Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Video Games: The Next Great Aesthetic Medium

Rate this topic


Dormin111

Recommended Posts

The following essay was written for the Objectivist Academic Center Core Program:

 

Video Games: The Next Great Aesthetic Medium

 

               For decades, video games have been thought of as toys. Pong, Tetris, and other games were virtual extensions of reflex and puzzle-based games that we could play in person. An individual could go outside in the glaring sunlight and play an exhausting round of tennis with a friend, or he could stay inside and simulate the experience with Pong. Likewise, he could try to work with a slow and unwieldy puzzle, or play Tetris. Unsurprisingly, video games were considered objects of simple amusement and relegated to the status of hoola hoops and board games.

 

               But this categorization has eroded over time, and currently we are in the midst of a crucial transition period. Video games will always be toys is some sense, but now they are also becoming art.

 

               And why not? Nearly all video games represent (in the words of Ayn Rand) “a selective recreation of reality according to an artist’s metaphysical value judgments.” For a standard video game, the creator must choose a story, a setting, characters, character arcs, an atmosphere, and nearly every other component which contributes to the creation of a self-contained reality found within literature or movies. Furthermore, these components interlock in an enormously complex presentation which takes into account not just the aesthetic elements found in other mediums, but the actual gameplay as well.

 

               But to describe the aesthetic value of video games as merely “movies combined with toys” doesn’t do the medium justice. Video games present an enormous aesthetic opportunity for artists, which, after thousands of years of artistic production, is still barely explored. Video games uniquely possess the aesthetic quality of interactivity.

 

               When you look at a painting, read a book, or watch a movie, the experience is inherently passive. That is not to say the audience does nothing; he can still engage his emotions, evaluate the display, and in the case of reading, even do some heavy conceptual integration to make sense of it all. But fundamentally, the experience of the audience is heavily controlled by the artist, who must guide the audience through his artistic vision.

 

               On the other hand, video games are built on the basis of interactivity. The artist may design the parameters of the audience’s display, but it is the player who crafts the experience. This limits the artist’s control over his creation and forces him to factor player choice into his designs.

 

               The potential implications for interactivity are immense. Already we are seeing video game creators experiment with the degree of interactivity offered to the player. A game like Fallout 3 drops the player into a post-apocalyptic open world sand box world and lets him do almost anything he pleases. The player is free take the role of anyone from a benevolent wanderer who deals with other people with trade and respect, to a genocidal maniac who lives by violence and treachery. Meanwhile The Last of Us presents a tightly crafted experience where the player is led down a very specific path, and choices are limited to minute events like how to handle specific combat situations.

Likewise, developers are testing out the concept of narrative interactivity. Most video games still follow a linear narrative path like any (non-“choose your own adventure”) book or movie, but games like Mass Effect and Heavy Rain are testing just how much narrative control can be relinquished from the artist, and given to the player. Such games are developing labyrinthine plot structures where every choice prompts two more choices, and no two players will end the game in the same place.

 

Another potentially groundbreaking component of interactivity is player-character integration. When reading a book or watching a movie, the audience follows a character through the plot. The artist always tries to make the audience connect with the character by making the character interesting or relatable, but ultimately the reader or viewer is merely observing another entity.

 

But in video games, the player is the character. That is, the player literally controls the character’s actions, at least within a given range of activity. This enables a much greater, and more easily attainable sense of connection with a character than can be provided in other artistic mediums.

 

Consider a game like Metal Gear Solid 4, which features a protagonist who is an old, dying soldier in the midst of his final combat mission. A key component of the plot is that the protagonist is no longer physically fit for combat, and thus his body slowly breaks down throughout the story. The player not only experiences this through in-game cinematics, but also in the actual gameplay. For instance, the player has a “stress meter” which increases during bouts of extreme combat or in harsh climates. If the meter gets too high, the character’s abilities suffer in form of decreased weapon accuracy, slower movement, and even fainting.

 

This gameplay element connects the psychological and physical degradation of the character with the player. Therefore, the player and the character are actually sharing the same experience in some sense. No book or movie is able to attain quite the same sense of connection.

 

These examples and dimensions of interactivity are just the tip of the ice berg. Video games are in their youth as an artistic medium, and are just beginning to explore their full aesthetic range. The last few years have seen the rise of many new bold experiments in interactive aesthetics, but the video game medium is still waiting for its Canterbury Tales, or Citizen Kane, or The Sopranos to establish itself as a fully realized art form. Decades from now, we may look at video games as equally or more artistically significant than the mediums which have dominated aesthetics for centuries.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say that trying to get others to agree with you that video games are art, is largely irrelevant  - in the sense that some will insist that they are not.  That being said, I'm replaying Gothic 3 (w/Community Patch!) and am once again amazed at how beautiful the landscape is.  The music, voice acting, etc.  all bring about an enjoyable aesthetic experience on par with that of art in the traditional mediums. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You raise an interesting point. 

 

What is conveyed in a work and how it is conveyed are some considerations one makes when assessing whether a work is properly termed art.

 

I think by and large, the general medium or the general manner by which art is expressed is not in and of itself determinative of the answer, e.g. plays, sculpture, paintings, and literature can be art.

 

Form, color, texture, repetition, allusion, allegory, symbolism, etc. and countless other techniques are used in various art media to support and present the whole of the work for contemplation by a viewer/participant.

 

An interactive technique, for sure can be used to trigger individual artistic sequences, cause scenes, music, pictures to occur and string them together, but this perhaps would not constitute "interactivity" as such being used as a material of the art form.  That said, it is very possible that an artist could use interactivity, use choices of the "participant" of the art, in such a manner that the interplay between the two, the actions of the participant and the responses of the work, present "choice forms" or "interaction patterns" which somehow per se are forms which serve as vehicles of artistic expression of the work.

 

Not sure this has been developed as of yet...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should check out what Rand had to say on the difference between art and decoration.

A video game can be art, but if its main purpose is to challenge the player, or provide an environment in which players compete against each other, it is not. Because the purpose of art is an essential trait of it, and that's not its purpose.

But, in principle, there is nothing to prevent an artist from creating art in the form of an interactive computer program. Just like they create art in the form of animation, except that you get to more and look around freely. It's just that the main purpose, and the focus of the creator's attention would have to be the art.

I would say there are many video games on or around the border between art and software meant to offer gameplay first, and then there are also a lot that clearly can't be called art.

I'd say that trying to get others to agree with you that video games are art, is largely irrelevant  - in the sense that some will insist that they are not.

Well, if that's how you go about trying to make people agree with you, then that is indeed irrelevant.

On the other hand, if you show me that a video game fits the definition of art, I assure you, I won't insist that it is not.

That being said, I'm replaying Gothic 3 (w/Community Patch!) and am once again amazed at how beautiful the landscape is. The music, voice acting, etc. all bring about an enjoyable aesthetic experience on par with that of art in the traditional mediums.

Beauty and enjoyment have nothing to do with it. There's plenty of ugly art, and even more aesthetically pleasing utilitarian objects, foods and software.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Nicky

 

"Well, if that's how you go about trying to make people agree with you, then that is indeed irrelevant."

 

I don't try and MAKE people agree with me about anything.  I could care less.  Do you care that others agree with you?

 

"I won't insist that it is not."

 

Insist away to your hearts content.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Though I have little experience with video games, I'm skeptical.  Games can contain meritorious visual and musical art accidentally (i.e. inessentially and not qua games), but, because they are necessarily indeterminate and not under their creator's control - "interactive" as you put it - they can't meet the conditions of dramatic art.  Art is under the creator's control, expressing his sense of life.  To the extent that a work ceases to be under that control, it isn't art.  (This is largely a restatement of Nicky's point in #4.)  John Cage and his spawn used to write music this way, but it never went anywhere.

 

You might point out that some works of narrative or dramatic art offer alternative endings: The Lady or the Tiger?, The Night of January 16th, The French Lieutenant's Woman.  These are one-off novelties, though, peripheral to the major works in their respective fields.  And they offer exactly two endings, each spelled out by the author; they don't allow the audience to make the events up as they go along.

 

You might also point out that turning a script or a musical score into a finished performance takes the contributions of more than one artist.  This says that such works require more than one artist, not that they require a non-artist.

 

The field is in its infancy, and I have no idea where it will go in the future, but I don't see it producing art in the full sense.,

Edited by Reidy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Though I have little experience with video games, I'm skeptical.  Games can contain meritorious visual and musical art accidentally (i.e. inessentially and not qua games), but, because they are necessarily indeterminate and not under their creator's control - "interactive" as you put it - they can't meet the conditions of dramatic art.  Art is under the creator's control, expressing his sense of life.  To the extent that a work ceases to be under that control, it isn't art.  (This is largely a restatement of Nicky's point in #4.)

Well, technically, no art stays under the artist's control. You can pick up a painting an put it into a church, or your house, or a museum, etc., light it differently, etc.

Basically the same things happens to objects in a video game. They can't really be changed, but they can be moved, or the player's perspective can move. As long as the environment and in game objects are the focus (and the main point of the game is to move around and look at things), rather than a tool towards gameplay (where you use objects to kill your opponents, or solve puzzles), it's as good a medium for art as any.

A virtual world is a selective recreation of reality. If that recreation is the ultimate purpose of the game, then it's art.

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...