|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Author | Message | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 Post subject: Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 3:47 am 
Saellys, i think we agree completely on principles, just not semantics — which is part of the whole problem with this whole “debate.” |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 23 Mar 2006 | Posts: 1126 | Location: Temple Terrace, Florida
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
   |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 3:55 am
do not be afraid. wrote: I'm not entirely sure you people understand what Roger Ebert was saying, honestly...
Saying a video game is art is about as patently ridiculous as saying that, say, a game of chess is art! Chess is a game, and it's objective isn't artistic expression or experience of any kind, but, rather, the personal challenge of winning. Now — and this is sort of the whole point I'm trying to make here — a beautifully crafted chess set or chess board can very much be works of art, but a game of chess played with those works of art isn't any more a work of art because of it! In the same way, a video game's graphics, or music, or storyline, can all be great works of art, but the primary objective of the video game isn't to experience those works of art — it's, well, the challenge of winning — and, if it was, it wouldn't be a game (but it would be art!) I disagree. See, not every video game is based around winning. There are several games with an entire purpose to evoke emotion or thought. For example: Shadow of the Colossus (which is made by the same creator as Ico). The premise of the story is that to save the woman you love you have to kill 15 or 16 colossi on the orders of a magician. Turns out, these "monsters" aren't anything that you've been told, are peaceful, blah blah, but you still have to kill them all as your character degrades in appearance with each one. That game wasn't winning or losing for me; it was an experience. It evoked more emotion from me than any painting I've ever seen. _________________ patrock wrote: Grandma: What are you thankful for?
Me: My fake husband. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 28 Apr 2005 | Posts: 3505 | Location: In your dreams
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 4:13 am
Not to mention that art is simply the expression of human creativity. In that sense, even a game of chess can be art. Not to mention that video games, like movies and books before it, try to create an atmosphere and evoke emotion through several mediums. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 19 Aug 2007 | Posts: 1547 |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 4:33 am
Nightmare wrote: I disagree.
See, not every video game is based around winning. There are several games with an entire purpose to evoke emotion or thought. For example: Shadow of the Colossus (which is made by the same creator as Ico). The premise of the story is that to save the woman you love you have to kill 15 or 16 colossi on the orders of a magician. Turns out, these "monsters" aren't anything that you've been told, are peaceful, blah blah, but you still have to kill them all as your character degrades in appearance with each one. That game wasn't winning or losing for me; it was an experience. It evoked more emotion from me than any painting I've ever seen. i haven't played that particular game, but, if your description is accurate (that it isn't about winning or losing), then it isn't a game — video or otherwise — and therefor is completely irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not video-games are art! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 23 Mar 2006 | Posts: 1126 | Location: Temple Terrace, Florida
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 4:51 am
Quote: Everyone Who Disagreed with do not be afraid QFF'nT 
Video Game is a label now, not an accurate description. They are selling Interactive Experience, Hence "Electronic Arts" Games in general aren't always about "winning' but success. Art is also about success, because the artist is trying to evoke a response, in some cases a specific response, and sometimes just any response. But successful art gets a reaction out of the viewer. If it doesn't, it fails. _________________ yup, that's my name. FOR YOUR RATING PLEASURE: 4 LIKE Buttons, 1 NEUTRAL, 1 VEXED, 5 DISLIKE buttons. LC > FB           
= personal fave  = Eisley fans should dig it
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 09 Apr 2008 | Posts: 9641 | Location: Greater St. Louis Area
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 6:01 am
do not be afraid. wrote: Nightmare wrote: I disagree.
See, not every video game is based around winning. There are several games with an entire purpose to evoke emotion or thought. For example: Shadow of the Colossus (which is made by the same creator as Ico). The premise of the story is that to save the woman you love you have to kill 15 or 16 colossi on the orders of a magician. Turns out, these "monsters" aren't anything that you've been told, are peaceful, blah blah, but you still have to kill them all as your character degrades in appearance with each one. That game wasn't winning or losing for me; it was an experience. It evoked more emotion from me than any painting I've ever seen. i haven't played that particular game, but, if your description is accurate (that it isn't about winning or losing), then it isn't a game — video or otherwise — and therefor is completely irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not video-games are art! You're assuming that games--a form of play or sport, amusing diversions by most people's standards--must always have winners and losers. I think if anything, the medium of video games has changed that dramatically. Some people (like me) play video games solely for the experience (which means I play them rarely, because I find so few where the experience is enticing enough for me to try it). What about MMORPGs like World of Warcraft or Lord of the Rings Online? There are no winners there. They constantly add expansions with new quests and make it possible to hit higher and higher levels. And even if you finish all the quests and reach the highest level available, the creatures and enemies respawn so you can go back and kill them again. When I hit level twenty with my LotRO warden, I went back to the Chetwood forest and killed that damn level 15 warg out of spite. If anything, an MMO and similar games (Myst, The Dig, Neverwinter Nights, the Final Fantasy saga) tell stories. They do it in a way that is in many cases is more personalized and gripping than a novel (you do accept fiction writing as art, right?). I think the inherent value of this kind of storytelling speaks for itself, especially in the case of something like Neverwinter Nights II, where everyone dies at the end so there's really no winning anyway. _________________ INTELLECT AND ROMANCE OVER BRUTE FORCE AND CYNICISM Smokemonster |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 24 Sep 2003 | Posts: 14510 | Location: Alone on an airplane, fallin' asleep against the windowpane...
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 8:42 am
well, i think you've all missed my whole point, so to state it as directly as i possibly can: 1. i don't think a “game” can ever be a work of art. 2. i do think that “video games” are becoming more and more like works of art — and some may already be works of art — but, they're doing it at the expense of becoming less and less like, well, games. Saellys wrote: You're assuming that games--a form of play or sport, amusing diversions by most people's standards--must always have winners and losers.
I think if anything, the medium of video games has changed that dramatically. Some people (like me) play video games solely for the experience (which means I play them rarely, because I find so few where the experience is enticing enough for me to try it). What about MMORPGs like World of Warcraft or Lord of the Rings Online? There are no winners there. They constantly add expansions with new quests and make it possible to hit higher and higher levels. And even if you finish all the quests and reach the highest level available, the creatures and enemies respawn so you can go back and kill them again. When I hit level twenty with my LotRO warden, I went back to the Chetwood forest and killed that damn level 15 warg out of spite. If anything, an MMO and similar games (Myst, The Dig, Neverwinter Nights, the Final Fantasy saga) tell stories. They do it in a way that is in many cases is more personalized and gripping than a novel (you do accept fiction writing as art, right?). I think the inherent value of this kind of storytelling speaks for itself, especially in the case of something like Neverwinter Nights II, where everyone dies at the end so there's really no winning anyway. a game is a challenge. when you take on a challenge, there are only two possible outcomes: success and failure. success makes you a winner, failure makes you a loser. whether success is possible or impossible — or is even meant to be possible or impossible — is irrelevant. however, i'd argue that — at least in some of the games you cite — success is very much possible. take World Of Warcraft, for instance: you say they keep adding “quests”, and so you can't ever really win the game, but isn't each individual “quest” itself a game, with it's own set of objectives and obstacles, winners and losers? and isn't that whole damn point? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 23 Mar 2006 | Posts: 1126 | Location: Temple Terrace, Florida
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 8:55 am
olimario wrote: Not to mention that art is simply the expression of human creativity.
In that sense, even a game of chess can be art. Not to mention that video games, like movies and books before it, try to create an atmosphere and evoke emotion through several mediums. Agreed, 100% There are some exquisite chess sets, that I definitely consider art. Why would video games be any different? Modern art is all about the "experience". Most gamers play for the "experience." What about Bauhaus art? The concept there was: just because you use it, doesn't mean it can't be art. That is why we consider architecture, textiles, fashion...etc, "art". Here's a question though: is a dancer an artist, or is he/she only an artist if they are also the choreographer? I was thinking about that the other day, randomly. _________________ You can't find love; you have to create it. Flickr |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 31 May 2004 | Posts: 2018 | Location: Sacramento, CA
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 9:48 am
For the most part, yes, I think video games are art. Just take a well-established video game series, like say, The Legend of Zelda. How in the Sam Hill can you not call that art? But it really does depend on the game. For example, some games, like the point-and-click adventure games (recently on the Nintendo DS, Phoenix Wright, Hotel Dusk etc) are essentialy virtual mini-novels. Therefore, they're art. Whereas there are a multitude of cheaply made games purely for instant entertainment, like Wii Sports or something. That is not art. Games where developers have taken years of planning a story and visuals is undoubtedly an art. Many games like Zelda, Resident Evil etc, are presented as films with cinematic visuals with intercut scenes with voice acting. It's really no different from a CGI animated film. Of course it's art. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 02 Sep 2007 | Posts: 1313 |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 11:59 am
do not be afraid. wrote: Saellys wrote: You're assuming that games--a form of play or sport, amusing diversions by most people's standards--must always have winners and losers.
I think if anything, the medium of video games has changed that dramatically. Some people (like me) play video games solely for the experience (which means I play them rarely, because I find so few where the experience is enticing enough for me to try it). What about MMORPGs like World of Warcraft or Lord of the Rings Online? There are no winners there. They constantly add expansions with new quests and make it possible to hit higher and higher levels. And even if you finish all the quests and reach the highest level available, the creatures and enemies respawn so you can go back and kill them again. When I hit level twenty with my LotRO warden, I went back to the Chetwood forest and killed that damn level 15 warg out of spite. If anything, an MMO and similar games (Myst, The Dig, Neverwinter Nights, the Final Fantasy saga) tell stories. They do it in a way that is in many cases is more personalized and gripping than a novel (you do accept fiction writing as art, right?). I think the inherent value of this kind of storytelling speaks for itself, especially in the case of something like Neverwinter Nights II, where everyone dies at the end so there's really no winning anyway. a game is a challenge. when you take on a challenge, there are only two possible outcomes: success and failure. success makes you a winner, failure makes you a loser. whether success is possible or impossible — or is even meant to be possible or impossible — is irrelevant. however, i'd argue that — at least in some of the games you cite — success is very much possible. take World Of Warcraft, for instance: you say they keep adding “quests”, and so you can't ever really win the game, but isn't each individual “quest” itself a game, with it's own set of objectives and obstacles, winners and losers? and isn't that whole damn point? But the medium of video games makes it possible to keep trying and trying to succeed. In some games there's no "death" or consequence for failure, no way to irrevocably screw something up. It's still challenging because you're trying to figure out how to make things work (puzzles in Myst and The Dig and Portal, combat strategy in MMOs, and the like). I've experienced the same kinds of emotions while playing games like that as I do when I get my ass handed to me at chess by my husband. I feel the same kinds of elation when I succeed. The difference is that with the video games, I cannot lose, because I am not competing against anyone else. So basically where that gets us, at least by my criteria, is a) video games have redefined what a "game" is vis-à-vis the ability to endlessly loop a challenge or puzzle until you get it right, and b) they are nevertheless an art form in their own right. _________________ INTELLECT AND ROMANCE OVER BRUTE FORCE AND CYNICISM Smokemonster |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 24 Sep 2003 | Posts: 14510 | Location: Alone on an airplane, fallin' asleep against the windowpane...
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 9:27 pm
Saellys wrote: But the medium of video games makes it possible to keep trying and trying to succeed. In some games there's no "death" or consequence for failure, no way to irrevocably screw something up. It's still challenging because you're trying to figure out how to make things work (puzzles in Myst and The Dig and Portal, combat strategy in MMOs, and the like). I've experienced the same kinds of emotions while playing games like that as I do when I get my ass handed to me at chess by my husband. I feel the same kinds of elation when I succeed. The difference is that with the video games, I cannot lose, because I am not competing against anyone else. wrong — you very much do lose, you're just given another chance to win after losing. the heart of what you're talking about — facing challenges, trying to overcome them, and feeling a sense of accomplishment when you do — is the whole $#@! point i'm trying to make! that's what a “game” is! and, the fact that video games are games, makes it impossible for them to ever be “art”, any more than any other game — chess, football, whatever — could ever be art. cynlovescandy wrote: There are some exquisite chess sets, that I definitely consider art. Why would video games be any different? i already used that as an example: a chess set can be a work of art, a chess game cannot. in the same way, a “video-game” in the sense of a set of environments, characters, story lines, etc, can be art, but a “video-game” in the sense of a series of objectives, obstacles, actions, consequences, successes, failures, etc — you know, a game — cannot. cynlovescandy wrote: Here's a question though: is a dancer an artist, or is he/she only an artist if they are also the choreographer? I was thinking about that the other day, randomly. i would consider a dancer a “craftsman”, rather than an “artist.” they're not expressing themselves through dance, they're simply helping the choreographer express himself (or herself, or whatever.) to take the “fashion” example, for instance: a fashion designer designs the clothes, and so is an artist — a seamstress makes the clothes, and so is a craftsman (or craftswoman, or whatever.) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 23 Mar 2006 | Posts: 1126 | Location: Temple Terrace, Florida
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 3:48 am
So why can't a game be art? _________________ patrock wrote: Grandma: What are you thankful for?
Me: My fake husband. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 28 Apr 2005 | Posts: 3505 | Location: In your dreams
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 4:52 am
Nightmare wrote: So why can't a game be art? Yeah, I think that gets us to the crux of the matter. _________________ INTELLECT AND ROMANCE OVER BRUTE FORCE AND CYNICISM Smokemonster |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 24 Sep 2003 | Posts: 14510 | Location: Alone on an airplane, fallin' asleep against the windowpane...
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 5:11 am
that question is impossible to answer directly, because it contains a blatant category error, which makes the entire sentence, well, senseless. it's as patently ridiculous as asking, say, “why can't a game be a sentence?” a work of art is an object created for the purposes of individual self-expression. a game consists of a series of objectives, obstacles, rules, strategies, etc. how can those two things be the same? edit: actually, i goofed: art doesn't have to be an object, per-se, it can be anything, really, it just has to be something tangible. but, it's hard to come up with a definition of what art is — something like “a physical manifestation of an individual's sense of humanity” sounds horribly, uh, silly. i'm going to leave that up there since, well, i posted it, and i have to live with it. besides, i don't really feel like coming up with anything better. heck, i'll just look 'em up in the dictionary: art: “the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also: works so produced.” game: “a physical or mental competition conducted according to rules with the participants in direct opposition to each other.” actually, i think they pretty much agree with my original definitions… |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 23 Mar 2006 | Posts: 1126 | Location: Temple Terrace, Florida
Last edited by do not be afraid. on Sat Jun 12, 2010 5:38 am; edited 1 time in total |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 5:33 am
do not be afraid. wrote: a work of art is an object created for the purposes of individual self-expression.
a game consists of a series of objectives, obstacles, rules, strategies, etc. how can those two things be the same? a work is art is an object created for the purposes of individual self-expression. a musical performance is the perception of the compression and rarefaction of air molecules against a vibrating membrane. How can those two things be the same? You are a moran, patently. _________________ EisleyForever wrote: you're A-list in my heart! MAKECOLDPLAYHISTORY |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 20 Feb 2005 | Posts: 8868 | Location: Saturn, the Bringer of Old Age
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Laughing City Forum Index -> General -> Art or not?
Page 3 of 7 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
All times are GMT - 12 Hours
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
