Gamecast - Episode 28 - "The Art of Inflating a Show"

[Link Antilles]

In this show, we say goodbye to Peter Moore, talk about the long awaited glimpse at MGS 4 gameplay, set the stage for the legal war between Silicon Knights and Epic, and lastly ask: “Are games art?â€

[TheMelodyMaker]

(I haven't listened to this yet; I'll do that after I post because Link's question immediately caught my attention...)

Can games be considered as Art? Why or why not?

Man, you don't what a loaded question that is -- where do I begin with my thoughts on this? (Please forgive me if my post seems a little disjointed for that reason. )

Speaking as someone who actually has been developing a game for years, my answer has to be yes! Each of the individual elements necessary to put it together -- graphics and music (obviously), design (general and specific), storyline, and even programming in a way -- all require more or less a certain amount of creativity to make.

For some reason, at this point in posting, I can only think of a certain verse from Scripture...

Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, let your mind dwell on these things.

I personally don't believe that our Lord could ever see as "art" anything that was not made to honor Him -- even things that the world might consider "art". I've been working so hard to make sure that The Traveller's Guide is a work of art not just in the eyes of people (including myself), but primarily in the eyes of the Lord.


Again, please forgive my disjointed post with its random, unfinished thoughts; I just wanted to speak from a developer's point of view. ^_^

And now... *listens to the Gamecast*

[Omega Amen]

[quote="TheMelodyMaker"](I haven't listened to this yet]
This episode is especially long and the games as art discussion is the last part of the show.

If you really want to jump to that discussion first, it starts around 1 hour and 28 minutes into the show.

[Bobtheduck]

Games can be art, I think. I think Kojima's stuff is art, even if he doesn't think so, and the reason he doesn't think so is because Japan has a segmented society, where they don't consider the "lower" parts of their culture to actually be PART of their culture... It lets them do all the stupid, embarassing things without losing their honor, i guess... The anime, the games, and yes even the porn are things that would otherwise be looked down on, but because of the compartmentalized way they treat things, they get away with it while keeping the idea that Japanese culture is very rigid and refined.

By the way, before his controversial statements, Ebert was actually a Final Fantasy fan... Not for the story, but for the cutscenes.

I wonder, if the exclusive title that R* is working on for PS3 isn't LA Noire, were they basically saying LA Noire is multiplatform? It looked pretty sweet, actually... I guess all it took to get me into GTA was to make it a little bit more dated... Instead of the 70s, 80s, or 90s, it's... Well, I'm not sure exactly what decade that is... 30s? 50s? It looks more interesting than GTA does, to me... I hope it's not quite as offensive as GTA... As pointless, in the end...

I wonder about this Epic thing... If Epic loses this suit, that will destroy a lot of upcoming PS3 games... Well, yeah, 360 games too, but I have a PS3 so that's what I care about, I guess... I hope Epic wins, but I guess I hope they are able to give the help to the companies that are having difficult times with UE3 (Capcom and Silicon Knights) so that everyone gets something worthwhile out of it in the end.

And heavenly sword... Well... Sony has a knack for taking a good thing and ruining it by making little mistakes... Like releasing a 5 minute demo.

[Omega Amen]

Today, one of my favorite video game bloggers, the technology editor of Newsweek, N'Gai Croal, posted his critique of Roger Ebert's rebuttal to Clive Barker's discussion of games as art. While it is a long read, I think anyone who wants to really delve into this question might find this an interesting read.

Expectedly, as a video gamer, Croal sides with Barker as he picks apart Ebert's argument quite methodically. There are few parts in his post that I think illustrate my points that I made during this Gamecast.

Here is one I would like to point out:
[quote="N'Gai Croal"]Ebert previously compared games to sports, and some games are like sports, particularly competitive games. But some, like action-adventure games, could be seen as jazz-like, with players improvising (running, jumping hacking and slashing) around a main theme (the game's defined narrative.) Others, like role-playing games, have a similar improvisatory element, but because they place more emphasis on narrative, they're more like a novel or a play that is co-written or rewritten with every play session. Alternately, actors were called "players" in Shakespeare's day]

[uc pseudonym]

I believe my commentary will be limited to the art question, because it may get mildly lengthy.

While it is a long read, I think anyone who wants to really delve into this question might find this an interesting read.

That was certainly correct for me, at least. Thank you for posting it.

First, let me say that a lot of my thoughts would be similar to some of what you said during the gamecast or what Croal said in the article. Final Fantasy came to mind for me as well: I think it does lead the reader to an inevitable conclusion, and that regardless of the gameplay aspects the cutscenes taken together are a very similar experience to a film.

In fact, many people have criticized FF games as "interactive movies" which is another issue altogether and a tangent I won't pursue. But it is interesting to note that some making this statement seem to consider games a higher form of art than film, which is amusing in the context of Ebert's stance on the subject.

However, I think I have one new thought, which I will attempt to share as concisely as possible. I think that video games can be considered art, not because I have a high opinion of all video games but because I think the word "art" is essentially arbitrary (and I have a low opinion of much of it).

Omega Amen's comments on why we care about this (validating our use of time) were apt. But I would say that the existence of "art" as a concept is essentially for this very purpose. It is an excuse, a way of making us feel better about the time we spend painting or reading or going to the opera. None of these things have any particular value (in a limited sense]But for most gamers, video games represent a loss of those precious hours we have available to make ourselves more cultured, civilized and empathetic.[/quote]
By implication he is saying that "real art" does do these things. I would argue he needs to back up that statement. How many movies truly make one "civilized and empathetic"? The majority of movies released yearly are in my opinion trash, including many given "two thumbs up." There are films I think might fit these criteria, but only due to the inherent power in the events they portray. Hotel Rwanda is considered a powerful movie by some, in part due to the quality of its production, but the true impact is not in anything that is created by the filmmakers. No amount of filmography can make the purchase of toilet paper a moving experience.

As for "cultured," I think that is essentially arbitrary as well. If video games were considered high art knowledge of them would be necessary to be cultured as well. The argument is somewhat circular.

Continuing, I don't think a lot of high art meets these criteria. What is the value in a painting or in a dance? How is this value different from the concept design painting for a video game or a dance portrayed within one?

In any case, I think that I disagree with his assessment. There are video games that have made me "more cultured, civilized and empathetic" ...at least as much as any other medium of entertainment has made me so.

[Raiden no Kishi]

Let me preface my thoughts with this statement: Mr. Ebert, your MOM isn't high art!

I think it's important to define "art" before we can determine whether video games are or are not art. That said, I'd like to propose my personal definition of art. As I see it, art is an honest attempt to either a] communicate an idea or concept and/or b] depict persons/places/things, while also applying one's own style of expressing themselves. Now, I realize that's a mouthful, so let me unpack it a bit. I believe that art is communication, first and foremost. I don't believe all communication is art. However, I do believe all art is communication. One might substitute "expression" for "communication", in that you may not have a specific message, but wish to express something. Look at it this way: I would consider a well-executed football play art, because it expresses the idea of breaking the opposition's defenses and advancing the ball by doing so; each player, by their actions, performs their part in accordance with their own personal style. There also must be an honest attempt to communicate the concept the artist has in mind. Example: I was at the Indianapolis Museum of Art recently. It's a great museum, and free at that ~ if you're in the area, you need to take part of a day and go there. However, the first "piece of art" that you see in the lobby is a series of small water bottles filled with pink water, suspended from strings in a round pattern around the lobby area. It's title? "A Single Act of Carelessness Will Result in the Eternal Loss of Beauty". My title for it? "Bovine Fecal Matter". There is no way the title concept and the "art" itself have ANYTHING in common. It fails in a near-Linkish manner, although I daresay Link would have tried harder. 'Tisn't art. Now, take Robert Indiana's [yes, that's his name] "LOVE" sculpture outside this same museum. You know the design ~ it looks like this:

LO
VE

That's art. Its concept and execution are actually linked in an honest, sensible way. The idea is to portray the word "love" in the artist's own way.

In short, art is expressing your own sense of style, but if your aim is to express an idea, it has to be an honest effort. I saw a piece of art at the Indianapolis museum that consisted of several pieces of yarn stretched between the floor/ceiling/walls. It claimed to be some sort of exploration of space and perception and whatnot. That doesn't count. It isn't [IMO] an honest attempt to portray the idea.

With that out of the way, are video games art? Yes. Video games often have an idea or several ideas that they are wanting to promote, whether that's some sort of view of life or a particular issue, a story, or even gameplay concepts. They are created using the development team's collective style, which is created from the individuals' styles working together [art style, music style, control style, gameplay mechanics, voice acting, etc.].

If I didn't make something clear, ask me about it. ^_^

.rai//