I think it's impossible to come up with a definition for "art" that everyone will agree on. I think, rather than do that, we should focus on making our games more "artsy", ie, something that will be found artistic by the generic artsy crowd. Certainly, hardcore gamers might find deep and meaningful moments in every shotgun blast, but an outsider or mere casual game player who also likes "art" is going to view the game as a frivolous shallow entertainment, and the paintings in the museum as true art.

I think most of us will agree that the closest media to video games is movies, and that making games that follow the ideals of movies which are considered artsy may be a good way to get some "cred" with the art scene, which in the end, is important. If we're trying to portray games in a new, more mature light, it doesn't really matter if you or I think the game is art; it matters if the art critics think the game is art.

So far, the game that has left me with the deepest impression of being art is Planescape: Torment. I think many people would disagree; it probably takes a mind that has grown so accustomed to d&d over the years that it's able to brush most of the mechanics and gameplay aside to find the art within the game. But the huge abundance of interesting plot, complex characters, existential meanderings, and thousands of metaphors-made-flesh made the whole thing seem at least as "artistic" as a very well written movie or novel.

Art, like love and God, can't be defined. They can only be described. Given the preceding, it is impossible to comprehensively determine whether X or Y "is art," though it is trivial to determine if it is artistic.

The site shouldn't be called "Games Art Art," but rather "Games Can Be Art!"

Quote:Original post by makeshiftwings
I think, rather than do that, we should focus on making our games more "artsy", ie, something that will be found artistic by the generic artsy crowd.

I'm not even close to an expert on the subject, but something tells me it would be very difficult to do this without tossing more gameplay. It seems like gameplay would conflict with the entire artsy feel. Of course it would totally depend on the style of the game. Some themes would strive being more artistic, where GTA type games would be destroyed in the process.

The Vampire: Masquerade games are pretty close to being artsy. Dark, gloomy, but not excessive with certain elements (gore, explosions, gunfire). I think they are as close as I've come to an artistic game.

Games are definetly art. To me, art is something that the biggest factor of what makes it great or terrible is creativity and how well it is used. I'm not sure about other forms of art, but what makes a good game design is equal parts psychology and creativity. The modeling may not be quite so artistic but the concept art certainly is (well, obviously). I don't think anyone could deny that, say, Final Fantasy 7 is art, but what about the shooters? It really depends on the shooter, and by that I mean that some shooters have more art in them than others. Deus X, for example, has a fair amount of art in it while Doom has signifigantly less. Plus, games include a bunch of other art forms such as music, storylines, and visual art. In art, the thing game development most resembles is Archetecture. Archetects design the outer areas of the building to make it look beautiful, but inevitably the most important thing by far is the functionality. In games, the fun is like functionality (Pun not intended ;) ) in archetecture, while those other forms of art included are like the shape of it.

Games are an entirely new art form. While visual art is the art of creating visual beauty, music is art of creating creating stirring sounds, and writing is art of creating great stories, the art of games is art of creating fun. This is the main meduim of games, the gameplay. It's the most important to how good the game is overall. There can be two games (say, shooters where you attack a millitary base) with exactly the same story and all the same graphics, but in the art of games they can be worlds apart based on the feel of their gameplay.

Man, I sounded like some sort of wierd philosopher modern artist guy. That's not at all like how I go about making games. I mean, I do believe everything I said and apply it to my games, but I don't go about it like some egotistical artist guy. Game development, no matter how artistic, will always be about spacing out and lots of caffine. ;)

I'd say games contain art, but a computer game is usually seen as a piece of entertainment. That's how most people see it, and that's what people expect from games. Although I do believe that many games are in fact art disguised as entertainment. Game developers lure people to play their games and then expose them to hideous amounts of art. Those sneaky developers...

What a great poster :D

Quote:

google "define: art"

the products of human creativity; works of art collectively; "an art exhibition"; "a fine collection of art"

Art is a product of human creativity; Games are a product of human creativity; therefor, it is a duck.

Games are the greatest form of creativity. Every part of a game is composed of some sort of art.

have to keep posts short - at work :D