Art Games vs. Games as Art

[timaeus222]

13 hours 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.

 

Not that I actually want to say much here, but just wanted to point something out.

1) Your "rules" (touching spikes, etc) are more like consequences, not actual rules. The actual rules corresponding to them would be more like: "don't touch the spikes", "cherries are rewards", and "you must jump on the flagpole to advance".

2) These "rules" are pretty self-evident. If your game is played via a controller, you must hold the controller while playing. They're those obvious points you shouldn't have to explain, so are these really rules, or are they basic, self-evident requirements for you to engage yourself in a game at all?

Anyways, please proceed.

[AngelCityOutlaw]

I don't know how I can quote you with a straight face, @Neblix

Great job not only deleting the previous "post" you made quoting Servbot twice, but also cherry-picking a section of the quote and then failing to elaborate on it or talk about the other sections. When you do that, it makes it look like you don't have a counter-argument.

His point, in this article and elaborated in his first one, is that games have more in common with sports than art and that the dressings of the game are art, but not the game itself. At the same time, he acknowledges that anything can be art so if you want to believe games are art, go ahead. The best part here is that the only people being unreasonable are those who are clearly offended by the notion that games aren't art. I mean, I can see the arguments his opponents make and agree with them and at the same time agree with his argument. 

I'll let you guys fight it out from here since I have better things to do than worry about whether or not all the Star Wars games I just got on Steam are "art" or not.

[Nabeel Ansari]

I would rather people stop derailing the thread with discussions like "are games art" and start talking about the actual topic instead.

[Servbot#36]

2 hours ago, timaeus222 said:

1) Your "rules" (touching spikes, etc) are more like consequences, not actual rules. The actual rules corresponding to them would be more like: "don't touch the spikes", "cherries are rewards", and "you must jump on the flagpole to advance".

You know I had actually written them like that initially. But either way the distinction doesn't seem very important. Getting a point for a goal in any sport would be considered part of the rules I'd say, but it could be similarly worded as "make goals to win". The reason I changed it is because I felt like those are more pure forms of the rules. The actual Megaman cartridge isn't necessarily telling you not to touch the spikes, it just gives you some consequences and then leaves you to figure out that touching the spikes isn't productive.

2 hours ago, timaeus222 said:

2) These "rules" are pretty self-evident. If your game is played via a controller, you must hold the controller while playing. They're those obvious points you shouldn't have to explain, so are these really rules, or are they basic, self-evident requirements for you to engage yourself in a game at all?

Well that's more of what BardicKnowledge was arguing (see his peanut butter example). You may want to take that up with him. Still, self evident or not, they're constraints on how you can or cannot interact with the game. Whether they were created or are just a logical consequence of the matter in question doesn't much change that you have to follow them. The distinction I was arguing was more about how they either contribute to the creation of the work or whether they're collectively a creative aspect of it.

 

Anyway on the original topic I actually very much agree with Bardic. I think games have been art outside of the "art games", but even the walking simulators have unique things to offer. I've artistically appreciated some more simple, gameplay focused games (Fire Emblem, Mario RPG's, even Megaman), some more artistic games (Undertale), and even a walking simulator or two (Stanley Parable). Having more directions for the medium to explore is fine as far as I'm concerned. Not liking anything of a genre now doesn't mean someone won't one day create one I will, especially in those that are only just beginning to develop.

[Nabeel Ansari]

It doesn't matter, because the idea that rules of participation make something not art (or not "high art", which is an arbitrary elitist fabrication of a distinction and basically the equivalent of saying "okay, okay, you're right, I'm incorrect, but I'm not wrong") ignore all the other way more important facets of what that thing is. That's what Bardic was saying. The point is to not be pedantic or reductionist. We're not supposed to be hung up on questions like "are games art?" and then dividing games into independent sub-components of creativity (or apparent lack thereof) to answer those questions because they're pointless questions, with pointless debates fueling them. ("I find this more compelling than Beethoven so it's art" "well I don't find it more compelling than Beethoven so it's not art")

[Servbot#36]

True enough, I don't at all agree that having rules makes any difference. The only reason I've been arguing for their existence is that I think they're an element that, among all art forms I know at least, are unique to video games. You can't really discuss video games as art (or how "art games" fit into that) without discussing the rules as a creative aspect. I'm not saying Bardic's overall point was wrong, the worst I could say is that he used a less than perfect analogy. The rules in musical piece aren't an element of the piece itself, but the rules of video games are. A little pedantic maybe, but clarity is helpful in these discussions.

That said I agree with everything else about arbitrarily breaking things down. There's not much to be gained from that when it ignores the interactions between the different facets, which are just as important to the package as the facets themselves.

[BardicKnowledge]

On ‎1‎/‎5‎/‎2016 at 6:21 PM, Servbot#36 said:

Anyway on the original topic I actually very much agree with Bardic. I think games have been art outside of the "art games", but even the walking simulators have unique things to offer. I've artistically appreciated some more simple, gameplay focused games (Fire Emblem, Mario RPG's, even Megaman), some more artistic games (Undertale), and even a walking simulator or two (Stanley Parable). Having more directions for the medium to explore is fine as far as I'm concerned. Not liking anything of a genre now doesn't mean someone won't one day create one I will, especially in those that are only just beginning to develop.

Mega Man, Ninja Gaiden, and other games focused around tight action games definitely emphasize the gameplay end of the spectrum over the art design, music, and other aesthetic elements (note: I'm not saying that those elements are not also spectacular in either case).  As Nabeel said about film, there's a special award for cinematography -- that is, the best camera work, and the best elements unique to film.  Why not just solve this question with a special award at GCDA for best game design?  We all agree that game design is some part of what makes video games a unique medium...

[Irnon]

When I think of artsy games, games like Ico, Shadow of the Colossus and Fez come to mind, even Windwaker for it's graphics.