Are Games Art?

Yes, It is the seemingly endless question again!.....

Hey folks!,
I am doing a dissertation on games and how significant Illustration and art is to the industry and gameplay. I have read a few things and many people ask 'Are games Art' in themselves. So, even though game developers roll their eyes at this question, knowing the answer to be yes, I would like your opinions as fans of games like Guildwars.

Do you think games are art?. Perhaps you don't think they are, why not?. And perhaps give a list of games you find to be 'Art' wether it be because of the story or graphics or perhaps its a combination of both?. Maybe you have your own personal top ten of games that you believe are not just something which you tap at keys and click at buttons but have that....something else which is beautiful and inspirational. .

I would be really interested to hear your opinions as it helps me with my project! hehe.

Thanks!
~EB.

I follow a very loose definition of what constitutes art, which I borrowed from Scott McCloud, which is that art is anything you do that does not relate to survival or reproduction. Anything you do just for its own sake. So if a game was made by people with no interest other than to make money to put food on the table, then it isn't art. If they did it solely to impress a coworker they want to date, it isn't art. If along the way they made decisions based not on the bottom line, but on their love of gaming or their enjoyment in making gamers happy or their desire to just make a great game that they are proud of, then it is art.

and based on that theory i would find it very hard to believe that one of the designers for GW would say "lets add a waterfall there....it would make us more money"

Although very compromising in itself, if an artist creates paintings to make money to pay for tuition or something of the sort? you would no longer consider it art? because it was created to make money?

I certainly hope it's art, because otherwise I'm wasting my time.

I think even most artists who do art for a living are still creating art. Because, well, if they didn't want to do it for its own sake, why the !#!@#$# would they bother with a career in something that pays so poorely?

The way the world respects/rewards artists ("what, I can't use images I found on the internet for free?!?! Those artists should draw for love, not for profit, the greedy jerks!" I'm sure you've heard it all), I just don't see it ever being for just money or to pick up chicks/guys.

But I can see people designing games who don't actually care about games, or care about whether they are fun, except that unfun games don't sell. They might not put a waterfall just so because they want to create a kickass environment for players, but simply because their boss told them there needed to be one, and so, err "let's put it here".

Just an opinion of course. It's not an easy thing to define, and I just found that guideline to be the one that my instincts most often agreed with.

Quote: Originally Posted by Foxeye I think even most artists who do art for a living are still creating art. Because, well, if they didn't want to do it for its own sake, why the !#!@#$# would they bother with a career in something that pays so poorely?

The way the world respects/rewards artists ("what, I can't use images I found on the internet for free?!?! Those artists should draw for love, not for profit, the greedy jerks!" I'm sure you've heard it all), I just don't see it ever being for just money or to pick up chicks/guys.

But I can see people designing games who don't actually care about games, or care about whether they are fun, except that unfun games don't sell. They might not put a waterfall just so because they want to create a kickass environment for players, but simply because their boss told them there needed to be one, and so, err "let's put it here".

Just an opinion of course. It's not an easy thing to define, and I just found that guideline to be the one that my instincts most often agreed with. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I see all opinions as interesting. I am a student of a final year course of Illustration who is also interested in the concept art of games. I asked the question myself, and why should they not be art?. There had to be a spark of inspiration to come to the games creation, and that meant that the creator was doing something he/she loved. It is inevitable that we think of money in our jobs and how much we are going to make, that is just survival. And it's just us as human beings.

And I think that the amount of money given to the 'Artist' is just a bonus on top of what they love to do. Wether it be a thousend pounds or dollar's a peice or even ten pounds or dollars. I do Illustration because it's what I love to do and the same would be said if I was a Concept Artist on Guildwars for example. I think the real payment, for me, would be seeing a character I created up on the screen of other's computers, jumping around and battling and all that and the dedication to the character shown on the players face.


Seeing other people 'enjoy' the thing I created would make me happy.

~EB

Concept art is definitely an art!

But game its self as not sure...altough definitely has strong elements like the concept art it self, the story who is done by writers..etc...

I'd say a game is entertainment, but if you disect a game down to it's assets, they are art.

The same thing goes for stuff like tom&jerry or any cartoon, western or eastern. It's primary classification would be as entertainment, but it is an art form in itself. I think the same goes for games.

I don't think I consider the games themselves an art, but more of an art- collaboration. Art is what makes a game come alive, and I'm not talking about concept art alone. I'm talking about everything important in a good game, concept art, the musical score, the script, the voiceactors. All are absolutely invaluable to a good game. (admitted, some fps games don't need their voiceactors to be exceptionally good in order to make a good game, but they're the minority)

Games definitely involve art. One of the best things about games is the fact that there are several faces behind the characters, the textures, the weapons, the scenery that all came together to create them. I wouldn't necessarily call games an art in itself, but rather it wouldn't be much without the art, as well as it wouldn't be much without the coding. I used to hop mmorpg games constantly back in the day, only to find they were displeasing in the development and support department. (so I can't comment on other games)

However, Guild Wars has a lot of intricate, aesthetically pleasing art all over it. Even the stuff you take advantage of in game play. You would definitely notice if they were gone. Even the musical compositions are beautiful. It all fits into the beautiful world of Guild Wars. And to try and compare to to simpler things... It's like comparing an outfit that common people wear to what movie stars and singers wear. GW contains quality art that still maintains the fantasy-like qualities along with making the characters and monsters/scenery convincing to the eyes -- Even when you know that ginormous worms don't really exist and pop up from the ground to eat you and your little dog too.

Though, I might be slightly biased. I'm in love with Daniel Dociu's artwork. D: (Art director for GW)

My answer would vary depending on the type of game.

MMO's:

I would argue that games in and of them selves are not art, but rather a medium/method for the convergence of many art forms. We have:

• Graphic concept artists
• Storyboard writers
• Graphic Design Artists
• Voice Acting
• Musical scores

A video game simply wouldn't be a video game by today's standards without all of the elements. Each must compliment the other, constraining their art to fit within the scope of the project.

Your question: "Is a video game art", is very much like asking "is the internet art". While the internet can deliver art in many forms, it is not art it's self.

The defining characteristic of art in my opinion, are the ideas or emotions conveyed. Unlike a painting, poem, song or sketch, a video game must be interactive. It must respond to the viewer, changing and adapting to their commands. This makes it difficult to strictly convey any idea. While you could argue that art is experienced differently by each person, in more traditional forms, those people are at least viewing the same thing, only interpreting it differently. There is little guarantee in a video game that one user will see the same things as another. This leads the game to be emotionally benign. Sure they throw in the dramatic cut scene every once in a while, but the really striking aspects of play often occur in unscripted areas, in experiences shared with other people.

*EDIT
I just reread the previous posts, and it looks like Rainbird beat me to that point. Nice post.

RPG's

These games are designed to tell a specific story. Players share the same experience. These, I would consider art.

One example (and I know it's likely been mentioned a million times) is Final Fantasy 7. The authors took an interesting approach, taking an age old "Japanese Game" stereotype, and flipping it around to take the player by surprise, while telling an original story. Even given the terrible dialog and sketchy, often incoherent sub-plots, they managed to tell a story that really effected people.

Let's examine the "Japanese Game" stereotype. It's one we're all familiar with, and has been so "done to death" it's the constant target of mockery and parody.

Our protagonist is a young boy with exceptional talents, yet is overwhelmed with his insecurities. Because of this, he is an outcast, antisocial by choice. Self reliant, and avoids any situation where others would rely on him.

His current circumstances lead him to a group he reluctantly joins, for mutual benifit, yet he remains socially detached from them. By virtue of his exceptional skill and talent, he becomes the unofficial leader in the eyes of the group, however he deny's this to him self and would rather go-it-alone than ask for help.

Enter the young girl. She needs protecting, and her fate becomes intertwined with that of the group. He saves her from the world, while she coaxes him out of his shell. Imbued with a new sense of purpose and camaraderie, he rises to lead the team against a threat to the world and is victorious.

You could make a mile long list of games, comics and anime cartoons that follow that plot to the letter.

Now let's examine the FF7 plot

Young outcast boy reluctantly joins a group, meets the girl, and is ready to put his insecurities to rest. You're now between 20-30 hours into the game, you know the characters, you know the story, gotta be close to your happy ending, right?

As he and the team face off with the villan, the young girl he protects is cut down in cold blood. Dead. Our hero begins on a steep downward spiral of depression and rage. He shuts out his team, and is consumed by his misery. When the final conflict is at hand, a force greater than himself claims victory over the villan, making his efforts all but moot. Though victorious by default, half the world lies in ruin, and it has cost him everything he's even known or loved.

Yeah, a bit of a departure from what people expected. The story shocked so many people, it spurred a huge reaction from the players, who through virtue of their time spent in the game had grown to love the characters, only to watch them die. In spite of the games many flaws, it conveyed a great story. It transcended basic mechanics and touched people. That qualifies as art.

Quote: Originally Posted by Vlatro We have:

• Graphic concept artists
• Storyboard writers
• Graphic Design Artists
• Voice Acting
• Musical scores Don't forget the programmers! A clever piece of program code can be considered art, too!

Heh, in the end the question "are games art?" boils down to "what is art?". And as you're undoubtly aware, the answer to that question is highly subjective. What is it, that makes art "art"? I've seen a picture once of a "sculpture" that was nothing but a turned over chair. That's art because the sculptor said so and someone agreed to it and put it in a museum.

Are popular entertainment media like movies, music and video games still art, despite all capitalism? Did Frank Sinatra make art? How about Britney Spears? (That was a rethorical question, please don't derail the thread by answering it )

My opinion is, while I wouldn't agree to a blanket statement like "games are art", most games at least have at least some art to it. As soon as creativity is involved you're dangerously close to art. And creativity you'll find with even the cheapest fast-food production, that's made entirely from a construction kit. Certainly, for those the amount isn't very high, though.

But then there are also really beautifully designed games, that can be considered a pice of art in their entirety. Putting those classical components of art, that were mentioned before by others, together in a way that makes a sound whole, can be art, too.

I'll compare a video game to a movie: Not only the actors are artists and the composer/musicians, sound editors, special-effect people, etc., but also the director, art director, production designer, heck, even the producer can be an artist, depending on how he does his job! If all this is put together well, it will make the movie a pice of art, not only the acting, the score or the costumes. Same goes for a game.