Its not arguable. Games are not art. Not on the same level as movies/books.

I prefer games, movies and books that have a good storyline. Dragon Quest IV, for example, had a storyline that was so good that I had to play through it in order to get to the end. Some people prefer shooters (much like some people prefer action movies or adventure books). Some prefer puzzle games (or mysteries).

The point I'm trying to make is that a game can sometimes be better than a book or movie because you get to interact with the story. The outcome isn't set in stone like books and movies (or art for that matter). In some games you get to pick your hero (or heroine), the way they will go, who they will take - and the outcome will change based on your choices.

So are games art? Who the hell knows? I do know that good games, like good books and movies make for a pleasant couple of hours. I have several games that I have played over and over for years (much like reading my favorite books).

So to me, it's an art like any other.

Listen, I love games. i have been playing for 15 years. I am 23 Now. Not an older generation who doesnt understand games. I probably play games more than 95 percent of the people on this site. Now that thats out of the way: It my opinion that games are not art. I love games more than anyone. I enjoy games more than movies and books, although i love those other mediums very much also. However, art is timeless. Games are not. The huge difference between movies, books, and games, is that games degrade in time in some form. Movies and books dont. Movies and books are the same quality the day they came out. With games, they degrade in some form, although in most cases, they age very badly, especially 3d games. Go back and play a lot of psone,n64, ps2 games. They are not the same quality they were on release. A lot of games are heart breaking to see how bad they are now, compared to when you were a kid. Graphics get worse. Gameplay in most cases degrades. Even the games considered the greatest of all time, their age has dminished their quality. Super Mario 64, Zelda OoT, Goldeneye....etc. They are not the mind blowing quality they were on release. It so sad that the way games work, it has to be this way. They Re based on technology, and technology becomes outdated. It does break my heart that games degrade by default. I wish this didnt happen. The sad thing is, 3d games are not timeless. They degrade in some way, shape, or form, and there is nothing they can do to stop it, as technology becomes outdated by default. 3d Games will never be 100% the same quality they were on release in the future by default. Games are not timeless, art however is. This is why games are not art. Games are my life, but its just the truth and pains me to say it, believe me. I would like you all to share your feelings as well please. Thanks.TidusIsBest

Are you telling me that The Room is art?  How about trashy romance novels?

Anyone who says films are a form of art and games aren't are just being hypocrites. What's a movie? It's a media format that's purpose is often (but not always) to tell a fictional story to its viewers. It tells its story through the fictional characters that reside in its setting (a setting that in itself is often fictional). A good movie will have these characters take part in events designed to provoke the human emotions inside the viewers via good cinematography and often accompanied with a fitting soundtrack.

Now tell me please. How is that any different to a well written story driven game? The only difference is a game requires human input while a movie does not. So does that alone declassify it as art? I certainly don't think so.

In the more literal sense of the word "art", games such as Journey fit the description perfectly.

To say games don't contain any form of art isn't even an opinion, it's just flat out incorrect.

[QUOTE="Wolf-Man2006"]

I think that even if you don't think that video games today could be considered as art, its current state could pave the way for that years down the road..

TidusIsBest

Are you even addressing any of the arguments made against you? If video games will only be art when: "All Video game graphics will not seem dated in the future and cannot be improved" then the same should apply to movies. Movies will only be considered art when special effects will not seem dated in the future. In addition to this, are animated movies not art by your standards? I'm curious to see your answer to this. 

Also you may argue that the lack of quality special effects, lack of colour, lack of hd quality, etc do not detract from your enjoyment of the movie. But dated gameplay or graphics do not detract from the enjoyment of many of us either. I personally have a hard time enjoying old movies from the 30's and 40's. But I still love playing Pacman. Personal enjoyment is subjective and you cannot base its classification as art off of that. All forms of art continue to evolve.

I have personally written and directed plays for the stage. These were low budget productions with limited special effects. Therefore they were not as visually exciting as a performance on Broadway. Does this mean they aren't art? To me, art is about conveying emotion or delivering a message. (This is a highly simplistic definition but I'm not about to offer a decisive definition. Art critics all over the world are still struggling with that one.) The quality of the special effects or visuals is irrelevant. I also believe that the more interactive the medium the more effective it is. This is why I love live theatre because of its ability to engage the audience more than films ever could. Video games also have that advantage. 

I've seen and done things in games that numb me to anything a film could show me. However, I suspect you are just playing the wrong games, or developers are making them poorly because video games are art by definition alone dude.

Games that don't sacrifice artistic integrity for action based sequences will always win awards for their execution and art style. I never played Metal Gear Solid 4 but I think it stands to reason that the game was constantly trying to convey a message using distinctive and well directed art styles and if it wasn't art what was it?

I get scared by a scary game, where a scary film just bores me... Both are art but if we were to take one of the three out of the art catagory dude, it wouldn't be video games. Out of a film, a video game and a book, the one which can be most tenuously described as art is the book. But it is still art. Just my opinion.

Anything we create to appeal to the senses is considered art. Video games are not just art, they have the potential to be the most powerful and impactful method of storytelling there is.

Films degrade as well. Picture and sound quality becomes outdated and CGI is getting better (but still nowhere near good enough) 

Do you really think that films like Transformers will be talked about in 20 years? There are lots of games that aren't really art, just like there are lots of films that aren't really art. 

Meh, I agree to an extent. There are some artsy games out there but for the most part video game as an "art form" is just stupid. Hell, books and movies as an "art" form are just as dumb; even music, I'd say. Art is the only form of art form.

I will say, though, in the hands of an excellent developer, games can probably surpass at the very least cinemas in terms of story telling.

If all games are art, than so is Ludo and Checkers.m25105

I would even go as far as to say CoD is a form of art. The enviroments created in it, the characters and the music all come together to form one piece.

Look folks, games are just toys. That's it. Stop trying to convince people or yourselves that you enjoy your pastime artistically and just flat out admit that you enjoy playing with toys. "I'm an adult and I like building model airplanes" "I'm an adult and I enjoy playing games". It's the exact same thing, yet for some reason, there's this negative stigma that playing games is childish. Well I like that it's childish and that I get to engage in a game where a whole new fantasy world is exposed to me. It's called having fun with my toys, either playing alone or with friends (multiplayer).m25105

It seems game developers actually put more attention to detail than most film producers. Games like Bioshock are full of posters and other bits of scenery, all designed by talented artists.

Games are as much art as films. Like I said before there are games that aren't good art and there are films that aren't good either. 

[QUOTE="m25105"]Look folks, games are just toys. That's it. Stop trying to convince people or yourselves that you enjoy your pastime artistically and just flat out admit that you enjoy playing with toys. "I'm an adult and I like building model airplanes" "I'm an adult and I enjoy playing games". It's the exact same thing, yet for some reason, there's this negative stigma that playing games is childish. Well I like that it's childish and that I get to engage in a game where a whole new fantasy world is exposed to me. It's called having fun with my toys, either playing alone or with friends (multiplayer).toast_burner

It seems game developers actually put more attention to detail than most film producers. Games like Bioshock are full of posters and other bits of scenery, all designed by talented artists.

Games are as much art as films. Like I said before there are games that aren't good art and there are films that aren't good either. 

OP is wrong on so many levels I literally CFB to answer. 

Silent Hill 2 begs to differ

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]

[QUOTE="m25105"]Look folks, games are just toys. That's it. Stop trying to convince people or yourselves that you enjoy your pastime artistically and just flat out admit that you enjoy playing with toys. "I'm an adult and I like building model airplanes" "I'm an adult and I enjoy playing games". It's the exact same thing, yet for some reason, there's this negative stigma that playing games is childish. Well I like that it's childish and that I get to engage in a game where a whole new fantasy world is exposed to me. It's called having fun with my toys, either playing alone or with friends (multiplayer).m25105

It seems game developers actually put more attention to detail than most film producers. Games like Bioshock are full of posters and other bits of scenery, all designed by talented artists.

Games are as much art as films. Like I said before there are games that aren't good art and there are films that aren't good either. 

People make up extraordinarily arbitrary definitions for what is and isn't art.

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]

[QUOTE="m25105"]Look folks, games are just toys. That's it. Stop trying to convince people or yourselves that you enjoy your pastime artistically and just flat out admit that you enjoy playing with toys. "I'm an adult and I like building model airplanes" "I'm an adult and I enjoy playing games". It's the exact same thing, yet for some reason, there's this negative stigma that playing games is childish. Well I like that it's childish and that I get to engage in a game where a whole new fantasy world is exposed to me. It's called having fun with my toys, either playing alone or with friends (multiplayer).m25105

It seems game developers actually put more attention to detail than most film producers. Games like Bioshock are full of posters and other bits of scenery, all designed by talented artists.

Games are as much art as films. Like I said before there are games that aren't good art and there are films that aren't good either. 

[QUOTE="m25105"][QUOTE="toast_burner"]So how are games less of an art form than films? Are you saying Jack and Jill has better story telling than Grim Fandango or Planescape?

It seems game developers actually put more attention to detail than most film producers. Games like Bioshock are full of posters and other bits of scenery, all designed by talented artists.

 

Games are as much art as films. Like I said before there are games that aren't good art and there are films that aren't good either. 

General_X

I'm sorry, but how does video games being interactive make them less artistic? I'd argue that it makes them more artistic and opens up more new ways to tell stories.

And if you're going to use the argument that games are just toys, then that means books are just random characters form the Latin alphabet on a piece of paper compiled into a stack of said papers and movies are just a bunch of pictures put together to give the impression that there is movement happening on the screen and it has audio set over it. See? Anyone can play this game.

Listen, I love games. i have been playing for 15 years. I am 23 Now. Not an older generation who doesnt understand games. I probably play games more than 95 percent of the people on this site. Now that thats out of the way: It my opinion that games are not art. I love games more than anyone. I enjoy games more than movies and books, although i love those other mediums very much also. However, art is timeless. Games are not. The huge difference between movies, books, and games, is that games degrade in time in some form. Movies and books dont. Movies and books are the same quality the day they came out. With games, they degrade in some form, although in most cases, they age very badly, especially 3d games. Go back and play a lot of psone,n64, ps2 games. They are not the same quality they were on release. A lot of games are heart breaking to see how bad they are now, compared to when you were a kid. Graphics get worse. Gameplay in most cases degrades. Even the games considered the greatest of all time, their age has dminished their quality. Super Mario 64, Zelda OoT, Goldeneye....etc. They are not the mind blowing quality they were on release. It so sad that the way games work, it has to be this way. They Re based on technology, and technology becomes outdated. It does break my heart that games degrade by default. I wish this didnt happen. The sad thing is, 3d games are not timeless. They degrade in some way, shape, or form, and there is nothing they can do to stop it, as technology becomes outdated by default. 3d Games will never be 100% the same quality they were on release in the future by default. Games are not timeless, art however is. This is why games are not art. Games are my life, but its just the truth and pains me to say it, believe me. I would like you all to share your feelings as well please. Thanks.TidusIsBest

There are so many movies that age poorly, and there are many that do so strictly because of graphics technology becoming outdated. Go back and watch a silent movie, then tell me you don't have to appreciate the time to appreciate the work. Same with many novels that are written in old english or whatever, they require appreciation of things other than the work itself to enjoy. That argument holds as much water as a fire.

Something's quality is purely subjective,  a video game has the capacity to tell a story just as well as any movie and most books. It's not about graphics.

[QUOTE="TidusIsBest"]Listen, I love games. i have been playing for 15 years. I am 23 Now. Not an older generation who doesnt understand games. I probably play games more than 95 percent of the people on this site. Now that thats out of the way: It my opinion that games are not art. I love games more than anyone. I enjoy games more than movies and books, although i love those other mediums very much also. However, art is timeless. Games are not. The huge difference between movies, books, and games, is that games degrade in time in some form. Movies and books dont. Movies and books are the same quality the day they came out. With games, they degrade in some form, although in most cases, they age very badly, especially 3d games. Go back and play a lot of psone,n64, ps2 games. They are not the same quality they were on release. A lot of games are heart breaking to see how bad they are now, compared to when you were a kid. Graphics get worse. Gameplay in most cases degrades. Even the games considered the greatest of all time, their age has dminished their quality. Super Mario 64, Zelda OoT, Goldeneye....etc. They are not the mind blowing quality they were on release. It so sad that the way games work, it has to be this way. They Re based on technology, and technology becomes outdated. It does break my heart that games degrade by default. I wish this didnt happen. The sad thing is, 3d games are not timeless. They degrade in some way, shape, or form, and there is nothing they can do to stop it, as technology becomes outdated by default. 3d Games will never be 100% the same quality they were on release in the future by default. Games are not timeless, art however is. This is why games are not art. Games are my life, but its just the truth and pains me to say it, believe me. I would like you all to share your feelings as well please. Thanks.Blueresident87

There are so many movies that age poorly, and there are many that do so strictly because of graphics technology becoming outdated. Go back and watch a silent movie, then tell me you don't have to appreciate the time to appreciate the work. Same with many novels that are written in old english or whatever, they require appreciation of things other than the work itself to enjoy. That argument holds as much water as a fire.

Something's quality is purely subjective,  a video game has the capacity to tell a story just as well as any movie and most books. It's not about graphics.

Not only that, but video games can tell a story better/ more interestingly than movies or books. 999 and Silent Hill Shattered Memories are two games that really use the video game medium to subvert expectations and tell a story that can only be told in video game format (at least as far as having the same impact. 999 would be nowhere near as mind blowingly good if it were a book). The same can't be said for most other games, because too many of them try to emulate movies. But I think that games as a whole have the capability of really being their own beast, set apart form books or movies.

Meh, I agree to an extent. There are some artsy games out there but for the most part video game as an "art form" is just stupid. Hell, books and movies as an "art" form are just as dumb; even music, I'd say. Art is the only form of art form.Goyoshi12

:lol:

[QUOTE="Goyoshi12"]Meh, I agree to an extent. There are some artsy games out there but for the most part video game as an "art form" is just stupid. Hell, books and movies as an "art" form are just as dumb; even music, I'd say. Art is the only form of art form.WolfattheDoor34

:lol:

Yes?

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]

[QUOTE="m25105"]Look folks, games are just toys. That's it. Stop trying to convince people or yourselves that you enjoy your pastime artistically and just flat out admit that you enjoy playing with toys. "I'm an adult and I like building model airplanes" "I'm an adult and I enjoy playing games". It's the exact same thing, yet for some reason, there's this negative stigma that playing games is childish. Well I like that it's childish and that I get to engage in a game where a whole new fantasy world is exposed to me. It's called having fun with my toys, either playing alone or with friends (multiplayer).m25105

It seems game developers actually put more attention to detail than most film producers. Games like Bioshock are full of posters and other bits of scenery, all designed by talented artists.

Games are as much art as films. Like I said before there are games that aren't good art and there are films that aren't good either. 

As someone else explained to you, live theatre is interactive. Even plays that don't try to be interactive are. As someone who was personally involved in theatre on and off the stage, I can't stress how much the audience influences what happens on stage. A great performance and a poor one often hinges on audience feedback. If the audience just "does nothing and watch" the performance often moves quicker and actors put less effort into their performance. But if you can tell that the audience is enjoying it (clapping after scenes, laughing at a funny scene, or perhaps audibly gasping during a shocking scene) then this gives the actors the motivation to give their best performance possible. Therefore, it's unavoidably interactive. Are you going to tell me a live performance of Shakespeare is not art?

And then there are plays that are overtly interactive and may even bring audience members on stage for certain skits. As I mentioned in my own post earlier on, this is what I love about theatre. I think the interactive quality makes it so much more engaging. This is also why I love video games.

And then there are plays that are overtly interactive and may even bring audience members on stage for certain skits. As I mentioned in my own post earlier on, this is what I love about theatre. I think the interactive quality makes it so much more engaging. This is also why I love video games.Tropictrain

Indeed. It isn't as if a play becomes some completely different kind of thing when it explicitly or implicitly breaks the fourth wall.

Art is basically a kind of thing, not a degree or a collection of differences. I've defined itin the past as the communication of metaphysical values over one or more mediums.

Video games fit that definition in pretty much all cases. Any interaction that takes place in a game is well within the confines of the story, the environment, the personalities of the characters, and the universe, that was created by the artist(s) who created it. Even when they greatly affect the direction of the game, it is still locked into presenting the metaphysical values that the designers hoped to convey.

Some people will argue that very mechanical games aren't art while other efforts are, but even that doesn't completely gel. Much of Bach shows the mechanics of music, which is why he is great to use as learning material, yet even that is still considered art despite the fact that many of the pieces are often just logical progressions.

I think what people are often trying to say when they say something is not art is that it isn't good art. They should argue that point instead. Saying something is "art" isn't a value judgement, it's just a recognitiion for what it is. Saying something is "good art" or "bad art"... that's a value judgement that can be debated.

While they are a younger, less mature, less developed art form, I would disagree. It is an art form. One that has improved considerably and continues to improve.

Anything is art if you look at it as so. Some famous painters have said that.

If this is art. If Jackson Pollock is art. If paintings of soup cans is art. Then video games are art.