Games as art (1 Viewer)

[Morgan Jolley]

Squaresoft has been able to put a lot of themes into their games that really push the player to understanding them. For instance, Final Fantasy VIII has a love story, but the two lovers don't start out as lovers, but rather fall in love near the last 25% of the game. If you watch the ending, it shows how the main character was so in love with the girl he loved that all he could do was think about her (sort of, watch the ending and you'll see). Final Fantasy IX has the theme of life pushed a lot and the final boss represents this a lot. As stated, Metal Gear Solid rammed its themes and messages down your throat and is considered the best PlayStation game by many people (I think its in the Top 3, dunno about 1 though).
Games are becoming more about the art than the entertainment. From what I hear, Final Fantasy X is supposed to have every aspect of it near perfect (the big downside is some framerate problems, but thats about it).
I talk about Final Fantasy a lot because those games are some of the more artistic and more stylish games, even if there are themes to the styles (like futuristic or medieval). The stories are also unusually good and have some pretty powerful themes.

 

[Jeffrey Forner]

Art can be very entertaining, but not all entertainment is art.
As for the Final Fantasy games and Metal Gear Solid... sorry, haven't played them, so I can't argue with you.
------------------
-J.Fo
"And you can tell Rolling Stone magazine that my last words were... 'I'm on drugs!'"

 

[BrianB]

As for the Final Fantasy games and Metal Gear Solid... sorry, haven't played them, so I can't argue with you.

I think it all depends what games you've played... A lot of Japanese games definitely have more of a 'message' behind them - their RPGs & adventure games especially. As Morgan mentioned, the Final Fantasy games all have definite themes behind them.
Sure, Quake 27 doesn't have a 'message' conveyed in it. But some games do.
------------------
Nothing In Particular

 

[Morgan Jolley]

The FF games and MGS are also very fun and entertaining (if you're into those types of games). Fun, entertainment, and a message. What could be better?

 

[Sean Oneil]

The 'Statement' is in the method behind the game. More and more games are becoming ways in which people live vicariously through in game characters, or can live out demented or perverse/violent fantasies within the game. It is a statement that there are so many first person shooters because they are so popular. People make them because the public has a thirst for them.
People make games like FF because it allows people to become someone else. To live out a story more completely than could ever be done by watching a movie. If anything, games can make more of a statment and have more emotional impact than any movie ...and I believe that we will be seeing a shift towards that in the future as more and more creative minds take advantage of the newer technologies.
Imagine if you could 'LIVE' the story of '2001'? Games allow for so much more of a direct connection than film does. You should really sit down and play through FF VII or Xenogears, or MGS ...the list goes on.
[Edited last by Sean Oneil on September 03, 2001 at 07:02 PM]

 

[Morgan Jolley]

Games allow for so much more of a direct connection than film does. You should really sit down and play through FF VII or Xenogears, or MGS ...

or Conker's Bad Fur Day.
Seriously though, you are right. RPG means Role Playing Game, and that is really what every game is (from racing games to fighting games to adventure games).

 

[Ike]

Games are interesting because they are extremely interactive, and some feature brilliant stories. But they are products, for the most part, of a commitee. It's hard to call something made by hundreds of people a single piece of art. Films are different because they generally have one, two, or at most 10 people as they lead creative force. The writer, the director, and the lead actors. But with games, you have voice actors, animators, story makers, game engine makers, the people who create the FMV's. It's amazing how many people work on these things, and contribute a lot.
So is it art? I don't know. I certainly can understand the argument. Grim Fandango had one of the best stories I've ever seen. Half Life got the atmosphere just right. Sonic Adventure, laugh if you must, had a very interesting way of telling the story. For those who played it through with every character, like me, saw as the story became pieced together through dreams and individual experiences.
Generally speaking, however, I think they are more of a everyday type of art. The same way that a building could be called art, or the Starbucks logo, it is not really great art, like a lot of books, a lot of movies, a lot of music, and a lot of paintings. But then again, I could see my mind being changed.
[Edited last by Ike on September 03, 2001 at 08:05 PM]

 

[Morgan Jolley]

Some games may have a lot of people involved, but usually one person makes the characters (as in good guys, bad guys, everybody), one person writes ALL of the music, and one person makes up the story. Of course, more people are involved, but the main parts that you are supposed to remember (like the characters' faces) are made my a single person. The FMVs are created by another group of people, but they are based on something created by one person. Also, the director is usually the one who came up with the idea for the game (like Hideo Kojima) so that person is usually the one responsible for most of the game.
Even if games have many people working on them, that doesn't mean they can't be considered art. When I originally started this thread, it was supposed to be about games that had art in them that stood out in your mind. For instance, Fear Effect had a strange look to it and it sticks out in my mind because of the artistic style. Final Fantasy 8 had the futuristic theme to its art, and that also stood out in my mind.

 

[Sean Oneil]

A film is in no one man's hands ...or no ten men's hands. Anyone who has ever been involved in making a film knows this simple truth. Everyone contributes something ..the writers, the director(s), the actors, the art directors, the musicians doing the scores, etc... Just look at all of the names that scroll by as the credits roll after a film, and then realize that is STILL not everyone involved in making the movie.
Various outside influences almost always play into things, and sometimes the actors will come up with an idea that the director did not think of, or a grip may come up with a new approach ...there are so many people that contribute to making a movie into a great piece of art that just do not get any credit.
Movie making troupes make a game programming team look miniscule by comparison. So if many people can not collectively produce a piece of "art" then you can disqualify movies as art alltogether.
I don't want to step on anyones perceptions, but art is simply a work of creativity or self expression. Movies and games are what you might call 'ensamble art'. They do not have the purity of the single perspective like a painting might, but rather they have the wisdom of many perspectives.
Just remember that Art evolves along with everything else around us ...and try to keep an open mind.

 

[Graeme Clark]

So entertainment becomes art when it has a message? People can find messages in muffins, I'm sure they can pull out something from Rat Race.
------------------

 

[Sean Oneil]

I am sure that if you consulted the dictionary 20 years from now, that definition will have changed.

 

[Ike]

I think there is the technical definition of art, and the common everyday definition, which is something that wants to express an emotion, show emotion, have a message, show beauty, show ugliness, show an interesting character...
I think you can say that movies are collaborative effort, and to a point they are. But the best films, generally speaking, IMHO, are the ones under a director and or writer and actors that know what they clearly want. Take Kubrick's films. Yes, their are many people working on them, for years, but when it comes down to it, it's Kubrick's film. It's Kubrick's painting.
I don't know about games. I think even if it's a ton of people or corporation making it, it qualifies under the technical definition of "art," but for me, most games don't fall under the common definition of "art".
I think time will tell on this though. I think in twenty years, I can see someone calling something like Max Payne "Pop Art" which it probably is. But for me, I have to admit, I don't quite see it yet, but time will tell.

 

[Morgan Jolley]

Art is what is created by someone with an artistic vision. In games, the storylines, FMVs, characters, whatever, can all be art. It doesn't need a point, it doesn't need to appeal to everybody, it just needs to be a creation. A lamp is made just to illuminate a room, but it can be considered a work of art. Go watch Pecker and pay attention to the voting booth scene (they point out that art is EVERYWHERE). So in fact, every game is a piece of art that is made up of pieces of art. RPGs have character designers, composers, event scripters, and many other people who specialize in one type of art. When everything is put together, it makes a large collection of that art and becomes art in itself.