Where are videogames as art (using film metaphor)?
I've heard someone say that, as film was the dominant medium in the 20th century, videogames just might gain ground and become the dominant art form of the 21st century.
I was recently thinking "hmm, where are videogames in comparison to film? How far have things gone since Pong and Tetris? Compared to Lumiere, have we hit Cassavetes or Godard yet?" So I made this little poll, what do others think? (didn't make past New Wave because there's no damn way that we're past that point in videogame history...)
I guess this is a bit frivolous, though. Heh.
Maybe just about to hit the sound age, I think?
I mean, we've come a long way from the simplest early videogames, I think, even if the essense of some games are pretty much just as simple as the older ones but with better graphics. There have been games made recently that I would call art, but I dunno...
What do you think? Explain?
is this a poll for common gaming, or what is being done in large studios where a person can become close to fully interactive with a game? though the game i saw was just a street fighter type, so, the interaction is limited to the game style.
my vote was for silent film era, though i would not say the height of it, just in it. there is much more to be done, and i will be somewhere else while it is going on...no more games for me.
Even if you don't think that videogames could've possibly hit any era past The New Wave you should at least offer later eras up as a voting choice for those who might.
I don't really look for art in things like movies or music, but for the sake of argument I believe video games are about as close to art as Scrabble. You can probably count on one hand the number of people who made a game with the intention of creating art. Games are viewed as entertainment and are made with that in mind. This whole "games are art" deal is a bid from gamers to be taken seriously, nothing more.
Even games considered the greatest of all time are considered entertainment; who views Halo as art over something fun? Video games are not art, they are nothing more than highly complex....well, games. Is dodgeball art? Do we have critics evaluate the artistic merits of Monopoly? No! Just because a lot of work is put into something does not make it art. If video games drastically change within the next few years, then sure, they could be. For now, though, gamers just want to be taken seriously, and possibly developers want more appreciation for all the work they put in.
We call video games art at this stage, we might as well hang Candy Land in a museum.
The same sort of thing was told to people who wanted to make film as art. The Lumiere Brothers themselves never thought of their invention as more of a scientific recording tool or a trivial little thing.
Halo is totally not art. To say "well is Halo art?" in this discussion is like going "Well is Michael Bay's Transformers art?" while talking about movies. Have you ever played a game that people actually call art?
Here's a place to start: http://db.tigsource.com/games/facade . Shadow Of The Colossus is another place to look, or the Russian game Pathologic.
Games will totally change from what they are now; videogames are an extremely young medium where not much has been said or done yet and everyone talking about videogame art is really hoping for the future here; consider how things changed between 1905 and 1925; the space between stupid little penny arcade frivolousness to things like The Passion of Joan Of Arc.
So you just wait, I guess.
I don't doubt that. And I'm sure there were people like me then, too, but the most important thing is this: I don't think games are art YET. I haven't denied that they won't ever become art, because it's possible. The vast majority of developers and gamers share the view of the Lumiere Brothers. Games are seen as entertainment.
Halo remains one of the most critically acclaimed video games ever made, and it sequels share high stature. Transformers is considered, critically, mediocre, and its sequel has been roasted by critics. That really is a poor, poor comparison. And I have no idea what Pathologic is, but having played Shadow of the Colossus a great deal, I won't deny it has serious artistic connotations.
But I share the view of a certain developer. I am 75% sure it was Hideo Kojima, but there's always that 25%. Anyway, this developer said that he saw video games as more of a museum (I would say gallery or exhibition, but you get the point). Parts of games could be art: the visuals, the music, but not the gameplay itself or the overall product. This is my view concerning art in games. They can contain art, but right now I don't consider the package art.
They COULD. And extremely young is an exaggeration. They are young, but they are not extremely young. If we start from 1905 like you did, The Birth of a Nation was released in 1915. Widely considered by critics to be one of the first truly artistic films. That's 10 years for art. If we use 1980 for video games, that's 25 years for your examples. I have no doubt you could name some more, but has serious art in video games been created? Serious art in film was created with 10 years.
There are many popular video games with strong artistic components. The question about video games isn't whether they are art, but whether they are good art. And I think some games are. I just can't understand why you feel that way with all the games that have come out over the past 20 years. This has been a spectacular decade for video games.
Examples would be...? And there's that word components. There is not a single video game that is viewed as art by the general public right now. And being generous, that's almost 30 years of history. We had art within about 10 in films. And I do not doubt games have artistic components, I just believe that the overall product is not art. The idea of a spectacular decade is undoubtable, but quality does not equal art.
Forget the idea of "ART", that whole philosophical debate is meaningless. And why are you comparing games to film so adamnently? It's a different medium with different potentials. Examples are too many to list. I'm talking about all the major games released this decade. I enjoy playing them, they make me think, they're entertaining. Are they as profound as films? No.
I think the main problem with games today, and actually someone else was touching on it in an above comment, is that they lack cohesion. I haven't played many games (if any) where all aspects come together to give a really complete experience. I mean, you have games like Final Fantasy with it's excellent characters, plot, music, and environments; and then you have this gameplay which is completely removed from everything else. And I think a lot of games have similar problems. However, I certainly don't think that the gameplay is what is holding games back from being brilliant. But it would be nice to see a kind of de-emphazise or reimagining of it. Personally, I would love to play a game where you spend a lot of time walking through environments not necessarily "doing" anything. And there are games that sort of do that.
But more importantly, I am really pleased with the games that are coming out. They definitely meet my qualifications of "art" and I get a lot out of them. Sometimes as much as films or music. Neither of those art forms are as successful at creating a world for you to exist and play around in.
I'm comparing games to film because it is the very CONCEPT of this entire poll.
I didn't say gameplay is holding it back, I said gameplay itself is not art. If we consider a game art, logically the things that make it up must be art.
And that's just it. YOUR definition of art is different from everyone else. Mine is different from everyone else. I don't think games can be art because gameplay isn't art; consider the graphics or the sound art, but don't consider the product art. Your definition of art is, going just from what you said, when you get something out of it. However, your last comment is ENTIRELY ridiculous since film and music are not even trying to create worlds. That's like saying a potato isn't as successful as a Warhead at being sour. And you still lack any real examples. You say "games coming out", but have twice failed to even give an example to support your claim.
I don't have a definition of art. That's not what interests me about the future of video games. I would just like them to become better works of art. I think the distinction is ridiculous and doesn't make any sense. It's a trendy philosophical debate for gaming intellectuals that will hopefully die out in time. I don't think the gameplay is what holds games back from being art. That's what I mean by holding it back, I think the gameplay is 'art'.
Film and music do/can create worlds, film especially. Books can as well. They create worlds in much the same way a videogame does. Nothing particularly special about that. It's just that you have more freedom to interact with said world that makes it more personal I suppose. And I would prefer not to give examples because they would just be my favourite games that have come out, and I doubt I could change your mind by listing games you have probably already played or heard of. My problem is that I don't have any claim. I just like video games. Pure and simple. I think films are much much better at getting across ideas and emotions, but that video games also have that potential. And if you think that you haven't seen video games exhibit that, then I guess we have nothing further to discuss.
Some games that I really like and that I think are interesting:
Silent Hill 2 & 3
Metal Gear Solid 2
Final Fantasy X (excellent story and themes)
Those are the strongest ones that come to mind, though I don't play videos that often and had quit them for the past 3-4 years. I just picked them up again. One thing that is sure is that none of those games come close to being as good as a really good film. But they are very interesting in a lot of ways and are quite fun to play.
http://www.museumofplay.org/NTHoF/
Their inductees for this year: http://www.museumofplay.org/about_us/files/nthof_winners_09.pdf
And in fact: http://www.museumofplay.org/nthof/toys/index.php?toy=candy_land
(P.S. You probably meant an art museum, but I was just amused that you made that comment since I just heard about this place the other day.)
I did. And wow. That is....very unexpected.