Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies Media Entertainment Games

Game/Movie Comparisons Raise Art Question Again 99

Posted by Zonk from the why-not-judge-them-by-their-merits dept.
Via Game|Life, an article on the Variety site that sees something rather novel: a film writer defending games. Unhappy reviews of the film 300 sometimes cite the film's 'game-like' nature as a measure of it's poor quality, and Variety writer Ben Fritz calls those authors out on their poor grasp of modern media. Ron Gilbert, at the Grumpy Gamer site, has a few words of commentary on this issue. Coincidentally Gamasutra chose today to post a discussion of games as art which begins with the phrase "here we go again".
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Game/Movie Comparisons Raise Art Question Again More

Game/Movie Comparisons Raise Art Question Again

Comments Filter:
  • I don't recall the last game I played where all the duded wore Leather speedos...
    • I mean, bar none...300 had to be the BEST obviously-filmed-in-front-of-a-greenscreen movie EVER! The move harkens back to the by-gone days of movies like "Attack of the Clones" with the historical accuracy of Michael Bay's "Pearl Harbor".

      This will open doors for more obviously-filmed-in-front-of-greenscreen movies, which the world needs more of.
    • Does it count if I play the game whilst wearing leather speedos?

  • It's things like this that... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by beef623 ( 998368 ) * on Friday March 16, 2007 @02:07PM (#18378829)

    ...just make you want to slap a guy. "It looks too much like a game" so what? It sure looks to me like its selling and I thought it was an awsome movie when I finally got to see it(it was sold out all weekend).

    Back to the point though, what aversion do these people have against video games? Is it because they were fun? Is it because they didn't get to play them when they were little? Or maybe its because whole teams of artists of different kinds actually work together to make something that a normal person would look at more than once.

    I just don't get it, a baby could take a crap in a diaper and these people would call it art, but if that diaper moves when you push a button...

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Seumas ( 6865 )
      The guy probably fondly misses the days (prior to about 1970) when all movies were in black and white and had TERRIBLE acting. Seriously, the acting in today's videogame cutscenes and soap operas is less hammed-up, over-dramatic and ridiculous than almost every movie prior to the 1970s. It was like they told the actors "Okay, you just found out the mailman didn't deliver your tax refund. So complain and cry like your mother just got shot in the face!"

      Ugh. Sorry. Just a damn pet peeve I have.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Jesterboy ( 106813 )
      I never got this either; why doesn't anyone call video games art? Movies and music are both used in video games, and both are considered art forms. What makes video games so special that they are not? Are they not aesthetically pleasing? Are they not capable of evoking emotion?

      It seems to me that art is all about providing an experience for the viewer, for evoking emotion from the viewer even if it is just the simple pleasure of viewing something beautiful. Video games possess both an aural or visual c

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Surt ( 22457 )
        Actually, other than a few freak art critics, I think pretty much everyone does in fact consider video games art.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Anonymous Coward
          Yeah right. You should try talking to people outside of video game message boards someday, it might broaden your perspective.

      • Re:It's things like this that... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by 7Prime ( 871679 ) on Friday March 16, 2007 @07:04PM (#18382101) Homepage Journal
        While I agree, it also depends upon your definition of "Art". Now, a thoughtful, and more objective interpretation of the word boils down to anything that is produced through a creative process. Society, however, has subjectively attatched their own sense of taste onto the word so that anything that doesn't appeal to them is unartistic, and is often degraded to meer "entertainment". The word "art" is sort of the darling of the accademic community, and thus, reflects a certain bias towards certain works that share sensibilities that resonate with the tastes of people within that community. I'd consider myself deeply ingrained into that psychographic, yet it's important to recognize ones own biases.

        Some have attatched additional requirements to the word. You often hear things like, "to be art, a work must not serve any purpose other than itself," yet hardly any art philosopher would dare reject the entire genre of architecture, which most deffinitely does provide additional functionality. Then there are those that argue that the purpose behind art must not revolve around the aquisition of wealth. Yet the vast majority of works we consider art were created with the intention of being sold or licensed. Some would boldly go as far as to suggest that no work of art must have corporate backing... yet it is impossible to execute even some of the simpler forms of cinema without the budget of a small country. Should we, then, deem all cinematic visions "off limits"?

        Games do, on the other hand, have one slight distinction that separates them from all other forms of art: they have a goal. This is the only arguement I have heard, to date, for the possibility of not being able to define video games as art. Yet, even the conception of this goal is a creative endevour. Coming up with a great puzzle or difficult situation, in a game, takes quite a bit of fine ingenuity that can not be defined in any other way than being "artistic". When it comes down to it, the goal driving a game forward is simply that genre's counterpart to the clock ticking down the seconds until the end of the symphony, or the spacial dimension of a sculpture; it simply serves to give the work direction and structure.

        So, in closing, most of these comments can be taken as snide remarks by those in older generations who are simply inequiped to evaluate a new art form. One particular person is only going to enjoy a fairly small subset out of any given genre, this is true for any medium... but people completely inequiped to evaluate a genre are, then, unable and unwilling to find any of the redeaming characteristics that they normally would be able to find in any other genre.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by meme lies ( 1050572 )
          ...most of these comments can be taken as snide remarks by those in older generations who are simply inequiped to evaluate a new art form...

          You're absolutely correct.... It takes a while for a new form to become "art", and the old guard rarely accepts it. That's just the way it is. Additionally, no product becomes "art" without writers who champion the cause (and explain exactly what makes this thing so "great.") There's no point in bickering with detractors, better to put the energy into creating new

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by 7Prime ( 871679 )
            Great points as well. I've been struggling to figure out what piece of the developement teem is, and should be, considered the artistic identity of the work. Movies have their directors, (although a lot of the public attribute the face of movies to the actors, since they are the ones they actually see on screen), music has bands and composers, but games are tough. They have developement teams, but those teams change for every game, so it's not like a band, who have a public identity. Games, I think, are pre
        • Great post, thanks for that. I would only quibble with one point - "it is impossible to execute even some of the simpler forms of cinema without the budget of a small country". That used to be true, but ever since that kid won a Sundance award for something edited in iMovie, that notion is probably out the window. Cheers.

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by SpacialCoogs ( 946601 )
          People who would argue that movies aren't art and because theyrequire vast amounts of money or corporate backing have not studied their art history. Most artists could not afford to be an artist in Medieval times without a Patron or financial backer. The cost of some pigments alone were more than most people would ever see in their lifetime. Look at the Catholic church. How many wondrous pieces of art were made in it's name. They were the biggest financial backer at that time. As an artist, I would conside

        • Now, a thoughtful, and more objective interpretation of the word [art] boils down to anything that is produced through a creative process.

          There's a distinction you're leaving out. Art is created primarily to evoke a feeling in people. This is what excludes things like well-designed furniture from being art. There are some really nice looking wooden tables out there, but they're not art. They took some creativity to make and definitely display some artistic aptitude, but they're not art. I'm not touching the

          • Oops, I didn't read your whole post. Maybe I should call it a night, it's 1 AM and my reading comprehension has gone bye bye!
          • Then why does the Museum of Modern Art in New York (among many others) have a large collection of tables and chairs?

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by 7Prime ( 871679 )
            And how are they not art? They're functional, sure... but do you dismis all architecture from artistic definition? A table in chairs falls into the same catagory.

            You've made a declaration, not a logical arguement, for the idea that a table and chairs are not art, by means of a supposed ad populum. The truth is that the definition of "art" is a moving target, and can't be defined directly in and of itself. As I've said, some put different criteria on the definition than others. There is little common consens

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by *weasel ( 174362 )

      Back to the point though, what aversion do these people have against video games?

      It's a new medium, a young medium. It's not the one they're used to, and they don't understand it.
      So they demean it.

      We can see a perfect analogue to this mess in the way theatre types viewed films when they were young.

      Then, like now, most examples from the newer medium weren't really 'Art'.
      But it was inextricably capable of Art and examples did exist.

      Given time, this will also go away.

  • Ok (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LordPhantom ( 763327 ) on Friday March 16, 2007 @02:15PM (#18378933)
    FTA:300 is a vacuous film filled with bad dialog, stiff acting, a pointless one-dimensional plot and interchangeable characters that hardly deserve to be named in the script. The film barely has a first act and does nothing but drive to a preposterous conclusion led along by a sequence of ridiculous events. The Visuals are nothing more than technical masturbation. Simply put, 300 is the best damn film I've seen all year. I haven't had this much fun watching a movie in a long time. It's nice to see Hollywood is finally striving to be more likes games.

    Ok, so in short, gamers as he sees it are only interested in the technical masturbation portion of what games are. IF that's true, then consoles that emphasize game play wouldn't be doing as well as a certain little industry darling that does is. But even if that's only about -gameplay- (as Wii games don't exactly have the best acting/plot), some of the most loved games out there have some incredible characters and/or plot. (textual or otherwise).

    He totally misses the point, this movie was one for people who are looking for eye candy and visuals, not plot or well developed characters and script. There are games like this as well. For example, the difference between the Monkey Island series (amusing, somewhat witty script) and Doom 3. Implying that all games in the popular market in somewhat recent memory are terrible in terms of things that a typical movie-goer would find important only demonstrates an ignorance of what the over-21 year old gamer market really is looking for.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Feanturi ( 99866 )
      does nothing but drive to a preposterous conclusion led along by a sequence of ridiculous events.

      The movie from 1962 called "The 300 Spartans" is that without the eye candy. Yeah that's right, Frank Miller didn't make this up. I take it the reviewer has not heard of Google.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by maxume ( 22995 )
        He made up plenty of it:

        http://www.thestar.com/article/190493 [thestar.com]

        (I like pretty much all of the Frank Miller work I have seen...)
      • Frank Miller was at best inspired to remake the story of the Spartans. 300 is a fantasy movie based on something vaguely historical. The movie has a few names that are real and thats about it.
    • I think silly movie critics should be forced to play/watch Grim Fandango.
      • If a movie featured such plot points as the hero trying to figure how to advance, and doing it by using a punch card to block the progress of a balloon and then twisting the balloon into a toy dog, viewers would be rioting in the aisles. People are bringing up adventure games in thread after thread, ignoring that:

        1) Heroes in adventure games are basically personality-free.
        2) The genre is dead, and has been dead for 10 or 15 years.
        3) There were only a small handful of games worth mentioning.
        4) Even thes

        • If a movie featured such plot points as the hero trying to figure how to advance, and doing it by using a punch card to block the progress of a balloon and then twisting the balloon into a toy dog, viewers would be rioting in the aisles.

          Uh, that's not the point. I was not suggesting that someone should make an exact cinematic replica of Grim Fandango.

          1) Heroes in adventure games are basically personality-free.

          Well, I'm talking about Grim Fandango, here. Manny is anything but personality-free.

          2) The genre is

          • Uh, that's not the point. I was not suggesting that someone should make an exact cinematic replica of Grim Fandango.

            I was suggesting: Plot contrivances in Grim Fandango really aren't particularly intelligent or interesting, certainly not up to the level of even the most ludicrous of movies.

            Well, I'm talking about Grim Fandango, here. Manny is anything but personality-free.

            His personality was limited to making sarcastic quips.

            Doesn't mean that Grim Fandango still isn't a great game, an example of wh

            • I was suggesting: Plot contrivances in Grim Fandango really aren't particularly intelligent or interesting, certainly not up to the level of even the most ludicrous of movies.

              It's a videogame. An adventure game. Puzzles are part of the gameplay. However, this does not mean that a movie of Grim Fandango would include the puzzles.

              His personality was limited to making sarcastic quips.

              In your opinion.

              In a discussion comparing video games to art and movies, I was claiming that Grim Fandago didn't measure up.

              That

  • The movie "300" is not even comparable to making a movie in game like Quake 2. That would be different and quite ugly. One guy did a Quake 2 movie in talk show format that ended with everyone shooting rocket launchers at each other. Someone did the Monty Python's killer rabbit scene in Unreal. Critcs are just stupid.

  • UWE (Score:4, Funny)

    by mastershake_phd ( 1050150 ) on Friday March 16, 2007 @02:19PM (#18378981) Homepage
    Instead of using "game-like" in a deragatory manner you could say "Uwe Boll-Like"

  • 300's "game like nature" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nephridium ( 928664 ) on Friday March 16, 2007 @02:25PM (#18379061)
    ..has nothing to do with it being based on a game. It's based on a comic book (rather mediocre one imho) and it does a great job bringing the pictures and the story to life. Thus it succeeds in its aim and the people mentioned had obviously no idea what they were talking about. Spider-man is also a good example of a movie in which you could freeze at almost any frame and have a beautiful picture that could have been just like that in the comic book - that's skill, that's art!

    That being said it seems "300" itself gets misunderstood by quite a few people, ostensibly because it has no accurate disclaimer at the beginning and most people are ignorant about the story and Greek/Persian history in general. It should be clear from viewing the first few scenes, that it is hardly a realistic depiction, but rather a fantastic (obviously biased) and embellished story told by a proud Spartan war veteran. The comic-like style is actually essential in pointing out this very fact.

  • Game/Movie 'synergy' could be a goodthing (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Hogwash McFly ( 678207 ) on Friday March 16, 2007 @02:37PM (#18379237)
    I believe that games would do better to become more 'movie-esque' than vice versa. It seems to me that there aren't many games that feature characteristics more closely associated with film or even literature, such as good characterisation or plot. Most mainstream games are all about plopping you straight into the action with little regard to back-story and expect you to be satisfied 1607 dead stormtroopers later. The oft-repeated mantra, common on Slashdot, that 'games should be fun' seems disingenuous to me. I mean, if the gamers among us want the industry to be legitimised as a 'proper art form' and move beyond the nerd kids in the bedroom stigma, why does there seem to be such a lack of 'adult' (not necessarily in the boobs and gore sense) titles, of intellectual titles, in the local game shop? Do we say that 'films should be fun'? Yes, while many are indeed fun, there are also many that are shocking, dark, depressing, thought-provoking. Where are the 'head scratcher' games - the ones you try and figure out with your friends at the pub like after the movie theatre? Where are the games in black and white?

    Yes, there are obvious differences in format; movies are non-interactive and last a couple of hours, games are naturally controllable and generally last at least ten hours. I'd like to see more of a fusion between the two art forms. I'd like a game that was short by game standards, but was beautifully written, had a tight storyline and was populated by intelligent, deep and interesting characters. I'd like to see games where you have to put some thought into what you are doing and the decisions you make. I'd like a game where you hardly fire your gun. I want a game to make me cry.

    I'm not saying that such games aren't to be found or that there should be no shallow, time-waster games. It just seems an under-represented niche.
    • Ico (short, tightly plotted storyline, makes some people cry)

      Shadow of the Colossus (ditto)

      Silent Hill 2 (head-scratcher)
      • Come to think of it, let me add Halo and Halo 2 - there are references, allusions and similarities to the Greek and Persian wars, to Norse mythology, to medieval history, and to Judeo/Christian themes and ideas. One of the main characters, an AI named Cortana who is ostensibly the protagonist's ally, is hinted to have her own agenda which may not match that of the government that created her.

        Even some of the enemy characters are intelligent and complex, from the disgraced fleet commander seeking redemption

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by timster ( 32400 )
      Games must be fun, because Fun is the art. It's unfortunate that our language has such poor vocabulary for fun, because "fun" really encompasses a wide range of emotions that can't be found in cinema. What's dumb is to say that games should be like cinema; we have cinema to be cinema. Games should be fun; beyond fun there isn't a reason to make a game.

      I guess this goes back to the days, not so long ago, where "fun" meant running around outside. If you want to be adult about this, consider Super Mario Br

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by KDR_11k ( 778916 )
      I believe that games would do better to become more 'movie-esque' than vice versa.

      I completely disagree. The movie is a static, linear medium whereas games are a highly non-linear medium (at least if they are used properly). They have completely different strengths. Movies have complete freedom of making the main character act in a prescribed way while games have the freedom to explore what-if scenarios. Unfortunately games these days tend to be very movielike which often manifests itself as gameplay being

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Eideewt ( 603267 )
        I think you're overlooking the fact that there's room for more than one type of game, just like there's more than one type of movie. Not just stylistic genres, but some movies aim to be profound while others just aim to be exciting. I don't see any reason games can't do the same thing. Just like there's art music and there is hardcore punk.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Eideewt ( 603267 )
          I think I lost my train of thought and responded to something you didn't say. What I originally intended to say is that games have another dimension along which they can diversify, ranging from linear to free-form. The former can be nearly a movie (like Star Trek: Klingon for instance, and many works of interactive fiction), or it can be more in the style of Doom 3. I don't see any reason that a game tending towards this end of the freedom spectrum is necessarily inferior, any more than a movie is inferior

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by KDR_11k ( 778916 )
            A problem is that linear games often tell their story in cutscenes that are pretty much detached from the gameplay and all the player contributes to the story is move from one scene to the next. I don't mind linearly designed games that prioritize on the gameplay, i.e. the challenge and the fun that comes from it but it gets pretty silly when a game makes the story its primary focus and still tells it with movies. At that point I wonder if the designer wouldn't have been better off making a movie or a serie

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Eideewt ( 603267 )
              Sure, and I agree that it's easy to make a lousy linear game. I just don't think that linearity necessarily makes a game bad, or that there's any reason that games are "meant to be" free-form. Myst 3 and Halo were fairly linear, but both were pretty good games. In the end, many games boil down to doing things in the "right" order.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by 7Prime ( 871679 )
        Freedom, shmeedom... that's not why I play games. Freedom isn't the only thing that games have to offer that other genres don't have. Or should I say, games offer a wide variety of different forms and varying levels of freedom, each of which, no other genre can do. I love cinema, I enjoy it a lot, I don't miss the opportunity to control the actions the main character has in the storyline, because identifying with an exquisitely-cratfted storyline is one of the main reasons why I watch movies, and it happens
      • You should go play KOTOR for the xbox, Blade Runner and Grim Fandango for the PC. The first two have different paths. Player behavior limits what can happen next. I wish more games did this. I don't want a game that takes 40 hours to play. I want a game that takes fifteen or twenty hours, but when I play it again in a different way, half of the content has changed. I have other things to do with my time than spend it all on a game for 40, 80, 100 hours. If I only play though the game one or two times

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Frumply ( 999178 )
      With download sales picking up and episodic content getting more common, it'll probably be possible to do what you described a little easier in those few-hour segments. You could probably have just as good a console RPG by taking all but the story-significant battles away, and yet if the developer actually does that they'll be slammed for the game being short. I can recall this exact thing happening with Disc 2 of Xenogears: the characters launch into a monologue for a bit which fleshes out the story, wit

    • I believe that games would do better to become more 'movie-esque' than vice versa.

      I disagree.

      Games need to be as interactive a possible, complex storylines and characters make this extremely difficult.

      Look at it this way, good music can be enjoyed simply by listening. A good movie, on the other hand, requires visual attention from the viewer as well. Listening to a movie and glancing up at the screen periodically will give you not much more than the audio format can deliver on its own (ie. radio plays).

      Movi

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by 7Prime ( 871679 )
      I think we're both on the same page, as far as our interest in seeing the more sophisticated side of games, that really hasn't risen its head yet. However, I dissagree that games should become more like cinema. As one of the other repliers said, "we have cinema for cinema". But what I think you intended to say is something along the lines of, "games have a lot they could learn from good cinema."

      But as far as I am concerned, a certain level of sophistication simply hasn't been introduced into games yet. Even

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by blahplusplus ( 757119 )
      "I believe that games would do better to become more 'movie-esque' than vice versa"

      While games becoming "movie-esque" is good and necessary for some games, there is also going overboard like RPG's currently do. Final fantasy 12 for instance, is not my idea of good gaming. The game recieved rave reviews but all you did in the game was navigate and watch a bunch of dumb stuff. You were not even "in" the game, it was basically an navigation simulator. I do not play games to to just walk around and not be a

  • The test for art is very simple: (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Purity Of Essence ( 1007601 ) on Friday March 16, 2007 @03:00PM (#18379569)
    If the artist can intentionally provoke a specific emotional reaction in the viewer, it is art. The end.
    • Oh? So would you consider it art if I punched you in the face? I would be provoking surprise, hurt, and anger, just so you know it's intentional. There's something more to art than that. I'm not sure anyone can define art in such a concise statement, but at the very least I would say that art has to communicate some insight to the viewer, in addition to provoking a reaction.
    • Ahah! I *told* the art teacher that kicking him in the balls was art!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by snuf23 ( 182335 )
      If this is the case than Steven Spielberg is a great artist.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by grumbel ( 592662 )
      ### If the artist can intentionally provoke a specific emotional reaction in the viewer, it is art. The end.

      Which specific emotions should Michelangelo's David provoke? Or Mona Lisa? etc.

      • Which specific emotions should Michelangelo's David provoke?

        You'd have to ask Michelangelo. I can't tell you what he was intending to say with his art. The majority of the popular works of Michelangelo are first and foremost technically adept spectacles designed to induce a sense of wonder, which is why the church employed him in the first place. It's razzle-dazzle for the church, just like Gospel Music, the Crystal Cathedral, or Deepak Chopra in the modern era. In a sense, much of his work for the church i

    • If the artist can intentionally provoke a specific emotional reaction in the viewer, it is art. The end.

      What about a political attack ad? The purpose is to get you to vote a specific way, yet it uses emotion to try and achieve this. Art?

      • What about a political attack ad? The purpose is to get you to vote a specific way, yet it uses emotion to try and achieve this. Art?

        Yes, absolutely, art.
  • Video games are mostly an entertainment medium at the moment, but I think we'll see more and more people agreeing that there's art somewhere in there.

    I often liken early (and even modern) video games to movies where moustachioed villains tie women to railroad tracks while our stalwart hero struggle to rescue her (woo!). That's entertainment, not art. However, movies later had their more respectable Citizen Kanes and Seven Samurais, as I hope we'll have for video games. Not all movies are art (we still hav

    • moustachioed villains tie women to railroad tracks while our stalwart hero struggle to rescue her

      I was in that play 2 years ago.... no joke.

      A side-thought I had is that while most video games rely on making the player feel gratification for their actions ("Hooray, I won!"), an "artistic" video game would be one that didn't rely on this as its primary reward mechanism ("I just finished playing The Illiad, and I detested every minute of it. It was great!"). But I'm just talking out of my rump there, and may

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by p0tat03 ( 985078 )

      I would say that *some* (a small minority) of games have already achieved artistic status.

      To me art is about communication in a non-verbal and non-written manner. It expresses the creators thoughts, feelings, and aesthetics. Some games today do this. I'll bring up the example clearest in my mind: Deus Ex.

      While the game is entertaining, and engaging for the player, and there is a clear "winning" aspect to it, I cannot shake the feeling that the game reaches a place where great movies play. It extols the

  • In the Gamasutra article, there was mention of the fact that many people who dismiss video games as an artistic medium do so on the basis they are interactive. Tim Schafer countered with the argument that plays with audience participation are then not art by the same argument. However, it the counter could be even more broad than that. Anyone who has taken a public speaking or communication class, not to mention a literature class would be taught that in any communication, there is no message unless ther

  • Important distinctions. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MaWeiTao ( 908546 ) on Saturday March 17, 2007 @12:25AM (#18383359)
    I think there tends to be a confusion regarding whether or not something qualifies as art. Just because something is artistic doesn't mean it's art. Just because something exudes style doesn't mean it's art. It's the same reason design isn't really art.

    People like to refer to Shadow of Colossus as an example of art. It presents a novel concept, has a unique storyline twist and is certainly artistic in it's art style. But it isn't really art. Why wouldn't God of War, for example, be considered art. That game has plenty of style. It has a story that's arguably more immersive, even if it's a bit contrived.

    To me, something can only qualify as art if the primary motivation behind the creative process was to create art. Certainly there are special conditions, for example when we look back on the work of ancient civilizations. But I think in that case we're so removed from the culture that work is being viewed out of its original context, with a sense of detachment. In that case we're free to create our own impressions.

    However, with nearly all games and movies what is the overriding motivation for creation? Money, perhaps to tell a story, to provide an entertaining experience. The creation of art isn't the driving force. Artistic concepts and creative design are simply a part of that process.

    There are the rare occasion where a movie or game could become art in it's own right. But that's due to the artistic passion behind the creative process but more importantly to the fact that the subject or presentation is so compelling it's transcended the medium. But that's exceedingly rare. It's not something that can be made to happen. I can think of one game that may qualify, Out of this World.

    Interestingly, although the story for that game was interesting. I think it was a number of other factors that make it qualify as art. There seems to be this notion, however, that somehow for a game or movie to qualify as art it requires a deep, complex story. There are art movies out there that consist of nothing but random images. Hell, there is art out there based on little more than mathematical computations.

    Perhaps some people believe that if games are taken more seriously they can attract a higher caliber of writers. The problem is that from a business standpoint it's irrelevant. The most important aspect of any game is gameplay. Second to that is probably immersion which is why graphics and audio are important. Story may enhance the game, but it isn't really important because in most cases once gameplay and story can't really coexist. Gameplay has to be interrupted to tell the story. Probably the only exception is adventure games, and to a lesser extent RPGs. Unfortunately not many developers seem interested in creating adventure games.

    That's an important point. A quality story can sell a movie, and can sell a book even more effectively. A good story might help a game, but it isn't really crucial. So why would developers bother spending money that could be invested elsewhere. And the reality is that there really aren't that many good writers. Like anything else, the best ones are likely to go where the money is and where there's a greater chance of prominence. So inevitably, many game stories come off as amateurish.

    That's all irrelevant anyway. Games are an important part of culture. Games serve their own function and I don't think what works for movies or books will ever work as effectively in games. It's a different medium with a completely different kind of involvement on the part of the person being entertained.

    I haven't seen anyone mention this yet, but 300 is based on a graphic novel. Which in turn was based on a movie. Which in turn was based on embellished stories regarding a historical event. It's not that the movie is game-like at all. It's that it's a stylized, simplified comic-book like story.

    • I think there tends to be a confusion regarding whether or not something qualifies as art. Just because something is artistic doesn't mean it's art. Just because something exudes style doesn't mean it's art. It's the same reason design isn't really art.

      And this reason is ?...

      To me, something can only qualify as art if the primary motivation behind the creative process was to create art.

      The primary motivation behind creating most things that are commonly considered art - Mona Lisa, for example - was

      • The primary motivation behind creating most things that are commonly considered art - Mona Lisa, for example - was the artist's desire to get money for food. Besides, your assertation means that "art" is actually a nonsensical concept; it is not a quality of the thing in question, nor the effect it has on viewer, and in fact cannot be determined without cross-examining the creator.

        First of all... It's been suggested that Da Vinci produced a number of variations of the Mona Lisa. Meaning an on-going creative

        • First of all... It's been suggested that Da Vinci produced a number of variations of the Mona Lisa. Meaning an on-going creative process not purely motivated by income.

          Produce a piece of crap painting and you won't get paid, nor will you get any further commissions, so striving to do good work hardly disqualifies the profit motive. Besides, games don't just appear fully formed on their creator's minds, but are often changed before and during production.

          Secondly, even if he were commissioned to produce

    • Art is subjective. Motivation isn't the only justifcation for calling something are. The collected works of shakespeare were created likely soley for the sake of money. Shakespeare plagarized ideas from others but he was good at it. It's like Zack Snyder and his remake of dawn of the dead. Art is a retroactive label on things we find pleasing or having some merit.

    • Just because something exudes style doesn't mean it's art. It's the same reason design isn't really art.
      I disagree. If that's true, then architecture is excluded. The architecture of Gothic cathedrals in Europe were designed to evoke the power of god in church-goers. That doesn't have artistic merit? Or does someone have to draw a picture of the architecture for it to be associated with art?
    • So, your definition of art is that which is produced when the primary goal is to create art, or something artistic which is very well made? Sounds a bit recursive... Also, you failed to define "artistic" as it differs from "art".

  • 300 -is- built like a VG. (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    "What "300" does share with most videogames are the digital effects that created the backgrounds, action sequences and, yes, blood. But it's fundamentally wrong to suggest that "300" structurally resembles a game."

    And he is fundamentally wrong.

    Having played a videogame or two, I know the VG structure when I see it, and 300, the movie, structurally resembles a game.

    VGs work like this. You are the hero. You are fearless. You have just enough backstory to get into the action. And then there's action action
  • I think that the real issue isn't so much that video games are art. Any dimwit can argue that anything created is art. Usually the only requirement is some kind of human interaction. We don't say that a mountain view is 'Art' because it wasn't created by a human (or arguably, an animal of some kind... but that's another discussion)

    The real question here is whether Video Games belong to a much more exclusive category known as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_culture [wikipedia.org] High Culture.

    Movies have only very recen

  • (As posted to my blog [rulez.org])

    A couple of weeks ago, I bought Psychonauts for the PS2, conviced by NoobToob [noobtoob.com], and the fact that it's written by Tim Schäfer (man, did I love Day of the Tentacle) that it's going to be a great game with clever humour. So I started it up with great anticipation, and was soon disappointed. While it delivered on the humour front, as a game, it was a pain in the ass to play, due to unbearable loading times and frequent fra

  • When photography first began to emerge in the 19th century some artists criticized it as not being a true form of art. Critics said it could never compare to oil painting or sculptures.
  • .. to quote TV critic Charlie Brooker is that 'It's okay for film buffs to chunter away about that bit of camera work or this evocation of the measles scene or for food buffs to detail their year long quest for the perfect balsamic vinegar. But anyone who discusses videogames in any detail whatsoever is automatically branded a sad spoddy nerdo geek virgin with the cultural sensibilities of a spoon.'
  • I challenge anyone who knows what they're talking about (as in, have taken art history, and art philosophy courses)
    to define art.

    There are dozens of great philosophers from Danto, Dickie, Tolstoy, etc. who have tried to define it -- and failed.

    The art world has done everything it can to break down boundaries of what can be called "Art" and the reality
    is that NOTHING (yes, nothing) that exists today cannot be considered an artistic medium or statement.
    (That includes bodily fluids, lights, video, noise, dance

Slashdot Top Deals

The use of anthropomorphic terminology when dealing with computing systems is a symptom of professional immaturity. -- Edsger Dijkstra

Close