Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Games Entertainment

Are The Press Neglecting Games As Art? 52

Posted by simoniker from the rootin'-tootin'-high-falutin' dept.
Thanks to the Guardian Online for their article discussing whether the press are rating games seriously enough as an artform. According to journalist/researcher Matteo Bittani, "the games press in general is guilty of treating games as if they had no other relevance than being mere commercial products." He goes on to argue that: "Games are still being assessed by the same criteria of playability, graphics, sound and longevity as they were 15 years ago, causing the analysis to just boil down to 'technological determinism in full effect'." Is there any merit to reviewing games on more conceptual, artistic grounds, or is that idea overly pretentious?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Are The Press Neglecting Games As Art? More

Are The Press Neglecting Games As Art?

Comments Filter:

  • Not yet, but soon (Score:5, Insightful)

    by acxr is wasted ( 653126 ) on Sunday October 05, 2003 @05:16AM (#7136063)
    Games cannot be considered serious art by the "mainstream" because most video games right now, by and large, are "technological determinism." Why? Because that's what sells games.

    GameSpy just had that "Underrated Games" column, which included both Rez and Ico, two very hypnotic and "purposeful" games. It's pretty clear that the non-standard sort of experience that really captivates the player simply doesn't appeal to the big "middle-crowd" of system owners; people who only buy a few games that appeal specifically to their tastes. Very few people seem to be "hardcore" enough to want to experiment.

    Games will reach that point, but they haven't reached it yet. As for pretentiousness... well, almost any art can be called pretentious.

    • Very astute (Score:3, Interesting)

      by AvantLegion ( 595806 )
      What you described applies to all art.

      That which is new and compelling generally begins on the "avant-garde", and appeals only to the fringe.

      Eventually, that which is "avant-garde" becomes an accepted part of the mainstream art.

      Gaming is kind of a peculiar situation, as it changes SO rapidly in such a small span of time, due to technological advances. A lay person might see art from a span of 2 centuries as being obviously related, but might look at Pong compared to GTA: Vice City and see them as in n

      • Re:Very astute (Score:2, Interesting)

        by PainKilleR-CE ( 597083 )
        That which changed in centuries in eras gone past, and decades in more recent eras, now changes in mere years.

        This is true in all mediums, though. This is why the music industry is having so many problems with their sales figures. Even when they dump huge amounts of money into artists that fit today's pop culture, the sales are minor compared to popular artists of the past (even artists they dumped almost no money into in the past). The music industry also has distinct differences between popular music an
      • There are TWO issues here - people treating games as art, and game developers treating games as art. If the latter does not happen, then there's no reason to expect the former to. In today's industry, I would argue that the latter happens "sometimes".

        This quote right here is the one that caught my attention. It had me thinking to other industries though. For instance...wine labels. Art or simple packaging? There are some nice wine labels out there that I would classify as art in a heartbeat. Others are

  • Australian 'Escape from Woomera': Press? Gov't !!! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05, 2003 @05:22AM (#7136075)

    Why focus only on the Press, here?

    Consider the recent Australian federal gov't's
    response to an arts organisation giving a $25K
    grant to the developers of a game that deals
    with a very -current- news item (including
    Refugees' Children in Detention, in very remote
    centres, like Woomera, South Australia):

    Strong scrutiny of the arts organisation &
    that Au$ 25,000 grant.

    PS The -free- Escape from Woomera game is due
    any day now (eg, Oct 2003). 'can't wait...

  • I have to disagree... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Leffe ( 686621 ) on Sunday October 05, 2003 @05:28AM (#7136083)
    ... in Sweden we have two major gaming magazines, PC Gamer(sort of like PC Gamer) and Super Play(sort of like Edge).

    PC Gamer is just for PC games, they only care about the games that sell.

    Super Play is multiformat and gives high scores to games like Ico and Rez.

    Guess which one I like the most... err... I don't know, I subscribe to Super Play.
  • I've always noticed that the sonic games were pretty artistic and creative, they were a success. I think it wouldn't be unfair to look at a game's artistic merit as well as the "traditional" stuff. I was just thinking about this earlier today actually.

  • So does the gaming industry (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Piquan ( 49943 ) on Sunday October 05, 2003 @05:41AM (#7136098)
    Personally, I think that the gaming industry cares smeg-all about the artistic merits of games, and only what sells. This wasn't always the case, but seems to be the overwhelmingly prevalent attitude coming out of the industry today.

    Is it any wonder the press uses the same scorecard?

    • I agree with what you say. I can't think of anything at art unless it was made out of pure passion, not for profit. Games should be expressed like cars. They are reviewed based on their technical merits mainly. Asthetics come second.
      • Cars are designed based on concept drawings by an artist. There may be some limitations imposed by air resistance and the like, but within those limitations you can get an amazing variety of shapes. And if you look at sci-fi films and the like, there's a vast amount of attention paid to the cars/transport in all of them, bcos the style of the car embodies the style of that era. In Art Deco for instance, the car and ship are the two great iconic symbols of the style; and you can definitely track the progr

    • Re:So does the gaming industry (Score:4, Informative)

      by Allen Varney ( 449382 ) on Sunday October 05, 2003 @09:07AM (#7136495) Homepage

      Personally, I think that the gaming industry cares smeg-all about the artistic merits of games, and only what sells. This wasn't always the case, but seems to be the overwhelmingly prevalent attitude coming out of the industry today.

      This /. discussion has so far focused exclusively on computer games, and in that field you're probably right -- though a few folks like Warren Spector are definitely interested in pushing the form forward.

      But if we broaden the topic to include other games, there's definitely a strong starving-artist-in-garret mentality in indie RPGs -- the tabletop paper kind. Check out The Forge [indie-rpgs.com] discussion boards, and the many odd small-press RPGs those designers post on the Web. They're all convinced roleplaying games can be an artform, and they don't care if their work earns a dime.

  • Criteria determine value as art of game design (Score:3, Insightful)

    by phauxfinnish ( 698087 ) on Sunday October 05, 2003 @05:44AM (#7136105)
    Games are still being assessed by the same criteria of playability, graphics, sound and longevity as they were 15 years ago
    These are the factors for determining value in a game as art. Yes, game design is an art form. However, unlike popular art, though similar to an artform such as wine making, there are certian criteria to judge with the finally deterimation of value based on personal opinion.

  • Plenty of merit, plenty of precedent. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Bastian ( 66383 ) on Sunday October 05, 2003 @05:59AM (#7136123)
    At least for certain genres. . . For some games, things like mood and storyline matter a hell of a lot, for others not so much. For example, lots of people still say Final Fantasy 6/3 is the best one in the series, but it's far, far, far behind 7 on technical merit. Why do people love it so? The storyline.

    The same goes for the adventure game genre - I've played adventure games with bad graphics and terrible game mechanics that were still fun to play because they were funny, or the storyline was interesting, or somesuch.

    Even the Quake games didn't escape from this. Sure, on a technical level Quake 2 and 3 were far better than Quake 1. The graphics are better, the control is tighter, the weapons are more balanced. . . but there are diehards who still say the first one is the most fun to play, because it is the one that succeeded in creating a mood.

    Heck, there's a subgenre that's entirely based on creating a mood - survival horror games. Some of these games (Silent Hill 2 comes to mind) would never have been good games had it not been for some excellent artists and 'scriptwriters' behind that game.

    So yeah, I'd say that asking whether there's merit to rating games based on conceptual grounds is pretty asinine, considering that it's pretty well accepted as an important part of many games even if that doesn't make it into the itemized star ratings you see in a lot of magazines.

    But then again, I'm not too sure that the concept behind a game and execution thereof should be rated in such a manner, because what one person likes conceptually another person will dislike. Such aspects of games deserve to be reviewed in prose, the way books are. Of course they already are, so I have no idea why I'm even bothering to talk.
  • Honestly, why people playing games compulsively need to validate the love for their hooby with spurious claims like this?

    Games are an untilitarian product, and as long as this is what takes precedence over aesthetic values, games will rigthly continue to be classed as what they are: a passtime.

  • Diamonds in the rough (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Momomoto ( 118483 ) on Sunday October 05, 2003 @08:08AM (#7136358) Homepage
    There are some sites, however, that are treating games as more than just entertainment forms. I feel that Insert Credit [insertcredit.com] is doing a fine job of analyzing games and gaming with a critical eye, as opposed to just writing trash like many of the other game-centric web sites do.

    Actually, once I found Insert Credit I stopped visiting any other sites. It's clear from their writing that the contributors love what they're doing, and they're not just pandering to the lowest common denominator. Check out the 'reviews' of F-Zero GX [insertcredit.com] or The Wind Waker [insertcredit.com] to see what I mean.

  • Can games be judged as art? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by neglige ( 641101 ) on Sunday October 05, 2003 @08:37AM (#7136412)
    playability, graphics, sound and longevity

    Those are, after all, the key factors that make a game fun. As someone else noted, a good storyline and plot glue you to the monitor. I'd like to add interaction. That's what made Deus Ex or System Shock (IMHO) brilliant games.

    But I wouldn't call games "art". Yes, it's a long, costly and tedious process to create a game. Many people are involved, they contain novel ideas (I talk about the good games here). So I didn't mean that comment in any way to play down the quality of or the efford put into games.

    What is art? Paintings/Graphics, Music, Movies, Theatre etc. are all passive: the artists (normally) wants to convey a message, and the consumer must see/hear the art to get it. In games, you are active, you shape and change the outcome by you actions. In a way, you are creating art.

    And here lies the problem. Honestly, you cannot rate or judge art. One mans trash can be another mans treasure (got that one from blogger.org, I think). Some ppl like Britney Spears, others hate her, others don't care. Take a Van Gogh picture. Maybe you like it, maybe you don't - would you hang one in your living room if you could afford one (and you always can afford a replica)? Game magazines had to be ultimately reduced to demo magazines, since every person had to see the game itself before deciding whether it was good or not.

    I hope I made sense, sorry if I didn't ;)
    • So, essentially, it's not the actual *games* that are art, but pieces of it. The soundtrack, for example, can often be enjoyed as art in itself. Similarily with graphics. The graphics of Ico is amazing at some points. However, it is VERY unusual that someone says that the actual gameplay of a game is art. I'd say that Rez actually tries to fit in there, because the gameplay is so closely tied to the sound and visuals. Rez is rather unusual, though.
    • Those are just the medium, though. There are more recent forms of art that DO involve the spectator/user. Performance art often does. I'm pretty sure there are interactive art programs out there. Look at dance--those doing the dancing are not neccessarily the creators of the dance.

      But, even some of the more traditional art forms involve the spectator/reader, in a more indirect way. Hamlet and lots of other books and plays present the idea of a play within a play(thereby suggesting the spectator/reader

  • Fun (Score:5, Insightful)

    by GypC ( 7592 ) on Sunday October 05, 2003 @08:58AM (#7136466) Homepage Journal

    Games should be, and are, judged ultimately by only one criteria... is it fun?

    Take, for example, "American McGee's Alice". Artistically, it was a tour de force. But it was plagued by mediocre mechanics and gameplay, and, despite the beautiful level design, the levels were like a "rail-shooter", there was only one path to follow. It got good initial reviews because of its sheer beauty, but people soon came to realize that it just wasn't much fun.

    Artistic? Yes. Fun? Not really. So, as a game, it wasn't very good.

    Long term sales are the best indicator of a game's quality. All intellectual pretension aside, the people vote with their wallets. Word of mouth will ensure the success of a game that most people find fun.

    • Your post helped me to reach an epiphany. Yes, games should be fun! I paid good money for this, so I darn well better be entertained. Just like movies. People keep talking about Citizen Kane; what's the big deal? It's not funny, there's no sex, and nothing blows up. Orson Welles was a hack. Now Dumb and Dumber is a true classic of American cinema. I mean, is there anything more important than a van that looks like a dog taking a leak? Movies are supposed to be fun and have explosions and scantily
      • Some people do consider intellectual aspects of a film fun, others do not. One person may find Citizen Kane an excellent movie with a great story and other may not be so interested in it. This is the same reason why one person might think trudging through the Myst universe for hours is fun, and another might only want to play a fast paced fps like counter-strike. The point is a game has to be fun for a person to play, but different people have different definitions of fun, and therefore another person's

    • Long term sales are the best indicator of a game's quality.

      Not at all. System Shock 2 is a good example. It never sold well, but it's in my top three of modern games, the others being Deus Ex and Half-Life. All these games are somewhat artistic, being extremely artful in their storytelling. None of these had original stories to tell, but neither had Shakespeare. They didn't even have the most flashy 'artwork' - graphics - but creating shiny things has never been considered an art, has it? An artistic exp

    • I think "fun" is too narrow a parameter by which to judge an infinite potential of output for a medium like games. The term "games" may itself be too restrictive for what can be done with this medium, which is part of the problem. It would be like if plays were lumped in with the term "sports" because they take place in an arena in front of an audience, as sports games do.

      A good gauge of art is whether it can cause the audience to see the world differently, be it from their own altered perspective, or tha

  • Art is necessary (Score:2, Insightful)

    by _Sexy_Pants_ ( 703751 )
    Art has always been a necessary aspect of video games. It's what seperates the good from the bad. What game is going to steal the most of your time, the simple graphics or the game that creates an atmosphere. This has almost always been present, right down the the "bip boop" of Asteroids. But let's pretend that the atmosphere means nothing - game design is still something that has to be tweaked. Cookie-cutter games generally don't do very well. You can't just make a first person shooter and have it be gold,
  • I wish art was reviewed more like games. We have all this modern crap (and I'm not just talking visual art - we get modern, trying to do something new just to be an ass, works in music and literature as well) that everyone with some taste hates and doesn't connect with the people who view it at all getting rave reviews. Art is only as valuable as the people it affects, without good 'playability' it is worthless.

  • Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Sunday October 05, 2003 @12:58PM (#7137492)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • It depends on the purpose of the game. If the overall purpose of the game is to be visually stunning and expansive, rather than focusing on gameplay or how fun it is, then yes it should be considered art by the media. However, it is rare for this to be the focus of the game. Books are considered art, however crossword puzzle books are not, because they are supposed to be games. The only game I can really think of that was actually considered art by some would be Myst. Back when Myst first came out, the
  • In my past experiences video games should be comsidered art. If you look at Half-Life 2, it took them 5 years to get where they are today, and it shows because of how great the game appears to be. Working for so long on something only to have it judged by standards created when Pong was God is not humane on the part of the developers. The process that games have to go through to get review need to be changed.
  • Traditional artists can't even decide what art is, so how can apply to that video games? We need another word here to describe what we feel but can't express. What I mean is that few would argue there's substantial difference between a movie like Pirates of the Carribean and a movie like Apocolypse Now. Likewise, there's something different about ICO as opposed to Madden 2003. If these were on a multiple choice test, Either POTC or Apocolypse, and ICO and Madden, and we were told to choose the most arti
  • games have gotten to a point where its not about how cool the graphics look anymore. HL2 is implementing many of the things that were restricted to non real time 3d graphics. Technically, there are no limits.

    I try to look at games less from a technical standpoint and more at how well it was directed. Does it have a solid story? Is there good art direction? Does the game try to be original and uniquie or just another game?

    There are some technical aspects that still matter. If its to hard, or too clunky to
  • Movies have become the archetypal Modern Art Form.

    Games should say something about the world, like movies do! Games should have big-budgets! Designers should be treated like stars! We need an independent game industry, just like the independent cinema scene!

    Horse-hockey! Well, I like the idea of independent gaming, but the rest is bull. Look at the movies that make the most money, they're *crap*. Look at the games that make the most, with some exceptions they're also mostly crap. I mean, the bigges
  • It's not a relevant question. We went through this in the 80's and 90's with comic books. Comic creators asking, "Why aren't comics considered art?" It's too broad a question, with too many players.

    A creator can use any medium to create a great artwork. The medium is simply the form that artwork takes.

    That said, most interactive entertainment (games) are not worthy of consideration as great artworks. Why? It's terribly complicated.

    *There's the problem that games have never been, until recently, anyth
    • *There's the problem that creative individuals aren't being drawn to the medium. Or, dare I say, the problem that individuals who lack vision and ambition aren't being drawn to the medium. Folks who are satisfied to re-create the simplistic games that fascinated them as children, rather than explore the full potential of the medium. (Boy that one's going to get me in trouble.) I think we all fight this one within ourselves, and it's a worthwhile fight.
      There's the problem that people mistake complexity (as
      • Okay, cool.

        There's the problem that people mistake complexity (as in anti-simplicity) as a requirement for good art. :)

        I'm not asserting that innovation is necessary for good art, but it is necessary for a medium to grow. I probably didn't balance my original statement carefully enough, because the position you're arguing against is more extreme than mine.

        Of course there are elements that "adult" entertainment shares with "children's" entertainment. Good storytelling is good storytelling. If you've m

  • A government supported artist is an incompetent whore.

    Art is suposed to reach us, if nobody wants to look at it, or in the case of games play them, then it's bad art, no matter how artistic the thought behind it. The purpose of any art is to please the artist and please the partron. As long as the games please the artist, either artisicaly, or financialy, and they please the patron, and they convey an emotional state, why worry overmuch about how third parties view them.

  • It only took one Beatles to turn what was termed an "adolescent fad"- rock n' roll -into the most comprehensive music of the twentieth century, far outpacing jazz, classical and all other art-forms in its field with its depth and reach.

    We're nearing photorealism in games- what's next?

    What's currently known as interactive entertainment will become the most important art form of this century. It will continue to attract those who seek to push the limits of what's possible- usually the greatest artists.

  • Hollywood comments on the world around us? Some movies do, most of them not made by Hollywood or made by directors who work outside the schmooze-fest circuit. If you want socially conscious entertainment, you will have to look to late 60's to late 70's science fiction, starting with Harlan Ellison and Philip K. Dick. That was social awareness with a vengeance. I think what she's referring to is observational humor, something that was in standup comedy long before TV picked it up. For now, you will not find
  • Many gamers have "grown up" and are now adults (or at least close facsimiles thereof), capable of appreciating the artistic component of a video game.

    In a semi-related note, is there a yearly "awards" type thing for games? Like "best direction", "best programming", etc?

Slashdot Top Deals

"The medium is the massage." -- Crazy Nigel

Close