec Ops: The Line. I'd include Shadow of the Colossus, BioShock, Dark Souls, and to some extent Portal and The Last of Us (my opinion).

As there are many forms and styles of art out in the world, I believe every game has a unique aspect that can be labeled as artistic. If you take into consideration that there are many aspects to a game, and it doesn't have to be Journey or Shadow of the Colossus or Okami to be considered an art form.

Consider something like Doom. Would that be art? As a milestone in gaming history, you could argue that at the time, it had many artistic qualities. Graphically, for the time, perhaps. Its gameplay may have been artistic as well, combining addictive elements and fast paced gun play. You might not agree that its storytelling aspect was particularly artistic, but I dont think thats the only way a game can present itself as a form of art.

@Allicrombie: well that is something to consider. Gameplay innovation that shaped the industry should be taken into account as well. But I believe storytelling should be considered if a game features it prominently in connection with the gameplay. It just depends on what the devs want to do with the game.

@mastermetal777: if you're getting into storytelling, you're entering very subjective territory. You mention games that feature storytelling prominently, say any of the Final Fantasy or Persona or Tales series of games. You could argue that they feature storytelling as an artistic aspect but what about those games where storytelling isn't the main focus of the game? Would game series such as Halo, or Gears of War or Call of Duty be considered less artistic, story wise, as their stories may not be as prominently featured or as fully realized as different genres of games? I don't think there is a right answer, it just depends on your perspective.

First off being interactive does not make something a game.

What makes a game a game is the game play. A game play is about practical problem solving and its been that way for 1000+ years.

If you are going to call something a game then I think you should look at the game play as the most important part.

@wiouds: Then why not call our medium by a different name that everyone can accept? Or rather, allow a different kind of experience than making complex gameplay. I believe they will always be called video games until a term acceptable for non-traditional "games" becomes known.

@Allicrombie: let me rephrase. I meant games that feature the story as a main hook for engagement as well as gameplay.

Good luck with that.I have no problem if you can push it since stage plays and wind up pocket watch are different so should games and those interactive story.

I am still worried about the bleed over. Look at Spec Ops the Line. Too many praise it but the game play is average at a few part and the rest is below. The story is Sh** when you compare to a huge number of stories. It is just intellectual porn (think torture porn but with intellect hooks).

^This guy thinks CoD is among those better stories

At least CoD try to build up the characters in their stories and give them more depth than what is in Spec Ops the Lie.

I rest my case

First, tell me about him before the story?

Second, tell me why you like the game play?

We already discussed this in detail and I'm not going in circles, you proved that the material is unfortunately beyond you and I have nothing more to add

@wiouds: didn't this discussion happen on another thread?

And if I may give my opinion, I believe Cpt. Walker is meant to be a stereotype of the soldiers seen in video games, but is forced to confront the horrors he commits instead of brushing it off like the protagonists in CoD do. He becomes torn by the fact that he commited a war crime

As for the gameplay, it was intentionally average to show you just how ridiculous it feels when placed in a (mostly) realistic scenario.

But if you wanna know what made this game stand out, read Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad or watch Apocalypse Now, which this game pays homage to.

Boring debate only used by snobs of other art to act like they are truest of snobs.

Depends on your definition of art. What do you consider a piece of art? Something that is created by human, or something that more than meets the eye. Or something that has philosophic values behind it. Would you consider it art if it had expressed different values than your own? Would you still consider it art if it offend you? What about if the product was widely express as a "bad product", does it still go under art?

It all comes down what is your definition and perspective of art.

I was thinking about writing a long blog about this sometime. There was suppose to be a talk about it on the system wars podcast, but I'm not sure if it's happening anymore.

The simple answer to this question is yes as a product of culture and creativity all games fall under the category of art. There is a more complex and in depth discussion to be had once you jump down that rabbit hole culture, art, and classification/nomenclature.

@Minishdriveby: man I'd love to be a part of that podcast lol

@mastermetal777: Yeah, it's been delayed a couple times due to e3 and what not. My stance on the subject is that art is a creative expression of culture which has an extremely wide range. Art isn't made for a single purpose. The water bottle I have next to me is art as much as the picture of "The Nostalgia of the Infinite" that I have on my phone. They were made for different purposes, the water bottle for commercial asthetic and the painting for a philosophical statement, but both are products of are culture. One might be considered low art, the other high, but I don't think the classification system really matters when "low art" plays a big influence in topics of "high art." Low art defines a culture where high art reflects on the culture. Video games may be low art; they may be high art, but they are art.

The problem I have this game is that they want the main character to be affected by what he did but they do not give me a base line to work off. It would be like someone coming up to me and tell me to water some plant with a watering can but the can is empty. You can not have him be one of the moist shallow character and be allow to make him go through some deep trauma. A story must stand on it own. That story did not earn anything and at best it is leaching off of other things. They treated the art of story telling as if it was trash and people still call it a great story.

The entire comment about the game play is why I do not like the push for game as art. That like saying what you hear from music does not matter or what you see in art does not matter.

@SovietsUnited: Walking simulators are just mood pieces, they'll never be art and on top of everything they're all inherently bad games, excluding perhaps The Stanley Parable

One of the things that comes up in art philosophy classes is how artistic mediums spend a large amount of time on self-exploration...and I don't mean exploring one-self, I mean the artwork explores the medium itself with a piece of artwork.... a novel about a man writing a novel, a poem about writing poetry, etc. There are whole movements dedicated to this sort of thing, including a lot of modern painting, which a lot of people who don't paint scoff at because it just looks so random, but it is in fact an ongoing attempt to distill painting into its purest form by eschewing any element that other mediums can capture.

Stanley Parable is an important step for games as art because of it basically being a game about making games, and to some extent, about playing games. It shows the technology has reached the point where an example of the medium is capable of commenting on its own creation. Whether or not that is enough to call games art, it is enough to show that they can be. We have to take it on a case by case basis.

Be sure to write it, i'd love to put a link to it on my blog.

Really interesting subject.

In my opinion art is using a medium to convey a message. Games are mediums. So Games can be art. Case closed.

Sure some video games can be considered as works of art, I really can't see why not. There are movies, music, and books that are considered to be works of art so there's no reason why some games can't be either.

Games don't need to explore deeper themes to be art. Games that focus on being pure entertainment are art as well. Compelling, fun gameplay has just as much artistic merit as a well written story.

Heres the thing.... Everygame I've heard being described as "art" is always leeching from other mediums, its "art" is expressed in Texts, Cutscenes, Audio Journals, and a bunch of other things that have absolutely nothing to gameplay.

The real question is, CAN GAMEPLAY BE ART ?

@Lulu_Lulu: only if it serves the purpose of telling a story or delivering a message through its mechanics, which is easier to do than people think. But we're held back by the mentality that all games should be "fun" in some way.

That mentality is not holding use back. There is nothing wrong with wanting a game to have the best game play it can and not accept poor game play. It is sad that they let Spec Ops The Lie get away bellow pair game play and get praised.

The mentally can is hurting is the ideal that game can tell a port or delivering a message. The game play of games can not do those things because of what game play is about. Game play is about practical problem solving. In other words game play can not tell a story or delivering a message and people need to accept that.

@wiouds: Does it always have to be about problem solving? Why can't it introduce an emotional response? What about horror games? Those games are praised because their mechanics instill a sense of discomfort and hopelessness that horror is all about. If horror games can achieve this without problem, why can't other games achieve the same thing with other emotions like joy, anger, or even depression? Games aren't always about having "fun." Sure there are still traditionally fun games to play, but that's not all that the industry should be about, in my opinion. It should be about engagement through interaction, not strictly "let's have fun"

@mastermetal777

I think "art" goes beyond narratives and delivering messages.

@wiouds

Hmmmmmm, I wanna disagree with you but I have nothing to disagree with.

I was gonna say adventures games use story (according to the Dictionary a story is:an account of a sequence of events) and gameplay quite well, but thats not entirely true, the gameplay, when putting to gether a sequence of events, doesn't actually happen in game. All the game does is provide and interface to execute or record the events, the real gameplay takes place in you brain.....

So yeah... Its difficult to disagree with you.

@Lulu_Lulu: storytelling is one humanities oldest traditions, so why can't it be considered part of the "high art" circle? Besides, as an example, most paintings tell stories, whether real or fiction. And thinking about how the world works in all its aspects - physical, emotional, spiritual (if you prefer) - has been the work of humans for the longest time, from scientists to philosophers to artists. So why is it that paintings, novels, music, theater, and film can do these things while most people want video games to stay away from such topics? I'm just curious as to why this is the case.

Reflection is always healthy. But from that to art is still a long way.

The problem with art is that it tends make cliques and also make critics reward the narrow even more and disregard the broader appeal.

But as you i liked Journey and also Flower and many other games that goes down that route but never forgets that they are also games, which is the problem with interactive books like Dear Esther and Gone Home, both are static experiences no matter who you are or what you do you will always end up with the same result the only difference is how you as the observer reflect, and oh doesn't that ring a bell (ie what you get from books), but is certainly not what you would expect from a game.

But you are right that art "games" wont remove or hinder other games but it will skew the coverage and as you know coverage is important for any game, so when editors have to decided between yet "another" COD shooter and some art "game" they will usually go for the art game.

So of course there is room enough but just because there is room enough doesn't mean that we should make games art, also making game art will draw in a lot of mainstreamers and from what i have been told mainstream is bad.

@Jacanuk: "from what i have been told mainstream is bad."

The only people who say that are hipsters, in my experience. Mainstream isn't inherently "bad." It just makes things more accessible, which is apparently some form of dirty word amongst gamers for reasons I can't even comprehend.

I agree that mainstream isn't bad but i will admit though that it do attract some anti-gamer practices like microtransactions, F2P, more multiplayer focus etc.

Anyways games are not art and i still hope they stay entertainment more than they begin to be accepted as art.

@Jacanuk: I agree microtransactions and F2P aren't exactly great practices for the gamer and their wallets (even though I think Steam is a bigger threat to the latter lol), but more multiplayer focus can be good if done well and kept isolated from games meant to focus on single-player experiences. I mean, look at the esports crowd, which attracts more viewers each year than...well, actual physical sports.

And like I said, it's fine you don't think games are art. I know plenty of people who share your opinion. I argue against it, but to each their own.

Entertainment and art are not mutually exclusive.

Horror games are a poor thing to point at. You see the horror is invoke from other source like the setting around you, the sounds and so one. For horror games they have a number of point that the hurt the game play to bring out the horror. Some games have poor game play that if you change the setting it is not a good game. There are some horror games that all you do is move and click on paper. The horror games with more complex game play have movement that the game play stop and you enter a virtual haunted house. Also with the horror games with more complex game play, I find myself not afraid and even suppressing any shock I feel to continue one with the game. Speaking of shock, the worse jump scare I ever had was in a CoD game.

I think there need to be more to art than just introducing emotional response. There too many items out there that introducing emotional response that I would not call art.

Interaction does not mean it is a game.A choose your own adventure book is not a game. Many games do provoke emotional but these are minor. Also these emotional response are beyond the control of the game play and game mechanics.

My statement about how game play is about practical problem solving comes from my observations of games from sports to table top games. You can not force some thing to be a way base off your opinion. The reason games are the way they are is because of what they can and can not do.

Not always but art is rarely entertainment and Entertainment is rarely art.

Music is art. Movies are art. The thing is, when people hear the words games and art they get worried and automatically think about games like Dear Esther and Gone Home where there's no gameplay, but it's completely not true. A lot of the components that make a game can be art like the music, the story telling, the level design, the voice acting, and obviously the art style of the game. It doesn't have to be an interactive movie to be considered as art. Think of games like Half-Life 2, or the first Bioshock.. They do all those aspects to perfection, how is that not art?

wolfenstein and watch dogs are art

I have no idea why it wouldn't be.

I agree and disagree.

First, lol at your opening sentence. It is true not just in games but in most "indie" areas.

Art is such a hard word to pin to something because there's so much fraud out there in the first place. However, there are a select few i'd consider art. Nintendo exhibits something all its own in just about every respect. From music to gameplay to graphics. They don't follow trends and simply express and perfect what comes out of their mind.

Then on the other hand you have people thinking a game is art because it is coated with some graphical filter like Okami.