After reading some interesting articles in EDGE issue 183 about gaming as an art, I've formed a few opinions on why gaming isn't really treated like an art compared to say; theatre, film and photography.

I think that for something to be truely classed as an art form, it's got to do something the defines it. Theatre is performed live, for example. Film can be edited to create much more dramatic scenes using clever camera angles and cutting. And photography can capture awe inspiring images that leave the world breathless in a stunningly-beautiful high definition image.

What does gaming have, I hear you asking. Well, that's obvious when you think about it: it has interactivity.
Yes, that's it - interacity, that is what helps define gaming as an art form. Yet, as Randy Smith pointed out in his
guest article in EDGE, cutscenes are not interactive. And therefore, technically, they are not games.

The problem is, very few game designers lack the ability to tell a story of a game without using a cutscene.
And as N'Gai Croal wrote in his article, it is also hard for movies to tell stories as well as books. That is, until
things like narration and scene editing came into play, languages of film. Things that the audience now
understand to be aids helping them out throughout the story (whether subconsciously, or not). Gaming has
not yet developed this sort of language in order to tell its stories and therefore has to rely on the methods
used by film-makers.

However, as N'Gai pointed out: it's not like gaming has developed it's own language at all. After all, most
players will instantly work out what the healthbar represents, or what the ammo counter means. However,
as Mr. Croal pointed out, these things are just used to aid the player, and not used to tell the story.

---

I'm not saying that gaming is going in the wrong direction, I mean Half Life 2 was entirely playable without a
cutscene (I'm not sure about Half Life 1, I haven't played it for more than 5 minutes). And, as Randy Smith
noticed "How many Ubisoft games, recently, have had cutscenes?". 

what is wrong with cutscene ?

cutscene = better visual = better cinematic games

I dont care if there no interactivity (during the cutscene ofc) since they are to drive the story

and yes, in some games, story/charatcer/background are very important

It's not that there's anything wrong with cutscenes, it's just that they go against what gaming is actually about, and what it stands for.

Gaming is not yet scene as an art form as it relies on things 'borrowed' from other mediums such as narration and cinematic cutscenes, rather than developing it's own, interactive, means of telling a story.

This is not a debate about whether cutscenes look good, or not. It's about whether or not the use of cutscenes are harming videogames becoming seen as art, and discussing ideas in ways it can (and is) improving.

 EDIT: Fixed typos 

 cutscene = different from the rest of the game = disjointed visuals.

You don't see many works of great literary art suddenly switch to cursive in important partsw because it looks nicer.

There is a reason why most people are against black and white movies being colored.

Cutscenes take the game out of it's true form because the creators deemed it's true form unworthy of telling the story.  How could you treat such a game as art?

Now, that's the kind of thing I'm talking about Kasz216. Lets get this thign rolling...

ok ok ok, I see where u want to go

but who say that a game needed interactivity ?

even a video games ?

a video games is before all : a game
and for me, the purpose of a game is to bring some fun whatever the way that is used : text/image/movie

In a way, the question of "art" is something that should be firslty asked in gaming in general : poker / football / monopoly / "battle chess" etc ...

I dont see why we should focus about video games and how we could answer the "video games" question without answering the "Games" question ...

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=opera&rls=en&hs=Ymy&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=define:+video+game&spell=1

Second definition.

Video games are meant to be interactive, by definition.

The difference between monopoly and a video game is that monopoly is not seen as a medium, just as a pass time.

Art is something that can get an emotion out of someone.

If games are ever to be accepted as an art form, they'll have to inspire emotions in a way that other art forms simply cannot, and that would be with interactivity. If that were ever to happen they'd probably be called something on other than GAMES as games is just a word to describe entertaining activities that involve commitment beyond being a spectator.

I don’t think traditional storytelling in any game will ever merit that kind of acceptance from the masses, because other established forms are typically much better means to tell stories. It would have to involve interaction in a way that can’t be replicated elsewhere.

Least that’s my take.

art is subjective. what you see as art aren't what others sees.

but if a megaton of voices raise up and make a point, it'll become art.

Hmmm... well Half Life and Assassins Creed tell great stories, and once you start playing there isn't any part of the game that isn't interactive.

And other mediums also needed time to develop, granted that they've had much more of it. For example fine
art wasn't developed until the Renassaince and during the Medieval, Ancients and Prehistoric times were
merely used to describe objects or locations, and not to inspire emotion.

It wasn't until sound started being used in films that they started to tell a story. At the start of filmmaking
words were used to tell the story, and other techniques started developing. Currently, gaming relies too
heavily on other mediums (such as cutscenes) to tell the story, and very few games try to break past that.