famousringo said:
Reasonable said:
Super Mario Bros. is a great game - but I don't see what I see looking at a painting or looking at an amazing building (or ICO). I see a great game with zero meaning other than the fun you have playing it. For me Art has to convey something - and it might just be me (although I know its not) but Super Mario Bros. is a great game but nothing more. Now I've seen art featuring Mario character - but the game itself? No. Not by my definition of art.
Also, don't mix up a cultural artifact with a piece of art. Batman is a cultural artifact, but you still have to create a piece of art featuring him to actually have something to regard.
And no - I don't think good game design is art anymore than I think the rules of Tennis is art. A game of Tennis could be Art, as could a game of chess, etc. But it would be a combination of the players, the event and what they create, not the game itself.
|
Of course a game conveys something. It conveys an experience, just as films, novels, and architecture do. Change the game designer, and you will get a different experience, because they will try to convey different ideas to the player according to their own beliefs.
Really, this kind of expression exists everywhere in the world. Architecture, marketing, industrial design... Yes, Torillian, even in how somebody decides to craft a sandwich. Some people take great care in their presentation of food. I've almost felt guilty for eating some meals which have been laid before me, but then I remember that consuming the meal is part of the experience that the chef has carefully crafted for me.
Whether you attach a great deal of meaning to a videogame experience or not is a subjective opinion, but when teams of people invest hundreds or thousands of man-hours to create an experience for you, they are trying to communicate with you, just as other artists are. And because this communication isn't in the form of a direct dialogue, we call it art.
|
What does Mario Super Bros. convey then? Also, I'd make the distinction between 'accidental' art and intended art. Good food presentation is nice and all - but what is its purpose? To create art or to make your meal look nicer. Anything can be art - but whether its Banksy with Graffeti or Warhol with silver blow up ballons there needs to be more than simply making something look nice (a building, food, etc) to qualify as true art IMHO. The simple point is very few games are made to be works of art. A lot of creative effort goes into them, but they are designed to be played and to make money for the most part and most (in fact probably 90%) are totally derivative of popular themes no matter what effort goes into design, etc.
It's like James Cameron says - there are films and movies. He makes movies by his own admission - fun, well made, highly creative but not intended as high art. I think he described Titanic as his 'accidental film' - although I'd actually argue with the man that Aliens and Terminator is the best work he's produced and the closest to high art.
Anyway you can't resolve something like this as despite their being certain views on what Art is there is a great deal of subjective opinion as well.
I'll stick with ICO and SOTC as games that are also art. There are a few other games I'd consider too. Silent Hill 2 and Portal for example.
Some of the greatest games ever are for me just games. If you see some as art too then that's fine, too. Oh, and thanks for one of the most intelligent debates I've had on the forums for a while - it sure makes a change from reading fanboys argue about PS3 vs 360...
Currently Online 
