Alatar wrote:I enjoy it more for its connection to Tolkien than for its quality as a game. There is no question that World of Warcraft is a far superior game, but I don't get to travel through Middle Earth in WoW! Also, in my personal experience, the online community in LotRO are much more friendly and helpful than in WoW.
So many reasons really. The game engine is superior, the art style is superior, it's absolutely rock solid in performance and its also much bigger, more detailed and with far more variety.
In LotRO you spend most of your time killing the same orc models at level 85 that you were killing at 15, just with different stats. The problem is that there just isn't the same variety of monsters available in Middle Earth without completely forsaking Canon. And even then, a whole area with dangerous turtles? Seriously?
I agree with a lot of that, barring the art style. That is very subjective. I hate the OTT fantasy style of WoW, and much prefer the more realistic designs in LOTRO. Though the Turbine team is a bit deficient in laying out landscapes, making even wide expansive places seem claustrophobic...
The Interactive Canvas, a book on the artistic merit of games
If you enjoy your games, it’s probably not a stretch for you to think of games as art, but what makes them so? And what goes into them? A new book hopes to discuss this with some of the industry’s most acclaimed creative developers.
Author Matthew Sainsbury has launched a Kickstarter for The Interactive Canvas: Gaming Artists, a deluxe hardcover book which will explore the artistic merit of the medium.
The project already has some big industry names attached to contribute their thoughts, including Jonathan Blow (Braid, The Witness), American McGee (American McGee’s Alice), Dan Pinchbeck of The Chinese Room (Dear Esther, Amnesia: A Machine for Pigs) and Konrad Tomaszkiewicz, of CD Projekt Red (The Witcher). The author also hints at other contributors to be revealed if the project is successful.
Different reward tiers offer digital or physical versions of the book (or both), limited edition signed copies, and the chance to contribute to its direction yourself.
This line is IMO the best analogy I've seen for how I view this:
"It's as if an art gallery curator constructed a very long obstacle course with the art you came to see sprinkled throughout it."
Except that when I do play games (which is very rare these days but...), I almost always come for the obstacle course and the "art" is that thing that interrupts it occasionally.
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
In my opinion, the article is a mess and perfectly aligns with so many other articles these days which talk about the boundaries of art. In our postmodern era, the meaning of art, its (degree of) importance to society and the personal relationship to it have become ambiguous to say the least. To talk about art intelligently requires more than a modicum of intellect and knowledge, things which the author does not reveal in the linked essay (the same is not true for yov, of course!).
As someone who has played video games for nearly twenty years, I can safely say that video games are often art. The problem here, as always, is that some people cling to outdated, narrow definitions of art (definitions which they – as the epigones of a bygone age – themselves not grasp) – and with that I do not necessarily mean people who reject video games but those who only see good art as true art. Most video games are mediocre, bad, and/or shallow art but still, they contain that fuzzy thing called art (the same is true for books, films, music, etc.).
Alatar, I played two Quantic Dream games, “Heavy Rain” and “Beyond: Two Souls”. Heavy Rain was a great experience, more of an interactive drama than a video game but I enjoyed it immensely nonetheless. The game was filled with a sense of urgency and finality that many more games should strive for. Yes, the script was occasionally cringeworthy and the big twist felt a little bit contrived but I had really sweaty palms when I was pressing all those QTEs. “Beyond: Two Souls”, a game which I just replayed (do not ask me why), was, alas, a huge letdown. Rain’s excitement factor was gone as soon as you realized that the main character could not die (until the end); and the story/script, oh the story, was such a big pile of horrible clichés (favorite line: “I’ve piloted a sub like this on the CIA simulator.”). The problem with Quantic Dream’s games is that while it would be totally acceptable for some “games” to cut down on the gaming aspect for the sake of the narrative, said narrative would have to deliver. With “Beyond” it did not.
As a I have not acquired a current-generation console yet, I can only talk about last-generation games, but I would say the best (and therefore nearly always the most artful) games were the Uncharted Series, GTA IV, Red Dead Redemption, Max Payne 3, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare (yes, sue me!), Arkham Series, Heavy Rain, and Assassin’s Creed II, with Red Dead ranking on top.
yov, just out of curiosity, what are your favorite games? And what games would you consider artful?
PS: The games I listed above are just the games I played on the last console generation and which in my opinion can be considered good/above average art. I have played many other video games (on PC and otherwise) too.
Beutlin wrote:As someone who has played video games for nearly twenty years, I can safely say that video games are often art. The problem here, as always, is that some people cling to outdated, narrow definitions of art (definitions which they – as the epigones of a bygone age – themselves not grasp) – and with that I do not necessarily mean people who reject video games but those who only see good art as true art. Most video games are mediocre, bad, and/or shallow art but still, they contain that fuzzy thing called art (the same is true for books, films, music, etc.).
My thing is, the thing that defines games as games, as opposed to another medium, rarely any hint of even the intent of "artistry". And the thing that makes most games games is, to put it broadly, the "obstacle course". Say what you will about the broadening definitions of art, obstacle courses for their own sake are not gonna be viewed as art by near anyone. You can, of course, put all kinds of artistic things around the obstacle course, but that in an of itself isn't going to make climbing and crawling through the course "art". And IMO it is very fair to say that the vast majority of games that are called art are actually obstacle courses with art around them. There are a few exceptions such as Heavy Rain's "is it a game or an interactive film" idea, but they are the exceptions.
And that's okay! I think part of what bugs me about the debate is that by calling games art, it feels like we're trying to justify to others our enjoyment of the medium by calling it art. I say that it is okay, even great, for adults to play for the sake of play. Play and art are separate things, valuable for separate reasons, and you can play Mozart in the background while you play cards or chess or tennis or Tetris or Halo all you want, it doesn't somehow transform play into art.
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
I think to say that what defines games is “the obstacle course” is a tad too simple. After all, one might - along the same lines – say that what defines movies is “moving pictures”, and therefore anything else (characters, music, dialogues, etc.) is something else “around” the moving pictures. Therefore movies for their own sake are “artless”, and the art is only introduced through true forms of art such as theatre, music, or photography.
Surely, you are right that an obstacle course/a game of tennis hardly qualifies as art if you just play some classical music in the background. But it would be wholeheartedly unfair to compare this to a modern video game such as “The Last of Us”. A good video game in the year 2015 is not just an obstacle course mixed up with some thoughtless background music; it is a blending of interaction, learning, storytelling, music, cinematography, acting, all at once. An artwork (especially when it comes to good or great art) is more than the sum of its parts, or for that matter one part.
Now, I agree with you that gamers can be pretty defensive about their hobby. I would disagree with you however that calling games art is just a justification argument. I have never met a gamer in my (real and virtual) life that justifies his hobby by calling it art.
I have never played it so I have no idea if that's true or not but I wanted to accept your challenge.
Nah, as I said above "There are a few exceptions such as Heavy Rain's "is it a game or an interactive film" idea, but they are the exceptions." I'm sure I'd count Journey amongst those exceptions. That doesn't change my view of what the vast majority of video games are.
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
Hmmm. Perhaps what I would say is: film making is an art form, though not all films are art, while video game making is not an art form, but some games manage to be art. Perhaps....
ETA - Perhaps a better way of saying that - almost anything generally considered a great movie would be considered good art but IMO being a great video games rarely means it is also good art (though they may contain some good art).
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
Nope. Can't agree with a blanket statement like that. Unless you define "art" very very narrowly. Also may great movies would not be considered art. But this is so incredibly subjective I really can't see how it can be seriously discussed. Some of the stuff that passes for art in galleries is FAR less artistic than 90% of games. Does that mean its not art?
It a has-a vs. is-a distinction. I think there's general agreement that stories can be art and that visuals can be art. Games can have stories and games can have visuals, but it's not exactly true that a game is a story, or that it is its visuals. So in that sense, a game is a container for art, more like a gallery than a painting. But I'd say that an art gallery can itself rise to the level of art in the way that it presents its contents and arranges your experience. And in that sense, a game can be art too.
Which would be akin to the gallery-itself-as-art, as Dave points out and I agree, they can be. But generally speaking, one doesn't say that galleries are art and few would consider them as such outside of those very consciously making the effort to be art.
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
