It's a confusing word is it not? Almost anything can be classified as an "art" today; from cattle russling, to driving at high speeds. In my opinion, something can only be an art if it creates an experience for the veiwer. In this article, I am going to explain why Game Developing is indeed an art. First I want to explain the mindset of the gamer/game makers.
Mindset
Let's imagine SSBB as the Mona Lisa (even if you don't like it just replace it with some other mass produced game). I'm sure you've all seen this painting; ultra realistic, very famous painting. Now let's compare a Picasso painting, to say, FIG. Imagine now a normal man strolling through a art show, and he see's Mona Lisa. "Wow, that look's really real!" Then the professional artist looks at it, and even though she is seeing it in different ways, she also likes the painting. The normal man goe's over to the Picasso part of the show. Most normal people have a problem with this guy, becuase it doesn't look like what we would call a good painting. He doesn't like it at all. Then the professional artist looks at the Picasso paintings, and she likes it! The difference is that the painter see's what makes a painting good, and the man just see's how "cool" or realistic it looks.
2 years ago I was just a normal person, and when I played it I judged it on 2 things: Is it fun? Are the graphics cool? Now when I play a game I look for many different things: Is this game original/innovative, is it solid, are the graphics clean, among many other things.
(I used FIG as an example because 2 years ago I just wanted a game where I could blow something up, I would have put FIG in the recycling bin in 5 minutes. Now that I understand what it took to make that game, I can enjoy it much more.)
Art or not?
I would not go so far to say that ALL game's are beautiful pieces of art. I wouldn't consider "DT racing" to be art. But can you look me in the face and tell me this:
Is not art? Some more examples for artistic games:
I'm not saying that only games with great graphics can be art, but they are a very important to creating the experience for the viewer, with is mostly up to you. If a certain game is a peice of art, that is an opinion. But if game making in general is an art, that is a fact.
Game go deeper even then paintings, sculptures, even movies, because they have one thing that make's them different:
Interaction
This is a very great asset for the argument of games being an art form, because it allows people to not only observe, but to control the piece of art. They can do whatever they want in the boundries of the game, something no painting can do. People can express themself through games, meet other people, be who they always wanted to be.
Kyntt stories is a very good example of an artistic game. The graphics are by no means amazing, but they do a great job of creating an experience for the player. If you have ever played kyntt stories (if you haven't stop reading this and go download it) you know that the ambiance is great. The ambiance and light music are critical to that game. Without it, many people would not like it as much, or at all. The reason is, while the graphics do the job of helping you SEE the world, you aren't 100% there until you HEAR the world, thus creating an experiance. In kyntt stories, you ARE Juni, you feel sorry for the people with problems you meet in the game, you want to explore this vast world even though it has almost 0 action. That is because Juni need's get get out of that level, and for the time being you are Juni.
THAT game is a piece of art.
After reading this (if you read the whole thing ) I hope you agree with me that games are without a doubt, a piece of art.
Games have art. Films have art directors.
Some games are "art". Some films are arty.
Some bad games are "art" games. Some bad films are arty.
Some good games are "art" games. Some good films are arty.
I spent 2 years studying post modernism art and I still don't know what constitutes an art game. But I know what I like.
There are just so many art styles, so many observations and opinion that it's impossible to categorise this stuff.
Gaming is even more complicated because there are several creative categories that can be arty. The motion art of something like Okami, the individual setting art of Twilight Princess, the realism art of Mass Effect (random example), the balancing of gameplay could be considered "art".
I don't consider Knytt an art game. It strips down detailed visuals to something basic thats easy to look at and decode quickly, but for this it also limits interaction and gameplay. That's not art for me. That's just a reflective approach to design that goes against what we're used to.
Meh I've wrote too much already. Comment edited by Dr. James on 8/5/2008
Wow, a damn deep article! Not sure i totally agree games are art, but i'm 50-50 now after reading this bad-boy. Great examples to back up what you believe and very well written, good stuff!
I think if i was to pick a game i would call art in every single way, i'd pick Max Payne. That game just oozed atmosphere with the graphics, the sound, the cut-scenes and the ambience. Strange choice, i know.
Thank mark and other's who rated! I'm honored that my first article got a 5 star rating, I'm expecting someone to give it 0 just to get it off soon though, this is by no means the best article here.
The thing is trying to make an "arty" game without it being pretentious, boring, repetitive and have something to keep the player interested. Unfortunately most of the indie scene makes games with controversial names and/or stories with as retro as possible graphics, throw in some pop internet culture references and call it "art". Oh and make it in as quick a time as possible and make sure it has something that can be used as a meme. Losing "art game" formula.
Avoid that when making an art game for victory. Comment edited by Dr. James on 8/6/2008
I'm sure that, in the future, people will look back at different eras of game developing and classify games from these periods under various cathegories. This will make games into art regardless of if the creator meant it to be.
They can already be filtered into categories. Knytt being postminimalism. Half these "n00b" games being abstract expressionism. Most "art games" are probably just neo-dada.
To define "art" is a pointless task, one which nobody has ever succeeded with (and nobody will ever succeed with).
You mention "experience"; does that make a good roller coaster art? The combination of turns, inversions, g-forces, all very highly skilled stuff. Good food? Is that art? Good books? Good TV? For me, any leisure or pleasurable activity done to a high standard will no doubt be described as "art". It's a meaningless term.
And Zezard; too fast? We've hardly moved at all! The development has gone from Doom to Halo 3 in 15 years; which is not a great leap in my eyes. The technology has improved possibly too fast for design to catch up. Whenever a new technology is made, the developers go "Oooh, let's make an FPS but with new kick-ass graphics!". And they spend three years making that, by which time a new technology is ready and they say "Oooh, let's make an FPS but with new kick-ass graphics!"...
A contrast can be made with the film industry, where the basic technology behind them alters very little from decade to decade. Sci-fi films get more glitzy, 3D gets better, yeh; but actual video footage from thirty, forty years ago is only distinguishable from today's film by the slight imperfections which they now can iradicate. The result? Film-makers (good ones) have to rely on their own ingenuity and intelligence to design a good film, instead of blinding the viewers with a new piece of technology. And we are better for it. We need this with game makers.
Oh dear, I've yaddered on a lot. But you get my drift.
Boothman, that is where Nintendo thrives. The difference between the Wii and the PS3/360 is that the Wii feels like a new gaming experience. The PS3/360 do not.
Personally, I always considered art to be the definition of something that took effort and passion. In that sense, a novel, a painting or even a well written piece of code that the author is proud of, can be considered art. A result that was created from the fruit of experience and labor. Which is why an arty game can be good and bad, the game itself could be terrible, but, you can see the effort and pride the creator put into it, and on that sense it becomes enjoyable.
I like the way you describe how to define an arty game though, one that isn't simply arty for the graphics, but for the entire experience, and I agree that it needs more than nice graphics(or in some cases, it doesn't even need graphics) to be art.
Advertisement
"Wow, that look's really real!" Then the professional artist looks at it, and even though she is seeing it in different ways, she also likes the painting. The normal man goe's over to the Picasso part of the show. Most normal people have a problem with this guy, becuase it doesn't look like what we would call a good painting. He doesn't like it at all. Then the professional artist looks at the Picasso paintings, and she likes it! The difference is that the painter see's what makes a painting good, and the man just see's how "cool" or realistic it looks.
) I hope you agree with me that games are without a doubt, a piece of art.
