80°

Is it just a game? Or is it art?

Video games have become complex cultural artifacts. A new book says it’s time we found a language to talk about them.

Read Full Story >>
theglobeandmail.com
SOAD5069d ago

Are sculptures just chiseled rock?

Are paintings just messy, white canvas?

What makes films and paintings, and drawings, and photographs, and sculptures, and books art but somehow eludes the gaming medium?

I see developers envisioning characters and creating worlds to house them and creating the stories and the physics and emotions and packaging it an experience, and yet there efforts are sneered at by film critics who don't play games.

jolly, you've said some slimy things in your day, but saying that games are just games and not art is the slimiest thing you've said.

rockleex5069d ago (Edited 5069d ago )

A game designer creates a world for you to take part in, experience, and figure out for ourselves.

What we take from each of those experiences is unique to each and everyone of us.

Dramscus5069d ago (Edited 5069d ago )

Making games is an art form. Games are art.
They are a creative visual multi format medium for communicating thoughts and ideas.

EvilTwin5069d ago (Edited 5069d ago )

VideoGAMES. What sets them apart is the "game" part. They're interactive.

You watch movies. You observe a painting. You listen to music. You certainly internalize some meaning from them...but you don't reach through the White Album and move George's fingers, or take Puzo's place and change a scene in Godfather, or move things around in a Renoir.

It's easy to make a case for games like Okami or Odin Sphere or Muramasa to be at least "part art." And I'd actually use that term for ALL games. You have to create art to base your game on to begin with.

But what sets gaming apart is the GAME part of the equation, and there's a reason people don't call Monopoly or basketball art.

All IMHO, of course.

Gr815069d ago

Don't get this obsession with why some people want videogames to be considered art or not. I don't really give a damn myself lol. If the games fun its fun if not its not. There's certainly a craft to creating a great game and it requires many skills.

But you hit the nail on the head; videogames are interactive where movies or books or paintings, are not. Prime has beautiful art direction, muramasa, Twilight Princess, Shadow of the Colussus beautiful art direction, but these are all interactive entertainment, with elements of art within them.

IMO at least.

EvilTwin5069d ago (Edited 5069d ago )

Precisely. There's elements of art within videogames (which are, of cousre, interactive entertainment).

People think it's insulting to call them "games," as if that's demeaning. So therefore, they must be "art." The things is, the best videogames aren't one or the other; they contain elements of both. I happen to think the best games lean more heavily on being GAMES, though. I have to want to play them and interact with the world laid out on that disc.

Prime is an absolutely PERFECT example. I literally just got done beating Meta-Ridley. I was artifact hunting before, and just in awe of the world design and the puzzles I had to solve. Switched on cable, and the tail end of "There Will Be Blood" was on, and I was in awe of Daniel Day-Lewis. But in a very different way. I was a passive observer, taking in his performance ("DRAINAGE, ELI!"). I wasn't passive in Prime, I was doing it; taking the game at my own pace, choosing my own paths through Tallon IV, viewing the level architecture from the particular spot I wanted to, beating up Ridley.

If Prime was just something pretty to look at, I wouldn't want to come back and play it. It's gotta be FUN and the interaction has to be there, or else why pop in the disc?

(BTW, PMs still aren't working. Weird.)

SOAD5069d ago

You're creating a definition of art where art must be something you observe rather than something you interact with.

I think that doesn't make any difference because you can just as easily say that videogames are a unique form of art that you CAN interact with.

No one ever said that art was something that had to be observed. No one has the authority to make up that rule. To me, games are art. I can't really say why. But I think that games are sort of a cornucopia of many artistic mediums. They are moving paintings. And the processors inside our consoles and PCs receive our inputs and manipulate these paintings at several frames per second. We control the art. But all that means is that the developers had to take into account every single thing that we could do, so when we shoot something, the developers had to take that into account so that when we do manipulate the screen, it does what we want.

It's interactive art.

anonymouse1113355069d ago

I won't even bother with reading the article

because it's been covered to death already.

games are art depending on your definition of art, as art has never been clearly defined, for me I look at art as something you make dynamically, and by dynamically I mean not making the same thing over and over again like a assembly line fashion.

I look at games as art but not art, I find them to be a collective bundle of art from many different artists participating and creating a collaborative piece, the 3D modeling, programming, character desings, concept art, writing all of that that went into it I can find to be a art that has manifested into a collab called a "game"

The_Firestarter5069d ago

I'm so damn tired of this question already. "Is game art?" "YES!!! STOP FUCKING ASKING!!!" That's how I feel, because that stupid question gets asked over and over and fucking over again. Albeit it's from multiple "journalists" it's just annoying seeing it on N4G time and time again.

STOP FUCKING ASKING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Show all comments (20)
110°

7 Deserving Games That Never Got Backward Compatibility

Backward compatibility works for many games on newer consoles, but titles such as The Simpsons: Hit and Run have been left out.

90°

20 Best Survival Games of All Time

From base building to swinging willies, here are the best survival games around, which include a couple of less than obvious picks.

Read Full Story >>
culturedvultures.com
210°

Microsoft once tried to nab LittleBigPlanet from Sony after a few drinks

It turns out that many moons ago, Microsoft once had its eye on the Sony published LittleBigPlanet series.

Read Full Story >>
eurogamer.net
XiNatsuDragnel2d ago

Microsoft had a good idea but fumbled it again.

Cacabunga1d 13h ago (Edited 1d 13h ago )

Project Spark idea was decent but they quickly gave up ..
LBP was wonderful

ApocalypseShadow2d ago

Microsoft in a nutshell. Always tried to poach Sony employees, games, 3rd party games and devices like the depth camera that was turned into Kinect but was running on PS2 before Xbox 360. Wouldn't be surprised they wanted LBP. Just like they worked behind the scenes pushing the MLB to bring Sony's baseball game to Xbox instead of making their own.
https://www.playstationlife...

They didn't spend years trying to develop their own baseball game. They wanted Sony's game.

They're scum.

Zachmo1821d 12h ago

Microsoft didn't force MLB on Xbox. MLB gave Sony 2 options either go multiplat or risk losing the license.

Rynxie1d 2h ago

And why do you think MLB said that? I believe Ms approached MLB.

ApocalypseShadow1d 1h ago (Edited 1d 1h ago )

Totally ridiculous comment.

The only exclusivity Sony had was to their own creation of The Show. Microsoft could have paid the MLB for the license just like Sony did and made their own baseball game.

Microsoft instead, groomed MLB for years in trying to poach Sony's game and bring it to Xbox. They're worth 3 TRILLION dollars. You think that's not enough money to make their own baseball game? Don't be delusional.

Microsoft spun it like they always do and told the media that they had to trust Sony with their hardware. After they put Sony in that position of not having a choice. Either go multiplatform or stop making one of their successful games. That's a no win scenario.

And what did Microsoft do? They didn't try to sell the game to the Xbox community. They put it on game pass to hurt Sony. Pushing the idea of why buy games that are $70 when you can play them in their cheap service for $10. It was a dirty tactic.

You fell for the Kool aid drink Microsoft served you instead of spitting it out. Hope it tasted good because you were fooled by Phil and the gang.

21h ago
Hereandthere17h ago

Xbox executive Sara Bond has told Axios that Microsoft spent a number of years trying to get MLB The Show onto Xbox consoles. And when it finally succeeded in breaking off PlayStation’s long-held exclusivity, the company had to “trust” Sony with pre-release Xbox Series X/S consoles.

Bond revealed that MLB The Show “always came up” in conversations between Microsoft and the Major League Baseball organization. “We always said, ‘We love this game. It would be a huge opportunity to bring it to Xbox.'” she recalled. However, when Microsoft’s efforts materialized, it put the company in an awkward situation where it had to send in pre-release consoles to a rival company.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 17h ago
Notellin23h ago

"Microsoft instead, groomed MLB for years in trying to poach Sony's game and bring it to Xbox."

Take a nap, conspiracies are rotting your brain.

21h ago
Hereandthere17h ago

Xbox executive Sara Bond has told Axios that Microsoft spent a number of years trying to get MLB The Show onto Xbox consoles. And when it finally succeeded in breaking off PlayStation’s long-held exclusivity, the company had to “trust” Sony with pre-release Xbox Series X/S consoles.

ApocalypseShadow3h ago

Lying to yourself is unbecoming.

Article link tells you all you need to know in Sarah Bond's own words.

Hereandthere17h ago

They were too cheap/inept/lazy to develop their own mlb game, so they port begged for years and bribed the mlb to make the show multiplatform. Like i said many times, xbox brought nothing to the table their 24 years, ZERO.

ApocalypseShadow3h ago

At least you and others get it. Note drank the Kool aid and asked for seconds thinking it was refreshing.

Most don't even know how it all played out but it's there in black and white for all to see. Microsoft brought it up for years until the MLB forced Sony's hand. It was a win win for Microsoft. Kill one reason to buy a PlayStation or kill the game by dropping it in a cheap service to kill Sony's sales numbers on PlayStation.

OtterX1d 15h ago

"However, Healey said Media Molecule wouldn't have felt right doing that, adding it would have been "morally corrupt"."

Major kudos to Media Molecule for being an upright studio with principles.

RNTody1d 15h ago (Edited 1d 15h ago )

Great, more stories like this please. Show the last of the zombies holding the line what we've been saying for years: Microsoft is anti competition, anti industry and has no interest in making games at all.

But hey, at least there's an Xbox Games Showcase to look forward to, right?

Inverno1d 14h ago

Well considering SONY just killed the series, LBP would've been dead by now either way. Though MM probably wouldn't exist by now either, so I'm glad they stayed with SONY, hopefully they don't get shut down any time soon or ever honestly.

Sheppard7t31d 12h ago

How did Sony kill the series?

Inverno1d 12h ago

They shut down the servers, that's millions of user created levels gone. That and dead are pretty much the same, it's also been years since 3 and they cancelled HUB soooo.

21h ago
fsfsxii22h ago

They shutdown the servers because no one was playing, no one in the community cared about the user created levels so why keep them up? Wtf you guys would never succeed in running a business.

Inverno21h ago

Yea dood no one was playing so they shut off the servers. Cause people with enough common sense can't just Google why they were actually shut of, right?

Show all comments (28)