Do video games need their own definition of art?

For a while now I’ve wanted to do a simple blog post but I’ve never found a subject that I felt compelled to write about. After listening to an old episode of my second favourite podcast (after the Bombcast of course), The Indoor Kids, I thought they brought up a very good point concerning games being art. I hate to make my first blog post about such an obvious and highly discussed issue but it’s one that has yet to be truly settled so I thought I’d share my opinion with anyone who enjoys discussing the subject of games as art.

From what I can tell the crux of the podcasts argument was that gameplay is what is keeping games from truly being considered art. This is a pretty solid argument but I took issue with their definition of art. They decided that art is a piece of work that is thematically consistent throughout the whole piece. For me that definition simply doesn’t cut it.

For most of my life I haven’t really considered what I thought art was, most galleries would have me believe that art is a projection of the artists’ personality or feeling. I can’t help but feel that this definition is a bunch of crap. Personally I feel that art (or at least meaningful art) is the best creating the best timeless works of their respective medium. Van Gogh was the best and Starry Night is one of the best paintings ever, the same could be said about film directors and musicians.

Going by this definition I think it’s fair to say that Video games are barely in its infancy towards becoming art.

Gamers of any shape and form will know what it is like to have nostalgia for an old game, and often this can distort our view of how timeless they truly are. Going back to The Indoor Kids and their argument this is where I think the point they put forward was correct. Gameplay is stopping 99% of games from being art.

Metal Gear Solid is one of the best games ever in my opinion, or at least my nostalgia would have me believe. After the podcast I tried to play it again, thinking they were just talking bullshit, but I found they were spot on. I found the gameplay clunky and infuriating and within an hour I couldn’t take any more and I gave up. I hated playing what I considered to be one of the best games ever. I also understand however that MGS is from early 3D gaming and so it’s bound to be clumsy. So I went back further and booted up several games like Mario and Metroid, often called the best 2D games ever and I found that they were boring to me. I couldn't help but think about playing more modern updated platformers like Super Meat Boy instead. What I gleamed from this is that no game I could think of was art, or at least it wasn't similar to my perception of art.

However this in turn brings up the question of whether video games need their own definition of art. Is it fair to compare a piece of film art that you watch then deconstruct, to a medium that relies heavily on the player creating their own experience?

So here are a couple questions I have for the Giantbomb community because I’d love to hear more opinions from you.

1. Do you think we are anywhere near getting to the stage of having truly timeless games? Or am I wrong, has the game industry already achieved that?

2. What’s your definition of art? Am I wrong? Were The Indoor Kids right? Or do you have a different definition?

Thanks for reading if you did.

For those interested the Indoor Kids episode is called “Are Videogames Art?”. I highly recommended it for those looking for a funny podcast about video games with great guests.

For a while now I’ve wanted to do a simple blog post but I’ve never found a subject that I felt compelled to write about. After listening to an old episode of my second favourite podcast (after the Bombcast of course), The Indoor Kids, I thought they brought up a very good point concerning games being art. I hate to make my first blog post about such an obvious and highly discussed issue but it’s one that has yet to be truly settled so I thought I’d share my opinion with anyone who enjoys discussing the subject of games as art.

From what I can tell the crux of the podcasts argument was that gameplay is what is keeping games from truly being considered art. This is a pretty solid argument but I took issue with their definition of art. They decided that art is a piece of work that is thematically consistent throughout the whole piece. For me that definition simply doesn’t cut it.

For most of my life I haven’t really considered what I thought art was, most galleries would have me believe that art is a projection of the artists’ personality or feeling. I can’t help but feel that this definition is a bunch of crap. Personally I feel that art (or at least meaningful art) is the best creating the best timeless works of their respective medium. Van Gogh was the best and Starry Night is one of the best paintings ever, the same could be said about film directors and musicians.

Going by this definition I think it’s fair to say that Video games are barely in its infancy towards becoming art.

Gamers of any shape and form will know what it is like to have nostalgia for an old game, and often this can distort our view of how timeless they truly are. Going back to The Indoor Kids and their argument this is where I think the point they put forward was correct. Gameplay is stopping 99% of games from being art.

Metal Gear Solid is one of the best games ever in my opinion, or at least my nostalgia would have me believe. After the podcast I tried to play it again, thinking they were just talking bullshit, but I found they were spot on. I found the gameplay clunky and infuriating and within an hour I couldn’t take any more and I gave up. I hated playing what I considered to be one of the best games ever. I also understand however that MGS is from early 3D gaming and so it’s bound to be clumsy. So I went back further and booted up several games like Mario and Metroid, often called the best 2D games ever and I found that they were boring to me. I couldn't help but think about playing more modern updated platformers like Super Meat Boy instead. What I gleamed from this is that no game I could think of was art, or at least it wasn't similar to my perception of art.

However this in turn brings up the question of whether video games need their own definition of art. Is it fair to compare a piece of film art that you watch then deconstruct, to a medium that relies heavily on the player creating their own experience?

So here are a couple questions I have for the Giantbomb community because I’d love to hear more opinions from you.

1. Do you think we are anywhere near getting to the stage of having truly timeless games? Or am I wrong, has the game industry already achieved that?

2. What’s your definition of art? Am I wrong? Were The Indoor Kids right? Or do you have a different definition?

Thanks for reading if you did.

For those interested the Indoor Kids episode is called “Are Videogames Art?”. I highly recommended it for those looking for a funny podcast about video games with great guests.

1. I think we do have several timeless games. I would think Ocarina of Time and Chrono Trigger are pretty stellar examples of that. While their re-releases may have some more content, you gotta look at the fact that they barely change the source material, showing that these games can preserve well over a decade. I would venture to say NES classics count as timeless too, such as Donkey Kong or the original Super Mario Bros. (oh, and before I forget, Super Mario Bros. 3!)

With that being said, that era of timeless games will not disappear anytime soon. I personally judge timeless games by ones that can be played a decade later or so and still give a great vibe (subjective, I guess). So, who knows, maybe games like Super Mario Galaxy 2, Skyward Sword, or Skyrim can qualify as timeless too!

2. That's pretty funny, since last night I saw an episode of Franklin & Bash that I taped which dealt with this topic. I like the definition in the show, which is "Art is the intentional arrangement of pieces to inspire emotion."

From a video game perspective, that's presentation AND gameplay. I feel that both qualities have to move you in order to have the game defined as art. Let's take Final Fantasy XIII apart using this rationale. Everything about the presentation is god-damn gorgeous, some of the best graphics, sound, voice acting, you name it! out there. Great story too. But what if you don't like the gameplay? That was a point of contention for many, for its lack of freedom for 30 some hours. I may like it, but the guy down the street doesn't. The way I see can be summed up in two phrases.

• Each part can be broken up and called art. But unless the two can resonate in harmony, than the entire package is not.
• Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. With that being said, for a game to be truly, universally, defined as art, the community must give a general consensus.

Video games don't really need their own definition. True art usually has multiple facets to it, and video games should be no exception. That's just my 2 cents.

Video games are not inherently art, nor are they inherently exclusive from being art.

From the Oxford English Dictionary

1 [mass noun] the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power:

Games like FIFA 12 obviously don't fit this description. However, I feel that other games, like Final Fantasy or Spec Ops: The Line definitely fit into this. When you remember them, you're not primarily focusing on how much fun they were (although that doesn't detract from my point). You focus on the emotional impact that the story and events therein had on you. When the creators set out to make these games, that was their main concern. It's an application of their human creative skill and imagination to produce a work to be appreciated primarily for their or emotional power, which is pretty in line with the definition.

I also don't see how gameplay can detract from games as art. I feel that it makes you invest in the story and characters all that much more, and so the impact is even greater when there is one. The characters aren't just some characters in a play. They're your characters. They're an extension of you, due to the fact that you're responsible for nearly all of their actions and maybe even their entire skill-set. Aeris' death in FFVII had a much greater impact on me, than if she were a character in a movie or a show, and I didn't even like her all that much to begin with. Spec Ops: The Line does a far better job as a game, than if it were the same thing happening in a movie. In fact, I don't think I've even seen anyone mention the gameplay in that when they're talking about it. It's almost always about the emotional impact the game had on them.

I'd also like to point out that nearly all mediums age. Just watch a movie from 40 years ago. Some of my favourite movies are old black and whites, but when I watch them nowadays, they just don't hold up. The pacing is much slower, the dialogue can be almost entirely absent, and the action sequences (if you could call them that) are embarrassing.