Hey guys, Ebert's right.
Understand that despite being a mediocre, unproductive artist (I guess now I've devolved into an "appreciator of the arts," the saddest type), most serious discussion on that subject of subjectiveness first makes my eyes roll. Then, it bursts the blood vessels controlling the pressure behind them, inflating them to ridiculous proportions. I call
( Read more... )
I contend that video games are not art simply because nobody's really figured out how to make them art. Fundamental to artistic expression is evoking emotion. And I can think of two games that did that: when Eli Vance is killed at the end of "Half-Life 2: Episode 2" and when General Fuckface kills Ghost and then Roach (who you're playing at that time) in "Modern Warfare 2." In both occasions I felt genuine horror, especially the latter, where (from your still-alive POV) you're swung into a ditch and lit on fire. I'm fairly certain I shouted at my screen.
While the designer of a game doesn't dictate the specific course a player might take, there's really not a whole lot of wiggle room. Even in games coded more expansively than Doom, (say, Oblivion) there's not a great deal to do apart from the central story and attendant side-quests, and hence boredom becomes a factor in going where and doing what the designer wants in order for them to convey meaning.
In the end, I would say that a game like "Modern Warfare 2" (or even "Super Mario Bros.") is fundamentally no different than an action movie playing on a DVD; that fundamentally the slight variances in the play experience equate perfectly to pausing, rewinding, and fast-forwarding simply because they don't intrinsically change the experience, just the details and rate at which it is experienced.
Furthermore, I say that the more choice the player has, the less artistic it becomes. By this rubric, open-world games like "Oblivion" are geometrically less art than a rail-shooter like "Time Crisis" or "Revolution X." While it's true that "Oblivion" certainly contains more artistic elements than an arcade shooter, art is necessarily non-interactive: it's one-way communication. Books, film, music, sculpture are all communication from the artist to the viewer.
Thy cup runneth over, so I'll close with just saying that while I, too, am extremely skeptical of the games-as-art neckbeards, I think you're getting hung up on the variance of a play experience when there is really very little variance.
Reply
It's awful feeling, isn't it?
"Fundamental to artistic expression is evoking emotion."
Right. However, in the examples you mentioned, the game sort of takes over in those moments, no? Sort of an in-game, POV, quasi-cinematic? I think in those instances, at least when they manipulate an emotional response, games are art, but, then again, in those moments you're not really playing a game so much as you are watching a movie. If control wasn't wrested from you, and you had the skill to change those poignant moments, would you have? Would those moments have been as meaningful? Were the moments of gameplay before and afterwards as emotionally rewarding?
"While the designer of a game doesn't dictate the specific course a player might take, there's really not a whole lot of wiggle room."
This goes with #6, and I didn't give it enough credit as a valid point. While many games have a specific "main quest" (you mentioned Oblivion. Zelda's another example, and is even more authoritarian) which leads you to a specific end, there is almost always enough random variety and player choice to dictate a varied experience. For instance, in Oblivion, I was a very verbose orc fighter. My roommate was a frail human mage. We had our separate guilds, NPC relationships, and particular war stories. I understand the game designers built the world in which these varied -- but certainly wholly intended -- experiences took place, and they established a finishing state, but you can play way you like, including ignoring the main quest entirely. This suggests that the creators of Oblivion aren't the artists here; rather it is the player. The same goes for Zelda, except that you have a nagging fairy reminding you to get back on track in Ocarina, or an equally-irritating Shadowslut in Twilight Princess.
After that wall of text, I'll skip a few of your points to get to this:
"I say that the more choice the player has, the less artistic it becomes.
Right! Yes! This is because the more involved the player is in a particular game, the less directorial control the game's creator has. It becomes art when the balance of power shifts completely from the player. I, too, think rail shooters have greater artistic merit than open-world games. Actually, I'll just nod in agreement to the rest of your paragraph.
"...no different than an action movie playing on a DVD"
What a great analogy. Though, while you think I'm paying too much attention to the details (shit. maybe I am, this is a good discussion), I think you're too quickly dismissing the act of repeatedly pressing a button in the role of a Halfling thief, a near-future spartan, or a tripping plumber. I think it's the injection of ourselves, and our choices -- no matter how insignificant -- which prevents a game from becoming art. I think our experience of playing a particular game is more "art" than any game.
Jesus, after all that bullshit, this neckbeard is coming in nicely.
Reply
Reply
That's awful. I'm sorry, Midna and Leah.
Reply
Yeah. OK, good point.
"a nagging fairy reminding you to get back on track in Ocarina"
And this is why I maintain that the last good Zelda game was "A Link to the Past." But generally speaking, I cannot imagine a worse gameplay mechanic. Arguably it makes the game more artistic as it enforces the artist's will over the work, but...christ, what a shitty thing to code into a game.
" I think it's the injection of ourselves, and our choices -- no matter how insignificant -- which prevents a game from becoming art."
Perhaps because art is fundamentally not a dialogue? Something about that sticks in my craw but I can't figure out what it is.
I suppose it can be, actually. Like some art installation. Say...a blank reproduction of David (or even an original sculpture or painting) that viewers are encouraged and given the tools to deface. That is an artistic dialogue.
"I think our experience of playing a particular game is more "art" than any game."
Like how SimCity is definitely not art in and of itself but what the player creates is. Or, well, can be.
Perhaps this whole thing requires a new rubric. Non-interactive works can be art, but for interactive works to be art they must fundamentally require the viewer to create it, by the virtue of their interactivity?
Reply
Goddamnit. Art is a dialogue, isn't it? Or at least it can be. Maybe it should be. There goes the main pillar of my argument. He didn't mention a specific case, but igorxa hinted at the same hole in my argument below.
Which is not to say I'm completely bowing out because...
"Like how SimCity is definitely not art...but what the player creates is."
SimCity is a perfect example of what I was trying to say. The game creators provide a palette and a canvas for us to create our own works. The game isn't the art, but what we do with it is. Are interactive works art-enablers? OH FUCK! NECKBEARD AT CRITICAL MASS!
Reply
If you're willing to give it a try, I recommend "The Wind Waker," mostly because it's a more zen, polished, bigger "Ocarina" without Navi. The art direction put off a bunch of people, though. "A Link to the Past" was really damn good, and I actually have played it recently, so that sentiment isn't entirely nostalgia-based.
Reply
Leave a comment