Do gamers want videogames to be art?

So 22cans Peter Molyneux said a few days ago that the industry has failed to make videogames another form of art. At first I agreed but then I said I play games to blow shit up and be entertained, art wouldn't be something I'd be concerned with.

So I think Molyneux may be into videogames for a reason that will keep his games flying off the shelf. Maybe he should ask himself if it's worth being in the industry because he's just going to keep getting frustrated and blaming the industry for something it's not a part of.

So what say you, art or blow shit up?

All depends on the game really. I guess I would like to blow up art. :)

Lmao the choices. Can I have both? :)

I'm of the point of view that games will never be art, since they're interactive.

They can certainly include some amazing art, such as the story, the acting, the music, the level design, the art style, etc. But the game itself is not art.

Gaming is not art anyways (my reasoning is the same as Ixion's), so the question is misleading. I guess the question is if we want gaming to continue pushing other forms of entertainment, interactivity, and arts within itself (which many believe would make gaming as a medium closer to "art")? I think gamers at large certainly want this. As for me, I'm fine with the simplest of games as long as the gameplay is addicting just as much as the more involved games that are rich in other elements as well, so I'm good no matter where gaming goes.

As long as it doesn't kill me, I don't care what it's called.

You have to give credit where credit is due and the concept artists are certainly artists. I would think that they, the concept artists, see video games as their art in motion.

For me video games are something entertaining to do. To me games are the same as books and movies except interactive. There is a story to tell and if done right it's worth every minute of time you put in. It's a form of entertainment but it can be deeper than your two categories of 'art' and 'blow things up'.

There is more to RDR or Mass Effect than blowing things up, there is a story and two very good ones I might add.

Yeah, video games may not be art, but you could argue video games could become even deeper and more meaningful than art.

For example, a movie can show you a character going through an ordeal, but a video game will make YOU go through that ordeal and make certain choices that might result in you learning more about yourself.

I just want video games to be fun.

A while back, I tried the demo for Limbo and found it boring. The Unfinished Swan doesn't look any different either. Okami and Shadow of the Colossus, on the other hand, offered truly unique experiences that were entertaining.

I'm not saying that I want all video games to be about shooting terrorists and blowing stuff up but it doesn't need to beat me over the head with its artsy elements and game mechanics to get my attention.

I don't want videogames to become an art-form, because I already see them that way.

I play games primarily for entertainment, but so many games have moved and made me feel things that music, books and movies haven't done before, and thats due to interaction. Art or not, games sure are extraordinary

Link to article? I read an article where Molyneux says the industry has failed to make video games another form of entertainment (to a certain extent), but not one where he mentions art.

Regardless I'll play along. I believe certain video games could be considered art, and they use player involvement to achieve its message/meaning/purpose etc, whether it be emotional or controversial.

Do I want them to be artsy-fartsy indie games? FUCK NO. But I consider videogames an art form. It's a media medium. Creating something that you can interact with on buttons is an art to me. Yeah, videogames are art.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shin Asura

So 22cans Peter Molyneux said a few days ago that the industry has failed to make videogames another form of art. At first I agreed but then I said I play games to blow shit up and be entertained, art wouldn't be something I'd be concerned with.

So I think Molyneux may be into videogames for a reason that will keep his games flying off the shelf. Maybe he should ask himself if it's worth being in the industry because he's just going to keep getting frustrated and blaming the industry for something it's not a part of.

So what say you, art or blow shit up?

---

Shin, i think it wold not be lost to place this here

http://www.abload.de/img/trueartpgp1k.png

:D

personally, im a bit of both. though i do lean more toward video games being an artform.

Valkyria Chronicles and Mirrors Edge (2 of my top 5 games) hold testament to that :D

I think video games are the last great form of modern storytelling. I rarely watch movies, I like the interactive experience of a game and I'd prefer them to be engaging and artful. Probably why I don't like most shooters, except for ones like Deus Ex.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ixion

I'm of the point of view that games will never be art, since they're interactive.

They can certainly include some amazing art, such as the story, the acting, the music, the level design, the art style, etc. But the game itself is not art.

---

Why does interactivity negate games from being art?

That's the beauty of this medium; developers are free to explore whatever direction they please. In my opinion, anything that gives you such an unprecedented degree of freedom and creativity is the truest form of art.

We have games like BF3, Halo, Bodycount, then there are the Vanquish, DmCs, and also the MGSs, Assassin's Creeds, Uncharteds. On the other hand, there's Journey, Flower, Datura, PoP (the 2008 one) Valkyria Chronicles, The unfinished swan, Papo & Yo... see what I'm getting at?
I think the question should be : Who is Molyneux to decide what is and isn't art? I know he's just stating his opinion, but does that mean that the modern day graffiti artists have an inferior message to deliver with their art than say, Van Goh or the great Leonardo Da Vinci ?

The problem with these times is the distinctions people like to make between outlets of creativity. I mean, would you consider any modern scientist to give a damn about exploring religion? Look at Newton, the guy who gave the world classical mechanics, he wrote more on religious topics than all his scientific work combined. Look at Da Vinci, an architect, a mathmatician, an artist, an engineer, would he have possibly cared if his work be considered art? He did what he wanted to express himself.

The point I'm trying to make here is that no one can ( or at least 'should') judge what is and is not art. Art is just a means to express oneself and I think videogames give people that outlet. So it's not if I want games to be art, it's just that they ARE ART. Most of the artsy fartsy crowd is just too stuck up to admit it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Naxi

Why does interactivity negate games from being art?

---

Agreed, there are interactive art exhibits all the time.
Linger in Shadows would be a good example. Interactive, not a game, not sure how else to describe it then interactive art.

different point
It depends on the game. Games like Call of Duty and Uncharted has more in common with a big action movies. Fun, but not artistic.

Games like Journey, flower, shadow of the colossus, Ico, Limbo, Heavy Rain (more for presentation than story).

Silent Hill 2. If you base it on its merits as a game alone, its not a good game, if you base it on its artistic merits, its one of the best games of all time.

If Final Fantasy 9 is not considered art, then I don't consider anything else to be art. :)

screw this artsy fartsy crap, just make a damn game and make it good. this art bullshit in gaming has held gaming back, for me at least. ugh

if I want art, I will go buy/look at paintings or sculptures. games like Flow, Journey, etc etc are not games I like, I find them boring and definitely not art.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ixion

I'm of the point of view that games will never be art, since they're interactive.

They can certainly include some amazing art, such as the story, the acting, the music, the level design, the art style, etc. But the game itself is not art.

---

And who defines art? Why can art not be interactive?

Just look at Okami...

Videogames are already art. Art is simply expression. A creation by an individual or individuals designed to convey the feelings of the creators or to invoke an emotion in the person experiencing the art. That's it. plain and simple. Thus, all forms of entertainment is art. They are designed to entertain, make people feel joy, sadness or horror. Videogames are no different. In fact it could be said that videogames are the most advanced form of art. The interactivity element gives games a much higher level of immersion than any other form of art we produce.

Interactive art is just as much as art as paint on a canvas. As for video games, they can be both or not art at all. It depends on the intention of the artist/creator and the opinion of the viewer/player. A game like Flower or Journey I would say hits more on the medium of art than playing a video game. Art can be about interacting within an environment, where your movement or input alters or leaves an impression in said environment.

But keep in mind the intention of the creator. Call of Duty for example, they aren't trying to make art, they are trying to make a game that sells. However, it like art, can make you still feel certain emotions, but the core is to entertain. Whereas in Journey, you go through an experience, the creator gives you this environment that is both peaceful and lonely, where you interact and alter. The intention is for you to experience this environment, but leave you to create constructs in your head of what you're experiencing. You cannot achieve that trying to raid a terrorist camp, while trying to stop the bomb from exploding.

Really in the end, art is perceived by the individual. The definition is broad, and does not have to be specific to apply to different mediums.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wrath

And who defines art?

---

That's what it comes down to. The definition of art you choose to base this on.

Kojima and Roger Ebert both explained why they feel games aren't art, and ill post those articles when I have time. I'm on my phone right now, but it basically comes down to games leaving much of the expression up to the player and not the creator.

miyamoto was an artist before he created his fist game donkey kong and he still approach video game design as an art. I think if your passionate about video games then it is an art and not just a job and as gamers you can tell when you playing a game if there was passion and art invovled with the game your playing.

in short i think it should be an art

Art has a basic principle... it doesn't take anyone to actually define it.