Can Video Games be Considered Art?

[Yarok]

Because, I mean, art is something which one does not take part in but merely observes. So you just observe those plays, but in video games you actually play in it. On of the big-ass differences is that you can win a game. It has rules, points, objectives, and an outcome. Works of art are things you cannot win; you can only experience them. "Winning" them ruins the point.

Entertainment is the purpose of observation.

[Kayar]

As Vegerot pointed out to me in a PM, he is taking things from my essay and twisting them to his advantage. For example, "you can win a game. It has rules, points, objectives, and an outcome," comes directly from a quote by Roger Ebert which I used in my essay. But I already refuted this in my essay, saying that though you can win a video game that does nothing to hinder your experience of it, you are still experiencing the game. Art is an experience which does not have to be visual, hence music is considered art. Some written literary works are written in such a way that a certain character, often the main character, can be seen as a sort of "everyman" who we can feel compassion towards, who we take as a representation in the story of ourselves, allowing us to virtually place ourselves within the story. Do video games not do this as well, when we play them? We place ourselves in the situations the game creates for us so that we can experience them, just as an actor in a play may be experiencing the art as well, in an entirely different way than the audience does.

Also, Yarok, the purpose of observation can also be simply to observe and to learn, though certainly in the case of a play or a movie your point is valid.

The problem with this discussion is this: Yes, we can prove that games CAN be considered as art by some people, mostly by those who play games on a regular basis. The question is, WILL they be considered art by the general populace at some point? Seeing as there are some museum exhibitions which focus on video games as art, and as Taxi pointed out, there are plenty of games and game developers which focus on games as an art form, I believe games will eventually become more wide-spread and a larger variety of people will see games as an art form. It's going to take time, though, and I believe that there are a number of threats to this possibility out there as well, namely the media and specifically Fox News, but that's getting into another jar of wasps entirely.

[Excend]

Vegerot, you are creating a means for debate on a subject of which we all agree.

[Mgalekgolo]

2 words
Minecraft = Art

[Kayar]

Mgal, that is 2 words and a symbol.

[Excend]

And 2 spaces.

[tokage]

2 words
Minecraft = Art

Minecraft is modern art; "I could do that." "But you didn't."

[draconic74]

Oh man. Here we go again. And by we I mean internet.

Games as art: Halo 1(2,3,Reach count, but not as much), Minecraft, Psychonauts, Starcraft, Diablo
Games as games: CoD not including MW1, Anything Star Wars, franchises that wont die

If you get what I am saying, games that were made because:
A) Developer just wants to tell a story
B) Developer just wanted to make game
C) "I thought it was a cool idea at the time"
D) This has not been done before, lets see if it works

Those I consider art. Any games made just to be made I would count. These are games where a story is to be told, or the game is just made for the hell of it. Games showing off new mechanics and gameplay, those can be counted (Portal is an excellent example). Minecraft sprung from almost nowhere, although it did find it's origins in Infiniminer. But it distinguished itself (I'm still not quite sure how). Starcraft and Diablo, games meant to tell stories and provide excellent gameplay at the same time. I wouldn't quite call SC2 and D3 art, but the first ones definitely were. Now, to make it less confusing I should list what makes games non-art.

Now onto the non-art:
A) The first one sold big, lets photo-copy it!
B) Everyone is doing it, time to hop on the money-wagon!
C) This has not been done before, lets put all our marketing into that one point!
D) IT BETTER BE OUT BY CHRISTMAS!

If you aren't getting the picture, pure-for-profit games do not count. Franchises milked to death don't count. I'm looking at you Star Wars. Companies that try to hop on the most popular gameplay at the time do not get the title "art". For example, MOBAs are getting big. From just the original Dota, Heroes of Newerth and League of Legends were born. Now there are like 10 new games of this type all coming out at once. Money-wagon, anyone? Call of Duty is a big offender of CopyPaste. After MW1 they went bad, while before it they were also just the same game 3 times in a row. Also, sports games. Jesus... No bigger CopyPaste has existed in gaming. Some games try to find the one thing missing in the market and then put all their effort into selling that point, that I wouldn't call art either unless the entire game IS that (Mirror's Edge is ALL parkour, how can you market anything else?). This one is a bit harder to find offenders of. Then last there are the corporation games. While this doesn't always apply, it is a big thing. If your game cuts features, story, etc, just to hit the deadline then you don't deserve the title of "art". Valve does this pretty well, as does Blizzard, although Blizzard's pricing and restrictions are making it harder to call the new stuff anything close to art.



I could say more, but you have enough to read.

PS: Uh... Taxi? Really?
Read the comments first if you know what's good for you, guys.

[Mgalekgolo]

Deal with the symbol -_-. Its not a word, its a symbol. And yeah basically all drac's blizzard games were definitely art.

[draconic74]

Disabled smilies in the post. Damn sunglasses guy.

Anyway, as I was saying. In my mind, Diablo 1 and 2 are both art. But as I look at Diablo 3, I just don't think of it that way. Especially with the ridiculous DRM and real-world trading. It's just a game.

Similarly, Starcraft 1 was definitely art. But the second... urgh. I have not bought it yet, mostly because of what I have heard. DRM issues, Battlenet 2.0 restrictions, full $60 for each part of the 3-part game. I just don't know. At least I know what I am getting with Diablo, and I like the online much better in it. Again, really hesitant to call this art.

It's interesting, because most indie games fall under the art category. Generally, they are a labor of love or very inspired (Minecraft, Limbo, Trials), and this fits in my thoughts of games as art. A few, I'm sure (don't really know names), are simply trying to hop on the money-wagon, and these are generally the ones that don't take off, or not enough revenue is gained due to the extreme budget dropped on such a small title.


Of recent games, there is Rage, but it is hard to tell at this point what I call it. It is certainly jumping a bit on the post-apocolyptic FPSRPG popularity that Fallout left behind (derp, its by Bethesda too O.o ), but at the same time seems to genuinely have the sort of effort, detail, and passion (EASTER EGGS!) of something more like Halo. You know, if the original Halo had had an almost unlimited budget and a stupid powerful engine to work off of.