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?

Comments

Australian 'Escape from Woomera': Press? Gov't !!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why focus only on the Press, here?

Consider the recent Australian federal gov't's
response to an arts organisation giving a $25K
grant to the developers of a game that deals
with a very -current- news item (including
Refugees' Children in Detention, in very remote
centres, like Woomera, South Australia):

Strong scrutiny of the arts organisation &
that Au$ 25,000 grant.

PS The -free- Escape from Woomera game is due
any day now (eg, Oct 2003). 'can't wait...

I have to disagree...

[Leffe]

... in Sweden we have two major gaming magazines, PC Gamer(sort of like PC Gamer) and Super Play(sort of like Edge).

PC Gamer is just for PC games, they only care about the games that sell.

Super Play is multiformat and gives high scores to games like Ico and Rez.

Guess which one I like the most... err... I don't know, I subscribe to Super Play.

Plenty of merit, plenty of precedent.

[Bastian]

At least for certain genres. . . For some games, things like mood and storyline matter a hell of a lot, for others not so much. For example, lots of people still say Final Fantasy 6/3 is the best one in the series, but it's far, far, far behind 7 on technical merit. Why do people love it so? The storyline.

The same goes for the adventure game genre - I've played adventure games with bad graphics and terrible game mechanics that were still fun to play because they were funny, or the storyline was interesting, or somesuch.

Even the Quake games didn't escape from this. Sure, on a technical level Quake 2 and 3 were far better than Quake 1. The graphics are better, the control is tighter, the weapons are more balanced. . . but there are diehards who still say the first one is the most fun to play, because it is the one that succeeded in creating a mood.

Heck, there's a subgenre that's entirely based on creating a mood - survival horror games. Some of these games (Silent Hill 2 comes to mind) would never have been good games had it not been for some excellent artists and 'scriptwriters' behind that game.

So yeah, I'd say that asking whether there's merit to rating games based on conceptual grounds is pretty asinine, considering that it's pretty well accepted as an important part of many games even if that doesn't make it into the itemized star ratings you see in a lot of magazines.

But then again, I'm not too sure that the concept behind a game and execution thereof should be rated in such a manner, because what one person likes conceptually another person will dislike. Such aspects of games deserve to be reviewed in prose, the way books are. Of course they already are, so I have no idea why I'm even bothering to talk.

Diamonds in the rough

[Momomoto]

There are some sites, however, that are treating games as more than just entertainment forms. I feel that Insert Credit is doing a fine job of analyzing games and gaming with a critical eye, as opposed to just writing trash like many of the other game-centric web sites do.

Actually, once I found Insert Credit I stopped visiting any other sites. It's clear from their writing that the contributors love what they're doing, and they're not just pandering to the lowest common denominator. Check out the 'reviews' of F-Zero GX or The Wind Waker to see what I mean.

Can games be judged as art?

[neglige]

playability, graphics, sound and longevity

Those are, after all, the key factors that make a game fun. As someone else noted, a good storyline and plot glue you to the monitor. I'd like to add interaction. That's what made Deus Ex or System Shock (IMHO) brilliant games.

But I wouldn't call games "art". Yes, it's a long, costly and tedious process to create a game. Many people are involved, they contain novel ideas (I talk about the good games here). So I didn't mean that comment in any way to play down the quality of or the efford put into games.

What is art? Paintings/Graphics, Music, Movies, Theatre etc. are all passive: the artists (normally) wants to convey a message, and the consumer must see/hear the art to get it. In games, you are active, you shape and change the outcome by you actions. In a way, you are creating art.

And here lies the problem. Honestly, you cannot rate or judge art. One mans trash can be another mans treasure (got that one from blogger.org, I think). Some ppl like Britney Spears, others hate her, others don't care. Take a Van Gogh picture. Maybe you like it, maybe you don't - would you hang one in your living room if you could afford one (and you always can afford a replica)? Game magazines had to be ultimately reduced to demo magazines, since every person had to see the game itself before deciding whether it was good or not.

I hope I made sense, sorry if I didn't ;)

Re:Oh please, not again.

[n0wak]

Some people consider painting a passtime; others consider it an artform. It's all context.

Very astute

[AvantLegion]

What you described applies to all art.

That which is new and compelling generally begins on the "avant-garde", and appeals only to the fringe.

Eventually, that which is "avant-garde" becomes an accepted part of the mainstream art.

Gaming is kind of a peculiar situation, as it changes SO rapidly in such a small span of time, due to technological advances. A lay person might see art from a span of 2 centuries as being obviously related, but might look at Pong compared to GTA: Vice City and see them as in no way related (except for being "images onscreen that you can manipulate - which, in art terms, would be reducing the relationship to "paint applied to flat surface").

That which changed in centuries in eras gone past, and decades in more recent eras, now changes in mere years.

There are TWO issues here - people treating games as art, and game developers treating games as art. If the latter does not happen, then there's no reason to expect the former to. In today's industry, I would argue that the latter happens "sometimes".

Still, it's a trend. Both those that make the games and those that play them will gradually begin to see gaming as less of a diversion, and more of a substantial vehicle for something meaningful. These two will coexist, as they do in motion picture cinema (although, hopefully, gaming will fare even better than Hollywood).

Re:Very astute

[PainKilleR-CE]

That which changed in centuries in eras gone past, and decades in more recent eras, now changes in mere years.

This is true in all mediums, though. This is why the music industry is having so many problems with their sales figures. Even when they dump huge amounts of money into artists that fit today's pop culture, the sales are minor compared to popular artists of the past (even artists they dumped almost no money into in the past). The music industry also has distinct differences between popular music and social commentary. Music that contains significant social commentary only occasionally makes it's way into the mainstream. Art in terms of paintings and sculpture are even moreso in this realm, as even the most popular works are not going to make the artist a significant amount of money unless their work is incorporated into something else (ie game artists, or concept artists). Movies also carry this distinction, as do books. Stephen King is often derided for not writing as an artist might, but he's consistently a best seller. Your average 'chick flick' rarely has any social commentary outside of that which can be found just as easily on Oxygen or Lifetime.

There are TWO issues here - people treating games as art, and game developers treating games as art. If the latter does not happen, then there's no reason to expect the former to. In today's industry, I would argue that the latter happens "sometimes".

The latter will always happen 'sometimes', and chances are that the mainstream media will overlook each and every example until mainstream adoption of games is as close to 100% as it can be. Even then, we can expect about a decade or more of non-acceptance, just as many forms of music are not accepted as art (or were in the past). The fact is that the mainstream media isn't even in a position to judge art as art, until they hire someone that has already been doing just that for some time period (and let's face it, most people don't accept reviewers' points on the artistic value of a film or album, they just want to know if it's good). If game journalism took itself more seriously, there'd be less of a problem there, as the mainstream press could have a valuable resource for picking up reviewers, and eventually being able to discuss games as art.

Fortunately, I'm perfectly happy with game reviews that tell me whether or not a game is technically sound and fun, even though I may have to read several reviews to get an accurate opinion on the game. I don't need someone to point out the significance or social commentary in a game any more than I do in my music, movies, or the pictures I hang on the wall. Most of it in the more generally accepted forms of art is as subtle as getting hit in the face with a shovel anyway.

Re:So does the gaming industry

[Grab]

Cars are designed based on concept drawings by an artist. There may be some limitations imposed by air resistance and the like, but within those limitations you can get an amazing variety of shapes. And if you look at sci-fi films and the like, there's a vast amount of attention paid to the cars/transport in all of them, bcos the style of the car embodies the style of that era. In Art Deco for instance, the car and ship are the two great iconic symbols of the style; and you can definitely track the progress of contemporary fashion through production cars of various decades this century.

These days, most cars run well, handle well, have decent fuel economy, and stuff like that. The only way to differentiate them is therefore how they look. Ford's whole recent range of Focus/Puma/Cougar is an object lesson in this. To my mind then, cars are absolutely a form of art. Some are bad art, admittedly, but art nonetheless.

So how does that affect games? Well, for starters games are "of their time". They're technologically limited in the same way as cars, but the concepts behind them are also somewhat of their time in the same way as books and films. The "killing aliens" theme will probably be one of the most distinctive features of 20th-century entertainment, for instance. A particularly well-designed game is also pleasing to the eye, and more importantly forces the player to consider concepts they wouldn't normally think about. GTA is a good example of considering those concepts - given that you're in a place with no moral limits on what you do and no serious come-back, what do you do? When game characters become more "human" and your choices become more like the choices you face IRL, it starts getting ethically challenging. And challenges to modern ethics and thinking is traditionally where art comes in.

Grab.