The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Like the frilly title? That's what I call art. In as much as the definition of art by some people is anything which is there for purely aesthetic reasons or anything which is used to convey a message about the human condition in an abstract sense.
The title should do both, it communicates a deeper message that the title itself is a work of 'art' and that this topic will discuss it further, and the little / symbol at the end I tacked on for purely aesthetic reasons because it looked nice.
But I'd argue that whilst computer games contain art, (scenery in Gran Turismo for example serves no purpose other than to look nice as you drive past it,) they are not in themselves works of art. Rez? Rez contains two major forms of art, music and moving imagery. However, it is still a computer game in the true sense of what a computer game is. A game that is played with the use of a microprocessor is what I'd define as a computer game.
Then there's utilities. Take either MTV's Music Generator or MS Paint, both aren't computer games, they are just tools that allow the user to create artforms (naff music and naff imagery in this instance). They are merely an artist's tools to enable artists to create art.
How about the creation of games? Art form or highly specialised skill? Again I'd go for the latter. Although artists are employed by developers to create imagery for the games they produce, the whole package is produced by not just them but by programmers, editors, musicians, directors, producers, etc.
Gaming itself? Again I'd go for highly specialised activity rather than art form. Gamers don't necessarily produce art with computer games, and their activity is to defeat the game, not in itself an art, just something that takes skill and practice to do.
How about if a computer game could be classified as a medium for storytelling, like a film or a novel? Again, whilst most computer games nowadays do try to get a message of some form or another across to the player (like 'war is bad' or 'good guys win' and so on), not all computer games are designed with a prevailing message in mind. Some are designed purely for gameplay. I challenge any reader to find the philosophy behind Tetris for example.
So to me computer games will always be just that, computer games. They are a classification to themselves, maybe a sub-heading for 'Games', and perhaps in the future a sub-heading of 'Art'. However many people try to convince me that gaming is an artform or that computer games are works of arts I'll still stick to my guns, because for me if a computer game ever became an artwork in itself I'd rather hang it on my wall and call it a nice picture than play it.
The title should do both, it communicates a deeper message that the title itself is a work of 'art' and that this topic will discuss it further, and the little / symbol at the end I tacked on for purely aesthetic reasons because it looked nice.
But I'd argue that whilst computer games contain art, (scenery in Gran Turismo for example serves no purpose other than to look nice as you drive past it,) they are not in themselves works of art. Rez? Rez contains two major forms of art, music and moving imagery. However, it is still a computer game in the true sense of what a computer game is. A game that is played with the use of a microprocessor is what I'd define as a computer game.
Then there's utilities. Take either MTV's Music Generator or MS Paint, both aren't computer games, they are just tools that allow the user to create artforms (naff music and naff imagery in this instance). They are merely an artist's tools to enable artists to create art.
How about the creation of games? Art form or highly specialised skill? Again I'd go for the latter. Although artists are employed by developers to create imagery for the games they produce, the whole package is produced by not just them but by programmers, editors, musicians, directors, producers, etc.
Gaming itself? Again I'd go for highly specialised activity rather than art form. Gamers don't necessarily produce art with computer games, and their activity is to defeat the game, not in itself an art, just something that takes skill and practice to do.
How about if a computer game could be classified as a medium for storytelling, like a film or a novel? Again, whilst most computer games nowadays do try to get a message of some form or another across to the player (like 'war is bad' or 'good guys win' and so on), not all computer games are designed with a prevailing message in mind. Some are designed purely for gameplay. I challenge any reader to find the philosophy behind Tetris for example.
So to me computer games will always be just that, computer games. They are a classification to themselves, maybe a sub-heading for 'Games', and perhaps in the future a sub-heading of 'Art'. However many people try to convince me that gaming is an artform or that computer games are works of arts I'll still stick to my guns, because for me if a computer game ever became an artwork in itself I'd rather hang it on my wall and call it a nice picture than play it.
I can see what you mean about gaming not being an art form as such because games like Iss and other games like that are just games that are their to played. Whereas games like Zelda, I think is truely an art form, because they offer beatufil graphics, an in depth storyline and it puzzles the gamer at some point. And for me, that can be considered as an art form, but not in the way you would think.
This may sound complicated but if you think, there are a lot of painters that paint but only a few are recognised as great pictures, and that is exactly the same with games. There are lots of computer games in the world but there are only a few that are truely exzcellent, like Zelda.
It's just that gaming is a different art form to painting, just like music is to painting.
This may sound complicated but if you think, there are a lot of painters that paint but only a few are recognised as great pictures, and that is exactly the same with games. There are lots of computer games in the world but there are only a few that are truely exzcellent, like Zelda.
It's just that gaming is a different art form to painting, just like music is to painting.
FantasyMeister wrote:
> By the way, Sonic, the other points in your post were all good ones
> and I noted them. Can you define a computer game that is art?
-------------------------------
24.07.01 Beautiful graphics
-------------------------------
OK, so we all know that graphics don’t matter in games, that they don’t make them any better, and that they’re only there for Joe “Softcore” Public. Or are they?
Today, whilst storming ahead on Grand Valley II in GT3, it really hit home to me how important some graphics are (Bonus will know what’s I’m talking about). Anyone who has raced this course I think will agree with me that it IS beautiful. Not beautiful as in lots of lovely realistic polygons, but really, really beautiful, as in art. Picture this: Early afternoon sun glinting over a lightly wet road like golden honey, surrounded by lush greenery, a Mazda MX-5 driving along with not a soul in sight, headlights up and shining brightly, rounds the corner to a misty straight with trees as far as the eye can see. It is a really stirring image, one worthy of a digital art gallery, or at least my desktop. Now you know what I mean by beautiful. So, here’s my revised list of games with stunning graphics:
GT3
SSX
Star Wars Starfighter
Ridge Racer V
Escape from Monkey Island
So, no surprises in that list, apart from maybe Monkey 4. Anyone who’s played Guybrush’s latest adventure on the PS2 will agree that the graphics are a bit, well, shoddy. The characters are not as detailed as they could be, the animation’s jerky and the framerate’s a little low. All in all, it’s about the same standard as FF VIII. So why is it on the list? Well, I think you’ll all agree that the backdrops are stunning. Really, really, stunning. Whoever modelled them must have been really skilled and put a lot of effort into his art, and that’s what it is: Art. That’s why I believe videogame graphics are becoming more of an art form these days than they used to. With the power of next-gen consoles such as the PS2, GameCube and Xbox, artists and graphics designers can really let their imaginations flow and stir up some powerful images, without fear of being slated by critics. Forget “Advanced AI” and “Photo-realism”, I believe the future of gaming is moving away from realistic models and detailed backgrounds, and heading toward truly beautiful images, full of magnificence that stir the soul.
> By the way, Sonic, the other points in your post were all good ones
> and I noted them. Can you define a computer game that is art?
-------------------------------
24.07.01 Beautiful graphics
-------------------------------
OK, so we all know that graphics don’t matter in games, that they don’t make them any better, and that they’re only there for Joe “Softcore” Public. Or are they?
Today, whilst storming ahead on Grand Valley II in GT3, it really hit home to me how important some graphics are (Bonus will know what’s I’m talking about). Anyone who has raced this course I think will agree with me that it IS beautiful. Not beautiful as in lots of lovely realistic polygons, but really, really beautiful, as in art. Picture this: Early afternoon sun glinting over a lightly wet road like golden honey, surrounded by lush greenery, a Mazda MX-5 driving along with not a soul in sight, headlights up and shining brightly, rounds the corner to a misty straight with trees as far as the eye can see. It is a really stirring image, one worthy of a digital art gallery, or at least my desktop. Now you know what I mean by beautiful. So, here’s my revised list of games with stunning graphics:
GT3
SSX
Star Wars Starfighter
Ridge Racer V
Escape from Monkey Island
So, no surprises in that list, apart from maybe Monkey 4. Anyone who’s played Guybrush’s latest adventure on the PS2 will agree that the graphics are a bit, well, shoddy. The characters are not as detailed as they could be, the animation’s jerky and the framerate’s a little low. All in all, it’s about the same standard as FF VIII. So why is it on the list? Well, I think you’ll all agree that the backdrops are stunning. Really, really, stunning. Whoever modelled them must have been really skilled and put a lot of effort into his art, and that’s what it is: Art. That’s why I believe videogame graphics are becoming more of an art form these days than they used to. With the power of next-gen consoles such as the PS2, GameCube and Xbox, artists and graphics designers can really let their imaginations flow and stir up some powerful images, without fear of being slated by critics. Forget “Advanced AI” and “Photo-realism”, I believe the future of gaming is moving away from realistic models and detailed backgrounds, and heading toward truly beautiful images, full of magnificence that stir the soul.
Odd you mention the analogy with chess... I was about to use the very same point!
Chess was invented as a game of skill and risk... which it still is to people like us. BUT when Bobby Fischer played chess against Sparsky there was no doubt that he had turned the game into an art form. Like chess, games are usually just a "game", but CAN be used to express artistic qualities.
A better analogy is probably films. Like games they began life just a curiosity, and later a form of entertainment. However, as people got to grips with them, they soon became a way people could express temselves. Now few people would argue that films had the potential to be art.
Likewise, games have the potential to become art. I concede they're not there yet. But when someone makes a game that does more than just entertain, a game that envokes real emotions and confers ideas and emotions on the layer, then games will become art.
So, like the early days of film, video games are just entertainment. BUT they will, one day, be realised as a viable form of art. There have been some good moves in that direction- the land of Hyrule has the potential to develop into a Tolkein style world, and it could sport a storyline to match one day. Games like Rez, with it's evolution driven narrative, COULD develop into a truely unique mode of expression...
But for all this to happen, a game designer has to look at games as art, rather than a toy to score high points in.
Sonic
Chess was invented as a game of skill and risk... which it still is to people like us. BUT when Bobby Fischer played chess against Sparsky there was no doubt that he had turned the game into an art form. Like chess, games are usually just a "game", but CAN be used to express artistic qualities.
A better analogy is probably films. Like games they began life just a curiosity, and later a form of entertainment. However, as people got to grips with them, they soon became a way people could express temselves. Now few people would argue that films had the potential to be art.
Likewise, games have the potential to become art. I concede they're not there yet. But when someone makes a game that does more than just entertain, a game that envokes real emotions and confers ideas and emotions on the layer, then games will become art.
So, like the early days of film, video games are just entertainment. BUT they will, one day, be realised as a viable form of art. There have been some good moves in that direction- the land of Hyrule has the potential to develop into a Tolkein style world, and it could sport a storyline to match one day. Games like Rez, with it's evolution driven narrative, COULD develop into a truely unique mode of expression...
But for all this to happen, a game designer has to look at games as art, rather than a toy to score high points in.
Sonic
By the way, Sonic, the other points in your post were all good ones and I noted them. Can you define a computer game that is art?
===SONICRAV---> wrote:
Had Kandinsky decided that, rather than paint his ideas, he'd make an interactive version of them in a game would that not be art?
No, it would be artwork contained within a game. You could argue that it would be a game contained within an artwork though.
Take the chess board and chess pieces as an analogy. It started as a game, but over the centuries boards and pieces have been created that are finely sculpted works of art in their own right, but the function of the finished piece is not usually art in itself, the function is to play a game of chess. The artist could arguably create a chess set that does in fact convey a meaning or look aesthetically beautiful, but all he's done is create a wonderful looking game.
Which brings us to MGS2: Sons of Liberty and Hideo Kojima. Essentially it's a computer game, but it could also be called a work of art by some people. I'd still say it's a computer game that contains artwork.
Had Kandinsky decided that, rather than paint his ideas, he'd make an interactive version of them in a game would that not be art?
No, it would be artwork contained within a game. You could argue that it would be a game contained within an artwork though.
Take the chess board and chess pieces as an analogy. It started as a game, but over the centuries boards and pieces have been created that are finely sculpted works of art in their own right, but the function of the finished piece is not usually art in itself, the function is to play a game of chess. The artist could arguably create a chess set that does in fact convey a meaning or look aesthetically beautiful, but all he's done is create a wonderful looking game.
Which brings us to MGS2: Sons of Liberty and Hideo Kojima. Essentially it's a computer game, but it could also be called a work of art by some people. I'd still say it's a computer game that contains artwork.
Think back to the time when photography was invented (Ok, not literally you understand!). Was it classed as art? Far from it- it was simply a curiosity and a method for making records. However, as the discipline developed photography has become an artform in its own right. Same goes for films- initially just tools for recording events and creating propaganda, now they have become an art form. Games will inevitably go the same way...
Certainly, most computer games are not "art"... but some are. Just as most photographs are not "art"- like the family holiday flicks- but some are- like wildlife pictures.
Games like Rez have traversed, or at least begun to traverse, the line between art and entertainment. Rez is based on the artwork of Kandinsky (although from the KIandinsky work I've seen, it is nothing like Rez!), but takes the work to a whole new interactive level. Had Kandinsky decided that, rather than paint his ideas, he'd make an interactive version of them in a game would that not be art?
The line between art and non-art is very blurred indeed. However, in my view almost anything that is used in a way of expression is art. Anything used to convey ideas and emotions is art. Film, music, pictures, painting and even games can be art, but that doesn't make every single picture a piece of art... the potential is there though.
Sonic
Certainly, most computer games are not "art"... but some are. Just as most photographs are not "art"- like the family holiday flicks- but some are- like wildlife pictures.
Games like Rez have traversed, or at least begun to traverse, the line between art and entertainment. Rez is based on the artwork of Kandinsky (although from the KIandinsky work I've seen, it is nothing like Rez!), but takes the work to a whole new interactive level. Had Kandinsky decided that, rather than paint his ideas, he'd make an interactive version of them in a game would that not be art?
The line between art and non-art is very blurred indeed. However, in my view almost anything that is used in a way of expression is art. Anything used to convey ideas and emotions is art. Film, music, pictures, painting and even games can be art, but that doesn't make every single picture a piece of art... the potential is there though.
Sonic
Like the frilly title? That's what I call art. In as much as the definition of art by some people is anything which is there for purely aesthetic reasons or anything which is used to convey a message about the human condition in an abstract sense.
The title should do both, it communicates a deeper message that the title itself is a work of 'art' and that this topic will discuss it further, and the little / symbol at the end I tacked on for purely aesthetic reasons because it looked nice.
But I'd argue that whilst computer games contain art, (scenery in Gran Turismo for example serves no purpose other than to look nice as you drive past it,) they are not in themselves works of art. Rez? Rez contains two major forms of art, music and moving imagery. However, it is still a computer game in the true sense of what a computer game is. A game that is played with the use of a microprocessor is what I'd define as a computer game.
Then there's utilities. Take either MTV's Music Generator or MS Paint, both aren't computer games, they are just tools that allow the user to create artforms (naff music and naff imagery in this instance). They are merely an artist's tools to enable artists to create art.
How about the creation of games? Art form or highly specialised skill? Again I'd go for the latter. Although artists are employed by developers to create imagery for the games they produce, the whole package is produced by not just them but by programmers, editors, musicians, directors, producers, etc.
Gaming itself? Again I'd go for highly specialised activity rather than art form. Gamers don't necessarily produce art with computer games, and their activity is to defeat the game, not in itself an art, just something that takes skill and practice to do.
How about if a computer game could be classified as a medium for storytelling, like a film or a novel? Again, whilst most computer games nowadays do try to get a message of some form or another across to the player (like 'war is bad' or 'good guys win' and so on), not all computer games are designed with a prevailing message in mind. Some are designed purely for gameplay. I challenge any reader to find the philosophy behind Tetris for example.
So to me computer games will always be just that, computer games. They are a classification to themselves, maybe a sub-heading for 'Games', and perhaps in the future a sub-heading of 'Art'. However many people try to convince me that gaming is an artform or that computer games are works of arts I'll still stick to my guns, because for me if a computer game ever became an artwork in itself I'd rather hang it on my wall and call it a nice picture than play it.
The title should do both, it communicates a deeper message that the title itself is a work of 'art' and that this topic will discuss it further, and the little / symbol at the end I tacked on for purely aesthetic reasons because it looked nice.
But I'd argue that whilst computer games contain art, (scenery in Gran Turismo for example serves no purpose other than to look nice as you drive past it,) they are not in themselves works of art. Rez? Rez contains two major forms of art, music and moving imagery. However, it is still a computer game in the true sense of what a computer game is. A game that is played with the use of a microprocessor is what I'd define as a computer game.
Then there's utilities. Take either MTV's Music Generator or MS Paint, both aren't computer games, they are just tools that allow the user to create artforms (naff music and naff imagery in this instance). They are merely an artist's tools to enable artists to create art.
How about the creation of games? Art form or highly specialised skill? Again I'd go for the latter. Although artists are employed by developers to create imagery for the games they produce, the whole package is produced by not just them but by programmers, editors, musicians, directors, producers, etc.
Gaming itself? Again I'd go for highly specialised activity rather than art form. Gamers don't necessarily produce art with computer games, and their activity is to defeat the game, not in itself an art, just something that takes skill and practice to do.
How about if a computer game could be classified as a medium for storytelling, like a film or a novel? Again, whilst most computer games nowadays do try to get a message of some form or another across to the player (like 'war is bad' or 'good guys win' and so on), not all computer games are designed with a prevailing message in mind. Some are designed purely for gameplay. I challenge any reader to find the philosophy behind Tetris for example.
So to me computer games will always be just that, computer games. They are a classification to themselves, maybe a sub-heading for 'Games', and perhaps in the future a sub-heading of 'Art'. However many people try to convince me that gaming is an artform or that computer games are works of arts I'll still stick to my guns, because for me if a computer game ever became an artwork in itself I'd rather hang it on my wall and call it a nice picture than play it.