Films do but it is often to create a vision of a director or writer. I believe that games require much more teamwork and collaboration. Your texture folks have to be on board for the feel, your 3D engine has to be tuned to work with your feel, your dialogue has to match the feel, the coordination seems endless to me for modern games. This prevents the explosion of games and relegates us to a set number right now. I am not sure this will ever change.
Movies are no different. The script has to be written, the sets and costumes have to be designed, the lighting has to be adjusted, the shots have to be composed, the sound has to be captured, the effects must be created and the actors must work with the director to reach the desired outcome.
The process of creating a game can easily be subjected to the creative vision of a single person. The reason why we don't have games that are on par with great movies is because there aren't people who have the ability to make it happen.
I argue that games are art but they do hold different complexities and properties from other traditional arts. It may be a long time before they are recognized in the general public as such since the general public may always be removed from being able to create their own games with open tools.
There isn't anyone working in the game industry who could create something on par with quality cinema, and even if there was he wouldn't have an audience since gamers are mostly uncultured morons. The more intellectual types seem incapable of doing anything except whining that games should be recognized as high art just because (or some other variation of "but is it art?"). Why are games "regarded as amusement for man-children and lacking in artistic merit?" Because games are mostly lacking in artistic merit and played by man-children who just want shiny things to go boom in high definition. It wasn't always like this, because games, at least on computers, were much more intelligent and mature before gaming went mainstream. But that's another story.
Tech Report:
And it's important to note that video games are still very young. We still have developers flirting with mature content.
Bitch please! Tits and severed heads do not make a game (or movie) mature. This kind of juvenile thinking is exactly what's wrong with the gaming world.
Tech Report:
Video games are indeed art.
Some games can be "art" (not that I can think of a single one, but maybe some day). These "but is it art?" essays are just a desperate attempt to make gaming appear as something that can be taken seriously. They try to validate gaming as an artform, but based on what? Where is all this high art that the gaming intelligentsia is always talking about? Games have a long way to go before they can be taken seriously, especially since they've abandoned their most valuable asset for storytelling: adventure games.
Slashdot Mirror
Movies are no different. The script has to be written, the sets and costumes have to be designed, the lighting has to be adjusted, the shots have to be composed, the sound has to be captured, the effects must be created and the actors must work with the director to reach the desired outcome.
The process of creating a game can easily be subjected to the creative vision of a single person. The reason why we don't have games that are on par with great movies is because there aren't people who have the ability to make it happen.
The general public doesn't make movies either.
There isn't anyone working in the game industry who could create something on par with quality cinema, and even if there was he wouldn't have an audience since gamers are mostly uncultured morons. The more intellectual types seem incapable of doing anything except whining that games should be recognized as high art just because (or some other variation of "but is it art?"). Why are games "regarded as amusement for man-children and lacking in artistic merit?" Because games are mostly lacking in artistic merit and played by man-children who just want shiny things to go boom in high definition. It wasn't always like this, because games, at least on computers, were much more intelligent and mature before gaming went mainstream. But that's another story.
Tech Report:
Bitch please! Tits and severed heads do not make a game (or movie) mature. This kind of juvenile thinking is exactly what's wrong with the gaming world.
Tech Report:
Some games can be "art" (not that I can think of a single one, but maybe some day). These "but is it art?" essays are just a desperate attempt to make gaming appear as something that can be taken seriously. They try to validate gaming as an artform, but based on what? Where is all this high art that the gaming intelligentsia is always talking about? Games have a long way to go before they can be taken seriously, especially since they've abandoned their most valuable asset for storytelling: adventure games.