The "Sony Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Can video games really be classed as an art form?
You can certainly admire good level design, well-balanced controls and an exciting plot but can you really compare the likes of Splinter Cell to Rachmaninov's Piano Concerto No 2? Or Emily Brontë’s Wuthering Heights? Or even Bruegel’s Landscape with the Fall of Icarus? There is certainly an art to making video games, but then there is an art to making a good cup of tea.
It can be argued that gaming is in its infancy, and the classics I have mentioned above stood on the shoulders of its peers in order to gain its recognition. Give video games time and it will soon develop the depth and intelligence of some of these great artistic forms. But is that such a good idea? Should video games be treated as an art form?
A few months ago I was enjoying an example of “Art House” cinema, Richard Linklater’s A Scanner Darkly. A film that is not so much about plot or entertainment, but rather a visual representation of the effects of narcotics. Indeed watching the film was a bit like sitting in a large room whilst someone intravenously pumps you with hallucinogenic drugs. It was both a thought provoking and unique cinematic experience. And yet after the film I felt I had seen something like this before… no, played something like this before.
Grasshopper’s Killer 7 is a brilliant example of an “Art House” video game. An amalgamation of both Western and Eastern themes with a unique story and a film noir type graphical style. Yet although Killer 7 is an excellent work of art it is not such a good video game. It is incomprehensible, repetitive and easy and whereas A Scanner Darkly could get away with not being good entertainment, Killer 7 cannot.
A Scanner Darkly, as visual art, could avoid criticism for its poor plotting and dull middle, yet Killer 7 is an interactive art form and therefore must adhere to the rules of good video game design. By treating games as a work of art we are in danger of losing that “fun” factor that has made the industry so compelling. It certainly wasn’t long before I turned Killer 7 off and played Resident Evil 4 instead.
Killer 7 demonstrates the difference between video games and most other works of art.
The true art forms of the video game world are the likes of Pacman, Zelda and Grand Theft Auto, games that are about addictive entertainment and a lot of fun and not unique graphical styles or hidden morals. I do hold out hope that future stylised video games (such as Nibris’ upcoming black and white Wii title, Sadness) can combine artistic style with addictive gameplay, but the former without the latter just will not work.
And as long as developers keep this in mind, then it won’t be long before video games receive the artistic recognition they deserve.
Dringo
You can certainly admire good level design, well-balanced controls and an exciting plot but can you really compare the likes of Splinter Cell to Rachmaninov's Piano Concerto No 2? Or Emily Brontë’s Wuthering Heights? Or even Bruegel’s Landscape with the Fall of Icarus? There is certainly an art to making video games, but then there is an art to making a good cup of tea.
It can be argued that gaming is in its infancy, and the classics I have mentioned above stood on the shoulders of its peers in order to gain its recognition. Give video games time and it will soon develop the depth and intelligence of some of these great artistic forms. But is that such a good idea? Should video games be treated as an art form?
A few months ago I was enjoying an example of “Art House” cinema, Richard Linklater’s A Scanner Darkly. A film that is not so much about plot or entertainment, but rather a visual representation of the effects of narcotics. Indeed watching the film was a bit like sitting in a large room whilst someone intravenously pumps you with hallucinogenic drugs. It was both a thought provoking and unique cinematic experience. And yet after the film I felt I had seen something like this before… no, played something like this before.
Grasshopper’s Killer 7 is a brilliant example of an “Art House” video game. An amalgamation of both Western and Eastern themes with a unique story and a film noir type graphical style. Yet although Killer 7 is an excellent work of art it is not such a good video game. It is incomprehensible, repetitive and easy and whereas A Scanner Darkly could get away with not being good entertainment, Killer 7 cannot.
A Scanner Darkly, as visual art, could avoid criticism for its poor plotting and dull middle, yet Killer 7 is an interactive art form and therefore must adhere to the rules of good video game design. By treating games as a work of art we are in danger of losing that “fun” factor that has made the industry so compelling. It certainly wasn’t long before I turned Killer 7 off and played Resident Evil 4 instead.
Killer 7 demonstrates the difference between video games and most other works of art.
The true art forms of the video game world are the likes of Pacman, Zelda and Grand Theft Auto, games that are about addictive entertainment and a lot of fun and not unique graphical styles or hidden morals. I do hold out hope that future stylised video games (such as Nibris’ upcoming black and white Wii title, Sadness) can combine artistic style with addictive gameplay, but the former without the latter just will not work.
And as long as developers keep this in mind, then it won’t be long before video games receive the artistic recognition they deserve.
Dringo
Can video games really be classed as an art form?
You can certainly admire good level design, well-balanced controls and an exciting plot but can you really compare the likes of Splinter Cell to Rachmaninov's Piano Concerto No 2? Or Emily Brontë’s Wuthering Heights? Or even Bruegel’s Landscape with the Fall of Icarus? There is certainly an art to making video games, but then there is an art to making a good cup of tea.
It can be argued that gaming is in its infancy, and the classics I have mentioned above stood on the shoulders of its peers in order to gain its recognition. Give video games time and it will soon develop the depth and intelligence of some of these great artistic forms. But is that such a good idea? Should video games be treated as an art form?
A few months ago I was enjoying an example of “Art House” cinema, Richard Linklater’s A Scanner Darkly. A film that is not so much about plot or entertainment, but rather a visual representation of the effects of narcotics. Indeed watching the film was a bit like sitting in a large room whilst someone intravenously pumps you with hallucinogenic drugs. It was both a thought provoking and unique cinematic experience. And yet after the film I felt I had seen something like this before… no, played something like this before.
Grasshopper’s Killer 7 is a brilliant example of an “Art House” video game. An amalgamation of both Western and Eastern themes with a unique story and a film noir type graphical style. Yet although Killer 7 is an excellent work of art it is not such a good video game. It is incomprehensible, repetitive and easy and whereas A Scanner Darkly could get away with not being good entertainment, Killer 7 cannot.
A Scanner Darkly, as visual art, could avoid criticism for its poor plotting and dull middle, yet Killer 7 is an interactive art form and therefore must adhere to the rules of good video game design. By treating games as a work of art we are in danger of losing that “fun” factor that has made the industry so compelling. It certainly wasn’t long before I turned Killer 7 off and played Resident Evil 4 instead.
Killer 7 demonstrates the difference between video games and most other works of art.
The true art forms of the video game world are the likes of Pacman, Zelda and Grand Theft Auto, games that are about addictive entertainment and a lot of fun and not unique graphical styles or hidden morals. I do hold out hope that future stylised video games (such as Nibris’ upcoming black and white Wii title, Sadness) can combine artistic style with addictive gameplay, but the former without the latter just will not work.
And as long as developers keep this in mind, then it won’t be long before video games receive the artistic recognition they deserve.
Dringo
You can certainly admire good level design, well-balanced controls and an exciting plot but can you really compare the likes of Splinter Cell to Rachmaninov's Piano Concerto No 2? Or Emily Brontë’s Wuthering Heights? Or even Bruegel’s Landscape with the Fall of Icarus? There is certainly an art to making video games, but then there is an art to making a good cup of tea.
It can be argued that gaming is in its infancy, and the classics I have mentioned above stood on the shoulders of its peers in order to gain its recognition. Give video games time and it will soon develop the depth and intelligence of some of these great artistic forms. But is that such a good idea? Should video games be treated as an art form?
A few months ago I was enjoying an example of “Art House” cinema, Richard Linklater’s A Scanner Darkly. A film that is not so much about plot or entertainment, but rather a visual representation of the effects of narcotics. Indeed watching the film was a bit like sitting in a large room whilst someone intravenously pumps you with hallucinogenic drugs. It was both a thought provoking and unique cinematic experience. And yet after the film I felt I had seen something like this before… no, played something like this before.
Grasshopper’s Killer 7 is a brilliant example of an “Art House” video game. An amalgamation of both Western and Eastern themes with a unique story and a film noir type graphical style. Yet although Killer 7 is an excellent work of art it is not such a good video game. It is incomprehensible, repetitive and easy and whereas A Scanner Darkly could get away with not being good entertainment, Killer 7 cannot.
A Scanner Darkly, as visual art, could avoid criticism for its poor plotting and dull middle, yet Killer 7 is an interactive art form and therefore must adhere to the rules of good video game design. By treating games as a work of art we are in danger of losing that “fun” factor that has made the industry so compelling. It certainly wasn’t long before I turned Killer 7 off and played Resident Evil 4 instead.
Killer 7 demonstrates the difference between video games and most other works of art.
The true art forms of the video game world are the likes of Pacman, Zelda and Grand Theft Auto, games that are about addictive entertainment and a lot of fun and not unique graphical styles or hidden morals. I do hold out hope that future stylised video games (such as Nibris’ upcoming black and white Wii title, Sadness) can combine artistic style with addictive gameplay, but the former without the latter just will not work.
And as long as developers keep this in mind, then it won’t be long before video games receive the artistic recognition they deserve.
Dringo
For a video game to be classed as art, it needsthree things. Beautiful gameplay, beautiful sounds and beautiful visuals. Recent final fantasy games are an example in my opinion.
EDIT:Have you actually read Wuthering Heights? If yes hen you would know that it an not be classed as a work of 'art'.
EDIT:Have you actually read Wuthering Heights? If yes hen you would know that it an not be classed as a work of 'art'.
Art's subjective, i don't think a messy bed is art but apparently it is so meh
Frankenfonse wrote:
> For a video game to be classed as art, it needsthree things.
> Beautiful gameplay, beautiful sounds and beautiful visuals.
> Recent final fantasy games are an example in my opinion.
>
> EDIT:Have you actually read Wuthering Heights? If yes hen you
> would know that it an not be classed as a work of 'art'.
Wuthering Heights is, in my eyes, the greatest work of fiction ever... an art form in the purest sense.
I do love the book. :D
> For a video game to be classed as art, it needsthree things.
> Beautiful gameplay, beautiful sounds and beautiful visuals.
> Recent final fantasy games are an example in my opinion.
>
> EDIT:Have you actually read Wuthering Heights? If yes hen you
> would know that it an not be classed as a work of 'art'.
Wuthering Heights is, in my eyes, the greatest work of fiction ever... an art form in the purest sense.
I do love the book. :D
Art doesn't have to be beautiful.
A lot of the time art is simply what people are prepared to buy. Money guides artistic trends. :D
A lot of the time art is simply what people are prepared to buy. Money guides artistic trends. :D
Many things are art forms, but I'm referring to real art, something to with stand the test of time.
Heh, so that'll be pictures of dogs playing snooker then and mickey bloody mouse. :(
/snobbery
/snobbery
I'm trying to see if video games can withstand the years of scrutiny some of musical and literary greats have had to endure...
I don't mean "I wonder if gaming is an art form, a bit like that chair in an empty room"...
I don't mean "I wonder if gaming is an art form, a bit like that chair in an empty room"...
Well seeing as not everyone agrees, it's open to interpretation and the fact that there are no longer single authorities on 'what is and isn't art' I think you'll find the concept of 'games as art' will stand the test of time.
Especially when you consider that films can be art and the similarities between games and movies (and, infact, any visual medium).
People are enthusiastic about games, concerts for gaming music do very well so I can't see why displays of gaming art shouldn't be as successful.
IGN is a gallery. :D
Especially when you consider that films can be art and the similarities between games and movies (and, infact, any visual medium).
People are enthusiastic about games, concerts for gaming music do very well so I can't see why displays of gaming art shouldn't be as successful.
IGN is a gallery. :D
Speaking of gaming art. There is a gaming exhibtion on at the science museum with art pieces of famous games.