Art Games vs. Games as Art

[Nabeel Ansari]

3 hours ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

An emotional response is also not enough to justify something as "art". Eating a bowl of chili makes me feel happy. Would you then say [making chili] is an art because [it's cooking]?.

it's called fucking culinary art

[DennalMan]

lol.

So let's see... If you're in an art gallery, and some of the artworks are interactive, then those particular works are not art?  Performances that invite audience participation from everyone are not art?  Absolutely nothing on a VR headset can be considered art?  Sounds like Ebert is just making stuff up, I don't think anyone else defines art as strictly non-interactive.  (Geez that culinary art sounds pretty interactive to me too, the participants literally destroy the work.)

 

On the topic of "what are games" and "what are not games", I can think of many kinds of "games" which may or may not be games, depending on how you define "game".  I don't think there are any hard rules that define definitively whether or not something is a game.  But here are several "maybe a game" examples:

Almost definitely a game:

- Games where you can lose, but it's so easy to avoid losing that you never actually do, or the penalty for losing is so small, that you can remove "losing" from the game and the game remains almost identical.  (At some point this actually started to describe most of the then-next-gen games I would buy/play, and the retro-gamer in me would say "these are not games!")  Sometimes it can go to the extreme, where there is basically *no* penalty for dying at all, and you can die as much as you want and still beat the game as quickly (or quicker!) than if you were surviving.  Like a vertical shooter with infinite lives - you can't not win.

Probably a game... maybe a "toy":

- Sim games or creation/building games (which may or may not include losing and winning, but that's usually not important).  Sim-city, Sim-ant, the Sims.  Probably Minecraft (I haven't actually played it!)  Games where you set you own goal, or maybe your goal is to have fun or do something funny, or to relax or feel a certain way, or to build a cool thing.  (I know I've played games with absolutely no "challenge" or risk of loss - I like how the game makes me feel.  I think everyone can agree that it's "playing".  But does that make it a "game"?)

Maybe not a game, definitely an "interactive experience" or "art game":

- A developer can call their work a "game" even if it has no winning or losing, no goals, or no meaningful player interaction which changes the outcome... sometime it's best to present your work as a game even when it's sort of not one, even if it's a very minimally interactive movie.  Conversely, a developer can insist that their work is *not* a game, even when it contains losing, winning, meaningful/consequential player choices, and even challenge.  And maybe each player will make up his or her own mind whether or not a work is a game, and insist that the developer is wrong.  I don't know whether something's a game or not.  Perhaps it's wise for a work's developer to *present* their work as either "a game" or "not a game", in order to shape the players' expectations so they are not surprised (...or so that they ARE surprised!  It could be interesting to think you're not playing a game, and then suddenly it's a game, no?  Or vice versa?  I know I've played "games" like that.)  Sorry, now I'm just rambling again >_<

 

(Also note that many "non-games" may be sold/distributed on game websites and game stores, or packaged in a game box to be played on game consoles, so there   Graphic novels that aren't comical are still called "comics", movies recorded digitally are still called "films", playlists not recorded to tape at all are still called mixtapes, and CCing someone on an email does not actually create a carbon copy.  To me, "This game is not a game" is a valid sentence ^__^ )

 

3 hours ago, MindWanderer said:

I'm going to take a fairly radical position here: Movies are not art.  Bear with me for a moment.

(I take it you're playing devil's advocate, right? )

[AngelCityOutlaw]

4 hours ago, Neblix said:

it's called fucking culinary art

No, eating isn't fucking culinary art. Don't edit other people's posts so that they suit your viewpoint instead of you know, actually arguing their viewpoint.

This thread is basically a platform for you and those who share your opinion to jerk themselves off about how games are "art", a word with connotations of high-class and culture, because they're so desperate to prove to themselves that this hobby, historically stereotyped as being for lonely nerds, is on the same level as Michelangelo and Beethoven. Literally no one I know who is actually making games even cares.

4 hours ago, DennalMan said:

lol.

So let's see... If you're in an art gallery, and some of the artworks are interactive, then those particular works are not art?  Performances that invite audience participation from everyone are not art?  Absolutely nothing on a VR headset can be considered art?  Sounds like Ebert is just making stuff up, I don't think anyone else defines art as strictly non-interactive.  (Geez that culinary art sounds pretty interactive to me too, the participants literally destroy the work.)

Ebert simply came along and said "Wait a minute, this thing you guys are saying is art. It doesn't have literally the only traits or lack thereof, universally shared among the radically different things we've called "art" since the dawn of human history. Maybe it's not actually art, then?" Which I think is a pretty damn valid point to anyone who isn't out to prove something.

I mean, even Hideo Kojima agrees that games aren't art. Granted, his reasoning doesn't make nearly as much sense, but still.

 

[Servbot#36]

7 hours ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

I'm saying that any of the examples of game mechanics I've seen so far which are being touted as more than "just mechanics for function" do not actually appear that way at all. Everything that is being described as a mechanic that creates emotional impact is not a result of the mechanic, but the narrative or whatever else applied to it. Just because the game might not have a particular effect on you if that mechanic weren't present, doesn't favor the argument of "games are art" when the other assets that make up the game and are applied to the mechanic are actually what creates the emotional impact or narrative itself. It's a package deal.

An emotional response is also not enough to justify something as "art". Eating a bowl of chili makes me feel happy. Would you then say the act of eating chili is an art because it elicits an emotional response?

(...)

Allow me to cite the second half of Ebert's argument.

In art, like music, dance, books and movies, outside of creating them you are simply an observer. You watch a movie, dance, concert; You read a book, comic, or short story, you look at a painting or sculpture and you listen to music. You must always "play" a game and be a direct participant in the events. So I would agree that movies are indeed art.

Well now I'm curious, what exactly do you consider art? And if it really is a "package deal" how does that not favor the argument? Those other assets on their own don't have the same effect, it's all contributing. Otherwise, how do you consider film an art? Isn't it the same kind of package deal? A bunch of separate art forms coming together to make a different whole? How are games not art when adding the mechanics gives you a different product? You're going to need to explain how the word "play" somehow changes that.

And again, you still haven't acknowledged the bit about how mechanics aren't solely for fairness or challenge. It's pretty much the crux of your argument that the mechanics themselves have nothing to do with creativity so you might want to start with that.

Quote

No, eating isn't fucking culinary art. Don't edit other people's posts so that they suit your viewpoint instead of you know, actually arguing their viewpoint.

Neblix is right. The chili is the art, the act of eating it is the means of appreciating it. Much like how Beethoven's music is art, the act of listening to it isn't. You just used a bad example.

Quote

This thread is basically a platform for you and those who share your opinion to jerk themselves off about how games are "art", a word with connotations of high-class and culture, because they're so desperate to prove to themselves that this hobby, historically stereotyped as being for lonely nerds, is on the same level as Michelangelo and Beethoven. Literally no one I know who is actually making games even cares.

This really doesn't help your case you know. Trivializing the argument doesn't make you any more right. Personally I think almost anything can be art considering how subjective it is, and at the end of the day art only matters to the person experiencing it anyway. High class has nothing to do with it; the kind of people who can only respect it if it is are exactly the kind of pretentious dicks whose opinions I don't care about. I'm only still here because I absolutely still haven't been convinced by your logic and because I'm curious what other people think.

[AngelCityOutlaw]

2 hours ago, Servbot#36 said:

Well now I'm curious, what exactly do you consider art? And if it really is a "package deal" how does that not favor the argument? Those other assets on their own don't have the same effect, it's all contributing. Otherwise, how do you consider film an art? Isn't it the same kind of package deal? A bunch of separate art forms coming together to make a different whole? How are games not art when adding the mechanics gives you a different product? You're going to need to explain how the word "play" somehow changes that.

And again, you still haven't acknowledged the bit about how mechanics aren't solely for fairness or challenge. It's pretty much the crux of your argument that the mechanics themselves have nothing to do with creativity so you might want to start with that.

Neblix is right. The chili is the art, the act of eating it is the means of appreciating it. Much like how Beethoven's music is art, the act of listening to it isn't. You just used a bad example.

This really doesn't help your case you know. Trivializing the argument doesn't make you any more right. Personally I think almost anything can be art considering how subjective it is, and at the end of the day art only matters to the person experiencing it anyway. High class has nothing to do with it; the kind of people who can only respect it if it is are exactly the kind of pretentious dicks whose opinions I don't care about. I'm only still here because I absolutely still haven't been convinced by your logic and because I'm curious what other people think.

Let me ask you a question

Just what do you people NOT consider art? This discussion is utterly pointless unless you define SOME objective criteria of what is art beyond the abstract concept of "something that makes me have feels". If you believe "anything" can be art, why bother arguing since I obviously couldn't convince you even if scientists were to mix some shit in a beaker and published "nope it's not art" in a science journal. Films are literally just a audio-visual representation of a story - that is their purpose. Storytelling, by itself, is among the most ancient of art forms. Rules in a game are not. 

Video games are not art because EVERYTHING else that we've called art for thousands of years does not have clearly defined rules and does not have winners or losers. Everything that we have called a "game", from poker to street fighter requires those things. If it has those things, it's not art. If it doesn't have them, it's not a game. It's just a story you can interact with. That is my stance, I'm not saying it again - It is profoundly simple to understand.

I'd wager even to those with zero interest in this subject, this sounds far more reasonable than most of the absurdly long posts you guys keep leaving talking about how the mechanics of the game are art because they have emotional impact, yet somehow fail to realize that in your own posts, the things everyone has used as an example of this, the "artistic" impact comes directly from "art" that gives meaning to the mechanic in context of the game's story and these are all things that can exist independently of the game's mechanics.

GOOD DAY

[Servbot#36]

50 minutes ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

Video games are not art because EVERYTHING else that we've called art for thousands of years does not have clearly defined rules and does not have winners or losers. Everything that we have called a "game", from poker to street fighter requires those things. If it has those things, it's not art. If it doesn't have them, it's not a game. It's just a story you can interact with. That is my stance, I'm not saying it again - It is profoundly simple to understand.

...I guess it would be pointless if we're just getting into a semantic argument about what the word means, but this still strikes me as a weird definition. About a hundred years ago, "EVERYTHING else we called art for thousands of years" didn't include filming, editing, or cinematography, but film has since become an art hasn't it? I'm not much of an expert on the history, but wasn't theatre (and by extension acting and all that) not considered an art before Shakespeare started turning heads for the same reasons too? It seems like you're saying "Because it has X, it can't be an art. Art hasn't had X in the past", and that kind of implies everything that can be art is already explored.

I agree that we'd need a common definition to get anywhere, but it seems like yours is basically just "It doesn't have qualities that the things we already consider art don't have", and that's not a very productive one. I just can't get behind it. How did those become art in the first place then? I'm trying to talk about a concept, not a closed set. The reason I consider art just "something that evokes emotion, thought, or some other personal experience" is because that's what everything already considered art has in common. A definition like yours can't really be applied to anything new since the main criteria is that it's already an art.

 

50 minutes ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

I'd wager even to those with zero interest in this subject, this sounds far more reasonable than most of the absurdly long posts you guys keep leaving talking about how the mechanics of the game are art because they have emotional impact, yet somehow fail to realize that in your own posts, the things everyone has used as an example of this, the "artistic" impact comes directly from "art" that gives meaning to the mechanic in context of the game's story and these are all things that can exist independently of the game's mechanics.

I think what you keep misunderstanding in these posts is that the impact isn't the same as what it would have been had those non-game components independently. The same way you won't get the same experience as the movie if you just listen to the soundtrack, then look at all the stills, then listen to all the dialogue. Yes they can be independent, but with art the whole is usually greater than the sum of its parts. And since the final product is different with the mechanics, they're clearly adding something. And, not that this adds anything to either of our arguments, but I'm not sure it would sound all that reasonable to anyone. In or out of context, the statement "If it has those things, it's not art" seems awfully arbitrary.

[Nabeel Ansari]

11 hours ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

No, eating isn't fucking culinary art.

Neither is listening to music or looking at a painting or watching a movie or viewing a play or reading a book.

Don't use shitty analogies and expect them to make any coherent sense. Acts of consumption aren't art, the creation is the art. Your analogy is a misdirect at best, and it's really funny how hard you're trying to scream about how everyone's just a big baby and won't grow up and accept games aren't art when the only reason you think so is that you got so jaded that siding with Roger Ebert (someone who doesn't know jack shit about current video games or game design) makes you feel like you have higher class even though you've failed to demonstrate that you know anything about game design (poor attempt at speculating how Riot does character balance arguing with people who watch Riot people talk about how they character balance) and have failed to address any lively examples that people have provided of good storytelling in games (besides saying "no that's not good storytelling uniquely, that's just regular good storytelling" without addressing how the same stories wouldn't function in any other medium).

You often complain about how I assert people don't know what they're talking about, but it's hard not to when people don't have nearly the same amount of time, study, research or experience and then come off as if they "know" what's up. The age card is laughable. I live and breathe this stuff, study this stuff, and my social circle is entirely comprised of creators, game designers, composers, writers (people who know more about art than people who don't create). I'm not a lonely nerd, I actually pretty much share a fairly common and dominant viewpoint in the industry (that's actually where I got it from).

The point of this thread is not saying whether games are art (read the last bullet in the OP), it's about arguing what kind of games make them art (just art games or more?). You're welcome to state your viewpoint that none at all is art, but the hostility you're displaying towards people who are on topic is incredibly not cool.

something something feeling superiority something something

You've made your point (I GET your point, I just think it's naive and non-holistic) and are just continuing to echo it louder and louder now. Please let the thread go where people want it to go. If you have no interest in the discussion stop trying to shut it down with personal attacks.

[MindWanderer]

15 hours ago, DennalMan said:

(I take it you're playing devil's advocate, right? )

Only partially.  This was a backwards way of arguing that if games are not are, then movies are not art also.  However:

8 hours ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

Video games are not art because EVERYTHING else that we've called art for thousands of years does not have clearly defined rules and does not have winners or losers. Everything that we have called a "game", from poker to street fighter requires those things. If it has those things, it's not art. If it doesn't have them, it's not a game. It's just a story you can interact with. That is my stance, I'm not saying it again - It is profoundly simple to understand.

So, this is a definition of art by merit of prototyping.  Things which share the characteristics of things commonly defined as art are art; those with different characteristics are not art.

This is a common way of defining things, but it's a poor one.  It's the same sort of logic that leads to declaring platypuses as not being mammals, because there's something about them that's different from something that all other mammals (except echidnas) have in common.  It works as a heuristic, but the better way to define categories is to determine the essential characteristics of those categories.  Defining art as a creative work meant to evoke an emotional reaction is a valid definition, and most games (certainly most modern games) meet that definition.  Certainly games meet the dictionary definition of art.  While you could certainly define art as "blah blah blah that's not interactive," I'm not sure why you'd do that.  Exclusionary definitions like that are how people used to not classify rock and roll as music, etc.

[Nabeel Ansari]

I think it's fairly easy to define art: non-deterministic (i.e. not designed according to absolute logic) creative works that evoke subjective and varying responses in different people.

Everything that can be designed according to aesthetic, "taste", wanting to elicit or convey specific ideas or emotions is art. That includes cooking (hence the name CULINARY ART), and, to me, it includes game mechanic design, because game mechanic design is *not* objective or approaching some universally optimal engineered state, and game mechanics have been shown to be manipulated by game developers in order to further convey narratives (narratives that in isolation may not even linearly function ina any other medium like books or movies as a traditional story in the case of Dark Souls).

Most opposition has either been "that's not reeaaaally a game it's interactive software because you can't lose so its mechanics don't count" or "the effects you observe don't exist because you're a sad lonely nerd who wants games to be movies".

[AngelCityOutlaw]

20 hours ago, MindWanderer said:

Only partially.  This was a backwards way of arguing that if games are not are, then movies are not art also.  However:

So, this is a definition of art by merit of prototyping.  Things which share the characteristics of things commonly defined as art are art; those with different characteristics are not art.

This is a common way of defining things, but it's a poor one.  It's the same sort of logic that leads to declaring platypuses as not being mammals, because there's something about them that's different from something that all other mammals (except echidnas) have in common.  It works as a heuristic, but the better way to define categories is to determine the essential characteristics of those categories.  Defining art as a creative work meant to evoke an emotional reaction is a valid definition, and most games (certainly most modern games) meet that definition.  Certainly games meet the dictionary definition of art.  While you could certainly define art as "blah blah blah that's not interactive," I'm not sure why you'd do that.  Exclusionary definitions like that are how people used to not classify rock and roll as music, etc.

While I have no interest in further arguing since I'll just inevitably be asked questions I feel I've already answered, I have to say

People keep going on about definitions, but the source of my frustration in this thread is that people keep arguing semantics to circumvent my point. This isn't about "definitions" of words - it is about simple categorization. Your example of the platypus actually speaks more to my point than yours. Platypuses have traits that make them different, but they still have the important traits shared by only mammals, so it makes sense to put them in that category. Games lack important features shared universally among the other art forms, so critics argue that this puts games in a different category. Arguing semantics to such critics just makes it look like you're trying to shove a square peg into a round hole.

[Nabeel Ansari]

 

Quote

Games lack important features shared universally among the other art forms, so critics argue that this puts games in a different category.

Such aaaaaaaaaaas... make sure you include traits that are only shared by every "real" artform (I'm sure you can pull up the list of all the real artforms somewhere since it's so well-categorized). Go ahead, I'm waiting.

Also, don't write "critics" if you're just talking about Roger Ebert. He's a singular critic.

[AngelCityOutlaw]

30 minutes ago, Neblix said:

 

Such aaaaaaaaaaas... make sure you include traits that are only shared by every "real" artform (I'm sure you can pull up the list of all the real artforms somewhere since it's so well-categorized). Go ahead, I'm waiting.

Also, don't write "critics" if you're just talking about Roger Ebert. He's a singular critic.

Painting, sculpting, dancing, music, story-telling, writing, acting, movies, theater, drawing, cooking, architecture and probably a bunch of others I'm forgetting at the moment.

I say again - In the creation of all of these things, the traits they all share is that they are ultimately governed by no rules (except if you count physics) and it's impossible to win or lose at them in either making or observing them. It is also true that none of these things require their viewers to participate at all. An improv play can build from audience ideas, but it doesn't require them. A concert can have audience participation, but it doesn't have to. Even if the perspective in my drawing is completely off or my painting is little more splatters of paint on a canvas that I claim represents the soul, it will still be considered "art" even by academia and art galleries. They might not consider it as "good", but would still acknowledge that "good" is subjective. They would agree, I'd bet on it, that it is still art - no one would say that I'm not allowed to create my pieces in this way.

Games though, are all about rules. Whether it's Street Fighter saying I can't link this move to that move, blackjack saying I can't go over 21, or Pac-Man saying I can only eat the ghosts after I've got the big pellet, it's all about rules and those rules inevitably decide a winner and a loser by some definition. If I take those away from the game, the game doesn't function. Also, at least one person MUST participate in actually playing the game in order for it to work. If I just turn the game on and look at it and say I'm going to appreciate it, I'll be stuck on the title screen unless someone picks up a controller. These things are mandatory and must happen in a game if one is to enjoy it even by proxy, but such is not the case in anything else widely regarded as art currently.

You can say games are art by arguing about varying definitions and what not and you may be right in those instances, but I personally feel this way of categorization is as close as I've seen in reaching an objective or at least agreeable answer.

[YoshiBlade]

I have read through some of the comments and determined that Neblix is kind of right, with regards to the premises ( if Im understanding him correctly) whether the nature of game design its self is artistic. So if I wanted the player to feel a sense of futility, you might make them engage in a futile action i.e die 100 times for no apparent reason, and only then revel the next step, evoking the desired emotion(?). Which I could agree with, Art is a conscious expression, of an unconscious feeling and that certainly fits the bill. At this point the "Games = Art?" discussion, has devolved into how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. 

On December 30, 2015 at 11:54 PM, Neblix said:

 

• 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?

Im thinking of Proteus when I tried to figure out if there was any game that utilized both aspects. If you haven't played Proteus no enemies, no deaths however each world is uniquely designed and the win/lose aspect is discovering new worlds to explore, maybe in a way, the art of the game is discovering the art of the game.

[Servbot#36]

24 minutes ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

Painting, sculpting, dancing, music, story-telling, writing, acting, movies, theater, drawing, cooking, architecture and probably a bunch of others I'm forgetting at the moment.

Pretty sure he meant list the traits, not the art forms.

25 minutes ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

I say again - In the creation of all of these things, the traits they all share is that they are ultimately governed by no rules (except if you count physics) and it's impossible to win or lose at them in either making or observing them. It is also true that none of these things require their viewers to participate at all. An improv play can build from audience ideas, but it doesn't require them. A concert can have audience participation, but it doesn't have to.

I think you missed the point of the platypus example. You're using a negative trait to define them, in this case "has no rules", the same way one would otherwise use the trait "doesn't lay eggs" to define a mammal. Before they got classified as mammals, one could have used your exact same argument of "but none of the things we consider mammals have this trait" to deny it. The reason they're considered mammals now is because people looked at the traits they actually have. If it turns out that laying eggs doesn't preclude something from being a mammal, you would be better served arguing why rules do preclude something from being an art instead of just saying that nothing else has it. I think you started off trying to argue that but kind of left it behind at some point.

[AngelCityOutlaw]

1 minute ago, Servbot#36 said:

Pretty sure he meant list the traits, not the art forms.

and I did right after

 

1 minute ago, Servbot#36 said:

I think you missed the point of the platypus example. You're using a negative trait to define them, in this case "has no rules", the same way one would otherwise use the trait "doesn't lay eggs" to define a mammal. Before they got classified as mammals, one could have used your exact same argument of "but none of the things we consider mammals have this trait" to deny it. The reason they're considered mammals now is because people looked at the traits they actually have. If it turns out that laying eggs doesn't preclude something from being a mammal, you would be better served arguing why rules do preclude something from being an art instead of just saying that nothing else has it. I think you started off trying to argue that but kind of left it behind at some point.

Your platypus example is bad because as I explained they are mammals because they share the trait that is basically the quintessential element of a mammal. This is not nearly as abstract a concept as something like "art" and "creativity" so therefore I'd even say your example is outright false-equivalence.

Are you the guy who runs the part of hell where the torture is they repeatedly ask the same questions over and over and over?

[Garpocalypse]

28 minutes ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

 

Games though, are all about rules. Whether it's Street Fighter saying I can't link this move to that move, blackjack saying I can't go over 21, or Pac-Man saying I can only eat the ghosts after I've got the big pellet, it's all about rules and those rules inevitably decide a winner and a loser by some definition. If I take those away from the game, the game doesn't function. Also, at least one person MUST participate in actually playing the game in order for it to work. If I just turn the game on and look at it and say I'm going to appreciate it, I'll be stuck on the title screen unless someone picks up a controller. These things are mandatory and must happen in a game if one is to enjoy it even by proxy, but such is not the case in anything else widely regarded as art currently.

 

Just to throw my 2 cents in here.  People can define "art" however many different ways you want but the only requirements art needs to be art is emotional involvement and limitations.  A painter creates a deep and distant looking landscape all on a flat 2D Canvas.  Performing musicians have the obvious limitations of the human body and their instrument while studio engineers are limited by Stereo and total RMS. These artists are able to create an experience that goes beyond the limitations they were dealing with which is what makes their art "art".  

I don't feel that playing games is anymore of an art than looking at paintings or listening to music. Since game designers deal with various limitations that are both technological and human-related I have significant trouble seeing the creation of videogames as anything other than art however.  

 

[Nabeel Ansari]

1 hour ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

Painting, sculpting, dancing, music, story-telling, writing, acting, movies, theater, drawing, cooking, architecture and probably a bunch of others I'm forgetting at the moment.

I say again - In the creation of all of these things, the traits they all share is that they are ultimately governed by no rules (except if you count physics) and it's impossible to win or lose at them in either making or observing them. It is also true that none of these things require their viewers to participate at all. An improv play can build from audience ideas, but it doesn't require them. A concert can have audience participation, but it doesn't have to. Even if the perspective in my drawing is completely off or my painting is little more splatters of paint on a canvas that I claim represents the soul, it will still be considered "art" even by academia and art galleries. They might not consider it as "good", but would still acknowledge that "good" is subjective. They would agree, I'd bet on it, that it is still art - no one would say that I'm not allowed to create my pieces in this way.

Games though, are all about rules. Whether it's Street Fighter saying I can't link this move to that move, blackjack saying I can't go over 21, or Pac-Man saying I can only eat the ghosts after I've got the big pellet, it's all about rules and those rules inevitably decide a winner and a loser by some definition. If I take those away from the game, the game doesn't function. Also, at least one person MUST participate in actually playing the game in order for it to work. If I just turn the game on and look at it and say I'm going to appreciate it, I'll be stuck on the title screen unless someone picks up a controller. These things are mandatory and must happen in a game if one is to enjoy it even by proxy, but such is not the case in anything else widely regarded as art currently.

You can say games are art by arguing about varying definitions and what not and you may be right in those instances, but I personally feel this way of categorization is as close as I've seen in reaching an objective or at least agreeable answer.

I think there's a misunderstanding here.

I'm not saying "game mechanic designs violates your definition but your definition is invalid". Our definitions are the same. I'm saying you are incorrectly deducing that game mechanic design violates your definition.

You say:

• "it is about rules." Rules can be manipulated and changed creatively.
• "Rules inevitably decide a winner or loser." No, they don't. Several video games have no win or lose states, and your only defense here is saying they're not games, which is stupid and runs counter to how these things are literally sold and running against the language the entire rest of the industry uses. You are one person with no authority to invalidate an industry or a language.
• "Participation is necessary." That invalidates cooking, since eating is an active participatory act of consumption of the art (cooking), and many people eat their food differently. You must also actively eat the food in order to appreciate its flavor, texture and composition.
• I can argue games are art by using your own definition and I pretty much have this whole time. I've actually been specifically saying that games are MORE artistic than we previously thought BECAUSE I think they can even apply to stricter definitions of art like the one naysayers like you like to hide behind.

Do you know why this logic works? It's called proof by contradiction. Proof by contradiction states that a claim X is impossible/false if there is something that does not agree with it. We start with a claim:

"Game mechanic design can not be creative."

I find you a counter example. But first, let's use a temporary definition of creative. Let's try the first one on google, " relating to or involving the imagination or original ideas, especially in the production of an artistic work." :

"The consequence in Anor Londo 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 bonfire is killed off when the game registers that its keeper is now an enemy and the bonfire is no longer active or usable. 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 for taking a narrative action 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 narrative, not to mathematically optimize something to be more "fun", as if that could be mathematically derived anyway, ditto for fairness. 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.

This contradicts your claim. A creative mechanic exists, therefore NOT "game mechanic design can not be creative" = "game mechanic design can be creative". It is not a stretch to say that because it is creative, it can be categorized as art. I don't need to take it that far. I already have previously.

 

1 hour ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

Your platypus example is bad because as I explained they are mammals because they share the trait that is basically the quintessential element of a mammal. This is not nearly as abstract a concept as something like "art" and "creativity" so therefore I'd even say your example is outright false-equivalence.

He's pointing out that you were saying games are not art because they have things other art doesn't, not because they don't have things art does. You even just said architecture is art, even though it's full of mechanical engineering (which is incredibly mathematical and objective), or cooking is art, even though it requires active consumption (participation). These are things you claim art doesn't have. And yet, things you list as art do have them.

It was only until recently you changed your mind about how you are categorizing. Maybe decide these kinds of opinions of yours first before entering the discussion (or maybe just enter it to learn via inquiry and not pretend you know everything)? You'll save headaches all around. Like I said, this whole thing of yours completely derailed the topic from the questions I was asking in the OP.

[Servbot#36]

4 hours ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

and I did right after

You listed two things they don't have. That's also not what the question asked.

 

4 hours ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

Your platypus example is bad because as I explained they are mammals because they share the trait that is basically the quintessential element of a mammal. This is not nearly as abstract a concept as something like "art" and "creativity" so therefore I'd even say your example is outright false-equivalence.

Are you the guy who runs the part of hell where the torture is they repeatedly ask the same questions over and over and over?

So is not having this one specific trait is the quintessential element of art? It's not as abstract but the point of a definition is to make it less so. Yours is clear cut and objective, I'll give it that, but a definition that can't explain why what it already considers to be arts are such is entirely useless for a discussion like this. If art is defined as art by virtue of not having the things that art doesn't have, of course nothing new can be added to the label. What I'm asking for is a definition based on WHAT ART HAS. Not what it doesn't. Anyone can tell you what currently accepted arts don't have, and yes, you have repeated that a good many times. The problem is that no one has been asking you to. We also don't need you to explain that you can win or lose in a game again, we got that too thanks. What would be nice is if you could actually address the features games are missing.

As of right now, you've said (repeatedly) that games have rules and rules aren't in the art we acknowledge now. We get that and you can stop saying it. But you also keep making such claims as "Games lack important features shared universally among the other art forms". What I'm saying is that the former doesn't support the latter. You're saying what art doesn't have that games do. You haven't said a thing about what art does have and games don't. I'm aware I'm repeating myself here but that's because you keep ignoring everything I'm actually asking in favor of a bunch of things I'm not.

[Nabeel Ansari]

Interested in @djpretzel and @BardicKnowledge's opinions on the actual questions I asked in the OP.

[AngelCityOutlaw]

3 hours ago, Servbot#36 said:

You're saying what art doesn't have that games do. You haven't said a thing about what art does have and games don't. 

Well I mean, logically the lack of clearly defined rules and no mandatory participation I've been talking about for two pages and it seems like everyone except you understands at this point would be the very thing art "has" that games don't. You are that guy and you are very good at your job.

 

BUT ANYWAY. To Neblix's original question

I'd say the first one. The emergence of "art-games" are probably what people mean and want when they say games are art. I'd say that seeing as how they're the most frequently mentioned examples as far as I can tell.

[Slimy]

21 minutes ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

BUT ANYWAY. To Neblix's original question

I'd say the first one. The emergence of "art-games" are probably what people mean and want when they say games are art. I'd say that seeing as how they're the most frequently mentioned examples as far as I can tell.

I disagree. I think "art-games" are only frequently mentioned because it's easier than trying to explain/debate why game mechanics can be art too, how they can tie into the narrative, make a player feel a certain way, etc. I certainly don't believe that only "art-games" are art, and I think most people who argue that videogames are art would agree with me.

[Nabeel Ansari]

1 hour ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

Well I mean, logically the lack of clearly defined rules and no mandatory participation I've been talking about for two pages and it seems like everyone except you understands at this point would be the very thing art "has" that games don't. You are that guy and you are very good at your job.

Architecture

Cooking

Anyways, that's not how categorization works. You can't say "something fits in a category if it has essential traits of that category" and then define essential traits of that category as the lack of specific traits simply because previous things in the category didn't have them... that makes no sense.

If we start with visual art, and then look at music, we would say music isn't art, because it MUST NOT have aural components because it never did. Fast forward, cooking isn't art because art never had food in it, or active participation in its consumption. Or writing can't be an art because art never had written words in it.

But then those things became art. And those lists of traits that art was allowed to include grew. The point of expanding, progressive worldview is to see how new ideas reconcile with old ones by way of adding nuance to old ones using new, never before seen additional concepts. Not to say they can't because the old ones didn't have a nuance to them that new ones did (don't forbid nuance, welcome it).

Platypus example. Platypus have traits other mammals don't. Your post, that I am quoting right here, equates to saying that Platypuses can not be mammals because according to you, since mammals did not have any of those Platypus-specific traits before, then logically their essential defining traits are the LACK of these things. This is what you are saying. 

"Because mammals have never had things that Platypuses have, that must mean the LACK of Platypus features must be an essential trait of mammals."

This is absurd. And you must address it. (Not repeat it.) You're coming off as if you are not defining by merit of prototyping, but that's exactly what you are doing. You're just doing it in a really convoluted way. A "lack of a trait" is not a trait, unless it is specifically agreed on in a dictionary definition or if there exists some other extended category that says "well, it has this additional thing to it along with all the other things, so it's something else". There is no such extended category for games (unless you'd like to shift your argument and say we should make one, then you have my attention), and there is no common understanding of art that forbids it operating with some logical principles (architecture) or having participation (cooking).

I think you're drinking Ebert's kool-aid a bit too much. Where else are you getting these "lack of trait" traits from, if this is so obvious among "critics"? Let's see some links.

[Servbot#36]

1 hour ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

Well I mean, logically the lack of clearly defined rules and no mandatory participation I've been talking about for two pages and it seems like everyone except you understands at this point would be the very thing art "has" that games don't. You are that guy and you are very good at your job.

Okay then, I'll phrase it as a statement instead of trying to get anything better out of you with questions: your definition is garbage. I've been trying to get you to expand on it since, right now, it's only saying that anything that has any quality current art doesn't have can't be art. And that assumes that everything that is or can be called art has been fully explored. It has no explanatory power either.

Clearly there must be room for variety in art. Otherwise, what was to stop someone thousands of years ago from saying "music's not art, everything we have that's called art is visual. If it has sound it can't be art". You need to articulate WHY rules are a dealbreaker, and the only way you've justified that is by pointing to what we already have. If current art forms already included everything found in video games, this wouldn't be a discussion in the first place. The point of this discussion is whether we should expand upon what falls under the category because it has the essential characteristics of art. Saying they aren't art because they aren't already art isn't very convincing to that end.

[Nabeel Ansari]

1 hour ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

I'd say the first one. The emergence of "art-games" are probably what people mean and want when they say games are art. I'd say that seeing as how they're the most frequently mentioned examples as far as I can tell.

So by your answer it seems you think there's a valid, inherent separation (since it was the first bullet and that's what I meant by that one). Now, do you see this as a bad thing? Should games be approaching the "art game" format for better/more mature reception and being accessible to more people? Or are we sacrificing what made games previously fun by doing so?

Should we just divide the the industry and have "art games" over there and "fun games" over here? What do we do then with games that are both fun and "artsy"?

[AngelCityOutlaw]

25 minutes ago, Servbot#36 said:

You need to articulate WHY rules are a dealbreaker, and the only way you've justified that is by pointing to what we already have. If current art forms already included everything found in video games, this wouldn't be a discussion in the first place. The point of this discussion is whether the rules can be art too. Saying they aren't art because they aren't already art isn't very convincing.

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.

6 minutes ago, Neblix said:

So by your answer it seems you think there's a valid, inherent separation (since it was the first bullet and that's what I meant by that one). Now, do you see this as a bad thing? Should games be approaching the "art game" format for better/more mature reception and being accessible to more people? Or are we sacrificing what made games previously fun by doing so?

Should we just divide the the industry and have "art games" over there and "fun games" over here?

The way I've seen it, they're usually categorized as being a game like any other. Seems to be more like a genre categorization when people are shopping for games. It's kind of like how "edutainment" is sometimes specifically labeled as such. Most still would say art games are games like any other though, and often developed by people who make games "for fun" as well, though art games can still be fun. I don't think games "should" be going in any particular direction, but I don't think it would be sacrificing what previously made games fun if it did, because that's an extremely subjective thing.