Are video games an artform?

[The Fury]

Recently a comment in the Thread about a game that moved people to tears made me think about whether video game will ever be considered art.

The post was this:


A friend of mine once said that games will never be considered art in the same vein as movies because games rarely make you cry or truly care for the characters. Is this a flaw of the medium itself? Or have designers simply been unable to tap into our deepest emotions with their games?

I answered:



I care for the characters but I have never cried or been moved to tears because of a game.

I think people who really are that stuck up to deny games as an art form need to be shown what goes into it. Not only is the music within games art in itself but many programmer might see their work as art, the conceptual artists and graphics designers as well, and lets not forget the modern cinematic FMV sequences which can look better then some CGI movies.

Just because you do not cry at an event in a game does not mean it is not art...I get emotional enough that if I die and am losing in a fight in an FF game or even when I am fighting the boss my emotions are high, I don't know what's going to happen what big moves this boss is going to throw at me, what I need to defeat it. My fight for survival just to try in vein to beat it even when I don't know how to. I am nervous because of victory and because I know I have little chance of winning yet excited at the prospect of winning. Then angry when I fail.

I never feel like that when watching movies.

My answer was about the emotions that I feel when playing games and the many aspects of how a games production might seem as art.


What are your thoughts on whether video games are an art form?

[Serik]

Here's my problem with many games: they use CGI or cutscenes to tell the story. An argument could be made that while the game conveys emotions using these cutscenes, these emotions are conveyed not by a gameplay device, but by a preexisting and well-established artform.

A way of elevating gaming, both from a storytelling and emotional perspective, is putting greater emphasis on the consequences of your actions. Put another way: in FF7 Aeris was going to die regardless, but wouldn't the emotional impact be greater if, through some gameplay device, you could've saved her but failed?

Or in some hypothetical war game, you recruit a character and fight alongside him for several missions. You grow attached to this character through dialogue, his voice, his actions. But in one mission you make a stupid mistake and he gets killed by a mortar or something. That scenario, to me anyway, has a greater emotional impact than some cutscene depicting his death independent of my actions.

Games are a fantastic artform, but I wish devs could create more emotional situations independent of cutscenes...if any of this makes sense :)

[Donald M.]

Not yet, but the potential is certainly there. Video Games are a very young medium and one that still relies entirely too much on the conventions of other media to tell stories and convey emotions.

As Serik pointed out, when video games find their own way to convey emotion independent of the literally or cinematic devices usually used in games today then they will become their own artform.

[Xero Kaiser]

Put another way: in FF7 Aeris was going to die regardless, but wouldn't the emotional impact be greater if, through some gameplay device, you could've saved her but failed?

Don't play many American RPGs I take it? It's not like you have any input about the fate of characters in any other form of media. So if you can get attached to them there, why can't it work for a game?

Though, I don't really know or care if games are considered "art". Such a meaningless title...

[The Fury]

Such a meaningless title...

I just noticed the title put for the thread.

Dang typo.

Perry can you edit that so it says

"Are games an artform?"

[Xero Kaiser]

I just noticed the title put for the thread.

Dang typo.


Not that. I mean worrying about whether or not games are an artform. I've seen this discussion come up before, especially after Roger Ebert said something about it. But, who cares? Let's say they were an artform...okay...*blinks*...now what? I'm not even entirely sure what would mean

And aren't you able to edit your own titles? Try editing your 1st post under the advanced option

[Serik]

But, who cares? Let's say they were an artform...okay...*blinks*...now what? I'm not even entirely sure what would mean

Nothing, but it makes for an interesting, if ultimately meaningless, debate :)

[Xero Kaiser]

Eh, the whole art thing goes over my head. I should be looking for more booty pictures to add to my collection, anyway

[Mike Pothier]

Any medium that can be used to express ideas and provoke thoughtful discussion has potential to be art.

See Deus Ex for example. That is art in gaming.

[The Fury]

And aren't you able to edit your own titles? Try editing your 1st post under the advanced option

You can but there is a time limit on the actual title of a thread that appears on the main forum.

[The Fury]

Nothing, but it makes for an interesting, if ultimately meaningless, debate :)

Indeed.

My main concern over it is when people deny that it is art. Yes some aspects might not be artistic, but when soem Pop music artists can be considered art, why not the music in Games.

Some of the music in game give the feel to a game, many FF and other RPGs have music to suit each moment in a game and give a certain feel to them, like music does in films.

[yeoman]

Here's my problem with many games: they use CGI or cutscenes to tell the story. An argument could be made that while the game conveys emotions using these cutscenes, these emotions are conveyed not by a gameplay device, but by a preexisting and well-established artform.

Not always. Prince of Persia sometimes told the story during the game.


A way of elevating gaming, both from a storytelling and emotional perspective, is putting greater emphasis on the consequences of your actions. Put another way: in FF7 Aeris was going to die regardless, but wouldn't the emotional impact be greater if, through some gameplay device, you could've saved her but failed?

Lot games give you options. Chrono Trigger anyone? Heck, there you get to choose whether or not the main character stays dead.

[Chevan]

No. Video games are not an art form right now.

But can they be? Yes. Had the poll been "Do video games have the potential to be an art form," I would have voted "Yes" in a heartbeat. But in my mind, the video game industry is not yet at the point where video games are being developed as art.

[Mike Pothier]

I disagree. Games have already been used to convey themes and ideas. Sure, they aren't as prolific as movies, music and literature, but there have been games. Xenogears, Deus Ex, Metal Gear, etc.

[Serik]

Not always. Prince of Persia sometimes told the story during the game.

Lot games give you options. Chrono Trigger anyone? Heck, there you get to choose whether or not the main character stays dead.

CT, Star Ocean, etc. are like "choose your ending" books rather than truly responsive game worlds. Oblivion is supposed to be like that, but I haven’t played it.

[Hiromi]

Here's my problem with many games: they use CGI or cutscenes to tell the story.

Half Life begs to differ.

[P-Man]

If film and television can be art, so can games. Then again it's all just opinion. I myself don't consider most photography to be art, but a lot of people disagree. So eh, who cares?

[Leslie Lee III]

Here's my problem with many games: they use CGI or cutscenes to tell the story. An argument could be made that while the game conveys emotions using these cutscenes, these emotions are conveyed not by a gameplay device, but by a preexisting and well-established artform.

A way of elevating gaming, both from a storytelling and emotional perspective, is putting greater emphasis on the consequences of your actions. Put another way: in FF7 Aeris was going to die regardless, but wouldn't the emotional impact be greater if, through some gameplay device, you could've saved her but failed?

Or in some hypothetical war game, you recruit a character and fight alongside him for several missions. You grow attached to this character through dialogue, his voice, his actions. But in one mission you make a stupid mistake and he gets killed by a mortar or something. That scenario, to me anyway, has a greater emotional impact than some cutscene depicting his death independent of my actions.

Games are a fantastic artform, but I wish devs could create more emotional situations independent of cutscenes...if any of this makes sense :)

I said this in the emotional thread. Video games HAVE to move away from this cutscene nonsense and change up their stories to reflect gameplay (like POP 2, or Silent Hill) instead of just pasting it in between gameplay. Avoid dealing with themes that I can't possibly experience from playing the actual game.

[Sanagi]

"Art form" is not a big enough idea to contain the possibilities of video games. In virtual reality, anything is possible, including art.

[BlairH]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=IrL96H2wEVc

I dare anyone to watch this and say that games are not art! I dare ya'!

[Agent Helix]

That's an ad, not a game. And no, I still don't think that's art, considering it's an advertisement with a weepy pop song made popular by a braindead sci-fi movie.

There's a lot of artistry in games, but they're not an artform yet. The technology isn't there yet to get past that hurdle. It's currently too simple to pick a game apart into its component elements (story, graphics, gameplay, etcetera), whereas with a film, or a piece of music, the whole is cohesive. Videogames, as they are now, are purely a form of entertainment, and they're also purely dependent on win conditions. That element of interactivity almost precludes what we know of as "art" from happening. You can't "win" art, but videogames, no matter how open-ended and infinite, are still a series of yes/no propositions leading to a win condition. You can figure out the trick to a game, no matter how complex they are in their current state. This cheapens the elements of interpretation and emotional resonance that are almost necessary for something to go to the level of "art".

[Leslie Lee III]

You can't "win" art

Why not? Just because other art forms aren't the same as video games? That seems like, "We can't do that, we didn't do that yesterday," sort of reasoning. Whether you win or not is not an integral part of art, it's the emotions it conveys, themes it addresses, etc. There are many video games that succeed at this as well as movies, or plays, or paintings, or music.

[Agent Helix]

Because winning creates circumstances that dictate interpretation. That's anti-art.

[Leslie Lee III]

Because winning creates circumstances that dictate interpretation. That's anti-art.

How are either of those statements true? Beating a game doesn't force you to perceive things in a certain way it only progresses the story to the end. Also artists constantly attempt to dictate interpretation, it just doesn't always work. It's always, "Well I was trying to get this across," or "We wanted to sound like this," or, "I used this color hear to convey a sense of..."

[BlairH]

Because winning creates circumstances that dictate interpretation. That's anti-art.

Trying to pin down art into catagories of "art" and "not art" is anti-art (not to mention elitist).

[Agent Helix]

Ah, the E word. The end of any actual discussion.

[Coravin]

Where are people getting these opinions on art: it isn't an interpretation, and it can't be derived from another artform embedded in the one under discussion?

First definition of art at Dictionary.com: "the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance"

If determining what is beautiful according to some standards isn't interpretation, what is? Art is all about interpretation--we observe something and if we like it, feel moved by it, consider it to work well as a whole, or some other nebulous judgment, it is art. And not everybody agrees on what is art; certainly not everybody agrees on what is good art. And one of the standards for judging artistic merit is how well an artwork engages or moves the observer, submerging them in its experience. Few things do that better than (good) videogames.

And how is something that combines active picture, sound, and player engagement less an art form for this combination? Do we consider movies not an artform because current versions require image, sound, and often soundtracks in order to make their mood? No, we generally consider movies to be a new artform because of this unification of disparate artforms into a whole. So why should we consider videogames not an artform for using other artforms (both music and movies) to make their mood? Combining several artforms into a coherent, meaningful, and in many ways beautiful composite should not detract from their individual artistic merits, nor from the whole.

Okami is possibly the most obvious example af a videogame that is art, and even the simplest or most violent games have an element of showmanship in their combination of image, sound, and story equivalent to theater and film and no less artistic for all that it is currently not recognized for such. Shakespeare was considered coarse and ribald pop culture, far from art, in his time, yet now he is acknowledged as a great artist. Our being too entrenched in our own mindsets, preconceptions, and knee-jerk reactions to see that videogames are art no more detracts from the artistic merit of videogames than the opinions of Shakespeare's contemporaries determined whether or not what he wrote was art.

[Leslie Lee III]

Ah, the E word. The end of any actual discussion.

Well it barely began because you didn't really justify the foundation of your claims, just stated them.

[Sanagi]

Because winning creates circumstances that dictate interpretation. That's anti-art.
It's a moot point. Not every video game is about winning.

[Hiromi]

It's a moot point. Not every video game is about winning.


But dont let that stop you from making blanket statements about a medium as diverse and complex as any other major media genre.

[Red Jack]

of course video games are an artform. just as theatre and film are art forms.

[Aaron Kashtan]

Not yet, but the potential is certainly there. Video Games are a very young medium and one that still relies entirely too much on the conventions of other media to tell stories and convey emotions.

As Serik pointed out, when video games find their own way to convey emotion independent of the literally or cinematic devices usually used in games today then they will become their own artform.

Why does it matter if video games use devices that are more familiar from cinema or literature? There's no rule that every art form has to stick to its own devices. If there were such a rule, then opera wouldn't be a legitimate art form, because it combines music, drama and literature.

Video games are certainly an art form, and if they're not a "pure" art form, that's not necessarily a bad thing.