Time for some on-the-pot musings. Are games art? I would say in general yes, as it is an effort to make something creative for people to enjoy, just like movies and music. Everything has some kind of artistic value, I guess, if you view it from that perspective but it’s the level here that I find important, and a few other distinctions. Did the artist suffer for his creation, is it a product out of greed, etc? You also have the cultural impact to consider, which also affects the status of something that is determined to be in fact “art”. All this in the end is of course subjective, however, this is my take on it.
I, like many others, scoff at corporate products as nothing more than cash grabs, devoid of any kind of creative soul. You can somewhat indistinctly tell if something is art or not, at least on a personal level. I would probably never consider an open-world Ubisoft game art in any way, because it’s such a corporate product – that at least 80% of its existence is only there to nickel and dime you and to make shareholders happy. Sure, there is an artistic effort behind it, as far as graphics and story go. But I find the greed behind these goods ruins any artistic value, and often the monetary aspect (micro-transactions) of it destroys part of the gameplay. Money and art don’t go that well together to me. I would actually consider money the antithesis of art, in this case, even if money can produce art.
The journalist trap
Many seem to make the mistake that only “artsy” games can be art. You know the ones, the walking simulator with the narrator bemoaning this and that in a calm melancholic way. The game journalist trap. These games almost always lack any kind of “true” gameplay, so the only remaining factor is the ART. Which in the minds of game journos translates the gaming experience to fine art. Oh boy, I find it all so pretentious and typical, much like when a game caters to a certain group of people. You just know it will get top marks all around, regardless of its contents.
What do I consider art? Well, since it’s gaming we are talking about, there is one important aspect that keeps getting forgotten about when we talk about art, namely the gameplay. I don’t know fully why that is, is it because of some inherent jealousy of the other entertainment industries? That we must leave the “kid” aspect behind us, to finally rise to become art, like the great arthouse movie studios out there? I get that impression at times when reading articles on this subject. They always talk about how games need to “grow up”. To ditch the infantile gameplay to at last join the big boys in Hollywood, but would it even be gaming then, I wonder?
It’s a weird take, often spoken by people who don’t like gaming that much, but for some reason still work inside the industry. As I see it, gameplay is the most crucial component of making a game truly feel like art. Now, I agree, a walking simulator or other kind of artsy games can be intriguing, and by itself be considered art. I fundamentally disagree that these types of games should be the ones to represent art in this medium though since it doesn’t incorporate the most important part of it – (once again) the gameplay.
The art
A game I would consider art in the gaming world is the original X-COM: UFO Defense. My reason for this is that it fills my personal criteria I have for it to be considered art in a sense that fits gaming. First off, it got the basics down. It has an actual story, and the visual aspect of the game is splendid and stimulating. The artwork complements the gameplay well, and so does the music. Julian Gollop and crew suffered for their creation since it was close to being canceled a few times. Not to forget the cultural impact, as the game created its own genre, and is still considered one of the best in that genre – surpassing even modern takes on it.
What makes it truly transcend from being something you just play, to an experience like nothing other – an experience in art (if you will), is how X-com incorporates the gameplay into the visuals, sound, and primarily: the story and world-building. It’s so elegantly designed, that it simultaneously manages to tell a specifically written story about the alien invasion – which is completely based on the player’s action and inaction, and on top of that allows for “emergent gameplay” in the form of a sandbox approach to its game mechanics. Taking all these factors and somehow blending them together to create a coherent and exciting experience is nothing short of a work of art – which in the end, makes this piece of entertainment (gaming) ART.
There are other games as well that I would consider art. They all fall under different levels of this, depending on their execution. I find the mesh between gameplay and the other parts of the game the most important, as I pointed out – it’s how well it integrates that makes the distinction. A few other examples are; Fallout, Jagged Alliance 2, Arx Fatalis, Exanima, Original War, Gothic & many more.
Hope & wishes
My hope is that we one day, as a whole, will take the actual mechanics and how it integrates itself into the game as a criteria to be considered art, or at least, talk about it in that way. The only allowed art nowadays is the so-called arthouse games – made in this specific way to convey that they are in fact “art” in the sense of sound, visuals, and story. It’s very surface level, and as I explained, in my opinion, these titles completely sidestep what makes gaming what it is, neglecting gameplay (more than walking) in favor of a media that already exists in a separate form. Anyway, these are my on-the-pot thoughts on this subject. What are yours?
Thanks for reading.
/Thomas
Tom's Gaming Vault 