ZFGC
General => Entertainment => Topic started by: Breedlove on April 29, 2010, 10:08:14 pm
-
They can be stylish, beautiful, violent, and creative. But should they be considered an art form? What do you guys think about this?
-
Uh; making them is definitely an art, considering a video game consists of multiple different forms of art within itself. Are movies an art? Yes. Video games really aren't any different.
-
Someone's been reading extra punctuation.
I'm kinda divided over this, I like to think they're art, but if they become a recognized art form in Aus the development scene here will go much the way our film has: government funded pieces of !@#$%.
-
Actually I don't read any site but Kotaku, just checked Extra Punctuation though... Crazy coincidence that two people on the internet were recently curious as others opinions on video games as art. :P
I'm divided over it too. I think they should be art, but most games aren't. Most games are just made to please the consumer so more people will buy it. If famous artists made paintings that way we wouldn't have nearly as many masterpieces. Right now I think if more games take the indie scene there is a better chance of gaming to be viewed as art on a whole.
-
Well, if you think about it-
Games require visuals and music, which definitely require an eye and ear for artistic design. Even further, most require detailed planning for scene designs, which is similar to filmography (another art).
They're pretty much exactly the same as a movie.
-
Generic art...yes.
Works of art would be games like:
Metal Gear Solid
Ocarina of Time
Oblivion
Kingdom Hearts
Super Mario World
Half-Life
Just based on my opinions and that's not all but I don't want to type out an extensive list.
Hope you get the idea.
A game that stands out and leaves a lasting great impression.
Also, art beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Some people see Mona Lisa as a great work of art as I see it as another painted woman.
Videogames are different for each person as they perceive them.
I think games that focus on a engulping story are works of art as where other people would say a game with intense realistic graphics such as a Forza 3/Gran Turismo or something that blows your mind with the graphics. Even others would throw in sports game.
It is all based upon each persons own perception.
-
I completly agree with the above notions. Videogame making is definitly a form of art, but that shouldn't and won't matter to most of the world.
-
Sorry for double posting, but I'd like too add that when I first heard the name of this topic, I thought of this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMqh63El_sQ
-
Works of art would be games like:
...Super Mario World
...I think games that focus on a engulping story are works of art
i lol'd. and not just because you said the word engulping XD
-
I think the components that go into a game can all be considered art, but to me actual game design is more of a science. It is specifically designed to elicit certain reactions from the player and relies more on risk-reward incentive than the emotional arousal most art induces.
Does it diminish video games as a medium that they are not art? No, not at all.
-
I think videogames are a form of art yes. And like art you have good and bad pieces. Which is which is mostly based on taste. Game design is just like making films and music a form of art. A product will be appealling to some groups and totally not to others.
I think the components that go into a game can all be considered art, but to me actual game design is more of a science.
I seriously disagree with that. If videogames were a science then there would be popping up hundreds of bestselling games per day. If it were a science than a game being good or bad would be a matter of fact instead of opinion. And facts are for every single person the same and opinions are not. You can approximate about what a good game might be, but you can never say with certainty that if you slightly alter something small as putting a graphical object to the left or right will make the game better.
It is specifically designed to elicit certain reactions from the player and relies more on risk-reward incentive than the emotional arousal most art induces.
Do you see making movies and music a form of science to?
-
There is a very very fine line between video games and films these days. It's silly to say one's art and the other's not. Just because one's interactive and the other isn't doesn't discredit it's place as a piece of art.
In response to what Dantz had mentioned about it being more of a science; the same could be said about modern films. A lot of movies these days require some hard core computer skills. Many different levels of technicians and engineers working on different elements of a film. It's all the same. Only difference is that a film lacks one element a game has- interactivity.
-
A piece of art is just some poignant creation. What's poignant and noteworthy to me, could be something that you didn't even notice was there. And it's surely a disgrace that someone else(who thinks they know something) wants to burn.
This whole thing's an anything.
the definitions of art suggest we allow it ambiguity.
everyone argues for their own side.
-
In response to what Dantz had mentioned about it being more of a science; the same could be said about modern films. A lot of movies these days require some hard core computer skills. Many different levels of technicians and engineers working on different elements of a film.
Right, and those technicians are producing PARTS of a whole, much as how artists produce PART of a game.
I think the components that go into a game can all be considered art, but to me actual game design is more of a science.
I seriously disagree with that. If videogames were a science then there would be popping up hundreds of bestselling games per day. If it were a science than a game being good or bad would be a matter of fact instead of opinion.
Okay, I can see where you're going with that. But at the same time, not everyone can just go and operate a scanning electron microscope, can they? We have our Valves and Blizzards that are mapping out the human genome, and then we have whoever the !@#$% made Tony Hawk RIDE.
It is specifically designed to elicit certain reactions from the player and relies more on risk-reward incentive than the emotional arousal most art induces.
Do you see making movies and music a form of science to?
No, because those are based more on emotional responses and generalities rather than specifically giving a player certain rewards for performing actions. To me, game design is about that at its core: risk-reward incentive. Art is not about that. I think game design is just as complex as creating a piece of art - perhaps moreso because there are so many more things that can go wrong - but it is not art, in my opinion.
I think I should probably elaborate here: just because something is not technically "art" doesn't mean it is diminished in value from other things that are art. That's like saying that the cure for cancer isn't as important as the Mona Lisa.
-
Again, I find myself disagreeing from you. I think you have a bit of outdated view about games. When talking about games in the Atari-NES eras I agree. Games back then were about reaching the end of an obstacle course. But ever since the SNES the graphics and the input devices have become better and more diverse, that view has drastically changed. I won't deny that there is not an part that is about risk and reward, but it is actually just as important to a game these days as the reward of getting the extras for buying the DVD of a movie.
Developers try to give gamers a more immersive experience with photo-realistic graphics, surround sound and active input. It is not just about reaching the end of an obstacle course anymore. It has become more like experiencing the adventures with the main characters and involving yourself with the characters. I think that games these days elicit more of an emotional response and mental involvement, because of the interactive element. Games aren't really designed for winning and losing anymore, but about involving the player in a virtual world.
The Wii Sports games are a nice example of that because there is not really anything to win only to experience, even with the simple graphics. Zelda, Final Fantasy, Resident Evil, Mario, Jak & Daxter are also such games that try to immerse the player. Like Mammy has said before there is very little difference between movies and games besides the interactive element.
-
And you have games defined by the inherent lack of a goal. Dwarf Fortress: Micromanage seven alcoholic Dwarves to create and maintain a fortress. The only goal is to play until you eventually lose and the fortress crumbles or you abandon, preferably in the most spectacular way imaginable (More magma and beheaded kittens, the better). There is not one single win condition in the game, and the "unofficial" motto of the game is "Losing is fun" =P
-
I don't think you can play a game like Final Fantasy X and think "Wow, that was a fine piece of science" ^_~
I still think it's ignorant to think that movies can be a form of art but video games can't be. There are piece of crap films too that people wouldn't consider art as well (The Room?), but it's still art.
-
I don't think you can play a game like Final Fantasy X and think "Wow, that was a fine piece of science" ^_~
I still think it's ignorant to think that movies can be a form of art but video games can't be. There are piece of crap films too that people wouldn't consider art as well (The Room?), but it's still art.
The Room is art. It's really shitty art, but it's art. FFX sucks too. :P
To me, immersion is another function of a game to enhance the player experience and provide more incentive to keep playing the game. You have to think about what mediums mean in order to evaluate their purpose. The function of games is not to make a statement or to mean something. Their function is to be fun to play. Therefore despite any form of incredible art, music, or writing - which are all forms of art that contribute to the experience of a game - games are functional, not aesthetic. And that is what makes them different.
-
A game is as much functional as a movie is. And it definitely is as aesthetic. The separate things can be nice, but it is the combination and balance between everything that make it art. The immersion is also on an emotional and experience level which runs a lot deeper than a movie, because people actually have to be involved in the game.
The interactive element of games make it a more active form of art, where movies are a passive form of art.
The function of games is not to make a statement or to mean something.
A game can often contain a lot of statements, just like any story. And a movie doesn't necessary contain a statement or means something. A lot of movies are just for fun.
-
I have to greatly disagree with
The function of games is not to make a statement or to mean something.
.
Even if I did agree with that in some distant parallel universe (if this were sliders, the universe would be the distant "everything people say is wrong" universe), I would have to say that the same's true for films then as well. Can you honestly say So I Married an Axe Murderer is "making a statement"? What about film adaptations of books? Are they saying something themselves that the books did not say in the first place?
Seriously; there's no difference between film and video game design. Niek said it perfectly- one's active art, ones passive art.
-
[quote author=Mamoruアニメ link=topic=36399.msg408602#msg408602 date=1272672163
Seriously; there's no difference between film and video game design. Niek said it perfectly- one's active art, ones passive art.
[/quote]
I suppose I should change my statement: games can be art. However, game DESIGN is not an art. I think this perhaps makes more sense.
-
Why can't game design be an art? You're expressing your creativity.
-
I feel like I'm making art when I make websites.. I would imagine I'd feel the same if I were coding a game. The end result, depending on the type of website, could be very similar. :P
-
Well, I have to agree with Dantz. The act of making art is not art it is creation. The result however is art. And this goes for designing games, making websites, painting, sculpting and making a movie.
I would say that is creating the creative.