Gaming World Forums
General Category => Entertainment and Media => Topic started by: Kezay on September 10, 2009, 09:50:20 am
-
Kotaku - PAX Panel Attempts to Define "Gamer", Sparks Casual Controversy (http://kotaku.com/5354283/pax-panel-attempts-to-define-gamer-sparks-casual-controversy")
You can read the full overview at Kotaku but basically, every year at PAX there is a panel where they discuss something relevant to gaming. This year, the theme was "Game Culture: How Gamers Impact Society & How Policy Affects Gamer Culture." At one point representatives of games studios and the ESA had some discussion about what it means to be a gamer or whether that term is still necessary. Well, some guy eventually chimed in and had this to say:
"[I define] ‘Gamer' as someone dedicated to the perfection of fun. You can't do that in 10 [minute intervals]."
Now, already, the gamer definition debate is a hot one across message boards especially in this day and age when certain terms are used with reckless abandon and even moreso seem to have meanings entirely lost on their users, but this response is definitely the kind of thing you would see tossed around message boards. The "perfection" of fun and the notion that such a thing can't be done in ten minute intervals? You can read the remaining Kotaku write up to read about the reactions from the crowd to this statement, by the way.
The writer of the article, AJ Glasser, makes a great observation though. The commentator's comment does seem to do one of two things if not both:
1) Alienate the casual audience
2) Imply that shorter games don't count as games (or rather perfection of fun)
Indeed, there may be a rift between various gamers on experience/understanding/etc. at one point can anyone draw a line and define who is or isn't a gamer or have any real means of determining the worth of gamer as a title based on what a gamer plays? Across the net there are those that will distinctly argue these differences, that there is an understanding of what makes or doesn't make a gamer but not one person has been able to make clear that distinction. At best, AT BEST, they end up saying something akin to what that PAX commentator said, at worst, they outright deride and cast aside the casual audience.
So yeah, if anyone has anything to say, what do you think?
Personally, I find the comment uncouth and I'm surprised that when the guy said it that he didn't smack his head and go "arggh!" realizing the minefield he walked into. The actual wording is very elitist (for lack of a better word) suggesting that gamers are drawn to the "perfection" of what it means to have fun, suggesting this path as an impossibility for an audience that embraces those games. Considering very few games score perfectly and even moreso, those that do are constantly in debate about their "perfection" that was already off the bat the wrong word to use, but even a milder substitute would burn just as badly. What makes Call of Duty to a hardended CoD fan any more fun than the Sims to a hardened Sims fan? What about those that are fans of both? What about those that spend their time playing 30+ hour epics versus those that spend half an hour each night before bed playing Peggle?
Granted, I understand the vast differences in appeal between hardened fans and their respective games and those gamers that simply spend some consistent amount of time with those very games, but that's the point I'm trying to get across in how different the gaming population is. Personally, I'd rather play CoD than the Sims but that's more out of a preference than any credo of living up to the "standards" of what makes a gamer who they are. These days there are times where it seems like "casual" is a dirty word or a term inherently associated with an understanding of lesser quality. (and I mean this by apparent quality, not production value)
-
The definition of gamer is someone who plays games.
Man, "Casual Gaming "as a phrase and a concept (the fact that there are various levels of gaming) makes me feel kind of awkward. I don't know what it is but I just hate it. Like, you get these adverts where there's these old ladies playing Brain Training on their DS and it feels awkward. I don't really have anything against it (i am not the fun police) but it just feels wrong. I can't form any justification for my beliefs but it just feels wrong. I guess it's just me assuming that I am the target market for games and no-one else is.
-
bumblebee man tells it like it is
this debate is dumb as hell
and i don't like you, op
On a more interesting note, PAX had a special guest.
SWINE FLU
-
I always thought "gamer" meant someone who plays games.
-
I always thought "gamer" meant someone who plays games.
Me too but 'views' like this abound http://www.vgcats.com/comics/images/090423.jpg
-
Most important and fascinating debate in decades
-
The definition of gamer is someone who plays games.
Man, "Casual Gaming "as a phrase and a concept (the fact that there are various levels of gaming) makes me feel kind of awkward. I don't know what it is but I just hate it. Like, you get these adverts where there's these old ladies playing Brain Training on their DS and it feels awkward. I don't really have anything against it (i am not the fun police) but it just feels wrong. I can't form any justification for my beliefs but it just feels wrong. I guess it's just me assuming that I am the target market for games and no-one else is.
Not that I disagree with you at all (and I don't on the bolded) but that's the thing with this kind of debate because people tend to completely overlook that simple concept. Either that, or they know it well and just prefer emphasize that there is a hierarchy among different types of gamers and that's probably the point where the shit hits the fan.
@ Ciox
Pretty much, though I think VGCats' take on the issue is a bit more extreme than what you commonly see. Then again, I suppose when people constantly refer to casual gamers as being less than gamers, maybe their take is right on the money.
-
Gamers are people who have no appreciation for the arts sorry
-
Gamers are people who have no appreciation for the arts sorry
Hey, let's not put all the eggs in the same basket. Sure, most people on Kotaku are awful but damn don't tell me people like Micheal Abbott, Corvus Elrod, Kirk Battle, Ben Fritz, Leigh Alexander, and a bunch of smart mature gamers have no appreciation for art and the artistic potential of the videoludic medium. Damn, it's like saying my teacher (http://www.umontreal.ca/english/news_digest/2006-2007/20061030/horror.html) have no artistic appreciation.
-
Psyburn not only knows just what to say, but the exact right moment when to say it.
But he does have a point. Games stopped being part of the realm of "art" once they started making them fun. Now don't get me wrong. Anything can be counted as art, as long (here's the important distinction) as there is absolutely no fun involved. Once a piece of art starts becoming fun, you are no longer allowed to think of it as actual art.
Hate to give out the bad news, but I didn't make the rules. Although if the game industry keeps going the way it's been going, I have a pretty good feeling that future generations of games will all be considered art.
-
I don't know where you got that rule from but I don't think art and fun are mutually exclusive.
And even so, it's not because some movies are made only to be fun that movies as a media stops being art.
-
What do you care? You see us as you want to see us... in the simplest terms and the most convenient definitions. You see us as a role-player, a sports gamer, a casual gamer, and a Guitar Hero. Correct? That's the way we saw each other at seven o'clock this morning. We were gamers.
-
I love playing Peggle for a half hour before going to bed.
-
I don't know what a gamer is but I'm 100% positive games can express more than one thing.
-
Gamers are people who have no appreciation for the arts sorry
Impossible, just look at all the "gamers" that keep trying to classify games like Shadow of the Colossus and Killer 7 as art and fighting for the games industry to be recognized as more than a games industry. Well, at the very least they try to show their appreciation by tossing around labels to define the object of said appreciation. :P
@ Kentona
Damn straight, better than warm milk.
-
Impossible, just look at all the "gamers" that keep trying to classify games like Shadow of the Colossus and Killer 7 as art and fighting for the games industry to be recognized as more than a games industry. Well, at the very least they try to show their appreciation by tossing around labels to define the object of said appreciation. :P
@ Kentona
Damn straight, better than warm milk.
yeah but the thing is Shadow of the Colossus and Killer 7 are pretentious attempts to branch the gaps between video games and art and it's very obvious because it screams at it's attempts.
The "gamers" are just the ones who refuse to believe their precious artsy video games are more than a waste of time and fight just like anime nerds fight for subs not dubs
-
the only games that even come close to art are silent hill 2 and grim fandango sorry
-
yeah but the thing is Shadow of the Colossus and Killer 7 are pretentious attempts to branch the gaps between video games and art and it's very obvious because it screams at it's attempts.
There's nothing pretentious about not being a lazy, unimaginative piece of shit. I think both of those games are some of the best I have played because they are interesting and they both give you something that you can't get elsewhere, really, at all.
-
the only games that even come close to art are silent hill 2 and grim fandango sorry
It's a shame about silent hill 2, because it had some cool ideas about the entire game world being just a product of James' delusions - like the dress you find on a manican being identical to the one his wife wears in the photograph, and just the whole psychological aspect of the game in general - but it was presented in a stilted and poorly written (or translated, i don't know) wayl. That game could have been very good put in the hands of a better director or writer because all the other aspects of the game are pretty great - the sound and visual are both excellent and I think were original for the time.
I didn't like Grim Fandango very much when I played it, which was years ago. A friend recommended it as being hilarious but I thought it was just typical game humour filled with puns and Joss Whedon level irony. The way it looked was pretty cool, I guess, but I didn't really think it was anything that great. I'm not saying I hated it or anything.
-
It's a shame about silent hill 2, because it had some cool ideas about the entire game world being just a product of James' delusions - like the dress you find on a manican being identical to the one his wife wears in the photograph, and just the whole psychological aspect of the game in general - but it was presented in a stilted and poorly written (or translated, i don't know) wayl. That game could have been very good put in the hands of a better director or writer because all the other aspects of the game are pretty great - the sound and visual are both excellent and I think were original for the time.
you basically have to ignore a lot of the dialogue as spoken but there's definitely pretty amazing parts
it's kind of a letdown i agree but i think it would have made an amazing movie in the hands of an experienced director taken completely out of the context of a video game
-
i don't think video games are art for the most part. i think i would compare even the best of them to just a really good thriller/action movie which is KIND OF art but more just entertainment.
-
Well I don't know about taking it totally out of the context of a video game. I think that is part of what makes it what it is - I'm not saying it couldn't be good as a film, but I don't think it NEEDS to be a film. The interaction with the world made me alot more interested in certain details, and actually wandering around his nutty mind and discovering little moments here and there yourself makes the atmosphere alot more paranoid to me. Also, remember the part where you jump down all those holes towards the end of the game? If that was a movie, then yes it would have still been pretty effective (well, maybe), but because it is YOU who has to control him when he gets down there, you're the one who has to take the action, then the apprehension of what is down there is alot stronger because you need to actively meet it.
I mean yes there are parts of the gameplay that I don't have any use for (this door is locked...heh..go find a key and unlock the door......idiot) but there are other parts that I think enhance the story because really Silent Hill 2's story isn't really original, and is only compelling because the ideas it chooses to explore are compelling in themselves. You can find similar stories all over the place, but that fact that you need to be an active participant in unravelling the story is something unique to games and brings some new feeling to it which I think makes it worth it.
But basically my big problem with that game is that it was poorly written. I wish it had better writing.
-
i don't think video games are art for the most part. i think i would compare even the best of them to just a really good thriller/action movie which is KIND OF art but more just entertainment.
Depends on where you look. Big budget games are not going to be art as big budget movies often are simple entertainment.
-
This is the most pretentious and ridiculous thing I've ever read.
-
When I was playing Zelda LttP high on marijuana, I had this weird image of Link crawling through dungeon muck, just being dirty as shit, slaying all of these insane fantasy monsters. What a guy.
-
yeah but the thing is Shadow of the Colossus and Killer 7 are pretentious attempts to branch the gaps between video games and art and it's very obvious because it screams at it's attempts.
The "gamers" are just the ones who refuse to believe their precious artsy video games are more than a waste of time and fight just like anime nerds fight for subs not dubs
I was actually being facetious with SotC/K7 being recognized as "art" by gamers, thing. Not that I necessarily agree that "gamers" have no appreciation for the arts but some definitely are quick to point out games that could qualify as such probably moreso because something about them stands out from the pack. Though what about those games exactly "screams" at an attempt to bridge that gap? Also reminds me of another game that is receiving support for this games as an artform direction, that being Heavy Rain.
@ Drule
Join in, it'll be fun. :welp:
-
I was actually being facetious with SotC/K7 being recognized as "art" by gamers, thing. Not that I necessarily agree that "gamers" have no appreciation for the arts but some definitely are quick to point out games that could qualify as such probably moreso because something about them stands out from the pack. Though what about those games exactly "screams" at an attempt to bridge that gap? Also reminds me of another game that is receiving support for this games as an artform direction, that being Heavy Rain.
ey yo check out how tricked outn i'm trying to be and how radically different i am trying to be to try to be really artistic and get the audience to feel something real legit by some concept that is really artistic such as one young boy trying to kill dozens of giants and the whole game is just that because it represewnts the theme of a young boy and the large obstacles humankind has to overcome and this wicked killer 7 artstyle and completely different gameplay control scheme because we want to make art over anything
-
sorry psyburn but killer7 rocked and let me just tell you that had nothing to do with the gameplay
-
psyburn what are you talking about? as opposed to what?
you're an aspiring film maker for pete's sake!
-
Rap music, though fairly young, is art.
Video games are not.
-
Hideo Kojima is a pretentious fuck who can't make a decent movie so he's in the video game industry where he can amaze amateurs and yet you're a fan of him, as I remember.
-
I really like where this is going.
-
I think I finally have a definition of gamer that both casual and hardcore game enthusiasts can agree on:
Gamer {gey-mer}
-noun
a person that takes having fun far too seriously.
-
[reply ][/reply]
-
I think we all forget to have fun sometimes! Like, if a game is dumb as hell but kind of fun, we'll often focus on the fact it's dumb as hell and forget the fact it's kind fun.
-
Hideo Kojima is a pretentious fuck who can't make a decent movie so he's in the video game industry where he can amaze amateurs and yet you're a fan of him, as I remember.
hideo kojima sucks dude how am i a fan of him i hate him don't make assumptions you frick
-
You just don't GET Kojima...
-
Gamer {gey-mer}
-noun
a person that takes having fun far too seriously.
probably the only accurate thing in this topic
-
i dont get the GAMER HATE. i class myself as a gamer because i *gasp* like videogames a lot. i don't understand why that is such a taboo. i also read, am in a serious relationship, am going forward with my life, etc etc.
like, professional gamers, sure. and most "gamers" are douches, yes.
idk i guess its like vegetarian. because most are animal loving douchebags that protest eating meat, the ones that are actually normal people get the schtick too.
-
i dont get the GAMER HATE.
No, especially on a site called Gaming World, I'd expect some people to take gaming semi-seriously. If not, let's just rename it to Psy's Pretentious Emporium or something.
I think we all forget to have fun sometimes! Like, if a game is dumb as hell but kind of fun, we'll often focus on the fact it's dumb as hell and forget the fact it's kind fun.
I dunno. I am under the impression that most people do the opposite. They focus on fun but don't take a second to take a step back, look at it, and say "Damn, this game is dumb". Like, you know, Halo.
-
Rap music, though fairly young, is art.
Video games are not.
Explain your reasoning. Explain why video games cannot be art--we all know a lot of them aren't but explain why they CANNOT be, after all there are a lot of games that essentially ARE just choose your own adventure movies, those count as video games so explain the fine line that makes movies art and video games incapable of being art. You keep bringing this up and you've never (as far as I know) explained why. Just because most games are very very unartistic doesn't mean that VIDEO GAMES MAY NEVER BE ART EVER. So explain yourself! Give me some reasons!
-
Velfarre is right. For fuck sake Psy, Les Cahiers du Cinéma had a special number in 2002 dedicated to video games saying it had the potential to be a great art.
-
PAX is really gay because it floods the city and my favorite bars with complete faggots. Combine that with the hundreds(thousands?) of people from fuckin' Louisiana for the LSU vs UW game drinking themselves retarded all over the streets and you've got two great reasons to stay home for the evenings.
also: who the fuck really cares what someone thinks qualifies people as "gamers"? I think it's pretty self-evident that a gamer is one who plays games be it casual or "hardcore" and the fact that this person felt that he needed to make his feelings known on the issue kinda makes him a dipshit in the first place. :welp:
-
define: art
the products of human creativity;
o...oh...no... vido..video gams....are art...????
-
If sculpting my shit into a bust of George Bush is art then Shadow of the Colossus is art as well.
-
You got the definition of art wrong.
The definition of art is the product of something that can't be defined. If art could be defined, then people wouldn't disagree and make such a fucking fit over what qualifies (and more importantly does not qualify) as "art" all the time.
In order for fine art forms (such as rap music) to be preserved, it must never have a consistent definition tied to it.
-
If ripped up pieces of paper can be in the MoMA, video games can be art sometimes.
-
Idk EDC
Rap fits under the definition of "product of human creativity". Definition didn't have to change for that one. That definition kinda encompasses all of art. Don't see why the definition can't be consistent.
The reason people argue over stupid crap like this is because a lot of people are idiots.
-
Wait so if you combine different forms of art it stops being art?
art is dumb as fuck
-
So then games USED to be an art, when arcades were popular and pretty much the only way for most people to play. Then consoles came and f'ed it up and made it too commercial?
I'll buy that but P-burns "games are not and never will be art" crap is poopy
-
yeah I thought maybe my argument was missing something. I think the real problem is that it's difficult to make a case for game design and gameplay to be considered an artform. if you go by the logic that it's an artform then you would have to consider any form of gaming and game design (including the design of children's toys) to be considered art as well. the problem may also be that games are specifically designed to be mass produced consumer products. while films and music also get the same treatment they at least have theatres and concerts where you can appreciate the artform without it having to be a product that you buy.
I think you could probably make a serious case for indie games to be considered art but commercial games are just too commercial.
also it's not that art ceases to be art if it's a product that's a combination of different artforms. films are also comprised of writing and visual arts and music as well. the key difference is that films also have a unique creative element to them (cinematography) and aren't specifically made to be consumer products. the problem with gaming is that its unique form of creation that it introduces (gamedesign) is difficult to consider as art because it's essentially just computer programming (and I don't know too many people who would consider computer programming an artform) and also, as I said earlier, games are specifically made to be mass produced consumer products.
yes but even though it adds in a non-artistic feature, that doesn't mean that on the whole the thing isn't art. also the massproduced thing doesn't really mean much since a lot of films and paintings and such are that way too! your argument just narrows down the field of art in general, it doesn't rule out video games as a possible form of art. which i can definitely see, like i said not all video games are art by any means, but psyburn's argument is that video games can't be art and are never art and that's just not true at all
also if computer programming changed whether or not things were art then digital art could not exist and i do not think that is a road we should go down
-
but couldn't you say that computer programming is also a tool used to create games? idk you mentioned indie games so i think either way it's pretty much been determined that video games in general can indeed be art
also arcades aren't a thing of the past in japan, they're still doing v. good so i would say that that argument doesn't work either, you can't really say that video games are just art in japan, no matter what your definition of art i don't think anyone defines it geographically
-
Hey guys, let's pin a definition to art when it's completely subjective.
-
"The thing is, art is something that radiates the artist, the person who creates that piece of art. If 100 people walk by and a single person is captivated by whatever that piece radiates, it's art. But videogames aren't trying to capture one person. A videogame should make sure that all 100 people that play that game should enjoy the service provided by that videogame. It's something of a service. It's not art. But I guess the way of providing service with that videogame is an artistic style, a form of art." ~ Hideo Kojima
-
"Art blows" ~ Leonardo Da Vinci 1792
edit: Considering how much you hate Kojima im surprised you give so much credit to his words
-
"The thing is, art is something that radiates the artist, the person who creates that piece of art. If 100 people walk by and a single person is captivated by whatever that piece radiates, it's art. But videogames aren't trying to capture one person. A videogame should make sure that all 100 people that play that game should enjoy the service provided by that videogame. It's something of a service. It's not art. But I guess the way of providing service with that videogame is an artistic style, a form of art." ~ Hideo Kojima
Man I'm sorry but you are a dense piece of fuck. Art is recognized as being the products of human creativity... stop trying to shove your bullshit interpretation of something as open ended as "art" down our throats.
Seriously. A lot of thought goes into the design of a video game... how the player will react at certain points, how to challenge the player, the art direction, the navigation and control scheme. Video games are just another way to communicate ideas and expressions.
-
If that's something Kojima has actually said, then it's just more proof that he's a no-talent moron. Mass appeal is what all mainstream media strive to achieve.
-
just because one could argue that anything could be considered an art doesn't mean that one should. the type of people that say things like this are also the type of people that believe a shit-stained piece of toilet paper can also be considered art. you can believe this all you want but that doesn't change the fact that it will cheapen all other art in your eyes.
If someone having a different idea of art from you cheapens all other art in your eyes, then that is a personal issue. Anything can be considered art, but not everyone considers the same things as art, hence it is subjective.
also with your logic I could just as easily make the case that arguing about the standards and definitions of art can also be considered a form of art and your attempt at trying to silence me makes you a hypocrite since you're indeed applying your own standard to what is art.
Well actually, I do consider the word "art" to be artistic itself because of how different the interpretations are of it. I'm not trying to silence you, I'm just saying that applying your own definition or standard of art as some sort of universal definition or standard is silly. I think you're being a little too defensive.
-
action figures = sculptures
-
action figures = sculptures
i don't see any reason why not
-
best definition of art i've seen:
any human activity which doesn't grow out of our basic instincts of survival and reproduction
also under konix's definition comics wouldn't be art because they have to be mass produced and bought to be enjoyed
-
I was never trying to state my definition of art as being universal. My personal belief is that there are different levels of art. To me there's "art" (basically any human creation) and within that realm there's art (a creation that is made specifically for the sake of being art and to make a statement or invoke an emotion). yeah technically a kitchen table or an action figure can be considered "art" but that doesn't mean that it's on the same level of art as the mona lisa. I probably should've clarified this earlier. to me videogames fall into the former category as they aren't made for the sake of being made like a painting or a song is. the only exception to this are indie games, but I've already stated that one could make a far stronger case for indie games to be considered an art than commercial games.
but anyway my other point was that you're every bit as guilty of making your standard of art look like a universal standard as I am. if art truly is subjective then other people can and should be allowed to draw a line in the sand of what defines art for them and you're not allowed to call them out on it. you can feel free to make a case for your side and try to engage in the debate and explain why you believe videogames are art, but don't try to tell me that I'm wrong simply because I have a definition of art. like I said, everyone has a definition of art.
I don't see why you're singling out video games. Video games can also be created specifically for the sake of being art. Just because you can play it, that doesn't make it any less artistic. As for me being hypocritical by saying that it's subjective, I'm not creating a definition or standard. That's the difference between my stance and yours. You bring up criteria such as method of production and purpose of product for qualifications as art. I'm just saying that everyone has a different view of what qualifies as art. I don't really care if you consider video games as art, however I am questioning your criteria because they don't make sense to me and I'm looking for some clarification on your thinking.
-
the topic is about video games.
Yeah, but that didn't stop you from bringing up movies and music.
reread the last sentence of the first paragraph in that post you're quoting. I said you can make a better argument for indie games to be considered art than with commercial games because indie games are often created simply for the sake of being created. I guess everyone here is just lumping commercial and indie games together, but I'd personally much rather separate the two much like how I would separate the creation of action figures from real sculpture.
Okay, but you're apparently fine with big movies because they can be viewed in a theatre. That doesn't change the fact that they're mostly created to make money and yet you have no problem with considering movies and music as art. For whatever reason, video games are not art unless they're indie. That's like saying music is only art if it's indie.
everyone has a definition or standard of art regardless of whether or not they openly stated it in this topic. feel free to tell me why my standards and definitions are wrong, but don't tell me that I'm wrong simply for having a standard or a definition while pretending that you don't have one. the belief that anything and everything can be art is a standard and a definition.
I didn't say I believe that anything and everything can be art, I just said they could be considered as such. I also didn't say that you were wrong, I'm just not following whatever logic you're following and therefore I'm questioning it to gain some understanding.
w/e dude I'm done with this anyway. I just realized I spent the last hour of my life arguing about the artistic merits of electronic children's toys. fuck this. my posts make a lot more sense if you realize that I was arguing against whether or not videogames are an artform and not whether or not videogames are art. like I said in my other post I thought this is what everyone else meant when they debate this issue since arguing about whether or not something is art is pretty obviously stupid.
So you aren't arguing whether video games are considered art, instead you're arguing whether video games are considered a form of art. Yeah, I don't think I understand and you calling video games "electronic children's toys" just shows that you're putting on a "2 cool 4 dem vidya games" attitude because it's cool to bash video games and dismiss them as toys for children, but movies and music are deep art forms.
-
regardless I still think this argument is silly at best and I feel pretty gross for having taken part in it to this extent already.
Too bad cause you are the best debater in this and at least willing to have a mature discussion as opposed to Psyburn.
I guess everyone here is just lumping commercial and indie games together, but I'd personally much rather separate the two much like how I would separate the creation of action figures from real sculpture.
See, that's totally how I feel. It's like trying to compare the artistic merit of an arthouse film and something by Micheal Bay.
One point that bothers me though is that you seam to link game design and programming a bit too much. Game design is more about the creation of a set of rules to be used in a game and it's surrounding "universe". World creation and such are probably more linked to writing but the creation of rules is something more specific to the medium.
-
You may have been facetious with the toy comment, but I wouldn't be surprised at someone being on gaming world and not caring much about games. In fact, gaming seems mostly like a joke here and things like movies and music are discussed more seriously without the constant "I can't believe I'm talking about this seriously" crap I see here so often. Anyway, you're in the same debate as everyone else, you're just off on some crazy logic. For example, I don't understand what you're talking about when you say that creation of computer software must be considered an art form as well. Does that mean instructional videos should be considered an art form? You also ignore the similarities between the other forms of media. Are you telling me that when you play games you become an emotionless zombie? Video games clearly invoke emotions, even the ones that aren't trying to be artsy. Many pieces of music don't make artistic statements either. As mentioned before, there are instructional videos and those don't make artistic statements, neither do many documentaries. So your definition is very vague. You also bring up the whole museum and theatre bogus baloney again. Video games must be found in a specific type of building to be considered an art form! Yeah, that sounds so ridiculous. You try to make the distinction between commercial and indie for video games, but you don't make the same distinction for music and movies. That just seems inconsistent to me.
-
I'm sure konix knows the difference between a film with artistic merits and a instructional film.
Some video games are about as artistic as the label on a mountain dew bottle. But I believe that the right person can make a game be art. The interactivity that games provide could be used for artistic expression that is different when compared to other art forms, but i don't think anybody has used it to its full potential yet.
-
Well obviously he knows the difference, but my problem is that he points out non-artistic video games while ignoring non-artistic music and movies in his comparisons between them.
-
while offering nothing unique like how filmmaking has cinematography (I mean there's gamedesign and programming but as I said if you want to accept this as a unique medium of art then you must also accept the creation of computer software to be an artform as well), and lastly that videogames are not only not required, but very often do not make any artistic statement or invoke any emotions.
Two points :
1) The way I see it, programming is only a tool used in the process of creation and not the medium through which a message might pass. Computer software and games are not the same thing because games use other art form (writing, painting, etc...) and what make it different; a system of rule, commonly known as gameplay, and interactivity. Which brings me to my next point...
2) Video games can use interactivity to invoke emotions other medium can't, such as guilt. Aki Järvinen wrote a very interesting text about this in the Video Game Theory Reader 2.
-
The ultimate result of anything commercial is to make money, that includes music and movies. Movies and music are not required to have artistic merit either, which leads me to think you have some sort of bias against video games for whatever reason. There are plenty of mindless action movies, for instance. Music doesn't have to be artistic in nature either (I don't know if you consider Weird Al as artistic, I don't). There is nothing about the nature of music and movies that require artistic merit. Sure, there may be more examples of artistic works in those media, but they also have been around for a longer time.
I guess what you're trying to say is that gamemaking is a unique medium of art but you haven't given a single reason as to why.
the difference between indie movies/music and studio movies/music: the budget
the difference between indie games and commercial games: indie games don't roll off an assembly line, aren't sold in stores, are extremely rarely created for the purpose of money, and, compared to commercial games, more often than not actually do attempt to contain some artistic statement. this doesn't necessarily mean that indie gamemaking is a unique medium of art but it tries a fuck of a lot harder to have genuine artistic merits rather than just being a product at a store designed purely to numb your brain. note that I never once said itt that indie gamemaking is an artform. I only said that one could make a much stronger case for it being one than you could for commercial gamemaking.
You're placing music and movies on such a high pedestal. What makes you think that commercial video games do not include any artistic merit? Why do you think commercial music and movies have more artistic merit? You're asking me for a reason and yet you haven't given me one yourself. You just assume that those media are artistic in nature. The only difference between a movie and a game is that the game is interactive.
the point isn't that they're in a certain building. the point is that they can be enjoyed entirely as an experience and aren't required to be a product that you purchase at a store. yes, many films, albums, and works of art can only be purchased at stores. however, the issue isn't with individual works of art but rather the entire artform itself. is it possible to enjoy a video game without it being a consumer product?
You already mentioned arcades. Either way, the method of delivery does not change the artwork itself. Are home releases of movies any different from the theatre releases, other than the more expensive equipment in the theatres? Sorry to break it to you, but when you're in a theatre, you are still acting as a consumer and the product is your one-time viewing of the movie.
-
Games are the culmination of art. What Beethoven, Shakespeare and Da Vinci started, Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft have perfected. Art simply cannot evolve beyond this point.
- gamesmasterjasper
-
To restate things one last time with the hopes of clarifying my point: my argument against this is that the end product of gamemaking is that it must be a commercial product and cannot be enjoyed as an experience like going to a theatre or museum, that the process of gamemaking is composed entirely of other artforms coming together while offering nothing unique like how filmmaking has cinematography (I mean there's gamedesign and programming but as I said if you want to accept this as a unique medium of art then you must also accept the creation of computer software to be an artform as well), and lastly that videogames are not only not required, but very often do not make any artistic statement or invoke any emotions.
Evidently nobody really seems to be arguing about this at all and instead people were trying to decide whether the video games themselves can be considered a work of art or not.
Okay konix. I'm trying to see how the distinctions you make apply to the entire field of game creation, but am ultimately failing despite everything you have said thus far.
For instance, what if I applied the logic you used about accepting game design and programming as unique forms of expression to accepting sculpture as a unique form of expression? We know that sculpture is a unique form of expression, but by your logic that means we would be forced to accept the creation of furniture or a house to be an art form as well. Or if we are to accept writing as a unique form of expression, we must accept the manuals that accompany most useless consumer gadgets to be an art form in it's own right.
You say that the end product of game making is that it must be a commercial product, but in the same series of posts you openly acknowledge the products of indie game developers as counterexamples to this rule. Even when ignoring this, I still fail to see how the commercialization of a work has any bearing on the enjoyment of the experience that is produced by that work. How is buying a mass-produced disc and using a device to interpret it as a binary stream of data any different from paying admission in order to tour a museum or enter a movie theater? How is the process that generates a high-budget video game title any more detached than the process that generates a high budget blockbuster film that has already lined up massive endorsement deals and their own series of consumer products directly related to the film in question? Does the experience generated by a profound artistic work really become less profound if you have to trade pieces of paper and metal assigned arbitrary values before you are allowed to be exposed to the source of that experience?
From what I can tell, and maybe you need to state your point again so we can clarify any mistakes in my own logic I may be applying to your argument, it looks like everything you are saying about modern games that detaches them from the artistic creative process is directly derived from the most recent products of the industrialization of the previous art forms that you are trying so hard to distinguish from the medium of video game design and development.
With or without any of these considerations, I want to ask you a simple question (you can even take your time to counter everything I've said thus far before even answering):
How do you feel about the creation of non-digital games as a unique form of artistic expression? For instance, would you consider the game of chess to be a work of art? Can you think of the invention of the sport of soccer to be an artistic achievement? What are your thoughts on the processes used to design and develop things as abstract as the games that have been played for centuries before the first computing device has even been imagined? Are the experiences generated from each something that can be considered unique to any other expressible art form, or simply the combination of the other art forms that preceded them?