I think that topic is probably the most under-discussed ever.
I agree games nowadays have a lot more artistic influence than say 8yrs a go.
Games being held up against movies is something that will take some more time before a game can hold up on its own. A lot of things stop it from doing so, like making sure it runs on your pc, ie textures/models not as complicated/detailed as they can be due to scene limitations etc.
So many little details and factors to talk about... oh my.
I think that multiplayer maps etc are just as much art as any other piece of art. I think the difficulty comes in that alot of people can make good maps and nowadays alot of people can paint well, so that being an artist is not such an exclusive club. Its not like the Renaissance anymore where there are only 20 famous artists around, there are artists all over the place!
I think that leads alot of people to think that only completely wierd shit has artistic merit which couldn't be farther from the truth
Anything can be art if someone wants to declare it so, but it's really the value that people are arguing about and whether games have the capacity to hit that mark at some point, if they haven't already.
I remember something Roger Ebert said, that because games are not controlled, linear experiences that they don't have the ability to reach that same level of recognition that a celebrated film, novel or piece of music can. Which I don't really believe, but it's pretty difficult to argue that Deus Ex is as valuable and important as Citizen Kane 
A game like Gears of War starts starts feel very movie quality with the art direction and the way the cinematics/game design was handled.
The creation of games involves a large amount of creativity and therefore games can be called art. I think in a few years there will be no discussion about it. We know it already and the rest of the society will learn it.
Creatin games is more engineering then art I'd say.
A game like Gears of War starts starts feel very movie quality with the art direction and the way the cinematics/game design was handled.
And it also has that and not much else, creating not more then a gimmick like type of gameplay, same ol'. Like Probotector, only less fun 
A movie feeling as 2d as GOW, and only based on the gfx design and comic book violence as that game feels wouldn't get very far....oh wait '300' did. But noone hardly remembers that movie, it feels like nostalgia already.
/drunk ramblings.
Quote from EvertAnd it also has that and not much else, creating not more then a gimmick like type of gameplay, same ol'. Like Probotector, only less fun
A movie feeling as 2d as GOW, and only based on the gfx design and comic book violence as that game feels wouldn't get very far....oh wait '300' did. But noone hardly remembers that movie, it feels like nostalgia already.
/drunk ramblings.
Aye I agree there, If GoW had incredible gameplay (and not the kinda noob gameplay catered for the general jimbo bob who doesn't play games very often) it'd be one hell of a title.
Quote from EvertCreatin games is more engineering then art I'd say.
I think this holds true, or has held true for about ten years... With editors and photoshop becoming easier to use, I think the trend is starting to change.
Making maps is getting easier and easier every day. Just take a look at what crysis will offer; "what you see is what you play". I'm not saying that single-player triggers and all that will be easy, but creating a beautiful scene and/or a map will eventually boil down to having the talent to build and create something beautiful.
And whos to say that engineering something beautiful in every way isn't an art?
well, I think one thing that makes it hard for games to be art in the minds of a lot of people is the fact that you're playing it. Games overall are supposed to be entertaining in some fashion which leads people to think the range of emotion a game could deliver is limited... and maybe for the moment it is.
Of course there's 3d art.. which is regarded as art by a lot of people.. 3d scenes, abstract or realistic... I mean you could use a game engine and make a piece out of that .. that's no problem... but when you factor in people's different interactions with playing something that was designed to be fun.. that's where it's hard to say it's art.
Now if there was a way to feature that interaction with people as part of the perspective of it being art.. then a game could be art.. I think though it has to be a conscious effort by the developer of the game to make it art or make it enjoyable/entertaining... so I'd probably expect this from an independent game a lot sooner than a big published game.
2 cents.
Games will never be accepted as art until they stop being perceived as the preserve of 12 year olds who like stealing virtual cars. Most commentators don't understand games, much less the various genres. It's hard to evaluate what you do not understand.
Once the generation gap starts to disappear I think the prejudice against gaming will also start to dissipate (as all people born since the 90s will have grown up with a much bigger exposure to games). Let's face it; gaming isn't taken seriously by the majority of countries, governments, commentators etc. You only have to look at the grants to given to film, music & arts and compare that to the support given to game developers. I've heard people saying they'll take games serious as soon as developer stop making derivative / formulaic games and, while I agree that could be a good change, it's not like it stops the latest soundalikes band or knock-off film, does it?
My personal opinion is that a lot of what it means to be 'art' is just high-brow fancy bollocks. Games are like films & music in that there's a lot of mindless / mundane / uninteresting crap out there, but there's also a lot of very interesting & engaging stuff. A good game can look beautiful, engage you and make you think. Again, I think it's snobbery that's largely to blame because, for me, gaming can check all of the boxes.
making games is as much art as making a film or conducting a symphony.
I think Defrag is spot on. We all just have to wait for this generation to grow up before we'll all become superstars 
The quality says nothing if something is art or not. Everything that involves creativity with the aim to create something visual appealing or at least interesting can be described as art.
Creatin games is more engineering then art I'd say.
With a closed mind someone could say the same about films, sculpting, instalations etc.
Well, for me, games are some kind of art. Probably the most complex piece of art.
Game developing merges the difficulties and issues of movie making, like dialogues, story, mood and the way this stuff is brought to the consumer (resp. player), image painting, like colors, brightness, contrast, and sculpting, like shape and lighting impact on a figure.
The most difficult part is that on top of that, everything is more or less dynamic and interactive. A game nowadays needs to bring a specific atmosphere to the player, achieved by lighting, style and story, needs to make fun and be an experience and needs to have as much as less technical problems.
And that whole thing needs to be accomplished through teamwork. Which can be either troublesome or very, very helpful.
If sticking a load of white boxes in a room is art, I can name about a million things more deserving of the title. Art is such a pointless label these days that you can stick it on anything. Games are creative and I think that’s the only requirement you need (though there is a strong emphasis on story and concept art these days to bolster that), sure most games these days are derivative because publishers like money, but that’s kind of moot.
Though as for games being taken as seriously as movies... well, I think that will happen when games start getting produced like movies. When everything planned is determined in preproduction and the only changes are bumps in the road, it doesn’t work like that right now. And Defrag had a good point about the older generation just not getting it, especially helped by the drivel fed out by the media.
Edit: Extremely late edit for readability.
Quote from TaylorI think that will happen when games start getting produced like movies. When everything planned is determined in preproduction and the only changes are bumps in the road, it doesn’t work like that right now.
Are you 100 % sure that Electronic arts isn't already doing this for the Call of Duty saga and other sequel licenses ? 
Point taken, EA have a good production line approach. But generally production contains a lot of "arrrgh."
Think you mean Medal of Honour if you mean EA koko, but hey, it's not exactly difficult to mix up "something of something" WWII game titles
Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!
