The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
I read an article at a website (www.Generation-N.Net) the other day, asking whether games could be considered art or not. It's a question I myself have often pondered, and the editorial only re-instigated my thoughts.
Is gaming art? Can it really be that games are automatically "not art"? Or are those who say so simply doing so because games are still considered babyish? It's a problem the industry has never lost, so could this be the reason most people would deny that games could possibly be art?
Maybe. But first we have to define art itself, surely, and that's an even bigger debate. The Greeks were wondering about this thousands of years ago, the French were considering it during the Rennaisance and the debate still rages today. If no satisfactory conclusion can be reached in millennia, it would be wise to assume that we're not about tfind out tomorrow - so instead, let's look at what games DO have.
Arthur C. Clarke once said of interactive entertainment: "Where better does human experience touch electronic worlds?" Well, where indeed? There is only one man in the world with a computer chip implanted upon his body; there are only about 5 top manufacturers working on machines that recognise and respond to commands sent through brain-wave patterns; and there are as yet no robots with a personality. But humans DO connect with computers every day, and I'm not simply talking about clicking a mouse every five seconds. Humans interact on a far deeper level than that - they challenge computers to adapt to the ability of a games player. On top of this, games are often at the forefront of most technology - although universities might be working on artificial intelligence that can be taught new things, it is with games that the roots of AI lay. Mr Clarke obviously recgnised that human/computer interaction isn't merely a specialist area for a few researh laboratories - it happens every day on millions of consoles and PCs.
Does this qualify gaming as art, though? Interaction is certainly one of many people's critertia. How about the idea of something having to be philosophical; thought-provoking; point-making? Can games do what, say, Saving Private Ryan did? Can it present something in that kind of fashion; can they make people stop and think about moral dilemmas?
It is perhaps here that games fall down. Gamers might argue that some games proclaim that nukes are bad things (Metal Gear Solid) or that the exploitation of intelligent robots (Perfect Dark) are messages that come through in games, but the truth is these kind of mesages come through in any Arnie flick or action-adventure. No-one would qualify The Peace-Maker as art, but that tells us that weapons of mass-destruction are terrible. The difference is that some films, such as the excellent A.I., put a point across and actually make people think. The Peace-Maker does not; it sacrifices philosophy for entertainment. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's just not art.
I haven't even touched on music or paintings yet, or dance or any other of a multitude factors that are relevent. What I am saying is that, in my opinion, games are not art - YET. They have the potential to be, though, and I have little doubt that eventually they will. But as of yet, they still have to aspire that far. They just have to mature a bit first.
Is gaming art? Can it really be that games are automatically "not art"? Or are those who say so simply doing so because games are still considered babyish? It's a problem the industry has never lost, so could this be the reason most people would deny that games could possibly be art?
Maybe. But first we have to define art itself, surely, and that's an even bigger debate. The Greeks were wondering about this thousands of years ago, the French were considering it during the Rennaisance and the debate still rages today. If no satisfactory conclusion can be reached in millennia, it would be wise to assume that we're not about tfind out tomorrow - so instead, let's look at what games DO have.
Arthur C. Clarke once said of interactive entertainment: "Where better does human experience touch electronic worlds?" Well, where indeed? There is only one man in the world with a computer chip implanted upon his body; there are only about 5 top manufacturers working on machines that recognise and respond to commands sent through brain-wave patterns; and there are as yet no robots with a personality. But humans DO connect with computers every day, and I'm not simply talking about clicking a mouse every five seconds. Humans interact on a far deeper level than that - they challenge computers to adapt to the ability of a games player. On top of this, games are often at the forefront of most technology - although universities might be working on artificial intelligence that can be taught new things, it is with games that the roots of AI lay. Mr Clarke obviously recgnised that human/computer interaction isn't merely a specialist area for a few researh laboratories - it happens every day on millions of consoles and PCs.
Does this qualify gaming as art, though? Interaction is certainly one of many people's critertia. How about the idea of something having to be philosophical; thought-provoking; point-making? Can games do what, say, Saving Private Ryan did? Can it present something in that kind of fashion; can they make people stop and think about moral dilemmas?
It is perhaps here that games fall down. Gamers might argue that some games proclaim that nukes are bad things (Metal Gear Solid) or that the exploitation of intelligent robots (Perfect Dark) are messages that come through in games, but the truth is these kind of mesages come through in any Arnie flick or action-adventure. No-one would qualify The Peace-Maker as art, but that tells us that weapons of mass-destruction are terrible. The difference is that some films, such as the excellent A.I., put a point across and actually make people think. The Peace-Maker does not; it sacrifices philosophy for entertainment. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's just not art.
I haven't even touched on music or paintings yet, or dance or any other of a multitude factors that are relevent. What I am saying is that, in my opinion, games are not art - YET. They have the potential to be, though, and I have little doubt that eventually they will. But as of yet, they still have to aspire that far. They just have to mature a bit first.
Games are as much art as motion pictures are art. In reality both are the work of numerous skilled individuals, and so probably should be considered as entertainment and not art.
Art in my view is the work of one person (or a very small group) expressing there thoughts, views or feelings in a physical form.
Games and Movies rarely express the views or thoughts of a small group of people as they are more likely trying to be mass market products. They therefore reflect the views of their target audience and not necessarily the artists, hence are not art!
Art in my view is the work of one person (or a very small group) expressing there thoughts, views or feelings in a physical form.
Games and Movies rarely express the views or thoughts of a small group of people as they are more likely trying to be mass market products. They therefore reflect the views of their target audience and not necessarily the artists, hence are not art!
I think there is a place for art and a place for games. It is possible to be a coinesseur of either (if that's spelt right), and I think there is a chance for them to overlap. A lot of aspects of art are shown in games. Beautiful looks, a deeper meaning, something to reflect on. The question you ask is a valid one. My thinking is that these artistic elements create games which are often genuinely engaging and thought-provoking. It can be worthwhile, but there will always be a place for more traditional no-brainers like Serious Sam and Colin McRae (or pretty much any driving game). Often people enjoy these games as a bit of escapism, of light entertainment, and don't necessarily need a moral thrust into their face. My verdict: It's worthwhile and rewarding, but don't get carried away with the idea.
An excellent point. I can't say that I've played either of those games for any extended period of time but from what I did gather, and from the great things I've heard (about Deus Ex in particular), they do stand out as pillars of depth in a sea of shallowness.
However, are these truly as thought-provoking as games can get? I still believe that there is a game yet to be created which plumbs the depths of the human experience. It's ironic, in my opinion, that Conker's Bad Fur Day - an oft-immature platformer - actually contains one of the most moralistic endings from any game yet. Black and White does much the same thing in terms of causing us to think about the consequences of our actions.
In any case, I'm sure games have a lot further to go in these respects. The question I pose to you all now is, do we actually WANT games to take this road? Or maybe just as an experiment - is it worth designers trying to be different once or twice in order to see whether it's an option worth pursuing later? In other words, the question is not COULD games attempt at becoming art, but SHOULD they?
However, are these truly as thought-provoking as games can get? I still believe that there is a game yet to be created which plumbs the depths of the human experience. It's ironic, in my opinion, that Conker's Bad Fur Day - an oft-immature platformer - actually contains one of the most moralistic endings from any game yet. Black and White does much the same thing in terms of causing us to think about the consequences of our actions.
In any case, I'm sure games have a lot further to go in these respects. The question I pose to you all now is, do we actually WANT games to take this road? Or maybe just as an experiment - is it worth designers trying to be different once or twice in order to see whether it's an option worth pursuing later? In other words, the question is not COULD games attempt at becoming art, but SHOULD they?
to be classed as Art, I think a game should have something deeper to say than just "bullets! Everywere!" or "drive round this course quicker than last time!". They should have a deeper meaning, something important to say. Anyone who's ever read (any of) my posts will know of my love and worship of two games: Deus Ex and Fallout 2. Deus Ex especially has something to say. Think about it. The literal translation of the title is "without god" and the main character's name is JC denton. Those initials remind you of anyone famous? a celebrated teacher who's birthday we celebrate on the 25th of December every year? There are other deep bits as well about human nature and similar philosophical debating points. Fallout 2 also has a lot to say on the subject of human nature, it's selfishness and it's basis in evil. After the nuclear war, the most obvious thing is that the rotten parts of society are the ones that have survived. People have given up because they see no point in trying to preserve traditional values when they were all burned in the great war. Occasionally you meet people trying to uphold values, but mostly they are bigotted and isolationalist, or threatned by raiders or have a gang problem. The list goes on. Games like that give you a sense of art, of something to say, of a reflection on life. For me, games like these make it worthwhile.
I think he is messing with you mate, may aswell just ignore what he says most of the time.
:)
:)
You've not read the whole thing? That would suggest that your opinion isn't overly valid.
Nor does the fact that you haven't specified what you do agree with or, more importantly, what you haven't. If you did, then I might be able to clarify points or agree with you on some. The post was designed to encourage intelligent debate but simply dismissing something and not explaining WHY it's wrong is just stupid.
If you'd be so good as to explain precisely why you disagree with me, I might be able to rectify the situation. As it is, you're coming across as something of an ignoramus.
Nor does the fact that you haven't specified what you do agree with or, more importantly, what you haven't. If you did, then I might be able to clarify points or agree with you on some. The post was designed to encourage intelligent debate but simply dismissing something and not explaining WHY it's wrong is just stupid.
If you'd be so good as to explain precisely why you disagree with me, I might be able to rectify the situation. As it is, you're coming across as something of an ignoramus.
i just thought i'd answer your message as no-one else has.
-whatever you have written (too much for me to read) i agree with something but the rest id compleaty rubbish.
OK?
-whatever you have written (too much for me to read) i agree with something but the rest id compleaty rubbish.
OK?
I read an article at a website (www.Generation-N.Net) the other day, asking whether games could be considered art or not. It's a question I myself have often pondered, and the editorial only re-instigated my thoughts.
Is gaming art? Can it really be that games are automatically "not art"? Or are those who say so simply doing so because games are still considered babyish? It's a problem the industry has never lost, so could this be the reason most people would deny that games could possibly be art?
Maybe. But first we have to define art itself, surely, and that's an even bigger debate. The Greeks were wondering about this thousands of years ago, the French were considering it during the Rennaisance and the debate still rages today. If no satisfactory conclusion can be reached in millennia, it would be wise to assume that we're not about tfind out tomorrow - so instead, let's look at what games DO have.
Arthur C. Clarke once said of interactive entertainment: "Where better does human experience touch electronic worlds?" Well, where indeed? There is only one man in the world with a computer chip implanted upon his body; there are only about 5 top manufacturers working on machines that recognise and respond to commands sent through brain-wave patterns; and there are as yet no robots with a personality. But humans DO connect with computers every day, and I'm not simply talking about clicking a mouse every five seconds. Humans interact on a far deeper level than that - they challenge computers to adapt to the ability of a games player. On top of this, games are often at the forefront of most technology - although universities might be working on artificial intelligence that can be taught new things, it is with games that the roots of AI lay. Mr Clarke obviously recgnised that human/computer interaction isn't merely a specialist area for a few researh laboratories - it happens every day on millions of consoles and PCs.
Does this qualify gaming as art, though? Interaction is certainly one of many people's critertia. How about the idea of something having to be philosophical; thought-provoking; point-making? Can games do what, say, Saving Private Ryan did? Can it present something in that kind of fashion; can they make people stop and think about moral dilemmas?
It is perhaps here that games fall down. Gamers might argue that some games proclaim that nukes are bad things (Metal Gear Solid) or that the exploitation of intelligent robots (Perfect Dark) are messages that come through in games, but the truth is these kind of mesages come through in any Arnie flick or action-adventure. No-one would qualify The Peace-Maker as art, but that tells us that weapons of mass-destruction are terrible. The difference is that some films, such as the excellent A.I., put a point across and actually make people think. The Peace-Maker does not; it sacrifices philosophy for entertainment. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's just not art.
I haven't even touched on music or paintings yet, or dance or any other of a multitude factors that are relevent. What I am saying is that, in my opinion, games are not art - YET. They have the potential to be, though, and I have little doubt that eventually they will. But as of yet, they still have to aspire that far. They just have to mature a bit first.
Is gaming art? Can it really be that games are automatically "not art"? Or are those who say so simply doing so because games are still considered babyish? It's a problem the industry has never lost, so could this be the reason most people would deny that games could possibly be art?
Maybe. But first we have to define art itself, surely, and that's an even bigger debate. The Greeks were wondering about this thousands of years ago, the French were considering it during the Rennaisance and the debate still rages today. If no satisfactory conclusion can be reached in millennia, it would be wise to assume that we're not about tfind out tomorrow - so instead, let's look at what games DO have.
Arthur C. Clarke once said of interactive entertainment: "Where better does human experience touch electronic worlds?" Well, where indeed? There is only one man in the world with a computer chip implanted upon his body; there are only about 5 top manufacturers working on machines that recognise and respond to commands sent through brain-wave patterns; and there are as yet no robots with a personality. But humans DO connect with computers every day, and I'm not simply talking about clicking a mouse every five seconds. Humans interact on a far deeper level than that - they challenge computers to adapt to the ability of a games player. On top of this, games are often at the forefront of most technology - although universities might be working on artificial intelligence that can be taught new things, it is with games that the roots of AI lay. Mr Clarke obviously recgnised that human/computer interaction isn't merely a specialist area for a few researh laboratories - it happens every day on millions of consoles and PCs.
Does this qualify gaming as art, though? Interaction is certainly one of many people's critertia. How about the idea of something having to be philosophical; thought-provoking; point-making? Can games do what, say, Saving Private Ryan did? Can it present something in that kind of fashion; can they make people stop and think about moral dilemmas?
It is perhaps here that games fall down. Gamers might argue that some games proclaim that nukes are bad things (Metal Gear Solid) or that the exploitation of intelligent robots (Perfect Dark) are messages that come through in games, but the truth is these kind of mesages come through in any Arnie flick or action-adventure. No-one would qualify The Peace-Maker as art, but that tells us that weapons of mass-destruction are terrible. The difference is that some films, such as the excellent A.I., put a point across and actually make people think. The Peace-Maker does not; it sacrifices philosophy for entertainment. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's just not art.
I haven't even touched on music or paintings yet, or dance or any other of a multitude factors that are relevent. What I am saying is that, in my opinion, games are not art - YET. They have the potential to be, though, and I have little doubt that eventually they will. But as of yet, they still have to aspire that far. They just have to mature a bit first.