Art Games vs. Games as Art

[Nabeel Ansari]

39 minutes ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

If you want to convince me that I'm wrong, all you have to do is on paper, design me a game but explain nothing but the mechanics and rules to your game, without describing any characters, setting, sound or story. Take it down to the micro level - its core. If, without those things, it remains something that resembles a work that emotionally moves people in the same way that paintings, music and movies do, then you're right - rules really are art.

Because "get this object into this specific containment zone, guarded by an individual who is the only player allowed to use their hands", which is the basic idea of soccer, doesn't make me feel quiet the way I do watching Star Wars or listening to Mozart or reading poetry. If you want me to believe rules are art, then demonstrate that the rules are art without relying on things we already agree are art.

Quote

"The consequence in [stage of the game] is a creative mechanic because it creates the unprecedented first gameplay consequence for an impulsive action taken by the player. Half of the enemy types disappear and the [safe space] is killed off when the game registers that [the game object said to be responsible for keeping it operational] is now an enemy and the [safe space] is no longer active or usable. [The area is now less desired as a gameplay region because of decreased reward and higher risk]. This is the only time this happens in the game, and it happens not for any motivation of optimally engineered balance or fairness; it's done to screw with and punish the player, making him feel frustrated and regret his decision they thought was acceptable. It is imaginative and original because it takes the normal game's formula and creates a singular variation of it that only appears this one time in the game for the sake of conveying the [thing that has been said arbitrarily can not be named], not to mathematically optimize something to be more "fun", as if that could be mathematically derived anyway, ditto for fairness. [This creates a feeling of betrayal and momentary unfairness to the player by the game, since the game did not ever previously indicate it was willing to implement harsh changes to the game's balance.] Unless you say that it's "fair" because the player did something "narratively bad", thereby forcing you to admit that the game isn't separable from the narrative (because they would be completely orthogonal otherwise) and thus since narrative design is artistic the game design must also be artistic because they are one in the same."

And don't say you don't find that compelling, because that is an admission of subjective interpretation, which is a quality of art.

You can't do this with movies either, since if you remove music, writing, and theatrics, it's just camera work and production, "which isn't as emotional as Mozart or Beethoven". It's a shitty, arbitrary, and anecdotal restriction you're using, to try really hard to say "games aren't art because I'm finding this incredibly small and non-holistic aspect of them that isn't completely subjective and creative". You say "it's a package deal" and then you're clearly contradicting that, right here. IS IT A PACKAGE DEAL OR ISN'T IT?

Finding lowest common denominators of a developing artform is a really disingenuous way to evaluate the emotional impact of that artform, and just shows you have a lack of experience in studying games. Just because our early generations of games primarily focused on fun and balance and challenge doesn't mean people haven't started figuring out how to extend beyond that into using games as a medium of storytelling. Yes, Pac-man is not emotionally impactful, but Shadow of the Colossus is. So clearly Pac-man doesn't qualify to create generalizations about how impactful a medium can be, when Shadow of the Colossus is also a video game and clearly says "well we CAN be emotionally impactful".

[AngelCityOutlaw]

4 minutes ago, Neblix said:

You can't do this with movies either, since if you remove music, writing, and theatrics, it's just camera work and production. It's a shitty, arbitrary restriction you're using, to try really hard to say "games aren't art because I'm finding this incredibly small and non-holistic aspect of them that isn't completely subjective and creative". You say "it's a package deal" and then you're clearly contradicting that, right here. IS IT A PACKAGE DEAL OR ISN'T IT?

Finding lowest common denominators of a developing artform is a really disingenuous way to evaluate the emotional impact of that artform, and just shows you have a lack of experience in studying games. Just because our early generations of games primarily focused on fun and balance and challenge doesn't mean people haven't started figuring out how to extend beyond that into using games as a medium of storytelling. Yes, Pac-man is not emotionally impactful, but Shadow of the Colossus is. So clearly Pac-man doesn't qualify to create generalizations about how impactful a medium can be.

The point of the discussion here, as said by servbot, is that rules can be art too.

The rules you guys keep claiming are art, always seem to be considered such because of the art attached to it and not the underlying thing.

If rules are art, demonstrate it.

Speaking of contradictions. "Games are art because they're emotionally impactful, but Pac-Man isn't." So Pac-Man is a game, but it's not art then? I thought games were inherently art? So only some games are art then? If only some games are art, then how can such a broad statement as "games are art" be true. 

[Nabeel Ansari]

1 minute ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

If rules are art, demonstrate it.

 

[AngelCityOutlaw]

Fair enough

[Nabeel Ansari]

21 minutes ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

Speaking of contradictions. "Games are art because they're emotionally impactful, but Pac-Man isn't." So Pac-Man is a game, but it's not art then? I thought games were inherently art? So only some games are art then? If only some games are art, then how can such a broad statement as "games are art" be true. 

I said Pac-man is not emotionally impactful, which is a subjective statement. I don't qualify games as an artform medium as "all games are impactful and creatively designed", I qualify them as an artform because they are capable of demonstrating artistic qualities and have shown themselves to do so in recent history. It's not about "every game is so artistic and impactful, look at Street Fighter and Pac-man they're so GENIUS AND ABSTRACT", it's about "this medium can be explored to find artistic and creative things, and pioneers like Journey and Shadow of the Colossus have shown us how games can be art." Every other artform behaves like this. There are primitive works early on, by unskilled artists and early people not understanding the strengths of it. Movies used to be simple camera recordings of stage plays, until cinematography and special effects were invented and now it's a unique artform. And yes, many would argue those have little to no artistic value in the context of artistic film analysis. It's okay to say things used to be primitive, and now they are better and more refined. Artforms grow. They don't simply start existing with all their nuance and greatness.

To bring it to games, I am not talking about nor was I ever talking about the "old stage plays" (pac man). Though if someone wants to go back and try to argue that those have unique artistic value to them, that surely is welcome here. I don't particularly agree with it, but I'm willing to be persuaded.

I'm not saying "look how creative Dark Souls mechanics are, so Space Invaders must also be really genius too, right?" But for the record, my interest in Dark Souls does make me take it as seriously as great works of art, because I find aspects of the game's design (including that one that I've tried to explain now 6 or 7 times) to be incredibly unique, unprecedented, and memorable, and making a lasting impression, forever altering the way I look at how I approach game design.

[AngelCityOutlaw]

5 minutes ago, Neblix said:

I said Pac-man is not emotionally impactful, which is a subjective statement. I don't qualify games as an artform medium as "all games are impactful and creatively designed", I qualify them as an artform because they are capable of demonstrating artistic qualities and have shown themselves to do so in recent history. It's not about "every game is so artistic and impactful, look at Street Fighter and Pac-man they're so GENIUS AND ABSTRACT", it's about "this medium can be explored to find artistic and creative things, and pioneers like Journey and Shadow of the Colossus have shown us how games can be art." Every other artform behaves like this. There are primitive works early on, by unskilled artists and early people not understanding the strengths of it. Movies used to be simple camera recordings of stage plays, until cinematography and special effects were invented and now it's a unique artform. To bring it to games, I was not talking about nor was I ever talking about the "old stage plays" (pac man). Though if someone wants to go back and try to argue that those have unique artistic value to them, that surely is welcome here. I don't particularly agree with it, but I'm willing to be persuaded.

I'm not saying "look how creative Dark Souls mechanics are, so Space Invaders must also be really genius too, right?" But for the record, my interest in Dark Souls does make me take it as seriously as great works of art, because I find aspects of the game's design (including that one that I've tried to explain now 6 or 7 times) to be incredibly unique, unprecedented, and memorable.

 

17 minutes ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

Fair enough

 

[djpretzel]

On 12/30/2015 at 11:54 PM, Neblix said:

• Are the emergence of "art games" (walking simulators, introspective/immersive experiences, experimental stories) what we actually mean and want when we say games are art? Are older, arcade-y games valueless by comparison?
• Or, should we be looking at game design itself as an art, complete with all of the facets (mechanics, reward, risk, choices, challenges, exit points, first order strategies, etc.)? Are "art games" valueless by comparison?

"Art" is one of those words where trying to come up with a complete & concrete definition is almost an exercise in futility...

"Games," however, is a word that to me conveys a general emphasis on challenge, goals, and interaction... not ALL software that provides an interactive experience should by definition be considered a game; especially with VR seemingly on the cusp of a breakthrough, the idea that all interactive entertainment software is a "game" of some kind needs to die, and I believe it will, as non-gaming virtual environments become more common for more practical purposes.

So my answer is somewhat semantic; "art games" are no more or less "art" than "traditional" games... there is room for artistic expression in the traditional, goal/challenge-oriented space, and there is room for artistic expression in the broader category of interactive entertainment software.... art is where you find it, basically; I don't love the phrase "art games" because it somehow implies that art cannot be found in the mechanics of a 2D platformer, or the storytelling of a JRPG, or the soundtrack for a AAA FPS... and that for something to be "art," it has to be more abstract and/or less challenging; those are limiting & relatively elitist constraints.

[Nabeel Ansari]

13 minutes ago, djpretzel said:

"Art" is one of those words where trying to come up with a complete & concrete definition is almost an exercise in futility...

"Games," however, is a word that to me conveys a general emphasis on challenge, goals, and interaction... not ALL software that provides an interactive experience should by definition be considered a game; especially with VR seemingly on the cusp of a breakthrough, the idea that all interactive entertainment software is a "game" of some kind needs to die, and will.

So my answer is somewhat semantic; "art games" are no more or less art than traditional games... there is room for artistic expression in the traditional, goal/challenge-oriented space, and there is room for artistic expression in the broader category of interactive entertainment software.... art is where you find it, basically; I don't love the phrase "art games" because it somehow implies that art cannot be found in perfecting the mechanics of a 2D platformer, or the storytelling of a JRPG, or the soundtrack for a AAA FPS... and that for something to be art, it has to be more abstract and/or less challenging.

That's actually why I choose to encapsulate it in quotes, because I don't really think it's a cool term. But it's the only effective way of directly referring to the subset I'm talking about.

I think we're sort of in agreement, you're saying both camps can be pretty valuable. I think right now I've been leaning on emphasizing how mechanics can be art as well, though. I kind of see these abstract, less challenging games as giving a bad impression to people, and I see it in some of the people at the game studio I do some work at, where the immediate connotation of talking about games as an artform means "take away the 'fun' and 'challenge', it pollutes it and gets in the way of the message". Gone Home being an exemplar. A project I am working on right now suffers from this; an extreme fear of game mechanics and thinking they will lead to some lesser abstract and lesser meaningful, more gamified and less mature experience.

I don't think that's true at all. That's my beef here.

[Skrypnyk]

36 minutes ago, Neblix said:

You can't do this with movies either, since if you remove music, writing, and theatrics, it's just camera work and production, "which isn't as emotional as Mozart or Beethoven". It's a shitty, arbitrary, and anecdotal restriction you're using, to try really hard to say "games aren't art because I'm finding this incredibly small and non-holistic aspect of them that isn't completely subjective and creative". You say "it's a package deal" and then you're clearly contradicting that, right here. IS IT A PACKAGE DEAL OR ISN'T IT?

I'm guessing you aren't familiar with Stan Brakhage.

I've been following this thread for a bit, and I'm on Angel's side when it comes to separating 'games' and 'art'.  Djp comment on trying to define art is pretty accurate though

[Servbot#36]

1 hour ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

If you want to convince me that I'm wrong, all you have to do is on paper, design me a game but explain nothing but the mechanics and rules to your game, without describing any characters, setting, sound or story. Take it down to the micro level - its core. If, without those things, it remains something that resembles a work that emotionally moves people in the same way that paintings, music and movies do, then you're right - rules really are art.

Because "get this object into this specific containment zone, guarded by an individual who is the only player allowed to use their hands", which is the basic idea of soccer, doesn't make me feel quiet the way I do watching Star Wars or listening to Mozart or reading poetry. If you want me to believe rules are art, then demonstrate that the rules are art without relying on things we already agree are art.

...Well Neblix kind of beat me to it here but this really doesn't prove anything. For one thing, making the claim that games are art does not mean that I am an artist. And the fact that I can't doesn't mean that it isn't an art. I mean I'm pretty sure I couldn't move you with a song I wrote or a picture I drew either, but that doesn't mean those aren't art. Worse, I'm sure you realize just how subjective that is? Personally, I know it may earn me the label of plebeian, but to be perfectly honest I've never felt anything artistic about architecture. I may have felt a building looked interesting, but I've never felt a thing from it. That doesn't mean I say it's not an art. But this particular discussion seems well enough wrapped up anyway.

Just pointing out though, "If, without those things, it remains something that resembles a work that emotionally moves people in the same way that paintings, music and movies do, then you're right - rules really are art." sounds an awful lot like that "gives me the feels" remark earlier. But anyway,

14 minutes ago, Neblix said:

To bring it to games, I am not talking about nor was I ever talking about the "old stage plays" (pac man). Though if someone wants to go back and try to argue that those have unique artistic value to them, that surely is welcome here. I don't particularly agree with it, but I'm willing to be persuaded.

To be honest I actually think I would argue that even Pacman has artistic value. Partially because I believe that eliciting enjoyment isn't very different from eliciting any other emotion, but also just because of how subjective it all is. I can't claim that I've ever felt anything from it, but I think it's jumping the gun a bit to conclude that no one could, simple as it is. I mean I could see someone interpreting the constantly looping stage culminating in a nearly impossible to reach, literally impossible to beat final level as an allegory for the futility of life or something. But with or without that, I think art should be considered art based on its capacity to evoke those things, not necessarily in how in many people it actually does.

[Nabeel Ansari]

15 minutes ago, Skrypnyk said:

I'm guessing you aren't familiar with Stan Brakhage.

The point was that the restriction is arbitrary, because separating the components of something doesn't assist you in seeing what the bigger picture impact is, though it helps in seeing how each component is harmonious, which is the sign of a greater work.

Quote

To be honest I actually think I would argue that even Pacman has artistic value. Partially because I believe that eliciting enjoyment isn't very different from eliciting any other emotion, but also just because of how subjective it all is. I can't claim that I've ever felt anything from it, but I think it's jumping the gun a bit to conclude that no one could, simple as it is. I mean I could see someone interpreting the constantly looping stage culminating in a nearly impossible to reach, literally impossible to beat final level as an allegory for the futility of life or something. But with or without that, I think art should be considered art based on its capacity to evoke those things, not necessarily in how in many people it actually does.

I would argue that Pac-Man doesn't exhibit any manipulation of its game mechanics to elicit player responses like the games I rally behind do. It largely remains the same, which you can argue is an allegory of the futility of life, but I see that as easy, not very insightful, and thus it's more primitive (because you are both looking at a work that is inherently very simple and drawing very heavy extrapolated insight from it.) Also because so many games exhibit that type of phenomenon, and it's not really for a narrative message, it's because they want you to pump your hours into it for economic reasons. Maybe intentionality fallacy, but I think the saturation plays into it.

So if you say it's art, I can get behind that, but I will also say it's not particularly good (or insightful, or impactful) art. Who cares about the words, though, right? So let me say this instead. If my motivation is to create or encourage the creation and critical acceptance of more artistic/impressionable/memorable great works in video games, I would not look to make more games like Pac-man, unless it were self-aware and manipulative (much like Undertale does with the more rigid and straightforward normal JRPG formula).

[Servbot#36]

1 hour ago, Neblix said:

I would argue that Pac-Man doesn't exhibit any manipulation of its game mechanics to elicit player responses like the games I rally behind do. It largely remains the same, which you can argue is an allegory of the futility of life, but I see that as easy, not very insightful, and thus it's more primitive (because you are both looking at a work that is inherently very simple and drawing very heavy extrapolated insight from it.) Also because so many games exhibit that type of phenomenon, and it's not really for a narrative message, it's because they want you to pump your hours into it for economic reasons. Maybe intentionality fallacy, but I think the saturation plays into it.

I personally don't find it very insightful either, but I don't know that "primitive" in the sense you're using it is even a bad thing. Maybe I'm wasting both our time by arguing this since I'm pretty far into the school of thought that art is entirely subjective and words like good or bad don't apply beyond one's personal experience, but even to someone who disagrees with that could still agree that there's more to art than complexity. Not that I'm thrilled about comparing them, but I believe you mentioned Undertale before, and I think it's at its core pretty simple. I found it incredibly poignant, but I wouldn't say there were any deep insights or themes. Granted, one of them was explicitly trying to evoke feeling and one couldn't have cared less, but that doesn't much matter to the individual appreciating it. The point is you don't need complexity to be moving, and at the end of the day complexity and insightfulness are relative terms anyway. I'm sure the hypothetical person who gets deeply moved by Pacman is pretty rare and more than likely doesn't exist, but whatever Pacman evokes in him/her is no less real no matter how primitive the game may be or how unintentional it was. And in that sense I would argue that it, and anything similarly primitive for that matter, are still art. Maybe not to the vast majority of us, but no art appeals to everyone.

1 hour ago, Neblix said:

So if you say it's art, I can get behind that, but I will also say it's not particularly good (or insightful, or impactful) art. Who cares about the words, though, right? So let me say this instead. If my motivation is to create or encourage the creation and critical acceptance of more artistic/impressionable/memorable great works in video games, I would not look to make more games like Pac-man, unless it were self-aware and manipulative (much like Undertale does with the more rigid and straightforward normal JRPG formula).

I have little to say to that first sentence on account of my aforementioned beliefs on the subjectivity of art, but I will admit that I agree with the rest. If I were trying to convince someone that games are art I wouldn't use Pacman either. But my reasoning is that, to the vast majority people, Pacman probably evokes nothing at all. I can't in good conscience say that makes it objectively worse as art (even if subjectively I couldn't care less about it), I would definitely say it lacks any sort of universal appeal on that level.

[Nabeel Ansari]

I'm not applying objective evaluation, in fact the point of the OP is to bring about people's subjective points of view.

[Servbot#36]

4 hours ago, Neblix said:

I'm not applying objective evaluation, in fact the point of the OP is to bring about people's subjective points of view.

Oh. The bolded "primitive" and "good" are a bit confusing to that end, but I get it. My point was that Pacman does have artistic value, not that you should personally should start appreciating it. But I'm as blind to it as you are, so in that case I guess I have nothing to argue.

[Drawn by Dai]

As a visual artist, I'll say this:
It's both and neither. The line is drawn when somebody says: "Let's make an art game". That's when they use the industry and term to create a moneyspinner. Not all games are art. Many never intend to be art. Many became art despite the term or idea not existing. For example, Tetris is art. It lacked the power, graphical abilities, audio abilities and everything else that goes into a game to be anything else than what it is. But it's still art. 

Taking a more literal bent, one can't possibly compare the time and skill differences between cave paintings and the Sistine Chapel, but similarly one can't argue that one is art and the other isn't. All games are art, unless they're made with money solely or at least primarily in mind. Surely the money's nice, but if that's all you're into, get out. The game will probably be soulless anyway.

Some games are made for joy, others are made for cash. The difference is revealed in the end product.

It's not just about the visuals. Or the music, or the mechanics. It's DEFINITELY not about the money. It's about the game. If the makers try to achieve something within the player, joy, sorrow, whatever. that's what makes it art. The desire to emote.

My 2 pence 

[Nabeel Ansari]

19 hours ago, Servbot#36 said:

To be honest I actually think I would argue that even Pacman has artistic value. Partially because I believe that eliciting enjoyment isn't very different from eliciting any other emotion, but also just because of how subjective it all is. I can't claim that I've ever felt anything from it, but I think it's jumping the gun a bit to conclude that no one could, simple as it is. I mean I could see someone interpreting the constantly looping stage culminating in a nearly impossible to reach, literally impossible to beat final level as an allegory for the futility of life or something. But with or without that, I think art should be considered art based on its capacity to evoke those things, not necessarily in how in many people it actually does.

It should be assumed in a discussion of art (something in inherently subjective) that a person doesn't need to include formalities like "in my opinon" or "according to my values" because by virtue of a person writing up a thought, it is, of course, their opinion and based on their values (unless they're playing devil's advocate or something).

And well, that includes this response too; it's my opinion that that's how it should be.

[Servbot#36]

1 hour ago, Neblix said:

It should be assumed in a discussion of art (something in inherently subjective) that a person doesn't need to include formalities like "in my opinon" or "according to my values" because by virtue of a person writing up a thought, it is, of course, their opinion and based on their values (unless they're playing devil's advocate or something).

And well, that includes this response too; it's my opinion that that's how it should be.

I'm glad that that's actually the case here, I guess I've dealt with a few too many people who think otherwise that I've become a little pessimistic about these things. But alright then, good to know.

[BardicKnowledge]

I don't know why anyone accepted AngelCityOutlaw's proposal that games can be reduced to a sequence of rules when the same can be said about nearly anything.  Before engaging in a discussion of the word "art," let's first have a brief chat about the word "virtuosity."

From William Cheng's recent book, "Sound Play":

"Inherent in creative and critical play is an element of virtuosity, which, as defined by Dana Gooley (regarding the legendary pianist Franz Liszt), involves exceeding 'the limit of what seems possible, or what the spectator can imagine...[and] insistently mobilizing, destabilizing, and reconstituting borders.' Insistence is key: maintaining virtuosic distinction means staying a couple steps ahead of the game.  Should extraordinary acts catch on and become heavily imitated, the could cease to appear extraordinary as such.

...To be sure, it is possible for an act to be so radical that it comes off as more alienating than impressive.  Chess players who set fire to the game board during a match are clearly transgressors (and maybe dangers to society), but they aren't likely to be hailed as creative or virtuosic chess masters.  It would likewise be odd to spread peanut butter on a piano's keys during a recital, but performers who do so shouldn't count on being venerated as concert pianists in the conventional sense."

The last paragraph seems comical but is vital to this discussion -- every performative act in couched in a set of understood rules. This is true of music, and it is true of games.  Batman can't leave Gotham on the bus at the beginning of Arkham Knight, and you can't paint peanut butter on the piano if you want to be a pianist. Boiling down either music or games (or any other performative act, seriously) to "the rules" without addressing the myriad range of other elements that make up performance is to miss the point completely, which seems to be the most of what this potentially useful thread has degenerated into.

 

As to the original point raised by Nabeel -- I think that art-games (that is, what you have uncharitably labelled as walking simulators and such) are vital to the maturation of the medium, but don't necessarily speak for the whole.  Because my argument applies to all media, let's step away from games and do this in film instead -- just because Crash and Doubt exist doesn't mean we quit talking about how awesome Indiana Jones is, or why Spielberg is a stellar director.  One is not better than the other, they merely represent multiple expressions within the same medium.  Some movies have great action sequences, some really get to us emotionally, and some make us think and feel clever for piecing things together.  Games are exactly the same way -- they allow for multiple modes of presentation within a given constraint of starting rules (you generally don't leave the movie theater if you want to "watch" a film, you generally don't put down the controller for extended periods of time if you want to "play" the game) for experiencing what the medium has to offer on any given day.

 

 

[Servbot#36]

11 hours ago, BardicKnowledge said:

I don't know why anyone accepted AngelCityOutlaw's proposal that games can be reduced to a sequence of rules when the same can be said about nearly anything. 

Not that I at all share his position that they somehow nullify a game's status as art, but I think there's a difference between those rules and the ones Outlaw was talking about. The rules in a game (touching the spikes kills you, cherries give you 600 points, jumping on the flagpole takes you to the next level) aren't the same as the understood rules of playing a game (hold the controller, look at the screen, don't fall asleep). The latter generally applies to all games in the same way keeping your peanut butter away from the piano applies to most all performances, but the former is a creative element of the game (arguably the central one). The pianist didn't create the rules, s/he just followed them. So I wouldn't say they're an aspect of the performance itself. But Nintendo did decide that pits cause instant death and that's part of their final product.

EDIT: Well damn. I was literally hovering over the submit button when the notification ding went off.

 

[AngelCityOutlaw]

5 minutes ago, Servbot#36 said:

Not that I at all share his position that they somehow nullify a game's status as art, but I think there's a difference between those rules and the ones Outlaw was talking about. The rules in a game (touching the spikes kills you, cherries give you 600 points, jumping on the flagpole takes you to the next level) aren't the same as the understood rules of playing a game (hold the controller, look at the screen, don't fall asleep). The latter generally applies to all games in the same way keeping your peanut butter away from the piano applies to most all performances, but the former is a creative element of the game (arguably the central one). The pianist didn't create the rules, s/he just followed them. So I wouldn't say they're an aspect of the performance itself. But Nintendo did decide that pits cause instant death and that's part of their final product.

EDIT: Well damn. I was literally hovering over the submit button when the notification ding went off.

 

Yes, this basically

[Nabeel Ansari]

8 hours ago, Servbot#36 said:

But Nintendo did decide that pits cause instant death and that's part of their final product.

There are rules in playing music too, it's called sheet music. You're given constraints (rules) as to how a song is written and functions. The performer can surely interpret that and work within those rules, yes. But so can a game player, in fact that's what it means to play a game. If I break the rules, i.e. play the song differently, for example invert the melody in Chopin's Waltz in C# minor, I'm not playing Chopin's Waltz in C# minor anymore. I'm playing a derivative work/improvisation (these are your ROM hacks, your mods).

[Servbot#36]

1 hour ago, Neblix said:

If I break the rules, i.e. play the song differently, for example invert the melody in Chopin's Waltz in C# minor, I'm not playing Chopin's Waltz in C# minor anymore. I'm playing a derivative work/improvisation (these are your ROM hacks, your mods).

I still think that's a little different. The rules you're talking about breaking here in the case of the Waltz aren't an element of the piece itself; they guided the production (the notes will all follow those rules) but they still only apply to the piece and the writer, not the audience. The audience only hears their output, even if following different rules ended up yielding a different piece. On the other hand with games, you're literally paying for rules that will apply to you. And those rules you can't break. You can make a mod, but once you do that you're not an audience anymore; you're a creator too. And if you play someone else's mod, you're just playing something else with different but similarly unbreakable rules.

Granted, breaking either kind of rule will give you a different result, but changing just about anything about a piece of art will do that. I'm not saying there aren't rules to everything else (although they're all certainly up for interpretation), I'm just saying that the rules of a video game aren't the same.

This example could potentially equivocate video games and the sheet music for Chopin's Waltz since they're essentially a set of rules to be followed, but that's not quite the same as comparing the music itself. Probably shouldn't speak for Outlaw, but I imagine his view would be that the sheet music isn't art either, just a set of directions for how to create it.

[AngelCityOutlaw]

17 minutes ago, Servbot#36 said:

I still think that's a little different. The rules you're talking about breaking here in the case of the Waltz aren't an element of the piece itself; they guided the production (the notes will all follow those rules) but they still only apply to the piece and the writer, not the audience. The audience only hears their output, even if following different rules ended up yielding a different piece. On the other hand with games, you're literally paying for rules that will apply to you. And those rules you can't break. You can make a mod, but once you do that you're not an audience anymore; you're a creator too. And if you play someone else's mod, you're just playing something else with different but similarly unbreakable rules.

Granted, breaking either kind of rule will give you a different result, but changing just about anything about a piece of art will do that. I'm not saying there aren't rules to everything else (although they're all certainly up for interpretation), I'm just saying that the rules of a video game aren't the same.

This example could potentially equivocate video games and the sheet music for Chopin's Waltz since they're essentially a set of rules to be followed, but that's not quite the same as comparing the music itself. Probably shouldn't speak for Outlaw, but I imagine his view would be that the sheet music isn't art either, just a set of directions for how to create it.

 

[AngelCityOutlaw]

I found a follow up that Ebert wrote after Clive Barker responded to his suggestion that video games aren't art. I'll put a link to it, but I'll cut out the most important parts here because I think it summarizes it all well:

"A year or so ago, I rashly wrote that video games could not be art. That inspired a firestorm among gamers, who wrote me countless messages explaining why I was wrong, and urging me to play their favorite games. Of course, I was asking for it. Anything can be art. Even a can of Campbell's soup. What I should have said is that games could not be high art, as I understand it.

How do I know this? How many games have I played? I know it by the definition of the vast majority of games. They tend to involve (1) point and shoot in many variations and plotlines, (2) treasure or scavenger hunts, as in "Myst," and (3) player control of the outcome. I don't think these attributes have much to do with art; they have more in common with sports."

 Barker is right that we can debate art forever. I mentioned that a Campbell's soup could be art. I was imprecise. Actually, it is Andy Warhol's painting of the label that is art. Would Warhol have considered Clive Barker's video game "Undying" as art? Certainly. He would have kept it in its shrink-wrapped box, placed it inside a Plexiglas display case, mounted it on a pedestal, and labeled it "Video Game." 

[Nabeel Ansari]

15 minutes ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

How do I know this? How many games have I played? I know it by the definition of the vast majority of games. They tend to involve (1) point and shoot in many variations and plotlines, (2) treasure or scavenger hunts, as in "Myst," and (3) player control of the outcome.

I don't know how you can seriously quote this with a straight face.