Grahamhsu said:
Khuutra said:
Metallicube said:
Like I said, there could be art IN games, but the games themselves are not art. It is never the primary focus of games. Games are related more closely to math and physics than art, in that they are based around rules and specific mechanics. The "art" in games is just the exterior. Monopoly may have an artistic message as you say, but it is not the central focus of the game. People play monopoly to have fun and use their mind to make decisions themselves, not to be moved emotionally or get political messages.
Art and games serve different purposes. Art is meant to "do all the work" for the person experiencing it so to speak. It is meant to move people emotionally, to send a message, comment on society, or wow people visually. Games are meant to entertain people through interaction, and to make the user be maker of the outcome. They give the user an array of options and let the user logically and strategically select from these options what they think is the best outcome to "win" the game. You cannot "win" art.
In a sense, games are really the anti art. Games give an array of options and lets the user provide their own course and experience, art provides it for them.
|
Art need not be the primary focus of a work for that work to be art, sir. I would argue that Miyamoto creates art all the time, but he intends nothing of the sort at any point, ever.
The problem is that you think of games as jus being sets of rules like perspective and the ability to move and speed and laws put in place, but it's the crafting and application of these laws that make games fun, and fun is one of those experience that can make a game into art if it is very well-made.
Art is not meant to be passive. Not at all. That's needlessly restrictive and too reductive to be representative of the artistic scene on the whole. Interactivity does not preclude art.
|
I don't think you quite understand metallicube's perspective, for me and metallicube it's not that games are a set of rules, it's that gameplay is a set of rules. For metallicube and I, everything non-essential to game function is stripped off. For example, you can play Mario Brothers while muted, but than you're missing out on the artistic music, but you're still essentially able to play the game correct? For MGS4 you can play without watching any cutscenes, or reading any of the text, (as I said story is an artform) but essentially you're still able to play the game right? Now take LBP, if I were to make a completely blank canvas world, could you play LBP in it? Yes you could, would it be enjoyable? Probably not. Is there art still involved, yes there's art in the graphics of the sackboy. From our perspective a game isn't the culmination of all these items, but rather these items are added on for additional enjoyment of the game.
|
Bingo..
The biggest problem I have with people saying "games ARE art!" is that it implies the art in games is the primary focus and very REASON for the game, and if the art is primary, that means the gameplay is secondary. The focus of games, or the "reason" games exist if you will, is to entertain users by letting the user interact with the medium, over a set of given rules. Art does not serve this purpose.
Let's turn this around, and say that "art ARE games." Now is that statement true? Most artists would take offense to that, because art is it's own entity, with its own purpose. Art are not games, and games are not art. Games are centered around user created fun based on a set of rules, giving the user interactivity. Anything else is exterior.
