Current Events > How can anyone seriously try to claim that video games aren't art?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Video games encompass many aspects of things that are generally considered art without question. Games have visual design, music and sound, storytelling, and so forth. For a good game, not only do these elements have to stand on their own, they must be woven together effectively. Now Im not trying to claim that many games are high art or anything like that. But when paintings, music, and literature are considered to be works of art, how could you logically disqualify video games?
---

I'm especially fond of a lot of indies in this regard, especially when it's made by a very small team, or even one person. Dust - An Elysian Tail is a great example of this, great metroidvania style game, but everything about it was incredibly beautiful and hand created.

It is absolutely art, anyone saying otherwise is likely ignorant or hateful towards gaming in general.
---

When people ask if games can be art they're referring to whether videogames can stand with the same importance as other works in artistic canons like literature.
---

Doe posted...

When people ask if games can be art they're referring to whether videogames can stand with the same importance as other works in artistic canons like literature.

I think time plays a very heavy role in this. Art and literature have been around for literally thousands of years, gaming has not. I think that's how a lot of people can also write it off and turn their noses up at it.
---

Doe posted...

When people ask if games can be art they're referring to whether videogames can stand with the same importance as other works in artistic canons like literature.

yume nikki is as important as any book
---

It's entirely semantics so what's even the point? It's like arguing over whether cheerleading is a sport of rap music is poetry.

For a long part of the lifespan of videogames, they have been pieces of media with simplistic 'artistic' elements like writing and presentation, typically having just enough to facilitate whatever gameplay mechanics the developers want players to waste hours in. There is definitely a stigma to them, but besides that. Most developments that people consider to be milestones in videogames are hardware advancements and software solutions that allow for more objects in gameplay or for better animations and graphical density. Storytelling techniques in videogames are really just taken from existing mediums; at most you may add some QTEs or have branching paths, but these just change what is told (Success or fail, A or B), not how it is told. So even when games are released that are meant to mirror big budget movies with gameplay elements like Detroit: Become Human, or if a visual novel perhaps features a groundbreaking narrative, are we celebrating the success of the videogame as a powerful unique medium, or are we just looking at movies and picture books with extra steps to turn the pages? Where is the artistry unique in making a videogame, and is that artistry something that can tell art enthusiasts something about themselves, the world, or the creator? If not, is the fact that these other artistic elements are packaged together inside a 'videogame' hinder them?
---

The Smithsonian has an exhibit on video games a few years ago. It was pretty cool.

Also reminder that Metal Gear Solid 2 was featured in that exhibit and is credited as being the first Post-Modern Video Game <_<

Anyways, video games can achieve art status, but thats usually not what the developers are going for. Its like asking why people dont consider Catan or Scrabble as art.

To the post above mine, Id argue games like MGS2 and Doki Doki Literature Club only fully work as video games. So we see examples of what the medium can do already.
---

Doe posted...

For a long part of the lifespan of videogames, they have been pieces of media with simplistic 'artistic' elements like writing and presentation, typically having just enough to facilitate whatever gameplay mechanics the developers want players to waste hours in. There is definitely a stigma to them, but besides that. Most developments that people consider to be milestones in videogames are hardware advancements and software solutions that allow for more objects in gameplay or for better animations and graphical density. Storytelling techniques in videogames are really just taken from existing mediums; at most you may add some QTEs or have branching paths, but these just change what is told (Success or fail, A or B), not how it is told. So even when games are released that are meant to mirror big budget movies with gameplay elements like Detroit: Become Human, or if a visual novel perhaps features a groundbreaking narrative, are we celebrating the success of the videogame as a powerful unique medium, or are we just looking at movies and picture books with extra steps to turn the pages? Where is the artistry unique in making a videogame, and is that artistry something that can tell art enthusiasts something about themselves, the world, or the creator? If not, is the fact that these other artistic elements are packaged together inside a 'videogame' hinder them?

Paragraphs

do you understand

the enter key

do you understand

I never said I was an artist
---

Hardly any games make an artistic statement through gameplay. The only one I've played that delivered on that is Brothers and most gamers would say that it's a shallow gameplay experience.
---

0AbsoluteZero0 posted...

are high art or anything like that

your high art IS WEAK AND INFERIOR COMPARED TO MY OWN

...oh that's probably why