Are video games art? This is a question that has been mulled to a certain extent, but not discussed often enough. I have seen articles in GameInformer about it and limited discussion online (particularly in reference to Roger Ebert's ignorant statements), but never to the depth that I think this question deserves.

For the above reason, I'm going to attempt to shed some light on (first) why I believe video games art and (second) why I believe this does in fact matter. By no means is what I'm saying necessarily definitive or absolute fact, so please don't believe otherwise. It's just my opinion on the issue. In fact, I'm very interested in hearing other peoples' opinions too, because I believe this is an important issue that should be talked about more (for reasons I will discuss later).

Ok, first and foremost, it's my opinion that video games are not necessarily art. It's hard to argue that every game ever made is (Superman 64 anyone?). In fact, most games aren't art in any sense of the word.

However, there is no need for all games TO be art. All you need is some, and some definitely are.

The main arguments I hear against games being art are that they are interactive (and therefore not predetermined by the artist), too violent and repetetive, and not deep enough. I'm going to answer each of these arguments with a game that proves them wrong. In fact, each of the three games I bring up could make a case by itself for video games being art. All together merely drive the point home.

1. First, the most common argument is that video games are not art because they are interactive and the experience you garner from them is not predetermined. The game I chose to argue this is Fallout 3. This is a perfect example of a game someone would use to actually PROVE that video games are too interactive to be art. However, in fact, by proving that Fallout 3 (such an open-ended game) is art, any games more linear fall of the map of this argument.

My response to this argument is simply that while the experience is open, the ending and story is still structured BY the creators of the game. By this logic, Shakespeare isn't art because you can choose which of his stories you want to read and get a new experience every time. Instead of looking at a game with multiple paths like Fallout 3 (the simple good/evil structured endings) as one individual game, look at it as two possible experiences in the same package, or two games (or pieces of art). Really, it becomes semantics when you claim that having multiple paths or endings or stories is different from two separate novels or movies. Then the obvious argument that Fallout 3's multiple paths take place in the same setting comes up so it apparently somehow can't be two different experiences, but aren't there multiple movies that take place on a spaceship? Or in the same city, like NYC?

Additionally, for Fallout 3 specifically, I DEFY anyone to play the game outside for five minutes and then claim that it isn't art. The desolate landscapes portrayed are easily among the best disaster-style art out there. Even if you ignore all this, there are artists who act in interactive art (Chin Chih Yang comes to mind), which debases this entire argument entirely. The bottom line is Fallout 3 (and all other games) are created and sculpted by people, and if the game is intended as art, there is no reason interaction detracts from that sentiment.

2. Games are all the same and violent, or repetetive, or something similarly biased and untrue. People argue that because games follow a common pattern (like shooting games) they can't be art due to oversaturation of similar content. This argument never made any sense to me whatsoever. I'm going to answer this game in two parts.

First, not all games fit that stereotype of video games (violent repetetive gunfests). For this argument I'm going to use the example of Okami. Sure, some video games are violent or repetetive (or goofy, or comedic, or something else that somehow makes them not art) but there are exceptions. Okami is neither excessively violent nor repetetive. Anyone who played this gem of a game can vouch, it's an incredible experience with a particularly gorgeous artistic graphical style. While you do fight, it's not with guns, or bloody, or violent really at all. You control a wolf who uses what can best be described as various shields/emblems to fight (and in a glorious, flowing motion at that). It's not repetetive, you go through more regions than most movies have scenes, and you do things from as minor as collecting clovers to painting magical designs on screen (to create things like weather effects or a cutting effect). The game plays out as an awe-inspiring adventure full of colorful creations (rivaling contemporary artists) and a delightful story (rivaling most movies or novels).

Second, even if games were all the same violent gunfests (which they aren't obviously, but I will grant this for the sake of the argument), aren't some still better than others? Anyone who believes Conflict: Vietnam is at the caliber of Halo or Call of Duty is crazy. They are all shoot-em-up games, violent, bloody, and fit the stereotype of video games. However, some games excel above others, as games and art. This flawed argument then makes movies, books, and paintings definitively not art. Why? Well I have seen plenty of movies about going to college and a person's experiences there. The movie Animal House is considered a comedic triumph, and is considered art by many. Yet, in the same vein, a movie last year was released called "College", which was potentially one of the worst movies of all time. The same applies to novels. Harry Potter and Macbeth both involve witches, as do plenty of other books, but this in no way detracts from Macbeth being a work of art. Or "all paintings are the same, they are just a random hodgepodge of colors, so since they are all similar, they can't be art." See where I'm going with this? Having more of a certain genre or style does NOT detract from the items in that genre or style that are purely art.

3. Finally, there is the argument that games simply aren't deep enough. I don't think I really need to explain why this is absolutely ridiculous, because I'm sure everyone on here has played or heard of games that are incredibly deep, and often deeper than movies or novels that are supposedly art. However, I still have to refute this blatantly incorrect argument to share my opinion. For this argument, I will be using Braid as an example.

Again, granted, not all games are deep (most not even close to deep). Most avoid being deep and stick to being simple and fun. However, you AGAIN can't judge all games by that standard). Games can be deep (and in very different genres). Take the Metal Gear Solid series (3rd person action), Bioshock (1st person shooter), ANY RTS game (RTS obviously), Ico (3rd person adventure), and the game I will be focusing on, Braid (side scrolling puzzle solving). Braid is deeper and has more meaning under the surface than almost any piece of writing, film, or art I have ever seen. I can't in good conscience reveal anything about the story, but suffice it to say that its story will lead you from confused, to startled, to heartbroken, and to plenty of other emotions through the course of this short adventure. And the most fantastic part about it is that the game reveals its story through only a few simple paragraphs of text. It's the written equivalent of a ten page book at most, but Braid effectively takes your mind and knowingly creates the certain emotions and responses that the creators wanted you to receive (much as any great work of art does). The ending twist is on par with the Sixth Sense, a movie many believe to be art, or with Romeo and Juliet's tragic ending.

With these three answers to common arguments out of the way, it's important to briefly discuss why video games in fact can be art instead of just focusing on the arguments of why they CAN'T be art. Again, this does not apply to all video games, but to the ones discussed above and many more. But...

On the mental/emotional side of art, video games are lovingly created and sculpted by an individual or group of individuals who intentionally take your mind on a journey and instill emotions and feelings inside of you, which is on par with what is commonly accepted as art. Fancy flamboyant language aside, video games are made by people to effect you in some way, the same way any other art is. Metal Gear Solid (the series) takes you through an emotional roller coaster as any classic novel would. On the physical/aesthetic side of art, video games are capable of creating incredibly well made landscapes, backdrops, designs, graphics, etc. Sound design is another point, effective and well done sound design can contribute to being art. In games like Bioshock the beautiful locale (an underwater city) immerses you with a combination of it's particularly stellar water effects and incredible sound design (the sounds of water, other beings walking around, metal clanks, etc.).

So if you took the time to read this far (thank you if you did), then you may be thinking, "Ok, I get it, you think video games are art. Who cares? Why does it matter?."

The answer to this is simple. Video games will never be respected on a mainstream, worldwide level as a respectable form of entertainment until they develop credibility. Non-gamers think of video games as simple toys intended to entertain for a brief period. We see complex, interactive realites created for our enjoyment. The rest of the world sees Pong (simple, mindless fun) while we people who play games see games like Fallout 3, Okami, and Braid (all of which are art). Being able to establish certain video games as art is an incredible step in the right direction.

Every other form of mass entertainment (movies, literature, music, and obviously art in general) has examples that are the cream of the crop that people use as an argument for what makes that medium actual art. If you talked to the average person living in the United States, they would know (or at least recognize) the movie Citizen Kane, the literature Romeo and Juliet, the music of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony, and the art of the Mona Lisa. All of these are considered as shining examples of what redeem these forms of entertainment, and therefore catapult them towards a beneficial world opinion. People respect these media greatly, and this respect is that has allowed them to become as large and respected as they are, and in turn to help them grow even better. Literature has evolved from simple short stories to entire series of books focusing on multiple character interactions, deviously shifting story lines, and establishing setting. The same goes for movies, music, and art. The point of this is, video games will always be at least slightly hampered from people's perspective of them as a timewaster instead of a true form of art. While video games are developing greatly and quickly, there are still ten movie cash-in games, or ten generic run-and-gun WW2 shooters, or ten other simply bad games for every one Okami, Fallout 3, or Braid.

I believe that if we can somehow bring a sense of legitimacy into video games, the industry has more room to expand. Video games' primary demographic is still young men, and that explains the generic shooting games. However, video games have taken steps in the right direction already. The DS (and then even more the Wii) attempt to capitalize to people of all ages or gender, with games as varied as Brain Age, Nintendogs, and Wii Sports. Whether you like these games or not, it shows an honest attempt for the gaming industry to expand its sway in the world's view. By establishing certain video games as an art form, we in turn exponentially increase the rate at which gaming involves, and eventually can then establish video games as a medium as popular or widespread as movies, music, or whatever. From a gamer standpoint, this leads to more money in the industry for more games and more variety in the games that are made. Current nongamers, on the other hand, receive the same benefits, and maybe the new variety draws them into the industry, creating an upwards spiral of increased consumers, and in turn, increased amount and quality of games.

As soon as I read the title I wanted to come in and say Dead Rising, for it's pointless time limit. That put a damper on the experience for me, BIG time.

Are video games art? This is a question that has been mulled to a certain extent, but not discussed often enough. I have seen articles in GameInformer about it and limited discussion online (particularly in reference to Roger Ebert's ignorant statements), but never to the depth that I think this question deserves.

For the above reason, I'm going to attempt to shed some light on (first) why I believe video games art and (second) why I believe this does in fact matter. By no means is what I'm saying necessarily definitive or absolute fact, so please don't believe otherwise. It's just my opinion on the issue. In fact, I'm very interested in hearing other peoples' opinions too, because I believe this is an important issue that should be talked about more (for reasons I will discuss later).

Ok, first and foremost, it's my opinion that video games are not necessarily art. It's hard to argue that every game ever made is (Superman 64 anyone?). In fact, most games aren't art in any sense of the word.

However, there is no need for all games TO be art. All you need is some, and some definitely are.

The main arguments I hear against games being art are that they are interactive (and therefore not predetermined by the artist), too violent and repetetive, and not deep enough. I'm going to answer each of these arguments with a game that proves them wrong. In fact, each of the three games I bring up could make a case by itself for video games being art. All together merely drive the point home.

1. First, the most common argument is that video games are not art because they are interactive and the experience you garner from them is not predetermined. The game I chose to argue this is Fallout 3. This is a perfect example of a game someone would use to actually PROVE that video games are too interactive to be art. However, in fact, by proving that Fallout 3 (such an open-ended game) is art, any games more linear fall of the map of this argument.

My response to this argument is simply that while the experience is open, the ending and story is still structured BY the creators of the game. By this logic, Shakespeare isn't art because you can choose which of his stories you want to read and get a new experience every time. Instead of looking at a game with multiple paths like Fallout 3 (the simple good/evil structured endings) as one individual game, look at it as two possible experiences in the same package, or two games (or pieces of art). Really, it becomes semantics when you claim that having multiple paths or endings or stories is different from two separate novels or movies. Then the obvious argument that Fallout 3's multiple paths take place in the same setting comes up so it apparently somehow can't be two different experiences, but aren't there multiple movies that take place on a spaceship? Or in the same city, like NYC?

Additionally, for Fallout 3 specifically, I DEFY anyone to play the game outside for five minutes and then claim that it isn't art. The desolate landscapes portrayed are easily among the best disaster-style art out there. Even if you ignore all this, there are artists who act in interactive art (Chin Chih Yang comes to mind), which debases this entire argument entirely. The bottom line is Fallout 3 (and all other games) are created and sculpted by people, and if the game is intended as art, there is no reason interaction detracts from that sentiment.

2. Games are all the same and violent, or repetetive, or something similarly biased and untrue. People argue that because games follow a common pattern (like shooting games) they can't be art due to oversaturation of similar content. This argument never made any sense to me whatsoever. I'm going to answer this game in two parts.

First, not all games fit that stereotype of video games (violent repetetive gunfests). For this argument I'm going to use the example of Okami. Sure, some video games are violent or repetetive (or goofy, or comedic, or something else that somehow makes them not art) but there are exceptions. Okami is neither excessively violent nor repetetive. Anyone who played this gem of a game can vouch, it's an incredible experience with a particularly gorgeous artistic graphical style. While you do fight, it's not with guns, or bloody, or violent really at all. You control a wolf who uses what can best be described as various shields/emblems to fight (and in a glorious, flowing motion at that). It's not repetetive, you go through more regions than most movies have scenes, and you do things from as minor as collecting clovers to painting magical designs on screen (to create things like weather effects or a cutting effect). The game plays out as an awe-inspiring adventure full of colorful creations (rivaling contemporary artists) and a delightful story (rivaling most movies or novels).

Second, even if games were all the same violent gunfests (which they aren't obviously, but I will grant this for the sake of the argument), aren't some still better than others? Anyone who believes Conflict: Vietnam is at the caliber of Halo or Call of Duty is crazy. They are all shoot-em-up games, violent, bloody, and fit the stereotype of video games. However, some games excel above others, as games and art. This flawed argument then makes movies, books, and paintings definitively not art. Why? Well I have seen plenty of movies about going to college and a person's experiences there. The movie Animal House is considered a comedic triumph, and is considered art by many. Yet, in the same vein, a movie last year was released called "College", which was potentially one of the worst movies of all time. The same applies to novels. Harry Potter and Macbeth both involve witches, as do plenty of other books, but this in no way detracts from Macbeth being a work of art. Or "all paintings are the same, they are just a random hodgepodge of colors, so since they are all similar, they can't be art." See where I'm going with this? Having more of a certain genre or style does NOT detract from the items in that genre or style that are purely art.

3. Finally, there is the argument that games simply aren't deep enough. I don't think I really need to explain why this is absolutely ridiculous, because I'm sure everyone on here has played or heard of games that are incredibly deep, and often deeper than movies or novels that are supposedly art. However, I still have to refute this blatantly incorrect argument to share my opinion. For this argument, I will be using Braid as an example.

Again, granted, not all games are deep (most not even close to deep). Most avoid being deep and stick to being simple and fun. However, you AGAIN can't judge all games by that standard). Games can be deep (and in very different genres). Take the Metal Gear Solid series (3rd person action), Bioshock (1st person shooter), ANY RTS game (RTS obviously), Ico (3rd person adventure), and the game I will be focusing on, Braid (side scrolling puzzle solving). Braid is deeper and has more meaning under the surface than almost any piece of writing, film, or art I have ever seen. I can't in good conscience reveal anything about the story, but suffice it to say that its story will lead you from confused, to startled, to heartbroken, and to plenty of other emotions through the course of this short adventure. And the most fantastic part about it is that the game reveals its story through only a few simple paragraphs of text. It's the written equivalent of a ten page book at most, but Braid effectively takes your mind and knowingly creates the certain emotions and responses that the creators wanted you to receive (much as any great work of art does). The ending twist is on par with the Sixth Sense, a movie many believe to be art, or with Romeo and Juliet's tragic ending.

With these three answers to common arguments out of the way, it's important to briefly discuss why video games in fact can be art instead of just focusing on the arguments of why they CAN'T be art. Again, this does not apply to all video games, but to the ones discussed above and many more. But...

On the mental/emotional side of art, video games are lovingly created and sculpted by an individual or group of individuals who intentionally take your mind on a journey and instill emotions and feelings inside of you, which is on par with what is commonly accepted as art. Fancy flamboyant language aside, video games are made by people to effect you in some way, the same way any other art is. Metal Gear Solid (the series) takes you through an emotional roller coaster as any classic novel would. On the physical/aesthetic side of art, video games are capable of creating incredibly well made landscapes, backdrops, designs, graphics, etc. Sound design is another point, effective and well done sound design can contribute to being art. In games like Bioshock the beautiful locale (an underwater city) immerses you with a combination of it's particularly stellar water effects and incredible sound design (the sounds of water, other beings walking around, metal clanks, etc.).

So if you took the time to read this far (thank you if you did), then you may be thinking, "Ok, I get it, you think video games are art. Who cares? Why does it matter?."

The answer to this is simple. Video games will never be respected on a mainstream, worldwide level as a respectable form of entertainment until they develop credibility. Non-gamers think of video games as simple toys intended to entertain for a brief period. We see complex, interactive realites created for our enjoyment. The rest of the world sees Pong (simple, mindless fun) while we people who play games see games like Fallout 3, Okami, and Braid (all of which are art). Being able to establish certain video games as art is an incredible step in the right direction.

Every other form of mass entertainment (movies, literature, music, and obviously art in general) has examples that are the cream of the crop that people use as an argument for what makes that medium actual art. If you talked to the average person living in the United States, they would know (or at least recognize) the movie Citizen Kane, the literature Romeo and Juliet, the music of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony, and the art of the Mona Lisa. All of these are considered as shining examples of what redeem these forms of entertainment, and therefore catapult them towards a beneficial world opinion. People respect these media greatly, and this respect is that has allowed them to become as large and respected as they are, and in turn to help them grow even better. Literature has evolved from simple short stories to entire series of books focusing on multiple character interactions, deviously shifting story lines, and establishing setting. The same goes for movies, music, and art. The point of this is, video games will always be at least slightly hampered from people's perspective of them as a timewaster instead of a true form of art. While video games are developing greatly and quickly, there are still ten movie cash-in games, or ten generic run-and-gun WW2 shooters, or ten other simply bad games for every one Okami, Fallout 3, or Braid.

I believe that if we can somehow bring a sense of legitimacy into video games, the industry has more room to expand. Video games' primary demographic is still young men, and that explains the generic shooting games. However, video games have taken steps in the right direction already. The DS (and then even more the Wii) attempt to capitalize to people of all ages or gender, with games as varied as Brain Age, Nintendogs, and Wii Sports. Whether you like these games or not, it shows an honest attempt for the gaming industry to expand its sway in the world's view. By establishing certain video games as an art form, we in turn exponentially increase the rate at which gaming involves, and eventually can then establish video games as a medium as popular or widespread as movies, music, or whatever. From a gamer standpoint, this leads to more money in the industry for more games and more variety in the games that are made. Current nongamers, on the other hand, receive the same benefits, and maybe the new variety draws them into the industry, creating an upwards spiral of increased consumers, and in turn, increased amount and quality of games.

...are already entirely irrelevant.

Gears of War 2 isn't there.

Whether you like it or not, you have to admit it deserves consideration as one of the top games of the year. I prefer SSB:B, Fallout 3, and Dead Space AT LEAST over it, maybe others, but even I can see that it needs to be on the list. It excels both in ratings and sales. In fact, on gamerankings it beats out every game on that list except LBP, Bioshock, and GTAIV. Yes, it beats out MGS4, Fallout 3, and SSB:B, and therefore ESPECIALLY beats Dead Space, Resistance 2, and other random games (seriously? Braid was interesting but not GOTY, and NHL 09?!?!).

Sorry, but I don't buy it. GOW2's absence from this list is frankly a travesty and makes my opinion of GS go down just a little bit more.

Well as I mentioned it wouldn't have made the list without the big internet craze. And in addition, this list is my opinion and even without the fad I still think it's a bad song and the music video and Rick Astley's overly macho attitude definitely contribute to it.

In the past few days I have noticed some particularly bad songs, artists, and music videos and it got me thinking. What are the worst of the worst in the music industry?

The following five are, in my opinion, the biggest blights on the music industry in history. Enjoy a good laugh and feel free to suggest things I missed. However, be wary, some of them are so bad that they may actually be entertaining.

Starting from the bottom...

5. "Never Gonna Give You Up" by Rick Astley
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yu_moia-oVI
Would a bad music list be complete without our very own Rick Astley? Brian of Family Guy once said "This is a song by a gay guy," and who would argue with him? Honestly, as bad as it is, it wouldn't have made the top five if it wasn't for the craze "rick rolling". For those of you who have been living under a Rick, sorry, I mean a rock (bad pun intended), rick rolling is the act of directing people to a video that they think is one thing (like claiming it's to a fun flash game or pics for a new game) that turns out to acually just be Rick Astley. I myself have been rick rolled at least three or four times thinking I was going to see a new Guitar Hero 4 set list, etc. The combination of the annoyance of being fooled with the fact that it's a terrible song and music video to begin with put him at number five on my list.

4. "Everybody Have Fun Tonight" by Wang Chung
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XF0otWk2c04
This song makes the list due to three primary things. First, the music video was known to give seizures. Honestly, watch the video just for a bit and see how jerky it is (and on PURPOSE!). Interesting bit of trivia, ironically, back when it was released it was nominated for best special effects in a music video. Second, the band was full of itself enough to try and start a trend using THEIR NAME. "Everybody Wang Chung tonight." What exactly is Wang Chung? How does one do it? And why would anyone attempt to start a trend using that? And finally, it's simply a terrible song with no redeeming qualities. Any of those separately could be forgiven (or at least keep it off of the top five) but the combination makes for a terrible attempt at a song.

3. "Hooked On A Feeling" by David Hasselhoff
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gi2CfuqcUGE
Before you ask, yes, that is the David Hasselhoff you know and (probably don't) love. And yes he did make an unadvised foray into music. While he's not a terible singer, he IS incredibly cheesy (at one point in the song he raises his arms and flies away) which undermines what small singing ability he does have making a mockery of the song. And the music video is just ridiculous. Every time you think it can't get any worse, it does. Oh and on an interesting side note, look out for the thing that shows up at 1.45 and 3.15. If you have any idea what it is or WHY it has ANY reason to be in the music video let me know ;) .

2. Any song by AxCx.
I can't provide a link to this song as I can with the others for two reasons. First, because it's ALL the band's songs that are awful and not just one, but more importantly, because this is possibly the most intentionally offensive band in history. Not only is the self-proclaimed "grindcore" or "noisecore" (basically it tries to be the hardcore version of hardcore, hardcore of course being the hardcore version of screamo, really bad genre on the whole in my opinion) band absolutely awful to listen to and known to give earaches, but the lyrics are so terrible that they clinched a spot on this list. As mentioned, I can't link to their band (hint: AxCx is just an acronym for something offensive) but I can give some examples of their songs. We have the lovely "Women: Nature's Punching Bags," "You Were Pregnant So I Kicked You In The Stomach," and "I Sent Footage Of Concentration Camps To America's Funniest Videos." Enough said.
Disclaimer: I HIGHLY reccomend you do not look them up if you are a minor or otherwise easily offended.

1. "I Wanna Love You Tender" by Armi & Danny
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8610362188397291938
A relative dark horse tops off the list, and probably the least popular and well known of all. However, it only takes a few seconds into the music video to see why it ranks. While it may not have the worst lyrics, or the worst singers, or the worst beat, it's the combination of all of its awful elements that brings it to position number one. There are no words to describe the horror of this song until you watch it. We have some band in Finland to thank for this. It's not a song, it's an exercise in tolerance. You will either laugh or cry depending on how tolerant you are of a song/music video that defiles everything that music represents. I personally laughed ;)

And that's all folks. Enjoy! And let me know what you think of the list, offer suggestions, or even make your own list. I love hearing songs that are so awful they can be entertaining.