artsy games
 

do you think a game can be art? or are there any games which max the artistic possibilities out? apart from that art is something individual and subjective, how can you transport an innovative idea through a game? and what does it need to make a game art?

I know it's about games, but because it's not about a specific game, I think it doesn't belong to Non-Oddworld Gaming in the first place.

Since story telling has been classified as an art for ages, and video games are relying more and more on just that, then, yes, I think a lot of video games can be called art.

That's not to say they can be called good art, though.

I don't believe I've ever heard an objective and satisfying description of what it means to be art.

Neither have I, but I'd say that if some of the shit I've seen labelled as art is allowed to be then yes, video games can.

but if only those aspects are artistic, are they not only the sum of its parts?

i guess video gams can be a type of art

but only just

I feel as if games qualify as art. Red Dead Redemption is the best example I can think of.

Ico Ico Ico Ico Ico Ico Ico Ico

Don't forget Psychonauts. Or Beyond Good and Evil.

but I guess you experienced something what you call art.

the main difference between a game and a movie is the fact, that there is a user and he's involved in a story. he can, with great limits, change some aspects of the plot etc.

Yeah, and as video games have always been my visual medium of choice, I would definitely say that they can be art.

Fucking seriously? That game was horrible.

What DI said.

Art is entirely subjective. So, yeah, of course video games can be labeled as art. Not all of it is good, but that's also subjective.

Best examples, to me, include:

Oddworld
most Rareware Nintendo-console games
Psychonauts
Shadow of the Colossus
Limbo (very much so)

and uh... others. Silent Hill.

Silent Hill 2 for certain.
Prince of Persia Sands of Time
Tsukihime
Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask
Fatal Frame/Project Zero 2.

Yeah, Majora's Mask, for sure. Goddammit, I should've mentioned that earlier. Best Zelda game.

The only zelda game i've played is phantom hourglass and i guess that could be art

Yeah. Ico. Shadow of the Colossus. Yeah.

Ico, Shadow of the Colossus, Oddworld, and don't forget Okami.

Basically any game can be art, it's just that some are more obviously pushing the boundaries.

Also: video games make use of a great many different artistic elements (graphical style, colour palette, sound and music, character design and interaction, storytelling, UI design, etc.) drawn together into a cohesive whole. If that isn't art, I don't know what is - especially since cinema does the exact same thing, but lacks any actual interactivity.

That game was amazing.

No it wasn't. The voice acting was crap, the main character was boring, the story was cliche and dull, and gameplay mechanics were wonky, plus it was just plain ugly.

Oh, wait. Rockstar made it. Nevermind.

If you think that Red Dead Redemption was so poor in all of those areas, then please tell me examples of games you think excel in them.

I just thought the environment was pretty dull, and the gameplay wasn't exactly innovative or exciting. It wasn't terrible, but nothing amazing.

I thought it was one of the best looking games I've ever played.

You're forgetting Braid.

What, in all of them? Because that pretty much doesn't happen. The point is, Red Dead essentially failed in every category, whereas most games at least have some sort of redeeming quality.

I guess you could have an incorrect opinion about the story and characters, while at the same time I can sorta see someone not like the gameplay, but calling the game ugly is just untrue.

i havent got red dead redemption but it is pretty good

EDIT:what i mean is i've played it before but i don know much about the storyline

Do you just like to read your own posts?

I downloaded the demo recently, it's amazing. It was running really slowly, unfortunately.


What about World of Goo?

Why does that stop it from being art? Art doesn't have to be a static thing. Whatever happens in gameplay is part of the experience, whether it's the same for every player or not.


And to answer the original question; I think that all media have the potential for high art or low art. Movies have everything from arthouse to porn. Television has everything from drama to reality. Even dance has a range from ballet to pole-dancing. Games have a similar range, though I think the medium is much more focused on the lower end of the scale.

Many people seem to prefer to only label the upper end of the scale as 'art', rather than calling it all art and differentiating high art and low art. I'm not prepared to venture an opinion on that particular issue; as WoF said, it comes down to how you define art.

Companies like Oddworld Inhabihants or DoubleFine are artists; companies like Activision aren't really in it for the artistic message.

Also, I'd like to say that Half-life 2 is an example of high art in a video game. Portal, too.

I don't think Portal is high art. I think it's merely very, very good. But it (and now we're getting in to definitions of art, which I said I wouldn't do...) didn't affect me emotionally or change my view in the world like high art should.

It would be like saying that Scott Pilgrim is high art; it's an accomplished, polished comedy, but it's not art.

I believe that for a game to be art it has to first be timeless. As in, picking it up and playing it now will still have the same effect on a newcomer as picking up and playing it then.

All the games I've mentioned, plus more, have aged beautifully. Picking up the original Half Life, it felt aged and awkward to me. And not in the 'This is so fun I can get past it' way.

I really need to play Ico sometime. But yeah, Oddworld games (excluding MO.) and Shadow of the Colossus are art in my opinion.

I don't really think it's fair to say something has to emotionally move you to be considered high art. That's a pretty narrow view, as it automatically excludes all other emotions from being worth considering.

If it's a very well-crafted work, and it accomplishes what it sets out to do, then I'd say it's "good art"; even more so if it pushes boundaries and innovates (like Portal did with its portal game mechanic).

I don't get it. Nate didn't refer to a particular emotion.

I agree. As I said in my post, Portal is good art, not high art.

Not sure how your first paragraph relates to the second one though.

I thought something that only seeks to innovate is low art, like modern art.

I guess I should have mentioned that I think the concept of "high art versus low art" is kind of bullshit.

In my opinion, there's good art and there's bad art, and the distinction in a lot of cases comes down to personal taste.

People put art that they consider "classy" on a pedestal and label it "high art", but I don't think that's how it works.

You're a fucking idiot.