Artistic Nature of Video Games

Well, every game has 'concept art' xD

For some reason, I think Final Fantasy IX really stands out.

 

I was gonna say these games.

Heh.

Okami (It's pretty obvious)
Devil May Cry (Cutscenes are gorgeous, and fancy. Stylish.)
Final Fantasy series (It's obvious)
Uncharted (Why do you think it's not that hard to climb things? It's for show.)
Resident Evil 5 (Everthing is usually "Lights, Camera, Action" in this game.)
Metal Gear Solid (It's a movie in every cutscene.)
Mirror's Edge (Colorful, in a blink of an eye)
Shadow of the Colossus (like Trigger said, the gameplay can consider itself an art)
The World Ends With You (Graffiti style, I think.)

 

Mario Paint. That game DEFINES art in games XP
On a serious note, I agree with Okami for its visual style, and also The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker. A cel-shaded Zelda game was iffy, but it pulled through quite well (or so I have read >_>)
In its own sick way, Madworld is also artistic, for being mostly black and white and then tons of blood.

 

Metal Gear Solid 4. It's an absolute masterpiece and I don't care what you say.

 

Art is a broad term. Technically every game is a work of art in it's own respects...except for ET Atari.

If you mean games that have envoked a feeling and experience beyond simply passing from point A to point B, my list would include:

Bioshock
Shadow of the Colosseus
Flower
Uncharted 2
Any FF
Kingdom Hearts

And I hope to add FF13, Alan Wake and Epic Mickey to this list next year.

 

The problem with that is that Advent Childrens storyline was ridiculously haphazard and unnecessary

 

The Sephiroth fight in AC made up for the story.

 

Fix' d

 

* Rule Of Rose
For its metaphors and intricateness.
* The World Ends With You
For its welll...art.
* Xenogears / Xenosaga
For its succesful mixture of sci-fi, psychology and philosophy.
* Shin Megami Tensei: Nocturne
For its spiritual side, the fact that it goes against virtually every cliché in the book and the character designs.
* Silent Hill
For its use of metaphors and use of the blood-and-rust theme.
* Okami
If you really need a reason for this, you need professional help.

 

Let's see...:

Final Fantasy anything (duh)
Kingdom Hearts (the emotion behind it... amazing! ;.; )
The World Ends With You (graffitti art = love!)
Okami (You really want to know? GET. OUT. NOW.)
Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion (It's so open and... wowie zowie!)
Valkyria Chronicles (I just get that feeling from it...)
Mirror's Edge (It's amazing, all of the emotion, action, and reality of it. Packed into such a short game! :rockdover: )

 

I consider games which have beautiful scenery, good, simple and innovative gameplay as well as an very good, including sad scenes, story to be the fundamentals for works of art.

 

Ive heard Shadow of the Colossus mentioned on here and I have to agree 100% with that. The landscape is so vast and visually and graphically AMAZING. The huge boss battles are all different in the strategy required to beat them. The game is simple in what you are supposed to do, but its still amazing.

But I'm going to have to be honest.
One game that can TRULY be classified as a "work of art"...

Is Metroid Prime 1
O M G
Prime one is perfect!
The visuals are incredible, the music is ingenious, the games replay value is off the charts. (I played it for about a year not playing anything else. I've beaten it about 16 times) Its spectacular in so many ways with the perfect combination of old things from Super Metroid and new things such as phazon. and they put extra detail into EVERYTHING.
When you walk into smoke it stays on your visor for a few seconds. When you charge your ice beam your entire arm cannon freezes over. If you walk into an industrial room you can hear steam escaping some pipes.
This game may not have that much in terms of Extra features, but nor does SOTC which I have already mentioned is incredible anyway.

 

Art games. Non-games. Interactive movies. They all go by different names. But are they all the same thing? And most importantly, can a game be art?

It's a pretty broad subject, so I'll start it off with a quote from Michael Samyn from developer Tale of Tales. Their games have been described as art. He says "games are not art" and are "a waste of time." [Source]

Now, the developer of games that many people consider to be a form of art is going on to say that games are not art because they are a product of play, play being a biological need.

Roger Ebert, famous movie critic has also weighed in on the matter and made the following quote: "One obvious difference between art and games is that you can win a game. It has rules, points, objectives, and an outcome. Santiago might cite a immersive game without points or rules, but I would say then it ceases to be a game and becomes a representation of a story, a novel, a play, dance, a film. Those are things you cannot win; you can only experience them. [Source]

But are video games not also an experience? Correct, games have rules and objectives and outcomes, but don't plays and novels and dances also have those? The rules of the universe which the artist creates. The purpose (objective) of which the artist is trying to convey. And the outcome, the ending. Games have them, books have them, poems have them. They all make one final point with the ending. Just because the reader can't win a book, doesn't mean the character's don't win or lose to a lesser extent. And it's about relating to those characters and makes us feel their victories and defeats and we bring those feelings back to us. The same way we do with video game characters.

That's just one side of the whole argument though. I think the side arguing against games as art has just a strong an argument, but I cannot argue for that side because it is not a side I advocate for. I do see certain games as art. But I do hope you all try to see what it is they are arguing, even if it may seem silly because it is something of true cultural significance and needs to be dealt with intelligently rather than, "ebert's an idiot" or something along those lines. They do have a strong case because it affects the way art works. The way art is. In the end, it's a very powerful influence as to how games can be regarded.

Is art simply passive, where the emotion is spoon-fed to the audience or is it something where, given the opportunity, the audience can actively participate and seek out those emotions? Because isn't that what art is? An expression of emotion?

So what do you think KHV?

 

http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/vi...the-art-of-video-games-and-video-games-as-art

This video is probably the best argument against the "video games aren't art" stupidity. Roger Ebert makes his comments out of ignorance for the video game medium. He may be an expert on films, but he has time and time again shown that he is quite the opposite on video games. It should be noted that the video game medium is a very young medium and still hasn't proven itself to everyone.

 

The creation of art itself, especially when writing a book or painting a thing, is a battle. It is interactive; it presents obstacles and conflicts of interest, and in the end you arrive at a triumphant and full conclusion that encompasses the beauty of the experience itself. Games are not the same as a completed work of art because they allow each viewer to become an artist for him- or herself. To paint the story anew. Is it not art when an entire class is set forth to paint the same bowl of fruit, and they each do it differently? What, then, is a group of gamers if not a class, painting a canvas for a story that has been laid out for them as a bowl of fruit might have been?

Some other notable reads and perspectives on the subject:

http://www.online-literature.com/wilde/1305/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imitating_art

 

In my opinion video games are art. It might not be the normal, paint on paper art, but what's art to you? Art is a subject that is different for every person, and people consider art to be different thing. Some might agree with others, and disagree, but it all depends on view-points. I personally thing it's art because of many reasons, but one could be that art is full of emotion, and I consider video games emotional(...well, depending on the game it might not be) and I think that most certainly can be a qualification for art. Art isn't something that pops up in minutes, it takes time and hard work, and it certainly takes that, as well as more for both, to achieve both a painting/sculpture/etc. or a video game.

 

I read Ebert' s article a few days ago : http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04/video_games_can_never_be_art.html
He brilliantly worded ideas I had a hard time wording myself before, although he' s quite dense when it comes to appreciating the other side of the argument. I think the components of a video game are artful, while the game itself is just a game. Of course some might think designing a game is, in itself, an art, depending on their definition for "art".

Most areas that are now wildly recognized as arts (cinema for instance) had to fight their way through snobbish elitists to win this title, which they usually did by proving they could express things in ways the other arts couldn' t. I think video-games have this potential to do things the other arts can' t, for instance they can subvert the conventions established via their gameplay or their technical constraints and bend them to suit narrative or direction needs (the loading doors in Resident Evil, the wall covered with save points in Silent Hill 2, etc ...).

 

...

 

Uh, I can shoot down that initial point pretty simply, in several ways:

(1) If you wanna talk semantics, "art" can be anything from "anything that evokes a reaction" to "a skill that can be trained or taught," both of which games fulfill. They evoke various reactions ranging from enjoyment to disgust, and the technical skill required to excel at a game can certainly be practiced, even if it is heavily luck-based.

(2) Ceremonial martial arts are considered an art form. Hell, it's built into the phrase! Depending on their purpose they may be closer or farther from "pure" art, but the basics are the same: one or more persons exhibiting combat skills. In many ways, fighting games find their roots in that sacred practice, and their performance by high-level competitors is a sight to behold.

All video games are art. I find it absurd to argue against this notion, especially at this stage, where many games look and sound almost as good as films. They even have their own niche in eliciting emotional response from the player: atmosphere. Immersion is easier to achieve when the person partaking of the art has a stake in it, and no more simply is that achieved than by having them control the outcome--even if the extent of their control is "succeed or fail." Especially so, perhaps. The happy ending hinges on the player's skill.

This is why games that are too easy or too hard are disliked; because if a person is not immersed in the game, they are not enjoying it. I can't think of anything else that accounts for both extremes. By the same token, other art forms such as literature and film are attempting to reach out to the viewer, to leave them with something or evoke something in them. Works that fail to do this will not be as highly regarded as others, no matter the quality of craft or technical skill involved in making them. Immersion is a factor, though in the case of video games it is both a larger factor and a somewhat less controllable one.

Some games are made solely to be played and enjoyed, and not to make some grand statement, but some other works of fiction are geared towards the same purpose. Unless you want to look me in the eyes and tell me Dragonball Z has serious artistic merit. Point being, when determining the conditions for art, it is difficult to discretely eliminate video games as eligible without excluding other forms of entertainment media.

At any rate, if anyone's seen the demo video Kara for Quantic Dream's new game engine, video games might be about to prove themselves in a big way and silence a whole slew of the remaining naysayers. Keep your fingers crossed.