Why (if at all) do you consider games an artform?

http://www.gamespot.com/features/fre...?story=6144118

This is a really good article I think. For one it puts one of my strongest philosophies for gaming into a good example. That being that when playing a game, it's all about the gameplay. Not story, not graphics. Niether of those are part of you playing it.

He uses a really good example : Re4. The story was flat, uninteresting and most of all.....silly. The entire setup didn't even make sense and the character placement was abysmal. Yet it's widely known as one of (if not, THE) best game of this generation.

My own personal example would be Ninja Gaidan. Story? What story? I'm too busy with the gameplay to care....not that the Ninja Gaidan story made any sense. Ok, let me get this out of the way now because I know someone here is going to bring it up: Yes. I know that the story in Ninja Gaidan was inspired by how westerners (Vigors) came to japan, bringing war and corruption to the country in order to obtain what Japan had to offer. Whatever.

That doesn't make the story any less stupid.

Spoiler (Highlight to read):

---

I mean seriously, if Murai wanted the dark dragon blade, why didn't he just GO AND GET IT. It was right under his nose for years and he knew that. One could argue that he wanted the blade to gain power before he took it...but he could've just killed people with it to do that. right?

---

Now, don't get me wrong, I can appreciate a good story....especailly if the gameplay is superb. Metal Gear Solid for example. The story is deep. It has just about every element you can think of. Action, humor, religion, politics, romance and philosophy. But at the end of the day, I'll focus on the gameplay. When I play it over again, I'll skip all the cutscenes. I'll start working on completion bonuses and beating higher difficulty settings for the simple sake of satisfaction as well as the thrill of a challenge.


The thing is, once game developers start focusing on gameplay, many people consider it less of an artform than other video games. I think that's crap.

To create a good gameplay scheme and get it to work properly takes skill and creativity.....that's exactly what it takes to be a good artist.

To me, a game doesn't have to have the visuals of WW or the atmosphere of SotC to be a good work of art. Things like that are why we have other forms of art in the first place.

Sure, MGS has a good story. but why pay fifty bucks for a good story in a game, when I could just pay five bucks for a book with one? Or seven bucks to see a movie with one? And no, simply making the story interactive is not enough. I hate it when gamers use that as a crutch in a debate. It's insanely stupid. Why?

Becuase the interactive part STILL HAS TO BE ENJOYABLE TO DO, otherwise there is no point in adding interactive elements at all.

WE PLAY GAMES FOR THE GAMEPLAY. Debate it all you want, no other quality would make it a video game. In order for something to be a game, it has to have gameplay. So why is it that in order for it be a good game, it not only has to have good gameplay, but good visuals, sound and writing? How at all does that make sense?

That said, why isn't the gameplay enough for video games to be [widely] considered an artform? That's what makes it what it is, right?

I'll tell you why the actual game in a game is not widely considered art. It's not mainstream, or moreover, not what were used too. Commonly the only things associated with art are either visual or audio...al. The entire being of what everyone grew up with as being art is

1) A picture, song, or book of some kind

2) Openly referred to as art.

When something is finally noticed as art, and is often referred to as such, people will gradually begin to see. Take the movie industry. When it first arrived on the scene it was hardly considered art (Some even going so far as to call it blasphamous) even though it was the same as a traditional play. Just one you could enjoy at home, on your own time.

I beleive the same will go for video games. People will see past the brilliant stories, music, and graphics, and see the gameplay as such too. I had never thought of each of those things individually when thinking of games as an artform. I had always thought of them as a whole. One big interactive piece of art. In time most will probably do the same.

I have yet to read the article, but will soon. Either way, you bring up a valid point that I have often wondered myself.

EDIT: sorry for the half-assed answer. I'm at school and have to do this secretively.

Originally Posted by Tigerboi

That said, why isn't the gameplay enough for video games to be [widely] considered an artform? That's what makes it what it is, right?

The comparison I always fall back on: In one of my university creative writing classes, one of the students asked our professor, "What separates me writing completely random words from cubism?" My professor's answer was "Well, you aren't Gertrude Stein?" More than anything else, being art means being accepted by the greater artistic community. And yes, it's pretentious.

One aspect games lack in being deemed art is the intent and artistic expertise of their creators. Few games are created with the intent of creating art. Fewer still by the hand of a lone artist or orchestrator whose vision they enable, let alone some mutual collective of artists. Rather games are an exercise in engineering that, when they do feature artwork, generally do so through incorporation as composition, not through becoming art in themselves. The author of the Gamespot article touches on this in referring to "translation."

There's also no concrete line to cross. As with Gertrude Stein and cubism, some writing is deemed art, and some isn't, and often the difference is something trivial and unquantifiable. The same applies to music, movies, paintings, etc. Then take it a step further: Is advertising inherently an artistic? Sports? The news? You'll find that those devoting a significant portion of their life to them tend to be the most inclined to view them as art regardless of what the greater artistic community would claim... which is the problem with gamers, myself included, discussing whether games are an artform.

Mind, mainstream has nothing to do with it: Games are mainstream, and often it's becoming mainstream that undercuts consideration as art.

A system of principles and methods employed in the performance of a set of activities: the art of building.
A trade or craft that applies such a system of principles and methods: the art of the lexicographer. Skill that is attained by study, practice, or observation: the art of the baker; the blacksmith's art.

To me, anything that's created with a starting point as a tought is an art. ANYTHING.

Things like news aren't things that are created; the news creates itself. Football games (when looking at them as a spectator) create themselves. Things such as this aren't crafted or thought out by the human mind. If you were to talk about the creation of a certain point, different story.

what the mainstream considers art has always been....deluded...in my opinion.

I don't entirely understand how RE4's story was "silly" and the character placement was horrible. Sure, the main plot was cliche "capture the president's daughter" but there was definetelly a well-developed story, discovering why the villagers were so deranged, realizing they once were peaceful, then eventually the discovery of the Las Plagas, the past incidents of that area in Europe and a religious sect whose goal is global domination.

The character placement... was great if you ask me. All of them had unique perspectives to add and the morals of the story were one that I think many people should aspire to. The main character Leon is a great hero, IMO.

But of course, this isn't about RE4 so I'll return. Yes, I do think videogames are an artform in a sense, the story, visuals and gameplay all add into this. The gameplay determines howe well and at what rate you'll receive an intake of the art.

Originally Posted by KING_LIZALFOS

I don't entirely understand how RE4's story was "silly" and the character placement was horrible. Sure, the main plot was cliche "capture the president's daughter" but there was definetelly a well-developed story, discovering why the villagers were so deranged, realizing they once were peaceful, then eventually the discovery of the Las Plagas, the past incidents of that area in Europe and a religious sect whose goal is global domination.

The character placement... was great if you ask me. All of them had unique perspectives to add and the morals of the story were one that I think many people should aspire to. The main character Leon is a great hero, IMO.

Alright, I'm just going to dodge the main topic for a second; reading these two paragraphs made me laugh. NO DISRESPECT INTENDED. It just did. Let me explain why...

First off, the main plot was not only cliche...but senseless. Think of how a rescue mission of this calibur would be in real life: The U.S. goverment sends in thier highest ranking SEALS via helicopter to quickly locate and extract the presidents duaghter.

What did Re4 have? One guy. With a photo. GOING AROUND ASKING RANDOM PEOPLE HAVE THEY SEEN HER. That has suicide written all over it.

This, in turn, influences the character placement. Other than Leon, there's the streotypical sexy helpless female that needs to be saved!

Ada came back. Yes, Ada. That weird asian lady from Re2 that turned out to be working for an unknown organization (and I don't mean wesker's). think about that for a second. WHAT ARE THE ODDS OF THAT? This was just capcom looking for an excuse to use her again. Even in seprerate ways, there was no explination fot his. Appearantly it was just a coincidence. A random, extremly ironic coincidence.

And Krauser. the badass with the knife....who the hell is he anyway? No, really. They just threw him in out of nowhere.

Observe:

Leon: KRAUSER!

Me: Who?

Krauser: Long time no see...

Me: Wait, what?

Krauser: They told you I died two years ago in that crash?

Leon: you're the one who kidnapped ashley!

(because appearantly, Saddler needed an American to get close enough to kidnap her)

Ok....riddle me this....is Krauser was presumed dead for two years.....how was he able to get close enough to kidnapp her anyway? Think about it for a second. Obviously, he would need to keep a low profile, which would defeat the point of Saddler choosing an american all together.

And is it just me, or did they explain Krauser's ENTIRE backstory in this one scene? The very same scene they inroduced him in. I mean, no flashback, no previous mention, just "HI! REMEMBER ME!" "YEAH! I DO!" "I'M NOT YOUR FRIEND ANYMORE!" "...."

And still don't actually understand the reason Ashley was kidnapped.....ok, yeah, Saddler said ransom. But he had control a species that could put the entire would's population under his control. why the hell would he NEED to use her as ransom?

Salazaar, despite being comparable to a bad bond villian, was the only placed character that made sense to me.

As far as the story being well developed; I thought it was mediocre. Honestly, the only part I was even a little interested in knowing next were the small bits of info about the las plagas.....Other than that....not really much developed. It was just Leon growing ever so closer to rescueing Ashley.

It doesn't matter if you agree or disagree, do you see what I mean?

I believe art encompasses just about anything, since it's a general topic. I do believe that gameplay is more important than story and graphics. One of my favorite games is Super Smash Bros. Melee. There is no story to speak of, though there are profiles on characters. Another of my favorite games is Aydin Chronicles for N64. The graphics suck, but the gameplay is great.

Originally Posted by Tigerboi

And I can only effectivly explain this a PM. Which I will do now.

What, I'm confused a bit because I think you made a small mistake or forgot a word. Do you mean you can only explain this through a PM? As in you plan to PM me?

I actually edited and decided agianst it. Read above.

No, really. They just threw him in out of nowhere.

True, they basically were relying on the notion that you have played past RE games. I haven't but even so, I enjoyed Krauser and thought he was a cool character. Especially the boss fights in the ruins with him. I think this was a clever way to encourage playing the past games, because I know this made me interested in playing the past games for a deeper understanding.

Ok....riddle me this....is Krauser was presumed dead for two years.....how was he able to get close enough to kidnapp her anyway?

I guess this is something for us fans to figure out on our own or perhaps another game will explain this. Hasn't bothered me.

But he had control a species that could put the entire would's population under his control. why the hell would he NEED to use her as ransom?

For the money to fund the Los Illuminodos's bases and etc. Also he planned to use Ashley to get to her father the President, by infecting her. It apparently was the most sound and quicker plan, since America were his goal, then the rest of the world will follow.

t doesn't matter if you agree or disagree, do you see what I mean?

Yeah, I do see what you mean a bit. Although I still think Ada appearing wasn't necessaringly random and was indication to a bigger plot and mystery that must be solved in the future Resident Evil games, suggesting that the RE series is back and will be making an impact.

Originally Posted by Tigerboi

To me, anything that's created with a starting point as a tought is an art. ANYTHING.

Things like news aren't things that are created; the news creates itself. Football games (when looking at them as a spectator) create themselves. Things such as this aren't crafted or thought out by the human mind. If you were to talk about the creation of a certain point, different story.

what the mainstream considers art has always been....deluded...in my opinion.

Easily arguable, like so many have said, "art is in the eye of the beholder", art doesn't need to be "created" in a construction sense, it can simply exist, you should check out what duchamp did with his urinals and stools. Found objects can certainly be art, and the artist didn'y necesarrily create the object itself, it's all a matter of context and proper research.


Now, in your first post I'm very glad that you brought of the point of interactivity, the whole point of video games is interactivity, the use of ones hands, eyes, and mind in conjuction with the movement of virtual objects.
I read that article earlier this morning, I found it quite interesting when the author commented that video games should not be compared to paintings, music, video, or books, but as it's own, or perhaps as a collaboration of all 4 of these 4D art archtypes. Hell, lets even include the whole package itself, the boxing, the manual, the video game CAN be a great interdisciplinary art form, and well, we have had many games that come very close to being art: the MGS trilogy, Ico, Sotc, SOTC being the closest because of it's gameplay with directly targets the lackluster gameplay found today, which asks gamers around the world to dispel the notions of mandatory sub enemies.

But alas, all games can be told/read as stories, or be watched as a film or video peice. The Revolution may give us the very first ART video game, or as I would rather say, interactive, interdiscenplinary media, IIM. Developers NEED to also focus on the development of the manual, and the game box itself, all direction must be in the hands of the creator (the artist), not the sales associates (the gallery curators and owners).

Ooooh, ok, you're a first time RE player with 4. No wonder you thought the story made sense.

Ok, history lesson: RE4 was the first time Krauser ever appeared or was even mentioned in an RE game. Trust me, playing past games won't give you any clue on who the hell he is. As a long time fan of the series, I'm just as clueless about him as you are.

The second thing you quoted: That can't be explained. There's no way. Krauser said it, in order to get close to the president, Saddler needed an American....so he picks one that has been presumed dead by the secret service for two years? It's a plothole. If you're going to be an RE fan, I suggest you get used to those.

For the money to fund the Los Illuminodos's bases and etc. Also he planned to use Ashley to get to her father the President, by infecting her. It apparently was the most sound and quicker plan, since America were his goal, then the rest of the world will follow.

you're not getting it: I know that's what he said, but it doesn't make sense. Especailly considering the fact that Capcom seemingly disregarded the fact that Saddler DID say that near the end of the game. My point is, Saddler did not need to take ashley captive in order to threaten the U.S. into giving him money....he could've used the Las Plagas for that. So why did he kidnapp ashley? Simple! To give Capcom an excuse to have Leon blow the hell out of things.


As for your last paragraph....yeah, I suppose that is true. I doubt it'll ever come to be....simply because Capcom can't seem to finish a story if thier lives depended on it.

Easily arguable, like so many have said, "art is in the eye of the beholder", art doesn't need to be "created" in a construction sense, it can simply exist, you should check out what duchamp did with his urinals and stools. Found objects can certainly be art, and the artist didn'y necesarrily create the object itself, it's all a matter of context and proper research.

I've seen his works. and they fall right under my definition of art. Sure, sometimes he did use random everyday objects, but he didn't just pick it up and call it his work. He did something to them for example....and this isn't a joke....put a bycicle wheel ontop of a stool.

Ok, history lesson: RE4 was the first time Krauser ever appeared or was even mentioned in an RE game. Trust me, playing past games won't give you any clue on who the hell he is. As a long time fan of the series, I'm just as clueless about him as you are.

Ah, I see now. The way they played it out, made it seem like Krauser was a major character in a past RE game.

The second thing you quoted: That can't be explained. There's no way. Krauser said it, in order to get close to the president, Saddler needed an American....so he picks one that has been presumed dead by the secret service for two years? It's a plothole. If you're going to be an RE fan, I suggest you get used to those.

How can Capcom be so cruel? ;_;

Especailly considering the fact that Capcom seemingly disregarded the fact that Saddler DID say that near the end of the game. My point is, Saddler did not need to take ashley captive in order to threaten the U.S. into giving him money....he could've used the Las Plagas for that. So why did he kidnapp ashley? Simple! To give Capcom an excuse to have Leon blow the hell out of things.

Hunh, that is true.

Originally posted by Tigerboi
The second thing you quoted: That can't be explained. There's no way. Krauser said it, in order to get close to the president, Saddler needed an American....so he picks one that has been presumed dead by the secret service for two years? It's a plothole. If you're going to be an RE fan, I suggest you get used to those.

Saddler probably figured that he'd be a good pick for it, due to his overall military skill. Obviously, Saddler had hidden connections inside America, so I guess he just found Krauser some way, and teamed up with him. It's not really a plot-hole, but just something that isn't explained very well.

you're not getting it: I know that's what he said, but it doesn't make sense. Especailly considering the fact that Capcom seemingly disregarded the fact that Saddler DID say that near the end of the game. My point is, Saddler did not need to take ashley captive in order to threaten the U.S. into giving him money....he could've used the Las Plagas for that. So why did he kidnapp ashley? Simple! To give Capcom an excuse to have Leon blow the hell out of things.

What would the Las Plagas have done? Attacked America? Saddler knew that America was strong, and he also believed that their leaders were very stubborn and arrogant. I highly doubt he believed that simply sending some of his forces there would've just instantly got him money from them. Besides, don't you think that America would've found some way to counter it? Or at least, they would've fought against what Saddler threw at them?

Saddler wasn't in it just for the money, remember, there's that note at the end before the fight with him that explains how he's wants to begin world domination, and that he wanted to conquer America. Obviously, he had bitter feelings towards the country, and he wanted to torment the President by sending his daughter back while she's fully infected by the Las Plagas.

It's not really a plot-hole, but just something that isn't explained very well.

......What exactly do you think a plothole is?