Are Video Games Art?

*shrug* I’d just like to see someone take on my argument that video games are essentially equivalent to a movie cum puzzles and thus, even if the “movie part” is arguably art the “puzzles part” is not and thus it’s not a new art form, just a combination of an existing one with, well, puzzles.

If you take a beautiful painting and turn it into a jigsaw puzzle, the resulting jigsaw painting is not an entirely new art form . . . in fact it may not even be a work of art in itself. It’s a work of art (a painting) that’s been used to make a puzzle interesting. Make it a 3D puzzle and add a storyline and a sound track and you still haven’t changed the fundamental nature of the thing you’re dealing with.

I think that the answer is that a lot of games are not puzzles. The ones who are puzzles really don’t qualify as art but there are many games like the Final Fantasy series where they are recreating reality on an incredibly grand scale. The stories are epic, there are theme’s and plots and many times they are quite well written and executed.

I do think based on that fact that some games should be considered art :slight_smile:

my argument…

  1. even if the “movie part” [of a video game] is arguably art the “puzzles part” is not
  2. thus [video games are] not a new art form

If video games were merely movie art + non-art puzzles, then it’d still be art, albeit not a new art form. So if the “puzzles aren’t (can’t be??) art” argument is true, then I have no problem with 2.

However, it’s questionable to say that no existing games (qua puzzles) qualify as art, and even more questionable to imply that puzzles/games can’t ever be art.

Games can certainly be selective recreations of reality based on their creator’s metaphysical value judgments. You can make a game where not treating your allies right means they aren’t around to help you in the endgame, or where committing crimes makes you untrustworthy. A game where ammo has to be carefully conserved and rationally rationed out has different value judgments from a game where ammo is infinite.

I suspect you agree with the above on some level, but still discount games as art because, in most game cases, violating the game value judgments makes the winning the game harder but generally not impossible. E.g. you still might be able to beat the game (with much, much more difficulty) if you mistreat your allies and commit crime, and thus some might say that the game doesn’t emphasize friendship and non-initiation of force. I’m not sure that this is your thought on the matter, but I disagree with such a premise at any rate. I think it’s a case of trying to squeeze interactive art into passive art constraints.

IMO most games are rather one big (integrated?) puzzle as opposed to a series of unrelated puzzles. Would that make a difference in terms of games as art?

What she means by a “recreation of reality” is that art takes realistic things and abstracts them. For instance, an example that Ayn Rand uses frequently throughout the Romantic Manifesto is an apple - in a painting it may be luscious, flawless, round, and bright red - but how many apples do you really see that look like that? Its function is to represent ideas derived from reality, not to record and replay it.

Not quite, Catherine, but pretty durn close. The recreation of reality aspect just means that it depicts something that exists in reality (albeit perhaps combined with other things so that the whole may not be something you’d find in reality, like a woman with snakes for hair, but all the parts are things you could encounter in reality).

The abstraction process is the means by which the artist conveys his metaphysical value-judgments. If an artist paints an apple as an idealized apple: red, round, ripe, juicy . . . then that says one thing about how he regards reality. If he paints an apple core or a rotten apple, those say other things. The style of the painting also conveys his value-judgments. If the apple is a beautiful apple but his style is a smeary mess, that conveys yet another thing. Part of the science of esthetics is demonstrating what is objectively conveyed by different methods of abstraction. One of the other things to note is that totally non-representative things (shapeless blob sculptures, smears on canvas, weird collections of noise, etc.) are not art. They are con jobs that attempt to be identified as art by pretending that art is synonymous with the mediums by which art are conveyed. Thus visual art is anything you can look at, audio art is anything you can hear, etc.

I find it useful to note that Ayn Rand did not include photography in art, because even though photography is very selective it does not embody this_,_ as you say, process of abstraction. Now, since we have wonderful software for altering pictures it is possible to turn a photograph into a work of art by cleaning out everything you don’t want and thus turning it into this kind of abstraction. This is not, however, a new form of art but simply a new method of “painting” (I use the quotes because it doesn’t involve any actual paint).

Now, in considering computer games specifically we have artistic elements that are already embodied in some other art form, across the board. Animation, acting, painting, sculpture, architecture, music, these are already extant forms of art, a video game is a combination of these. Yet here also we have an example of a form of “combo” art that is a new art form: the movie. In fact, the type of video games that could potentially be considered works of art are very similar to movies, so similar that there is really only one new element that needs consideration: the “interactivity” element.

This interactivity element boils down eventually to one thing: puzzles. Whether you have to thread your way through a conversaton with an NPC to further the plot or figure out how to kill a monster or find a key or hit the right buttons in the right sequence, these are all puzzles. They differ in degree and kind, of course, and some may require more physical dexterity and skill, but they all are identical in the respect that you must figure out how to accomplish X in order to do Z. Z usually is “get further in the game”, at least for main-plot stuff, although for “easter eggs” and “extras” it may simply be that you can “unlock more content”.

I found this particularly funny in the Prince of Persia games because the extra content you can unlock, for the most part, is “The Art of Prince of Persia”. I.e. if you hit the right points in the game you get to see a bunch of concept drawings. And Prince of Persia is a particularly well-integrated example of a computer game . . . largely because you don’t have any options. You complete the puzzles and the plot advances pretty much without your input.

If you look at games where you have a great deal more input as to what makes up the plot (Elder Scrolls: Oblivion comes to mind) you find that there are numerous subplots that advance by means of discrete sets of puzzles but NONE of them are integrated with the main plot in any way whatsoever.

There are variations between these extremes, of course (and other games that fall completely outside this paradigm, like internet chess), but it eventually boils down to one thing: the video game is a movie that, depending on what puzzles you choose to solve (and sometimes how you solve those puzzles) you may get to see different parts of the movie.

Does anyone remember the old “Choose your own adventure!” books? Are those not identical to the older text-based games where you would thread your way through by typing commands? What we have are existing forms of art to which some non-art elements have been added.

Oh, and chess is not art. I don’t care WHAT medium you’re using for chess, it’s not art. It’s not “life in microcosm” except metaphorically. A movie, play, or painting is “life in microcosm” literally. You can’t define what something is by what it may be said to be metaphorically. Life is not a stage and all the people therin simply players. If it is, I want to know what happened to MY copy of the damn script.

Oh, and chess is not art. I don’t care WHAT medium you’re using for chess, it’s not art. It’s not “life in microcosm” except metaphorically. A movie, play, or painting is “life in microcosm” literally. You can’t define what something is by what it may be said to be metaphorically. Life is not a stage and all the people therin simply players. If it is, I want to know what happened to MY copy of the damn script.

Whether or not chess is art, you’re misunderstanding the metaphor of “chess is life”. What that means is that the values needed for one to succeed in chess is very much the same values to need to succeed in life. Knowledge, practice, rational thought, rigorous analysis, will to win, etc. It’s not “life is a stage and the people are players”.

It’s not “life is a stage and the people are players”.

That’s a quote from Shakespeare, thank you, and an example of a metaphorical statement. “Chess is life” is another example of a metaphorical statement. You cannot say that chess is art because it can be said to do, metaphorically, what art does literally. Just like I don’t have a script for my life because Shakespeare says life is metaphorically a stage . . . just like I can’t have a conversation with the wind because it metaphorically whispers.

Metaphors aren’t real.

Metaphors aren’t real.

Really? Because it would seem like the arts, be it paintings, movies, or novels, are filled with them. Even Shakespeare.

Are you saying that there is a difference between literal metaphors and metaphorical metaphors? Or that metaphors aren’t considered art? Can poetry be considered art? Because a lot of them consist almost entirely of metaphors. What about a book like Animal Farm? It’s obviously metaphorical even though it’s literally about a bunch of talking animals.

I think this argument is bogus. The vision in a work of art does not need to be that of a single person. In a complex production, different people implement various aspects of the vision - such as the script writer, director, artists, and producers. The history of video games resembles the development of movies in the shift in focus from the medium to content. Games are vulnerable to the same vision-destroying tendencies as movies - the desire to appeal to everyone, development hell, “design by committe” - none of these things are inherent to the medium.

On the question of collaborative works such as movies and now video games I find the Objectivist definition of fundamental characteristics (ITOE) to be most useful: “Metaphysically, a fundamental characteristic is that distinctive characteristic which makes the greatest number of others possible; epistemologically, it is the one that explains the greatest number of others.” We can apply this to the creative process.

A classic example would be auteur filmmaking in which a single person conceives, writes, directs, and perhaps even performs in the lead role. Such an individual is the fundamental contributor. All others are subordinate to that creative mainspring, and the film’s distinct characteristics depend upon that individual. Suppose for example that the movie is a musical. The writer-director may write the lyrics and melodies, and then direct a composer to flesh out the score according to a particular style. Although the composer delivers the actual music, fundamentally the work belongs to the writer-director whose abstractions determined the distinctive characteristics that made the rest possible. We can then identify a single individual as the artist, because that individual defined the work; all others had fundamentally subordinate creative roles.

The way movies sometimes get made, so-and-so wrote the novel, somebody else adapted the screenplay, yet another person directs the actors, the actors takes liberties with the script, the studio execs demand rewrites and cut scenes without the director’s consent, and on and on until what you have is a terrible mishmash because no single person defined the work. It makes me sick to think about. I don’t know whether Rand would have called that art or not, but I know it’s not my ideal.

The ability to identify authorship according to fundamental contribution makes it possible to say that a work of art having multiple contributors nonetheless truly belongs to a single individual. So I am not prepared to say that there cannot be a single artist on account of a medium’s collaborative nature. There can indeed be a single ego defining the work of art.

This also applies to video games or any such collaborative creative endeavor: the artist’s contribution must be fundamental – it must be the defining characteristic, i.e. that which makes the greatest number of others possible.

Really? Because it would seem like the arts, be it paintings, movies, or novels, are filled with them. Even Shakespeare.

Are you saying that there is a difference between literal metaphors and metaphorical metaphors? Or that metaphors aren’t considered art? Can poetry be considered art? Because a lot of them consist almost entirely of metaphors. What about a book like Animal Farm? It’s obviously metaphorical even though it’s literally about a bunch of talking animals.

Okay, now you’re starting to irritate me. Go back and read my post and figure out what I actually said.

Metaphorical statements exist. They are used in art. However the things metaphors imply do not actually exist and are meaningless conceptually for organizing your mental contents. Just because I can say time is a river that doesn’t mean that I can use it to do my laundry. I’m not defining time as belonging to the conceptual category river, I’m saying that it shares some characteristics of rivers so I’m using the word as a handy descriptive tool.

A “literal metaphor” is a contradiction in terms. If you go out and say, “The Hudson is a river” people will look at you and say, well DUH. It is a river. That’s not a metaphor. If you say, “art is life in microcosm”, that’s not a metaphor because it’s literally true. If you say chess is life in microcosm, however, that IS a metaphor because it is NOT literally true.

In other words the statement:

The Hudson is a River

Time is a River

Therefore Time is The Hudson

is ridiculous, because the second statement is a metaphor not a factual statement.

Have I explained enough yet? If you can’t grasp my point from all this I’m going to be forced to assume you’re being annoying on purpose and warn you.

I am really happy to see this thread. Have any of you played Myst or any of the sequels? I would say that Myst is a great example of a computer game that is a work of art. Moreso, there is a lot of contemporary art right now that is is interactive or experiential. I think some serious objectivists may argue that is not art, but you can’t disagree that it is really amazing and the creators have great mastery of electronics. I think video games certainly fall into this genre of interactive experiential media, but whether or not this media is art, I am still not sure. I actually make some myself, but feel incredibly humbled when looking at some of my favorite artists who show at conventions like Ars Electronica and Siggraph. I do feel though, that a lot of experiential/new media can be really didactic or political. Here are some links, enjoy:

Jim Campbell

http://www.jimcampbell.tv/

Paul Demarinis

http://www.well.com/~demarini/exhibitions.htm

here is a game, Facade, that pushes the new genre of interactive storytelling, something I am really interested in, the rendering is pretty low-fi for lack of better words this late at night, but, the concept is grand and I think I would enjoy playing it. This game embodies a lot of what Janet Murray talks about in her book Hamlet on the Holodeck

http://www.interactivestory.net/

I think for me in the kind of work I do, I try to distinguish between art and media. For instance, Ayn Rand loved great architecture and found it inspirational, but it wasn’t art, and in architecture’s case it is because it served a function. I think a lot of experiential media serves a function or has an application, and in that case, I would say it is not art. It really is a tought question but my hope would be that people don’t get hung up on the question and continue to make provocative “media art” or “digital art” or “digital media” with grand themes inspired by objectivist philosophy. I am sure the outcomes, whether art or not, will be amazing.

I’m going to resurrect this thread and give my opinion that video games can be art, just like movies. Lord of the Rings and Band of Brothers are examples of artistic movies, whereas Rob Schneider’s Male Giggolo movies are not.

Similarly speaking, I think some video games can definitely be considered art…particularly RPGs. There are times in certain games, where I can be almost moved to tears by the music, scenery, or plot events. Many games, particularly newer ones, have scenery that, although fake, is nice to just sit back and look at. Then there are RPGs, particularly the ones made by Squaresoft, where the storyling is so engaging that it will completely suck me in, and I will get so involved with it that I actually experience a bit of sadness when a character dies.

Diablo II, Squaresoft games, Zelda, Super Metroid, and Medal of Honor, among others, have music that is (or would be) absolutely gorgeous when played by an actual orchestra. In the newer games, of course, the in-game music really is played by an orchestra. I’ve found that, apart from movies, video games are now the best place to hear truly wonderful music. It is often successful at being sad, happy, epic, haunting, tense, victorious, etc. Sometimes it bothers me that such music is wasted on video games…not because there’s anything wrong with video games, but because so few people will ever experience it. There is a video game symphony concert coming to the Kennedy Center this week, and I’m seriously considering going to see it.

Baldur’s gate the best RPG in the world (Which is über 1337 BTW) has a specific plot. In my humble opinion, Baldur’s gate is the pinacle of video games and art in the highest sense.

About the game: (Wikipedia)

The story follows the player character as he grows up following the cataclysmic Time of Troubles, and it puts an emphasis on character development through dialogue and battle. The game rewards the player character according to his or her moral choices, in the spirit of the game’s opening quotation, credited to Friedrich Nietzsche “ He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster… when you gaze long into the abyss the abyss also gazes into you…

The game was programmed within the licensed ruleset of the Forgotten Realms role-playing setting, using the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition rules, though various elements from the ruleset were modified to allow the game to be executed in real-time. Each character is in constant action, while the game can be paused at any time, and with the use of various auto-pause options it is possible to simulate turn based gameplay. The game is separated into seven chapters intercut with interludes of spoken dialogue. Free exploration of the world map is allowed in every chapter, though some areas are not unlocked before the player character advances to a certain point in the game. The player begins as a weak character, poorly equipped and without allies. As they progress through the game, players will discover new and more powerful weapons, armor, and spells, and can form a party of up to six characters, including the player character. Experience points, gained through completing quests and killing monsters, improve the abilities of the main character and other party members.

The western shore of Faerûn along the Sea of Swords contains a multitude of ecologies and terrain including mountains, forests, swamps, marshes, plains, cities, and ruins. Collectively called the Sword Coast, it attracts adventurers for good and evil alike, and provides the backdrop for this epic adventure. The region encompassed by this game is roughly bordered to the South by the Cloud Peaks, the East by the Wood of Sharp Teeth, the West by the Sea of Swords, and the North by Baldur’s Gate (the largest and most affluent city in the region). The characters travel the countryside, exploring the countless areas such as towns, dungeons, mines, forests, castle ruins, and the city of Baldur’s Gate. The main story involves the characters investigating a conspiracy, confronting the clandestine plots of organizations like the Zhentarim, Red Wizards of Thay, The Iron Throne, Flaming Fist, The Chill, The Black Talons, and the Harpers, as well as finding out the main character’s own ancestry and history.

The player character and his/her friend Imoen have grown up together since childhood under the tutelage of their guardian, the mage Gorion. As orphans, they were raised in Candlekeep, an ancient fortress-turned-library in the rural Sword Coast region, which lies south of the city of Baldur’s Gate. However, strange things are afoot on the Sword Coast: iron production has virtually halted, metal already produced quickly crumbles, and bandits scour the countryside hunting iron over any other treasure. Strangest of all, even inside the secure walls of Candlekeep, there are mercenaries with designs on the main character’s life. Gorion knows what is going on, but will not tell the player character, and instead decides to leave Candlekeep and journey with the player character to a hiding place. However, the night after leaving Candlekeep, they are ambushed by a group of bandits led by a mysterious “armored figure” who kills Gorion when he refuses to hand over the player character, who flees into the night. The player character soon runs into Imoen, who had been following in secret after reading a note about the journey on Gorion’s desk. She too saw Gorion’s murder, and now insists on accompanying the character.

The Baldur’s Gate series relies heavily on storyline and dialogue.

The Baldur’s Gate series relies heavily on storyline and dialogue.

The nearest cities are closed to the Player: Candlekeep demands a unique, valuable book as its admission fee; and the city of Baldur’s Gate is closed off to outsiders for fear of the bandit hordes. Seeking safety, the player character teams up with other adventurers, and soon he/she sets out to find the cause of the iron shortage by travelling to the source of the iron, the mines of Nashkel, and in doing so begins to unearth a deeper conspiracy. Kobolds have been contaminating the iron in the mine, and documents at the Nashkel mine connect the mine operation with the iron-hunting bandits, and ultimately leads the main character to the secret campsite of the bandits, who appear to be mobilised mercenary companies employed by the Iron Throne, a mysterious organization, who is aggressively expanding its influence. The Iron Throne intends to gain control of the Sword Coast by diverting the iron supply to its own armies exclusively, and stockpiling all plundered iron at the only working iron mine in the region, deep in the Cloakwood forest. As the main character sabotages the mercenary installation in the Cloakwood mines, the pressure on Baldur’s Gate is relieved enough for the city to be re-opened for outsiders, and the player character can confront the local Iron Throne’s head quarters.

At Baldur’s Gate, the player character is enrolled by the Flaming Fist city guard to investigate the Iron Throne, but as no damning evidence is to be found, the player character returns to Candlekeep to spy on a meeting of the Iron Throne leaders. Much has changed in Candlekeep since the player character left, and it is soon discovered that the fortress has at least partially been taken over by Dopplegangers. The player character also encounters a mysterious man named Koveras, soon after leaving Koveras, the player character is charged with the murder of the Iron Throne leaders (who, surprisingly, have been killed), the only route of escape is through the catacombs below the monastery. The player character manages escape the catacombs, and returns to Baldur’s Gate. But things only get worse, as the player is framed for the murder of a Flaming Fist officer and must stay hidden as the player character works to uncover the truth and finally uncovers grand scheme masterminded by the “armored figure”, Sarevok. Seeking to confront him, the characters find out that he is actually half-brother to the main character, both of whom are children of the dead god of murder, Bhaal. The main character’s Bhaalspawn ancestry explains much about their past and raises questions about their future. Sarevok’s plans turn out be much more sinister, as the Iron Throne is just a façade for his real intentions. Through manipulation of politics and resources, Sarevok plans to start a war of sacrifice between Baldur’s Gate and the kingdom of Amn to the south, causing enough carnage to become the new Lord of Murder. In the end you defeat your brother Sarevok, and send his taint back to Bhaal.

Selectivity: Video games in general are very selective becouse they usually not feature common things like doing the laundery or washing your cat. Baldursgate if analyzed in the sense of a novel, it has a rigid plot and hundreds of subplots, which you can investigate if you care for them. Which means that a large portion of the characters and setting exist for the purpose of the plot. But all other settings have some sub plot importance. There is no setting of no importance, there are no characters of no importance (save townspeople, which constitute setting)

Integration: The fact that the game is open ended and leaves the player free to make either a good character (in the sterotypical sense), an evil character or hell even a Objectivist character named Ayn Rand that, but it also reflects the artists metaphysical value judgements, because they believe in free will. Hence the Nietzsche qoutation. Another example of an artwork with an open end in the same way, The night of January the 16th. Open endedness is a metaphysical value judgement, and that of the highest order.

Simpler games are perhaps more similar to mathmetical art?

I’m going to resurrect this thread and give my opinion that video games can be art, just like movies. Lord of the Rings and Band of Brothers are examples of artistic movies, whereas Rob Schneider’s Male Giggolo movies are not.

Gah, don’t start this again. The question is not: are one or two games extremely artistic. The question is: are video games an art form. That’s all video games, video games as a totality, not the one or two that happen to approach closest to being an interactive movie. Movies are an art form. Even something as corny as Deuce Bigalow is still a work of art, albeit more along the lines of a Picasso rather than a Rembrandt. Something like 99% of video games are NOT CRPG’s. Do you want to argue that Freecell is a work of art?

Even if you narrow the field exclusively to CRPG’s, at the most fundamental level you are not talking about an entirely new art form, you are talking about existing art forms that have been merged with puzzles to create a consumer product. See my jigsaw puzzle analogy.

Now, there is a precedent for this if you look at the field of dance: you take music and merge it with a visual performance to produce a new art form. Dance without music (or sound) is essentially meaningless. Movies are also a combinatory art form in many ways. However, in both cases new artistic elements are brought in: visuals in the case of dance, music and visuals in the case of movies (taking a play to be the “fundamental” form of a movie).

With a CRPG, you have not added a new artistic element, you’ve added a bunch of puzzles. Even the good/evil choices element is a variety of puzzle because a *lot* of games (read: every one that I have ever played) penalize you if you don’t play one or the other consistently. Either that, or the good/evil thing is *totally meaningless* apart from the fact that you can’t wield the Sword of Ultimate Goodness/Evil when you find it. So the problem becomes “What do the game designers consider to be good/evil and what options do I use so I can maintain my character path” not “what do I want to do here?” Not to mention the fact that the meta-plot is the same regardless of what you do. In fact, many times this puts you in an extreme quandary because to get the best “good” gear you have to KILL or STEAL FROM the “good” NPC’s . . . people have gear they can use, after all. If they don’t do this, the good team is a bunch of putzes and all the “good” gear is lying around in some dungeon somewhere.

Look at Baldur’s Gate. 85% of the game has nothing whatsoever to do with the plot: it consists of you wandering around to fill in your map, killing monsters so you can take their stuff, and having brief “conversations” with randomly scattered weird people. Granted, there are some plot-related characters you do have to talk to and/or kill. You can’t finish the game until you fight Sarevok. (I haven’t tried ALL the conversation options in that fight, so I’m not 100% certain that you can’t get out of fighting him somehow, but from what I recall you pretty much have to kill him.)

Baldur’s Gate 2 was a lot better in that they made one of the major game mechanics (acquiring lots of cash) an important part of the game, because you need the money to advance the plot. So, the vast numbers of side-quests are at least somewhat integrated into your main activity, which is: getting enough magic items so that you can tackle the big fights later in the game. I kind of wish they’d just come out and said, “you cannot go to the island until you are nasty enough to take Irenicus, come back when you are X level and you have X quantity of assets in the form of magic items and cash”.

I don’t think even CRPG’s are a new art form. I think they are non-art (puzzles and games) merged with a lot of actual art (music, cut scenes, writing, etc.) This merging may be sophisticated or not, but in the end it’s still the same thing and identifiable as such.

I resent that statement, if 85% of your game constituted of filling in your map, killing monsters so you can take their stuff, and having brief “conversations” with randomly scattered weird people; It is because your own fondness of it.

I have however finished the game with hardly any fertilizer killings, 90% to do with plot; perhaps that is only because of my own methodical nature. Then gamelay in general. Because the story is very good, I hated BG2 because you need to collect set amounts of money and it just isn’t über leet cool.

Baldur’s gate the best RPG in the world (Which is über 1337 BTW) has a specific plot. In my humble opinion, Baldur’s gate is the pinacle of video games and art in the highest sense.

I think Baldur’s Gate is second to Planescape Torment. Which, by the way, is art…

For those of you who have missed this masterpiece… Planescape Torment starts with the main character waking up in a morgue, with no memory of who he is or how he got there. After breaking out you must begin to find out who, and what, he is. Obviously he is born, or reborn, “tabula rasa”. The choices you make define him. This is coupled with a great story, with alternate endings, and a very strange world to explore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planescape_Torment

Yeah, right. So you didn’t do the endless reams of side-quests? I doubt anyone could actually finish BG1 by just doing the main plot: you’d get slaughtered by the time you got to the bandit encampment.

The plot is actually EXTREMELY short:

  1. Gorion gets killed

  2. You visit the Friendly Arm Inn

  3. You visit Nashkell and kill Mulhaley

  4. You get assigned to deal with the bandits

  5. You go to the bandit camp

  6. You visit the mine in Cloakwood

  7. You go to Baldur’s Gate and investigate the Iron Throne

  8. You go back to Candlekeep

  9. You go back to Baldur’s Gate

  10. You kill Sarevok

Given, there are about 10,000 side-quests, but most of them involve “go kill this for me” or “go talk to this person”: they are totally unrelated to the plot. You don’t even have to visit 2/3 of the areas in the game to finish the plot. The “random encounters” were also extremely tiresome. Neverwinter Nights 2 was very similar in style (surprise, it was designed by the same people), but they got rid of the random encounters of pointlessness, thank goodness.

I think Baldur’s Gate is second to Planescape Torment. Which, by the way, is art…

Why? Because you say it is? This whole thread is nothing but people a.) defining art as “whatever the hell I feel like calling art” and b.) saying that “<insert name of their favorite computer game> is art”. Whatever. Provide some basis for this assertion and I’ll take it seriously.

Why? Because you say it is? This whole thread is nothing but people a.) defining art as “whatever the hell I feel like calling art” and b.) saying that “<insert name of their favorite computer game> is art”. Whatever. Provide some basis for this assertion and I’ll take it seriously.

Yes, because I say so! :wink:

Seriously though, in essence the game is an interactive graphical story - different types of art combined into one piece. Sure, you could argue that the “core” is just different sets of “puzzles” and “rules”, and sort of reduce it to something “mechanical”, but the gameplay is heavily story driven and the point is to tell a story which the player can take part in, and effect the outcome of.

That is why I call it art.

With a CRPG, you have not added a new artistic element, you’ve added a bunch of puzzles.

What is an “artistic element”, and why does interactivity (puzzles??) have to be an artistic element in order for video games be art?

This whole thread is nothing but people a.) defining art as “whatever the hell I feel like calling art” and b.) saying that “<insert name of their favorite computer game> is art”.

So video games aren’t and can’t be a selective re-creation of reality in accordance with the artist’s metaphysical value judgments?

I think video games, as an industry, have yet to realize their full potential to be art, save for a few I’ll mention later.

Art as re-creation of reality according to the artist’s value judgments is applicable to movies (I defer you to Romantic Manifesto for that argument)- and, all things considered, there’s little that separates video games (ignoring online games which are more likely driven by consumer appeal than the “artist’s” own judgments) from movies. They are there to tell a story- and you, the player, subject yourself to this story and become its driving factor. Without you, there is no story. So video games, in relation to man, do two things: are art and provide something that man can be proud of himself for seeing through to completion as a player.

Anyone who’s dabbled in video gaming has had that one certain boss they just couldn’t beat. For days victory eluded them. Then, finally, they beat it. What is it but pride that fills the gamer at this moment?

So I give video games that, which is not applicable to, say, books, or movies, or music.

As for video games that could be considered art, there are very few. Shadow of the Colossus is, I think, is the closest video games have come to producing art. The story (or plot-theme) is: man seeks to restore life to his dead lover- and to do so he must battle gigantic and powerful beasts of titanic proportion. And he succeeds in doing this with his hands, a bow and arrow, and a sword.

The graphics and the world presented in the game are beautiful and vast, respectively. This is a world as it ought to be, to the artist.

And the sounds, and the music- simply great.

Now, am I attempting to justify my favorite game as “art”? No. Shadow of the Colossus is not my favorite game- in fact, it’s not even on my Top Ten Favorites List. Why? It’s just not my kind of game.

But still I love it, and if it isn’t considered art, or the closest video games have come to it, then what is?

Now, as for games like the Madden series- as for art: it’s possible. It’s nonfiction.

It would be easier to call, say Call of Duty games art, however.

Video games are absolutely a medium of art. Whether you consider a particular game as reflecting any of your values or not is a different issue.

Is it a selective re-creation of reality according to metaphysical value-judgments? Yes. It is a recreation of some interactive conscious experience. The mechanisms through which you interact are supposed to represent what the creators found enjoyable. Based on whatever value judgments they have. What is an enjoyable action? What is a purposeful action? These are the questions being answered in the GAMEPLAY component of the piece. The music, sound, images, everything else in themselves are a selective recreation as well, though they are not on trial here. I see no more justification required.

Indeed, in this poster’s opinion, the defining part of life is that it is interactive. That a new art form emerged which includes actions as a primary interface with the world, should be a testament to the ingenuity of mankind, as a new and powerful medium towards expressing the enjoyment and value of life.

Does swinging from ledges relate to anything important? Absolutely. Grace and motion towards a specific purpose and a glorification of living. I’m sorry that you cannot see this. (Of course, a particular game may have implemented it horribly, or with little purpose, but that is not an excuse to criticize the medium.) Recall in Atlas Shrugged (no plot spoilers), how many times does Dagny talk about how she must push herself onward, to DO. A game glorifies action.

Whether a particular game allows you to choose between being the good guy or the bad guy does not disqualify anything. If anything, it is a statement of the artist’s judgment about how different those two lives would be. If they make no difference, well that’s a statement whether you agree with it or not, whether it was a well-thought-out statement or not. (I disagree with that statement, but that’s besides the point.)

This is not a gray area. This is an absolute and definite answer, that a game has as much a claim to being art as does a painting or a movie. If you dismiss video games, it is only a potential benefit (and a great one besides) that you miss out on.