Do You Consider Video Games to be... Art?

I'd like to think that they can be for a number of reasons:
1) The art style of the game itself, and how it may influence gameplay (cell shaded, sandbox builders, etc.)
2) The storyline of the game. This is probably my main point, as I play a number of games that have an in-depth story sequence. I like to compare those games to reading a book where, yes the paths are set, but you choose the direction you follow.
3) The community for the game. Basically the fan-made creations which, although not directly by the game itself, inspired creativity in people who are much more creative than I am. I believe there is a saying that goes "Art influence art". So if the creations can be called such, why can't the source material?

I also think that it's important to remember that even under the best circumstances, not everything fits in one catagory. There are some games that could be considered art and some that probably wouldnt be. It depends on the presentation.
 
I've always found it kind of silly that people argue against this. People complain about new media. It's been that way since novels mostly replaced plays and it'll be that way when video games start to become viewed as obsolete compared to... Holograms, maybe? To say a game can't be art is to miss the point of art entirely. Art has been described by many as being anything created by man that can cause emotions to be experienced by others. In this way, I find video games to be one of the single most respectable forms of art. A painting may be beautiful, but it can't get you as invested as a well crafted experience in an interactive media such as video games can. To his day one of the few fictional experiences that has elicited a real emotional reaction from me is, of all things, the end of the Borderlands 2 Dragon Keep DLC.
 
It depends on how it's created. If it's an overproduced sequel using some formula to profit then no I'd argue that isn't art. That's economics, that's almost a pseudoscience. But something created to tell a story, or to evoke emotions within people that are deeper than simply "cool!" would be art.
 
I consider all games "art" in the vague sense. Saying that certain games are art while some aren't is ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ and annoying.
 
Kameken said:
I've always found it kind of silly that people argue against this. People complain about new media. It's been that way since novels mostly replaced plays and it'll be that way when video games start to become viewed as obsolete compared to... Holograms, maybe? To say a game can't be art is to miss the point of art entirely. Art has been described by many as being anything created by man that can cause emotions to be experienced by others. In this way, I find video games to be one of the single most respectable forms of art. A painting may be beautiful, but it can't get you as invested as a well crafted experience in an interactive media such as video games can. To his day one of the few fictional experiences that has elicited a real emotional reaction from me is, of all things, the end of the Borderlands 2 Dragon Keep DLC.
Click to expand...
Video games are nowhere near better than novels from your decription.

Novels are more "art" than video games! See how stupid that sounds?


There's nothing that could come out of this debate. What art is, it's subjective. To me video games are nothing but means to pass time and have fun, like an actual toy. Why don't I ever see arguments about how toys are art?
 
I thought I made it pretty clear that Video games being more respectable as art was nothing more than my opinion.
 
Art is not a description of the quality of something, it's an actual word that has a definition. Video games can be just as much art as any other form of media or actual "art work". Even things that cannot be seen can be considered art like the mechanics of a game or even the music, which is usually custom made for games.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top