Slashdot Mirror
Are The Press Neglecting Games As Art?
Thanks to the Guardian Online for their article discussing whether the press are rating games seriously enough as an artform. According to journalist/researcher Matteo Bittani, "the games press in general is guilty of treating games as if they had no other relevance than being mere commercial products." He goes on to argue that: "Games are still being assessed by the same criteria of playability, graphics, sound and longevity as they were 15 years ago, causing the analysis to just boil down to 'technological determinism in full effect'." Is there any merit to reviewing games on more conceptual, artistic grounds, or is that idea overly pretentious?
Games cannot be considered serious art by the "mainstream" because most video games right now, by and large, are "technological determinism." Why? Because that's what sells games.
GameSpy just had that "Underrated Games" column, which included both Rez and Ico, two very hypnotic and "purposeful" games. It's pretty clear that the non-standard sort of experience that really captivates the player simply doesn't appeal to the big "middle-crowd" of system owners; people who only buy a few games that appeal specifically to their tastes. Very few people seem to be "hardcore" enough to want to experiment.
Games will reach that point, but they haven't reached it yet. As for pretentiousness... well, almost any art can be called pretentious.
"Come on, let's go drink till we can't feel feelings anymore."
Is it any wonder the press uses the same scorecard?
Games should be, and are, judged ultimately by only one criteria... is it fun?
Take, for example, "American McGee's Alice". Artistically, it was a tour de force. But it was plagued by mediocre mechanics and gameplay, and, despite the beautiful level design, the levels were like a "rail-shooter", there was only one path to follow. It got good initial reviews because of its sheer beauty, but people soon came to realize that it just wasn't much fun.
Artistic? Yes. Fun? Not really. So, as a game, it wasn't very good.
Long term sales are the best indicator of a game's quality. All intellectual pretension aside, the people vote with their wallets. Word of mouth will ensure the success of a game that most people find fun.
Art has always been a necessary aspect of video games. It's what seperates the good from the bad. What game is going to steal the most of your time, the simple graphics or the game that creates an atmosphere. This has almost always been present, right down the the "bip boop" of Asteroids. But let's pretend that the atmosphere means nothing - game design is still something that has to be tweaked. Cookie-cutter games generally don't do very well. You can't just make a first person shooter and have it be gold, it has to have the right feel to it.
Look it's a joke about my sig IN MY SIG! LOL!
I wish art was reviewed more like games. We have all this modern crap (and I'm not just talking visual art - we get modern, trying to do something new just to be an ass, works in music and literature as well) that everyone with some taste hates and doesn't connect with the people who view it at all getting rave reviews. Art is only as valuable as the people it affects, without good 'playability' it is worthless.
... a game like GTA3 will always have trouble to be seen as a work of art.
And if you'd ask me, I'd say GTA3 is a piece of trash, not art. So there.