Posted by Tofford (526 posts) -

I have just spent most of my evening playing through Braid which is a brilliant game both gameplay wise and visually. It is also one of the games that brings up the games as art argument. The problem I have is I am not an art fan and why should a game be art or aspire to be. Games are made as a form of entertainment but are essentially games I would much rather my game is built to be great to play rather than something arty.
So what is it for you do you appreciate art in a game while still wanting it to be gaming focused. Or do you want a game you can asses and break down to find out all the hidden meanings the developer has hidden?

#1 Posted by Tofford (526 posts) -

I have just spent most of my evening playing through Braid which is a brilliant game both gameplay wise and visually. It is also one of the games that brings up the games as art argument. The problem I have is I am not an art fan and why should a game be art or aspire to be. Games are made as a form of entertainment but are essentially games I would much rather my game is built to be great to play rather than something arty.
So what is it for you do you appreciate art in a game while still wanting it to be gaming focused. Or do you want a game you can asses and break down to find out all the hidden meanings the developer has hidden?

#2 Edited by wings (43 posts) -

I wrote a hypothesis for a timed write in English today too.

And games can be fun and artsy, like MGS 4. I'd say they're moving more towards dramatic movies than the Louvre.

#3 Posted by Geno (6477 posts) -

There's no reason why a game can't be artistic and entertaining at the same time. In fact, that's what all entertainment strives to be. It wants to sell a bunch of copies to a wide audience, but it also strives for technical accomplishment and wants to be recognized for it.

#4 Posted by SmugDarkLoser (4619 posts) -

I think the artsy nature of games comes not in the "let's pretend it's art" like braid but more so the "i can't wrap my head around this" stuff possible in games (parts of psychonauts come to mind)
But in reality, aren't lots of games narrative?  That's art.  Not to mention...you know, that graphics themselves.

The most artistic game this generation, although many would like to say it, is not Flower.  All flower is, is a floating petal with references to civilization vs. nature.
Nothing more.  Many games pull of a similar feat within a context of an actual story.  Being able to write a meaniful story is more important than writing a few lines that make you say "oh I get the point...since it was undetoned should I pretend the points stronger now...OF COURSE!"

#5 Posted by LordXavierBritish (6320 posts) -

Games aren't art.

Art is art.

Using games for art is art.

Good example, the Space Invaders display at last year's Leipzig.

Braid?

Has art in it.

But it as a game isn't art.

If one thing can be said about Braid, it is that it uses story telling in a way that can only be done in a game.

So, the ending.

But the rest of the game? Not art.

#6 Edited by TwoOneFive (9459 posts) -

ugh, will somebody please end this never ending/pointless discussion already!



 Flower proved games can be are an art form. he game is an experience, much like a very well made film. it has a lot of messages but it leaves it up to the player to decide what it all means much like a great painting. And the odd thing is, it will leave you thinking about it for a while and its an experience you will never forget. The whole thing actually becomes a very emotional ride, in such subtle clever ways. I also think it goes along with Roger Eberts argument that art doesn't give you choices.  Flower doesn't really give you choices, it just gives you the freedom to explore and enjoy the experiences the way you want to, not unlike dancing, or figure skating etc. lastly, it looks BEAUTIFUL. just gorgeous. i think Flower is the best example, and probably the very best argument for games as art, ever. but seriously, the longer people feel the need to constantly try to convince people the longer people will disagree. Don't worry, our generation and the kids that follow will know and respect this. So lets stop talking about this for the rest of eternity. its pointless and...really, nobody cares. 


fuck the simple fact that one game can totally suck and not be fun or enjoyable at all, and another can be the complete opposite should make people realize that there is a sort of art to it. 
#7 Posted by Coltonio7 (3156 posts) -

Let's not get into this.

#8 Posted by brent_kukost (37 posts) -

Nothing can "prove" that games are art because there is no measuring stick for what is art. There has never been a definition of 'art', so how are we to line shit up in columns? Takahashi said that he had the idea for Katamari Damacy and thought it would be best realized as a video-game. So that's probably the 'artiest' of mainstream games, because the man who made it thought of it as an art piece and used video-games as  the medium for it.

But back to the point of my post; Art isn't defined, anything with depth can be art. stfu stfu stfu. shut up.