Are games art?

Are games art?

Attached: pcsx2 2018-02-12 16-00-12-00.png (1920x1080, 1.61M)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/g_8KzyBl3mc
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interactive_art
youtube.com/watch?v=49gLC9yiGOg
en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/art
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Video games were a mistake

yes, though they are not necessarily good art.

huh?

All games are made up of different art based components. Few rise to unite all their aspects into a single unified, beautiful, profound whole as a piece of art themselves. That one certainly is. Along with Journey.

hehehe that tentacle is going up Wander's butt

No, video games are not art.

The models/textures/music/animations are art. But the game itself is not. Games in their very nature are not art.

Are farts sharts?

Games CAN be art. Not all games are.

video games are literally art, by definition. you could just google it

Yeah, they can be, and it's probably the hardest to get right. Games combine the best aspects from the previous mediums but are forced into a relatively narrow field of possible narrative hooks because basically all of them require the player to step into the game themselves. This allows millions of new artistic narratives, but excludes a large number of potential third-party-only narratives, at least in theory.

Short answer: yes
Slightly less short answer: yes and it's really interesting to think about

Yes games are art. Anything can be art, unless you have a really huge stick up your ass and only consider good art to be true art.

No, paintings are not art.

The frame, paint and style are art. But the painting itself is not. Paintings in their very nature are not art.

by definition yes, but we all know that's bullshit, there are some really beautiful parts of games that could be considered as art, but that doesn't mean the whole game is, so tell me Sup Forums, what vidya scene you consider art?

>what vidya scene you consider art?

Attached: moon.png (843x435, 671K)

Games are obviously art, so obviously that even asking the question seriously marks you as a kind of a retard. Every individual component of a game is art, and arranged together they form superart greater and more meaningful than its components.

If if games are art, no one should fucking want them to be. The day video games get officially classified as art is the day every fucking video game that releases becomes some pretentious walking simulator with more cutscenes than gameplay.

Why do you want to know?

>two plus two is four, but we all know that's bullshit

Everything is art you fucking retard.

Attached: 1511831546934.png (282x268, 176K)

A painting is art. Games are not art.

Or do you consider, football, baseball, rugby, nascar, F1, WRC, 100m dash, arts.

games contain elements of artistry, butt overall, nope. And they never will be.

A video game is art. Paintings are not art.

Or do you consider, football, baseball, rugby, nascar, F1, WRC, 100m dash, arts.

I do believe that video games are art, I even want to go as far as to say that they are the ultimate form of human expression as they encapsulate all forms of art in one package. Graphics, sound, storytelling, the programming, everything that it takes to make a video game work is art.

There is one thing, however, that bothers me about video games. It's that it's hard for a video game to be "timeless," and no, I'm not talking about "LE OLD GAMES THAT HAVE AGED LIKE MILK," I mean that it becomes more and more difficult to play the old games the way the developer intended.

To play Super Mario 1 as Miyamoto intended, you gotta be playing on a Famicom/NES on an old CRT-style TV. Once you start emulating that shit and playing on a flat-screen with display lag and perfectly clear square pixels, it's wrong. And then when it comes to old PC games it's difficult to play even THEM the way the developers intended. There are slews of games that won't work on Windows 10, games that don't like you having a mouse DPI higher than 400, games that don't like you having a widescreen aspect ratio, and, realistically, there's nothing you can do about these faults unless you have an old Pentium 2 machine with Windows 98 and a ball-mouse setup on it.

It's a mess! Shit like the Mona Lisa is timeless because your human eyes have been retained a standard for vision for thousands upon thousands of years. You appreciate paintings to the same capacity that your ancestors could've. For video games, this is neigh impossible. I want video games to have standards that will be the same for the next thousand years.

This
youtu.be/g_8KzyBl3mc

This dumb all-or-nothing approach that Sup Forums pushes just doesn't work.

No movies are art because there are Michael Bay movies, right?

Some entries to a medium are more artistic than others.

Not all games. SotC is though.

>But the painting itself is not.

you dont' 'play' a painting. There is no active component other than appreciation and analysis of its meaning.

Yes, but very few people understand anymore what art is thanks to post-modernism. Or because they're just cucks who hate themselves for playing games.

Those aren't video games. Video games are their own thing. This is really obvious.

Sprints are not art but marathons are. Triathlons and decathlons are just pretentious faggotry that only hipsters and shills support.

why do you retards assume art has to be complex and good? video games are literally art, that doesn't make it good

No. You're as retarded as the people making those walking simulators.

Games, AS THEY ARE RIGHT NOW, are already 100% art. Mortal Kombat X is 100% art. All games are. They don't become "more art" by becoming more pretentious, anyone who pursues such is a fool and anyone who assumes that is the end goal is a greater fool.

yeah, otherwise Cliffy B killed Roger Ebert for no reason

Yes, video games are kino.

the fact that you can "play" it is extremely irrelevant, what the fuck are you even trying to say?

So participant art in any form isn't art?

But much like in movies, if your only intent is to make something only because you want it to be seen as serious art, it's gonna be shit.

Guess what, that's why it's called interactive art, fuckhole.

They can be, but they're more fun when they're not. You use it as a medium to make a beautiful, interactive, audiovisual statement to enjoy, but it's a waste of the medium when it should be used to make GAMES that are fun and well-paced

>Are games art?

Soon

Attached: 570283_yakovlevart_death-stranding.jpg (3840x2160, 1.13M)

this is art

Attached: dat ass.webm (960x540, 2.58M)

some game get both aspects right though

The Mona Lisa and Tracey Emin's used condoms are both considered art, therefore I don't really feel that designating vidya as art or not has any significance, since the term itself is apparently incredibly broad and seemingly arbitrary. I guess manchildren, charlatans, and anyone who could het grants for artistic endeavours might care, but for everyone else 'art' is just a buzzword.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interactive_art

Attached: b35.gif (256x256, 484K)

Art is not about making statements.

>I decide what art is

That post is art.

I really don't get why so many people get upset over the fact that vidya is art when so much other shit art exists

This has nothing to do with me.

Agreed. Minimalistic/well-stylized games can be both. Games like the Last of Us try to be both and end up being mediocre as both

I agree with you but the developers don't. That's my entire fucking point.

art can be almost whatever the fuck you want. it's an extremely broad term

I didn't say making a statement is mutually exclusive with art, I said art isn't about making statements.

I'd say bloodborne does both right, but that's just me

No because retards on Sup Forums will never accept that for games to be art they need to expound a political, ideological, or societal point or idea.

True art isn't a pretty picture or nice tune. It's a concept that ties into the feelings of the time, or hints at the artist's leanings.

i don't care

Attached: african detroit cop.jpg (480x360, 13K)

yes, but don't think for a fucking second that means every game has to suddenly make some big statement about the world or how it works. People that think Video games simply HAVE to address modern issues in every installment do infinitely more harm to video games as a whole then people that think they're just dumb kids toys. Just because something is a work of passion and dedication does not mean it has to be sophisticated or layered with symbolism and irony.

I think early games made by a single individual are art. For example, let's say, Prince of Persia by Jordan Mechner.

He coded everything, made the artwork and animations. He even video taped his own movements and rotoscoped them frame by frame. When you put it all together, yes it's definitely art.

Another exmaple, which is similar, is Out of this World. Very cinematic and auteur.

I would also argue, early text adventure games are works of art. Just like writing a novel is an art form.

So really, just like movies, when you think of the most "artistic" films, they have a lot of individual pieces of art in them (actor's performance, maybe matte paintings, special effects, obviously sound and music), but what really elevates them to "art" is unified director's vision. Unified as in, not diluted by committee.

So I think, the more, there is a single author's voice that comes through the experience, it is then considered by most, a work of art.

Perhaps a more modern game example would be something by Kojima. I guess anything by Miyamoto too.

It's hard to say though, because I don't know who "directed" Resident Evil 4, but that, to me, is a masterful work of art.

Instrumental music is high art, everything else is low art, whether it's your favourite novel or the shit currently brewing in your intestines before exploding into your porcelain throne.

None. There's not a single video game "scene' that I go back to again and again for its artistic merit or an intense emotional response. I've played plenty of great games that were fun based on their gameplay merits, but none of them have narratively or artistically had a great scene that dropped my jaw. It's all either edgy shit aimed at teenagers or pretentious shit aimed at pseuds, no in-between. There is no video game equivalent to the graveyard scene in TGTBTU for instance.

You have this backwards. Art isn't about making statements.

I’d say at the very least Rez is art

Video games are not movies.

I have had experiences like that tho, I guess you've just been playing games that don't really juve with you..?

no, but the only game I'd consider art is Ultima 4

This, take drakengard 3 as example, the game is fucking awful as a game, its characters are little less than monsters, but if i had to defend that videogames can be art i'd pic the final boss of it without even thinking
youtube.com/watch?v=49gLC9yiGOg

Ye, although unlike film, they have to keep that interactive aspect, whereas film can be completely art and no entertainment. Games can't go hands down on art because they have to manage someway to be a game

>my opinion is the only one that matters
kill yourself

I assume you mean art is made and then people infer the purpose or feelings of the piece art from the context of the times?

The idea that art is about statements and meaning is why art has gone down the toilet in the West. You don't even need any artistic ability (painting, drawing, sculpting, composing, directing, writing, designing), you just need to have a "message."

Well, according to your comparison to the Mona Lisa, it's the same thing.

The Mona Lisa still had to be maintained to appear as it does. Paintings can age and deterioate, just like sculptures.

An old music record could age and become unplayable, unless it's preserved, hermetically sealed or something. Notes on a sheet, or books in general can also fall apart.

So in the same way, games have to be maintained. The game itself can be copied and preserved forever. The machine required to play would also require maintenance.

Like, if you took a 486 computer with Doom installed, sealed it in a case, that would be preserved forever.

Just like a record and phonograph. They go together.

Yeah, that's why I said what I said. Video games are art of a different kind, they're art more from a mechanical and functional point of view. Narratively, visually and emotionally they will never compare to a movie, just the bottom line.

There are two perspectives. Either basically everything is art, or only sculptures prose paintings etc are art.

If you consider film art then video games are definitely art.

It doesn't even need to have any purpose.

This is some high level autism.

its not that they CAN'T its just that I think the medium isn't the best for themes and stories you ahve to think about over a long time like a book, its more of the in-the-moment decision making that really defines this medium, because the interactivity is the strongest asset this medium has. When you make games that focus around the interactivity you generally make the best games. Plenty of games have relatively intricate plotlines/setups but the best ones relate that back to the player. Rapture fell in part in Bioshock because of the whole ADAM thing making everyone go fucking nuts with power and you clearly get a taste of that when you use it. Meanwhile, the first DOOM was basically little more than "point gun at demon that want you dead" and it was still fun too because it also focused more on the player experience in its own way.

Only Bloodborne.

>games aren't video games
>video games aren't games
Nice logic.

Anything can be art, so yes.

>There are two perspectives.
what? no, there's one objective and very broad definition

my nigga

are vidya screenshots art?

Attached: 35602090603_0dca0ce970_o.jpg (1500x2400, 583K)

I didn't say video games aren't games, brainlet. I said video games are not the same thing as those things you listed. Video games are video games.

>what is mockery
I'm letting him know how retarded he looks. wouldn't expect you to understand that though you fucking brainlet

I'm replied to the wrong post and deleted it asap, sorry bout that

I'm saying most people fall into one of the two camps I listed.

okay fair enough

>people arguing over an objective definition
only Sup Forums can be this retarded

Attached: kek.jpg (500x373, 36K)

>not the same thing
>a game is not a game
Found the brainlet.

>art
>objective

Video games are video games. They are not equivalent to traditional games. This is not fucking rocket science.

>I was only pretending

This is true, the same way a movie can never compare to a movie narratively, or music emotionally. Games gotta play to their stenngths.

>Art is a diverse range of human activities in creating visual, auditory or performing artifacts (artworks), expressing the author's imaginative or technical skill, intended to be appreciated for their beauty or emotional power.
source:
en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/art

A movie can never compare to a book* narratively

>I take everything literally
inability to detect sarcasm is a sign of autism. seek help, they have meds for that now

Movies have music in them and so do games. Movies are a form of storytelling.

i suppose this is art then

Attached: 1055.jpg (620x372, 72K)

>the graveyard scene in TGTBTU
Lmao, pleb

it can be, if that's what the "artist" intended. the term art is extremely broad and does not have to be good or deep in any way. most art is fucking awful trash