Exemplary Instances of Video Games with Artistic Merit!

[Scooter]

As great as Shadow of the Collossus is, I believe Ico is even better. Beyond Good and Evil is also quite remarkable. Going back a few generations, Flashback, Out of this World and even the first Tomb Raider game were quite remarkable and still stand up today.

[Original_Name]

Ah, yes, the "Quest" game I was referencing is in fact "Adventure". I only had the vaguest knowledge of that game, because I have very little personal interest in the Atari 2600 (don't get me wrong, I love old-school games, but I don't feel like there's much to do on an Atari 2600 that hasn't been done better over the past three decades. And I had thought I'd heard mention of a princess being present in "Adventure", but apparently that's not the case. I'll change the OP accordingly. In case anyone's been distressed by the seeming lack of knowledge of the subject matter I've displayed, I still haven't done much research for this essay yet. That's why I figured it would be a good idea to come here before I started, to get a good idea of other great games to utilize for the paper.

To be perfectly honest, I'm afraid of having too much Sega present, as that's been my gaming bread and butter for the past fourteen years (got a Genesis at age four). I've been considering adding Seaman, though... a creature which you can interact with in a way which is impossible in any other artistic medium, whom makes social commentaries on human beings from a non-human perspective. Anyway, for fear of an overabundance of Sega content, I asked you guys for help. So, I'd like to really thank you guys, as you've been a great help so far.

One title that keeps getting brought up without explanation though, is Shadow of the Colossus. How is that game art? I'd like to know from an objective viewpoint how that game validates videogames as an artform without relying heavily on other artforms to convey its message.

way to gloss over my post.

Hey, man! I didn't gloss over your post! I did research on Ebert's views so I could respond to you! He makes good points about the games most commonly referred to as art: The Legend of Zelda, Final Fantasy, etc.; games which alternate between gameplay and cinematics to progress the storyline. Ebert argues that the gameplay segments do not, and CANNOT have artistic merit because gameplay implies systems of scoring and some ultimately linear progression towards an ultimate goal, and that the cinematic portions are in fact the portions which carry any artistic merit.

Ebert's view actually leads to a much deeper discussion of the nature of the video game: it is, in fact, video. The actions which occur onscreen, even in regular gameplay are each a triggered cinematic. Nothing in videogames is truly analog; when you make your character take one step to the left, a cinematic is triggered; that cinematic imitates a motion which heavily implies a relationship to the desired act of taking a step to the left. There is no instance in which a video game is purely a video game; it must always borrow heavily from cinema, as that is its basis of communicating that your actions and decisions have in some way translated into the game's world. By this logic, then, we also condemn Ebert's favored medium: cinema. Cinema is not a moving image; it is countless still images constantly interchanging with one another to create the illusion of a moving image. Thus, if video games are composed of triggered mini-cinematics, and therefore cannot be considered an independent artform, we must conclude that cinemas too cannot be considered an independent artform because they are composed of still images. Thus, by this reasoning, there are only two pure mediums of artistic exchange: still image and sound (See "Understanding Comics" by Scott McCloud to see why literature is a denomination of the still image).

The big difference between regular cinema and video games is that the latter is far more capable of replicating the human experience - free will, and free will's consequences - than cinema. The majority of video games are in fact a marriage of simple goal-oriented gameplay and cinematic story-telling - this means that the majority of video games are post-modern to a fault, effectively invalidating them in the eyes of skeptics. In discussions of video games as art, however, gamers should not cite Final Fantasy VII because "It made me cry when I watched Aerith die; hell, it made everyone cry!", but rather Black & White: "Because of my actions, thousands of people died so that I could attain a higher level of power. Had I not done so, the people would have been happy and prospered. I chose Objectivism over Communism, and because of that, I felt the immediate benefits of my decision, but watched as those I was to protect perished. Being able to produce this effect by my personal decision had a far more profound effect on me than if I'd merely watched a canned character act through canned actions to produce a canned result. My friend chose to forfeit his powers to protect his people, and I envy him for that. That was a much better decision, I think, as my decision made me feel guilty."

A movie can never reach this level of interactivity, for if it were to employ interactivity (such as the audience voting on an ending) it would then become, in essence, and by definition, a video game. That gives video games artistic merit.

[J T]

Because your mission is often to kill whatever gets in the way of your game objectives, most games don't give you a sense of great empathy for other characters or a sense of responsibility for your action. Strangely enough, one of the games that creates the greatest sense of responsibility in the player is one often tauted as being one of the most morally irresponsible games on the market: Manhunt.

I feel guilty when I play Manhunt. I feel guilty not because I have any great belief that playing violent videogames is bad. I feel guilty because the game makes me feel guilty to the point that I don't feel good about playing it and just want to turn it off. But, that's kind of the point, artistically. It's one of the few games that self-referentially deals with the fact that you kill an awful lot of people in videogames. In the game, your character is forced to brutally mame and kill other people for some sick twisted "director" that gets his jollies off on watching snuff films and selling them to the masses. The thing is though, you chose to buy and play this game-- you are the market for which the game was created, so in essense you (and the game designers) are that sick and twisted director. You control the character that supposedly has no choice but to kill, yet you as a player actually do have a choice. You don't have to partake in these sick snuff films at all: you don't have to play Manhunt.

The game surrounds you with dumb sickos that also are out for blood. You have to realise at some point that the game designer thinks you, the player (not your character), is just another one of these blood thirsty sickos. The game was made for you. If you sneak behind an opponent for a longer period of time before finally releasing your trigger to kill him, then the death is more brutally gruesome. This is your reward you sick fuck.

No other game so critically examines the very essence of our enjoyment in violent videogames while simultaneously being one of the most violent types of media that the game half-heartedly condemns. Manhunt has a strange self-referentialism and self-loathing to it that make it a unique artistic statement... or maybe it's just another cheap gore-game shocker made for adolescent boys high on meth.

[vejita]

Just a question- is anyone here an artist? Studying art? Has anyone had an education, degree, or experience in the art community?

Art is a discipline- it seems that everyone thinks they can give an "opinion" on art and what it is, but we reserve opinions in subjects like physics to the "educated." There's always a defensive response to things considered art, like Jackson Pollack's Blue Poles- I cannot count how many times people say they hate cubism and think it's all bullshit. "Picasso was just full of it. Jackson Pollock just threw paint around. Blah blah..." Statements like that are like saying, "Man, so what if apples fall from trees. Newton didn't do shit!" or "Evolution is just a theory!"

I still find it common that people don't think its art unless its realistic... and I still find people who think photography isn't art because it's "lazy." Geez, it seems like the ones who are the most pretentious are the ones who flippantly and ignoratly decide what is good or not, when the educated know that "good" and "bad" shouldn't even be used in the sense that everyone thinks it should be!

Anyway, I really liked your post on Manhunt, J T. Guys like you give gamers a good name.

*also, original_name I accidently skipped your post- I like your counterargument

[vejita]

One title that keeps getting brought up without explanation though, is Shadow of the Colossus. How is that game art? I'd like to know from an objective viewpoint how that game validates videogames as an artform without relying heavily on other artforms to convey its message.

way to gloss over my post.

Hey, man! I didn't gloss over your post! I did research on Ebert's views so I could respond to you! He makes good points about the games most commonly referred to as art: The Legend of Zelda, Final Fantasy, etc.; games which alternate between gameplay and cinematics to progress the storyline. Ebert argues that the gameplay segments do not, and CANNOT have artistic merit because gameplay implies systems of scoring and some ultimately linear progression towards an ultimate goal, and that the cinematic portions are in fact the portions which carry any artistic merit.

Ebert's view actually leads to a much deeper discussion of the nature of the video game: it is, in fact, video. The actions which occur onscreen, even in regular gameplay are each a triggered cinematic. Nothing in videogames is truly analog; when you make your character take one step to the left, a cinematic is triggered; that cinematic imitates a motion which heavily implies a relationship to the desired act of taking a step to the left. There is no instance in which a video game is purely a video game; it must always borrow heavily from cinema, as that is its basis of communicating that your actions and decisions have in some way translated into the game's world. By this logic, then, we also condemn Ebert's favored medium: cinema. Cinema is not a moving image; it is countless still images constantly interchanging with one another to create the illusion of a moving image. Thus, if video games are composed of triggered mini-cinematics, thus cannot be considered an independent artform, cinemas too cannot be considered an independent artform because they are composed of still images. Thus, by this reasoning, there are only two pure mediums of artistic exchange: still image and sound (See "Understanding Comics" by Scott McCloud to see why literature is a denomination of the still image).

The big difference between regular cinema and video games is that the latter is far more capable of replicating the human experience - free will, and free will's consequences - than cinema. The majority of video games are in fact a marriage of simple goal-oriented gameplay and cinematic story-telling - this means that the majority of video games are post-modern to a fault, effectively invalidating them in the eyes of skeptics...

A movie can never reach this level of interactivity, for if it were to employ interactivity (such as the audience voting on an ending) it would then become, in essence, and by definition, a video game. That gives video games artistic merit.

Firstly, what happened to pulsar's post, eh? Anyway, it looks like you've reduced what art is in one way, much like my old theatre professor. He concluded theatre is the ultimate art form because it must incorporate all mediums- literature, 2d art, 3d art, music, interactivity, etc (he then went on to conclude that there have been more plays than books written, and plays are better than everything, so obviously books are inferior). Art is about what someone chooses to reveal, just like actors.

Also, the reason people watch tv and movies so much is that it is a very stimulating experience with little effort needed on the audience's part (MOST of the time). The criticism of movies and such are based on how little the audience is affected. Is this the movie's fault, or the audience? I think people have taken for granted the effort required to make art what it is because it is both the artist and the audience that make art effective. (rememeber, the artist is an audience member too).
The audience has a responsibility, and if it not met then you can say the object or subject is not art. HOWEVER- this is not the same as saying that an unsatisfied audience means that the subject is not art. It is much bigger than that. People must be true to themselves and hone their sensitivities, otherwise we get reductionism arguments thrown back and forth trying to measure art. These arguments cause problems for art just as reductionism causes problems for ethics.

Oh, and as for an objective viewpoint on how SOTC is art.... well, there's the first problem- the word "objective."

Ebert seems to have the same problem as most do when defining art- he assumes that the medium is limiting the viewer. Ever heard of how the only person who limits you is yourself?

Anyway, I'm terrible at wording things sometimes, but I think this guy frickin' nailed it:
http://www.paulgraham.com/goodart.html

[Jrecee]

Just a question- is anyone here an artist? Studying art? Has anyone had an education, degree, or experience in the art community?

Art is a discipline- it seems that everyone thinks they can give an "opinion" on art and what it is, but we reserve opinions in subjects like physics to the "educated." There's always a defensive response to things considered art, like Jackson Pollack's Blue Poles- I cannot count how many times people say they hate cubism and think it's all bullshit. "Picasso was just full of it. Jackson Pollock just threw paint around. Blah blah..." Statements like that are like saying, "Man, so what if apples fall from trees. Newton didn't do shit!" or "Evolution is just a theory!"

I still find it common that people don't think its art unless its realistic... and I still find people who think photography isn't art because it's "lazy." Geez, it seems like the ones who are the most pretentious are the ones who flippantly and ignoratly decide what is good or not, when the educated know that "good" and "bad" shouldn't even be used in the sense that everyone thinks it should be!

Anyway, I really liked your post on Manhunt, J T. Guys like you give gamers a good name.

*also, original_name I accidently skipped your post- I like your counterargument

That's because physics are based on facts and laws. Art is objective. You can't prove that black paint splattered on a piece of paper is good. Personally I think art is whatever you want it to be. If you think that painting would go perfectly with your sofa maybe it's art to you. According to deviantart, naked wolves making out with anthropomorphic dragons is art. I would disagree.

[Original_Name]

Firstly, what happened to pulsar's post, eh? Anyway, it looks like you've reduced what art is in one way, much like my old theatre professor. He concluded theatre is the ultimate art form because it must incorporate all mediums- literature, 2d art, 3d art, music, interactivity, etc (he then went on to conclude that there have been more plays than books written, and plays are better than everything, so obviously books are inferior). Art is about what someone chooses to reveal, just like actors.

Also, the reason people watch tv and movies so much is that it is a very stimulating experience with little effort needed on the audience's part (MOST of the time). The criticism of movies and such are based on how little the audience is affected. Is this the movie's fault, or the audience? I think people have taken for granted the effort required to make art what it is because it is both the artist and the audience that make art effective. (rememeber, the artist is an audience member too).
The audience has a responsibility, and if it not met then you can say the object or subject is not art. HOWEVER- this is not the same as saying that an unsatisfied audience means that the subject is not art. It is much bigger than that. People must be true to themselves and hone their sensitivities, otherwise we get reductionism arguments thrown back and forth trying to measure art. These arguments cause problems for art just as reductionism causes problems for ethics.

Oh, and as for an objective viewpoint on how SOTC is art.... well, there's the first problem- the word "objective."

Ebert seems to have the same problem as most do when defining art- he assumes that the medium is limiting the viewer. Ever heard of how the only person who limits you is yourself?

Anyway, I'm terrible at wording things sometimes, but I think this guy frickin' nailed it:
http://www.paulgraham.com/goodart.html

Pulsar had a very complimentary post about how I'd actually gone about arguing that video games are a viable medium of art in an intelligent way, then went on to ask me what I thought about Ebert's opinions on video games. By a combination of being sorta busy and needing to actually do some research on Ebert's explanations for his beliefs, it took me a few days to respond. In that time, I think he figured I'd just glossed over his post. Which is a shame, because I probably glossed over his post least of all.

And yes, you're absolutely right about me reducing what art is, I believe you're referencing the way I referred to video games as a "superior medium", and that was a mistake. I really don't know why I phrased it like that - rather foolish looking now. I did mean that it is the most immersive medium of entertainment thus far, which I mean from a more physical standpoint than anything. I understand that a person may get so caught up in a book that they forget they're reading at all, but as far as the actual reality of what's happening - a person interpreting abstract symbols to recreate a scene as opposed to literally being shown the scene, and being able to choose how one progresses (or doesn't progress) through it is on a physical level much more immersive than any other medium of art (that I know of. Correct me if I'm wrong).

Or perhaps you're referencing my statement that art is the act of making one's temporary state of mind permanent through the medium of physical exchange. I personally still subscribe to this view point. I believe there is, in fact, a difference between art and something that is merely aesthetically pleasing. I believe that art, at its core, is communication of a piece of one's essence in a permanent manner with means to transcend time. I don't believe art would have such a profound effect on us (nor would we have much will to create it) if we did not have some understanding or at least suppressed fear that we will not remain forever. Is a doodle art? Well, sort of. It contains some inkling of the mind, but is not done so with much intention or will to preserve, thus it's on the lower spectrum of art. Unless an artist makes their most beautiful work, then destroys it, as they will someday be destroyed, which is an enormously artistic statement, even if it's made exclusively to oneself. Perhaps an artist even attempts to recreate what "nothing; the lack of thought" looks like; that is still art because he had some intent to portray that. If someone spills a bucket of paint by pure accident (not meaning to portray any sense of erradity in his work, just like, tripping) and it looks pretty cool, I don't consider that art; I consider that aesthetically pleasing. That doesn't necessarily mean that an aesthetically pleasing object cannot have an effect on us. "If something that beautiful can come by accident, think of what could come with real intent and drive! et cetera". The possibilities are endless, but I personally believe there's a difference between art and the aesthetically pleasing. To expand on the link you gave me (which was spectacular, by the way), it communicates its purpose exceptionally well... if it has no purpose, but still looks good, does that make it art? I don't believe so, that's merely aesthetically pleasing.

*shakes cramping hands*

Anyone have counterpoints? This is really a great thread! Thanks a ton, everybody! And I'm still very open to suggestions on games with artistic merit!

[Jrecee]

Maybe this was already mentioned, but katamari demacy. I read an interview with the guy who created it. I believe he was an artist or something. Anyway, he wasn't into videogames, but he had this concept of an object that kept growing and things attaching to it, and the only way he knew how to convey what such an object would be like, was to make it in a videogame. So that's an example of something that could only be done in a game.

[Original_Name]

Hm, I hadn't heard that about Katamari! I'll definitely include that as a reference. As well as Boom Blox; Boom Blox isn't quite in the avant-garde of video games, but Steven Spielberg, a universally reknowned movie director, had an idea he couldn't portray in cinema which he instead decided to translate into a video game. Thank you very much!

[Funk, E]

Steven Spielberg, a universally reknowned movie director, had an idea he couldn't portray in cinema which he instead decided to translate into a video game. Thank you very much!

This also happened, kinda, with The Dig.

I'm gonna toss my hat in the ring for The Dark Eye to be included here. Claymation, Poe-based storyline, wonderful sound and artwork. Pity it's so tough to get running on a modern system.