Making Statements With Video Games

You may have heard about the recent controversy at the Leipzig Games Conference over a modification of Space Invaders in which the invaders are slowly demolishing the World Trade Center. The creator intended it as an artistic expression, but has since removed the game, saying, "it was never created to merely provoke controversy for controversy's sake." Kotaku took this occasion to ask whether "statements" can and should be made via video games, and how it affects the ongoing question of whether video games should be considered art. "The entire issue begs comparisons to Danny Ledonne's Super Colombine Massacre RPG!, an unsettling and involved title that tasks players on the most basic level with acting out the 1999 Littleton, Colorado school shooting in the role of killers Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. Ledonne told the Washington Post that his intention with the title was never to glorify the tragedy, but to 'confront their actions and the consequences those actions had.' Like Stanley's Invaders!, Ledonne and his title stopped short of providing a direct interpretation - neither artist has been especially specific about 'what it means,' or in instructing players on how they should interpret their work or what 'message' should be taken away."

Comments

there is no question

[Surt]

Video games are art. It is long settled. No one of consequence is disputing this.

Re:there is no question

[HappySmileMan]

From the summary:

Kotaku took this occasion to ask whether "statements" can and should be made via video games, and how it affects the ongoing question of whether video games should be considered art.

From parent:

Video games are art. It is long settled. No one of consequence is disputing this.

From the mod:

(Score:1, Offtopic)

This is why I love slashdot.

Re:there is no question

[n dot l]

Yes video games are art (see Braid). Yes, you can make artistic statements in video games. You can make all sorts of statements in games. No, all video games are not good art (the same applies to paintings, books, and movies). And no, you do not have any sort of right to a warm reception whatsoever for your work. Just like with paintings books and movies (fancy that). If your "statement" makes your game unfun or offensive then, well, suck it up, you broke your own shit. It's not our fault for "not understanding" your well-obfuscated intent.

That out of the way, I have to agree with the parent that it's stupid debating the whole "games as art" thing in the first place. We don't question whether movies are art when someone makes a film denying the Holocaust. What the hell is it with all these "controversies" we get lately (here, in blogs, in political discourse, in the MSM)? Are we really trying so hard to be "nuanced" that we have to dump illogical statements into every other sentence just to be interesting?

Although, this gives me another item for my list of "things to do if I suddenly become a god": have my prophet spout subtle logical fallacies and then laugh it up as the idiot humans get upset, and waste a bunch of time or do damage to themselves, and then finally figure it out and say, "hey, wait a minute, that doesn't even make sense!"

Re:there is no question

[kestasjk]

I'm going to make a bold prediction that somewhere in this discussion there will be a debate over the meaning of "art".

Re:there is no question

[Your.Master]

That's a fun game.

Name one painting, song, sculpture, poem, or play that has the intellectual depth of a sophisticated and intellectual video game.

If you don't define "intellectual depth", then there's no way to ever argue the point with you. If you do define it, then you must define it specifically to exclude video games, and comic books, and trashy romantic comedy movies. Otherwise you will inevitably find a counterexample if you look hard enough & wait long enough (note also that paintings and literature have a far longer history than video games from which to produce classics).

It's legitimate to define a term to exclude these things, mind you. We normally define pursuits "appropriate for children" to exclude, for instance, fantasy rape pornography. That's fine. But it doesn't mean anything when you do that. If fantasy rape pornography isn't art, it's not because it's inappropriate for children.

Re:there is no question

[Das Modell]

Name one video game that has the intellectual depth of a fine art painting or literature.

No. Instead, why don't you explain how video games, as a medium, are incapable of being art?

Just like comic books and manga, video games occupy the same intellectual ground as pulp fiction novels and trash romantic comedy movies.

This is a ridiculous blanket statement. You might as well say all films are stupid trash and can never compare to literature.

There has never been nor will there ever be a video game that can compare with great art and literature like Rafael, Picasso, van Gogh, James Joyce, Yeats, or Shakespeare.

Impossible. Anything that can be done in literature, film, music and paintings can be done in video games.

Re:there is no question

[Fluffeh]

We've all played GTA. What, if anything, in the entire series compares with the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan?

Well, there is a significant difference you see. Sure the opening scene of Private Ryan is gruesome and vivid. Yet the message behind it is the pointlessness and futility of the whole thing. Most violence in GTA is trivial in comparison but instills that VIOLENCE HAS REWARDS. That is a very significant difference.

meh

[thermian]

Ever since I discovered the joy of hunting down and killing innocent civilian transports in Elite I've been looking for ways to be a completely evil bugger in the games I play.

I'm not alone either, people like to do that sort of thing. Why else would you be able to sit on top of buildings taking out hookers with a sniper rifle in a car driving game? There is of course a big difference between doing that in a game and doing it in real life, but quite obviously it is something people find amusing, at least in a fantasy sense.

I can't say I'd like replaying real world modern atrocities, but I know from accounts of elderly relatives just how bloody and horrific the second world war was (in unfortunately graphic detail, given how young I was when I listened to the stories), yet we happily recreate that in game after game.

recreation of nasty events is going to happen, there's no way to avoid it, and good luck trying to set a time limit on how much time must pass before an event becomes a suitable topic for a game.

Re:Oblig. Southpark

[grantek]

South Park takes the proverbial piss out of this stuff pretty well. So does the Simpsons - the statue of David never came with an instruction manual directing people how to interpret it, but somehow people called it art instead of porn until the conservative extremists got some media bandwith to play with.

You can troll with them = you can make statements

[philspear]

It's unfortunate that the examples were all statements of "Lookit me! I'm an insensitive asshole!" But the answer is yes, they can express that.

The real question is if games can make statements that aren't

-I want money
-I want attention
-I hate (insert group of people here)
-I'm a jerk

The answer is yes, but we haven't been able to do it very sophisticated like yet.

One GOOD exmaple I'm thinking of is the guy who made "the emo game" You can find his works here
http://www.emogame.com/

Emo game 1 basically is making fun of emo music. A worthy goal. One of the sequels is an extremely not-subtle condemnation of conservatives, republicans, Bush, Paris hilton, the anti-stem cell movement, and shooting various other fishes in barrels. They're free and sometimes funny. Again, not subtle. Try them. A lot of the message relies on you playing through not very good gaming portions and then coming to a word document with the message inserted. It doesn't flow seamlessly with the game.

There are also games that are clearly environmental, and they range from bludgeoning you over the head with it to so subtle that you could miss it.

Bioshock I'm told has some moral questions for you to ponder. As I haven't played it yet I can't comment on that. I suspect though it's largely using movie techniques between game sequences.

Videogames as statements are clearly in their infancy, so it's to be expected that the examples we have are fairly crude. Props to the emogame guy for being a pioneer of sorts though, and of course for making a statement with his soapbox. But it definitely is possible and with time they'll develop mechanisms to make it actually part of the game as opposed to gaming between statements.

Re:Anybody capable of programming a game...

[WK2]

Statements and expressions are requirements in most programmings languages.

two comments.

[Toonol]

The quick answer is, of course. Like any other form of creative endeavor, videogames can and should be used to explore themes and illustrate principles, artistically.

The second point, though, is that I don't like these two games being held up as examples of video-game art. Both the mentioned games seem to me a bit like the crucifix dipped in urine; it's making a crass, simplistic, unsubtle, and probably unintended statement. Artists seem to feel that they are free to make ridiculous and shoddily-executed statements, purely for shock, and that nobody should criticise them for it. It's 'art'.

Play Planescape:Torment to find a game rich with true art, that says something about humanity. The aforementioned two games are art, in the same sense hanging condoms from a Christmas tree painted red is.

Video games are not art

[incognito84]

I remember reading an article written by Hideo Kojima (of MGS fame) about whether he thought video games were art, and he said no.

He essentially said that he didn't believe video games were art as they offered an open ended experience where players can immerse themselves in order to form unique experiences.

As a whole, that's just what they are: packaged, bought and sold "worlds" or "realities" for us to play in, which can contain all sorts and varieties of artistic elements, but yet as a whole can not be considered art. A player's experience rewound and played forward as a non-interactive product of the player's volition (like a film) can be art, but the act of playing a video game is not by itself art.

This is not to subtract from the idea of video games as I'm an avid video gamer myself. Video games provide us with experiences we could not or would not replicate in real life, and our interaction with these games creates an individually tailored experience which can be chalked full of artistic things, yet not artistic as a whole because it is what you make of it.

Is riding the subway to work art? No. Is seeing a painting on the wall art? The painting itself is, yes, but not the act of seeing it or your choice to go and see it. Is listening to music art? Not the act of listening, but the music itself is art... and you see my point.

Video games offer us a passage to artistic things, but are wholly not art in themselves.

Hope that made sense.

Re:Oblig. Southpark

[Ethanol-fueled]

Last night on Family Guy Peter Griffin shot his daughter at point-blank range with a handgun.

Across the universe a million Jedi padawan cried out in laughter and were quickly elated by having their first play of GTA4 and 2.45 percent of those were arrested for committing copycat crimes within the hour.

Elsewhere, some guy creates a bunch of pixellated blips which make other blips make noise. It is too "controversial" to be released into the wild.

Why are we talking about a stupid "controversy"?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

This seems to be less about whether video games can be art, and more about the dimwitted reactionary troglodytes who seem to think that their emotional reactions, so long as they are strong enough, should dictate what other people get to see, say, and do.

This vice is not a new one(The Romans were bitching about the decadence of Greek art not long after they became familiar with it), nor is it confined to whining about games(as the previous anecdote suggests), nor is it confined to any particular political persuasion(Fascists attacked "decadent" art, Communists attacked "bourgeois" art, religious fundamentalists attack pretty much anything that doesn't bow and scrape to their wretched little gods, hardline bleeding-hearts attack art that threatens "the children" which is one of their few areas of agreement with the fundies.) Video games are the target of choice because, unlike other media which have a long and respectable history to (partially) shield them from attack, it is still common "knowledge" that video games are just homicide simulators for pimply geeks.

The only "controversy" here consists of people who think that their right to never have their feelings hurt is more important than anybody else's right to speak whining, as they always do. Pathetic.

That's just wrong

[clarkkent09]

a modification of Space Invaders in which the invaders are slowly demolishing the World Trade Center

I can see why people were upset. That's not how it happened!!! A mod of MS Flight Simulator, now that would be more realistic.

But he said "World Trade Center"!!!

[Joce640k]

Everybody knows that the FBI appears if you say "World Trade Center" three times in front of a mirror.

Uhmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Can we moderate -1, Psychotic?

Also in the news!

[Drakonik]

Our expert analysts determine whether paintings, novels, or sculptures can be used to make political or social commentary. Details at 11.

Seriously though. What the FUCK? Yes, some video games are simply money-makers (Madden 1998-2XXX, anyone?), but others are used to really say something. There's one game called "Harpooned" that is a satire protesting Japanese "research" on whales. A video game is simply a digital canvas. Instead of crushed rocks and plants, we paint with pixels and code. If a video game isn't a piece of art in its own right, then nothing created by anyone is.

Anyone who thinks that ANY medium is not proper for expressing ideas and beliefs is simply trying to restrict your ability to express YOUR ideas.