Quantcast
Games are not art!

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Games are not art!

richardhutnik said:
aikohualda said:
richardhutnik said:
aikohualda said:
richardhutnik said:
aikohualda said:
games are science!!!!

Game design is an art, not a science.  Not set of rules will produce an entertaining game, because no set of rules can produce rules, which is what a game is.  And a game very much can be consider a product of a craft actually.  It is a toy meant to entertain.  Whether it is an art, would depend on the intention of the designer and communicating a message.  

a game design made possible by science

All technology used by art has some sort of science behind it today.  However, there is even art in the formation of science and the development of hypothesis.  There is just some things you can't use a recipe to generate.  Science is all about repeatable processes.  Art is not a repeatable process.  Well, that which differentiates art from science, is non-repeatable processes to make it a work of art.

mostly science... since technology is the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes...

Game creation is not the application of scientific knowledge towards any end, neither is most forms of innovation, and creation of things new.  It is an art, because the creation is done by intuition of the designer, and thus is art.  Now, you want to talk about actually producing a game, well that also has some technology, but the core innovation concepts is art, done by visionaries.  The thing about games is that they are not practical purposes, but toys for entertainment.  Entertainment is a very subjective thing, that is hard to pin down, and excessive use of the same patterns leads to boredom, which makes it hard to replicate.  The fact the videogames industry can't be predicted to any certainty what will be the next big hit, and follow standardized methods has resulted in stupid concepts people don't want in the end (Dead Space is now dead, in part because marketing types, using scientific methods determined the game HAD to have multiplayer).

While one can find a bunch of science behind games, the spark of genius that makes something stand out, is art.

lol ok let me get my bachelors in arts in game design LMAO

innovation = art

creation of new things = art

thus the majority of games are ART not science.... yes!!!!!!!! hahahahahaha

one player = no scientific method....yes!!!!

i like this....

iphone was an art when it came out

ereader is art when it first came out

interner is art!!!!! LOL

yes innovation and creating new is = to ART!!!!! yessssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss!!!!





 

Around the Network

On, it is art or not, I have created a number of games.

I created The Activist Game, that when played, shows the futility of trying to do activism's folly in attempting to change the world. I also created a game called "The Quitting Game" that ends up with a result of people working against both the group's interest and their own, as a study piece to show that. I would consider both of these art using game mechanics to express an opinion I have. And the creation process is very intuitive. If these are not art, then what are they? And if there isn't an artistic process in creating them, then point to an algorithm used to create them and predict what my next game will be. If you can't, and show no signs of this being show, then you are hard pressed to say the process is not art.

The closest thing one has to showing game creation is not artistic is the computer program Ludi, which creates games:
http://www.purplepawn.com/2008/07/ludi-the-electronic-game-designer/

I will say this, if you say there isn't artistic ability in the creation of games, there is not art in the creation of anything.



Art is subjective. I don't believe that taking a photo of something can be considered an art form but Photography is considered part of the Art world.

To me, games are the best form of art. Someone has had a creative idea and this has been implemented into an interactive piece through which many stories can be told and emotions can be evoked.
Much more relevant in todays world than a painting of a garden or some ships.



Current Game Machines: 3DS, Wii U, PC.

Currently Playing: X-Com(PC), Smash Bros(WiiU), Banner Saga(PC), Guild Wars 2(PC), Project X Zone(3DS), Luigis Mansion 2(3DS), DayZ(PC)

aikohualda said:
richardhutnik said:
aikohualda said:
richardhutnik said:
aikohualda said:
richardhutnik said:
aikohualda said:
games are science!!!!

Game design is an art, not a science.  Not set of rules will produce an entertaining game, because no set of rules can produce rules, which is what a game is.  And a game very much can be consider a product of a craft actually.  It is a toy meant to entertain.  Whether it is an art, would depend on the intention of the designer and communicating a message.  

a game design made possible by science

All technology used by art has some sort of science behind it today.  However, there is even art in the formation of science and the development of hypothesis.  There is just some things you can't use a recipe to generate.  Science is all about repeatable processes.  Art is not a repeatable process.  Well, that which differentiates art from science, is non-repeatable processes to make it a work of art.

mostly science... since technology is the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes...

Game creation is not the application of scientific knowledge towards any end, neither is most forms of innovation, and creation of things new.  It is an art, because the creation is done by intuition of the designer, and thus is art.  Now, you want to talk about actually producing a game, well that also has some technology, but the core innovation concepts is art, done by visionaries.  The thing about games is that they are not practical purposes, but toys for entertainment.  Entertainment is a very subjective thing, that is hard to pin down, and excessive use of the same patterns leads to boredom, which makes it hard to replicate.  The fact the videogames industry can't be predicted to any certainty what will be the next big hit, and follow standardized methods has resulted in stupid concepts people don't want in the end (Dead Space is now dead, in part because marketing types, using scientific methods determined the game HAD to have multiplayer).

While one can find a bunch of science behind games, the spark of genius that makes something stand out, is art.

lol ok let me get my bachelors in arts in game design LMAO

innovation = art

creation of new things = art

thus the majority of games are ART not science.... yes!!!!!!!! hahahahahaha

one player = no scientific method....yes!!!!

i like this....

iphone was an art when it came out

ereader is art when it first came out

interner is art!!!!! LOL

yes innovation and creating new is = to ART!!!!! yessssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss!!!!

Innovation has an artistic element to it. The same impulse to create is there.  One can rate the quality of it as an artistic piece, but it is.  Scientific approach is repeatable in nature, and can make predictions.  Innovation is not this.  It starts, at best, becoming increasingly probabilistic in nature, to the extent where you can't even predict things.  In this area, if it were more scientific, then the Pachters of the world would be far better at predicting than they are.  And they aren't.  



richardhutnik said:
aikohualda said:
richardhutnik said:
aikohualda said:
richardhutnik said:
aikohualda said:
richardhutnik said:
aikohualda said:
games are science!!!!

Game design is an art, not a science.  Not set of rules will produce an entertaining game, because no set of rules can produce rules, which is what a game is.  And a game very much can be consider a product of a craft actually.  It is a toy meant to entertain.  Whether it is an art, would depend on the intention of the designer and communicating a message.  

a game design made possible by science

All technology used by art has some sort of science behind it today.  However, there is even art in the formation of science and the development of hypothesis.  There is just some things you can't use a recipe to generate.  Science is all about repeatable processes.  Art is not a repeatable process.  Well, that which differentiates art from science, is non-repeatable processes to make it a work of art.

mostly science... since technology is the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes...

Game creation is not the application of scientific knowledge towards any end, neither is most forms of innovation, and creation of things new.  It is an art, because the creation is done by intuition of the designer, and thus is art.  Now, you want to talk about actually producing a game, well that also has some technology, but the core innovation concepts is art, done by visionaries.  The thing about games is that they are not practical purposes, but toys for entertainment.  Entertainment is a very subjective thing, that is hard to pin down, and excessive use of the same patterns leads to boredom, which makes it hard to replicate.  The fact the videogames industry can't be predicted to any certainty what will be the next big hit, and follow standardized methods has resulted in stupid concepts people don't want in the end (Dead Space is now dead, in part because marketing types, using scientific methods determined the game HAD to have multiplayer).

While one can find a bunch of science behind games, the spark of genius that makes something stand out, is art.

lol ok let me get my bachelors in arts in game design LMAO

innovation = art

creation of new things = art

thus the majority of games are ART not science.... yes!!!!!!!! hahahahahaha

one player = no scientific method....yes!!!!

i like this....

iphone was an art when it came out

ereader is art when it first came out

interner is art!!!!! LOL

yes innovation and creating new is = to ART!!!!! yessssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss!!!!

Innovation has an artistic element to it. The same impulse to create is there.  One can rate the quality of it as an artistic piece, but it is.  Scientific approach is repeatable in nature, and can make predictions.  Innovation is not this.  It starts, at best, becoming increasingly probabilistic in nature, to the extent where you can't even predict things.  In this area, if it were more scientific, then the Pachters of the world would be far better at predicting than they are.  And they aren't.  

what are you talking about? im agreeing with you cant you see? LOL



 

Around the Network

Well... do anyone see how difficult it is to define whether games are art or not? many aspects of them point to either side.

I think it´s up to the player to decide if videogames are art or not, it depends of how it is appreciated.



aikohualda said:
richardhutnik said:
aikohualda said:
richardhutnik said:
aikohualda said:
richardhutnik said:
aikohualda said:
richardhutnik said:
aikohualda said:
games are science!!!!

Game design is an art, not a science.  Not set of rules will produce an entertaining game, because no set of rules can produce rules, which is what a game is.  And a game very much can be consider a product of a craft actually.  It is a toy meant to entertain.  Whether it is an art, would depend on the intention of the designer and communicating a message.  

a game design made possible by science

All technology used by art has some sort of science behind it today.  However, there is even art in the formation of science and the development of hypothesis.  There is just some things you can't use a recipe to generate.  Science is all about repeatable processes.  Art is not a repeatable process.  Well, that which differentiates art from science, is non-repeatable processes to make it a work of art.

mostly science... since technology is the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes...

Game creation is not the application of scientific knowledge towards any end, neither is most forms of innovation, and creation of things new.  It is an art, because the creation is done by intuition of the designer, and thus is art.  Now, you want to talk about actually producing a game, well that also has some technology, but the core innovation concepts is art, done by visionaries.  The thing about games is that they are not practical purposes, but toys for entertainment.  Entertainment is a very subjective thing, that is hard to pin down, and excessive use of the same patterns leads to boredom, which makes it hard to replicate.  The fact the videogames industry can't be predicted to any certainty what will be the next big hit, and follow standardized methods has resulted in stupid concepts people don't want in the end (Dead Space is now dead, in part because marketing types, using scientific methods determined the game HAD to have multiplayer).

While one can find a bunch of science behind games, the spark of genius that makes something stand out, is art.

lol ok let me get my bachelors in arts in game design LMAO

innovation = art

creation of new things = art

thus the majority of games are ART not science.... yes!!!!!!!! hahahahahaha

one player = no scientific method....yes!!!!

i like this....

iphone was an art when it came out

ereader is art when it first came out

interner is art!!!!! LOL

yes innovation and creating new is = to ART!!!!! yessssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss!!!!

Innovation has an artistic element to it. The same impulse to create is there.  One can rate the quality of it as an artistic piece, but it is.  Scientific approach is repeatable in nature, and can make predictions.  Innovation is not this.  It starts, at best, becoming increasingly probabilistic in nature, to the extent where you can't even predict things.  In this area, if it were more scientific, then the Pachters of the world would be far better at predicting than they are.  And they aren't.  

what are you talking about? im agreeing with you cant you see? LOL

Well, consider my post a confirming you were agreeing with me or not.  



richardhutnik said:
aikohualda said:
richardhutnik said:
aikohualda said:
richardhutnik said:
aikohualda said:
richardhutnik said:
aikohualda said:
richardhutnik said:
aikohualda said:
games are science!!!!

Game design is an art, not a science.  Not set of rules will produce an entertaining game, because no set of rules can produce rules, which is what a game is.  And a game very much can be consider a product of a craft actually.  It is a toy meant to entertain.  Whether it is an art, would depend on the intention of the designer and communicating a message.  

a game design made possible by science

All technology used by art has some sort of science behind it today.  However, there is even art in the formation of science and the development of hypothesis.  There is just some things you can't use a recipe to generate.  Science is all about repeatable processes.  Art is not a repeatable process.  Well, that which differentiates art from science, is non-repeatable processes to make it a work of art.

mostly science... since technology is the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes...

Game creation is not the application of scientific knowledge towards any end, neither is most forms of innovation, and creation of things new.  It is an art, because the creation is done by intuition of the designer, and thus is art.  Now, you want to talk about actually producing a game, well that also has some technology, but the core innovation concepts is art, done by visionaries.  The thing about games is that they are not practical purposes, but toys for entertainment.  Entertainment is a very subjective thing, that is hard to pin down, and excessive use of the same patterns leads to boredom, which makes it hard to replicate.  The fact the videogames industry can't be predicted to any certainty what will be the next big hit, and follow standardized methods has resulted in stupid concepts people don't want in the end (Dead Space is now dead, in part because marketing types, using scientific methods determined the game HAD to have multiplayer).

While one can find a bunch of science behind games, the spark of genius that makes something stand out, is art.

lol ok let me get my bachelors in arts in game design LMAO

innovation = art

creation of new things = art

thus the majority of games are ART not science.... yes!!!!!!!! hahahahahaha

one player = no scientific method....yes!!!!

i like this....

iphone was an art when it came out

ereader is art when it first came out

interner is art!!!!! LOL

yes innovation and creating new is = to ART!!!!! yessssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss!!!!

Innovation has an artistic element to it. The same impulse to create is there.  One can rate the quality of it as an artistic piece, but it is.  Scientific approach is repeatable in nature, and can make predictions.  Innovation is not this.  It starts, at best, becoming increasingly probabilistic in nature, to the extent where you can't even predict things.  In this area, if it were more scientific, then the Pachters of the world would be far better at predicting than they are.  And they aren't.  

what are you talking about? im agreeing with you cant you see? LOL

Well, consider my post a confirming you were agreeing with me or not.  

yeah im considering getting a bachelers of ARTS in game design...

im going to enjoy the arts of programming....



 

aikohualda said:
richardhutnik said:
aikohualda said:
richardhutnik said:
aikohualda said:
richardhutnik said:
aikohualda said:
richardhutnik said:
aikohualda said:
richardhutnik said:
aikohualda said:
games are science!!!!

Game design is an art, not a science.  Not set of rules will produce an entertaining game, because no set of rules can produce rules, which is what a game is.  And a game very much can be consider a product of a craft actually.  It is a toy meant to entertain.  Whether it is an art, would depend on the intention of the designer and communicating a message.  

a game design made possible by science

All technology used by art has some sort of science behind it today.  However, there is even art in the formation of science and the development of hypothesis.  There is just some things you can't use a recipe to generate.  Science is all about repeatable processes.  Art is not a repeatable process.  Well, that which differentiates art from science, is non-repeatable processes to make it a work of art.

mostly science... since technology is the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes...

Game creation is not the application of scientific knowledge towards any end, neither is most forms of innovation, and creation of things new.  It is an art, because the creation is done by intuition of the designer, and thus is art.  Now, you want to talk about actually producing a game, well that also has some technology, but the core innovation concepts is art, done by visionaries.  The thing about games is that they are not practical purposes, but toys for entertainment.  Entertainment is a very subjective thing, that is hard to pin down, and excessive use of the same patterns leads to boredom, which makes it hard to replicate.  The fact the videogames industry can't be predicted to any certainty what will be the next big hit, and follow standardized methods has resulted in stupid concepts people don't want in the end (Dead Space is now dead, in part because marketing types, using scientific methods determined the game HAD to have multiplayer).

While one can find a bunch of science behind games, the spark of genius that makes something stand out, is art.

lol ok let me get my bachelors in arts in game design LMAO

innovation = art

creation of new things = art

thus the majority of games are ART not science.... yes!!!!!!!! hahahahahaha

one player = no scientific method....yes!!!!

i like this....

iphone was an art when it came out

ereader is art when it first came out

interner is art!!!!! LOL

yes innovation and creating new is = to ART!!!!! yessssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss!!!!

Innovation has an artistic element to it. The same impulse to create is there.  One can rate the quality of it as an artistic piece, but it is.  Scientific approach is repeatable in nature, and can make predictions.  Innovation is not this.  It starts, at best, becoming increasingly probabilistic in nature, to the extent where you can't even predict things.  In this area, if it were more scientific, then the Pachters of the world would be far better at predicting than they are.  And they aren't.  

what are you talking about? im agreeing with you cant you see? LOL

Well, consider my post a confirming you were agreeing with me or not.  

yeah im considering getting a bachelers of ARTS in game design...

im going to enjoy the arts of programming....

I am always interested in how computer science gets labelled a "science".  As a science I don't think it has much predictive power.



richardhutnik said:
aikohualda said:
richardhutnik said:
aikohualda said:
richardhutnik said:
aikohualda said:
richardhutnik said:
aikohualda said:
richardhutnik said:
aikohualda said:
richardhutnik said:
aikohualda said:
games are science!!!!

Game design is an art, not a science.  Not set of rules will produce an entertaining game, because no set of rules can produce rules, which is what a game is.  And a game very much can be consider a product of a craft actually.  It is a toy meant to entertain.  Whether it is an art, would depend on the intention of the designer and communicating a message.  

a game design made possible by science

All technology used by art has some sort of science behind it today.  However, there is even art in the formation of science and the development of hypothesis.  There is just some things you can't use a recipe to generate.  Science is all about repeatable processes.  Art is not a repeatable process.  Well, that which differentiates art from science, is non-repeatable processes to make it a work of art.

mostly science... since technology is the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes...

Game creation is not the application of scientific knowledge towards any end, neither is most forms of innovation, and creation of things new.  It is an art, because the creation is done by intuition of the designer, and thus is art.  Now, you want to talk about actually producing a game, well that also has some technology, but the core innovation concepts is art, done by visionaries.  The thing about games is that they are not practical purposes, but toys for entertainment.  Entertainment is a very subjective thing, that is hard to pin down, and excessive use of the same patterns leads to boredom, which makes it hard to replicate.  The fact the videogames industry can't be predicted to any certainty what will be the next big hit, and follow standardized methods has resulted in stupid concepts people don't want in the end (Dead Space is now dead, in part because marketing types, using scientific methods determined the game HAD to have multiplayer).

While one can find a bunch of science behind games, the spark of genius that makes something stand out, is art.

lol ok let me get my bachelors in arts in game design LMAO

innovation = art

creation of new things = art

thus the majority of games are ART not science.... yes!!!!!!!! hahahahahaha

one player = no scientific method....yes!!!!

i like this....

iphone was an art when it came out

ereader is art when it first came out

interner is art!!!!! LOL

yes innovation and creating new is = to ART!!!!! yessssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss!!!!

Innovation has an artistic element to it. The same impulse to create is there.  One can rate the quality of it as an artistic piece, but it is.  Scientific approach is repeatable in nature, and can make predictions.  Innovation is not this.  It starts, at best, becoming increasingly probabilistic in nature, to the extent where you can't even predict things.  In this area, if it were more scientific, then the Pachters of the world would be far better at predicting than they are.  And they aren't.  

what are you talking about? im agreeing with you cant you see? LOL

Well, consider my post a confirming you were agreeing with me or not.  

yeah im considering getting a bachelers of ARTS in game design...

im going to enjoy the arts of programming....

I am always interested in how computer science gets labelled a "science".  As a science I don't think it has much predictive power.

because it is science :/