Are videogmes becomin as, if not more, important than film?
“Doesn’t the level of control inherent in the video game experience directly oppose the kind of experience art, or at least great art, provides? "
Yes, this is fundamental. and the gamers don’t want to address it. I’m willing to be disabused of my old-fashioned values, but I believe that art requires an aesethetic distance and an ability for reflective contemplation that is just not part of the video game experience.
I don’t see how anyone can argue a Halo or a Call of Duty game is art, but just like you have your mindless action FILMS, there are mindless action GAMES. And just like there are FILMS that are beautiful pieces of raw intellectual/emotional power, there are GAMES that are these as well. To use your own analogy.
I’m sure the games most people are playing are not “Art”. But just like in film, if you dig a little deeper, you might be surprised at the marvels you uncover.
It’s not a case of interactivity getting in the way, that’s just a bunch of intellectual theory bullshit spat by people who have next to no experience with video games (Roger Ebert touted the exact same argument), it’s a case of game designers either:
A) using language that is not appropriate to video games, and then not meshing with the interactivity.
or, more often,
B) these game designers simply having no notion of being artists at all. By and large they aren’t trying to create great art. The industry is not geared toward this format.
Seth, what me and Jon Jost and Ari and a a few other people in this thread are saying is that playing video games is more like playing a sport than like experiencing a work of art. How is playing a video game, any video game, different from playing pool or football? Aren’t these experiences all rooted in the players ability to affect and control the action rather than to reflect on the action. At least you must admit that video games have an aspect that is unlike any other medium. It’s this aspect that i’m having trouble with. It’s not how it looks or what it’s about. If you take Late Spring and gamify it, allowing me to change the continuity or use my skills to affect whether the girl ends up following tradition or not, it may be interesting game play, or not, but it won’t be art because I’m not grappling with my perceptions of a film, i’m just playing.
I’m perfectly aware of your stance. I’m also perfectly aware those so-called “sports” games, such as multiplayer first person shooters. I’m personally not really into those kinds of games, but I can see why people enjoy them; they’re more about the social fun of getting together with friends.
Much could be said about competitive video games and how they compare to other types of games. They often require dexterity of players similar to an athletes (though it goes without saying that gamers need no athletic ability whatsoever, the similarity is more along the lines of muscle memory, reaction time, etc.), and yet they just as often require strategy and mastery of rules much like table top games. Most people who play video games play them for the same reasons people in the past have played chess or Dungeons & Dragons. Is chess art? Doubtful, but that doesn’t really matter; chess is a wonderful game that offers players an experience that can’t be replicated elsewhere. That intensity, that connection between opponents, is totally unique to the game of chess.
However, this is not the issue you are interested in. You want to know why video games are or can be art. The issue, again, is narrative. In the thirty or so years that video games have been around, somewhere along the line stories were introduced, first as no more than simple contexts or settings for the player (the first game to do this was, at least in my book, Missile Command) until now where we have game designers and gamers craving storytelling comparable to that of films or novels.
It is fair, I think, to place you and others of like minds from this thread into this camp. The problem, as you brought up, is interactivity. How much control should the player have over the narrative? This is where people start to wildly disagree. Some people basically want video game stories to function as choose your own adventure novels. Others want character A.I. so advanced that it can realistically (organically, to use the word) respond to player input. But, as you also brought up, even if these types of media were to come about (exciting as they may be) there is the grave issue of creator expression. Correct me if I’m wrong, but your argument is, essentially: how can something interactive and player-driven ever be artistic if creator expression is nonexistent?
I elaborated on this several posts ago, but it seems to have gone ignored:
Actually, it was John Carmak who said that stories in video games are like stories in pornos, and concerning the vast majority of video games I don’t think anyone will disagree. Not to mention that Shigesato Itoi, the writer of the Mother series (which is needless to say one of the single most “literary” examples of video games) likens video games to prostitutes, and even Kojima infamously proclaiming that games are inherently NOT art and can never be, because are in reality have almost nothing to do with an expressed vision and almost everything to do with services to the player (though he does attest that they are undoubtedly important aspects of culture). Same idea. So, anyway, while some video games aspire to and achieve classic storytelling methods, the vast majority of them fall into that “service” category.
The pointed answer to your query, Mike, is that what you are looking for in video games simply doesn’t exist. Sure, there are probably a select few games out there that might satisfy your requirements of artistic credibility or whatever (like I brought up several times, adventure games are the best candidates since they usually have strong narratives with sharp writing, whose stories are NOT affected by player consequence and, much like films, act more like rides), but if you are hoping to be convinced that video games fit your standards or critera for art, I’ll tell you right now that it isn’t going to happen. It’s evident that where video games are right now as far as narrative/expressed vision is concerned cuts it for some (such as Axelumog), but not for you.
Honestly, it doesn’t cut it for me, either, but then again I don’t play video games for stories, and I couldn’t care less about their status as “art.” What the dilemma boils down to is whether you’re OK with paying a prostitute for her services or not.
If we do want video games to reach this hypothetical artistic nirvana, then what must take place is a complete reevaluation of what gamers, non-gamers, and designers want to get out of the medium.
Needless to say, that isn’t going to happen in this thread.
It just depends on what you’re looking for. Like I said, I personally don’t play video games for the “game” aspects, anything even close to the “gameplay” side doesn’t concern me at all. I play games to experience the story being told, for the “movie” side of games.
For me, a good game is one with loads and loads of cut scenes, some gorgeous FMVs, and some quality music. That’s why I like Square-Enix.
So it’s not really fair to say that just because a game has an interactive element that it’s suddenly disqualified. It’s more like the gameplay is there but all it really does is pace out the cut scenes, pace out the story.
If you can wrap your mind around it, it’s more like a 40 hour movie, paced out with some filler “gameplay”, that ultimately is completely irrelevant and inconsequential.
Axelumog, what do you think of Dragon Quest?
I tried to play I think it was Dragon Quest VIII, but I couldn’t get into it. The “lighter” characters/story, DBZ designs, and a little too much focus on dungeon crawling and not enough story, VA’d cutscenes, ect…. kinda turned me off. Seemed more like Zelda less like FF.
BUT I only played it through like the first dungeon and gave up, so they could have “turned it on” and I just didn’t give it enough of a shot.
In my opinion, Square-enix doesn’t really make any great games, it was better when there was a war between Squaresoft and Enix, they made some wonderful rpgs mostly on the supernes and the psone and few great ones on the ps2.
Your right. Squaresoft was their golden era. They DID make wonderful games.
Well, Square doesn’t really exist anymore. They were gobbled up by Enix and now Final Fantasy, Kingdom Hearts, etc. only exist to fund Enix’s baby, Dragon Quest. Remember Final Fantasy X-2? Square would never release something like that, but as soon as they merged, Enix took full advantage of the fanboys.
I personally don’t mind since Dragon Quest VIII and IX are, as far as I’m concerned, brilliant.
I just don’t understand this comment, though:
Seemed more like Zelda less like FF.
It’s neither; it’s DQ.
But I can see why wou wouldn’t like that series, since you’ve already stated that you’re a big fan of the “operatic” style of FF, and DQ is more about a personal journey.
Yep completely right, Square is in the name only now. In news that I read just a few days ago FF XIII-2 has just been announced surprise. I have NO interest whatsoever in even owning the initial instalment.
Well for me it’s less about blindly following a company or an “era”, and more about getting specific and following actual people, much like film and directors.
And for me, Square AND Square-Enix are about 4 talented individuals: Tetsuya Nomura, Kazushige Nojima, Yoshinori Kitase, and Yasumi Matsuno. Nomura is currently working on Kingdom Hearts and Versus Thirteen (which looks to be amazing), and Matsuno is working on a rerelease of his Tactics Ogre which comes out next month.
For those who don’t know, Matsuno is largely responsible for Final Fantasy Tactics, and a little bit of Final Fantasy XII.
Nomura, Kitase, and Nojima are largely the creatives behind FF VII, VIII, X, and Kitase produced FF XIII, but I suspect Nomura had little to do with XIII beyond character design as he was busy with Kingdom Hearts and Versus. Whereas I know Nomura directed the intro of FF VIII, helped develop the story of FFX, and obviously directs every Kingdom Hearts. (Nomura apparently always does the back story of any character he designs, but for FFX he received an actual story credit.)
So IMO just saying “I liked square and not square-enix” doesn’t really mean anything, that’s like saying you like Warner Bros over Universal. It’s about the individual creative talents, obviously.
I too follow people Axel but I worked out that I can no longer do that with Square. These great minds no longer effect the machine. They need a great team behind them. The great team is no longer there. That’s what it is. I don’t care about the administration, I care about the developers.
^ That logic could apply to FF13 (and FF12). As we see sometimes in big budget film productions, vision tends to gets lost in the colossal and massive process. Especially when we’re considering games of their scope, the bigger the production, the more cogs, larger pressure, deadlines and expectations.
but i do not believe this is a hard truth that should persuade you from giving up entirely.
Certainly, the Final Fantasy series has had some major blows, but I do believe that all the creative forces that matter are still in the “game” and that the potential is still there for them to make another remarkable work in the future.
I mean if you equate a “team” to a “crew”, certainly they are an important element, but at the end of the day just like a “film machine” it’s still usually one creative person trying to get their specific vision realized.
Now like Tonda you could argue it is harder in video games because the “crews” are bigger, the stakes are higher, more money more people more pressure bla bla bla. Sure, it’s hard. But people do it, people are doing it. Just like it’s hard to make a good movie through the studio system, and yet this happens.
.
if you think anyone gives a shit about getting across a vision with Final Fantasy youmre in for a rude awakening. Yeah, ok, you can tell a Nomura game apart from others because of all the zippers. How artsy! Let’s not kid ourselves; any credibility FF had left along with Sakaguchi. How you can go on about the importance the individual over the dev team and not even mention him only shows how little you know what you’re talking about.
Well that’s just like, your opinion man… and in MY opinion, Nomura is masterful artist, and his art goes much deeper than just his character designs… which I think are brilliant. And Sakaguchi on the other hand, is a no talent hack and when square gave him the boot it was the best decision they ever made, which coincidentally is why I neglected to mention him.
You want to know what Sakaguchi is all about? Go watch Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, that’ll tell you all you need to know.
To each their own, clearly.
Lol, that movie. Sure as fuck beats Advent Children. THANKS NOMURA
I actually enjoy advent children, I think the action in that film is unparalleled, it’s the only time I’ve ever seen action that’s close to what I imagine in my mind.
Now, don’t get me wrong, Advent Children is NO masterpiece… it’s an all right film at best. However, to me, it’s a far, far cry from the utter pile of trash that is “The Spirits Within.” The Spirits Within, you know, that colossal failure of a project that almost bankrupt square, back when they were square, by the way. “Thanks Sakaguchi”
I enjoyed Dragon Quest IX for the DS quite a bit. The narrative is a little weak but that’s expected since the game must also work with a deep customization system. Honestly I haven’t played any other DQ game…any suggestions on which ones to play?
FFVII is absolutely my favorite rpg (sorry) but III and VI are very close second and third. I really didn’t like VIII at all…
“Yes, but then the posts you link to make me think that Silent Hill 2 is the aesthetic and narrative equivalent of a Uwe Boll film.” – Ari
The above quote is pretty common among those that oppose the notion of video games as art. You’re willing to say that they can’t be art, but unwilling to even try the titles that are offered up by those that play regularly and think of them as art. Whether Silent Hill 2 is or isn’t the equivalent of an Uwe Boll film is beside the point. You cannot judge something sight unseen. This rule applies to film criticism as well. You can say that you’re not interested in seeing MOVIE X, but you can’t have any claims about the quality of MOVIE X’s content until you’ve bothered to see it.
@Dimitris – If Silent Hill 2 is so bad, why aren’t you using your time to see the latest masterpiece from Angola?
“Doesn’t the level of control inherent in the video game experience directly oppose the kind of experience art, or at least great art, provides?”
For the purpose of this discussion, I think we should probably put aside the distinctions like “art” vs. “great art”. Instead, we should try to look at video games as a form and see if they have artistic potential.
The level of control, or perceived control, in a video game will vary from title to title. I should probably defer to real gamers here, but I think most games to not allow players to restructure or control the narrative flow of the game, meaning that there is a definite and intentional narrative structure within the game. Though video games offer tactile interactivity in a way that novels and movies don’t, they can include narrative lines that are similar to those other forms. Whether or not video game narratives can stack up to movie or novel narratives is an entirely different issue, but we can at least say that video games do include narrative, which is an established form of art.
Beyond narrative, I think we can argue that video games have a claim to artistry in their aesthetic possibilities. Going forward with this point, I want to reiterate that I think we should leave behind the issue of whether or not video games stack up to established art forms.
Monet paints a landscape. I’m not a big Monet fan, but his landscapes are enshrined in the greatest art museums. The appeal of Monet is purely aesthetic; he’s not giving us a narrative or a deeper truth about reality other than that his paintings represent an impression of their subjects. If we can go into a museum and appreciate that sort of thing, I see no reason that the created worlds in video games should be held to a different standard. Graphic artists create entire planets and places out of their imaginations, and if we are willing to explore what they’ve created, we can enjoy the artistry of their worlds. Playing Windwaker, there were moments where I marveled at the scope and beauty of their created world. Are those created worlds as great as the greatest landscape painters in history? Again, this is beside the point.
RE: Video game criticism – Though I agree with Mike when he says that the relationship between an art form and criticism of that form is symbolically important, I do think it’s a little premature to be asking for a Bazin of video games. The type of criticism that Mike points to didn’t arrive for film until roughly 50 years into the art form’s existence. Of course, we could make the case that Carl Sandburg, Graham Green, and James Agee were just as good and earlier on the chronological line, but I think it’s false to assert that a form’s potential for art be judged on how quickly it progresses to the heights of the greatest in any other given form at that it have critics as great as those mentioned. Every form will progress at a different rate.
There are some very real hurdles to video games being accepted as art.
1. The ability of the participant. A particular game might reach the heights of great art, but if I’m not the best at hand-eye coordination, I will never know. Of course this problem exists for literature and the illiterate, but I think that tactile ability is too primitive a thing to base accessibility on. Even if you are relatively literate, you can get through Ulysses; though you may not understand it, at least you were able to finish it. If you lack the necessary ability with a game controller, you might not even be able to finish a game. This limits the form seriously.
2. Length. The best and most involving games usually take an enormous amount of time to play, anywhere from 40-100 hours. If you’re interested in the arts, this has to seem totally out of whack. If I play a 40-hour game (assuming that it doesn’t take me longer to figure out elements of the game), I could’ve seen roughly 20 movies, read a few novels, or listened to 50 or more albums. It’s a big trade off for me. And then if the game isn’t very good, you’ve wasted a lot of time.
i scanned through to see if anyone had already posted this, but i may have missed it.
but this article comes about as close to understanding the argument as ive read (and ive read quite a few).
http://www.themillions.com/2011/01/interactive-art-what-video-games-can-learn-from-freud.html
what do you lovely people think?
“The above quote is pretty common among those that oppose the notion of video games as art. You’re willing to say that they can’t be art, but unwilling to even try the titles that are offered up by those that play regularly and think of them as art. "
@ Nathan. Point well taken but I was just responding to so-called proof that was provided in this thread and I didn’t say it in absolute terms (but really that dialogue in the Silent Hill 2 clips is absolutely atrocious by any reasonable standards and I don’t care if I’ve never played the game, you won’t change my mind on that).
But I have tried games that friends have hailed as art form (more of the Sid Meier variety, I guess, but some of the others cited here) and didn’t get much out of it either (beyond what I’ve already written). But then I haven’t played for 40 or 50 hours. Maybe 1 or 2 at most before I get the feeling that I’m completely wasting my time. I don’t think it’s a problem with time (40 or 50 hours is probably what it took me to read Roberto Bolano’s 2666 and it’s a great work of art), it’s more what you get out of it (beyond just "immersion in a virtual world) that I want better explained (which I haven’t seen here).
Ari, at the end of the day, there is enough ART across the various mediums, that it would take a lifetime just experiencing all that a single format has to offer.
Between literature, film, music, interactive media, performing arts, photography, sculpture and the other visual arts I say pick what you identify with and enjoy. For it is impossible to experience it all.
Definitely agree with the sentiment that video games, at 40+ hours, are a huge, huge risk… and at this stage in the art-form’s life it is NEVER a good idea to jump in and play something unknown. But with such a risk comes a very high reward if you play something true, I daresay it’s an experience like none you’ve ever had.
“But with such a risk comes a very high reward if you play something true, I daresay it’s an experience like none you’ve ever had.”
I know I come off incredibly dismissive here but the reason I stay in this thread is because I really want to understand what this means. At the very least, it makes the videogame “experience” sound more like LSD or weed than art (not that there’s any problem with that but I think it means we’re fundamentally talking about different things).
Mike Spence
“good art, and all great art, is inherently interactive – to say all great art engages its spectator at the deepest of levels, as well as on the surface, and requires to be confronted again and again, and with each new engagement, new and deeper insights, understanding and knowledge can be gleaned, again and again. This is the genuine interactivity of the arts”
Thanks Fraser, Jost summed up exactly how I’ve always felt about this issue.
I’d love to hear a good counter, however. Doesn’t the level of control inherent in the video game experience directly oppose the kind of experience art, or at least great art, provides? Obviously there are tons of action pictures that provide a similar experience to what you get from Halo, or from a theme park ride, but that’s got nothing to do with art.